Books / Volume One / the archive
Volume One archive
Volume One: the passages, the tables and the notes, chapter by chapter
ChaptersPreface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
The chapters
Preface to Volumes One, Two and Three
- Introduction
- The evolution of, and sources of, material dealing with Southern Cook Islands customary law, history and society
- Southern Cook Islands oral traditions
- The discovery and early settlement of the Southern Cook Islands
- The discovery and early settlement of Rarotonga
- Southern Cook Islands customary law
- The importance of customary laws
- The acquisition of customary rights to land
- Conquest and warfare in the Southern Cook Islands before Christianity
- Rights to land
- The utilisation and role of land in the Southern Cook Islands
- Aitutakian customary law
- Atiuan customary law
- Mangaian customary law
- Ma‘ukean customary law
- Mitiaran customary law
The other volume archives
- Volume Two: Pre-European Southern Cook Islands Māori Society
- Volume Three: The Impact of Europeans upon Southern Cook Islands Māori Society, Customary Law and Land Tenure Law 1595–1888
- Volume Four: Silenced Custom. The impact of the New Zealand Colonial era on Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society
Volumes One, Two and Three
Preface to Volumes One, Two and ThreeManuko Mua
The notes of the Preface
P.1 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, p. 304.
P.2 Petition of Kainuku Ariki, Tinomana Ariki and Pa Ariki on behalf of the mata‘iapo, rangatira and people of Rarotonga to the New Zealand House of Representatives, 8 August 1941, National Archives, Takuvaine, Rarotonga; petition of Pokino Rangatira to the House of Representatives, 15 July 1941, Petition 29/1941, and the report of the Native Affairs Committee on it, 11 September 1941. The petitions are discussed in Volume Two, Chapter 18, Part Three, and printed whole in its archive.
P.3 Minutes of the meeting of ariki, mata‘iapo and rangatira at Taputapuatea Palace, 5 May 1942, W. P. Browne chairman, National Archives, Takuvaine, Rarotonga.
P.4 Tereora section 106B, Nikao, Avarua, Native Appellate Court, 15 August 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 266–267 (Judges D. G. B. Morison, E. M. Beechey and H. J. Morgan).
P.5 Memorandum of the Secretary of Island Territories, 3 April 1946, to the Registrar, Rarotonga, from Resident Commissioner W. Tailby, National Archives, Rarotonga.
P.6 Volume Four, Chapters 1 to 15; the volume is described in the section “The four volumes” below.
P.7 Constitution of the Cook Islands, Article 66A; Hunt and Browne v de Miguel, Cook Islands Court of Appeal, CA 2/14, 3/14, 7/14 and 8/14, 19 February 2016. The court held that an opinion on custom given by a properly constituted Aronga Mana is final and conclusive under Article 66A(4), and regretted that Parliament has never provided how an Aronga Mana is constituted or gives its opinion. Volume Four, Chapter 15.
P.8 Ernest Beaglehole, Social Change in the South Pacific: Rarotonga and Aitutaki, Macmillan, New York, 1957, p. 11.
P.9 Hirini Moko Mead, Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori Values, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2006, p. 3.
P.10 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 7.
P.11 A. O. Dare was Resident Commissioner from 1961 to 1965; the Reverend Bill Marsters became president of the Cook Islands Christian Church in 1968.
P.12 The donated material includes the Land Court minute books for Aitutaki (1903 to 1975), Atiu (1919 to 1971), Mangaia (1903 to 1974), Manihiki (1973 to 1975), Mitiaro (1936 to 1974), Ma‘uke (1913 to 1968), Penrhyn (1929 to 1974), Pukapuka and Nassau (1914 to 1973), Rakahanga (1927 to 1971) and Rarotonga (1903 to April 1975), and the Land Appellate Court minute books, volumes 1 to 3, 8 September 1948 to 27 April 1970.
P.13 Richard Gilson, The Cook Islands 1820–1950, edited by Ron Crocombe, Victoria University Press and Institute of Pacific Studies, 1980.
P.14 Affidavit of Ron Crocombe dated 25 February 2000, in re Te Puna, High Court, Rarotonga, Misc. 125/97.
P.15 Judith Binney, Encircled Lands: Te Urewera, 1820–1921, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 2009.
P.16 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author, Rarotonga, 17 January 2008, p. 1. The full commentary is transcribed in the working document on his comments.
P.17 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author, Rarotonga, 17 January 2008, p. 1. The full commentary is transcribed in the working document on his comments.
P.18 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author, Rarotonga, 17 January 2008, p. 1. The full commentary is transcribed in the working document on his comments.
P.19 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author, Rarotonga, 17 January 2008, p. 1. The full commentary is transcribed in the working document on his comments.
P.20 James Ritchie, Becoming Bicultural, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1992, pp. 99 and 104; drawn to the author’s attention by Ron Crocombe in the same letter.
P.21 Sian Elias, Ethel Benjamin Commemorative Address, 18 May 2000, LawTalk 54, New Zealand Law Society, June 2000.
P.22 New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9: Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, 2001, paragraph 247.
P.23 Justice Baragwanath, Treaty of Waitangi Issues, 1997, p. 12.
P.24 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] NZCA 117, [2003] 3 NZLR 643, overruling In re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461. Judgment at nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2003/117.html; the passages relied on are in the Volume One archive on the website.
P.25 Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] 2 NZLR 733, McGrath J for the majority, and Elias CJ. Judgment at nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2012/116.html.
P.26 Ellis v R (Continuance) [2022] NZSC 114, [2022] 1 NZLR 239, Glazebrook J at [94]–[95], [108]–[110], [113]–[117], [123]–[127]; Winkelmann CJ at [172]–[181]; Williams J at [260]; O’Regan and Arnold JJ at [279]–[289], not dissenting from the proposition that tikanga is part of the common law. Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801. Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127, [2021] 1 NZLR 801. Judgment at nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2022/114.html.
P.27 Hunt v de Miguel [2016] CKCA 2, CA 2/14, 3/14, 7/14 and 8/14, Cook Islands Court of Appeal, 19 February 2016, at paclii.org/ck/cases/CKCA/2016/2.html; Constitution of the Cook Islands, Article 66A(4). The same point is made from the Privy Council in Browne v Munokoa [2018] UKPC 18, at caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukpc/2018/18.
P.28 Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, 1964, pp. vii to viii.
Volume One, Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- The Privy Council decisions on Cook Islands appeals
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
1. Two groups
2. The islands one by one
1.2 Cook Islands Statistics Office, Census of Population and Dwellings, December 2011; and Vital Statistics, June quarter 2013, resident population estimate, June quarter 2013.
1.10 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 29 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-10
1.12 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 36
3. Links before the Europeans
4. How the islands became one country
5. The Cook Islands’ place in Polynesia
6. What this Volume does
7. What everyone believes, and what this Volume finds
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The passages by Ron Crocombe are reproduced with his family’s consent, recorded in the Foreword, at the length the chapter relies on. They remain in copyright and are marked in amber. His post-publication comments of 2008 are reproduced on the same footing.
Alphons Kloosterman, Douglas Oliver and Richard Gilson appear only in the passage quoted or relied on, with citation. Public-domain material is reproduced in full.
Population figures are from the Cook Islands Statistics Office and are not reproduced; the chapter gives the source and the date.
Part 1: The group and its people
Note 1.1: Fifteen islands in 850,000 square miles of sea
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 1–3; also Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 3–4.
“This study is set in the Cook Group, an archipelago of fifteen tiny islands totaling only 88 square miles in area, yet scattered over 850,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean between Tonga and Samoa, on the one hand, and French Polynesia on the other. Since 1901 the group has been included within the boundaries of New Zealand, and its people, who are culturally close relatives of the Maoris of New Zealand, are, therefore, citizens of that country.
The islands are divided physically into two groups. The Northern Group consists of seven islands of coral formation which constitute the central segment of that scattered band of atolls that sweeps across the Pacific from French Oceania to the Marshalls. The Southern Group islands are, with two minor exceptions, of volcanic origin, and all eight islands lie within a radius of 150 miles of Rarotonga, the administrative headquarters of the Government of the Cook Islands.”
Notes 1.5 and 1.6 rely on the second paragraph of this passage. In the first edition the island names in square brackets were the author’s additions to Ron Crocombe’s text; in the second edition they are given once, in the chapter’s own words, under Note 1.7.
The population before and after contact
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Crocombe, thesis, 1961, p. 2.
“In area the islands range from Nassau which is only 300 acres, to Rarotonga which covers 16,602 acres. […] The total population of the group was approximately 18,000 at the time of first European contact but declined rapidly thereafter until it reached about 8,000 at 1900. Since that time, however, it has regained its former level.”
The sentence omitted gave the island populations of 1961. The chapter uses the 2011 census and the June 2013 estimate instead (Note 1.2); the pre-contact and 1900 figures are Ron Crocombe’s.
One name for each island
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, 7 August 2008, pp. 4–5; transcribed in full in “Ron Crocombe — letters of 17 January, 7 August and 12 October 2008”.
“Most places in the world, and all places in the Cook Islands, have multiple names. One needs to choose the best-known one and use that, consistently and solely, unless there is very good reason… to just go on repeating, repeating, repeating… the same name with “(also known as …)” after it is awfully boring, and distracting from the real story. One does not write of Albion (also known as England …) every time one wants to refer to England.”
Part 2: The islands one by one
Note 1.8: Alphons Kloosterman’s descriptions of the Southern Group
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Alphons M. J. Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, Cook Islands Library and Museum Society, Rarotonga, 1976, pp. 8, 12, 16, 21, 24, 27, 43 and 53, as arranged by the author in the first edition.
“Rarotonga is a high volcanic island, described as elliptical in shape, oval-shaped, and kidney-shaped. It has an area of 67.2 km². The central mountainous area is deeply dissected by numerous streams with steep valley sides, separated by razorback ridges. The central core is surrounded by a narrow belt of terraces, fans, lowland flats and swamps 880 to 1200 metres wide. There are three sand-cays and one volcanic islet (Taakoka) in the Muri lagoon, and there used to be a sand-cay in the north opposite the airport. Rarotonga’s position is 21°12’06”S, 159°46’33”W.
Mangaia is a roughly circular or pear-shaped raised island. Its area is 51.08 km². It has a makatea 1,200 to 1,600 m wide; 60 m above sea level; at the seaside a terrace of 182 m wide, 15 m above sea level; and at the inland side a vertical cliff: 45 to 70 m in height. Its position is 21°54’30”S, 157°58’W. Mangaia to Rarotonga: 203 km, and to Atiu: 214 km.
Atiu is a raised-reef island, described as quadrilateral in shape or roughly circular, reflecting the shape of the submerged volcano. It has an area of 26.9 km². Its position is 19°58’45”S, 158°08’00”W. Atiu to Rarotonga is 214 km, to Mangaia 214 km, and to Aitutaki 209 km.
Takutea is an oval sand-cay, surrounded by a living coral reef on the southern part of a shallow shelf about 200 m deep. It has an area of 1.2 km², and a diameter of 1.6 by 1.2 km. Its maximum altitude is 6 m. Its position is 19°48’35”S, 158°18’W. Takutea to Rarotonga: 218 km, and to Atiu: 16 km. Takutea is uninhabited.
Mau‘ke is a raised-reef island, roughly circular, or oval in shape, reflecting the outline of the submerged volcano. It has an area of 18.4 km². Its position is 20°08’30”S, 157°21’20”W. Mau‘ke to Rarotonga: 277 km, to Atiu: 92 km, and to Mitiaro: 59 km.
Mitiaro is a roughly circular or quadrilateral low raised-reef island with an area of 22.25 km². The central volcanic core is formed by four “islands,” 3 to 12 m high, in an area of swamp-land. There are two lakes. There is a coastal makatea belt 6 to 9 m high; 400 m wide in the east, and 800 m wide in the north west and south west; at the seaside is a cliff face of 3 m high. Its position is 19°51’S, 157°43’W. From Mitiaro to Rarotonga is 263 km, to Mau‘ke 59 km, and to Atiu 50 km.
Aitutaki is a triangular near-atoll with a total land area of 18.05 km². It consists of three volcanic islets: Aitutaki, Moturakau, and Rapota. It has twelve coral isles along the eastern reef. Its position is 18°51’45”S, 159°48’10”W. Aitutaki is 259 km from Rarotonga, and 946 km from Manihiki.
Manuae is an atoll with two horse-shoe isles, sited on the eastern peak of a twin-peaked volcano. Its total land area is 6 km². Its position is 19°15’43”S, 158°57’43”W. Manuae to Rarotonga: 229 km, to Aitutaki: 101 km, and to Atiu: 111 km.”
Note 1.16: Soil and sea: the only resources
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Crocombe, thesis, 1961, p. 3, drawing on L. I. Grange and J. P. Fox, Soils of the Lower Cook Group, 1953; and 1960 AJHR A-3, p. 8.
“The group lacks mineral deposits of commercial value, and its principal natural resources are the soil and the sea – though the potential of the latter is as yet little known. The soils vary considerably in their productive potential, but only 9,523 acres or 16 per cent of the total land area of the group is considered suitable for agriculture. Of the balance, approximately 17 per cent is taken up by the infertile rubble and sand of the coral islands which can support little in the way of commercial crops other than the coconut, 27 per cent is taken up by second class soils which are suited to certain tree crops but which are at present relatively little utilised, and the remaining 40 per cent comprises the mountainous interior of Rarotonga and the makatea (upraised coral) outcrops of the other Southern Group islands which are at present completely unproductive.”
Part 3: Links before the Europeans, and one country after them
The islands were linked before any European came
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Kloosterman, Discoverers, 1976, pp. 6–7.
“Mangaia was probably settled from Rarotonga. The inhabitants of Rakahanga-Manihiki and Penrhyn claim a common descent from a Rarotongan warrior. Taruia and Ruatapu, famous Aitutakian ancestors visited Rarotonga. Taruia is also a Tongarevan ancestor. Ruatapu paid a visit to Atiu and Mau‘ke. Tangi‘ia-nui of Rarotongan fame married two Ma‘ukean beauties, and visited Atiu. The Pukapukans knew about Rakahanga and Rarotonga, and probably about Tongareva. Nassau was a dependency of Pukapuka. Rakahanga and Manihiki were alternatively inhabited by one and the same people. Atiu, Mau‘ke, and Mitiaro formed one unit, known as Nga-Pu-Toru. Takutea was in the possession of the Atiuans. Manuae was populated by Aitutakians, but seems to have been subject to Atiu too at one stage of its history. That leaves only the in-between islands of Palmerston and Suwarrow as the unknowns in the pre-history of the Cook Islands.”
Note 1.22: “The crumbs that were left”
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Douglas L. Oliver, The Pacific Islands, Doubleday Anchor, New York, 1961, pp. 220–221.
“A small reward for half a century of pleading. They were literally the crumbs that were left after the choicer morsels had been swallowed up.”
Douglas Oliver is describing Britain’s consent, in 1901, to New Zealand’s inclusion of the Cook Islands within its boundaries. Volume Four tells that story in full.
No major differences between the Southern islands — except perhaps Mangaia
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Crocombe, thesis, 1961, pp. 3 and 5, with his footnote.
“In the first part of [this study] an attempt is made to reconstruct the pre-contact land tenure system of Rarotonga, the largest and most populous island of the group. It was not possible to attempt a detailed description of the system of every single island as a basis on which to build a generalized model, owing to the time needed for such a task, and the inadequacy of the data available for the smaller islands. The main variations found to exist are between the systems applying on the atolls of the Northern Group and those of the high islands of the Southern Group, and are clearly imposed by environmental factors. Others, however, are attributable to differences in cultural origin – most markedly between the people of Pukapuka, whose origin lies in Western Polynesia, and those of the rest of the group, whose origin may be traced to Eastern Polynesia. To a lesser degree there are minor variations within each subgroup and even within individual islands, though no major differences are apparent between the islands of the Southern Group, which contains [—] per cent of the population and 86 per cent of the land area.
Footnote: With the possible exception of Mangaia, about which little is known. The results of recent anthropological researches by Dr Donald S. Marshall should be available shortly and will presumably clarify the tenure situation on that island.”
Note 1.22 relies on the second and third sentences of this passage. The population share, marked [—], was replaced in the first edition by the 2011 census figure of 94 per cent; Ron Crocombe’s 1961 figure should be restored from the thesis before publication.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 1, Note 1.11, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-1, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
1.1 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 1 to 3. Also in Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 3 to 4. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-1 The passage in full
1.2 Cook Islands Statistics Office, Census of Population and Dwellings, December 2011; and Vital Statistics, June quarter 2013, resident population estimate, June quarter 2013.
1.3 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 2. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-3
1.4 The convention follows Ron Crocombe’s advice on the draft of this series: choose the best-known name and use it consistently, listing the alternatives once. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-4
1.5 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 1.
1.6 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 1.
1.7 Alphons M. J. Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, Cook Islands Library and Museum Society, Rarotonga, 1976, pp. 6 to 7.
1.8 Kloosterman, Discoverers, pp. 8, 12, 19, 21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 39, 43, 51 and 53. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-8 The passage in full
1.9 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 31
1.10 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 29 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-10
1.11 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 33 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-11
1.12 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 36
1.13 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 39
1.14 Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 51
1.15 C. G. Joannides, “Fish Production and Marketing in the Cook Islands”, Cook Islands News, 20 September 1972, pp. 2 to 3. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-15
1.16 Fox and Grange, Soils of the Lower Cook Group; and 1960 AJHR A-3, p. 8. The passage in full
1.17 Figures in this paragraph are based on Fox and Grange, Soils of the Lower Cook Group, and AJHR A3 1960:8
1.18 Kloosterman, Discoverers, pp. 6 to 7.
1.19 F. W. Christian, Vocabulary of the Mangaia Language, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 11, Honolulu, 1924, p. 3. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n1-19
1.20 Richard Phillip Gilson, Introduction to Administration of the Cook Islands (Rarotonga), MA thesis, University of London, 1952, p. 6. Kloosterman, Discoverers, p. 6.
1.21 Patrick Vinton Kirch, A Brief History of Polynesian Archaeology; and Keith Sinclair, A History of New Zealand, Pelican Books, 1960, p. 219.
1.22 Douglas L. Oliver, The Pacific Islands, Doubleday Anchor, 1961, pp. 220 to 221. The passage in full
1.23 Cook Islands Act 1915 (New Zealand), as reprinted with amendments to 1 January 1967, Wellington, 1967, p. 233.
1.24 C. C. Aikman, “Constitutional Development in New Zealand’s Island Territories and in Western Samoa”, in Angus Ross (editor), New Zealand’s Record in the Pacific Islands in the Twentieth Century, Auckland, 1969, pp. 308–341. See also J. F. Northey, “Self-determination in the Cook Islands”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 74 (1965), pp. 112 to 118; and David Stone, “Self-Government in the Cook Islands”, Journal of Pacific History 1 (1966), pp. 168 to 178.
1.25 Kloosterman, Discoverers, p. 6.
1.26 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 3 and 5. The population figures are from the 2011 census: 74 per cent on Rarotonga, 20 per cent in the other Southern islands, 6 per cent in the Northern Group.
1.27 Charles de Brosses, Histoire des Navigations aux Terres Australes, Paris, 1756.
1.28 J. S. C. Dumont d’Urville, “Notice sur les Îles du Grand Océan”, Bulletin de la Société de Géographie, Paris, 1832.
1.29 Green, R. C., Near and Remote Oceania: Disestablishing “Melanesia” in culture history, in A. Pawley, ed., Man and a Half: Essays in Pacific Anthropology and Ethnobiology in Honour of Ralph Bulmer, Auckland: The Polynesian Society, 1991, pp.
1.30 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 5.
1.31 Re Tereora section 106B, Nikao, Avarua, Native Appellate Court, 15 August 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp 266–267 (Morison, Beechey and Morgan JJ), reported with the evidence of the hearing at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/amb.
1.32 Browne v Munokoa [2018] UKPC 18 at paras 16 to 18 (Lord Sumption for the Board), reported at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc. The Board’s description of the early records, “manuscript minutes noting the decision and giving reasons in summary, not to say laconic terms”, is at para 18.
Volume One, Chapter 2
Chapter 2: The evolution of, and sources of, material dealing with Southern Cook Islands customary law, history and society
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Privy Council decisions on Cook Islands appeals
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
- The eight kinds of evidence and the need for caution
- The native records (notes 2.8 to 2.8)
- The Land Court records
- The missionaries and the administrators
- The scholars
- How this Volume uses the evidence
- Where to start: the Cook Islands Archives Catalogue
- If you want to see your family’s record
- What you can read without leaving home
- The relevance of historical documents and books in court proceedings
- What this means for a Cook Islander
1. The eight kinds of evidence and the need for caution
All traditions are a mixture of fact and invention. The process of adaptation of traditions probably speeded up considerably due to the new circumstances and information sources from the arrival of Europeans. The term “authentic traditions” should not be used as it implies that someone has the magic decoder to decide which ones are “authentic” and which are not.2.5
Ron Crocombe, commentary on the manuscript, 2008
2. The native records
My friend, that is all I have to say about this book. The book my father wrote is as big as the Bible. The work of Tangaroa when he created the islands is all in that book. When he created us and all the other islands. Not this book, they are not all in here. In my father’s book is the Ariki genealogy. It is very clear because he came from it. If only we had that book we will not have any doubts.2.10
Samuela Terei to Stephen Savage, Rarotonga, 1916
2.8 Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), p. 6.
3. The Land Court records
4. The missionaries and the administrators
5. The scholars
6. How this Volume uses the evidence
7. Where to start: the Cook Islands Archives Catalogue
8. If you want to see your family’s record
9. What you can read without leaving home
10. The relevance of historical documents and books in court proceedings
11. What this means for a Cook Islander
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The passages by Ron Crocombe are reproduced with his family’s consent, recorded in the Foreword, at the length the chapter relies on. They remain in copyright and are marked in amber. His commentary of 2008 on the draft of this series is reproduced on the same footing.
Waitangi Tribunal reports are Crown copyright and are reproduced with attribution. Eric Hobsbawm, James Ritchie, James Baltaxe, Matthew Campbell and Josephine Baddeley appear only in the passage quoted or relied on, with citation.
The first edition of this chapter carried a long catalogue of sources: the manuscripts of the Cook Islands writers, the missionaries’ papers, the Resident Commissioners’ reports year by year, the Land Court’s minute books and registers. The second edition condenses that catalogue to a page. The catalogue itself is kept here, as a finding list, under Notes 2.6, 2.11, 2.13 and 2.16.
The narrative recorded by Stephen Savage from Samuela Terei in 1916 is reproduced here only in the passage the chapter quotes. Its reproduction in full awaits the agreement of the Cook Islands Library and Museum Society.
Part 1: The need for caution
Note 2.2: Both sides brought their own prejudices to custom
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
SOURCE Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007, paragraph 2.2; in the final report, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, 2008, chapter 2.
“Here, it is important merely to note that in considering the evidence, we should bear in mind that both Māori and Pakeha brought their own prejudices and interests to interpretations of custom and ownership in the land, and that even within Māori society there was not necessarily a universally accepted view as to exactly what customary principles applied.”
Note 2.2: The Tribunal’s caution about itself
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
SOURCE Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui, Wai 785, 2007, paragraph 2.2.
“We may ourselves be accused of ‘reading back into history’, of bringing our own prejudices and passions to our assessment of the evidence, and of creating ‘new orthodoxies’ and new entrenched divisions. Overlapping and competing claims, involving as they do, issues of mana and territorial rights, must be handled with care; all legitimate interests should be identified and any redress for the loss of those interests delivered in such a way as not to prejudice the rights of others. It is with considerable caution, therefore, that we embark upon the following discussion.”
Eric Hobsbawm’s definition of an invented tradition
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Eric Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions”, in Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (editors), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 1–2.
“‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past… However, insofar as there is such reference to a historic past, the peculiarity of ‘invented’ traditions is that the continuity with it is largely fictitious. In short, they are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasi-obligatory repetition.”
Eric Hobsbawm distinguished three kinds of invented tradition: those establishing or symbolising social cohesion and collective identity; those establishing or legitimising institutions and social hierarchies; and those socialising people into particular social contexts (pp. 9–12). The second kind is the one that matters for ariki titles.
“All traditions are a mixture of fact and invention”
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, email, 13 October 2008; and his notes of 12 October 2008, p. 1, on the draft of this series.
“All traditions are a mixture of fact and invention. The process of adaptation of traditions probably speeded up considerably due to the new circumstances and information sources from the arrival of Europeans. The term “authentic traditions” should not be used as it implies that someone has the magic decoder to decide which ones are “authentic” and which are not.
I’d delete “unfortunately…” — it tends to imply that this did not happen before. The nature of oral tradition is that it is being manipulated constantly in favour of whoever has the power to do so at any time.”
Note 2.6: James Ritchie on authenticity
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE James Ritchie, Becoming Bicultural, Huia Publishers and Daphne Brasell Associates, Wellington, 1992, pp. 99 and 104.
“[T]he notion of authenticity is heavily weighted with manipulative intent.
… messy, confusing, paradoxical, ironical, unclear, allowing alternatives and interpretations… The head stuff gets mixed up with the heart stuff, the realities with the ideals and ideologies, and all that gets intertwined with the personal motivations of individuals.”
The second passage is James Ritchie’s description of culture anywhere. Ron Crocombe drew both passages to the author’s attention.
Part 2: The kinds of evidence, and the native records
The ten sources of evidence, as listed in the first edition
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section “Material on early Cook Islands customary law, history and society”, following Crocombe, thesis, 1961, pp. 4–9, and Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, pp. 5–7.
“In reconstructing the pre-contact custom and the land tenure system of the Southern Cook Islands, there are ten major sources of evidence. They are, in summary:
1. Cook Islands papa‘anga or oral family history and genealogies which were later recorded by indigenous and other writers, many in the Journal of the Polynesian Society. 2. The post-1823 writings of Cook Islands Māori writers. 3. The post-1823 writings of the missionaries. 4. The writings of the Resident Agents, Resident Commissioners, and Land Court Judges. 5. The evidence given to the Land Court, which records results of earlier researches. 6. The writings of anthropologists and historians. 7. Contemporary field-studies. 8. Archaeological records. 9. In the case of land tenure custom, the physical features of the island with their important effects on land use and tenure. 10. Knowledge of other Polynesian societies, particularly those in related groups of islands possessing a similar socio-political organisation.
Since the 1960s a number of theses have been written on custom and land tenure in the Cook Islands, and since 2001 important New Zealand scholarship on customary law has emerged, some of which has relevance in the Cook Islands. These include works by the Ministry of Justice, the New Zealand Law Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, Angela Ballara, Mason Durie and Hirini Moko Mead.”
The second edition reduces the ten to eight by folding the physical features of the islands into Chapter 11 and comparative Polynesian evidence into the rule, stated at the end of the chapter, that New Zealand and Tahitian material is used only where the Cook Islands record is silent, and is marked as such.
Ron Crocombe’s survey of the evidence for Rarotonga
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Crocombe, thesis, 1961, pp. 4–9; the paragraph on the indigenous writers’ method is from Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, pp. 5–6.
“In the first place we have the physical features of the island, which have had clearly discernible and important effects on land use and concomitant tenure; and with this may be coupled the archaeological record – marae and house sites, boundary marks and grave-yards, irrigation works and terracing. There is also the one paved road which is still clearly discernible and which led right round the island following the low-lying fertile strip, but there were no roads or paths across the mountains. Sub-surface archaeological research, on the other hand, though one of the most useful aids to reconstruction, has not yet begun on Rarotonga.
Our second source of evidence is the mass of recorded data left by members of the culture concerned, people who were in many cases active participants in the pre-contact tenure system but who naturally did not make written records until the art of writing had been introduced and the process of change had begun. Rarotongans, in common with many other Polynesians, have exceptionally long memories, particularly for names, relationships and incidents. Their memory for numbers and periods of time, on the other hand, is often very imprecise. For instance, most sources agree that Tangi‘ia-nui, who migrated to the island in the thirteenth century, was the son of Kaungaki, was adopted by his maternal uncle Pou te vananga roa, and had a protracted dispute with his cross cousin Tu-tapu. In fact, the particulars of their relationships and controversies are given in considerable detail, and all the available accounts agree on the most significant points; but details of the number of voyages he made vary from one to a dozen and of the number of his followers from eight to four hundred.
The art of writing was first taught in 1824, but as matters of native custom were closely associated with heathen darkness little encouragement was given to the recording of affairs of the pre-Christian era until the arrival in 1851 of Wyatt Gill, a missionary ethnographer who took a passionate interest in pre-contact history and who during his 30 years of residence in the islands encouraged many men to record their knowledge of the old way of life.
One of the most important native manuscripts so far located is the 400 page work of Maretu, an ex cannibal who became a pillar of the church. He made no abstractions or interpretations and simply recorded what he remembered; any relationships described are between particular people and thus, while they may not bear wide generalization, they do provide instances of actual behaviour. When such behaviour conforms to Maretu’s expectations, which in all probability means that it conforms to custom, he makes no further comment; when it does not, he feels constrained to explain further or pass judgement. While he never quotes any principles of land tenure, he does describe incidents which illustrate particular principles in action.
While Maretu speaks almost exclusively of his own life-time, another Rarotongan, Terei by name, was a true historian and his 25,000 word narrative begins with the disputes which arose in Tahiti, as a result of which his forbears migrated to Rarotonga about the thirteenth century. His description of the early political organization and of the original land divisions of the island is confirmed from many sources. Another major writer, Tara‘are, was probably the most prolific of all. He also begins with events of nearly a thousand years ago, and traces significant historical incidents from that time until the arrival of the mission. In addition to these main sources, over 100 other manuscripts by more than 20 native authors have so far been located – dealing with mythology, with particular incidents, with the histories of particular families, and so on, in nearly every case containing particulars of some aspect of the pre-contact pattern of life.
The native records have the advantage of having been written by men who knew no other language and no other culture than their own. On the other hand they suffer from the defect of their selectivity and partiality, for all the authors were either titled men or pastors, and each had the responsibility of preserving his own family’s good name. This defect was to some extent unavoidable, as responsibility for preserving and passing on traditional knowledge lay with the lineage heads, who were necessarily titled men, and most commoners probably knew little of such arcane affairs.
Thirdly we have for evidence the records of external observers, persons whose impressions were based not on participation but on observation, and invariably through eyes which saw the situation in terms of cultures which differed markedly from those of the natives. The only known landings to have been made at Rarotonga prior to the arrival of the mission ship with the first Tahitian teachers in 1823 were from two trading schooners in 1814. But from 1827 onwards European missionaries resided there permanently, and for the next thirty years they were the only foreigners to make any lengthy stay at the island.
The early missionaries left about 8 published works which deal significantly with this island but as more unpublished material becomes available their relative importance as source material is diminishing. The letters, journals, and reports of the missionaries have, however, been preserved and are very useful sources; since almost every month each missionary sent a detailed report to his directors in London, a journal had to be prepared for every missionary voyage, and reports had to be submitted every year. Despite a natural emphasis on ecclesiastical affairs these documents cover a very wide range of subjects, often describing customs or giving the background to disputes.
The advantage of these mission records lies in their detailed nature and frequency of recording, which affords a fairly constant picture of the march of events. All the missionaries understood and worked exclusively in the local dialect and they participated in almost every aspect of the local life. On the debit side, however, is the fact that, like all other foreign observers, the missionaries saw through eyes which were conditioned by a different culture, and though they understood the native language, they probably did not understand a number of the concepts expressed in it.
Other foreign observers were traders, whalers, travellers and warship commanders; persons whose visits were generally brief and for specific purposes, and whose writings accordingly provide relatively little information beyond details of trade, crops grown, names of local notabilities, and broad general descriptions of the people and their customs. Some of the later visitors, like Arundel, who first visited the island in 1870, have left very detailed reports of the contemporary scene; while others, like Bourke, who annexed the island in 1888, and Moss, who arrived as first Resident in 1891, took the trouble to collect details of the land tenure system.
Fourth among the available sources are the results of such earlier researches as may provide information about various aspects of the pre-contact era. By far the most important collection in this category is that accumulated by the Land Court, which was established in 1902 and which during the next 5 years determined the title to almost every piece of land on the island. The court records now amount to more than 20,000 pages of evidence and decisions, including many claims which go back to the pre-contact era. Unfortunately the detailed evidence is not always given, and indeed in quite a number of cases the decision only is recorded, thus precluding analysis on a quantitative basis. Nevertheless, by preserving its records in excellent order, the Land Court has, to a notable degree, provided a unique repository of early historical information.
Our fifth source of evidence for pre-contact history lies in contemporary field-studies, which may provide some indications as to the nature of the system which existed earlier, for, despite many changes, there appears to have been a considerable degree of carry-over. Change takes place at different rates in different aspects of a culture, and land tenure is one of the aspects of Rarotongan culture in which change has come about much more slowly than in such fields as religion or education. A present-day survey by itself can give only the slightest indication of the tenure system in the 1820s, yet in conjunction with the other sources mentioned it can not only give useful leads, but also at times give confirmatory evidence where the earlier sources are indicative but not conclusive. Also, present-day informants, while they do not know the pre-contact era at first hand, may well possess some traditional knowledge of pre-contact custom.
Finally, some inferences may be drawn from a knowledge of other tenure systems, particularly those in related groups of islands possessing a similar socio-political organization. These may give clues to correlations which may be sought, or show whether circumstantial probabilities are consistent with actualities elsewhere. Deductions made on this basis can only be in the nature of probabilities, but in some cases even these may be of relevance.
Each of the above sources has its inadequacies, but each helps to clarify the outlines of a situation which no longer exists; at least not in its pristine form.”
Note 2.8 relies on the sixth paragraph of this passage. Ron Crocombe’s footnote to it reads: “These have all been studied in the vernacular, including the few which have been translated into English.”
No single correct version of a genealogy
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE James Baltaxe, The Transformation of the Rangatira: A Case of the European Reinterpretation of Rarotongan Social Organization, PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1975, p. 7; endorsed by Ron Crocombe on the draft of this series.
“These enumerations cannot be considered as impartial records of genealogical history, and an attempt to decide on a single correct version can only be misleading. On the contrary, specific alternate versions are merely stronger or weaker relative to specific points in litigation. […] Some of these family books or portions thereof were offered to the Court in evidence, and written into the Court minute books. The practice soon developed of citing these entries in later, related cases, or as precedents in yet others.”
The chapter also relies here on Tati Salmon’s observation, in “On Ari‘is in Tahiti”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 19 (1910), pp. 39–46, that the study of genealogies among Polynesians “grew into a science… which could fairly claim rank with intellectual work of other countries”; and on Matthew Campbell’s finding, in “History in Prehistory: The Oral Traditions of the Rarotongan Land Court Records”, 2002, p. 223, that genealogy “has been played down in the courts, as evidence was tailored to European understandings and expectations.”
Samuela Terei and his father’s book
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Samuela Terei More Taunga-o-te-tini, narrative recorded by Stephen Savage, E Buka Tuatua ‘Enua; Pāpāanga Ariki, Mata‘iapo, Kopu Tangata, Rarotonga, 1916, pp. 32–33; manuscript, Cook Islands Library and Museum Society.
“My friend, that is all I have to say about this book. The book my father wrote is as big as the Bible. The work of Tangaroa when he created the islands is all in that book. When he created us and all the other islands.
Not this book, they are not all in here. In my father’s book is the Ariki genealogy. It is very clear because he came from it. If only we had that book we will not have any doubts. This story about the creation came from the beginning. Our narrators (are kōrero – the house, institution, of kōrero) have not reached it.
Look my friend, at our kōrero. It says that it was Atea and Pāpā. But when it comes down to Pāpā’s genealogy one’s different from the other. They are not the same. There are many narrators but only one ancestor and that is Atea and Pāpā. When it comes down to Pāpā’s genealogy they all have different legends.”
Note 2.15 relies on the same manuscript. The cosmogony of Ma‘uke that William Wyatt Gill collected in 1882 and published in 1911 as “Growth of the Land of Mauke” differs considerably from the larger cosmogonic genealogy Samuela Terei gave Stephen Savage in 1916. Anna-Leena Siikala’s comment (Return to Culture, 2005, p. 155) is that because mythic historical tradition connected to genealogies is used to legitimate privileges, the “truth” of narratives is constantly discussed, and the variation leads to a situation in which no one or everyone can find the most suitable truth.
Part 3: The Land Court records
Note 2.12: What the Land Court records are, and the state of the minute books
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section “Land Court records”, drawing on the Cook Islands Native Land Court Titles Registers, including the Mau‘ke register, volume 1, p. 1; and the author’s inspection of Rarotonga minute book 1 for the Tuarea Nui section 42 appeal to the Privy Council.
“The Land Court records comprise: the block files and registers; the Land Court minute books; the Land Court title registers; title files (that is, traditional titles of rangatira, mata‘iapo and ariki) and index; adoption certificates and register; and books of deeds.
The block files consist of the minutes of “family meetings,” an application for a court hearing, and a court order concerning the tenure of a block of land. The applications are for investigation of title, for injunction, to succeed, for an order of exchange, for confirmation of alienation, for determination of relative interest, and for partition. The orders are partition orders, succession orders, trustee orders, right of occupation orders and injunction orders.
The Court minute books contain the minutes of Court hearings concerning land tenure, titles, or adoption of children. The minutes of Native Appellate Court hearings of appeals against earlier Land Court decisions were recorded in the Native Appellate Court minute books, before the Court of Appeal was established. Some of the minutes of the early Court sittings in islands outside Rarotonga were recorded in five group minute books, each containing minutes from hearings in several islands.
The original minute books were handwritten, and some of them are now in extremely poor condition due to book worms, the acidity of the ink, and the humidity of the climate. Rarotonga minute book 1 is in good condition, as I ascertained when obtaining copies of some of the pages for the Tuarea Nui section 42 appeal to the Privy Council, but Rarotonga minute book 2 is in poor condition. Some pre-1975 minute books, including Rarotonga minute books 1, 3 and 4 and most of the outer islands minute books for Aitutaki, Atiu, Mangaia, Manihiki, Mau‘ke, Mitiaro, Pukapuka and Nassau, and Rakahanga, were microfilmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in black and white, or scanned by the Land Court, a few in colour.
When conducting the Tuarea Nui appeal I ascertained that the page numbers in the handwritten Rarotonga minute book 1 differed slightly from the page numbers in the 1950s typed version, and that the typed version had a number of typographical errors. The 1950s typed minute books were retyped again in recent years by Rarotongan college students, in order to make them available to the public via computers on the Court counters. This version contains numerous typographical errors and omissions, and cannot be relied upon as accurate. They should be discarded and replaced with the earlier typed versions which, while not perfect, are more accurate.”
Note 2.13: Matthew Campbell on the minute books as a record of evidence
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Matthew Campbell, Settlement and Landscape on Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2001, pp. 132–133.
“However there are some problems with the authenticity of the information in them as a record of the evidence given to the court. Firstly the evidence of native claimants or witnesses was translated into English by a court interpreter. The translations would have been written by hand as the evidence was spoken, and so whether the evidence was given in CI Māori or English, omissions would have occurred as the speaker outran the writer. There is no reason to suppose that many or most of the high ranking witnesses did not speak good English, or that good Rarotongan Māori cannot be translated into equally good English. However the hurriedness of the translation and a certain stylistic interpretation have resulted in a clipped and ‘primitive’ English, that is often hard to understand. Also some doubt might be cast onto the translated evidence in cases where the translator had family interests at stake.
The transcripts were typed in the 1950s (Jock MacCauley pers. comm.) when the poor state of the originals became clear. Although I was told stories of the typists deliberately falsifying the record, this is not immediately evident (Jock MacCauley thought it unlikely, and the chances of detection would have been high). What is evident is that they were often rather careless in their work, and typographical errors and omissions are frequent. These have often been corrected by unknown hands, presumably with reference to the originals, but not always. But there may still be undetectable errors or omissions in the typescripts. While the typists may not have falsified the evidence deliberately, it is clear that pages are missing from the typed minute books, and are probably also missing from the originals. These have been removed and destroyed in order to delete historical evidence unfavourable to more modern cases, by plaintiffs or their legal representatives (Jock MacCauley pers. comm.). Such holes in the evidence can only be viewed as the regrettable results of historical accident, and without the ability to recreate the deleted evidence (though this may be possible at least in part with reference to other court or historical records), it is not possible to say exactly what biases this process has introduced into the record. Luckily this problem does not appear to be common.”
On the first passage the author observed in the first edition that the first interpreter, Stephen Savage, is recorded in one case as excusing himself from interpreting because of his conflict of interest, and giving evidence for his wife; other interpreters were available; and Matthew Campbell gave no evidence for the suggestion that translated evidence is doubtful where the interpreter had a family interest.
Where the genealogies and records can be read
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section “Cook Islands oral family history and genealogies”.
“The principal works on papa‘anga or oral family history and genealogies include: A. The oral traditions and history prepared after the arrival of the missionaries, in which earlier oral traditions and history were recorded, including those published by Stephen Savage as Cook Islands Government Printer in the early 1900s. B. The closely guarded “family books” prepared after the arrival of the missionaries, in which the earlier oral traditions of that family were recorded. C. The manuscripts produced to, and the genealogies given by witnesses in, the Cook Islands Land Court, which are either recorded in the Land Court minute books or in the Land Court files. D. The oral traditions and genealogies recorded in the Journal of the Polynesian Society. E. The genealogies of Judge Jock MacCauley, which were derived from the Land Court minute books and are therefore only as accurate as the evidence given; available from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints family history centres and the University of Auckland library. F. The limited genealogies recorded by Sir Peter Buck, held at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. G. The limited genealogies recorded by Walter Gudgeon, held at the Auckland War Memorial Museum Library and the Hocken Library at the University of Otago.
I have donated copies of E, F and G, and of the Land Court records up to 1975, to the Cook Islands Library and Museum Society library in Rarotonga and to the National Archives of the Cook Islands.
There are problems with the historical records held in the Cook Islands. The originals of the minute books are in storage, and the copies available to the public have been retyped twice, contain handwritten notes made by persons other than the judge, and contain errors. There is no index of the papa‘anga, genealogies and other manuscripts and documents presented to the Land Court by parties and witnesses in earlier cases, which can only be located if they are referred to in the minute books, which in turn can only be located by a time-consuming manual search of Land Court records. Due to the absence of security in the High Court some documents have been stolen. Land Court records can only be copied by people who can afford the very high photocopying charges charged by the High Court. And the genealogies produced from the minute books by Judge MacCauley are reliant upon the information in the minute books.
Some of the supporting documents put before the Court are no longer held by it and their whereabouts is unknown. Some were microfilmed in 1975 by the Australian National University and the Latter-day Saints, and can be viewed at the Latter-day Saints family research centres without permission, at the University of Auckland — very strangely, only with permission from the Ministry of Culture, Rarotonga — and at the Australian National University.”
Part 4: The missionaries and the administrators
Note 2.15: Influence is not power
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, typed commentary on the draft of this series, 7 August 2008, p. 4.
“I have never belonged to any religion, and have no axe to grind for missionaries… In the evidence as I read it, the missionaries were not quite as stupid as they are made out to be. And many allegations about them are simply wrong.
For example page 30 para 2 refers to missionary “control”. They had no guns, no money, no constitutional power, no coercive power, no legal rights beyond those of anyone else. And there were usually only one or two (occasionally three) papa’a missionaries on Rarotonga, one each on Mangaia and Aitutaki… How do you “control” in such circumstances?… No doubt many orometua had great influence, but there is a great difference between influence and power.
So sometimes I think you go too far in suggesting that chiefs lacked power before the mission.”
The administrators inherited the missionaries’ picture of the society
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section “The writings of the Resident Agents, Resident Commissioners, and Land Court Judges”, relying on Baltaxe, Transformation of the Rangatira, 1975, pp. 14 and 123–124; with the finding list of Walter Gudgeon’s papers.
“For the most part, the early judges accepted the image of Cook Islands society which had developed during the period of missionary dominance, and which emphasised the class distinctions which the missionaries read into the ranked titles of ariki, mata‘iapo, and rangatira, as well as the untitled commoners, the ‘unga or tenants. The first British Resident, Frederick Moss, was far too uncritical of his own sources, and his own views on Rarotongan social organisation were in many respects no less vague and impressionistic than those put forth earlier by the missionaries. After Walter Gudgeon became British Resident in 1898 the colonial administration acted in terms of an inappropriate model of the local society and induced the development of a new orthodox interpretation of it which conformed to its own expectations. The Land Court judges and administrators presumed a strong similarity between New Zealand Māori custom and Rarotongan custom; but the New Zealand custom they applied was New Zealand custom as it had been interpreted by the New Zealand Native Land Court, with which Walter Gudgeon was familiar as a former judge of that court.
Walter Gudgeon’s papers. A Journal of My Residence in the South Seas: a typewritten photocopy held by the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, within Walter Gudgeon Autobiography and Related Materials, MS-079, at pp. 73–172; deposited by his grandson Elsdon Craig; typed between 1902 and 1910, in part from his diaries; a copy is held at the Cook Islands Library and Museum, Avarua. Autobiography, in the same manuscript. The Kingdom in the Pacific (21 pages), The London Mission: its policy and peculiarities (15 pages), The London Missionary Society in the Cook and Northern Islands (26 pages) and The London Missionary Society in the South Seas (7 pages): typewritten photocopies, Hocken Library, University of Otago, MS-662/C, F, G and E.
His annual reports in the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, all available online: for the year to 31 December 1898, dated 27 January 1899, 1899 AJHR A-3, pp. 21–24; to 31 December 1899, dated 4 January 1900, 1900 A-3, pp. 23–27; to 30 June 1900, dated 10 August 1900, 1901 A-3, pp. 6–9; to 31 December 1901, dated 20 February 1902, 1902 A-3, pp. 47–56; to 31 March 1903, dated 6 April 1903, 1903 A-3, pp. 22–30; to 31 March 1904, dated 11 April 1904, A-3, pp. 67–83; to 31 March 1905, dated 11 April 1905, A-3, pp. 77–87; to 31 March 1906, dated 19 April 1906, A-3, pp. 77–98; to 31 March 1907, dated 21 April 1907, A-3, pp. 3–19; to 31 March 1908, dated 18 April 1908, A-3, pp. 4–26; and to 31 March 1909, dated 3 May 1909, 1909 A-3, pp. 3–20. In all, the AJHR contain over 260 pages of official reports and correspondence by him.”
The first paragraph rests on James Baltaxe’s account of the missionaries’ model (Transformation of the Rangatira, pp. 123–124): “The early European missionaries on Rarotonga had one primary goal, establishing their image of God’s Truth in those islands and they had little, if any, concern for the natives’ traditional hocus-pocus. Thus they took note of only those things which struck them as either aiding or strongly hindering their progress. This in turn allowed them to construct a model of Rarotongan society which was best suited to their own ends without the inconvenience of too many empirical facts to account for… In the absence of a detailed understanding of the indigenous society, it was inevitable that such a model would reflect those concepts with which the missionaries were most familiar. For example, the clearly aristocratic nature of Polynesian society had to bring forth parallels with England’s own feudal society.” Volume Four, Chapter 8, takes the story of the judges from here.
Note 2.18: Attributing motives to the dead
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, typed commentary on the draft of this series, 7 August 2008, pp. 8–9.
“Para 3 p. 27 says Gudgeon was “vague” and “inconsistent”. I guess one could say that of almost all land court judges and lawyers. They are dealing with flexible situations subject to many interpretations. Gudgeon postponed some decisions by making interim arrangements… I sometimes feel that it is too easy to attribute motives by assertion to those who are dead, without thinking through what their position might have been in that case at that time.
There is also a tendency (not only in your paper but by all of us trying to build a case for or against something) to scour through the tens of thousands of words said by a person over many years and cut out a phrase or sentence that suits our purpose, and throw it up on the big screen and imply that that was his opinion on all things and always.”
Part 5: The scholars
The principal modern works, as listed in the first edition
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section “The writings of anthropologists and historians”; the passage by Peter Buck is from Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, pp. 7–8.
“A. Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961 and 1964. B. James Baltaxe, The Transformation of the Rangatira, 1975. C. Josephine Baddeley, Rarotongan Society: the Creation of Tradition, 1978. D. Joe Gray, A History of Rarotonga, 1800–1883, unpublished thesis, University of Otago, 1975. E. Peter Buck, Mangaian Society, 1934, and The Material Culture of the Cook Islands, 1927. F. Pāpā Aratangi, The Entry of Christianity into Mangaian Society in the 1820s, unpublished B.D. project, Pacific Theological College, Suva, 1986, and The Transformation of the Mangaian Religion, unpublished Master of Theology thesis, Pacific Theological College, 1988. G. Christian Campbell Clerk, The Animal World of the Mangaians, unpublished PhD thesis, University College London, 1981, and “The Fish of Rongo: Some Readings of a Polynesian Myth”, Folklore 96 (1985), pp. 234–242. H. Mary V. Mark, The Relationship between Ecology and Myth in Mangaia, unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago, 1976.
Peter Buck, on his Mangaian sources: “[I] used Gill’s material freely in order to piece together the details scattered through his different books to form a continuous historical narrative which serves as the basis for my study of the rise of military power in Mangaian social organization. In estimating the duration of occupation of Mangaia, Gill used lists of priests, though his informant, Mamae, had full pedigrees of the ngāti-Vara tribe. These pedigrees, supplied by Aiteina, are here used for the first time… I have also had access to a manuscript by Mamae, an informant of Gill and former pastor of the church at Mangaia.””
Note 2.20: A maze of mirrors
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Josephine Baddeley, Rarotongan Society: the Creation of Tradition, PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 1978, p. 184.
The passage is reproduced under Note 8.20 in the Chapter 8 archive, where the chapter relies on it at greater length. It is not repeated here.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 2, Note 2.10, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-2, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
2.1 The eight kinds are set out in the first edition of this chapter, section 2.1. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-1
2.2 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Report on Northern South Island Claims, Wai 785, 2008, chapter 2. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-2 The passage in full
2.3 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu, chapter 2. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-3
2.4 Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (editors), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 1983, introduction. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-4
2.5 Ron Crocombe, commentary on the manuscript of this series, 17 January and 7 August 2008, 7 August 2008, p. 1; and notes of 12 October 2008, p. 1. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-5
2.6 James Ritchie, Becoming Bicultural, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1992, pp. 99 and 104. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-6 The passage in full
2.7 Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 5 to 6. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-7
2.8 Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), p. 6.
2.9 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, p. 8. Ron Crocombe endorsed this sentence on the draft of this series. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-9
2.10 Samuela Terei More Taunga-o-te-tini, account recorded by Stephen Savage, Rarotonga, 1916; manuscript, Cook Islands Library and Museum Society. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-10
2.11 Tivini Haueti (Stephen Savage) and Tamuera Terei, E Tuatua Taito: Tuatua no Tangiia Ariki, Rarotonga, 1 June 1907, printed pamphlet in Cook Islands Māori, 56 pages; the whole transcribed as Archives 29a, 29b and 29c of this series; the preface “Akamata Tuatua” at Archives 29b. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-11
2.12 The author’s inspection when obtaining pages of Rarotonga minute book 1 for the Tuarea Nui appeal to the Privy Council; see Volume Four of this series, Chapter 11. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-12 The passage in full
2.13 Matthew Campbell, Settlement and Landscape on Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2001, pp. 132 to 133. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-13 The passage in full
2.14 The donated copies are held by the Cook Islands Library and Museum Society and the Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-14
2.15 Crocombe, commentary (2008), 7 August 2008, p. 4. The passage in full
2.16 William Wyatt Gill, “Growth of the Land of Mauke”, collected 1882, published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911). Compare Samuela Terei to Savage, 1916. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-16
2.17 The first edition of this chapter, section on the Cook Islands Gazette and the colonial administrators; and see Volume Four, Chapter 8. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-17
2.18 Crocombe, commentary (2008), 7 August 2008, pp. 8 to 9. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-18 The passage in full
2.19 The list is the first edition’s, section 2.9. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n2-19
2.20 Josephine Baddeley, Rarotongan Society: the Creation of Tradition, PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 1978, p. 184. The passage in full
2.149 The Land Court registry, Avarua; Cook Islands National Archives, Takuvaine; Cook Islands Library and Museum Society, Avarua, the records donated with this series listed in the Preface, note P.12; Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, Volumes 1 to 3, published with this series.
2.150 Papers Past, National Library of New Zealand (paperspast.natlib.govt.nz), for the Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives and the New Zealand newspapers; the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute (paclii.org) for the Cook Islands courts; the archive to each chapter at the address printed at the chapter’s end.
2.152 Te Runanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General [1990] 2 NZLR 641 (CA), above; on the court’s own records and certified copies, the Cook Islands Act 1915, Part XIII; on declarations as to pedigree and documents more than thirty years old from proper custody, the common law rules received in the Cook Islands, which the Cook Islands Evidence Act 1968 preserves [section to be confirmed by Ross].
2.153 Volume 1, Chapter 7, Part Two, section 3, “How a court finds the custom”: Angu v Attah (1916) PC Gold Coast 43; Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801; Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116.
Volume One, Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Southern Cook Islands oral traditions
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
- What the kōrero were
- The tumu kōrero
- The ‘are kōrero
- Creation, and the genealogies that begin before people
- Maui, and the traditions that travelled
- What the traditions told a court
- The family books, and what became of them
- What a family can take from this chapter
- Counting the generations
- What this chapter leads to
1. What the kōrero were
2. The tumu kōrero
Civilized man has become more and more accustomed to learning through the eye and less and less through the ear. The eye of civilized man depends on notes and books. The ear of uncivilized man has to depend on memorizing. As the taking of notes increases under our modern educational system, so the cultivation of memory decreases. It has thus become difficult for civilized man to adequately realize what the human memory is capable of amassing.3.12
Peter Buck, The Value of Tradition in Polynesian Research, 1926
3. The ‘are kōrero
4. Creation, and the genealogies that begin before people
5. Maui, and the traditions that travelled
6. What the traditions told a court
I claim this place is where Te Rei always built his canoes. Metuma was the canoe and Tamanau the name of the tree. Te Rei showed me the boundary of the land. He said that the two Nus growing together was the boundary of the land. Thence inland to where a big Ti tree stood by a creek. Thence up the mountain to a stone was a Tukunga Patu, place where the old people made offering to the Atua. Tokotake rangi was its name.3.22
Te Rei, evidence in Akapuao section 42, Land Titles Court, Rarotonga
7. The family books, and what became of them
8. What a family can take from this chapter
9. Counting the generations
10. What this chapter leads to
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Peter Buck, John Stokes, S. Percy Smith, William Wyatt Gill and Stephen Savage died more than fifty years ago; their published work is in the public domain in New Zealand and the Cook Islands and is reproduced at the length the chapter relies on.
Anna-Leena Siikala, Jukka Siikala and Rawiri Taonui remain in copyright and appear only in the passage quoted. Ron Crocombe’s comments on the draft are reproduced with his family’s consent.
The Land Titles Court evidence is a court record. It is reproduced in full from Rarotonga minute book 1, and the spelling of names follows the minute book. The first edition of this chapter ran to 22,700 words; the boundary evidence it carried from minute book 1, which the second edition condenses to two passages, is kept here in full under Notes 3.21 and 3.22.
Part 1: What the kōrero were
Note 3.3: Three strategies in one performance
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Anna-Leena Siikala, Return to Culture: Oral Tradition and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Finnish Anthropological Society, Helsinki, 2005, p. 90.
“The kōrero is a kind of metadiscourse in which the content is mediated by using different strategies: genealogies mark the vertical line of descent, tua ta‘ito narratives the horizontal chain of events, and pe‘es, recited or sung poems, the memorable moments of action and emotion.”
Note 3.4: Tua ta‘ito are not legends
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Siikala, Return to Culture, 2005, pp. 61–62 and 92; the definition of pe‘e is from Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, 1995, p. 334.
“It is an ethnic genre, the characteristic features of which do not fit any universal classification. If tua ta‘itos were to be set in the European genre classification system, the mythlike, legendlike and anecdote-like features of these narratives immediately would break the classificatory borders.
The features of a tua ta‘ito are the beginning, the pe‘e, and the conclusion that places narrated events in the context of island history.”
A pe‘e, in Jasper Buse and Raututi Taringa’s definition, is a “rhythmic chant usually commemorating some historical event”.
Note 3.5: Gill on pe‘e and kapa
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, p. 8; with Anna-Leena Siikala, Return to Culture, 2005, p. 92, and Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, 1995, p. 334.
“I soon found that they had two sets of traditions – one referring to their gods, and to the supposed experiences of men after death; another relating veritable history. The natives themselves carefully distinguish the two. Thus historical songs are called pe‘e; the others kapa, etc.”
The chapter, as corrected by the author in September 2026, gives Gill’s distinction as he recorded it: historical songs were pe‘e, other songs kapa. Anna-Leena Siikala’s account should be read beside it: in her analysis the pe‘e (Buse and Taringa: “rhythmic chant usually commemorating some historical event”) is the fixed chant set inside a tua ta‘ito that marks the narrative as history, so that the distinction Gill heard between kinds of song is also a distinction between kinds of narrative.
Part 2: The tumu kōrero and the ‘are kōrero
How a performance was recognised as history
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Siikala, Return to Culture, 2005, pp. 103–104 and 111.
“… by opening and closing formulas, pe‘es, remembering the personal and place names, repeating dialogues and important phrases, and in contextualising narratives in the island history. Commoners do not master these devices of narration. For that reason, they can never tell a convincing narrative of island history even if they might know the same motifs as a specialist. A finalised performance testifies that the narrator is a historian, and not any historian, but the one who knows the truth and tradition of the island.
The pe‘e is repeated word by word in a traditional manner and it should not be altered. The meaning of it can seldom be interpreted by contemporary listeners, or even by the tumu kōreros themselves. Because of that, because pe‘es are the words of ancestors, and perhaps for other reasons, they are never translated into English in published kōrero.”
Notes 3.7 and 3.9 rely on the same pages. The chapter’s notes give p. 88; the first edition cited pp. 103, 104 and 111, and those are the pages to check against the book.
Note 3.11: The teacher named, the ancestors respected
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Siikala, Return to Culture, 2005, pp. 69–70 and 93.
“His performance is tradition-oriented and his behaviour has the distinct quality of a specialist. Dignity, an aura of wisdom, and oratorical and other performative skills are values attached to the successful behaviour of a tumu kōrero. As an institution, kōrero practice has its roots in oral culture.
… not only the memorising of genealogical facts and details of the associated narratives, but internalising the generic models of kōrero genres and skills to regularise discourse so that it fits the field of current practice… To be a tumu kōrero means having the skill to reproduce a tua ta‘ito narrative and mastering the different discourses, with their intertextual relations, connected to the kōrero practice.”
Note 3.11 relies on the same pages: the status of tumu kōrero is the result of learning from practising masters of tradition, the fame of the teacher guaranteed the authority of his successor, and so the source of knowledge was usually named.
Note 3.12: Peter Buck’s defence of memory
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa), “The Value of Tradition in Polynesian Research”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 35 (1926), pp. 181–203, at pp. 181–182 and 185.
“Civilized man has become more and more accustomed to learning through the eye and less and less through the ear. The eye of civilized man depends on notes and books. The ear of uncivilized man has to depend on memorizing. As the taking of notes increases under our modern educational system, so the cultivation of memory decreases. Even for the passing of examinations, memorization is often of a transient nature. It has thus become difficult for civilized man to adequately realize what the human memory is capable of amassing or to credit the vast amount of information that uncivilized man has handed down to posterity unwritten.
Many people consider tradition to be so full of error that it is of little or no value in ethnological research. It seems natural that the less a person is capable of trusting his own memory, the more he distrusts tradition. This attitude of condemning without investigation is, to say the least of it, unscientific. In seeming contrast to the distrust of tradition is the ready acceptance of unverified printed matter.
There could be no native race, or any race for that matter, that took a greater pride in their traditional history than the Polynesian, as exemplified by the Māori. The expert genealogist who could recite the innumerable ramifications and alliances of the tribe, and the orator who could call up the glorious achievements of the past, were admired and honoured. No one of any rank or prestige could maintain his position without having a thorough knowledge of tribal history.”
Note 3.13: What one expert chose to teach
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, 17 January 2008, p. 6; and 7 August 2008, p. 7. Both letters are transcribed in full in “Ron Crocombe — letters of 17 January, 7 August and 12 October 2008”.
“Next para “the only standard for a pass was perfect memorization…” What you were memorizing is what that one expert told you to memorize. He was a man of great power, as what he said was the true record became the true record not because it was true but because he decided it was to be the true record from then on.
It reminds me of a story Mahe Tupouniua told me when I was staying with him in Tonga 50 years ago… the government of Tonga instructed him to come back and be Secretary of the newly formed Tongan Traditions Committee, set up by Queen Salote to record the “correct” versions of the important traditions of each part of Tonga. Mahe said the committee was formed of the oldest and wisest and of the “rightest” blood (and most acceptable to the Queen – she chose them). Everywhere they went they heard the various versions and decided which was the “right” one and recorded that. But sometimes they just could not agree and in such cases they went to the Queen and told her the situation and she told them which was the correct version. From then on it was the correct version, and woe betide anyone who thought otherwise… It is the nature of oral tradition in the world, and throughout history. It is mainly a reflection of current power.
p. 26 quote 45. “The only standard for a pass was perfect memorization…” That is an ideal. There is no check on it. And what you have to memorize is what the teacher told you. The teacher may err, or may distort to his or his group’s own advantage. If it were true as implied, that perfect transmission occurred, then there would not be various versions of anything, or dispute over anything – when in fact there are usually various versions of everything. You may want to explain that in note 45 or readers may think you are naïve.”
The first two paragraphs are from the January letter, the third from the August one. His related note of 12 October 2008 is under Note 2.4 in the Chapter 2 archive.
Note 3.14: The ‘are kōrero of Mangaia
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 147–148.
“Secondary or higher education was given to suitable pupils by those well versed in ancient and tribal lore who, for the possession of knowledge well above the average, were termed ‘are kōrero (houses of talk, storehouses of knowledge). The boy sent by his father took a basket of cooked food for his instructors as a courtesy gesture, not as payment. The old people were punctilious in observing that instruction was not bought. The ‘are kōrero delighted in imparting knowledge if the pupil, by the attention he evinced, showed that he was worthy of the trouble.”
The chapter’s notes 3.14 and 3.15 cite Peter Buck’s “The Value of Tradition”, pp. 183–184. The ‘are kōrero and the candlenut test are in Mangaian Society, pp. 147–148, as the first edition cited them; the notes have been corrected in the second edition.
The candlenut test
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Buck, Mangaian Society, 1934, pp. 147–148.
“The baked and dry kernels of the candlenuts were strung on the dry midribs of coconut leaflets. The student took some of these with him. When the instruction commenced, the pupil lit the top kernel of one of the torches. He held this upright in his hand while the teacher talked to him across the flame. During the recital, the pupil carefully tended the torch. If he held the torch upright, the first kernel burned upwards and did not ignite the kernel below it until it was almost used up. If the kernel burned too much on one side, he held the torch at an angle to ensure the even consumption of the one kernel. When it burned down he took care that the second kernel was ignited from it before he removed the charred ember of the used kernel. Sometimes this took a little care, and the recital would cease until the next kernel was alight. If by constant care a single torch lasted until daylight, the teachers approved of the student and said that he would be a tamaiti kai kōrero (a youth who consumed instruction). He was deemed worthy of continued instruction.
The test of one torch proved that the pupil was so interested that he was able to resist the claims of sleep. Should, however, the youth prove careless and neglectful, the light would spread and more than one kernel would be burning at one time; the first torch would be speedily burned out and then a second and a third. Should three or four torches be used up in the one night’s session, it was regarded as an infallible sign of lack of attention and interest in the course of instruction. The student was promptly “ploughed” on his first night’s work. His father was informed that the boy would never learn and that further instruction would be wasted on him.
Based on an organized and continuous system of teaching, and stimulated by pride of race, Māori traditions are as thorough and as accurate an account of the history of the past as any unwritten record can hope to be. Though exaggeration may have crept in in unessentials, and different schools may differ in some details, there was a very strong safeguard against wilful departure from the oral texts of the schools. This was the fear of punishment by supernormal agencies. Much of the knowledge of the schools was regarded as tapu, sacred… The only standard for a pass was the perfect memorization of all details, even to the actual words.”
The third paragraph is from “The Value of Tradition”, 1926, pp. 186–187, and is the passage Note 3.13 qualifies. Note 3.1, the chapter’s opening, is drawn from the first two paragraphs.
Part 3: Creation, genealogy and the traditions that travelled
Note 3.17: The most sacred of all traditions
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Rawiri Taonui, “Polynesian Oral Traditions”, in K. R. Howe (editor), Vaka Moana: Voyages of the Ancestors, David Bateman, Auckland, 2006, p. 24.
“[Creation traditions explain the origins of] the universe, the heavens and the earth, the gods of nature, all things animate and inanimate in the phenomenological world, male and female forms, and life and death. These mythologies reflect deep-seated philosophical, religious, cultural and social beliefs about the nature of reality and the unknown, being and non-being and the relationship between all things. They are regarded as the most sacred of all traditions.”
Note 3.18: Tumu, Ātea and Tiki, in that order
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE John F. G. Stokes, “An Evaluation of Early Genealogies Used for Polynesian History”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 39 (1930), pp. 1–42, at pp. 6–9.
“In the early portions of most Polynesian genealogies, we find the following names or personifications in this order: – Tumu or a derivative, Ātea or Rangi, and Tiki. There are seldom less than two attributed to an island group, and frequently the three of them. When examined for significance, such will be found as “origin,” “sky father,” and “first man” respectively, although seldom so recorded in the published genealogies. In some genealogies, Tumu or Ātea may appear as the “first man,” even though the name Tiki may later appear in the same list. In between these epochal names, and also following that of Tiki, may be found many others, which it is at times difficult to recognize as human, and others which are unquestionably cosmogonic. They vary apparently according to the requirements of the occasion and the taste and ability of the genealogist. There is not the slightest doubt that, for incantational purposes, a genealogy is required to be as full and to go as far back as the genealogist can supply it. We may rely on the later portions as correct, because known to so many. There was no check on the earlier parts – which perhaps were not much in use. The thought has often crossed my mind that given the salient features or epochal names in a cosmogonic genealogy, the intermediate portions, so unimportant and so easy to forget, might occasionally become merely compositional to a genealogist with ability to make quick mental associations…”
John Stokes’s Table 2, the distribution of the names Tumu, Ātea, Pāpā, Tiki and Hina across Polynesia, was reproduced in the first edition and is in the Journal at p. 8.
Note 3.19: A genealogy as an incantation
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Stokes, “Early Genealogies”, 1930, pp. 4–5 and 9–12.
“What then about the portions of the genealogies antecedent to the latest migrations? They have, of course, some philosophical interest for the teachers, and, as shall be discussed later, had an incantational value, such as might be used in instilling ancestral mana into a divine chief… They were, however, known to few, and one may safely conclude that they, of any portions of the genealogy, would be the first to be forgotten, as of the least practical value, and least likely to be challenged by others.
The Kumulipo chant is of particular importance at the present. It reveals the mechanism of composition, and the incantational purpose of the genealogy… As may be recognized on examination, the mechanism is largely a matter of name and term-associations expressed through identities and antitheses, and a casual analysis of the chant will explain the composition of the earlier portions of many of the so-called genealogies from Hawaii, and probably from other parts of Polynesia… In the latter portion of the chant, another mechanism may be observed – the cumulative phase indicated by counting. When this is recognized, it soon becomes apparent that the so-called genealogy is an incantation intended to instil divine mana into a chief…”
Maui, and the dating of the oldest traditions
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Taonui, in Vaka Moana, 2006, pp. 29–30.
“Older oral traditions can be dated by comparing the location of figures and images in the tradition with archaeological and linguistic estimations for the date at which Pacific peoples separated as they migrated. Proper names and images that are specifically East Polynesian may be as old as 2,000 years. Those that are also found in West Polynesia may be as old as 4,000 years. Time estimations need to be conservative to allow for later diffusion between islands and island groups.
In these traditions, culture heroes act as intermediaries between the gods and humans. They also test the parameters of existence and the boundaries between reality and the supernatural, and between life and death, in stories about heroic journeys back and forth across these thresholds conveying the bounties of creation for the benefit of humans… In the Polynesian pantheon of culture heroes, Maui is the figure who challenges death and Tawhaki the one who ascends into the heavens.”
The dating of the Maui traditions to the early Lapita period, and the observation that their commonest theme is that Maui fished up land, are from the same pages.
Part 4: What the traditions told a court
Note 3.22: Akapuao, section 42: Te Rei and Raina
COURT RECORD — reproduced under the open-justice principle
SOURCE Land Titles Court, Rarotonga minute book 1, pp. 250–251, before Chief Judge Walter Gudgeon. Spelling as in the minute book.
“Te Rei: I claim this place is where Te Rei always built his canoes Metuma was the canoe and Tamanau the name of the tree… Te Rei showed me the boundary of the land. He said that the two Nus growing together was the boundary of the land. Thence inland to where a big Ti tree stood by a creek. Thence up the mountain to a stone was a Tukunga Patu (place where the old people made offering to the Atua). Tokotake rangi was its name.
Te Rei: The road connecting Ara Tapu and Ara Metua is an old road.
Raina: Tamakeu had his Pa rakau and Raina his. And there is a big space between them all Titikāveka knows these trees.”
The chapter’s notes give p. 288 for Te Rei and pp. 337–339 for Raina. The first edition cited minute book 1, pp. 250 and 251, for both witnesses in Akapuao; p. 288 is Tamarua’s evidence in Aroka and pp. 337–339 are Te Kao Karika’s in Te Kauariki Arangi, both below. The notes have been corrected in the second edition.
Note 3.23: Aroka number 4, Muri, and Te Kauariki Arangi, section 62: boundaries marked by named stones and trees
COURT RECORD — reproduced under the open-justice principle
SOURCE Land Titles Court, Rarotonga minute book 1, pp. 284–289 (Aroka) and 337–344 (Te Kauariki Arangi). Spelling as in the minute book.
“Nia (p. 284): I claim the boundary A.C. there is a stone in the lagoon Kopopu and Taurangamokora is a stone inland and they are the marks of the boundary between Muri and Avana. At the road at point D. there is an Au tree at the end of the wall. Between D. & C. there was a wall and a gate in olden times was placed there. On the outside of the old road there was a wall. And the Mata‘iapos of Muri built the wall. The wall between C. & D. divided Avana from Muri. The old road on beach was made up to that point. (p. 289) Waitangi not Tatangi is name of Awa the meaning is echo of the sea.
Koropoaka (p. 286): I have heard that there is a stone in the lagoon called Kokōpū and thence to a stone wall and thence to the ridge where there is a big rock called Tauranga Mokora. This I have learned from my Metuas (forefathers) of the Avana Tapere.
Tamarua (p. 288): There are two stones on the mountain. Kainuku owns one and Tamarua the other. They are called Tauranga Mokora. The wall is near the edge of the creek. And thence to the sea. On the lower land there is a Pa Rakau. Tamarua owns the Pa Rakau but the 6 Mata‘iapo made the patu. There is an Ii (chestnut) tree between the two lines the tree has a name (Tiakereu) on the sea side of the road. There are two coconut trees. V. Kainuku owns one and Kainuku the other. Thence to a lot of stones in the sea Turanga a te aronga is the name of that spot. Thence to a toka on reef broken by Ngatimanawaroa. Tataria was its name. Thence to an inlet in the reef called Waitangi. Kokōpū is a salt water lake called Anaupo. This is the boundary taught me by my parents as the Tapere boundary.
Te Kao Karika (pp. 337–339): I claim this land for Karika I know the disputed boundary. I claim the most Western of the two boundaries as the true one. The boundary on the north commences at a Puka tree on the Ara Metua and thence to a stone across the road. No name. Thence to a Koka tree. And thence by an Ii (chestnut) tree to another Ii thence bending s.west to two coconut trees on the ridge. Anautoa planted one and Marama planted the other. These were planted during the lifetime of Te Pou. Thence the line runs along the mountain. Tumu owning one side and Karika the other. At the end of the boundary Makea owns on one side and Karika the other. Commencing at Arametua a stone called Te papa across the road are two orange trees and father on a cotton tree. Planted by Tane a Kamoe. Thence to two big Mape trees. These two trees were planted by the ancestors. Thence to a koka tree. Thence to two stones called Tinamou (stable) and the boundary runs between them. Thence to Te Rao o Mata and old Ii trees Mani burned it down. Thence to a big Ii (chestnut) called Te Manawa thence along a line of Ii trees into the mountains thence to a kahiwi called Pokira Mato. That finishes the boundary as between myself and Karika. The Pa Rakau from the Manawa into the mountains were always pointed out to me as my guides I asked why I should observe these guides and I was told by my father that they were the boundary marks. The two Ii trees near the Ara metua were called my lamps and I was not to interfere with them.
Judgment (p. 344): The Court is of the opinion that the boundary claimed by Karika is the true boundary from the mountain to the Koka trees and thence to the Arametua the boundary is that claimed by Kao.”
Part 5: The family books, and what became of them
Note 3.24: The academic counterpart of the family books
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Jukka Siikala, ‘Akatokamanava: Myth, History and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Polynesian Society with the Finnish Anthropological Society, Auckland, 1991, pp. 16–17; and Baltaxe, Transformation of the Rangatira, 1975, p. 7, as summarised in the first edition.
“The writing of family books very soon began to have an academic counterpart. The early volumes of the Journal of the Polynesian Society were devoted to publishing oral traditions from different island groups. Edward Tregear’s comparative dictionary based mainly on oral traditions was published in 1891, the collection of New Zealand Māori lore, Whare Wananga, in 1913–15 by Stephenson Percy Smith, and Abraham Fornander’s collection of Hawaiian folklore in 1916–1920. A number of indigenous intellectuals and academics were the main pillars of the collection and publication of oral traditions. In the Cook Islands, the tumu kōrero, masters of oral history, joined forces in the pursuit of creating a picture of the history of the islands. A collection of the kōrero, “history,” was organised in 1974 and as a result, discussions with tumu kōrero were recorded and preserved in the National Archives in Rarotonga.”
The wording is the first edition’s summary of Jukka Siikala; the 1974 recordings in the National Archives are the point to follow up for Volume Two.
Note 3.25: Genealogies adjusted for title challenges
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Jon Jonassen to Ross Holmes, email, 11 April 2008.
Jon Jonassen’s observation, as the first edition recorded it, was that the Cook Islands genealogies submitted by Latter-day Saints members for their temple work are often adjusted or selectively used for land title or traditional title challenges; and that the pe‘e of the pre-colonial period are the least likely to be contaminated by self-serving or post-colonial perspectives, so that reviewing them gives another perspective. His own words are in the email and are reproduced with his permission only.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 3, Note 3.21, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-3, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
3.1 The candlenut test is described in the first edition of this chapter from Peter Buck’s account of the ‘are kōrero; see note 3.15.
3.2 Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, Ministry of Education, Rarotonga, 1995, p. 194.
3.3 Anna-Leena Siikala, Return to Culture: Oral Tradition and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Finnish Anthropological Society, Helsinki, 2005, p. 90. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-3 The passage in full
3.4 Siikala, Return to Culture, pp. 61 to 62. Buse and Taringa, Dictionary, p. 515. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-4 The passage in full
3.5 William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, p. 8. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-5 The passage in full
3.6 Te Ariki-tara-are, “History and Traditions of Rarotonga”, translated by S. Percy Smith and Stephen Savage, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899) to 30 (1921), 28 (1919), p. 59.
3.7 Siikala, Return to Culture, p. 88.
3.8 Siikala, Return to Culture, p. 88. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-8
3.9 Siikala, Return to Culture, p. 88.
3.10 Siikala, Return to Culture, p. 69. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-10
3.11 Siikala, Return to Culture, pp. 69 to 70. The passage in full
3.12 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), The Value of Tradition in Polynesian Research, Journal of the Polynesian Society 35 (1926), pp. 181 to 203, p. 181. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-12 The passage in full
3.13 Ron Crocombe, commentary on the manuscript of this series, 2008, 17 January 2008, p. 6, on the perfect memorisation of what one expert chose to teach. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-13 The passage in full
3.14 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 147 to 148. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-14 The passage in full
3.15 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 147 to 148; and Buck, “The Value of Tradition”, pp. 186 to 187. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-15
3.16 “Ko te korero ia Kainuku e Kupotoa”, Cook Islands Māori, typed, unsigned and undated, first and last pages, from the Savage box, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed as Archives 26 of this series, and cited again in Chapter 15 for what it says of Ma‘uke. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-16
3.17 Rawiri Taonui, “Polynesian Oral Traditions”, in K. R. Howe (editor), Vaka Moana: Voyages of the Ancestors, David Bateman, Auckland, 2006, p. 24. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-17 The passage in full
3.18 John F. G. Stokes, An Evaluation of Early Genealogies Used for Polynesian History, Journal of the Polynesian Society 39 (1930), pp. 1 to 42, pp. 6 to 9. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-18 The passage in full
3.19 Stokes, “Early Genealogies”, pp. 9 to 12. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-19 The passage in full
3.20 Taonui, in Vaka Moana, pp. 26 to 28.
3.21 Oral tradition of the vaka of Tākitumu, as recorded by the author. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-21
3.22 Land Titles Court, Rarotonga minute book 1, pp. 250 to 251. The spelling follows the minute book. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-22 The passage in full
3.23 Rarotonga minute book 1, p. 251. The Aroka and Te Kauariki Arangi boundary evidence, at pp. 284 to 289 and 337 to 344, is in the archive. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-23 The passage in full
3.24 Jukka Siikala, Akatokamanava: Myth, History and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Polynesian Society with the Finnish Anthropological Society, Auckland, 1991, pp. 16 to 17. James Baltaxe, The Transformation of the Rangatira, PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1975, p. 7. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n3-24 The passage in full
3.25 Jon Jonassen to the author, email, 11 April 2008. The passage in full
3.193 Fornander, Abraham, The Polynesian Race, 1878, Vol. 1, London
Volume One, Chapter 4
Chapter 4: The discovery and early settlement of the Southern Cook Islands
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
1. How the theories changed
4.3 Kirch, Brief History.
4.4 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Vikings of the Sunrise, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1938, p. 16. E. S. C. Handy, “The Problem of Polynesian Origins”, Bishop Museum Special Publication 9, 1930, pp. 1 to 27.
2. What archaeology now says
3. What the traditions say, and how to read them
4. Avaiki, and the hero who came before the canoes
5. Where the settlers came from
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Patrick Kirch, Richard Walter, Jukka Siikala and Rawiri Taonui remain in copyright and appear only in the passage quoted, with citation. Edward Tregear’s dictionary of 1891 is in the public domain.
Ron Crocombe’s notes of October 2008 on the settlement traditions are reproduced with his family’s consent.
The first edition of this chapter carried the settlement traditions of each island at length. Those traditions belong to the chapters on Aitutaki, Atiu, Mangaia, Ma‘uke and Mitiaro and are archived with them; they are not repeated here.
Part 1: How the theories changed
The theories of the 1800s
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Patrick V. Kirch, “A Brief History of Polynesian Archaeology”, Background to Pacific Archaeology and Prehistory, Oceanic Archaeology Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley (web publication; the address cited in the first edition, arf.berkeley.edu/projects/oal/background/polyhist.htm, has changed).
“[The theories of the 1800s were] based upon their linguistic and ethnographic research. Little archaeological research was carried out. Polynesian oral traditions were the major focus for writers such as Sir George Grey, Abraham Fornander, and Stephenson Percy Smith. While their theories differed, most believed that Asia was the place of Polynesian origin, and that Polynesians migrated via the western Pacific into the Polynesian triangle.
In the first decades of the 1900s, archaeology began to come into its own in Polynesia, with a great deal of fundamental survey work being carried out. … [T]he interpretation of Polynesian prehistory from the 1920s until World War II was dominated by comparative ethnology, with the stone structures and stone tools mapped and recorded by archaeologists fitted into a largely static, ethnographic reconstruction, and subsumed under the rubric of “material culture.”
With the exception of New Zealand, no controlled archaeological excavations were undertaken until after World War II. Archaeology emerged after World War II as the primary source of data on Polynesian culture history. In the later 1940s, renewed archaeological studies in the Pacific emphasized a return to stratigraphic excavations.”
Notes 4.3 and 4.6 rely on the second and third paragraphs. Patrick Kirch’s fuller treatment is in On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact, University of California Press, 2000, chapters 6 and 7, which Notes 4.8 to 4.12 cite; that is the published form to which the archive should point once the web address is confirmed or replaced.
Part 2: What the archaeology now says
Note 4.1: Colonisation between about 950 and 1250
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Richard Walter, Anai‘o: The Archaeology of a Fourteenth Century Polynesian Community in the Cook Islands, New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 22, Auckland, 1998, pp. 102–103; with the first edition’s summary of the excavations at Anai‘o, Ngāti Tiare and Tangatatau.
“Current archaeological evidence indicates that colonisation of the Southern Cook Islands occurred between circa 950 and 1250 A.D. At Anai‘o on Mau‘ke Island a large settlement site dated to the 1300s and early 1400s has been extensively excavated by Richard Walter. It contained a variety of imported materials. This is true also of substantial excavations at the Ngāti Tiare site on Rarotonga and for excavations at Tangatatau, a large rock shelter site on Mangaia where there is evidence of other exotic materials, including adzes from Samoa, being imported during the period AD 1000–1500.”
The paragraph is the first edition’s summary; Note 4.14 relies on it. Richard Walter’s own words follow under Note 4.15.
The period of sudden archaeological visibility
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Walter, Anai‘o, 1998, pp. 102–103.
“The period of sudden archaeological visibility between ca 950 and 1250 A.D. represents the colonisation phase for the southern Cook Islands. Colonisation may have begun slowly with a few small sites on one or two islands but it involved rapid exploration, adaptation and expansion by highly mobile groups, and it was complete in about three hundred years. During the colonisation phase there is likely to have been great variability in matters of settlement size and economic specialisation but it is questionable whether archaeological tools will ever be precise enough to recognise all this variation and sort it into temporal order. We probably have not yet found the very first sites on any island, but for each island in the southern Cooks the earliest sites will fall somewhere within those few hundred years…
The evidence as it stands at present suggests that the islands of the southern Cooks were all discovered at approximately the same time, as has been suggested in respect of other archipelagos such as Hawaii. People started to arrive in the southern Cook Islands to establish colonies by about 950 A.D. … [The evidence] suggests that colonisation was complete by the beginning of the 14th century across the southern Cook group.
Before this work, the archaeology of the southern Cook Islands was still underdeveloped in comparison with the other major archipelagos of East Polynesia. Two large survey programmes had been carried out by New Zealand based teams and these had laid a good foundation from which to address more problem oriented research goals. In a series of papers in the 1970s Bellwood had discussed settlement patterns and variations in ecological adaptation and had provided some exploratory discussions about how these issues related to land tenure systems and socio-political change. Duff had reviewed the adzes from the southern group and proposed a culture history sequence which drew on the adze data. This all took place against the backdrop of important pioneering ethnographic work by Peter Buck.”
The earlier estimates the first edition recorded: Roger Duff put the first settlement of Rarotonga before the 1100s and was tempted to assign some adzes from Tākitumu and Avarua to AD 0–500; Peter Bellwood cited radiocarbon dates for Aitutaki of about AD 981 and 1248; the earliest published radiocarbon date for Rarotonga was AD 1338. Richard Walter’s frame supersedes them.
Part 3: What the traditions say, and how to read them
Several migrations, not waves
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, notes on the manuscript of this series, 12 October 2008, p. 1, on page 95 of the draft; and his handwritten marks on the same page.
“95 para 2 line 2 end. I’d delete “unfortunately..” — it tends to imply that this did not happen before. The nature of oral tradition is that it is being manipulated constantly in favour of whoever has the power to do so at any time. 95 para 4. I’d delete “authentic” as it implies that someone has the magic decoder to decide which ones are “authentic” and which are not. Same line I’d change “waves of migration” by “several migrations”.”
On the manuscript page itself he struck “unfortunately” and wrote “& no doubt long before”, circled “authentic” and “invented” with a query, changed “waves” to “several”, and struck every repeated alternative island name. His reason for “several” was that the concept of waves suggests floods, when what the traditions describe is mainly single canoes, often lost or banished.
The numbers are conventional
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, notes of 12 October 2008, pp. 1–2, on pages 97 to 104 of the draft, and his marks on those pages.
Against every count of a canoe party — 340, 140, 200, 70 — he wrote that the numbers are conventional: seventy, or a hundred and forty, is the traditional size of any substantial group, not a count. Against “remnants” he asked for a number; against “It is obvious” he wrote “possibly”; and against Note 532 of the draft he wrote that none of it reflects anything more than who is creating a rationale for his group’s superiority, and that the book should make that clear. The words on the pages are recorded in “Ron Crocombe’s annotations — scans two and three”, at manuscript pages 99 to 104.
Note 4.18: Tararo Ariki on Tura and Iro-nui
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Tararo Ariki of Ma‘uke, as recorded in Jukka Siikala, ‘Akatokamanava: Myth, History and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Polynesian Society with the Finnish Anthropological Society, Auckland, 1991, pp. 126–127.
“Tura, through many years have been sailing through the ocean with Ironui. They had been sailing together for many years. They were both warriors.
One day they had a race. They raced to the island called Rangi-make and other islands. They wanted to be the first people to see all the islands in this region. We will go back to their race to Rangimake. The island of Rangi-make was also known as ‘Avaiki. It is now called New Zealand or Aotearoa. It took them several years at sea.
At one time they went back to ‘Akatokāmanava (Mau‘ke). This man, Tura, an Ariki and a warrior, stayed with his wife, Taramatietoro, ‘Uke’s daughter, and they had some children. It was at this time that ‘Uke’s descendants started in Atiu, which was by Tura and his wife. It was said that this was one of the strongest warriors who had traveled over the ocean. At the time when he stayed with his wife and children he stopped traveling. He and Ironui parted. Ironui went back to Iva where he grew up with Tangi‘ia-nui. They were from the same family. Ironui’s descendants branched out and so did Tangi‘ia-nui’s. It was through Tangi‘ia-nui that Terei and Motoro came.”
Siikala’s reading (Note 4.19, pp. 84–138): from the Ma‘ukean point of view the centre of these voyages is ‘Akatokāmanava with its beautiful women; Tura, the ancestor chief of Atiu, related to Ma‘uke through his wife, was said to be a mata‘iapo under Iro-nui, the chief of Iva; and the relations between Atiu, Ma‘uke and Mitiaro, Ngā-Pū-Toru, are told in a great number of traditions of wars and conquests which furnish the landscape of Ma‘uke with signs and memories of historical events.
Part 4: Where the settlers came from
Note 4.20: ‘Avaiki, the ancestral homeland
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Edward Tregear, The Māori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Lyon and Blair, Wellington, 1891, pp. 56 and 58; with Rawiri Taonui, in Vaka Moana, 2006, p. 49 (in copyright, extract only).
“HAWAIKI (myth.), the cradle-land of the Māori (Polynesian) race. This would appear to be the impression produced by tradition, since no record appears of any older dwelling-place. Nevertheless, Hawaiki may have been the name of some place in which the migrating tribes rested for many generations, or it may be the name of several places, the newer named in memory of the older. The locality of Hawaiki has caused much discussion, but the evidence is so misty, and in many ways so conflicting, that the question is still open. The traditions vary in the different islands as to the way in which Hawaiki is regarded. Sometimes it is (as in New Zealand) an actual place: the names of its people, their wars, loves, works, &c., told of with great wealth of legendary detail. In other islands (as in the Hervey and the Marquesan Islands), either the geographical existence has faded into a mere poetical dream of Spirit-land, or it has become the veritable Hades, the shadowy Under-world of death, and even of extinction…
Taonui: A more likely proposition is that as ancestors migrated across the Pacific they named one place after another, and while doing so used the names as labels for the spiritual threshold between creation and reality because they regarded the ideas of geographic and spiritual origin as mutually similar. If many island names were used, such as relocating the names of several islands from within an original archipelago, then one name probably emerged as more important than the others and thereby became more frequently used as the name for the spiritual threshold. New names might also replace old ones.”
The Mangaians believed their ancestors came from ‘Avaiki, a spiritual world in the west sometimes called ‘Avaiki-te-pō, and that Vavau was the place of spirits lying in ‘Avaiki (Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876, pp. 152 and 217–220; S. Percy Smith, Hawaiki, 4th edition, 1921, p. 43). In Manihiki tradition ‘Avaiki defined the spiritual and geographic boundaries of the world: the heavens were ‘Avaiki-runga, the earth ‘Avaiki-raro, and ‘Avaiki was also a collective spiritual name for the islands of the Rarotongan archipelago (Tregear, p. 58; Teuira Henry, Ancient Tahiti, 1928, p. 568).
Note 4.27: Ru, Karika, Tangi‘ia and the people of Tane
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, summarising the island traditions given in Chapters 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this Volume, with William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs, 1876, pp. 217–220.
Each tradition named in this note — Ru’s voyage from Tupua‘i to Aitutaki, Karika’s from Manu‘a and Tangi‘ia’s from Tahiti to Rarotonga, and the arrival of the people of Tane at Atiu, Mangaia, Mitiaro and Ma‘uke — is reproduced, in its keepers’ words and with its source, in the archive for the chapter on that island. They are not repeated here.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 4, Note 4.15, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-4, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
4.1 Richard Walter, Anai’o: The Archaeology of a Fourteenth Century Polynesian Community in the Cook Islands, New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 22, 1998, p. 12. Patrick V. Kirch, On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact, University of California Press, 2000, chapter 7. The passage in full
4.2 Patrick V. Kirch, A Brief History of Polynesian Archaeology, Background to Pacific Archaeology and Prehistory, University of California, Berkeley. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-2
4.3 Kirch, Brief History.
4.4 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Vikings of the Sunrise, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1938, p. 16. E. S. C. Handy, “The Problem of Polynesian Origins”, Bishop Museum Special Publication 9, 1930, pp. 1 to 27.
4.5 Thor Heyerdahl and E. N. Ferdon (editors), Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific, volume 1, 1961.
4.6 Kirch, Brief History. Willard Libby’s method was published from 1949.
4.7 Robert C. Suggs, The Island Civilizations of Polynesia, Mentor, New York, 1960.
4.8 Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 6.
4.9 Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 7.
4.10 Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 7.
4.11 Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 7.
4.12 Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 7.
4.13 Walter, Anai’o, p. 12. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-13
4.14 Walter, Anai’o. For Tangatatau, Kirch and others, in Kirch, On the Road of the Winds, chapter 7.
4.15 Walter, Anai’o, p. 12. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-15
4.16 Ron Crocombe, notes on the manuscript of this series, 12 October 2008, p. 1, on page 95 of the draft. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-16
4.17 Crocombe, notes (2008), pp. 1 to 2, on pages 97 and 99 of the draft. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-17
4.18 Tararo Ariki of Ma‘uke, as recorded in Jukka Siikala, Akatokamanava: Myth, History and Society in the Southern Cook Islands, Polynesian Society with the Finnish Anthropological Society, Auckland, 1991, pp. 126 to 127. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-18 The passage in full
4.19 J. Siikala, Akatokamanava, pp. 84 to 138.
4.20 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, London, 1876, pp. 51–63; Edward Tregear, The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, 1891, p. 233, “Maui”. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 38–39. The passage in full
4.21 Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Māori Language of Rarotonga, 1962, p. 157, “Maui”, from an unpublished Rarotongan account. First edition, Volume 1, p. 39.
4.22 Rawiri Taonui, in Vaka Moana, 2006, p. 43; Henry Nicholas (translator), Genealogy of Pa, 1 JPS (1892) 20–25; J. B. Stair, Samoa: whence peopled, 4 JPS (1895) 100–103. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 42–43.
4.23 William Wyatt Gill, Jottings from the Pacific, London, 1885, pp. 33, 37; J. T. Large, Some notes on Atiu Island, 22 JPS (1913) 75; Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, 28 JPS (1919); Roger Duff (editor), No Sort of Iron, 1969, p. 17. First edition, Volume 1, p. 43.
4.24 S. Percy Smith, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori, 4th edition, Whitcombe and Tombs, Auckland, 1921, p. 43. Rawiri Taonui, “Polynesian Oral Traditions”, in K. R. Howe (editor), Vaka Moana: Voyages of the Ancestors, David Bateman, Auckland, 2006, p. 43. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-20
4.25 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, pp. 217 to 220. See Chapters 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this Volume. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n4-21
4.26 Edward Tregear, The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Wellington, 1891, pp. 56–58, “Hawaiki”. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 35–36.
4.27 Rawiri Taonui, “Polynesian oral traditions”, in K. R. Howe (editor), Vaka Moana: Voyages of the Ancestors, Auckland, 2006, p. 43. First edition, Volume 1, p. 36. The passage in full
Volume One, Chapter 5
Chapter 5: The discovery and early settlement of Rarotonga
What this chapter rests on
- Vaike Ruariki’s exhibit B, the Ngāti Arera genealogy of 1937, transcribed (on this page)
- Samuel Ella, The War of Tonga and Samoa, 1899: the article in full (on this page)
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- The Privy Council decisions on Cook Islands appeals
- Walter Gudgeon’s manuscripts and genealogies
- John Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga (1954)
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 A1 A2 A3 Notes
The parts of the chapter
- Part One: The people of the land
- The first people
- What the ground says
- Where the people of the land were
- Kainuku
- Arera (notes 5.25 to 5.25)
- Part Two: The four accounts
- What the Samoans remember
- The first account: what the Makea Nui tradition says
- Karika at Manu‘a (notes 5.35 to 5.35)
- The six voyages before the meeting (notes 5.43 to 5.44)
- The seventh voyage, and the meeting at sea off Ma‘uke
- Karika on the island before Tangi‘ia
- Tūtapu: the sister’s word, the beach road, Nina-enua
- The division of the island: Karika over Te Au-o-tonga
- The daughter, the grandson, and the name Makea
- Karika leaves (notes 5.72 to 5.72)
- The second account: what the Tākitumu tradition says
- Tangi‘ia at Tahiti (notes 5.80 to 5.80)
- Tūtapu’s war, and the fire on the ridges
- Avaiki: the gods give him a land
- Iro’s son, and the name Pa (notes 5.94 to 5.94)
- The meeting at sea (notes 5.98 to 5.98)
- The cold sea, and the name of the island
- The landing, the marae, and the chiefs (notes 5.107 to 5.107)
- Karika arrives
- The watch for Tūtapu (notes 5.115 to 5.115)
- The killing of Tūtapu (notes 5.119 to 5.119)
- The oven that would not cook
- After the war: the law, the feasts, and the sons set up
- What became of Karika, in the Tākitumu telling
- What Te Ariki-tara-are’s own pages add
- The third account: what the Arera tradition says
- The fourth account: what is known of Kainuku
- The marae of the island: Kainuku’s, Arera’s, Tangi‘ia’s and Karika’s
- The marae that were there first
- Whose marae were they?
- Tangi‘ia’s marae and his priests, and what Karika left
- Tinomana’s marae
- The priests
- What became of Tangi‘ia’s line
- The genealogies
- The four lines about 1250
- The Arera line, and the Makea title that descended in it
- Walter Gudgeon’s note (notes 5.181 to 5.181)
- Part Three: What the accounts show
- How the two stories are weighed
- The sources of the four accounts
- What the Makea Nui account contains, and what it does not
- The silence on Puta-ki-te-tai (notes 5.193 to 5.197)
- The holders between Puta-ki-te-tai and Rangi Makea: whose blood?
- Why the seven voyages are not history
- Where the two accounts contradict each other, and which is older
- What the Makea Nui side’s own witnesses say
- When the tradition was made
- Conclusion (notes 5.229 to 5.229)
- Note on the sources and pages
- Appendix
- A. Where the people of the land were
- B. The Kainuku line, from Parakoti’s book
- The genealogies, name by name
- The Pa line as the clock
1. Part One: The people of the land
2. The first people
3. What the ground says
4. Where the people of the land were
5. Kainuku
6. Arera
| Generation | Name | Married | Children |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kae-mamaringa, first-born of Teavake | Puatara, also called Porakau | Teauianuku |
| 2 | Teauianuku | Terau-Tamanu of Toria, Manuka | Kaukura |
| 3 | Kaukura Enitiko-te-papa-i-Avaiki, also Tevaiototitoti; Kaukura Ariki | Terimu (first wife) | Papa and Atea, brought to Tumu-te-varovaro |
| 4 | Papa, whose descendants occupied Tuoro | Itu-tau-aru | Te Pa-rakau-o-Tangaroa |
| 5 | Te Pa-rakau-o-Tangaroa | Te Ika-tau-enua | Tevaiototitoti-maanga |
| 6 | Tevaiototitoti-maanga | Marae-tea a Tangaroa Tea | Rauue |
| 7 | Rauue | Tengariura | Te Po-nikiniki |
| 8 | Te Po-nikiniki | Rautaraeo | Arera, Tevaiototitoti, Ukarau: “the people of Atiu gave the name Arera-Ukarau” |
| 9 | Arera Ukarau, Arera Ariki, about 1250 | Avaiki-i-te-Kurapo | the eight warrior sons, the Anau Toa: Te Ivatoa, Te Ruarau, Tapuenua, Te Kurapo, Vaitoa, Vaikai, Nukunoni, Maeu |
5.25 Rarotonga MB 12, glued pages between 183 and 184, exhibit A, English translation pp. 1–3, Māori pp. 1–2; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
7. Part Two: The four accounts
8. What the Samoans remember
“Malietoa! (beautiful warrior), splendid war! I will not come again with a war party; but should I come to Samoa with a travelling party, that will not be to raise a war against Samoa. This is our covenant.”
Samuel Ella, “The War of Tonga and Samoa and Origin of the Name Malietoa”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899), p. 233; the article in full at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#jps-ella-1899.
9. The first account: what the Makea Nui tradition says
10. Karika at Manu‘a
5.35 John Stair 1895, Flotsam and jetsam from the great ocean, 4 JPS 99–131, at 107: a Samoan narrative that names Tangi‘ia’s wife Mo‘oloa-i-aitu, that is Mokoroa-ki-aitu, as Elsdon Best noted (36 JPS 122–134, at 133; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5).
11. The six voyages before the meeting
5.43 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 3–4, 6–7; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.44 Stephen Savage 1962, 15; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
12. The seventh voyage, and the meeting at sea off Ma‘uke
13. Karika on the island before Tangi‘ia
14. Tūtapu: the sister’s word, the beach road, Nina-enua
15. The division of the island: Karika over Te Au-o-tonga
16. The daughter, the grandson, and the name Makea
17. Karika leaves
5.72 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p798
18. The second account: what the Tākitumu tradition says
19. Tangi‘ia at Tahiti
5.80 Leslie Kelly 1955, 64 JPS 181–196; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p265
20. Tūtapu’s war, and the fire on the ridges
21. Avaiki: the gods give him a land
22. Iro’s son, and the name Pa
5.94 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 203; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
23. The meeting at sea
5.98 Percy Smith 1899, 8 JPS 33; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
24. The cold sea, and the name of the island
25. The landing, the marae, and the chiefs
5.107 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 49–50, para. 340, with Percy Smith’s note; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p483, #p484
26. Karika arrives
27. The watch for Tūtapu
5.115 Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 337; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
28. The killing of Tūtapu
5.119 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 107–110, paras 360–362; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
29. The oven that would not cook
30. After the war: the law, the feasts, and the sons set up
31. What became of Karika, in the Tākitumu telling
32. What Te Ariki-tara-are’s own pages add
33. The third account: what the Arera tradition says
34. The fourth account: what is known of Kainuku
35. The marae of the island: Kainuku’s, Arera’s, Tangi‘ia’s and Karika’s
36. The marae that were there first
37. Whose marae were they?
38. Tangi‘ia’s marae and his priests, and what Karika left
| What the sources give Karika | Source |
|---|---|
| A marae at Avarua, on the north side, where he landed; his god Rangatira set in it | Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 3–4; /chapter-5#p320 |
| The spring on Te Kou, with two keepers, Tutu-noa and Nana-noa | Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 3–4; /chapter-5#p320 |
| Tu-Rarotonga, the stone at Arai-te-tonga, or the raukuru of Avaiki | Putua-ariki 1897; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 70–71; /chapter-5#p329, #p332 |
| Te Kena-o-Avaiki at Kaena, and the great footsteps of Karika at Rutaki, with Kaputa or Taikaputa as keeper | Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 4; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 71; /chapter-5#p335, #p338 |
| The koutu Paniko at his landing place E | Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; /chapter-5#p459 |
| Muri-vai, one of Tangi‘ia’s marae, given into his charge by Tangi‘ia, who made him a tutara | Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; /chapter-5#p459 |
| Two priests, Takaia and Potiki-taua, both Tangi‘ia’s, given to him by Tangi‘ia; one god, Rangatira-varu-eke | Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; /chapter-5#p459, #p797 |
39. Tinomana’s marae
40. The priests
| Priest | What the sources say of him | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Potiki-taua | Elected at Nuku before the landing (Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917); given by Tangi‘ia to Karika as his second priest (Walter Gudgeon 1908); the line of the Takaia priests runs beside the Makea genealogy from Karika (Archives 50) | /chapter-5#p288, #p459 |
| More-makana-kura (More) | Elected at Nuku; retained by Tangi‘ia; Terei, high priest of the line of More, confirmed Vakapora’s account to Stephen Savage in 1909 | /chapter-5#p288, #p459, #p978 |
| Tangara (Tengara) | Elected at Nuku; retained by Tangi‘ia | /chapter-5#p288, #p459 |
| Taramai-te-tonga | Elected at Nuku; retained by Tangi‘ia; John Numa makes him a descendant of Anga-takurua, appointed under Pa Te Ariki-upoko-tini | /chapter-5#p288, #p459, #p651 |
| Te-manu-aitu | Elected at Nuku; one of the priests who built the canoe Oro-tere at Iva and brought word of Karika’s death | /chapter-5#p288, #p978 |
| Maoate-atua | Retained by Tangi‘ia (Walter Gudgeon 1908); one of the Iva priests (Stephen Savage 1909) | /chapter-5#p459, #p978 |
| Takaia | One of Tangi‘ia’s ta‘unga, given by him to Karika as Karika’s priest; John Numa makes Are-kea his immediate ancestor | /chapter-5#p459, #p651 |
| Kainuku | Priest of Iti-anga-te-ra and Iti-aka-raua, the marae Tangi‘ia built at Avarua; on the island before either canoe, his descendants holding the Avana valley | /chapter-5#p464, #p886, #p636 |
| Parau-a-Toi; Tu-iti | Purapura of Te Miromiro, the first marae; priest of Marae-koroa | /chapter-5#p463, #p469 |
41. What became of Tangi‘ia’s line
42. The genealogies
43. The four lines about 1250
44. The Arera line, and the Makea title that descended in it
45. Walter Gudgeon’s note
5.181 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scans 282 (Arera mua) and 283 (Rata and Tinomana), Archives 55; the sheets are reproduced at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 and in the Research Library, Manuscript-Walter Gudgeon-Cook-Islands-genealogies-Hocken-MS-662B.pdf.
46. Part Three: What the accounts show
47. How the two stories are weighed
48. The sources of the four accounts
49. What the Makea Nui account contains, and what it does not
50. The silence on Puta-ki-te-tai
5.193 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.194 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287
5.195 Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 19, 291 (1949); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p983
5.196 Volume 2, Chapter 24 register; Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52
5.197 The first edition, section 18, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, recording the Ngāti Arera tradition; Willie Parau Browne, 23 June 1949, Rarotonga MB 19, 291 (“Puta ki te tai died & his line became extinct”); the Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52.
51. The holders between Puta-ki-te-tai and Rangi Makea: whose blood?
| Holder (register no.) | Parentage, as the Arera sources give it | Wife according to the Arera sources (the Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; the Browne family compilation; Willie Parau Browne 1939 and 1948) | Wife according to Paaro, the Makea side’s witness, 1916 (MB 7, 329A and 331A) | Wife according to the Makea genealogy from Karika, the Makea Nui side’s sheet (Archives 50) | Wife or note according to Walter Gudgeon (Hocken MS-662/B) and the Land Court genealogy books (Judge MacCauley) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puta-ki-te-tai (—) | son of Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa; not a holder; line extinct | none named | “Makea Puta-ki-te-tai (ancestor)”, no wife, no child, then a gap to Upoko-nui | Te-li-matoa-ki-Avaiki [?] | Gudgeon, scan 287: son of Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa, adopted by Karika; no wife, no child |
| Te Ariki i te Au (2) | son of Teiva Toa Teponikiniki, grandson of Arera Ukarau | Te Ata o te Po | not named | OMITTED | — |
| Noo Marie (3) | son of Te Ariki i te Au | Te Ata o te Ao | not named | Te-kura-moe-ariki; set directly under Puta | — |
| Tamapuretu, alias Arera (4) | son of Noo Marie | Te Ra Tuanuku, daughter of Kainuku Tamatoa | Te-ra-tuanuku, daughter of Kainuku-atiati-akatara (as “Makea Aramai-te-anuanua”) | Te-ra-tu-nuku (as “Aramai-te-anuanua”) | Gudgeon, Arera mua: Te Ra tunuku, daughter of Kainuku atiati akatara or Tamatoa; MacCauley P.126: “Makea Arera = Te Ratuanuku Kainuku” |
| Peau Rango, Te Anuanua Arera (5) | son of Tamapuretu | Te Upoko-uri; Te Matangi Tere ki Iva Nui | Te-upoko-uri (as “Makea Teanuanua (Peaurongo)”) | Te-upoko-uri (as “Te-anuanua”) | Gudgeon: “Makea peaurangi” |
| Te Konako, alias Putua (6) | son of Peau Rango | Te Etu o te Rangi Poiri | Etu-o-te-rangi-poiri | Te-etu-o-te-rangi | Parakoti’s book: Makea Tekonako alias Putua |
| Te Taiti Nui i Arera (7) | son of Te Konako | Tekura Anuanua | not named | Te-kura-anuanua | — |
| Te Ratu o Tangaroa ki Manuka (8) | son of Te Taiti | Ngapua ariki, daughter of Kapu Runga | not named | Nga-pua-ariki | Gudgeon, Takaia note: in the time of Takaia-puru-ariki and Teratu the Takaia priests left Makea for Arera Ariki |
| Apetini (9) | son of Te Ratu | Te One Uriuri | not named | Te-ra-vero-tiitii | — |
| Teina alias Ekeeke; Tukerae, Arera Tu Kauti (10) | sons of Apetini | Taranga a Nuku, daughter of Pa Ringoringo; Ngamau | Terangi-kura (as “Makea Tukerae”) | Taranganuku (written over “Te-inaina”); Ngamau | Gudgeon, Takaia note: “Makea-Ekeeke of the Takaia line” |
| Memeru; Urupu (11) | son and grandson of Tukerae | not named | not named | not named | — |
| Upoko Nui, alias Te Vakavakaranga; his brother Tumupu (12) | son of Urupu | Te Ra uru ariki | Te-ra-uru-ariki; Paaro’s line begins here | Tumupu = Rangi-kura | MacCauley P.135 (from MB 7/329A) |
| Tinorei, alias Tinorua (13) | son of Upoko Nui | Mataranga a Kainuku, and others | “Tinorua-Makea, son of Upoko-nui” | Ngamata | — |
| Taruia; Potiki; Mangungu; Te Tauira (14–17) | Tinorei’s line | Tangi a Rupe Tau Rakau (Taruia) | not named | Te-uru-moe-ariki; Teuira; Te-vaanui | — |
| Rangi Makea, alias Rangi Makeakea (18) | son of Te Tauira | Verotiti o Potikitaua | Tekura-paru, daughter of Potiki-taua | Tekuraparu-o-Potiki-taua | — |
52. Why the seven voyages are not history
| Voyage | Putua-ariki, 1897 (Browne) | Henry Nicholas, 1892 | The Māori tradition Best printed, 1927 | Why it cannot be history |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | After the wars in Avaiki, two canoes, seventy men; names the island; lands at Avarua; the god Rangatira set up; the spring on Te Kou | A first landing at Avarua; then home to Avaiki | One arrival: Karika chances on Rarotonga, home at Avarua and Arai-te-tonga | The two Makea tellers already differ on what the first voyage was; the Māori tradition knows one arrival only |
| Second | Back to Avaiki; brings Tu-Rarotonga, set up at Arai-te-tonga | A voyage home for the raukuru of a conquered land; lands at Rutaki in Arorangi | — | Different purpose, different landing, different guardian; Avaiki is Samoa, from which the Tongans had been driven about 1250: a Tongan did not go back |
| Third | A large party; Kaputa set up at Kaena in Arorangi | Karika sees his parents, returns, lands at Vavaroa; Teko (Moko) set up | Kokaputa’s party, of Tutonga, at Kena o Hawaiki near Aorangi: not brought by Karika | Each teller gives the third voyage to a different man at a different place; Best’s tradition makes it a separate migration |
| Fourth | Pua-teki set up on the west side | Puatiki at Tokerau | A party at Tokerau o Hawaiki, named by Tutaki: not Karika’s | The place is the same in two tellers and the man differs; the third does not credit Karika at all |
| Fifth | Moko set up at Akapu-ao | The household brought: “the heart of the Makea claim” | Moko’s party at Aokapua on the east: after Karika had “returned to Hawaiki” | Moko is the fifth voyage in one telling and the third in another; the household comes on the fifth in Nicholas and the sixth in Putua-ariki |
| Sixth | Lands at Ngātangi‘ia, drags the canoe inland; the household | Years on the island; then the last voyage | Karika “returned again to Hawaiki and brought away Ngāi Tangi‘ia”, who settled at Te Itiakau | In the Māori tradition the sixth voyage brings Tangi‘ia’s own people; the Makea tellers give it to Karika’s household. No tradition agrees with another |
| All six | Written down 1897 | Written down 1892 | Collected in New Zealand, printed 1927 | No Tākitumu, Arera or Kainuku source knows of them; Te Ariki-tara-are’s forty-seven marae contain none of Karika’s building; the Tongans had been driven from Samoa about 1250 and a Tongan could not return there; the six voyages have no source older than the generation defending the Makea Nui title in the Land Titles Court |
53. Where the two accounts contradict each other, and which is older
54. What the Makea Nui side’s own witnesses say
55. When the tradition was made
56. Conclusion
5.229 Willie Parau Browne, 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289 (Te Pa a Tuakino an adopted son of Rangi Makea); the first edition, section 18, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 (Te Pa a Tuakino the son of Po Te Aunanua alias Tuakino and Moeavaroa, of the Pa line); Volume 2, Chapter 24.
57. Note on the sources and pages
58. Appendix
| No. | Incident, in order | The Makea account (source and date) | The Tākitumu account (source and date) | Where they differ, and what it shows | Key | Page |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Where the two chiefs came from | Karika from Manu‘a in Samoa; a Tongan child, quarrelsome, also called Rarangi; expelled with the Tongans by the Tui Manu‘a about 1250; conquered Avaiki (Savai‘i) and was ariki there (Kiva and Putua-ariki 1897; Makea witnesses; Gudgeon 1908) | Tangi‘ia from Tahiti, of the line of Pou-vananga-roa-ki-Iva (Maru); Raiatea on all sources but two (1857 paper/Nicholas 1892; Tara‘are 1919–20; Te Rei and Savage 1917) | Agreed by all; no contest | S1, S3, S5, S8, S13, S14 | #p246, #p249, #p289, #p306 |
| 2 | Tangi‘ia’s birth, names and the division of Tahiti | — | Born Uenga, renamed Rangi by his grandfather; Maru divides the tribute between Tangi‘ia and Maono; Tangi‘ia rebels, takes the whole, styles himself ariki (Savage; Tara‘are) | Tākitumu only; the Makea account has nothing before the voyages | S1, S13, S14 | #p252, #p256 |
| 3 | The quarrel with Tūtapu over Vai-iria | — | Tangi‘ia refuses Tūtapu the sacred stream and other rights; Tūtapu returns to Iva (Tara‘are; Te Rei and Savage) | Origin of the pursuit that ends at Rarotonga; Tākitumu only | S13, S14 | #p258, #p260 |
| 4 | Ma‘uke: ‘Uke’s daughters, Mōtoro, the two rocks | Karika’s canoe Te-au-o-tonga leaves its rock at the Rua of Mania (Ma‘uke tradition) | Tangi‘ia seduces Moetuma and Pua-tara; Mōtoro born; the rock of Tākitumu (Tara‘are; Ma‘uke Kōrero; Tararo Ariki) | Both canoes at Ma‘uke; the only place both traditions put the two men together before the sea meeting | S12, S14, S27 | #p261, #p262 |
| 5 | Tangi‘ia’s return to Tahiti, the second quarrel and the voyage to Savai‘i | — | Returns, quarrels again, is away some years (Tara‘are; Kelly on Uenga’s journeys) | Tākitumu only | S14, S20 | #p262, #p264 |
| 6 | Kuratau fetches Mōtoro; the emblem tua-ki-ta‘a-roa | — | Tangi‘ia sends Kuratau to Ma‘uke for his son and gives the emblem (Tara‘are; Te Rei and Savage) | Tākitumu only; source of the Tinomana claim later | S13, S14 | #p266, #p267 |
| 7 | The war in Tahiti, the burning of the ridges, Mōtoro’s survival | — | Nine clans in the west against Tūtapu in the east; fire on the ridges kills a son; Mōtoro survives under wet banana bark, hence Tinomana (Tara‘are; a second version) | Tākitumu only | S14 | #p269, #p271 |
| 8 | Tangi‘ia at Avaiki/Raiatea: the gods, the drum, the trumpet, the priests | — | Tu-te-rangi-marama and Tonga-iti give him mana equal to the gods, the sacred drum, the trumpet, the images; some priests go with him (Tara‘are; Smith) | Tākitumu only; the basis of the 47 marae later | S6, S13, S14 | #p275, #p278, #p280 |
| 9 | Iro at Fiji; Tai-te-ariki promised; Pai’s double canoe at Huahine; Rakanui’s canoe | — | Iro agrees Tangi‘ia shall fetch his son Tai-te-ariki from Rapa to be ariki; Rakanui gives a canoe; Pai builds the double canoe (Tara‘are; Tama and Large 1903) | Tākitumu only; the origin of the Pa title | S9, S14 | #p281, #p283 |
| 10 | Bora Bora: the installation of Tai-te-ariki as “Pa” interrupted | — | The name Pa chosen for Iro’s feat; the ceremony broken off (Tara‘are) | Tākitumu only | S14 | #p284, #p287 |
| 11 | Karika leaves Savai‘i with his companions | Leaves his parents Eaa and Ueue-nuku in Savai‘i; 70 companions (Browne/Putua-ariki); 140 men (Savage) | — | The two Makea figures disagree with each other (70 against 140) | S5, S13 | #p308, #p310 |
| 12 | The naming of the island: Tumu-te-varovaro, Rarotonga | Karika names it Rarotonga, seen to leeward and south from the north-east (Makea tradition) | The island was Tumu-te-varovaro before Karika (Nicholas); Tangi‘ia names it Rarotonga, down to the south of Tahiti (Tākitumu versions) | Each account gives the name to its own chief | S1, S5, S17 | #p312, #p315, #p451 |
| 13 | Karika’s six voyages before the meeting | Putua-ariki (Browne 1897): six landings, a relation or a party set up at each, the household on the sixth; Nicholas (1892): another order, other places, other guardians; the Māori tradition Best printed (1927): Karika returning to Hawaiki and bringing Ngāi Tangi‘ia himself | —: no Tākitumu or Arera source knows of any voyage but the one with Tangi‘ia | Not history: see the table in Part Three, “Why the six voyages are not history” | S1, S5, S17 | #jps-browne-1897, #jps-nicholas-1892-2, #jps-best-1927 |
| 19 | Karika’s seventh voyage, by Maketu (Ma‘uke) | Browne: a seventh voyage by way of Maketu; Nicholas: Karika goes from Rarotonga to Maketu, one voyage not two | — | Baltaxe: the two accounts cannot be reconciled; the chart of differences | S1, S5 | #p365 to #p372, #p419 |
| 20 | How many came | Karika 70 (Browne) or 140 (Savage, Gill) | Tangi‘ia 400 (Nicholas; Gill) | Agreed that Tangi‘ia’s party was much the larger | S1, S5, S13, S18 | #p421, #p423, #p439 |
| 21 | The meeting at sea off Ma‘uke | Browne: a clear victory for Karika; Tangi‘ia acknowledges his supremacy; the plume of rank given to Karika; Mokoroa-ki-aitu given as wife | Savage and Smith: Tangi‘ia supreme; Tangi‘ia offers the plume but his crew prevent it (Stair); Nicholas gives two accounts, one each way; Gill: gifts exchanged, nominal supremacy ceded to the other | The central disagreement: who ceded to whom. Agreed: the meeting, the daughter, the directions | S1, S3, S5, S6, S13, S18 | #p423 to #p438 |
| 22 | The two canoes | Karika’s 150-foot double canoe with the orau platform; Tangi‘ia’s canoe with the tiki figurehead and special navigators | — | Descriptive; little contest | S18 | #p439, #p441 |
| 23 | The directions, possibly false; Tangi‘ia too far south | Karika gives directions (the Makea account passes over their falseness) | Tangi‘ia sails too far south, “tei raro aia i te tonga”, and finds Rarotonga coming back north (Gill; Savage) | Tākitumu reads the directions as meant to lose him | S13, S18 | #p443 to #p449 |
| 24 | Who landed first | Karika landed first and was already on the island (Makea Nui and Makea Karika traditions; Browne; Numa 1954) | Tangi‘ia arrived first and well before Karika (Nicholas; Gudgeon; Tara‘are in the most detailed version) | Flatly contradictory; the Tākitumu sources are the earlier written ones | S1, S5, S6, S8, S14, S19 | #p456 to #p460, #p641 to #p649 |
| 25 | Tangi‘ia’s landing at Ngāti Tangi‘ia; the marae Te Miromiro | — | Landed at Ngāti Tangi‘ia and built Te Miromiro (most traditions) | Agreed by most | S6 | #p526 |
| 26 | The circuit of the island and the 47 marae and kōutu with their keepers | No Makea tradition of marae building | Tara‘are’s list of at least 41 marae and kōutu with the tiaki and purapura appointed (Tara‘are 1920); Campbell on the ritual landscape | The first edition: the marae were Tangi‘ia’s; the Makea tradition has none | S5, S14, S24 | #p529 to #p638 |
| 27 | Karika’s landing (the Makea version) | Browne: Karika arrived well before Tangi‘ia and settled; Numa agrees | — | See 24 | S5, S19 | #p641 to #p649 |
| 28 | The period of peace and the watch for Tūtapu | — | Tangi‘ia watching the horizon daily for Tūtapu | Explains the peace between the two parties | — | #p652 |
| 29 | Tangi‘ia grants regal authority to Karika before the battle | Numa and Smith: Tangi‘ia granted regal authority to Karika when the confrontation was imminent; no contemporary tradition supports it | — | The first edition finds no basis for the grant | S6, S19 | #p656 |
| 30 | The battle with Tūtapu: Mōtoro in Mangaia, two sons killed | — | Mōtoro was in Mangaia; two of his brothers fought and died (Tara‘are) | Tākitumu only | S14 | #p657 |
| 31 | Tangi‘ia’s part in the battle | The Makea traditions make Tangi‘ia passive, almost cowardly, beside Karika | Tangi‘ia leads; the seven toa of Tūtapu killed at Kirikiri; the pursuit | Characterisation, not fact; dated late | S5 | #p658, #p660 |
| 32 | Who killed Tūtapu | Browne: Karika played the major part and killed Tūtapu | Tara‘are: Tangi‘ia alone killed him; Nicholas the same; Te Rei and Savage: Rongo-ma-tane’s cry “ariki kai vave” and Tangi‘ia’s reply about the eyeballs | Flatly contradictory; every pre-1897 written source gives it to Tangi‘ia | S1, S5, S13, S14 | #p661 to #p670 |
| 33 | The body that would not cook; Kaukura fetched | Browne’s Māori account: the oven of ngatae at Vai-kura | Tara‘are: the preparation of the body; other versions: Kaukura, Tangi‘ia’s grandfather or great-grandfather, brought from the Atiuan cave; the incantations; the afa loosened and kuru wood used (Crocombe’s question) | Both accounts share the oven; only Tākitumu has Kaukura | S5, S14, S21 | #p671 to #p683 |
| 34 | The date of the arrival | — | About 1250; Gill 1223 or 1198; Fisher’s analysis; Gill’s 30 generations | Not contested between the accounts | S18, S25 | #p685 to #p788 |
| 35 | Mokoroa-ki-aitu as Tangi‘ia’s first wife; the other wives | Karika’s daughter is Tangi‘ia’s first wife (all) | Ati-te-porou and Vai-te-mii, daughters of Tane-kovea, the other wives | Agreed; the one undisputed link between the lines | S19 | #p794 |
| 36 | Puta-ki-te-tai and the name Makea | Vakapora: the name Makea given to Puta-ki-te-tai, son of Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa, adopted by Karika; Savage on the origin of the name | Same sources; Gudgeon: Puta-ki-te-tai the son of Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa | Agreed that the Makea title begins with Tangi‘ia’s son, not Karika’s | S8, S10, S12, S13 | #p794, #p796 |
| 37 | Pa: Tai-te-ariki anointed at Pae-taa and Arai-te-tonga; the origin of the name | — | Pa Tai-te-ariki the original paramount of Tākitumu (Tākitumu traditions; Savage) | Tākitumu only | S13 | #p799 to #p802 |
| 38 | Tinomana: Mōtoro or Tangi‘ia the first holder; the Puaikura claim to paramountcy | — | Either Mōtoro first, or Tangi‘ia first and Mōtoro after him; Savage on the name; Jonassen’s chant (dated later by the first edition) | The Puaikura claim is a third claim, later than both | S13, S23 | #p805 to #p829 |
| 39 | Who was paramount after the war | Makea: Karika supreme after the arrival (no detailed account survives; the later Makea traditions assert it) | Gudgeon, Savage on Arai-te-tonga, Nicholas, Tararo Ariki, Tara‘are: Tangi‘ia paramount until his death and appointed his children ariki and mata‘iapo; Mōtoro the first ariki appointed; Avarua Mōtoro’s marae | The weight of the written record is Tākitumu; the Makea claim is asserted, not narrated | S1, S5, S8, S12, S13, S14, S26 | #p879 to #p963 |
| 40 | Karika’s leaving and death | The Makea traditions do not record Karika’s departure | Tara‘are: Karika initially under Tangi‘ia; sailed away permanently (Smith; Gudgeon; Savage); took all his followers; killed at Iva-nui; Arera tradition: Puta-ki-te-tai killed by his wife’s people; no descendants in Rarotonga but Mokoroa | The decisive omission in the Makea account | S5, S6, S8, S13, S14 | #p968 to #p984 |
| 41 | Makea Nui and Makea Karika are not of Karika’s blood | — | The first edition’s finding (Volume 2 Chapter 18): the present kōpū ariki descend from Arera, not Karika; Gudgeon’s note that Makea Nui is not of the senior line | The conclusion the analysis Part proves | S8, S21, S23 | #p247, #p791, #p965, #p988 to #p990 |
59. A. Where the people of the land were
| Place | Who was there | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Ngātangi‘ia harbour and the Avana valley | The first landing; the Iva people, ancestors of Kainuku; Toutika, priest of Arevananga, who became Kainuku; Tūtapu’s marae Te-one-tari-a-Iva with Ata-te-kura as guardian | Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; W. McBirney; Tamuera Te Rei 1917; /chapter-5#p49, #p153, #p186 |
| Arai-te-tonga and the north coast | Arera Ukarau, elected ariki by his own people and set up at Arai-te-tonga; his younger brothers at Pokoinu, Nikao and Takuvaine | Willie Parau Browne 1939, MB 12, 289–291; Charlie Cowan; /chapter-5#p191, #p195 |
| Tuoro | Where Arera Ukarau and his brothers came ashore | Willie Parau Browne 1939; /chapter-5#p195 |
| Tamarua | Tamarua-nui and the Tonga-iti people; the god Tonga-iti, ariki over all the ariki | Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 271–274; /chapter-5#p56, #p73 |
| Tupapa, the spring Rauti-para | The old woman Peu beating tapa when Onokura came, about 1100 | John Numa 1954, 3; /chapter-5#p168 |
| Roka, inland, and Rae-maru above Arorangi | Tane-korea, of the first people, with his wife Eva-tea and his daughters; he had come in the tere of Toi-katau-rangi, whom Karika killed | Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, para. 340; /chapter-5#p482 |
| Puaikura (Arorangi) | Te Au, ariki of his own small ngāti, who never pretended to be more | Charlie Cowan, Tumu Kōrero; /chapter-5#p181 |
| Avaavaroa | Tamariki, ariki of his small ngāti | Charlie Cowan, Tumu Kōrero; /chapter-5#p181 |
| Vaiakura, on the west side | Descendants of Rata, the ariki who voyaged here and fought monsters in the deep | More-taunga-o-te-tini and Stephen Savage 1910, 19 JPS 142–157; /chapter-5#p81, #p82 |
| The south side | The aboriginal people William Gill described, few in number, soon subdued and absorbed | William Gill 1856, ii, 3; /chapter-5#p178 |
| Paparangi and Turangi | Tui-kava from Upolu, arrived just before Naea and the Te Aia family | Percy Smith, Hawaiki (1899) 36–37; /chapter-5#p520 |
60. B. The Kainuku line, from Parakoti’s book
| No. | The Kivao line | What the book says |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kivao Tarakina (1) | The first name in the book; about 1150 by the count |
| 2 | Kivao Pukupuku | |
| 3 | Kivao Te Akinanga | |
| 4 | Kivao Rere-Vai-Tapu | |
| 5 | Kivao Te-oro-totara | |
| 6 | Kivao-te-kopu-totara | |
| 7 | Kivao Patipati | |
| 8 | Kivao Tarakina (2) | About 1325, the generation after the canoes |
| 9 | Kivao; Ninia-i-te-Ara-Vari; Teio-e-Vaine-Ngarangi; Te-Atiati-Akatara alias Kainuku Tamatoa | Kainuku Tamatoa’s daughter Te Ratuanuku-o-Iva married Makea Tamapuretu; their son Makea Peau-Rango; his son Makea Tekonako, alias Putua |
61. The genealogies, name by name
| No. | Pa (1857 list) | No. | Pa (1857 list) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tai-te-Ariki, or Te-Ariki-upoko-tini | 23 | Te-ariki-eraka |
| 2 | Tapu-tapu-atea | 24 | Nga-poko akaturanga |
| 3 | Te-Ariki-upoko-tini | 25 | Tutu-aenga |
| 4 | Te-Ariki-o-te-rangi | 26 | Te-vei |
| 5 | Tui-te-rangi | 27 | Ara-ki-vare-vare |
| 6 | Rongo | 28 | Tingia |
| 7 | Te-Ariki-upoko-tini | 29 | Rangi |
| 8 | Te-Ariki-noo-rangi | 30 | Te-Ariki-upoko-tini |
| 9 | Rongo-i-te-uira | 31 | Vaerua |
| 10 | Te-akariki | 32 | Tautu |
| 11 | Rangi | 33 | Iria |
| 12 | Te-Tumu | 34 | Ai-tupao |
| 13 | Te-aio | 35 | Moe-te-rauri |
| 14 | Tapa-rangi | 36 | Ako |
| 15 | Pare | 37 | Te-a-Karika |
| 16 | Mauri-Rangi | 38 | Te-Ariki-upoko-tini |
| 17 | Te-Ariki-vananga-rangi | 39 | Tamaru |
| 18 | Te-Ariki-mou-taua | 40 | Mata |
| 19 | Mai-o-taranga-nuku | 41 | Te-rua-roa |
| 20 | Te-au-tanga-nuku | 42 | Tapu-tapu-atea |
| 21 | Takave | 43 | Pa-te-Pou, chief when the Gospel came; died 1855 |
| 22 | Tui-kuporu | 44 | Upoko-takau, daughter of Pa-te-Pou, living in 1857 |
| Generations back from 1853 | Holder and wife |
|---|---|
| 32 | Tangi‘ia-nui = Moetuma-a-Aupe-ariki |
| 31 | Tinomana Mōtoro-Tamaau = Te Pao-o-te-rangi |
| 30 | Tinomana Uenuku = Te Uira-o-te-rangi |
| 29 | Tinomana Uenuku-rakeiora = Vaine-aru-marama |
| 28 | Uenga-atua = Kauoia-ki-ata |
| 27 | Tinomana Te Kao-Tamaiva = Oruopapa |
| 26 | Tinomana Manurere = Pui-rangi |
| 25 | Tinomana Tuikura = Marangi |
| 24 | Tinomana Maevatini = Marae-kura |
| 23 | Tinomana Matangae = Te Paeru-maevarua |
| 22 | Tinomana Tuau-aitu = Kura-ei-tapu |
| 21 | Tinomana Taketake = Otu-rangi-te-pua-ki-tonga |
| 20 | Tinomana Anga = Apakura |
| 19 | Tinomana Tinirau = Tuei-ariki-ki-Arai-te-tonga |
| 18 | Tinomana Manavaroa = Kura-pei-rangi |
| 17 | Tinomana Taio-ariki = Kura-orakia |
| 16 | Tinomana Te Ariaari-ariki = Patua-ariki |
| 15 | Tinomana Ruananga = Te Paeru-ariki |
| 14 | Tinomana Tamatoa-atu-nui = Te Upoko-tu |
| No. | Register of the Makea title | The register’s note on his line | Willie Browne 1948 / Ngāti Arera genealogy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Karika Tara‘ape, about 1250 | not known whether he held the title | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 1; genealogy sheet starts from Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa |
| 2 | Puta-ki-te-tai | grandson of Karika, son of Tangi‘ia and Mokoroa; his line extinct | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 2 (son of Karika); genealogy sheet 2 Makea Puta Ki Te Tai |
| 3 | Te Ariki i te Au | no relationship to Puta-ki-te-tai; eldest son of Teiva Toa Teponikiniki, of Arera Ukarau | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 3; genealogy sheet 5 |
| 4 | Noo Marie | from Ngāti Taarua; = Maine Potiki of Arera Te Ukarau, the genealogy sheet’s first Arera Ariki | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 4; genealogy sheet 6 |
| 5 | Tamapuretu | from Kaukura Tamatea | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 5; not in the genealogy sheet |
| 6 | Te Ariki Akamataku Tangata i Avaiki | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 6; genealogy sheet 3 | |
| 7 | Te Atua Rereao | third son of Noo Marie | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 7; genealogy sheet 4 |
| 8 | Peau Rango, alias Te Pia Atua | from Ngāti Vaikai (Kainuku) | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 8; genealogy sheet 8, of Ngāti Au Topa |
| 9 | Te Konako, alias Atua Ariki, Tupa Raunae | from Ngāti Arera | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 9; genealogy sheet 9 |
| 10 | Te Taiti Nui | from Te Ariki i te Au, Auau Kai | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 10; genealogy sheet 10, o Arera |
| 11 | Te Ra tu | from Rupe Tau Rakau Rongo‘oe; grandson of Takaia | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 11; genealogy sheet 11 |
| 12 | Rongo‘oe, about 1650 | grandson of Takaia i te Tarava | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 12; genealogy sheet 12 |
| 13 | Teina | his line lost | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 13; genealogy sheet: Araiti Apoapo = Teina |
| 14 | Tumupu | from Ngāti Autopa; Paaro: his brother Upokonui held before him | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 14; genealogy sheet 14–15 |
| 15–16 | Tinorua alias Tinorei; Taruia his son | from Ngāti Arera | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 15–16; genealogy sheet 16–17 |
| 17 | Potiki | from Ngāti Kapa | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 17; genealogy sheet 18 |
| 18 | Mangungu | Lost | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 18; genealogy sheet 19 |
| 19–20 | Te Tauira; Taii | Lost | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 19–20; genealogy sheet 20–21 (Tauira Ariki @ Arera Ariki) |
| 21 | Tukerae a Katu, also Ngapuariki, 1675 | son of Te Ariki i te Au o Katu; = Te Ra Tuanuku of Kainuku (Walter Gudgeon; Paaro; 2008 sheet: Arera Ariki) | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 21; genealogy sheet 22 Tukere @ Tama Purotu Araiwai Te Anuanua |
| — | Te Anuanua | = Te Iimatoa / Te-upoko-uri | genealogy sheet 23; Paaro |
| 22 | Rangi tu ki vao, alias Te Konako | “he was Arera tu Kauvi”; = Etu-o-te-rangi-poiri of Potiki-taua | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 22; genealogy sheet 24; Paaro; 2008 sheet |
| 23 | Rangi Makea, alias Rangi Makeakea, about 1750 | son of Te Konako; = Verotiti / Te Vero Tutu o te Rangi, of Potiki-taua | Willie Browne 1948 sheet, no. 24; genealogy sheet 25; Paaro; Browne 1939 |
62. The Pa line as the clock
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The first edition of this chapter runs to 61,000 words and gives the traditions in full, in Rarotongan and in English, with the genealogies of Tonga-iti, Ari, Tou-tika, Ata-i-te-kura, Tangi‘ia, Karika and Pa. That text is the record, and the whole of it is to be carried in this archive as a separate document, “Chapter 5 — the traditions in full”, once the Rarotongan text has been checked. This page holds the passages the second edition relies on directly.
Te Ariki-tara-are, Te-aia, Putua-ariki and the other Rarotongan writers published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society between 1892 and 1921, and William Wyatt Gill, S. Percy Smith, Elsdon Best and Stephen Savage, are in the public domain. Walter Gudgeon’s manuscript of 1908 is a Land Court record. John Numa’s manuscript of 1954 and Richard Gilson’s thesis of 1952 appear in extract only.
Ron Crocombe’s notes of 12 and 13 October 2008 on pages 95 to 106 of the draft bear on this chapter more than on any other, and are reproduced with his family’s consent.
The chapter states the author’s finding that the present Makea Nui and Makea Karika lines are not descended from Karika Tara‘ape. The evidence is in Volume Two, Chapter 18, and is not reproduced here.
Part 1: The rule the chapter follows, and the island’s names
Who is creating a rationale for his group’s superiority
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, notes on the manuscript of this series, 12 October 2008, p. 3, on note 532 of the draft.
“Note 532. None of this reflects anything more than who is creating a rationale for his groups’ superiority — and I think you should make that clear.”
Note 5.11: The names of the island
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE John A. Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga, manuscript, 1954, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, pp. 3–4.
“Rarotonga, the island that we know today has passed through various stages of cultural development before she made contact with the so-called western civilisation. Her most ancient name was the Pukai Tangitangi o Papa as Nukutere, she was known to Tinirau and his bride, Ina a Te Kea Nui; to the god, Tonga-‘iti, she was known as Tumu te varovaro, te enua i tupu ki Tonga-Nui; and finally, she became Te Po i Raro-tonga to Tangiia Nui when his cousin Tutapu followed him to Tumu te varovaro.”
Stephen Savage’s dictionary gives the first name of the island as Pu-Kaikai-o-Pāpā or Pukai-Taringa-o-Pāpā, the ear lobes of Pāpā, which defines Rarotonga as part of the anatomy of Pāpā, the earth-stratum.
What Tumu-te-varovaro means
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), drawing on William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876, p. 16; Kiva, E Tuatua Tupuna no Rarotonga, 1897, pp. 1–2, translated by Arthur H. Browne; and Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, 1962, pp. 453–454.
“William Wyatt Gill says echo is the meaning of Tumu-te-varovaro. Kiva interpreted it as “ko te manava o te enua,” and this was translated by Arthur Browne as the “heart,” or “source of life.” This is a faulty translation as “enua” means “land” and not “life.” Both translations are unsatisfactory. “Tumu” means “cause” or “source”; “varovaro” means “continuous sound,” especially “deep, hollow, booming sounds.” A literal translation is cause, or source of booming sounds. This might refer to the sound caused by the waves breaking upon the reef, clearly heard by someone approaching the island by canoe. Another name which some gave to Rarotonga is Nuku-te-varovaro, which means land of the booming sounds.”
Part 2: Before Karika and Tangi‘ia
Note 5.7: Tonga-iti, ariki over them all
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Te-aia, “Genealogies and Historical Notes from Rarotonga, Part III”, translated by S. Percy Smith, Journal of the Polynesian Society 2 (1893), pp. 271–279, at pp. 273–274; and Te Ariki-tara-are, “History and Traditions of Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899), pp. 1–2 and 7.
“Te-aia, Tamarua, Kainuku, Tongaiti. It was they who first came to this land. These are the names of the mataiapos, or chiefs, who followed after them: – Kiriparu, Te-ariki-mana (surnamed Vakapora), Koro, Ara-iti, Ta, Apai, Manava-roa, Nia, Te-eiao, Tara-apai, Taiope, Te-tika, Tinorua, Tamatea, Tuakana and Noorangi – nineteen in all. The land in which their ancestor, Naea, stayed at (on his way here) was Arava, in the Paumotu Group. Naea had two quarrelsome children named Tiori and Tunatu. The descendant of Tunatu is Malietoa, at Samoa. Tiori’s descendant is Pomare, at Tahiti. It was the before mentioned company of people who first came to this land of Rarotonga. They were all of them ariki or great chiefs, but Tongaiti was the ariki over them all.
Ko Te-aia, Tamarua, Kainuku, Tongaiti. Ko ratou tei tae mua mai ana ki te enua nei. … Ko taua aronga nei tei tae mua mai ana ki runga ki te enua nei, ko Rarotonga. E ui ariki anake ratou. Ko Tongaiti te ariki i runga ia ratou.”
Percy Smith’s footnotes: the mata‘iapo named were some of the followers of Tamarua-nui on his second voyage to Rarotonga; the nineteen did not come with those previously mentioned, nor is it clear whence they came. Note 5.5, the stories of Tou-tika, Ata-i-te-kura and Apopo, is Te Ariki-tara-are’s Part I, Journal 8 (1899), pp. 2–11, given in full in the first edition.
Note 5.12: The first people, in the accounts of those who displaced them
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE William Wyatt Gill, as summarised in the first edition (Myths and Songs, 1876); with John A. Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga, 1954, pp. 3–4 (in copyright, extract only).
“Gill says Tangi‘ia-nui and Karika Tara‘ape found an aboriginal race on the south side of the island, physically and mentally much inferior to themselves, and few in number, and they were soon subdued and absorbed.
Numa: The arrival of Karika and later Tangiia Nui marked a period which saw greater changes in the lives of the original inhabitants. They were killed and eaten or were forced to work as slaves to the dominant Tonga ‘iti element of the Polynesians. All of those names above, including Tangiia Nui, were displaced persons. The first four were driven out of Fiji or Samoa; Karika was driven out by his brother Tui Manuka of Mani’s island in American Samoa; lastly was Tangiia Nui who was pursued by his cousin Tutapu aru roa, finally catching up in Rarotonga.”
The chapter’s note attributes this passage to Te-aia. Te-aia’s account (Note 5.4) names the first people; the description of them as fairer, gentler and absorbed as ‘unga is William Wyatt Gill’s and John Numa’s; the note has been corrected in the second edition.
Why we do not hear of the first settlers
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, 17 January 2008, p. 6.
“Likewise in Rarotonga you hear endless traditions about Tangi’ia and Karika, but almost none about the people who populated Rarotonga before them and who would in equity have a much stronger case to the land than any of the Tangi’ia or Karika descendants. Why don’t we hear of them? Not because they were in the wrong – no they were in the right, they were the first settlers, but we hear little of them because they lost. They were overwhelmed. Same world-wide. What becomes the “true” tradition is the tradition that supports those currently holding the power.”
His related remark of 12 October 2008 — “The nature of oral tradition is that it is being manipulated constantly in favour of whoever has the power to do so at any time” — is under Note 2.4 in the Chapter 2 archive.
Part 3: Karika, from Manu‘a
A hundred and forty men of the Nga-Aio
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, 1962, under Aio; and Putua-ariki, “E Tuatua no Karika o Rarotonga: Karika’s Migration to Rarotonga”, translated by Arthur H. Browne, Journal of the Polynesian Society 6 (1897), pp. 3–9, at pp. 3–4.
“Aio, a tribal name. According to traditions the original Nga-Aio tribe consisted of 140 men, who accompanied Karika from Manuka (Manu‘a) when that famous chief was forced to flee from that island. Karika arrived at Rarotonga some time after the arrival of another celebrated chief and voyager named Tangiia-nui…”
Putua-ariki’s narrative of the migration, in Rarotongan and in Arthur Browne’s translation, is given in full in the first edition and will be carried in “Chapter 5 — the traditions in full”.
Seventy and a hundred and forty
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, email, 13 October 2008.
“70 or 140 are common metaphorical numbers for any substantial group.”
Karika was also fleeing
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, notes of 12 October 2008, p. 2, on pages 99 and 101 of the draft; and his handwritten note on page 101.
“Samoan tradition from Manu’a is clear that Karika was defeated, and banished, and fled from Samoa. That needs to be made clear. There is an article on that in the Journal of the Polynesian Society – I am travelling but you could track it by looking up references to Manu’a and ’Ari’a (Karika) in the journal.
I would challenge the validity of this para from the evidence. “Tangi’ia was fleeing in defeat” – so was Karika – read the Samoan tradition. No evidence that Karika was on a voyage of “curiosity or conquest”. He was fleeing, like Tangi’ia, and seeking the best survival options. Rarotonga already was populated.”
On the manuscript page he wrote “No. Karika was also fleeing after being banished from Manu‘a”, together with “idols” for atua itoro, “of the survivors and presumably victors”, “or at sea as other accounts claim”, “the two ariki” for “the two canoes” (“did the canoes shake hands or rub noses?”), and “A competition occurred, possibly at Ma‘uke” for “It is obvious”. The Journal of the Polynesian Society article on the Manu‘a tradition is still to be identified and added here.
Note 5.200: Karika left, and the Nga-Aio perished
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Stephen Savage, “Note on the Origin of the Name of Makea”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 18 (1909), pp. 217–218; and Henry Nicholas (translator), “Genealogies and Historical Notes from Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 1 (1892), p. 74.
“… after residing for some time on the island, he departed taking with him the whole of his followers. Tradition further states that they went to an island called Iva-nui, where they were said to have been destroyed by the Ivans. Thus it is said that the original Nga-Aio tribe perished, and that the name was preserved by Tangiia-nui; and certain families who resided on the northern portion of the island were always referred to as Nga-Aio.”
Part 4: Tangi‘ia, from Tahiti, and the division of the island
Upolu was the ancient name of Taha‘a
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), relying on A. Leverd, Journal of the Polynesian Society 19 (1910), p. 176; the two exceptions are Terei, Tuatua Taito, pp. 6–8, and J. B. Stair’s translation in Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 99–131.
“All but two sources agree that Tangi‘ia-nui came from the island of Ra‘iatea in the Society Group. The two exceptions show Tangi‘ia-nui as having come originally from Upolu and thence having travelled to Tahiti, whence he proceeded to Rarotonga. While they assumed Upolu to have been the island of that name in Samoa, Leverd notes that Upolu was the ancient name of the island of Taha‘a in the Society Group. Tangi‘ia-nui’s father, Uenga, is reported to have travelled extensively in the 11th century to such places as Avaiki (his birth place), Tongareva, the Paumotu Group, Rimatara, Rurutu, Tahiti, Tonga, Tupuai and Vavau.”
Walter Gudgeon’s account of the division
COURT RECORD — reproduced under the open-justice principle
SOURCE W. E. Gudgeon, The Makea Family, unpublished manuscript, Land Court, Rarotonga, 1908; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints microfilm 1084926, item 13. Spelling as in the manuscript; the passages marked ??? are illegible in the film.
“When Tangiia had elected Pa (Tai te ariki) as ariki over his people Karika now arrived at the island the name of his landing place was E and is known as such to the present day. The meaning of E is “muataki” that is to say Karika made a mistake in his landing place. When he landed and had built his koutu Paniko he heard shouting and yelling inland, he went to see what it was and found Tangiia his son in-law at Araitetonga who has completed the ceremony of electing Taite ariki as ariki over Rarotonga & the Ngati Tangiia people.
Tangiia welcomed Karika and asked him to stay with him at Araitetonga and to show his good will created him a “Tutara” (and gave him charge of the marae “Muri vai”). After the usual feastings on such occasions Tangiia suggested to Karika that they go together & ??? divided the island. History does not say that Karika made the maraes, but Tangiia did and placed custodians over each, sometimes 3 maraes were placed under the charge of one ???.
When all marae’s & land divisions had been made Tangiia then said to Karika You and Ngati Karika shall be in the inland side of Te ara nui o toa, whilst Pa & Ngati Tangiia shall be on the seaward side of the road. Tangiia then gave Karika Takaia (one of his taunga) as a priest under Karika and seeing that Takaia would want assistance in performing his offices he then placed Potikitaua with Karika thus giving Karika two taungas or priests. Tangiia retained More, Maoate also Tengara, Taramaitetonga etc.”
Note 5.17 relies on the last paragraph. The chapter traces the word “custodian” from this passage to the Land Titles Court’s use of it in 1905; that reading is to be confirmed against the Rarotongan of the tradition Walter Gudgeon was recording before it is relied on.
Part 5: Who was paramount, and the date
A flexible instrument
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Richard Phillip Gilson, Introduction to Administration of the Cook Islands (Rarotonga), MA thesis, University of London, 1952, p. 22; quoted by Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, note 151.
“… this unwritten history was a flexible instrument subject to wide variation in order to rationalise partisan claims and de facto political situations.”
The Tinomana tradition was not asked
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014).
“The accounts published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society were from the oral traditions of the Tangi‘ia-nui kōpū ariki, and the Makea Nui kōpū ariki and Makea Karika kōpū ariki, and the views of the Tinomana kōpū ariki and their tumu kōrero were not taken into account by those writers. The Tinomana kōpū ariki favour the superiority of their ancestor Mōtoro. The oral traditions of the Tinomana kōpū ariki are included in this chapter where they differ from the oral traditions of the Tangi‘ia-nui, Makea Nui and Makea Karika kōpū ariki.”
How did Karika become the sole ariki?
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, notes of 12 October 2008, pp. 2–3, on pages 101 and 104 of the draft.
“Rarotonga already was populated. How did Karika become the sole ariki? The traditions I am aware of speak of Tangi’ia going around and carving up the island and nominating mata’iapo.
104 para 1 last 5 lines. This needs to be put with the rather different account a few pages back. If Karika was the boss as suggested earlier, why didn’t they send for his grandfather or his gods – he was after all the Tu’i Manu’a whereas Tangi’ia was not a Tu’i or even an ariki.
Note 521 what matters, and should be recorded, is from what sources and interest groups John Numa (who was of the Ngati Arera from Avarua from memory) and Percy Smith collected their stories.”
The date from the genealogies
AUTHOR’S TEXT — Ross Holmes, reproduced in full
SOURCE Ross Holmes, first edition of this chapter (2014), section on dating; and W. E. Gudgeon, Cook Islands Maori Genealogies, MS 662B, Hocken Collections, University of Otago, p. 4.
The first edition dates the arrival of Karika and Tangi‘ia to about 1250 by counting generations in the genealogies at roughly twenty-five years each from the ancestors down to people whose dates are known. The genealogical tables on which the count rests are part of “Chapter 5 — the traditions in full”. Ron Crocombe’s marks on the dating pages (manuscript pp. 99 and 102–104) ask for conventional numbers to be treated as such, and are recorded in “Ron Crocombe’s annotations — scans two and three”.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 5, Note 5.16, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
Vaike Ruariki’s exhibits A and B, 1937: the Ngāti Arera genealogy, Māori and English
Exhibit A, the interpreter’s English, page 3
- 3 -
Te Po-nikiniki took a wife named Rautaraeo, and they begat -
(1) Arera
(2) Tevaiototitoti
(3) Ukarau
The people of Atiu gave the name Arera-Ukarau.
Exhibit B, Māori, page (3)
Te akapapaanga o Ngati Arera. (3) (B)
ARERA-UKARAU.
Anau mai a ia i tana au tamariki -
1. Teiva (t) (Ngati-Katu line)
2. Teruarau (t)
3. Tapuenua (v)
4. Tekurapo (v)
5. Vairota (t) (Ko Ngoroio iia) (Oa-Ngario line)
6. Nukunoni (t)
8. Maeu (t) [added by hand beside it: 7. Vaikai]
Ko te anau toa teia a Arera, no reira te ingoa Anau-toa.
3. Ko Tapuenua (v) Noo a ia ki te tane, ko Teika-Tuarongo-taua, Ko Teika-Tuarongo no Uenga iia aiteanga. Ko Taua, no Arera iia aiteanga, te taokotai anga i taua ingoa, Teika-Tuarongo-o-Taua.)
Anau mai 1. Tangi-totoro (v)
2. Tevaiau-i-te-Ureraroa (t) (Tei Paumotou te uanga). [by hand beneath: Tauiau-i-te-ureraroa]
Ko Tangi-totoro (v) Noo a ia ki te tane ko Uenuku-rakeiora, tamaiti na Motoro.
4. Anau mai 1. Toroa (t)
2. Taureka (t)
3. Teira (v) (Tei te au enua i tai, e Rarotonga nei te uanga).
Ko Toroa (t) Nana nga Ika nunui, te apinga tapu a te ariki, te Vakavaka-rangi, te Tia-o-Terei. Noo a ia ki te vaine ko Mauipuuria.
Anau mai 1. Aua-toa (t) (Tei roto i Puaikura te uanga, e te tuanga o Arera ko Akatangi-o-Teriro, tei roto iaia te ingoa kopu ariki ko Tutara-Tapiri-Atua, Tutara-are-tuna. Tei roto iaia te ingoa Oki-rangi, Tangi-o-Keu te ingoa Keu-mataroa, Tei iaia katoa a Tuki, ko Tamaiva-Tereinga, Rangi-taura-atua, Vai-o-kare, tei iaia katoa Tangiiau-Kurakau.)
2. Te-vakavaka-rangi (t) Noo a ia ki te vaine ko Tauturu-enua, no Mangaia.)
3. Tekura-tama-tapu (t)
4. Tautua (v)
6. Te-vakavaka-rangi (t) anau mai -
1. Vaitoti (t) 2nd ingoa Toroa, 4th ingoa Kaukura, 3rd ingoa Toroa, 4th ingoa Iva, 5th ingoa Tupa Raunae, kare e uanga.
7. 2. Tinokura (t) (Koia a Tino rua.)
Tinokura-rua (t) noo a ia ki te vaine Naupoko-tutara.-
Anau mai 1. Nga-Tia-Terei (v) (Kare e uanga)
2. Tekura-tama-tapu (t) Kare e uanga)
3. Vaitonga (t)
Ko Vaitonga (t) noo a ia ki te vaine mua, ko Vai-etu -
Anau mai 1. Te-tai-kura-i-o-Ari (t) (kare e uanga.
2. Vaevaru (t) (kare e uanga)
Te rua o te vaine a Vaitonga ko Temani, 2nd ingoa Rakatonga, 3rd ingoa Teaekura, te 4th ingoa Te-vai-o-Kaveu, 5th ingoa, ko Tapuani.
Anau mai 3. Kamoe (t) (Kua aere a ia ki Mangaia e te [word unread] enua.)
4. Tearu-tonga (v) (Na Tekuratamatapu i angai)
Exhibit B, Māori, page 4
4.
9. Ko Tearutonga (v) Noo a ia ki te tane ko Moutaraatea, 2nd ingoa Ukararu, 3rd ingoa Teirapini. -
Anau mai 1. Te-vai-ototitoti (t)
2. Terapou (t) Na Anautoa i angai)
3. Tepau-nui (t)
Ko Vai-oto-titoti (t) Noo ki te vaine Tekurapo -
Anau mai 1. Paenga (t) koia a Papa-enga)
2. Tereai-ina (t) (Tei Puaikura i roto i a Ngati-Tautu tona uanga).
3. Kianga (t) (Tei Rangiatea & Takitumu te uanga.)
Ko Paenga (t) Noo ki te vaine ko Tuia, 2nd ingoa Raunae, 3rd ingoa Tevai-uri-ia, 4th ingoa ko Matarau.
Anau mai 1. Raka (t) Kua atea a ia ki Te-muri-motia, e tona uanga, tei ia ia te ingoa Taarua, te ingoa kura, tei ia ia te Are Kariei, tei iaia te tautopa i te atua ko Miromiro.
2. Tupa-Ruanae (t) (Ko Makea-mimiti-nui a ia.)
3. Vaitoti (v)
Ko Tupa-Ruanae (t) Noo a ia ki te vaine ko Tekura-a-Tangaroa)
anau mai 1. Teoe (Kua atea a ia e tana tuanga ki roto ia Anautoa Arera.
2. Rakanui (t) Tei Takitumu e Enuamanu tona uanga.
3. Paeau (t) Tei Tonga-uri tona uanga)
4. TEKAUARIKI (v)
5. Tepueu (v) Kare e uanga.
Ko TEKAUARIKI (v) Noo ki te tane ko Rangiroroa, tona paepae i noo ei ko Parekura -
Anau mai 1. Tevaanui-atua (t) 2nd ingoa Rupe-tau-rakau.
2. Matekaro (v)
3. Teariki-Tupa-Keu (t)
4. Tepaeru-aere-moana (v)
Ko Te-vaanui-atua (t) Noo a ia ki te vaine ko Tekuraki -
Anau mai 1. Komotu-anae (v) (Noo ki te tane ko Po, kare e uanga)
2. Tupa-ki-Iva (t).
Ko Tupa-ki-Iva (t) noo a ia ki te vaine ko Moe-akau, 2nd ingoa Te-vaine-rau-manuku. Teia te Pe‘e o taua vaine - “Ko Te-vaine-rau-manuku maua ma taku tane ki Nikao, Puna-ke ua te kakara e.” E tamaine a ia na Tamaiva Pukerere.
Anau mai 1. Teaka (t) E tamaiti motu aia ki Araura, na Marouna.
2. Taua-tini-o-Arera (t)
3. Tuporoiti (v)
4. Takaia Orotuma.
KO Taua-tini-o-Arera (t) Noo a ia ki te vaine ko Narai-atua, tamaine na Tapuri.
Anau mai 1. Rakanui (t)
2. Teuna (v) (Kua atea aia ki roto i te Ngati-Punangi i Rangiatea).
Ko Rakanui (t) Noo a ia ki te vaine mua Tuarau-upoko, kare e uanga. Te rua o te vaine ko Tekura-i-enaiapo, kare e uanga. Te toru o te vaine Ngapoko-te-ra, e rua ingoa o taua vaine ko Te-vaine-rau-mati, e tamaine a ia na Tangara-Mana.
Exhibit B, the interpreter’s English, page 4
- 4 - “B”
The genealogy from ARERA-UKARAU. He begat:-
(1) Teiva (m) (Ngati-Katu line)
(2) Terua-rau (m)
(3) Tapuenua (f)
(4) Tekurapo (f)
(5) Vairota (m) Who was Ngoroio (Oa-Ngoroio line)
(6) Nukunoni (m)
(7) Vaikai (m)
(8) Maeu (m)
These were the warrior sons of Arera, hence the name “Anau toa”.
Tapuenua married a husband named Te Ika-Tuarongo-Taua. The name Tuarongo was derived from Uenga and the name Taua was derived from Arera, joined together the name became Te Ika-Tuarongo-a-Taua. They begat:-
(1) Tangi-totoro (f)
(2) Tairau-i-te-ureraroa (m) (Whose descendants are in the Paumotu Group.
Tangi-totoro became the wife of Uenuku-rakeiora, the son of Motoro. they begat:-
(1) Toroa (m)
(2) Taureka (m)
(3) Teira (f) (Whose descendants are in many lands beyond the seas, and also at Rarotonga.
Toroa (m) To him belonged all large fish. He was the holder of the sacredness of the ariki: to him belonged certain rights pertaining to the “Vakavaka-rangi” and the “Tia-o-Terei”. He took a wife named Maui-pouria, and they begat:-
(1) Aua-toa (m) Whose descendants are among the Puaikura tribe, they hold the Arera lands there, namely Akatangi-o-Teriro. They hold the name of the “Kopu-ariki” (Ariki family) Other lands are Tutara-Tapiri-atua and Tutara-Are-tuna. This family holds the names Okirangi, Tangi-o-Keu and the name Keu-Mataroa and the name Tuki, Tamaiva-Tereinga, Rangi-Taura-atua, Vaiokare, and also the name Tangiiau-Kurakau.
(2) Te Vakavaka-rangi (m) Who took a wife named Tautoru-enua, who came from Mangaia.
(3) Tekura-Tama-tapu (m)
(4) Tautua (m)
Te Vakavakarangi (m) begat -
(1) Vaitoti (m) alias Kaukura alias Toroa alias Iva alias Tupa Ruanae. He left no issue.
(2) Tinokura, alias Tinorua (m)
Tino-rua took a wife named Naupoko-tutara, they begat:-
(1) Nga Tia-Terei (f) no issue.
(2) Tekura-tama-tapu (m) no issue
(3) Vaitonga (m)
Exhibit B, the interpreter’s English, page 5
- 5 -
Vaitonga took a first wife named Vai-etu, and they begat:-
(1) Te Tai-kura-i-o-Ari (m) No issue
(2) Vaevaru (m) No issue
Vaitonga took a second wife named Temani, alias Rakatonga, alias Teaakura, alias Te Vai-o-Kaveu, alias Tapuani, they begat:-
(1) Kamoe (m) He went away to Mangaia and thence to the Society islands
(2) Tearutonga (f) who was adopted by Tekura-tama-tapu.
Tearutonga became the wife of Moutara-atea, alias Ukarau alias Teirapini, and they begat -
(1) Tevaiototitoti (m)
(2) Terapou (m) Who was adopted by Anautoa
(3) Tepau-nui (m)
Tevaiototitoti took a wife named Tekurapo, and they begat -
(1) Paenga (m) (alias Papaenga)
(2) Tereiina (m) Whose descendants are at Puaikura in the Ngati-Tautu family.
(3) Kianga (f) Whose descendants are at Rangiatea and Takitumu.
Paenga took a wife named Tina, alias Raunae alias Tevaiuriia alias Matarau, and they begat -
(1) Raka (m) Who went out of the family - went to Temuri Motia and there hold the name of Taarua has descendants there, and hold the name Kura. He was the head of the “Kariei” institution. His office also was to invoke and call upon the god Miromiro.
(2) Tupa Raunae (m) who was Makea Mimitinui.
(3) Vaitoti (f)
Tupa Ruanae (m) took a wife named Tekura-a-Tangaroa, and they begat -
(1) Teoe (m) He went over with his share to Anautoa Arera.
(2) Rakanui (m) Whose descendants are in Takitumu and at Enuamanu
(3) Paeau (m) Whose descendants are at Tonga-uri.
(4) Te Kauariki (f)
(5) Tepueu (f) no issue.
Te Kauariki (f) became the wife of Rangiroroa whose “Paepae” (Court) was Parekura, they begat -
(1) Te Vaanui-atua (m) Alias Rupe-tau-rakau
(2) Matekaro (m)
(3) Teariki Tupa-keu (m)
(4) Tepaeru-aere-moana (f)
Te Vaanui-atua (m) took a wife named Tekuraki, and they begat
(1) Komotu-anae (f) Who became the wife of Po, and left no issue.
(2) Tupa-ki-Iva (m)
Tupa-ki-Iva (m) took a wife named Moe-akau, alias Tevaine-raumanuku. There is a chant (Pe‘e) “Ko Te Vaine-rau-manuku maua ma taku tane ki Nikao, Punake ua te kakara e.”
Exhibit B, the interpreter’s English, page 6, with the interpreter’s certificate
- 6 -
She was a daughter of Tamaiva Pukerere and they begat:-
(1) Teaka (m) This son went away to Araura, to Marouna
(2) Taua-tini-o-Arera (m)
(3) Tuporoiti (f)
(4) Takaia Orotuma (m)
Taua-tini-o-Arera took a wife named Narai-atua, a daughter of Tapauri, and they begat -
(1) Rakanui (m)
(2) Teuna (Who separated from the family and went to the Ngati-Punangi of Rangiatea.)
Rakanui (m) married a first wife named Tuarau-upoko and had no issue by her; married a second wife named Tekura-i-anaipo, and had no issue by her; married a third wife named Ngapoko-te-ra, alias Te Vaine-rau-mati, a daughter of Tangara-Mana, and they begat:-
(1) Te-ra-tu-mai-i-te-tonga (m)
(2) Te Akatauira (m) Alias Tauirariki.
(3) Vaitoti (m)
(4) Makea Tunako, who took a wife named Rangi-atea, and they begat:-
(i) Takau-te-upoko-o-ngaariki (f)
(ii) Te Ariki-tapu-rangi (m)
(iii) Tapu-manoanoa (f)
(iv) Te Vaerua (f) who became the wife of Tiperio, the Missionary.
Vaitoti (m) took a wife named Te Vai-o-Kao, alias Toto-uri, alias Meitaki-uri, a daughter of Nia, and they begat:-
(1) Tupa-Urirau (m) Who was the priest of Makea Tinirau, and Makea Pori, and Makea Davida, and Makea Te Vaerua. He married Tuarea, but left no issue.
(2) Tapukura (m)
(3) Kaiaru (m)
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct translation of the evidence given by Vaike Ruariki on the 29th day of April, 1937 (Exhibits “A” and “B”) [signed] Official Interpreter.
The Samoan account of the expulsion of the Tongans: Samuel Ella, 1899, in full
Samuel Ella, “The War of Tonga and Samoa and Origin of the Name Malietoa”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899), pp. 231 to 234
THE WAE OP TONGA AND SAMOA AND ORIGIN OF THE NAME MALIETOA.
Translation by the late Rev. S. Ella.
[The following account is supposed to describe the final expulsion of the Tongans from Samoa, which occurred twenty-five generations ago, or about the year 1250. For reference to this important event in Polynesian History, see this Journal, vol. viii, p. 6. Mr. Ella's translation is from a legend pre served by Mr. Stuebel, and published by him in the original Samoan. It agrees fairly well with the story we heard in Samoa in 1897.?Editors.]
[The translation given is a very literal one. The style may be improved, ad lib. The word "then" is repeated perhaps ad nauseam, but that is the correct rendering of " Ona.ai lea," the Samoan narrative form. Occa sionally I departed from it. A similar Tongan defeat is given by the Niue Islanders, accounting for their deliverance from Tongan domination, also effected by a stratagem which issued in the destruction of the Tongans. In the Ellice and Gilbert Groups there are remarkable histories of Tongan tyranny endured by those simple people. Even in Fiji the Tongan power was felt and dreaded. The name of Malietoa is generally ascribed to the issue of a war as here mentioned, and the name was given by the Tui-Tonga at the time of his defeat.?S.E.]
"n ancient times Samoa had its kings, and every division of the nation possessed its own king, but there was no single king to * rule supremely over Samoa. In those days Samoa was sub jected to the rule of the king of Tonga, called Tui-Tonga, who was also named Talaaifei'i.1 This chief Talaaifei'i came here to go round Samoa, and have his sovereignty proclaimed.2 He landed on Savai'i, at the district of Safotu, and all Samoa gathered (or came) together to build a stone platform for his palace at Safotu.3 On the promontory at the eastern side of Safotu?the name of the promontory is Matuea ?there was a great stone which was used as an enclosure of the road.4 Talaafei'i told Tuna (an eel) and Fata (a platform)' to turn over the stone, and if they were not able, or unable, they should both be killed. On account of this they came to Upolu that they might
consult with their family, and they sent for the son of their sister from Falelatai; the name of this lad was Ulum?sui (obstinacy). Then they went off to Savai'i, and there carried out the scheme of Ulum?sui. They reached (or arrived at) Matautu, and there this lad went up to the marsh-land,5 which is inland of the village called Mana-se, and he caught two eels there, which he brought down along with some mud of the marsh, and he placed them beneath the stone. Then he went down again to the reef and there caught an octopus (fe'e), which he carried up with some sea-water, and placed it also beneath the stone. Then he dug under the stone with some iron (u'amea). The stone then was loosened. They all laid hold and turned over the stone which was loosened. Then they sang this song : "Family of Eels, Family of Octopii! turn over the defeated stone !" Then it turned, and they were saved (lit, able to live). The stone still stands to this day in the chief's land. Then they came here to Upolu, their lives spared; but a large number of the people who returned from the review of the king and the proclamation of his sovereignty, arrived at A'ana, at Sanafili. Then Tuna and Fata and Ulum?sui went and pulled up the pile ('oa'oa) to which the king's canoe was fastened. The name of the wood of which the pile was made is the Toa.6 They fled to Falelatai, and there split up the wood; on that account that piece of land is called to this day 'Oa'oa tofi (the split-up pile). When they had split the wood, and fashioned it into the semblance of clubs, they went down to a certain plot of land to test the in. Therefore the name of that plot of land is 'Aso-avanoa (rods of a roof wide apart). They two then went up to their own house, and suspended the clubs in the house. There came a number of people and stood and looked at the clubs, which were forbidden ;7 they did not remain standing, but sat down and gazed (in astonishment or dismay), therefore that place is called to this day Mata-nofo (view-sitting). All these things were done by these brethren because it was setiled in their hearts that the subjection of Samoa to Tonga was about to be raised, for they resolved to kill the king of Tonga. They then went forth to overtake the travelling party of the king of Tonga. They found them at Aleipata (east end of Upolu). They then buried their clubs in the marae. There was at Aleipata a certain warrior and spirit (tohunga) named Tapuloa (long-club). They deliberated together to slay the Tongans. To this they agreed. Then they held a siva (singing and dancing) to celebrate with marks of joy the tour of the king of Tonga. The words of the song were these: " Look on, and look on ! wave the head, and lift up the heels. Let there be many blows for the Tongans." There was a very large number of Tongans gathered together in the marae to witness the dance. The dance moved along up to the side of the marae in which
THE WAR OF TONGA AND SAMOA. 233
the clubs were buried. Then they dug beneath with their feet and raised up the clubs and caught them in their hands, and sprang up like wild beasts and slew the Tongans, for they fought with great vigour. They then went in pursuit of the (other) Tongans ; one party went down in pursuit on that side, another party of pursuers came up on this side. There were then two each pursuing on this side?Tuna and Tupuloa : on the other side, Fata and Ulu-masui. But this was their arrangement: that they should meet at the Fatu osofia8 (leaping rock). If one party should be the first to reach the the Muli-fanua (land's end), it should turn again to help the party delayed. The party of Tuna and Tapuloa was the first to reach Fatu-osofia, but Fata and Ulumasui's was detained by the aitu (spirit or demon) at Faleaseela, for Fata and Ulum?sui were forbidden by the aitu who dwelt in the land of Saefu,9 who spake thus : " Stay here, you two, until the morrow, for the aitu who dwells on the top of the mountain is difficult to deal with. His name is Sema." For this reason they were forbidden?that they should wait until their shadows went before them. In the morning they resumed the pursuit, and they entered the road in which their shadows were in front of them. Their shadows took them to the place in which stood the aitu. Then the aitu struck their shadows with a club, and the mountain was divided, then struck again at the back (or behind) and the moun tain was split at the back. After these signs were done, then Ulu m?sui stole up behind the aitu and cut off the aitiis head and cast it down the mountain, and it fell in a certain village of Falelatai, Then their pursuit went on to the Mulifanua, to the Fatu-osofia, and they drove all the Tongans into the sea. Then Tui-Tonga rose up and stood upon the sea-rock that is beyond the Fatu-osofia (the name of the rock is Tula-tala), and called out : " Malietoa! (beautiful warrior), splendid war ! I will not come again with a war party ; but should I come to Samoa with a travelling party, that will not be to raise a war against Samoa. This is our covenant (mavaega)."10 A favourable response was given to the covenant at Tulatala. Then Tuna and Fata quarrelled as to which of the two should be named Malietoa. They struck each other with their clubs, and both fell to the earth together. Then Savea, their brother, arose and prayed that Tuna might live, and prayed again that Fata might live. Out of this arose the proverb, " Pray for both Tuna and Fata." Thereupon they both survived. Then the two agreed together to give the name to their brother Savea. Then Savea became " Malietoa."
TRANSLATION OF THE SONG-pese SaAFIAFI. Composed by the Queen of Tonga on hearing of the supposed death of her at the hands of the Samoans.
Oh, alas, my heart! oh, my heart! the sore grief! Oh, alas, the thought! Mine is this great sorrow. The subject of a deceptive dream ; that I slept with my son. A flock of wild ducks from Avalua ; a bird* was among the flock. My compassion for the Tui-Tonga ! he saw no perch.f
Oi aue lo'u loto ! e, lo'u loto ! le vau ane ! Oi aue le manatu ! e lota le van ane, Se mea o miti ina oleole, ua moemoe 'ita ma si ata tama, Se ta'aga a toloa nai Avalua, se manu na filo i le ta'aga Si o'u talofa i te Tui-Toga, ua pe iloa i tulaga.
* A bird of prey or wild animal is meant. Avalua is a plain in the east of Atua, Upolu. t Standing-place, or refuge, probably meant.
NOTES. 1. ?TalaaifeiH:% Probably a Tongan name. In Samoan it would mean a usurper ; lit, one who has been proclaimed after a quarrel with his brother. 2. Upon this proclamation of a king in Samoa, it was customary for the king and his principal chiefs to make a tour throughout the districts of the several islands, and receive the homage of his subjects. 3. ?The houses (maota) of high chiefs, also the temples (malumalu) of the gods were erected on a high platform of large stones. 4. ?In Samoa, each village was generally enclosed by stone parapet walls; and such enclosure was carried across the roads by barriers of stones or trunks of trees. 5. ? Taufusi: marsh or swamp land used as a taro garden. 6. ?Toa : a tree of the iron wood genus (Casuarina equisetefolia), from which wood clubs were made. 7. ?Like the tabu put upon the Israelites by the Philistines in the days of the prophet Samuel.?I. Sam. xiii, 19-21. 8. ?Fatu-osofia: the legendary rock at the western end of TJpolu, Le Muli fanua, from which the spirits of the dead sprang into the sea on their way to the Faf?, the Samoan Hades. 9. Land of Saefu: The lower regions. 10. Mavaega: a parting agreement or covenant, which was generally held sacred and adhered to very strictly. (See Vol. vi., Sept. 1897, p. 155.) 11. ? This origin of the name of Malietoa is in accordance with many similar records.
All the notes of the chapter
5.1 Kiva and Putua-ariki (Arthur Browne) 1897, 6 JPS 1–10; Te Ariki-tara-are 1899–1921, 8 to 30 JPS; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 20–29, 65–75; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p423
5.2 /chapter-5
5.3 Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes, post-publication comments; Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961, 13; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.4 William Wyatt Gill 1876, Myths and songs, 141; Percy Smith 1898, Hawaiki, 7 JPS 170, 209; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.5 Te-aia, Genealogies and historical notes from Rarotonga, Part III, 1893, 2 JPS 271–274; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p72, #p73
5.6 Percy Smith’s note, 2 JPS 274; Ron Crocombe 1961, 17–20; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p73
5.7 Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 273–274, with Percy Smith’s notes; Percy Smith 1898, Hawaiki, 7 JPS 208; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p73, #p49 The passage in full
5.8 Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; Ron Crocombe 1964, 8–9; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.9 Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.10 Percy Smith 1907, 16 JPS 175–188; Henry Fletcher 1930, 39 JPS 315–321; Roger Duff 1965, 55–56; Matthew Campbell 2002, 111 JPS 149; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p162, #p166
5.11 John Numa 1954, 3–4; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p173 The passage in full
5.12 John Numa 1954, 2; William Gill 1856, Gems from the coral islands, ii, 3; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p178 The passage in full
5.13 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.14 Volume 1, Chapter 4, notes 4.13–4.14; Richard Walter 1998; Michael Trotter 1974, 146; Roger Duff 1965, 55–56; Matthew Campbell 2002, 111 JPS 149; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p166
5.15 Percy Smith 1898, 7 JPS 208; Volume 1, Chapter 5, second edition, The date
5.16 Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; Willie Parau Browne 1939, MB 12, 289–291; Te-aia 1893; Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, para. 340; Charlie Cowan, Tumu Kōrero; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p191, #p482
5.17 Native Appellate Court, Tuareanui section 40, 19 August 1950, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 44–49 and 75–77 (Judges H. J. Morgan, E. M. Beechey and R. P. Dykes), agreeing with Chief Judge H. F. Ayson in Aremango section 7B; Baudinet v Tavioni [2012] UKPC 35; Volume Two, Chapter 18 (the vaka a creation of the late 1700s in Puaikura and of 1823 in Te Au o Tonga and Tākitumu) and Chapter 19; Volume Four, Chapter 11.
5.18 Volume One, Chapter 10, on the rights of an ariki among the kinds of right to land, and Chapter 8 on how rights were got; Volume Four, Chapter 11, on ariki land and life interests. Frederick Moss, The Polity of Rarotonga, 1893, on the sovereignty of an ariki being over people and not over territory; the Federal Parliament of the Cook Islands, Declaration as to Land, 3 August 1894, that the land is owned by the tribe and its use is with the family who occupy it; Walter Gudgeon, memorandum of 16 July 1908, that Makea’s power after 1823 “was due to the invitation to return by Pa and Kainuku who gave them jurisdiction over the land”, jurisdiction and not ownership.
5.19 Ron Crocombe 1961, 17–20; Matthew Campbell 2002, 227; Charlie Cowan, Tumu Kōrero; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p82, #p180, #p181
5.20 Parakoti’s book, Genealogy of Kivao Tarakina, LDS film 1084927, item 36, pp. 1–4, 35; Archives 55
5.21 W. McBirney, in the first edition, section 3; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p187
5.22 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, paras 332–333, 29 JPS (1920); Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p886
5.23 Willie Parau Browne, Re Makea Ariki, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291 (1939); Charlie Cowan, Collection of genealogies, LDS film 1126511, 12–14; Vaike Ruariki, Rarotonga MB 12, between 183 and 184; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p198
5.24 Vaike Ruariki, exhibits A and B, headed “Vaike Ruariki, 27/4/1937, M/B/12/183”, given in evidence on 29 April 1937, Rarotonga MB 12, pages glued between 183 and 184, and MB 15, 117; the judgment on his application, Re Parako section 134 (1937) 12 Rarotonga MB 232, Ayson CJ, 5 May 1937, is reported in the Cook Islands Land Court Reports at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/cilcr, with the hearing and the exhibits attached; Willie Parau Browne 1950, MB 20, 234; first edition, section 4, pp. 28–31; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p198
5.25 Rarotonga MB 12, glued pages between 183 and 184, exhibit A, English translation pp. 1–3, Māori pp. 1–2; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.26 Ross Holmes, first edition, section 2; James Baltaxe 1975, 63; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p60
5.27 Ross Holmes, Chapter 5, second edition, Before Karika and Tangi‘ia
5.28 Volume 1, Chapter 5, first edition, sections 1 to 4 and 7 to 18; /chapter-5
5.29 Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 271–274; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p56
5.30 The chapter page, cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, sections 1 to 19
5.31 Stephen Savage 1962, 41; Walter Gudgeon 1908, 4; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.32 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 70; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.33 John Numa 1954, 4, 17, 86; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p1646
5.34 Samuel Ella 1899, The war of Tonga and Samoa and origin of the name Malietoa, 8 JPS 231–234, a translation of the Samoan account preserved by Stuebel; the article in full at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5.
5.35 John Stair 1895, Flotsam and jetsam from the great ocean, 4 JPS 99–131, at 107: a Samoan narrative that names Tangi‘ia’s wife Mo‘oloa-i-aitu, that is Mokoroa-ki-aitu, as Elsdon Best noted (36 JPS 122–134, at 133; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5).
5.36 Percy Smith’s note at 1 JPS 70, in his own words: “The land here conquered is said to be Avaiki. As it is known from other sources that Karika sailed from Manu‘a, the eastern island of the Samoan Group, when he migrated to Rarotonga, it is presumable that Avaiki here is intended for Savaii of Samoa.” The identification was Smith’s presumption, not the Makea account’s; the article in full at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5.
5.37 John Numa 1954, 17; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.38 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 70 (English), 66 (Māori); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.39 Arthur Browne 1897, 6 JPS 3; John Stair 1895, 4 JPS 107; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.40 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 70; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.41 Jasper Buse 1995, 383; Percy Smith 1898–99; Ta‘unga; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p341
5.42 Putua-ariki (Arthur Browne) 1897, 6 JPS 3–4 (English), 6–7 (Māori); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5; Ron Crocombe to Holmes, 13 October 2008, on 70 and 140 as conventional numbers
5.43 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 3–4, 6–7; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.44 Stephen Savage 1962, 15; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.45 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 4–5, 7–8. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p429
5.46 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.47 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 26, 23. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.48 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 71–72, 67; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.49 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 67 (Māori). cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.50 Jasper Buse, 321. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.51 John Numa 1954, 5. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.52 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 72; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.53 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 4–5, 8; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p646
5.54 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 4–5, 8; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p647
5.55 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 4–5, 8; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p648
5.56 J. D. Gray 1975, 166, Makea interview. Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 70–74. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p642
5.57 John Numa 1954, 2–3. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p651
5.58 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 5–6, 8–9; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p663
5.59 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 5–6, 8–9; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p665
5.60 Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 5 and Arthur Browne’s note 11, 9 (Māori); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p676
5.61 James Baltaxe 1975, 79. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.62 Percy Smith 1899, 32. John Numa 1954, 5. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.63 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 26–27, 23–24; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p967
5.64 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 26–27, 23–24. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.65 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.66 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p979
5.67 Walter Gudgeon 1908. Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287, Archives 54. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.68 Percy Smith 1899, 38. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.69 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 74; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.70 Walter Gudgeon 1908, 5–6; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.71 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p978
5.72 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p798
5.73 Stephen Savage 1962, 15; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.74 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 215–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.75 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 215; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p255
5.76 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 216; Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 335; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p257
5.77 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 216; Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 63–64; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p260
5.78 William Wyatt Gill 1876, 25; Walter Gudgeon 1903, 12 JPS 121; Jon Jonassen 1990, 6; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p262
5.79 Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 335; Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 216; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p263
5.80 Leslie Kelly 1955, 64 JPS 181–196; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p265
5.81 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 217; Stephen Savage 1962; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.82 William Wyatt Gill 1876, 25; Jon Jonassen 1990, 6; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.83 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 183–186; Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 336; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p268
5.84 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 187–188; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p270
5.85 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 188, para. 291; Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 139–140; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p271, #p805, #p807
5.86 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 190–191; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.87 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 192–194; Leslie Kelly 1955, 64 JPS 186; Peter Buck 1938; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p276
5.88 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 194–196, paras 303–305; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p279, #p280
5.89 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 26, 23; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p282
5.90 Te Ariki-tara-are; Tararo Ariki, Ma‘uke Kōrero; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p897
5.91 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 221; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.92 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 197–199; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.93 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 199–203; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1893, 2 JPS 278; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p285, #p891
5.94 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, 28 JPS 203; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.95 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 59; Tararo Ariki, Ma‘uke Kōrero; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p901
5.96 Percy Smith 1899, 8 JPS 33; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.97 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217; William Wyatt Gill 1880; John Numa 1954; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p437, #p440
5.98 Percy Smith 1899, 8 JPS 33; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.99 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.100 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 71; John Numa 1954; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p793
5.101 William Wyatt Gill 1880; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p444, #p448
5.102 William Wyatt Gill 1880; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p446, #p449
5.103 William Wyatt Gill 1880; Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, para 332, 29 JPS (1920); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p463
5.104 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, paras 332–333, 29 JPS (1920); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p464
5.105 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 46–49, paras 334–339; Percy Smith, Hawaiki (1899) 36; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p481, #p520
5.106 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 49, para. 339; Percy Smith, Hawaiki (1899) 36–37; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p520, #p521
5.107 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 49–50, para. 340, with Percy Smith’s note; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p483, #p484
5.108 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 27; Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2; Tararo Ariki, Ma‘uke Kōrero; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p459, #p799, #p800, #p801, #p901
5.109 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 50, para. 341; Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p459
5.110 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 50, para. 342; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p491
5.111 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 50, para. 343; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.112 Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.113 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B; Stephen Savage 1962; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p883
5.114 Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 60–61; Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 337; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p654, #p655, #p659
5.115 Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 337; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.116 Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 61–62; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.117 Jeffrey Sissons 1989, 98 JPS 337; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.118 Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 62; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p660
5.119 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 107–110, paras 360–362; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.120 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 63; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 27; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p670
5.121 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 110–113, paras 363–365; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p673, #p674
5.122 William Wyatt Gill 1880; Maretu; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p679, #p680
5.123 Ron Crocombe to Ross Holmes; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.124 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 113, para. 366; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.125 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 114–115, paras 369–370; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p906, #p907
5.126 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 115, para. 371; Stephen Savage 1962, Taputapuatea; Chief Judge McCarthy, Taputapuātea rehearing; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p909, #p947, #p962
5.127 Stephen Savage 1911, 20 JPS 139; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.128 Te Ariki-tara-are 1921, 30 JPS 129–141, paras 372–384; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p921
5.129 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1893, 2 JPS 274–278; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p887
5.130 Percy Smith 1899, 8 JPS 36–37; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.131 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.132 Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, dictated 1897, translated by S. Percy Smith and S. Savage, Journal of the Polynesian Society, volumes 28 to 30 (1919 to 1921); Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Part X, para 367, 29 JPS (1920) 50–51, translated by S. Percy Smith; the Māori at 59; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5.
5.133 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part X, para 351, 29 JPS (1920) 48, Smith’s bracketed summary; the Māori of Parts VII, X, XI and XIX, where the name is Karika only.
5.134 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part XIX, paras 369, 371 and 384, 30 JPS (1921) 130–131 and 136–137 (English, translated by S. Savage) and 137–141 (Māori).
5.135 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part XI, paras 379a–380a, 29 JPS (1920) 60–61 (English) and 65–66 (Māori).
5.136 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IV, para 248, 28 JPS (1919) 57–58 (English, translated by S. Savage) and 60 (Māori); Vaike Ruariki, exhibit A, Rarotonga MB 12 (1937), the Arera line in Part One above.
5.137 Vaike Ruariki 1937, Rarotonga MB 12, glued pages; Willie Parau Browne 1939, MB 12, 289–291; Charlie Cowan, LDS film 1126511; Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 47, para. 336; Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Taputapuātea rehearing, 1953; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p195, #p196, #p465
5.138 Charlie Cowan, Collection of genealogies, legends and histories, LDS film 1126511, pp. 12–14; Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 20, 234 (1950); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p193
5.139 Vaike Ruariki, genealogy, Rarotonga MB 12, pages glued between 183 and 184; first edition, section 4; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p196, #p231
5.140 William Wyatt Gill 1880; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.141 Willie Parau Browne, Re Makea Ariki, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291 (1939); Charlie Cowan, LDS film 1126511; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p193, #p195
5.142 Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 20, 234 (1950); Rarotonga MB 12, 183 inset; MB 15, 117; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.143 Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 12, 291 (1939); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.144 Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 19, 291 (1949); Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 282; Paaro, Rarotonga MB 7, 325–332 (1916); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p983
5.145 Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 271–278. Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, paras 332–333, 29 JPS (1920). Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18. John Numa 1954. Parakoti’s book, LDS film 1084927. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p153, #p186, #p464
5.146 Ron Crocombe 1961, 13; W. McBirney, in the first edition, section 3; Cook Islands Herald, 29 June 2011; Parakoti’s book; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p186, #p187
5.147 Henry Nicholas 1893, Ngā tere i muri ake ia Tonga-iti, 2 JPS 274–278, with Percy Smith’s note 84; William Wyatt Gill 1890; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.148 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18. John Stair 1895, 4 JPS 104. John Fraser 1897, 6 JPS 72. J. D. Gray 1975, 161; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p184
5.149 Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, paras 332–333, 29 JPS (1920); Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p886
5.150 John Numa 1954, 5–7; Te Pa, Rarotonga MB 2, 55–57, 14 June 1905; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.151 Parakoti’s book, no. 9; Walter Gudgeon, Genealogy of Arera mua, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 282; Paaro 1916, Rarotonga MB 7, 329A; Archives 52, 55; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p187
5.152 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18. John Stair 1895, 4 JPS 104. John Fraser 1897, 6 JPS 72. J. D. Gray 1975, 161; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p184
5.153 W. McBirney, in the first edition, section 3; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.154 Willie Parau Browne 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291. Charlie Cowan, LDS film 1126511. Browne family compilation, Sheet A. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p195
5.155 Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Part IX, paras 332–339, 29 JPS (1920), the part before the war. Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 274. James Baltaxe 1975, 63. Matthew Campbell 2002, 111 JPS 149, and History in prehistory, 227. Michael Trotter 1974, 146. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p471, #p73, #p60, #p166
5.156 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, Part IX, 29 JPS, paras 332–339. Percy Smith, Hawaiki (1899) 36. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p520
5.157 Matthew Campbell 2002, 111 JPS 147–170. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.158 Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4. First edition, section 12. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p637
5.159 Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Part IX, paras 332–339, 29 JPS (1920), the part before the war; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p471
5.160 Henry Nicholas 1893, Ngā tere i muri ake ia Tonga-iti, 2 JPS 274–278, at 277. First edition, section 12. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p636
5.161 Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p797
5.162 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, 29 JPS 115, para. 371; Stephen Savage 1962, Taputapuātea; Chief Judge McCarthy, Taputapuātea rehearing, 1953; Tamuera Te Rei 1917, Table IV; Volume 2, Chapters 21 to 23; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p909, #p962
5.163 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 59; Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 65–75; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p459, #p978, #p966
5.164 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p482, #p794
5.165 William Wyatt Gill 1876, Myths and songs, 25. Walter Gudgeon 1903, 12 JPS 121. Stephen Savage 1962. Jon Jonassen 1990, 6. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p267
5.166 Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, Part IX, para. 340, with Percy Smith’s note. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p794
5.167 Te Ariki-tara-are 1919, Part VII, 28 JPS 188, para. 291, with Percy Smith’s note. Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277, Percy Smith’s note. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p271, #p963
5.168 Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277, Percy Smith’s note. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p271
5.169 Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277, Percy Smith’s note. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.170 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p982
5.171 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 26–27. Walter Gudgeon 1908, 2–4. Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p234, #p459, #p965, #p799
5.172 Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.173 Henry Nicholas 1893, 2 JPS 277; Te Ariki-tara-are 1920, Part IX; Walter Gudgeon 1908; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p963, #p459
5.174 Volume 2, Chapter 24 register; Archives 50, 52; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p2101
5.175 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p241, #p281 to #p287, #p799 to #p802; Archives 52, 55
5.176 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287; Willie Parau Browne, 1949, MB 19, 291; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p982
5.177 Archives 52; Paaro, MB 7, 329A, 25 October 1916; Archives 55–58
5.178 Archives 50
5.179 Willie Parau Browne 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291; Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Volume 2, Chapters 21 to 26
5.180 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287 (Archives 54); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.181 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scans 282 (Arera mua) and 283 (Rata and Tinomana), Archives 55; the sheets are reproduced at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 and in the Research Library, Manuscript-Walter Gudgeon-Cook-Islands-genealogies-Hocken-MS-662B.pdf.
5.182 Kiva and Putua-ariki (Arthur Browne) 1897, 6 JPS 1–10. Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218. Walter Gudgeon 1908. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p797
5.183 Ron Crocombe and Ross Holmes, Volume 1, Chapter 5, first edition, 2014, sections 1 to 18; /chapter-5
5.184 Willie Parau Browne 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291; Volume 2, Chapter 24 register; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.185 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 65–75
5.186 Kiva and Putua-ariki 1897, 6 JPS 1–10
5.187 Te Ariki-tara-are 1899–1921, 8 JPS 61–88, 171–178, 28 JPS 55–78, 134–151, 183–208, 29 JPS 1–19, 45–69, 107–127, 30 JPS 129–141; Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18, 45–65; Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 20–29; Stephen Savage 1910, 1911, 19 JPS 142–168, 20 JPS 139–143; William Wyatt Gill 1876, 1880; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p423, #p449
5.188 Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291 (1939), MB 19, 291 (1949), MB 20, 234 (1950); Charlie Cowan, LDS film 1126511; Vaike Ruariki, Rarotonga MB 12, between 183 and 184; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 282; Paaro, Rarotonga MB 7, 325–332; Archives 52; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p198
5.189 Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 271–279. Te Ariki-tara-are, Part IX, paras 332–333, 29 JPS (1920). Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 1–18. John Numa 1954, 5–7. Te Pa, Rarotonga MB 2, 55–57 (1905). W. McBirney, Folklore tales of the Cook Islands; Parakoti’s book, LDS film 1084927; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p153, #p186, #p683
5.190 Ron Crocombe and Ross Holmes, Volume 1, Chapter 5, first edition, 2014, section 18; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.191 First account, throughout; /chapter-5 sections 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18
5.192 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 74; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.193 Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.194 Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287
5.195 Willie Parau Browne, Rarotonga MB 19, 291 (1949); cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p983
5.196 Volume 2, Chapter 24 register; Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52
5.197 The first edition, section 18, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, recording the Ngāti Arera tradition; Willie Parau Browne, 23 June 1949, Rarotonga MB 19, 291 (“Puta ki te tai died & his line became extinct”); the Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52.
5.198 Archives 50
5.199 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p983
5.200 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 74; Stephen Savage 1909, 18 JPS 217–218; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p978 The passage in full
5.201 Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Willie Parau Browne 1939, MB 12, 289–291, and 1948, AMB 1, 5–6; Paaro 1916, MB 7, 329A, 331A; the Makea genealogy from Karika, Archives 50; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scans 282, 287; Judge MacCauley’s genealogy books, P.126, P.135, P.452; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p2081, #p2101, #p2131
5.202 Paaro 1916, MB 7, 329A; Archives 50; Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Willie Parau Browne 1948, AMB 1, 5
5.203 Judge MacCauley’s genealogy books, P.126 (MB 7/88, 7/131), P.452 (MB 20/266–267); Rarotonga MB 12, 17–30 (1937); Browne family compilation, Sheet A
5.204 Archives 50, 52; Paaro 1916, MB 7, 331A; Browne family compilation, Sheet A
5.205 Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 282; Paaro 1916, MB 7, 331A
5.206 Parakoti’s book, the Kainuku line (appendix C); the Pa genealogy of 1857, 1 JPS 20–29 (appendix D); Willie Parau Browne 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291, and 9 September 1948, Appellate MB 1, 5; the Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; the holders table above, column two, and appendix F.
5.207 Willie Parau Browne, 9 September 1948, Appellate MB 1, 5
5.208 Volume 1, Chapter 5, first edition, section 10; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p372
5.209 James Baltaxe 1975, 83–84; Henry Nicholas 1892, 1 JPS 65–75; Kiva and Putua-ariki (Arthur Browne) 1897, 6 JPS 1–10; Elsdon Best 1927, 36 JPS 122–134; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p370
5.210 Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Part IX, paras 332–339, 29 JPS (1920), the part before the war; Tamuera Te Rei 1917, 26 JPS 1–18; Willie Parau Browne 1939, MB 12, 289–291; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p471
5.211 Maretu, Cannibals and Converts; Henry Nicholas 1892; Arthur Browne 1897; Volume 2, Chapters 24 to 26
5.212 Te-aia 1893, 2 JPS 271–278; Willie Parau Browne 1939; Part One above
5.213 Samuel Ella 1899, The war of Tonga and Samoa and origin of the name Malietoa, 8 JPS 231–234, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5; John Numa 1954, 4 and 17; the Samoa paragraph in Part Two above.
5.214 Volume 1, Chapter 5, first edition, section 10; Volume 2, Chapters 24 to 26
5.215 the register above, incidents 21, 24, 29 and 36, with the sources in its key
5.216 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p440; register rows 20–21
5.217 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p368 to #p372, #p419, #p456 to #p460, #p641 to #p649. Register rows 13–19, 24
5.218 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p670; register row 32
5.219 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 to #p984. Register row 40
5.220 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p967
5.221 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.222 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5. Archives 54
5.223 Archives 50. Working chart of 10 October 2026
5.224 Willie Parau Browne, Re Makea Ariki, 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289–291; Willie Parau Browne, 1949, Rarotonga MB 19, 291; Willie Parau Browne, 1950, Rarotonga MB 20, 234; Willie Parau Browne, Arepepe 67 (1948) and Arekakaia 50A5 (1948–50), Appellate MB 1, 6–7, 219, 230, 237, 240; Pokino Rangatira, petition of 15 July 1941, Volume 2, Chapter 24; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p983
5.225 cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p419, #p990; Volume 2, Chapter 18
5.226 Parts One and Two above; the register; /chapter-5
5.227 Willie Parau Browne 1949, Rarotonga MB 19, 291. Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 74. Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 287. Archives 50. cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p982, #p983
5.228 Browne family compilation, Sheet A; Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; Willie Parau Browne 1948, Appellate MB 1, 5; Judge MacCauley’s genealogy books, P.126 (MB 7/88, 7/131), P.452 (MB 20/266–267); Rarotonga MB 12, 17–30 (1937); Paaro 1916, MB 7, 329A, 331A; Archives 50; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p2101, #p2031, #p2131
5.229 Willie Parau Browne, 1939, Rarotonga MB 12, 289 (Te Pa a Tuakino an adopted son of Rangi Makea); the first edition, section 18, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5 (Te Pa a Tuakino the son of Po Te Aunanua alias Tuakino and Moeavaroa, of the Pa line); Volume 2, Chapter 24.
5.230 the sources are given at the head of each table; /chapter-5 section 19
5.231 Tamuera Te Rei and Stephen Savage 1917, 26 JPS 45–65, Table IV; Walter Gudgeon, Hocken MS-662/B, scan 286, Archives 54; Archives 56; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
5.232 Volume 2, Chapter 24 register; Willie Browne 1948, AMB 1, 5–6; Ngāti Arera genealogy, Archives 52; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5, #p2101
5.233 Henry Nicholas and Percy Smith 1892, 1 JPS 20–29; Volume 2 working paper on the Pa genealogy, 24 September 2026; cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-5
Volume One, Chapter 6
Chapter 6: Southern Cook Islands customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- The ariki title decisions (Cook Islands Ariki Title Reports)
- The Privy Council decisions on Cook Islands appeals
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- Native custom is not a fixed thing. It is based on the old custom as i…
- He did agree that appeals from the Native Land Court should go to the Native Appellate Court.
- WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS pray that the New Zealand Parliament will:
- (c) Thereafter enact the necessary legislation to give effect to such Customary Laws.
- (d) Enact the necessary legislation enabling the hearing of any Appeal…
- 1 That this meeting fully support the Petition of Kainuku Ariki and ot…
- The archive: the passages in full
1. Where it came from
6.69 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 8
6.70 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 8
6.72 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 18
6.74 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3
6.76 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.1
6.77 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.2
6.79 Māori Dictionary, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz
6.80 Savage, S., A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 379
6.81 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.2; Document A30 (Mutu), paras 72–73
6.82 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.4
6.85 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 28–29
6.86 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 28–29
6.87 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 223
6.88 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.5
6.90 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.1
6.91 For a discussion of Māori values, see John Patterson Exploring Māori Values Palmerston North, Dunmore Press,
6.92 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 27
6.93 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old..., 1995
6.94 Gallagher, Timoti, Tikanga Maori Pre-1840, Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1
6.95 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...:
6.96 hospitality, kindness: Māori Dictionary Online, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm
6.97 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 13
6.98 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims Stage One Volume 1, Wai 1200, 2007: 132
6.99 Law Commission, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Law Commission Study Paper 9, Wellington, 2001: 28, para 125
6.100 relationship, kinship, sense of family connection: Māori Dictionary Online, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm
6.101 Law Commission, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Law Commission Study Paper 9, Wellington, 2001: 38, 44, paras 156, 182
6.102 Permissible, allowable, authorised, all right, ....right: Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 490
6.104 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4-5
6.106 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4, and 10. See also Richard Mulgan, Commentary on Chief Judge Durie's Custom Law Paper From the Perspective of a Pākehā Political Scientist, unpublished paper for NZLAW, 1996: 5
6.110 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 156
6.112 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 17
2. The five themes
Native custom is not a fixed thing. It is based on the old custom as it existed before the arrival of Europeans, but it has developed and adapted to the changing circumstances of the Māori race today.6.141
This the Court denies, and contends that there is only one custom for Polynesians and that this has been correctly stated in the Makea nui Ariki Judgment.
He did agree that appeals from the Native Land Court should go to the Native Appellate Court.
4. That a number of Land Court Judgments at Rarotonga have been questioned by the natives in regards to Maori Customary Laws, and Appeals against the Judgment made.
5. That the Arikis, Mataiapos, Rangatiras and people resent the action of the Land Court in changing the Customary Maori Laws without first consulting their views of this most important matter.
6. The Rarotonga Land Court has not tried to put these matters right in determining what are the Customary Laws of Rarotonga. That neglect on the part of the Land Court has resulted in loss of lands and Titles to the real true owners on several occasions.
7. That the natives of Rarotonga have no means of Appealing to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against any Judgment of the Land Court on account of the heavy costs involved which the natives cannot afford to pay.
8. That it is a fact that there is a strong feeling amongst the people of Rarotonga, that it is undesirable that the Administrator should also be the Judicial Officer to determine matters of this kind.
WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS pray that the New Zealand Parliament will:
… (b) Permit and afford facilities for the purpose of enquiring into and recording the Native Customary Laws.
(c) Thereafter enact the necessary legislation to give effect to such Customary Laws.
(d) Enact the necessary legislation enabling the hearing of any Appeals from the Land Court of Rarotonga to be held at Rarotonga by a Judge of the Native Land Court of New Zealand.
1 That this meeting fully support the Petition of Kainuku Ariki and others to the New Zealand Parliament dated 8th August 1941.
2 That this meeting request to the Court to hold off all Land Court proceedings until the questions of Native Customary Laws is satisfied as requested in the Petition to Parliament dated August 8th 1941.
6.114 Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, edited by Bruce Biggs and Rangi Moeka’a, Ministry of Education, Rarotonga, 1995, p. 549.
6.117 Durie, Custom Law, p. 10.
6.120 New Zealand Native Appellate Court, 1906, quoted in New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9, 2001.
6.123 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 2
6.124 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 3-7
6.125 NZLC, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Study Paper 9, 2001, p. 2.
6.126 Justice Gray, Aboriginal and Native Title Issues, edited transcript of a speech delivered at the Law Librarians’ Symposium on 2 October 1998, 7
6.127 La protection constitutionelle des droits ancestraux des peuples autochtone et l’arret Sparrow (1991) 36 McGill LJ
6.128 R v Van der Peet (1996) 137 DLR (4th) 289, 345-349
6.129 Belgrave, M., Māori Customary Law..., 1996: 51
6.130 Mead, Hirini Moko, The Nature of Tikanga, paper presented at Mai i te Ata Hāpara Conference, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Ötaki, 11-13 August 2000: 16
6.131 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 331
6.132 Belgrave, M., Māori Customary Law..., 1996: 10
6.133 Joseph, R.A., Historical Bicultural Developments - The Recognition and Denial of Māori Custom in the Colonial Legal System of Aotearoa/New Zealand, paper prepared for Te Mātāhauariki Research Institute, University of Waikato FRST Project, 1999, 37
6.134 Mead, Hirini Moko, The Nature of Tikanga, paper presented at Mai i te Ata Hāpara Conference, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Ötaki, 11-13 August 2000: 15
6.135 Durie, E.T., Ethics and Values Te Oru Rangahau, Māori Research and Development Conference, Massey University, 7-9 July 1998, 3
6.136 Difficulties can arise if judges draw conclusions based on their understanding of a Māori concept without full discussion of evidence describing the concept and its implications. See, for example, Police v Dargaville, District Court Kaikohe, 14 May 1999, CRN 8027007676, Judge Everitt, re the concept of “mana”
6.137 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: para 107
6.138 Durie, Justice E.T., Constitutionalising Māori, paper presented at the Legal Research Foundation conference, “Liberty, Equality, Community: Constitutional Rights in Conflict,” Auckland, 20 August 1999: 10
6.139 Durie, Justice E.T., Constitutionalising Māori, paper presented at the Legal Research Foundation conference, “Liberty, Equality, Community: Constitutional Rights in Conflict,” Auckland, 20 August 1999: 10
6.140 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington,
6.16 Re Vaimaanga section 6 Takitumu and Tikioki section 45 Takitumu, AMB 1 pages 160-162, Judges J. Harvey and H.J. Morgan, 18 October 1948, at 162 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-10
6.143 [1920] AC 198 at 204; (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC) 6
6.146 Joan Metge, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995, p. 21. The passage in full
6.147 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 8.
6.148 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 8
6.149 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington,
6.150 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 8
6.151 NZ Law Commission 2003:28
6.153 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, (1957) 20 Modern Law Review 244
6.21 Petition of Kainuku Ariki, Tinomana Ariki and Pa Ariki on behalf of the mata‘iapo, rangatira and people of Rarotonga to the House of Representatives, 8 August 1941, paras 4 to 8 and prayer (b) to (d), Cook Islands National Archives, Takuvaine; first edition, Volume 2, Chapter 18.
6.22 Minutes of the meeting of ariki, mata‘iapo and rangatira at Taputapuatea Palace, 5 May 1942, resolutions 1 and 2, Cook Islands National Archives; first edition, Volume 2, Chapter 18.
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Court judgments and government publications — the New Zealand Law Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Native Appellate Court — are reproduced at the length the chapter relies on; the first three are Crown copyright with reproduction permitted, the last is a court record.
Works still in copyright — Mead, Metge, Erueti in Boast and others, Durie, Keesing and Strathern, Rumbles — appear only in the passage quoted or relied on, with citation. Marked in amber.
Part 1: Origins, values and themes
The Māori system of law was based on values
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
“[t]he Māori system of law was based on values, and being a values-based system Māori adhered to principles rather than rules. Practice grew out of the values that everyone subscribed to, and an adherence to principles rather than rules enabled change while maintaining cultural integrity.”
Norms were secular and flexible
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“Many of the customary norms which regulated social and economic life were secular, involving the actions of people, not gods and spirits, (at least not directly). They were flexible and subject to reinterpretation according to circumstances.”
Note 6.73: The five themes
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
“the indivisibility of the natural world, so that all its elements flow together and are seen as one; • the oneness of the spiritual world and the physical world; • the mutuality in the relationship between people and land; • the connection of the people with the land through whakapapa, korero and the process of naming; and • the endless cycle of reciprocity, particularly seen in the example of mana and manaakitanga.”
Note 6.75: No division of animate and inanimate
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“Māori do not share the Western concept of animate and inanimate in the natural world. For Māori, all things have a tupapaku [New Zealand Māori mauri], or life-force, and a vairua [New Zealand Māori wairua], or spirit. This is part of why Māori conceive their world in different ways from Westerners. The land, sea, sky, and waters are seen as indivisible.”
Part 2: Change, and the incrustations argument
Not codified but communicated by word of mouth
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“They were not codified into written laws but communicated by word of mouth, and debated, applied, and enforced by relatively small communities of kin rather than an external authority such as a legislature or Court. As a result, there was a marked emphasis on contextualisation in their interpretation and application. In resolving a dispute a number of tikanga could be considered relevant. Some of these could reinforce each other, others could conflict, and occasionally there was uncertainty as to which should apply if at all. It was therefore necessary to prioritise and mix and match tikanga to fit with the demands of the moment.”
The Native Appellate Court complains, 1906
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
“In dealing with questions of Māori custom, the difficulty is becoming daily more pronounced of disentangling genuine custom from the incrustations which have grown round it under the influence of Pākehā ideas.”
The Law Commission’s answer
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
“Yet judges in the ordinary courts have never sought to preserve English common law from “incrustations” derived from non-English sources such as Roman law, canon law, the law merchant, or international law. In this century, the genius of the common law is its dynamism coupled with its stability.”
Native custom is not a fixed thing
PUBLIC DOMAIN — may be reproduced in full
“It is, however, abundantly clear that Native custom, and especially the Native custom of adoption, as applied to the title of lands derived through the Court, is not a fixed thing. It is based upon the old custom as it existed before the arrival of Europeans, but it has developed, and become adapted to the changing circumstances of the Māori race of today.”
Note 6.144: When customs are codified and frozen
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“It is when customs are codified and frozen, that they lose their ability to adapt flexibly to situations of change. Legal action becomes simplified and loses its complex extralegal social functions.”
Part 3: Variation
Note 6.146: The tangata whenua of a locality formulate their own tikanga
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“tangata whenua of a particular locality had the right to formulate their own tikanga, thus while the principles were the same throughout Māoridom the detailed content may vary between iwi, hapu and even whanau.”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 6, Note 6.21, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-6, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
Transcriptions follow the sources as printed. Where the manuscript rendered a macron as a circumflex, the macron has been restored.
All the notes of the chapter
6.1 Declaration as to Land, Federal Parliament of the Cook Islands, Avarua, 3 August 1894, AJHR 1895 A-3, p. 21; Volume 1, Chapter 10, and Volume 3.
6.2 Cook Islands Act 1915 (New Zealand), section 422; continued in force by Article 77 of the Constitution.
6.3 Hunt v De Miguel [2016] CKCA 2 at para 56.
6.4 Constitution of the Cook Islands, Article 66A, inserted by section 7 of the Constitution Amendment (No 17) Act 1994–95, in force 1 July 1995; Article 48(3), replaced by section 5 of the same Act. The sections are set out in the first edition’s introduction, restored above.
6.5 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA), Elias CJ at paras [13], [31], [47], [85] and [148]; Gault P, Keith and Anderson JJ and Tipping J concurring in the result. Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399 (PC) and Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC) applied; Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 overruled.
6.6 Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] 2 NZLR 733, Tipping, McGrath and Blanchard JJ at para [150] and the headnote at [164]; Elias CJ at para [12].
6.7 Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127.
6.8 Ellis v R (Continuance) [2022] NZSC 114; the Statement on Tikanga prepared by the wānanga of experts is appended to the judgment.
6.9 Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission, He arotake i te āheinga ki ngā rawa a te tangata ka mate ana | Review of succession law: rights to a person’s property on death, Report 145, Wellington, November 2021, para 2.2, Recommendation 5 and paras 12.109 to 12.110. Its passage on the three aspects of mana (para 2.27 and note 33) is in Volume 2, Chapter 25.
6.10 AMB 1 page 266-267, 15 August 1949, Judges D.G.B. Morison, E.M. Beechey, H.J. Morgan
6.11 Descendants of Utanga and Arerangi Tumu v Descendants of Iopu Tumu [2012] UKPC 34 at paras 36 to 45 and 58 to 63 (Lord Walker and Lord Carnwath for the Board), reported at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc.
6.12 Baudinet v Tavioni [2012] UKPC 35, Lord Mance for the majority at paras 36 to 43; Lady Hale, with whom Lord Walker agreed, at paras 46 to 55 and 61 to 63; reported at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc.
6.13 Browne v Munokoa [2018] UKPC 18 at paras 16 to 18, 28 and 40 to 42 (Lord Sumption for the Board), reported at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc.
6.14 Framhein v Attorney General of the Cook Islands [2022] UKPC 4 at paras 139 to 151 (Lady Rose for the Board), reported at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc.
6.15 [1920] AC 198 at 204-205; (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC) 6 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-9
6.16 Re Vaimaanga section 6 Takitumu and Tikioki section 45 Takitumu, AMB 1 pages 160-162, Judges J. Harvey and H.J. Morgan, 18 October 1948, at 162 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-10
6.17 Hineiti Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee of New Zealand [1920] AC 198 (PC) at 204 to 205 and Re Vaimaanga section 6 and Tikioki section 45, Native Appellate Court, 18 October 1948, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 160 to 162 at 162 (Judges Harvey and Morgan).
6.18 Submissions as amicus curiae, 10 October 2026, para 22. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-12
6.19 Re Tereora section 106B, Nikao, Native Appellate Court, 15 August 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 266 to 267 (Judges Morison, Beechey and Morgan), (1949) 1 AMB 266; the marginal note, Native Appellate Court, 10 August 1949, Enuakura section 4 and Ngatipare sections 91 and 92, Appellate Minute Book 1, in Tui Pori’s submission, AMB 1 transcriptions, working set of 10 October 2026. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-13
6.20 Petition No. 29/1941 of Tuvaine alias Pokino Rangatira to the House of Representatives, 15 July 1941, para 3(b); Memorandum on the petition for the Secretary, Cook Islands Department, from Resident Commissioner H. F. Ayson, 17 September 1941; first edition, Volume 2, Chapter 18.
6.21 Petition of Kainuku Ariki, Tinomana Ariki and Pa Ariki on behalf of the mata‘iapo, rangatira and people of Rarotonga to the House of Representatives, 8 August 1941, paras 4 to 8 and prayer (b) to (d), Cook Islands National Archives, Takuvaine; first edition, Volume 2, Chapter 18.
6.22 Minutes of the meeting of ariki, mata‘iapo and rangatira at Taputapuatea Palace, 5 May 1942, resolutions 1 and 2, Cook Islands National Archives; first edition, Volume 2, Chapter 18.
6.23 The Appellate Minute Book reports, cited as AMB, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/amb; the Cook Islands Land Court Reports at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/cilcr; the Privy Council decisions at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/ukpc.
6.24 Cook Islands Constitution Act Commencement Order 1965
6.25 Part IVB was inserted by section 7 of the Constitution Amendment (No.17) Act 1994-95 The Article reads: 66A. Custom - (1) In addition to its powers to make laws pursuant to Article 39, Parliament may make laws recognising or giving effect to custom and usage. (2) In exercising its powers pursuant to this Article, Parliament shall have particular regard to the customs, traditions, usages, and values of the indigenous people of the Cook Islands. (3) Until such time as an Act otherwise provides, custom and usage shall have effect as part of the law of the Cook Islands, provided that this subclause shall not apply in respect of any custom, tradition, usage or value that is, and to the extent that it is, inconsistent with a provision of this Constitution or of any other enactment. (4) For the purposes of this Constitution, the opinion of the Aronga Mana of the island or vaka to which a custom, tradition or value relates, as to matters relating to and concerning custom, tradition, usage or the existence, extent or application of custom, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court of law. Aronga Mana is the group of traditional leaders (ariki, kavana, mata’iapo and rangatira) of each district or village; of each island, and of the Cook Islands as a whole.
6.26 Lambert, Justice D., Van Der Peet and Delgamuukw..., 1998: 262
6.27 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary, 1995, the entries ‘ākono‘anga’ and ‘peu’; Savage, S., A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, 1962, the entry ‘akono‘anga’.
6.28 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 340 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-21
6.29 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 490
6.30 Wickliffe, Judge Caren, Visible Justice: Evolving Access to Law, unpublished, A keynote address to the conference of the New Zealand Law Librarians Group, Wellington, 12 September 2002: 4 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-23
6.31 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, 4 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-24
6.32 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 304 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-25
6.33 M.B.12: 287 to 289 The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-26
6.34 re Makea Nui Tinirau Title, unreported, Native Land Court, 7 February 1940, Chief Judge Ayson: pages 14 to 15
6.35 Extract from memorandum from Secretary of Island Territories, dated 3rd April, 1946, “SECOND LANGUAGE EXAMINATION,” to the Registrar, Rarotonga, from Resident Commissioner W. Talby, National Archives, Rarotonga. It records that: “The Secretary of Island Territories was approached by Messrs Hickling and Ingram together enquiring if a syllabus could The memorandum reads: On the subject of knowledge at Native customs and social organization which should be an essential feature of the higher examination rather than merely a knowledge of the language, Mr. Ingram mentioned that the rules and practice of the Native Land Court might be part of the syllabus, but you will understand my reaction that these do not comprise Native custom at rather they are an introduced system that in many ways is opposed to custom. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n6-28
6.36 Memorandum re Petition of Pokino Rangatira (Mrs. W.P. Browne) No. 29/1941, from Secretary of Islands Affairs to Resident Commissioner H.F. Ayson, 22 September 1941, National Archives, Rarotonga The Secretary’s memorandum reads: Further to my memorandum of the 14th August, 1941, I have to advise that the above-mentioned petition was inquired into by the Native Affairs Committee at Wellington held on the 3rd and 10th September last. Mr. W.P. Browne represented his wife and read lengthy statements in support of the petition. Mrs. Takau Love was also present and made an extempore statement in her own behalf. Both parties were questioned at some length by members of the Committee. The Committee decided that they had no recommendation to make in regard to this petition.
6.37 Hirini Moko Mead, Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori Values, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2003, p. 12.
6.38 Hirini Moko Mead, Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori Values, revised edition, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2006, p. 13.
6.39 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 18. The social organisation is dealt with in Volume Two of this series, Pre-European Southern Cook Islands Social Organisation, Chapters 20 to 23.
6.40 New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9: Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Wellington, March 2001, paragraphs 64 to 66.
6.41 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 17
6.42 Gallagher, Timoti, Tikanga Maori Pre-1840, Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1
6.43 Gallagher, Timoti, Tikanga Maori Pre-1840, Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1
6.44 Gallagher, Timoti, Tikanga Maori Pre-1840, Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1
6.45 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.1.1. Boast suggests that this may be partly because legal positivism was not yet established in England. For example, Edward Shortland, when referring to Ngāi Tahu rules relating to land tenure and methods of dispute resolution in the 1840's, describes them as “legal”: Shortland, Edward, The Southern Districts of New Zealand: A Journal, London, 1851: 95
6.46 Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice, Reprinted with corrections, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1995: 4
6.47 Rumbles, Wayne, Seeing Law in Pre-european Maori Society, Waikato University, unpublished draft: 3
6.48 Rumbles, Wayne, Seeing Law in Pre-european Maori Society, Waikato University, unpublished draft: 2
6.49 Sahlins, Marshall D., Social Stratification in Polynesia, American Ethnological Society Monograph, 29, 1958, Seattle: University of Washington Press: 150. For further discussion of Austinian Sovereignty see Roger Cotterrell, The politics of Jurisprudence, (1989), Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (1914).
6.50 Durie, E.T., Will the Settlers Settle? Cultural Conciliation and Law, (1995) 8 Otago Law Review 449
6.51 Keesing, Roger and Strathern, Andrew, Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective, 3rd edition ed, 1998 (1981): 293; Rumbles, Wayne, Seeing Law in Pre-european Maori Society, Waikato University, unpublished draft: 4
6.52 Metge, J., Commentary on Judge Durie's Custom Law, 1996: 2
6.53 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004,, paragraph 2.1.1
6.54 Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report, Wellington, GP Publications, 1997: 21, 26
6.55 He Hinātore ki te Ao Māori: a Glimpse into the Māori World: 1
6.56 He Hinātore ki te Ao Māori: a Glimpse into the Māori World: 5
6.57 Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice, (1995): 4
6.58 Keesing, Roger and Strathern, Andrew, Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective, 3rd edition ed, 1998 (1981): 301
6.59 Brookfield, F. M., Waitangi & Indigenous Rights, Revolution, Law & Legitimation, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1999: 86-87 and note the recognition of this law in the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK)15 & 16 Vict., s 71.
6.60 Wickliffe, Judge Caren, Visible Justice: Evolving Access to Law, Wellington, 12 September 2002
6.61 Ward, A., A Show of Justice, Racial Amalgamation in the Nineteenth Century, New Zealand: Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1974: 23, and Erueti, A., Maori Customary Law and Land Tenure, in Boast, R., Eurueti, A., McPhail, D., and Smith, N. Maori Land Law, Butterworths, Wellington, 1999: 28-30
6.62 Erueti, A., Maori Customary Law and Land Tenure, in Boast, R., Eurueti, A., McPhail, D., and Smith, N. Maori Land Law, Butterworths, Wellington, 1999: 33-37, 38-41
6.63 Ward, A., A Show of Justice, Racial Amalgamation in the Nineteenth Century, New Zealand: Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1974: 5-6, Cox, L., Kotahitanga: The Search for Maori Political Unity, Oxford University Press, Auckland,
6.64 This is dealt with in Chapter 8, and in Erueti, A., Maori Customary Law and Land Tenure, in Boast, R., Eurueti, A., McPhail, D., and Smith, N. Maori Land Law, Butterworths, Wellington, 1999: 42-45; Asher, G., and Naulls, D., Maori Land, NZ Planning Council, Wellington, 1987: 5-6; and see Kawharu, H., Maori Land Tenure: Studies of a Changing Institution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1977: 55- 56
6.65 Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Fishing Report (Wai 22), Government Printer, Wellington, 1988: 181
6.66 Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Fishing Report (Wai 22), Government Printer, Wellington, 1988: 58-61
6.67 Kawharu, H., Maori Land Tenure: Studies of a Changing Institution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1977: 39; Erueti, A., Maori Customary Law and Land Tenure, in Boast, R., Eurueti, A., McPhail, D., and Smith, N. Maori Land Law, Butterworths, Wellington, 1999: 33-35; Asher, G., and Naulls, D., Maori Land, NZ Planning Council, Wellington, 1987: 7; and see Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 5. Note that these scholars use the term “membership” where this author uses “citizenship”.
6.68 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 15.
6.69 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 8
6.70 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 8
6.71 Wickliffe, Judge Caren, Visible Justice: Evolving Access to Law, Wellington, 12 September 2002
6.72 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 18
6.73 Waitangi Tribunal, as summarised in New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9, 2001. The passage in full
6.74 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3
6.75 Alex Erueti, “Māori Customary Law and Land Tenure”, in Richard Boast, Andrew Erueti, Doug McPhail and Norman Smith, Māori Land Law, 2nd edition, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2004, paragraph 3.2. The passage in full
6.76 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.1
6.77 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.2
6.78 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.3
6.79 Māori Dictionary, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz
6.80 Savage, S., A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 379
6.81 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.2; Document A30 (Mutu), paras 72–73
6.82 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.4
6.83 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.4
6.84 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.5
6.85 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 28–29
6.86 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 28–29
6.87 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 223
6.88 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Crown's Foreshore and Seabed Policy: Chapter 1 paragraph 1.3.5
6.89 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 13
6.90 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.1
6.91 For a discussion of Māori values, see John Patterson Exploring Māori Values Palmerston North, Dunmore Press,
6.92 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 27
6.93 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old..., 1995
6.94 Gallagher, Timoti, Tikanga Maori Pre-1840, Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1
6.95 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...:
6.96 hospitality, kindness: Māori Dictionary Online, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm
6.97 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 13
6.98 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims Stage One Volume 1, Wai 1200, 2007: 132
6.99 Law Commission, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Law Commission Study Paper 9, Wellington, 2001: 28, para 125
6.100 relationship, kinship, sense of family connection: Māori Dictionary Online, http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm
6.101 Law Commission, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Law Commission Study Paper 9, Wellington, 2001: 38, 44, paras 156, 182
6.102 Permissible, allowable, authorised, all right, ....right: Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 490
6.103 For example, as well as the values mentioned above Eddie Durie's paper - Custom Law - also mentions aroha, mana tupuna and wairua as core values of tikanga Māori: Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4-5
6.104 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4-5
6.105 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4
6.106 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 4, and 10. See also Richard Mulgan, Commentary on Chief Judge Durie's Custom Law Paper From the Perspective of a Pākehā Political Scientist, unpublished paper for NZLAW, 1996: 5
6.107 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 8
6.108 Metge, Joan, Comments provided to the New Zealand Law Commission on a draft “Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law” 16 February 2001: 1-2
6.109 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 15
6.110 Buse, J., Cook Islands Maori Dictionary: 156
6.111 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 17
6.112 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 17
6.113 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 27.
6.114 Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, edited by Bruce Biggs and Rangi Moeka’a, Ministry of Education, Rarotonga, 1995, p. 549.
6.115 Rusiate Nayacakalou, as recalled by Ron Crocombe in his commentary on the manuscript of this series, 17 January 2008, p. 1.
6.116 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 21.
6.117 Durie, Custom Law, p. 10.
6.118 Erueti, in Māori Land Law, paragraph 3.1.
6.119 Ministry of Justice, He Hinatore ki te Ao Māori: A Glimpse into the Māori World — Māori Perspectives on Justice, Wellington, 2001, p. 12.
6.120 New Zealand Native Appellate Court, 1906, quoted in New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9, 2001.
6.121 Re Roera Rangi, Native Appellate Court, New Plymouth, 28 October 1906 - quoted in Customary Māori Land and Sea Tenure: Ngā Tikanga Tiaki Tā’onga o Neherā, Wellington, New Zealand: Manatu Māori, Ministry of Māori Affairs, 1991: 2
6.122 NZLC, Māori Custom and Values, paragraph 8.
6.123 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 2
6.124 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 3-7
6.125 NZLC, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Study Paper 9, 2001, p. 2.
6.126 Justice Gray, Aboriginal and Native Title Issues, edited transcript of a speech delivered at the Law Librarians’ Symposium on 2 October 1998, 7
6.127 La protection constitutionelle des droits ancestraux des peuples autochtone et l’arret Sparrow (1991) 36 McGill LJ
6.128 R v Van der Peet (1996) 137 DLR (4th) 289, 345-349
6.129 Belgrave, M., Māori Customary Law..., 1996: 51
6.130 Mead, Hirini Moko, The Nature of Tikanga, paper presented at Mai i te Ata Hāpara Conference, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Ötaki, 11-13 August 2000: 16
6.131 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 331
6.132 Belgrave, M., Māori Customary Law..., 1996: 10
6.133 Joseph, R.A., Historical Bicultural Developments - The Recognition and Denial of Māori Custom in the Colonial Legal System of Aotearoa/New Zealand, paper prepared for Te Mātāhauariki Research Institute, University of Waikato FRST Project, 1999, 37
6.134 Mead, Hirini Moko, The Nature of Tikanga, paper presented at Mai i te Ata Hāpara Conference, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Ötaki, 11-13 August 2000: 15
6.135 Durie, E.T., Ethics and Values Te Oru Rangahau, Māori Research and Development Conference, Massey University, 7-9 July 1998, 3
6.136 Difficulties can arise if judges draw conclusions based on their understanding of a Māori concept without full discussion of evidence describing the concept and its implications. See, for example, Police v Dargaville, District Court Kaikohe, 14 May 1999, CRN 8027007676, Judge Everitt, re the concept of “mana”
6.137 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: para 107
6.138 Durie, Justice E.T., Constitutionalising Māori, paper presented at the Legal Research Foundation conference, “Liberty, Equality, Community: Constitutional Rights in Conflict,” Auckland, 20 August 1999: 10
6.139 Durie, Justice E.T., Constitutionalising Māori, paper presented at the Legal Research Foundation conference, “Liberty, Equality, Community: Constitutional Rights in Conflict,” Auckland, 20 August 1999: 10
6.140 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington,
6.141 In re Vaimaanga section 6 and Tikioki section 45, Tākitumu, Native Appellate Court minute book 1, pages 160 to 162, Judges J. Harvey and H. J. Morgan, 18 October 1948, p. 162. Applying Hineiti Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee of New Zealand [1920] AC 198 (PC) at 204 to 205.
6.142 [1920] AC 198; (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC) 6
6.143 [1920] AC 198 at 204; (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC) 6
6.144 Roger Keesing and Andrew Strathern, Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace, 1998. Wayne Rumbles, Seeing Law in Pre-European Māori Society, unpublished draft, University of Waikato, pp. 2 to 3. The passage in full
6.145 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 8.
6.146 Joan Metge, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995, p. 21. The passage in full
6.147 Mead, Tikanga Māori, p. 8.
6.148 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 8
6.149 Metge, Joan, New Growth From Old: The Whanau in the Modern World, Victoria University Press, Wellington,
6.150 Mead, Hirini Moko (Sidney M.), Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values, ...: 8
6.151 NZ Law Commission 2003:28
6.152 Volume Two, Chapter 18.
6.153 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, (1957) 20 Modern Law Review 244
6.154 [First-edition note 166: its words are not in the scan of the first edition supplied; to be supplied from the printed first edition.]
6.155 Memorandum of H. F. Ayson, 17 September 1941, paras (a) and (b), citing Rarotonga Minute Book 12, p. 254; Native Affairs Committee, decision of 11 September 1941.
6.156 The four difficulties are set out in this Volume at Chapter 2, on the want of recorded information, and developed here.
Volume One, Chapter 7
Chapter 7: The importance of customary laws
What this chapter rests on
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The ariki title decisions (Cook Islands Ariki Title Reports)
- The Privy Council decisions on Cook Islands appeals
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
1. The Crown in the Cook Islands
A mere change in sovereignty is not presumed to disturb the rights of private owners; the general terms of a cession are prima facie to be construed accordingly. The system of Crown grants introduced subsequently must be regarded as brought about mainly, if not exclusively, for conveyancing purposes, not to alter substantive titles already existing.7.16
Viscount Haldane, in Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 1921
2. What aboriginal title contains
3. What this chapter establishes
are not traditional property rights. They are rights held by a collective and are in keeping with the culture and existence of that group
7.50 R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507, 547; 137 DLR (4th) 289. This case has been criticised on other grounds, because of the “integral to the distinctive culture” test applied by the majority. In addition to the dissenting judgments of L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ in Van der Peet, this test has been criticized by: Borrows, John, The Trickster: Integral to a Distinctive Culture (1997) 8 Constitutional Forum 27; Rotman, L. I., Hunting for Answers in a Strange Kettle of Fish: Unilateralism, Paternalism and Fiduciary Rhetoric in ‘Badger and Van der Peet’ (1997) 8 Constitutional Forum 40; K McNeil, Reduction by Definition: The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Aboriginal Rights in 1996 (1997) 5 Canada Watch 60; Gray, J., O Canada! - ‘Van der Peet’ as Guidance on the Construction of Native Title Rights (1997) 2 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter
7.53 Lambert, Hon. Mr. Justice Douglas, Van Der Peet and Delgamuukw: Ten Unresolved Issues, (1998) 32 University of British Columbia Law Review 249, 261
7.54 Walters, M.D., The ‘Golden Thread’ of Continuity: Aboriginal Customs at Common Law and Under the Constitution Act, 1982, 44 McGill Law Journal 711: 719
7.55 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, 1957: 246
7.57 McNeil, Kent, Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights: What’s the Connection [1997] 36 Alberta Law Review 117
7.61 Te Runanganui O Te Ika Whenua Incorporated Society v Attorney-General [1994] 2 NZLR 20, at 23-24, per Cooke P.
7.62 Ngati Apa at [29]
7.63 Doyle-Bedwell, Patricia, Case Comments: The Evolution of the Legal Test of Extinguishment: From Sparrow to Gitksan, (1993) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 6:193-204
7.64 Macklem, Patrick (1991) "First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination" McGill Law Journal 36:381-409: 406
7.65 Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 193, 241
7.66 Ngati Apa at [16] and [36] per Elias C.J.
7.67 Ngati Apa at [38] per Elias C.J.
7.68 Ngati Apa at [37] per Elias C.J.
7.71 Ngati Apa, ibid, at [19] per Elias CJ citing the judgment of Marshall CJ in Johnson v M’Intosh (1823) 21 US (8 Wheaton) 543. For a fuller account of the common law’s recognition of the property rights of indigenous people, refer to the judgments of Elias CJ at [14]-[39], and the joint judgment of Keith and Anderson JJ at [136]-[142], McHugh, Paul, The Māori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1991: 97
7.72 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.73 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.74 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 13, and McHugh, P., The Aboriginal Rights of the New Zealand Māori..., 1987: 265-266
7.75 Re Lundon & Whitaker Claims Act (1871) 2NZCA 41 at 49.
7.77 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.78 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.4
7.79 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC); (1901) NZPCC 371
7.80 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561, 577
7.81 Te Runanganui o te Ika Whenua Inc Society v Attorney-General [1994] 2 NZLR 20: 24 in the context of a proposed transfer of two dams to energy companies. Te Ika Whenua, representing certain Māori having interests in the relevant rivers, claimed that they had property rights in the rivers and alleged that the transfers would prejudice those rights, based on the doctrine of aboriginal title.
7.82 Ngati Apa
7.83 Amodu Tijani v Secretary of Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399 (PC) at 407-408
7.86 Guerin v. The Queen 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335
7.87 Guerin v The Queen (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321, 339
7.88 R v Sparrow [1990] 4 WWR 410
7.89 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010
7.90 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, delivering the reasons of La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.
7.91 Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832)
7.92 Johnson v McIntosh 21 US (8 Wheat) 543 (1823); Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia 30 US (5 Pet) 1 (1831); Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832)
7.93 Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832), 544
7.95 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
7.96 The Wik Peoples v Queensland; The Thayorre People v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1
7.97 Some commentators, however, also point out that the Wik case "places a strong emphasis on coexistence and compromise between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests" and may thus be seen "as marking the beginning of the development of a distinctly Australian approach tobalancing Aboriginal rights with countervailing values". For a discussion of this point, see Lokan, Andrew, From Recognition to Reconciliation: The Functions of Aboriginal Rights Law, [1999] 23 Melbourne University Law Review 65
7.102 R v Sundown (1999) 1 SCR 393, paragraph 35 per Cory J.
7.103 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, 1082, 1095-96; 153 DLR (4th) 193
7.108 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 10
7.111 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC); (1901) NZPCC 371
7.112 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801
7.113 Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188, 215
7.114 Le Tagaloa Pita et al v Attorney General [1991] 4 All ER 638 (being an appeal from Le Tagaloa Pita et al v Attorney General, CA 7/95, 18 December 1995, P Cooke, Bisson J. and Keith J., Court of Appeal of Western Samoa
7.115 Meleisea, The Making of Modern Samoa, Institute of Pacific Studies, USP, Suva, 1987: 5
7.117 Allen, C.K., Law in the Making, Oxford University Press, 1958: 154 to155
7.118 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 9
7.119 Angu v Atta (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments 1874-1928: 43, 44 (PC)
7.120 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, 1957: 246
7.122 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.123 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001, paragraph 204
7.125 Aguda, Akinola, Law of Evidence in Nigeria, Heinemann Educational Books, London, p 93; Bennett, T. W., Application of Customary Law in Southern Africa, Cape Town, Juta, 1985. Not all commentators accept that it is appropriate to treat indigenous customary law as analogous to foreign law: see Allot, Antony, The judicial ascertainment of customary law [1957) Modern LR 244. One jurisdiction that has attempted to create a fused system is Zimbabwe: s 3(1 )(a) of the Customary and Primary Courts Act 1981 (Zimb) states that "customary law shall be applicable in any civil case". Zimbabwe law is essentially a fused system based on the law of the Cape Colony as at 1891 (that is, South African Roman-Dutch law) and indigenous customary law. For an analysis, see Seidman, R. B., Rules of recognition in the primary Courts of Zimbabwe, (1983) 32 International and Comparative LG 871
7.126 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801
7.127 Angu v Atta (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments 1874-1928, 43; R v Knowles, unreported, Court of Appeal, CA 146/98,12 October 1998
7.128 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.130 Hineiti Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee (1919) NZPCC 1, 6
7.131 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.135 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801 at 806
7.138 Baldick v Jackson (1910) 27 NZLR 801
7.139 Keith, Sir Kenneth, The Treaty of Waitangi in the Courts, (1990) 14 New Zealand Universities Law Review 37: 50
7.140 Keith, K., The Treaty of Waitangi in the Courts, 1990: 59
7.141 Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188: 210
7.142 Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited v Manawatu Regional Council Decision W70/90
7.145 Carwyn Jones, http://ahi-ka-roa.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/doctrine-of-discovery-at-un.html, 9 May 2012
7.146 A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Latin bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself. For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be "an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal."
7.147 Love, David A., The Color of Law On the Pope, Paternalism and Purifying the Savages, Znet, June 16, 2007
7.148 Hayes, Diana, Reflections on Slavery, 1998. in Curran, Charles E., Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 2003
7.149 Davenport, Frances Gardiner, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington 1917: 13-20 (Latin) and 20-26 (English)
7.151 Thacher, John Boyd, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman's Sons, 1903:127
7.152 Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co.: 270-271
7.154 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 573-574
7.155 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 577
7.156 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 576
7.157 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 587-589
7.158 Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1939:46
7.161 Te Runanga 0 Muriwhenua v Te Runanganui o Te Upoko o Te Ika [1996] 3 NZLR 10, 17-19
7.162 Treaty Tribes Coalition, Te Runanga o Ngāti Porou and Tainui Māori Trust Board v Urban Māori Authorities [1997]
7.163 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285
7.164 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285, at 364
7.165 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285, at 364.
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Judgments of the courts — New Zealand, the Privy Council, Canada, the United States — are records of the court and are reproduced at the length the chapter relies on.
Works still in copyright — Slattery, Boast and others, Halsbury’s Laws — appear only in the passage quoted or relied on, with citation. Marked in amber.
Part 1: The presumption of continuity
The Crown is taken as having accepted existing native laws
COURT RECORD — may be reproduced
“The treatment of [the Crown’s] indigenous peoples under English common law had confirmed that the local laws and property rights of such peoples in ceded or settled colonies were not set aside by the establishment of British sovereignty. Accordingly the Crown is taken as having accepted existing native laws and customs.”
A body of constitutional law prior to the common law
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“Although the doctrine was a species of unwritten British law, it was not part of English common law in the narrow sense, and its application to a colony did not depend on whether or not English common law was introduced there. Rather the doctrine was part of a body of fundamental constitutional law that was logically prior to the introduction of English common law and governed its application in the colony.”
A mere change in sovereignty
COURT RECORD — may be reproduced
“A mere change in sovereignty is not to be presumed as meant to disturb rights of private owners; and the general terms of a cession are prima facie to be construed accordingly. The introduction of the system of Crown grants which was made subsequently must be regarded as having been brought about mainly, if not exclusively, for conveyancing purposes, and not with a view to altering substantive titles already existing.”
Part 2: The content of aboriginal title
Note 7.20: What aboriginal title confers, and its inherent limit
COURT RECORD — may be reproduced
“111 The content of aboriginal title, in fact, lies somewhere in between these positions. Aboriginal title is a right in land and, as such, is more than the right to engage in specific activities which may be themselves aboriginal rights. Rather, it confers the right to use land for a variety of activities, not all of which need be aspects of practices, customs and traditions which are integral to the 55 Sparrow v The Queen [1990] 1 SCR 1075 at pp. 1111-1112 56 R v Sundown (1999) 1 SCR 393, paragraph 35 per Cory J. 57 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, 1082, 1095-96; 153 DLR (4th) 193 58 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.2 59 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 56. Brennan J at 59 notes that "the general principle that the common law will recognise a customary title only if it be consistent with the common law is subject to an exception in favour of native title". Although the content of Native or Aboriginal title is governed by customary law, it does not follow that the only uses of land permitted or protected are those in existence at the time of annexation: see Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 193 at 243-246 60 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 9 distinctive cultures of aboriginal societies. Those activities do not constitute the right per se; rather, they are parasitic on the underlying title. However, that range of uses is subject to the limitation that they must not be irreconcilable with the nature of the attachment to the land which forms the basis of the particular group’s aboriginal title. This inherent limit, to be explained more fully below, flows from the definition of aboriginal title as a sui generis interest in land, and is one way in which aboriginal title is distinct from a fee simple. (2) Aboriginal Title at Common Law (a) General Features […] 117 Although the courts have been less than forthcoming, I have arrived at the conclusion that the content of aboriginal title can be summarized by two propositions: first, that aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land held pursuant to that title for a variety of purposes, which need not be aspects of those aboriginal practices, customs and traditions which are integral to distinctive aboriginal cultures; and second, that those protected uses must not be irreconcilable with the nature of the group’s attachment to that land.”
Discovery regulated rights between the discoverers
PUBLIC DOMAIN — may be reproduced in full
“regulated the right given by discovery among the European discoverers, but could not affect the rights of those already in possession, either as aboriginal occupants, or as occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase, but did not found that right on a denial of the right of the possessor to sell.”
Part 3: How custom is proved
Note 7.26: The four attributes of a valid custom
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“To be valid, a custom must have four essential attributes: (1) it must be immemorial; (2) it must be reasonable; (3) it must be certain . . . and (4) it must be continued without interruption since its immemorial origin.”
Note 7.26: A different angle for a different culture
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“the tests of reasonableness, morality, and public policy must be looked at from an angle somewhat different from that which would be appropriate in the conditions of English society”
Note 7.7: Custom proved like foreign law
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“a In the ordinary Courts matters of Māori customary law, like foreign law, must be proved by appropriately qualified experts, except where, by frequent proof the matter has become "notorious" to the Court (in which case judicial notice may be taken of the customary rule). b The above applies to the proof of customary law in all contexts, whether by way of statutory incorporation, as an aspect of Native or Aboriginal title, or as an aspect of New Zealand common law.”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 7, Note 7.10, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-7, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
7.1 Cook Islands Order in Council of 7 July 1902, constituting the Land Titles Court with a Chief Judge and a Native judge; Volume 4, Chapter 9, “Pa Ariki as judge”, with its notes 9.16 to 9.18.
7.2 Report of the Resident Commissioner for 1902, AJHR 1903 A-3 (Archives 47): “Makea and Pa Ariki vigorously support the operations of the Court”; Pa Ariki at the second conference at Rarotonga, 28 April 1903, AJHR 1903 A-3B, pp. 9 to 10 (Archives 48).
7.3 Papua section 4, Vaima‘anga, 9 July 1903, and Vaima‘anga section 6, 10 July 1903, Rarotonga Minute Book 1; Volume 4, Chapter 9, notes 9.16 and 9.17. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-3
7.4 Decision of the Court, sections 54 to 58 Ruatonga, Rarotonga Minute Book 1, pp. 327A to 329, 23 March 1905, W. E. Gudgeon and Pa Ariki; Volume 2, Chapter 26, note 26.5. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-4
7.5 Cook Islands Act 1915 (New Zealand), Part XIII, the constitution of the Native Land Court; the ariki courts and their removal, Volume 4, Chapter 7, “The destruction of the ariki courts, 1901 to 1909”.
7.6 Arakuo, Native Appellate Court, 1950, refusing to reopen the 1903 titles; Volume 4, Chapter 9, note 9.18.
7.7 Richard Boast, Andrew Erueti, Doug McPhail and Norman Smith, Māori Land Law, 2nd edition, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5. The passage in full
7.8 Hon. Mr Justice Douglas Lambert, “Van der Peet and Delgamuukw: Ten Unresolved Issues”, (1998) 32 University of British Columbia Law Review 249, p. 261. The judgment in full is on CanLII as 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC).
7.9 Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Officer [1986] 1 NZLR 680; (1986) 6 NZAR 114, at 121, per Williamson J. The judgment is reported only at [1986] 1 NZLR 680; there is no free copy online.
7.10 Brian Slattery, “Understanding Aboriginal Rights”, (1987) 66 Canadian Bar Review 727, p. 737. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-10
7.11 R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507; 137 DLR (4th) 289, at 547. The “integral to the distinctive culture” test applied by the majority has been criticised; the presumption of continuity is not affected by that criticism.
7.12 A. N. Allott, “The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa”, (1957) 20 Modern Law Review 244, p. 244.
7.13 Slattery, “Understanding Aboriginal Rights”, p. 738.
7.14 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387.
7.15 Re Lundon and Whitaker Claims Act 1871 (1872) 2 NZCA 41, at 49. And see New Zealand Law Commission, Study Paper 9: Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Wellington, March 2001, paragraphs 190 to 195.
7.16 Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399 (PC), at 407, per Viscount Haldane. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-16 The judgment in full: bailii.org, Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] UKPC 80
7.17 Volume Four of this series, The impact of the colonial era upon Southern Cook Islands customary law, history and society, 1888–1965, Chapters 6 and 8.
7.18 Cook and Other Islands Government Act 1901 (New Zealand), section 6. Cook Islands Act 1915 (New Zealand), section 422.
7.19 NZLC, Māori Custom and Values, paragraph 203. See also Tamihana Korokai v Solicitor-General (1912) 32 NZLR 321 (CA), and Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA), at [17] per Elias CJ. applied in Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 1461, paragraph 191. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-19
7.20 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, paragraph 111. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-20 The passage in full
7.21 Delgamuukw, paragraph 114. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-21
7.22 Delgamuukw, paragraphs 111 and 117. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n7-22
7.23 Guerin v The Queen (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321 (SCC), at 339. R v Sparrow [1990] 4 WWR 410 (SCC). Delgamuukw.
7.24 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (HCA). The judgment in full: austlii.edu.au, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23
7.25 Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832), at 544, per Marshall CJ.
7.26 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition, volume 12, “Custom and Usage”, paragraph 406. The passage in full
7.27 Halsbury, “Custom and Usage”, paragraph 407.
7.28 Boast and others, Māori Land Law, paragraph 2.4. See also Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801, and Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188 at 215.
7.29 Angu v Attah (1916) PC Gold Coast 1874–1928, 43. The rule has been applied in Samoa: Le Tagaloa Pita v Attorney-General [1991] 4 All ER 638.
7.30 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA), Elias CJ at paras [13], [31], [47], [85] and [148]; Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399 (PC) and Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC) applied; Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 overruled.
7.31 Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] 2 NZLR 733, Tipping, McGrath and Blanchard JJ at para [150]; Elias CJ at para [12]; the Court’s holding at [164].
7.32 United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eleventh Session, 8 May 2012, HR/5088.
7.33 Papal bulls Dum Diversas of 18 June 1452 and Romanus Pontifex of 8 January 1455, Nicholas V.
7.34 UN Permanent Forum, 2012.
7.35 Constitution of the Cook Islands, Article 66A(3), inserted by section 7 of the Constitution Amendment (No. 17) Act 1994–95; Hunt and Browne v Love de Miguel [2016] CKCA 2 at [56].
7.36 Constitution, Article 77; Cook Islands Act 1915, sections 422 and 409(f); Re Makea Nui Ariki title (Uriarau v Cowan), Native Appellate Court, 16 October 1948, Appellate MB 1, 150, that the court’s function is to ascertain whether an ariki has been chosen under custom, not to choose.
7.40 Re Vaimaanga section 6 and Tikioki section 45, Native Appellate Court, 18 October 1948, Appellate MB 1, 160–162; Re Tereora section 106B, Nikao, Native Appellate Court, 15 August 1949, Appellate MB 1, 266–267; Chapter 6 above.
7.41 Rarotonga MB 12, 287–289 (1939); Re Makea Nui Tinirau Ariki deceased, 7 February 1940, Rarotonga MB 13, 51–77; In re Tuvaine and Another [1941] NZLR 484 (Ostler J), and the unreported remainder of the judgment, Ariki Title Reports, Volume 1, case 1; Volume 2, Chapters 24 to 26.
7.42 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA), overruling In re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461; Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114, on Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801.
7.44 New Zealand Law Commission, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, Study Paper 9, 2001, paragraphs 17 to 18.
7.45 Angu v Attah (1916) PC Gold Coast 1874–1928, 43, adopted in Hunt v De Miguel, ruling of 2 April 2015 at [15] and [2016] CKCA 2 at [164]; and at [55].
7.46 Petitions of Pokino Rangatira (29/1941, 15 July 1941) and of Kainuku, Tinomana and Pa Ariki (8 August 1941), Chapter 6 above; Hunt v De Miguel [2016] CKCA 2 at [162] and [166]–[167]; In re Pa Ariki [2004] CKHC 3 at [18].
7.47 NZLR 513
7.48 Lambert, Hon. Mr. Justice Douglas, Van Der Peet and Delgamuukw: Ten Unresolved Issues, (1998) 32 University of British Columbia Law Review 249, 261
7.49 Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Officer [1986] 1 NZLR 680; (1986) 6 NZAR 114, 121
7.50 R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507, 547; 137 DLR (4th) 289. This case has been criticised on other grounds, because of the “integral to the distinctive culture” test applied by the majority. In addition to the dissenting judgments of L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ in Van der Peet, this test has been criticized by: Borrows, John, The Trickster: Integral to a Distinctive Culture (1997) 8 Constitutional Forum 27; Rotman, L. I., Hunting for Answers in a Strange Kettle of Fish: Unilateralism, Paternalism and Fiduciary Rhetoric in ‘Badger and Van der Peet’ (1997) 8 Constitutional Forum 40; K McNeil, Reduction by Definition: The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Aboriginal Rights in 1996 (1997) 5 Canada Watch 60; Gray, J., O Canada! - ‘Van der Peet’ as Guidance on the Construction of Native Title Rights (1997) 2 Australian Indigenous Law Reporter
7.51 Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights, (1987) 66 Canadian Bar Review 727: 737
7.52 The recognition of the presumption of continuity is generally attributed to Lord Mansfield’s judgment in Campbell v Hall (1774) 98 ER 848
7.53 Lambert, Hon. Mr. Justice Douglas, Van Der Peet and Delgamuukw: Ten Unresolved Issues, (1998) 32 University of British Columbia Law Review 249, 261
7.54 Walters, M.D., The ‘Golden Thread’ of Continuity: Aboriginal Customs at Common Law and Under the Constitution Act, 1982, 44 McGill Law Journal 711: 719
7.55 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, 1957: 246
7.56 Lambert, Justice D., Van Der Peet and Delgamuukw..., 1998: 262
7.57 McNeil, Kent, Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights: What’s the Connection [1997] 36 Alberta Law Review 117
7.58 R. v. Van der Peet [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507
7.59 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 Court of Appeal
7.60 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [29]
7.61 Te Runanganui O Te Ika Whenua Incorporated Society v Attorney-General [1994] 2 NZLR 20, at 23-24, per Cooke P.
7.62 Ngati Apa at [29]
7.63 Doyle-Bedwell, Patricia, Case Comments: The Evolution of the Legal Test of Extinguishment: From Sparrow to Gitksan, (1993) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 6:193-204
7.64 Macklem, Patrick (1991) "First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination" McGill Law Journal 36:381-409: 406
7.65 Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 193, 241
7.66 Ngati Apa at [16] and [36] per Elias C.J.
7.67 Ngati Apa at [38] per Elias C.J.
7.68 Ngati Apa at [37] per Elias C.J.
7.69 Ngati Apa at [148] per Keith J.
7.70 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, delivering the reasons of La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.
7.71 Ngati Apa, ibid, at [19] per Elias CJ citing the judgment of Marshall CJ in Johnson v M’Intosh (1823) 21 US (8 Wheaton) 543. For a fuller account of the common law’s recognition of the property rights of indigenous people, refer to the judgments of Elias CJ at [14]-[39], and the joint judgment of Keith and Anderson JJ at [136]-[142], McHugh, Paul, The Māori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1991: 97
7.72 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.73 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.74 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 13, and McHugh, P., The Aboriginal Rights of the New Zealand Māori..., 1987: 265-266
7.75 Re Lundon & Whitaker Claims Act (1871) 2NZCA 41 at 49.
7.76 Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington (1877) 3 NZ Jur NS (SC) 72
7.77 R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387
7.78 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.4
7.79 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC); (1901) NZPCC 371
7.80 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561, 577
7.81 Te Runanganui o te Ika Whenua Inc Society v Attorney-General [1994] 2 NZLR 20: 24 in the context of a proposed transfer of two dams to energy companies. Te Ika Whenua, representing certain Māori having interests in the relevant rivers, claimed that they had property rights in the rivers and alleged that the transfers would prejudice those rights, based on the doctrine of aboriginal title.
7.82 Ngati Apa
7.83 Amodu Tijani v Secretary of Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 AC 399 (PC) at 407-408
7.84 [The source for the Court of Appeal’s words “nothing new or unsettled” is to be supplied by the author; the note was empty in every file held.]
7.85 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001, 14
7.86 Guerin v. The Queen 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335
7.87 Guerin v The Queen (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321, 339
7.88 R v Sparrow [1990] 4 WWR 410
7.89 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010
7.90 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, delivering the reasons of La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.
7.91 Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832)
7.92 Johnson v McIntosh 21 US (8 Wheat) 543 (1823); Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia 30 US (5 Pet) 1 (1831); Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832)
7.93 Worcester v State of Georgia 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832), 544
7.94 Amankwah, H., Post Mabo: the Prospect of the Recognition of a Regime of Customary (Indigenous) Law in Australia, Australasian Law T eachers, paper presented at Association Conference, School of Law, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 30 September - 3 October 1993: 3
7.95 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
7.96 The Wik Peoples v Queensland; The Thayorre People v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1
7.97 Some commentators, however, also point out that the Wik case "places a strong emphasis on coexistence and compromise between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests" and may thus be seen "as marking the beginning of the development of a distinctly Australian approach tobalancing Aboriginal rights with countervailing values". For a discussion of this point, see Lokan, Andrew, From Recognition to Reconciliation: The Functions of Aboriginal Rights Law, [1999] 23 Melbourne University Law Review 65
7.98 Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) at [17] per Elias CJ; applied in Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 1461: para.. 191
7.99 Tamihana Korokai v Solicitor-General (1912) 32 NZLR 321 (CA).
7.100 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001, paragraph 203
7.101 Sparrow v The Queen [1990] 1 SCR 1075 at pp. 1111-1112
7.102 R v Sundown (1999) 1 SCR 393, paragraph 35 per Cory J.
7.103 Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, 1082, 1095-96; 153 DLR (4th) 193
7.104 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.2
7.105 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 56. Brennan J at 59 notes that "the general principle that the common law will recognise a customary title only if it be consistent with the common law is subject to an exception in favour of native title". Although the content of Native or Aboriginal title is governed by customary law, it does not follow that the only uses of land permitted or protected are those in existence at the time of annexation: see Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 193 at 243-246
7.106 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010
7.107 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.108 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 10
7.109 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.110 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, 1957
7.111 Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561 (PC); (1901) NZPCC 371
7.112 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801
7.113 Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188, 215
7.114 Le Tagaloa Pita et al v Attorney General [1991] 4 All ER 638 (being an appeal from Le Tagaloa Pita et al v Attorney General, CA 7/95, 18 December 1995, P Cooke, Bisson J. and Keith J., Court of Appeal of Western Samoa
7.115 Meleisea, The Making of Modern Samoa, Institute of Pacific Studies, USP, Suva, 1987: 5
7.116 Halsbury's Laws of England 4th ed, para 406. See also Egerton v Hardy [1974] 3 All ER 689 at 693 (CA) per Scarman LJ.
7.117 Allen, C.K., Law in the Making, Oxford University Press, 1958: 154 to155
7.118 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001: 9
7.119 Angu v Atta (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments 1874-1928: 43, 44 (PC)
7.120 Allott, A.N., The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa, 1957: 246
7.121 Moult v Halliday [1898] 1QB 125, 129
7.122 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.123 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001, paragraph 204
7.124 Angu v Atta (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments 1874-1928, 43, cited in Park, A. E. W., Sources of Nigerian Law, 1963, p 83; and Seidman, R. B., Rules of recognition in the primary Courts of Zimbabwe, (1983) 32 International and Comparative LG 871, 882
7.125 Aguda, Akinola, Law of Evidence in Nigeria, Heinemann Educational Books, London, p 93; Bennett, T. W., Application of Customary Law in Southern Africa, Cape Town, Juta, 1985. Not all commentators accept that it is appropriate to treat indigenous customary law as analogous to foreign law: see Allot, Antony, The judicial ascertainment of customary law [1957) Modern LR 244. One jurisdiction that has attempted to create a fused system is Zimbabwe: s 3(1 )(a) of the Customary and Primary Courts Act 1981 (Zimb) states that "customary law shall be applicable in any civil case". Zimbabwe law is essentially a fused system based on the law of the Cape Colony as at 1891 (that is, South African Roman-Dutch law) and indigenous customary law. For an analysis, see Seidman, R. B., Rules of recognition in the primary Courts of Zimbabwe, (1983) 32 International and Comparative LG 871
7.126 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801
7.127 Angu v Atta (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments 1874-1928, 43; R v Knowles, unreported, Court of Appeal, CA 146/98,12 October 1998
7.128 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.129 Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Officer [1986] 1 NZLR 680; (1986) 6 NZAR 114
7.130 Hineiti Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee (1919) NZPCC 1, 6
7.131 Boast, R., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 2.2.5
7.132 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010
7.133 Clark v Takamore, High Court, Christchurch; CIV 2007-409-1971; 29 July 2009, Fogarty J. at [83]
7.134 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801
7.135 Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801 at 806
7.136 Clark v Takamore, High Court, Christchurch; CIV 2007-409-1971; 29 July 2009, Fogarty J. at [83] and [86] to [87]
7.137 NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001, paragraphs 206 to 220
7.138 Baldick v Jackson (1910) 27 NZLR 801
7.139 Keith, Sir Kenneth, The Treaty of Waitangi in the Courts, (1990) 14 New Zealand Universities Law Review 37: 50
7.140 Keith, K., The Treaty of Waitangi in the Courts, 1990: 59
7.141 Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188: 210
7.142 Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited v Manawatu Regional Council Decision W70/90
7.143 Durie, E.T., Justice, Biculturalism and the Politics of Law, 1993: 36; NZLAW, Māori Custom and Values..., 2001:
7.144 United Nations Economic and Social Council HR/5088, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eleventh Session, 8 May 2012: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/hr5088.doc.htm. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights. The Permanent Forum is comprised of sixteen independent experts, who serve for a term of three years. Eight of the Members are nominated by governments and eight are nominated directly by indigenous organizations in their regions.
7.145 Carwyn Jones, http://ahi-ka-roa.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/doctrine-of-discovery-at-un.html, 9 May 2012
7.146 A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Latin bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself. For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be "an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal."
7.147 Love, David A., The Color of Law On the Pope, Paternalism and Purifying the Savages, Znet, June 16, 2007
7.148 Hayes, Diana, Reflections on Slavery, 1998. in Curran, Charles E., Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 2003
7.149 Davenport, Frances Gardiner, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington 1917: 13-20 (Latin) and 20-26 (English)
7.150 Davenport, Frances Gardiner, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington 1917: 61
7.151 Thacher, John Boyd, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman's Sons, 1903:127
7.152 Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co.: 270-271
7.153 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823)
7.154 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 573-574
7.155 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 577
7.156 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 576
7.157 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823): 587-589
7.158 Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1939:46
7.159 Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251: 273
7.160 See Boast, R. P., Māori Fisheries 1986-1998: a reflection [1999] 30 VUWLR 111
7.161 Te Runanga 0 Muriwhenua v Te Runanganui o Te Upoko o Te Ika [1996] 3 NZLR 10, 17-19
7.162 Treaty Tribes Coalition, Te Runanga o Ngāti Porou and Tainui Māori Trust Board v Urban Māori Authorities [1997]
7.163 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285
7.164 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285, at 364
7.165 Te Waka Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [2000] 1 NZLR 285, at 364.
Volume One, Chapter 8
Chapter 8: The acquisition of customary rights to land
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- a tika kitea (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - naming during discovery …
- Rights did not depend on a single factor, such as conquest or occupati…
- The conquerors, in annexing food lands from the conquered, took subdis…
- Acquisition of land rights by adoption
- must belong to kindred families in order to enter the family. If from …
- They are as follows:,
- a The donor must have sufficient right to make it.…
- Waimahanga is the ancestral tapere of Pa ariki, but as the land was in…
- In re section 13 Avaavaroa Walter Gudgeon also imposed a gloss upon such customs not known to Māori when he stated:,
- Tangiao or any other Mataiapo or land holder has a right to dispose of…
- A gift is a form of a claim easily made but it should be proved by cle…
- The loss of rights to land, and reversion
- Reversion of land to ancestors and chiefs by Ron Crocombe,
- It is my opinion that under ancient custom and usage any family (the u…
- Of the five ways a right in land was got, four were peaceable: discove…
- The sections moved from the chapter to the archive, 31 October 2026
1. How rights were acquired in Rarotonga
a tika kitea (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - naming during discovery - such as when the first canoes arrived.
b tika raupatu - conquest.
c tika tupuna (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - inheritance from one's ancestors. c tika tuku (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - gifting.
d tika ‘ai ka, New Zealand Māori take ahika - keeping the home fires burning. e
Rights did not depend on a single factor, such as conquest or occupation, and could vary over time. We think it is more appropriate to think in terms of ‘bundles’ and ‘layers’ of rights. The importance of different elements within the bundle also changed.8.57
8.50 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 528: tupuna means ancestor
8.51 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: :522: tuku means give
8.52 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 9: ‘ai ka means fire
8.53 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 490
8.49 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 179: Kitea means discovery
8.56 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
2. Discovery, and the parcelling of the island
8.62 Richard Gilson, The Cook Islands 1820 to 1950, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1980, p. 137. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.63 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 84-85 (also referred to in Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 50) with my annotations and additions inserted in brackets.
8.65 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 84 to 85. Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), p. 50. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.67 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 84 to 85. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.69 Ron Crocombe, notes on the manuscript of this series, 12 October 2008, pp. 1 to 3, on pages 95 to 104 of the draft; the Samoan tradition is in the Journal of the Polynesian Society under the references to Manu’a and ‘Ari’a. The traditions themselves are in Volume Two of this series, Pre-European Southern Cook Islands Social Organisation, Chapters 17 and 18. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
3. What the tribe was, and who held its land
The conquerors, in annexing food lands from the conquered, took subdistricts which were remote from their original lands. The food lands and the rule over districts and subdistricts were the important spoils of victory. The redistribution of food lands led to the scattering of tribes; some families remained on the original land, but others settled on land awarded them in other districts.
If the bride left her husband, she and her children could return to her own extended family and could use the land set aside for her. Normally though, if she was accepted back, she would participate jointly in the use of the family lands, and unless she or her children made use of it then it would lose its character as a marriage gift and become again regarded as family land. This invariably happened if she died childless. Marriage land appears most commonly to have been used by specific children of the donee. Though they could make use of it while remaining members of their father's lineage, it was more usual for the mother to send a particular child back to live with her own lineage and use this land. Here again, if the child were sent back when young, and adopted into its mother's family, he would participate jointly in the exploitation of common lands, and the marriage portion would again revert to its source unless he made use of it. While no figures are available to substantiate the point, it appears that most rights given as marriage gifts were little exercised, the land reverting naturally in the course of time to those who gave it.8.78
Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
Acquisition of land rights by adoption
must belong to kindred families in order to enter the family. If from some other tribes or people he does not become a member until formally admitted and may at some future time be cast out. Children in this position are known as Tama ‘u’a.8.94,
the ingredients necessary to constitute a complete gift of land according to Native custom.
They are as follows:,
a The donor must have sufficient right to make it.
b The gift must have been widely known and publicly assented to, or tacitly acquiesced in, by the tribe; and
c The donee or his direct descendants must have continued to occupy the portion gifted.
...the transfer of a right in respect of land lasted only so long as the relationship between the transferor and transferee remained healthy.8.106, Indeed the transfer was itself designed to seal the relationship and ensure its ongoing vitality.8.107, If it failed in that purpose and the relationship terminated, then the transfer also was voided. Similarly, failure to occupy one’s allocated land would cause it to revert to others.8.108,
Waimahanga is the ancestral tapere of Pa ariki, but as the land was in excess of that required for his own use, he gave a portion to each of the following Mata’iapos: Terei, Raina, Tamakeu, Puati, Te Aia, and Nia: and by virtue of this gift each of these men became Komono of Pa on Waimahanga, though they were Mataiaops on other lands.
When this tapere was brought before the Court Pa recognised these men as absolute owners, subject to the obligations to which the land had always been subject . . . nor could he be ejected so long as he fulfilled the obligation of building or repairing the chief’s house.
In New Zealand, land could also be obtained as ‘muru’ [Rarotongan Māori tua enua], for assistance in times of war, as satisfaction for a chief's death, or as part of a pronouncement made on an individual’s deathbed.8.115, Judge Norman Smith commented that:,
These instances, where gifts may have been made as shown above, are by no means exhaustive; the custom has many other examples.
Judge Norman Smith, Native Custom and Law Affecting Native Land, 1942
Nevertheless, even the most tenuous right could be strengthened over time once acquired. Permissive occupation would never remain as such. It was a temporary right, an emergency arrangement to meet an unusual situation, and over time it would either die out or grow into another kind of right. A feature of permissive occupation was that the donor party was entitled to partake of the produce of the lands as they thought fit, a custom that complicated the settlements formed by the Tahitian missionaries before the arrival of their English brethren.8.117,
Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
In this claim made by Mrs. Crummer we have only to consider three points.
1. Had the Mataiapo Tangiao a right to grant a piece of his land to one of his children to the exclusion of the others.
2. Did he make such a gift to his second child Upoko Crummer.
3. Is there anything in the gift unfair to the remaining four children.
As to the first point the Court is of the opinion that Tangiao or any other Mataiapo or land holder has a right to dispose of his own lands to his own family. And that the Court has no right to interfere with such disposition unless it be shown that one of the family is injured by the said disposition.
As to the second it is clear to the Court that the gift was made to Upoko . . .
As to the third point we hold that the gift of two acres to Upoko is not unreasonable and less than her share of the ancestral lands.
In re section 13 Avaavaroa Walter Gudgeon also imposed a gloss upon such customs not known to Māori when he stated:,
Tangiao or any other Mataiapo or land holder has a right to dispose of his own lands to his own family. And that the Court has no right to interfere with such disposition unless it be shown that one of the family is injured by said disposition.
A gift is a form of a claim easily made but it should be proved by clear and strong evidence if the fact be challenged; and this agrees more especially with Maori custom which requires publicity in matters affecting titles to land. If a chief gave land he did so as the mouthpiece and representative of the tribe, all of whom, in fact as well as in theory, had rights in the general land.
Should disputes arise as to the facts of a gift, it is open to grave suspicion that these elements were wanting and that no gift passed or was made.
From evidence given in the Ngati Te Ora case, data [was] compiled on all persons mentioned as actually owning and occupying (i.e. the primary right holders in) one particular block of land prior to the advent of the Land Court. The data does not purport to be exhaustive, as almost all the persons mentioned were household heads. Those living within their households were not named though they were included by implication. A total of ten names was mentioned, and their relationship to the Te Ora lineage is as follows. Three were persons who held (at some stage) the title of Te Ora Rangatira, one was a brother of the rangatira and another a classificatory brother, three were heads of kiato within the lineage, one was a member of one of these kiato, one was a woman whose father married uxorilocally and who accordingly claimed through her maternal grandfather who was a kiato of the lineage. In addition to the above holders of both proprietary and usufructuary rights there were two persons who were granted permission to occupy by a kiato who traveled overseas, one who was given permission to occupy by the then Te Ora Rangatira (the latter a man who held two rangatira titles concurrently, and the person to whom he gave the permission was a kiato under him in his capacity as holder of the other title), and one was a son-in-law of the preceding. Thirteen of the fourteen persons named were males.
Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
The ideal claim to land began with discovery or conquest and was then traced by a process of inheritance in the male line, supported by continuous occupation. While the ideal of patrilineal inheritance was achieved in the majority of cases, it is apparent from the examples quoted above that the alternative provisions for acquisition of rights through females or by adoption, marriage or permissive occupation were frequently resorted to. While it was quite legitimate for a person to acquire rights through one of these alternative channels provided by custom, there was a constant tendency to assimilate to the ideal. This was expressed in two ways. Firstly, over the course of time, the actual status of the persons concerned could be rationalized into the ideal status. An examination of genealogies shows this to have been general, for the early portions of genealogies almost invariably claim that the title passed continuously from the father to the eldest born son, though this cannot so regularly have been the case in fact. Despite the widespread incidence of adoption, therefore, it is unusual to find any persons claiming by an adoptive link more than two generations back; and despite the occurrence of claims from females, claimants rarely acknowledge that their claim derived through a female more than two or three generations back (either female links are later reputed to have been males, or the female is omitted altogether and the claim is made directly from the maternal grandfather); and while perhaps fifteen per cent of all births were illegitimate this fact is mentioned in only a small proportion of current instances and rarely indeed in earlier generations. Secondly, persons who had acquired their rights by other than the ideal means appear to have been secure only while observing due humility or while their ‘patron’ was alive. After that, if their actual status had not been rationalized into the ideal pattern a process of ejection was set in motion and the ‘intruder’ was evicted on some convenient pretext.8.128,
Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
The loss of rights to land, and reversion
The ancient system was that the eldest born of a family was the governing power of the clan, and nominally owner of their land; but it was recognised that every member of the family had a right to the lands in common with all his relatives. This right could only be lost by some crime against the family sufficiently heinous to set the family against him and cause them to drive him from the community. Their policy was simple. An adventurous chief and his near relatives would build a canoe and sail away in search of new lands. As a rule the crew would be the blood relations of their leader; but if he was specially famous, either as a warrior or navigator, he might probably be joined by a few men of tried valour from other families, but in such case they would be adopted into the new tribe. This is in effect the history of Karika and Tangiia, who, perhaps six hundred years ago, met in mid ocean, and, after a short struggle, joined forces as a preliminary to the conquest of Rarotonga and the ejection of the tribes of Iva, who then held the land.
After the conquest, and after the old owners had been driven from the districts coveted by the intruders, the land was divided, and each member of the crew received his share, and thereby became the first Mataiapo of his family. This share was his by right of conquest, and the only obligation attached to the land was that of building and keeping in repair the house of the Ariki (chief of the canoe), and the further obligation common to all - to attend with his whole family and carry out such public works as the tribe might consider necessary for the public welfare. In all other respects the Mataiapo was an independent landholder, and exercised much the same powers in his own family as the Ariki did in the tribe. In the event of any serious disagreement with his Ariki, the Mataiapo had the right to transfer his allegiance to another Ariki; and this was actually done by the Mataiapos Vakapora and Taraare shortly after the arrival of the first missionaries, when these men renounced the overlordship of Pa and joined Makea. So far I have spoken of the real Mataiapo; but there is another class, namely, where the family has died out and the land has reverted to the Ariki, or, worse still, where the Mataiapo has died and left young children who were unable to help themselves. In the first case the Ariki would hand over lands and title to some favourite of the hour, but would impose onerous conditions as to service, &c, which would degrade the office, but would not be unfair, seeing that the new Mataiapo had no right other than that he derived from the donor. In the second instance, the land would be improperly given to an outsider in order to destroy the original tenure and create a new one, under which the Mataiapo would be a mere creature of the Ariki by reason of his being an interloper. This has been done on many occasions by Makea's ancestors, though she herself has been fairly just.
Walter Gudgeon, Report of the Resident Commissioner, 1903
Reversion of land to ancestors and chiefs by Ron Crocombe,
8.71 F. J. Moss, The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894, sent to the Governor of New Zealand with report No. 4 of 9 September 1893; 1894 AJHR A-3, pp. 20 to 26, pp. 20 to 22. Also in Report of Judge Harvey to the New Zealand Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1945, pp. 10 to 11. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.73 Declaration as to Land of the Parliament of the Cook Islands Federation, 3 August 1894; 1895 AJHR A-3, p. 8. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.75 House of Ariki, statement of custom as to land, Rarotonga. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.64 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Maori Dictionary, p. 447: tapatapa, to bestow a name on.
8.78 This view is supported by the comments of informants to Ron Crocombe, and by the fact that when the Land Court investigated the title to all the lands on the island, very few portions were claimed as marriage lands.
8.66 Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck), The Coming of the Maori, 2nd edition, Whitcombe and Tombs, Christchurch, 1974, pp. 55–56.
8.68 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942, p 62
8.70 Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, BMB 122, Honolulu, 1934: 107
8.72 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, pp. 89–92; Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, p. 54; published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with the author’s annotations and additions in brackets.
8.74 Such land was known as ‘enua tao'anga rima' (it was known as ‘topenga piro' on some islands).
8.76 All recorded instances of marriage gifts of land concern the daughters of chiefs. While some informants claimed that only ariki and mataiapo had the privilege of setting aside such lands, occasional examples of leading rangatira having done so have been noted.
8.79 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, pp. 99–102; Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, pp. 56–57; published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with the author’s annotations and additions in brackets.
8.80 With a population of about 7,000 people living on a small island and only very limited contact with other islands, every person was no doubt related to every other. The significant factor in adoption would no doubt be whether or not the relationship between the parties was recognized.
8.86 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 184
8.81 This supposed tendency may possibly be due to the lack of evidence about such adoptions by commoners. However, as the adoption of non-relatives appears generally to have been motivated by political considerations it is unlikely that commoners were involved to the same extent as chiefs, if at all.
8.82 This is still almost invariably the case today.
8.84 The number of children adopted today is reducing year by year and the land rights of the respective parties are now clearly specified. Nevertheless, the [former] Registrar of the Land Court (Mr L.H. Trenn) estimates that nearly ninety per cent of the land disputes which come before his notice concern rights acquired by adoption or by permissive occupation. There is evidence to indicate that this is no new phenomenon, for indigenous histories contain numerous instances of disputes over the rights of adoptees.
8.85 Re Te Taora Section 128D, Avarua 190A No.2, Avarua 190A No.1, Tapatea 107B No.1 & No 2, Tapatea 223, Parako 134, all in the District of Avarua, Rarotonga, (1970) AMB 3 pages 75-78, at 76
8.87 Savage, S., The Origin of the Name Tinomana, JPS 18 (1909) 217
8.95 Moss, F.J., The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894: 23
8.97 Maori Customs Approved by the House of Ariki, 1970, Mimeographed material, Justice Department, Avarua, Rarotonga, Part V: 11
8.90 Moss, F.J., The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894: 23
8.91 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 186
8.93 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 188-189
8.94 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 190
8.103 Samuela Te Rei, Avaavaroa 17, (1904) M.B. 1 page 117
8.96 Customs Approved by the House of Ariki, 1970, Part V: 10
8.104 Samuela Te Rei, Avaavaroa 17, (1904) M.B. 1 page 114
8.105 Rangahaua Whanui National Theme c, The Crown’s Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, First Release, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997: para. 7.6, page 134
8.99 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 9
8.100 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 83
8.109 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 9
8.110 Pitman, Journal 12.5.1827.
8.101 Lands were frequently given for outstanding service in war.
8.102 This is, of course, a relative difference. Assuming an element of reciprocity to have existed in all exchanges, the underlying cause of the difference was no doubt that whereas in the former case the quid pro quo (in the form of some service redered) was already met, in the latter case it was still to come.
8.114 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 49, 62-72; and Waitangi Tribunal, National Theme C Report; 1997, Chapter 4: 59
8.106 Cook and Other Islands Report for the Year Ended 31st March 1906, being part of the Report of the Resident Commissioner dated 18 April 1906: 5
8.107 Rangahaua Whanui National Theme c, The Crown’s Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, First Release, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997: para. 7.6, page 134
8.116 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 9: ‘ai ka means fire
8.108 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 72
8.111 No instance has been noted wherein a refugee married other than into the lineage in which he resided. Presumably if he did marry into another lineage it would be in his interests to shift his residence there.
8.141 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.119 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 52
8.112 M.B. 1 page 90
8.120 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.113 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 70 (cited Judges O Brien and Von Sturmer, with no additional reference)
8.122 Avaavaroa case - MB 1:107-39. It will be noted that the above persons were users and did not necessarily have proprietary rights in the land.
8.115 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 490
8.123 See Volume 2 Appendix A
8.124 Even in the case of conquest or banishment rights were often not entirely lost, for they may be gratuitously restored, or action may be taken to repossess them. Likewise in the case of gifts, the donor retained residual rights.
8.121 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 20
8.127 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 92-93 (also referred to in Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 53-54); published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with my annotations and additions inserted in brackets.
8.129 E.g. MB 4 page 277
8.131 The actual driving out of the family was known as ‘akataa’ and a person who had been so driven out was accordingly known as a ‘tangata akataa’. The act of seizing his possessions was known as ‘aru’, and that of devastating his crops and destroying his house was called ‘akatanea’. This system of plunder was similar to the New Zealand Māori custom of muru.
8.133 E.g. Pitman, who graphically describes the banishment and confiscation of lands of a set of brothers for a crime committed by one of them. - Journal 14.8.1829.
8.125 Even if a claim to unused land was impregnable to an aggressor it could nevertheless be vulnerable to the humble request of a friend and potential supporter.
8.136 Moss, F.J., The Polity of Rarotonga, 1894, which he sent to the Governor of New Zealand with his report No 4 dated 9 September 1893; 1894 AJHR A-3: 20-26:20-22; also in the Report of Judge Harvey to the New Zealand Department of Island Territories, 1945, Wellington: 10, 11
8.126 8: paragraph 3.2
8.137 A Compilation of Acts and Instruments Relating to the Government of the Cook and Other Islands..., 1905
8.128 This may have been done either voluntarily or under pressure. Strong neighbours would be tempted to spread into vacant lands, and a voluntary merger may have been preferable to the possibility of loss by force.
8.130 Baltaxe, James Bernard, The Transformation of the rangatira..., 1975: 72-73
8.140 Gilson, R., The Cook Islands 1820 - 1950, 1980: 137
8.132 Campbell, Matthew, Settlement and Landscape in Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, 2001, unpublished doctoral thesis, Sydney, Australia: 115
8.134 Cook and Other Islands (Report on the visit of members of the General Assembly to the) 1903 AJHR A-3B: 9
8.135 Report F.J. Moss to the Earl of Onslow, 17 January 1891, 1892 AJHR A-3: 16
8.143 Campbell, Matthew, Ritual Landscape in Late Pre-contact Rarotonga: a Brief Reading, JPS (2002) Volume 111, No. 2, p 147-170: 162-163
8.138 Gudgeon, Report on Trade of the Cook and Other Islands for the year 1901. 1908 AJHR A-3, Item 85: 47-55: 6
8.146 See Volume Three of this series on the mission period, and Volume Four of this series, Chapters 4 and 10.
8.149 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.11
8.142 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.151 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.11
8.144 Campbell, Matthew, Settlement and Landscape on Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, 2001 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney:155
4. What the Cook Islands judges have said
It is my opinion that under ancient custom and usage any family (the unit of Polynesian Society) had the right of sole control of any land validly allotted to it by its ariki, Mataiapo or the like. In theory so long as the family line persisted. In actual practice so long as it remained physically or numerically strong enough to defend its rights and lived on its patrimony. The theoretical rights became the practical rights in 1823 or thereabouts when the arrival of Christianity ended armed aggression and internecine armed strife.8.145
Chief Judge Harvey, Native Appellate Court, 1948
5. The date
8.147 The marker dates and their consequences are developed in Volume Four, Chapter 3, where the author’s conclusion on the appropriate date is stated.
6. Conclusions on custom
Of the five ways a right in land was got, four were peaceable: discovery, descent, gift and the keeping of the home fires. The fifth was not, and it was the one that unmade the others. A family that had cleared the land, planted it, buried its dead on it and fed its chief from it could lose all of that in an afternoon to a war party from the next valley. The record of these islands before the Gospel is as much a record of land taken as of land held. Chapter 9 turns to that: what conquest was in the custom, what it gave the victor and what it left the defeated. And it asks why, after 1823, the courts could never agree whether a right won by the spear was a right at all.
8.148 Josephine Baddeley, Rarotongan Society: the Creation of Tradition, PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 1978, p. 184. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
The sections moved from the chapter to the archive, 31 October 2026
The ways in which customary rights to land were acquired in Māori society
Except in the case of discovery and exploration discovery and conquest, as Ron Crocombe observed:8.49
The following discussion of how land rights were acquired in pre-contact times will provide a baseline for later comparison with the processes operating at various stages of the post-contact period. Presumably the landholding system was not static during the pre-contact era, and any reference to a custom existing in that era should (unless the context indicates otherwise) be taken to mean that it was effective at the time of first European contact, and not necessarily that it had applied from the time of first settlement.
Māori customary rights to land, and to associated waterways, sea, and foreshore, were multi-faceted and complex.8.53 In New Zealand the Waitangi Tribunal found the concept of a ‘bundle of rights’ a useful one when thinking about the nature of customary tenure.8.54 In the Southern Cook Islands and New Zealand there was wide agreement in the Māori world about what elements might be contained in that bundle. 8.50 There was far more room for dispute about how important each of those elements was in any particular case. Physical occupation and cultivation were key elements of that bundle, but other actions could also create rights in the land. These included tangible acts of resource use, such as birding, gathering berries, collecting flax and firewood, taking trees for nga mua vaka, digging ochre for dyes, or collecting plants for vairākau (medicines)8.51
). Evidence of rights to land could also be more spiritual, the birth and death of kin there, and less tangible, such as naming particular features or an ancient association through long historical occupation, even though those people had since departed. Ancestral association was an element that could never be removed.8.56
As the Waitangi Tribunal has pointed out in its Rekohu inquiry8.52 Māori regarded the right of recovery of ancestral lands as good as a right by possession.
In New Zealand, most scholars agree that rights to land were acquired in five ways in customary Māori society.8.53 In both the Southern Cook Islands and New Zealand Māori customary tenure was seen to arise from five major tika (rights8.54) New Zealand Māori:
a tika kitea8.55 (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - naming during discovery - such as when the first canoes arrived.
b tika raupatu - conquest.
c tika tupuna8.56 (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - inheritance from one's ancestors. c tika tuku8.57 (Cook Islands and New Zealand) - gifting.
d tika ‘ai ka8.58, New Zealand Māori take ahika - keeping the home fires burning. e
These tika complemented each other, and a claim of right required a mix of different tika.8.59 I am the first author to use the Rarotongan Māori terms tika kitea, tika raupatu, tika tupuna, tika tuku and tika ‘ai ka when referring to the customary acquisition and loss of rights to land. However, it is well documented that these were the ways in which rights to land were acquired in customary Southern Cook Islands society.8.60
In addition, land could be acquired by:
a. Aka-enua. As Stephen Savage recorded aka-enua means:8.61
an ancient custom that was observed in former times by a voyaging chief, who, upon arrival at an island, or land, obtained hospitality and friendship as of right, because of blood right to land and blood relationship to the chief thereof: aka-enua really means a demand, claim, and disclosure of land rights and blood relationship rights, and was only used when a refusal was given to a person refusing to allow that person to set foot upon the shores of the land. Literally it means, a root or branch of the land or family that owned the land. In olden days persons often exercised this right, although they never actually resided or occupied the land, but know from family connections and other circumstances, that they had the right to do so. The following extract from Tuatua Taito at page 12 will serve as an example of its use:
E oti aka ra, kua tau te vaka I raro I te ava I ‘Uaine, e, kite ake ra a Maa ko Tangiia teia. Arere mai ra a ia ki raro I te ava, tu ioraki runga I te nia-ava, e kua ui atu ra a Tangiia ki a Maa, “Tei ea a Raka-nui?” Karanga atu ra a Maa, “Ei a’a, e ‘oki, kura aere a Rakanui e te tame I te ta-mate va’ie ei ta’u i a koe, e toa e te ake te va’ie.” Kua karanga atu ra a Tangiia, “Ei reira a’a Maa, oatu au ki uta.” Kua karanga atu ra a Tangiia, “E a’a e kore e Maa.” Ei reira to Tangiia akaenua anga, karanga mai ra, “E enua ko Uaine, e ariki ko Uki-Maraka, ka noo ki te vaine I a Rakanui, anau tana koTiraonge: e taunga ko Umutea, ko Puri, ko Marotai, paraaraa te ara ki ‘Uaine, oatu au ki uta.” After this was finished, the canoe arrived at the harbour of Uaine, and was observed by Maa, who recognised Tangiia. Maa came down and stood at the edge of the harbour. Tangiia asked Maa, “Where is Rakanui?” Maa replied, “Never mind, go back, Rakanui has gone with her husband to cut firewood with which to cook you, that wood is the toa and the ake.” Tangiia said, “Do not joke oh Maa, but allow me to land.” Maa replied, “you return, from whence you came, you shall not land here.” Tangiia replied, “What is the reason, oh Maa?” Tangiia thereupon used the custom aka-enua, claiming the privileges of this custom; he said, “The land is ‘Uaine, the ariki thereof is Uki-Maraka, who took Rakanui to wife, and by her begat Tiraonge; the priests Umutea, and Puri, and Marotai, had declared to me, clear and unobstructed is the way to ‘Uaine; now let me land.
It is to be noted in this example given that Tangiia asked for Rakanui, who was his first cousin and was the wife of Uki-Maraka, therefore, Tangiia, who was related to Uki-Maraka, expected full courtesy to be extended to him without his having to resort to the use of the ancient custom of making a demand.
b. Reversion of land to ancestors and ariki/mata’iapo/rangatira
c. Acquisition of land by marriage
d. Adoption
e. ‘Tika ōake (death bed instructions of an ariki). This is dealt with in Volume 2 Chapter 24. As the Waitangi Tribunal concluded in New Zealand, in comments equally applicable in the Southern Cook Islands:8.62
Rights did not depend on a single factor, such as conquest or occupation, and could vary over time. We think it is more appropriate to think in terms of ‘bundles’ and ‘layers’ of rights. The importance of different elements within the bundle also changed.8.63
In an early and seminal judgment, Chief Judge Francis Fenton declared unequivocally:8.64
before the establishment of the British Government in 1840 the great rule which governed rights to land was force....
Angela Ballara noted that the concepts of ancestral rights and ahika:
fell outside, or existed alongside, the descent group categorisation of the people.8.65
Yet retention of these rights depended on the ability of the broader descent group to defend its territory against enemies. Chiefs and their ngāti often made competing claims of right over a stretch of land, particularly in areas subject to heavy migration and warfare.8.66 Defeated groups forced from the land or those who had willingly migrated to new lands could continue to claim a right to the land. Having buried their dead in the land, and spilled blood over it in battle, they were not prepared to surrender their rights to any newcomers in a hurry. These groups could use a variety of means to evince a continuing link with the land. These included signs that resulted from generations of occupation: sites named by the group, ivi8.67 o te ‘ai tupuna8.68 (the bones of ancestors), a‘i8.69 tapu (sacred light or sacred fire), stories associated with the land. The leaving of small groups of kin, particularly women of high rank, on the land.8.70
Before the arrival of the papa‘ā in the Cook Islands, these competing claims of right were resolved through a variety of customary practices, including military force and public pact. However, no clear-cut rules existed, and rights and relationships changed over time. The dominant political force could eventually wane and merge with another, more powerful group, or break up through internal conflict, reallocating land among newly formed groups.8.71
The introduction of the Native Land Court in both the Cook Islands and New Zealand distorted and simplified this fluid arrangement. The Court, in prioritising competing claims of right to land by various groups, placed great emphasis on the acquisition of land through raupatu, followed up by tika ‘ai ka.8.72 The Court also assumed that groups that had migrated to new lands abandoned their ancestral homelands. These principles seem to have been well established by the time the Court was established in New Zealand in 1862.8.73 Yet in New Zealand the Court often applied them without question in the face of clear evidence of more accommodating customary rules.8.74
Ron Crocombe listed the ways: discovery and settlement; conquest; inheritance within the landholding group; reversion; marriage; gift and permissive occupation; and adoption.8.75 Several could apply to the same piece of land at once. A family’s right usually rested on more than one.
No quantitative evidence from before contact shows how often each was used. The Ngāti Te Ora block, with which this chapter opened, is the only case documented well enough to count. Its figures are the ones given there: descent from the father was the commonest route, and a third of the rights passed through women or through people outside the line.8.1
The Native Appellate Court heard the same doors described, one at a time, by the people who had come through them.
Marriage: In 1949, Te Roo Parau, the Tamaiva mata‘iapo, claimed back land his ancestor had given with his daughter, Tia, when she married Rangi Makea about 1852. Tia died childless in 1868. Charlie Cowan, for Makea, admitted the custom that such a land goes with the woman and returns to the donor if she dies without issue. He added that where the son-in-law was of the donor’s blood, the donor might let him keep it. The court held that the custom “should have been determined upon the investigation of Title” in 1906 but had not been and sent the case back for a new hearing.8.76
Gift: in the same year Charlie Cowan told the court of a land at Avarua that Vakatini had given, about 1877, to a woman who had fed his child. “Under maori custom, land given as a gift would remain property of the donee”, and “if person no issue then land would return to donor”. The court sent that case back too, to decide whether the gift was made, whether it followed the custom of the time, and whether it vested in the donee’s descendants.8.77
Reversion: Willie Browne, in 1950, gave the rule for a rangatira’s land when the line dies out, that “title goes back to Ariki or Mataiapo as the case may be”, to be given again with a new holder.8.78 Adoption: the conductors of 1949 agreed that the usual custom was to adopt within the blood, disagreed on what an adopted stranger took, and the court declined to find a fixed rule.8.79 None of this was new law. It was Ron Crocombe’s list, given back to the court by the people who lived it, forty years before he wrote it down.
Taro swamp, Avatiu, Rarotonga.
That answers a question the Land Titles Court later assumed away. The court assumed that a block belonged to a line. The evidence shows that a household planted a block, and that the household’s members reached it through half a dozen different doors.
Customary adoption in Rarotonga
The problem now in determining the traditional indigenous adoption customs is as Josephine Baddeley stated:8.106
One result of all this is that it is now somewhat difficult to give an account of what might be called "traditional adoption" in Rarotonga. Although the views of nineteenth-century writers and the Land Court's codifications of custom ultimately rested on European ideas of "adoption,” these sources are the only ones available to both contemporary Rarotongans and others interested in the topic. As notions of "traditional practices" are used to validate and legitimise contemporary practices, one enters a veritable maze of mirrors in this account of "adoption".
In pre-contact Rarotonga, alliances between kōpū tangata were made in two principal ways: adoption and marriage, that is, the exchange of women and children. The earliest and most famous example of this was the alliance between Tangi’ia, the leader of the nga mua vaka Tākitumu and Iro, a powerful Tahitian chief. To cement the alliance made between these two important chiefs, Tangi’ia adopted Pa, the son of Iro, and gave him the title of Pa ariki of Tākitumu, which his descendants hold today.8.107
The evidence of traditional adoptions is found in various “family” books which record the lands owned by the “family” and its genealogy, noting in some cases those members recruited by adoption and their "family" of origin.
In 1970 the House of Ariki expressed the same view that until formally admitted a child with no blood relationship was known as tama ‘ū’ā (child of the fire) and was subject to rejection.8.109 When talking of adoptions, people often use the term tama ‘ū’ā (literally ‘child of the thigh’) to refer to adopted children rather than the more frequently used term tamariki ’āngai.8.110 As detailed above according to Frederick Moss the tama ‘ū’ā is the adopted child with no blood relationship to his adoptive parents.8.111
A contrary interpretation of the term tama ‘ū’ā maintains that this was a child adopted from within the kōpū tangata. The adoption of a tama ‘ū’ā according to this view was recognised by the kōpū tangata and his adoption celebrated by an umukai 'feast' which marked the formal agreement between the adoptive and natural parents. This child held a privileged position with the kōpū tangata and was fed on the parent's thigh (u'a) as a mark of his special status. Judge J.J. McCauley wrote the following on 24 April 1990:
Tama ‘u’a. A Child of the Loins.
Adoptions within the family group dominated Polynesian social structure.
Polygamy, being a means of keeping the family group supplied with warriors etc., was common in all races who desired to keep the land within that group.
The group had an organised social structure with segments responsible for everything needed to keep it intact.
Each group had a titular head who acted as "Pater Populi" for the whole group, and on his shoulders rested responsibility for the group's well-being.
The titular head was usually the eldest son of the eldest son, back to the common ancestor.
Sub-chiefs (Mataiapo) were usually the second son of the same lineage.
To perpetuate the titular head, several wives were accepted, as the first and second wives were sometimes barren. With the coming of Christianity, however, the titular head had to rely on one wife to produce sons. If the one wife could not bear children, it was common to choose a child within the family group, and the more important the chief, the more selective the child.
These children were named Tamaiti Angai or feeding children; however, some children were termed Tama ‘u’a.
From my knowledge and enquiries, a tama ‘u’a was termed such, in the following cases:
Where the adopting parents had no natural child and the adopted child was to be a "child of the loins" or, to all intents and purposes, a natural issue.
Where the adopting parents had children who had moved out of the family group, the adopted child or children would be to replace them, and be, to all intents and purposes, natural issue.
Where a chief or son of a Chief had been cast out by one of the sub-tribes, he could be accepted by the Chief of another sub-tribe, or by the reigning titular head of the whole tribe and allowed to hold his rank within the new group as a Tama ‘u’a.
Where a member of the junior line within the group performed some deed of valour, he would be elevated in rank by the titular head as a Tama ‘u’a.
Many other instances could be brought forth, but all follow the same pattern. Adopted children were always within the group with common blood ties, and the term “Tama ‘u’a” was a special term to show possessiveness of such a person, as against the child belonging to two or more groups
(adopting parents' family group and natural parents’ family group).
The notes of these sections
8.155 Smith, Judge Norman., Native Custom and Law..., 1942, p 67
8.159 Savage, Stephen, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Wellington, Department of Island Territories,
8.160 Fenton, F.D., Important Judgements Delivered in the Compensation Court and the Native Land Court 1866-1879,
8.161 Ballara, Angela, Iwi..., 1998: 200
8.162 Ward, Alan A., Māori Customary Interests in the Port Nicholson District, 1820s to 1840s: An Overview
8.163 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 136: bones
8.164 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 10: ‘ai tupuna means ancestors
8.165 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 9 : a‘i means a light or a fire
8.166 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.167 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 102 to 104. Also in Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 50 to 59. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/chapter-8#s17
8.168 Te Roo Parau and Charlie Cowan, Rangiura section 127K, Avarua, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 272 to 276, 15 August 1949; the decision, 20 August 1949, p. 301; (1949) 1 AMB 301.
8.169 Charlie Cowan, Opararoa section 124, Avarua, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 338 to 339, 14 December 1949; the decision of McCarthy CJ and Morgan J, 19 December 1949, p. 345; (1949) 1 AMB 345. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/chapter-8#s16
8.170 Willie Browne, Rangatira title of Te Pua, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 4 to 5, 7 August 1950; (1950) 2 AMB 21. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/chapter-8#s22
8.171 Tom Crummer, Nia Rua and Charlie Cowan, Te Koiti Raukura section 6C, Ngatangiia, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 304 to 315, 22 and 23 August 1949; the decision, 25 August 1949, pp. 324 to 325, (1949) 1 AMB 324: the rule that an adopted child not of the blood takes a life interest only “cannot be accepted as ancient Maori Custom”. What the courts made of adoption thereafter is in Volume Four, Chapter 11. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/chapter-8#s17
All the notes of the chapter
8.1 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 102 to 104; and Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 50 to 59, where the same figures are given. The case is the Ngāti Te Ora case, from which the same author compiled the data on the primary right-holders of one block before the Land Court sat. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.2 Maretu, 1983. Cannibals and Converts: Radical Change in the Cook Islands. Suva, Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, pages 51 to 53; and Waldon, George, Missionary labors and results in the Hervey Islands in a series of letters, Boston, 20 January 1838, Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, page 50 to 51; and Rehearing of Taputapuatea Sections 72, 39 & 40; 72A, Avarua, Land Appellate Court, 24 April 1953, A.M.B. 5 page 85
8.3 1891 AJHR A-C: 2, Memorandum from the Colonial Secretary’s Office of 25 November 1890
8.4 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 315-316
8.5 (1912) M.B. 5 page 196, 4th April 1912
8.6 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a MauiI, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: 22-23 [Volume 6A document 12]
8.7 Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: A Report on Moriori and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2001
8.8 In all the records of pre-contact battles in the vernacular source material there are few indeed wherein a land dispute is given as the cause of the outbreak. The most common causes were disputes over rank titles (which, of course, carried certain land rights with them), insults, and actual or attempted adultery with the wives of chiefs. Nevertheless, it is clear that the acquisition of land was often an important motive for warfare, and that the exchange of insults was the appropriate provocation to justify the commencement of hostilities.
8.9 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 87-88; and Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 50-51
8.10 Frequently the accounts do not give sufficient detail to determine whether or not the refugees sought out kin in their search for asylum. In many cases, however, the fact of relationship is stated, but in no case is there evidence to the effect that the refugee and the host were unrelated. It seems probable from the evidence that one sought out the most powerful relative from whom shelter could be expected.
8.11 Frequently the accounts do not give sufficient detail to determine whether or not the refugees sought out kin in their search for asylum. In many cases, however, the fact of relationship is stated, but in no case is there evidence to the effect that the refugee and the host were unrelated. It seems probable from the evidence that one sought out the most powerful relative from whom shelter could be expected.
8.12 It was often not possible to make such an attempt immediately, and it was customary to make tattoo marks on the throat and arms as a reminder that vengeance was yet to be exacted. If it were not satisfied within the lifetime of the aggrieved party then he could pass it on to one of his children who was then obliged to act himself or to pass the mark on to his children. - Pitman, Journal 2.6.1829
8.13 It was often not possible to make such an attempt immediately, and it was customary to make tattoo marks on the throat and arms as a reminder that vengeance was yet to be exacted. If it were not satisfied within the lifetime of the aggrieved party then he could pass it on to one of his children who was then obliged to act himself or to pass the mark on to his children. - Pitman, Journal 2 June 1829.
8.14 For example, in the late eighteenth century Tinomana Ariki was insulted by a member of one of the descent groups living in the district. Tinomana assembled a war party and attacked the offending family, killing all except one. The conquered lands were allocated among Tinomana's followers, but when the sole survivor attained manhood, he was given a particular portion of the lands of his descent group, and was later elevated to the rank of mataiapo. - Terei, Tuatua Taito 43-44
8.15 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 87-88; and Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 50-51
8.16 For example, in the late eighteenth century Tinomana Ariki was insulted by a member of one of the descent groups living in the district. Tinomana assembled a war party and attacked the offending family, killing all except one. The conquered lands were allocated among Tinomana's followers, but when the sole survivor attained manhood, he was given a particular portion of the lands of his descent group, and was later elevated to the rank of mataiapo. - Terei, Tuatua Taito 43–4.
8.17 E.g. Maretu, Manuscript on Cook Islands history: 84
8.18 E.g. Maretu, Manuscript on Cook Islands history, 84
8.19 The classic and best documented case in this category is that of the defeat and driving away of the Avarua people in about 1815 at the hands of Pa and Kainuku, and their subsequent restoration about seven years later. All their pigs were taken and all their crops destroyed. Not a coconut or a breadfruit tree was left unscathed. The lands, however, were restored in their entirety. - Maretu, Manuscript on Cook Islands history: 18-29.
8.20 Maretu, Manuscript on Cook Islands history, pp. 18–29: the defeat and driving away of the Avarua people about 1815 at the hands of Pa and Kainuku, and their restoration about seven years later; all their pigs were taken and all their crops destroyed, but the lands were restored in their entirety.
8.21 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a MauiI, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007; Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2; Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a MauiI, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2
8.22 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a MauiI, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785; 2007Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2
8.23 Moss, F.J., The Polity of Rarotonga, 1894: 21
8.24 M.B. 1 page 306, 22 March 1905
8.25 M.B. I pages 317-318, 22 March 1905
8.26 Savage, S. and Te Rei, T., An Ancient History of Tangi’ia, 1907: 37-40
8.27 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.12.1, and Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: 143
8.28 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.29 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Preliminary Report 2, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.11
8.30 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui: Preliminary Report 2, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.7
8.31 Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: 139; quoted in Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.12.6
8.32 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 89: emerge victorious
8.33 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 432: engage in war
8.34 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942, p 68
8.35 The translation of taurekareka into ‘slave’ is not entirely accurate and should be treated with caution
8.36 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.37 M.B. 1 pages 306-321
8.38 M.B. 1 page 306
8.39 M.B. 1 page 308
8.40 M.B. 1 page 306 and 313
8.41 M.B. 1 page 314 and 315
8.42 M.B. 1 pages 315 and 317
8.43 M.B. 1 pages 317-318
8.44 M.B. 1 pages 320-321
8.45 M.B. 1 pages 327A -329
8.46 Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: 143
8.47 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 84
8.48 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.49 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 179: Kitea means discovery
8.50 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 528: tupuna means ancestor
8.51 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: :522: tuku means give
8.52 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 9: ‘ai ka means fire
8.53 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 490
8.54 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7. Gilling, Brian D., The Māori Land Court in New Zealand: An Historical Overview, the Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, 1993: 22 http://www.brandonu.ca/Library/CJNS/13.1/gilling.pdf is incorrect when he states that there were only four take: “The first was the right of discovery in the distant past. The second, closely related, was by right of descent from former owners. The third was by gift, provided that the gift was clearly made and openly acknowledged by both parties. The fourth was the right of conquest. ...All of these take had to be supported by occupation, a claim made by those absent for more than three generations seldom succeeding.”
8.55 Professor Ron Crocombe in Chapter VI of his classic book Land Tenure in the Cook Islands referred to these rights being acquired and lost through discovery and settlement, conquest, allocation and occupation within the landholding group, inheritance, reversion, marriage, gift and permissive occupation, and adoption. Professor Crocombe dealt with the methods of acquisition of land in the following pages from Chapter VI of his book: Discovery and settlement: 50; conquest:
8.56 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.57 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.58 –56
8.59 Oakura, Judgment of the Compensation Court, New Plymouth, June 1866, AJHRA13 : 3
8.60 See the findings of the "Spain Commission" established in May 1842 to investigate the basis of chiefs' claims to land within the Wellington district; see also the work of the "Board of Inquiry into Native Land Tenure" established by Parliament in 1856.
8.61 Chiefs often tailored their claims to fit with the Court's .version of custom. Claims could be made on the basis of tika raupatu even though the victors failed to follow up the conquest with sustained occupation. For a full discussion of the impact of the Native Land Court on Māori social and political organisation generally, see Ballara, Angela, Iwi..., 1998, p 260.
8.62 Richard Gilson, The Cook Islands 1820 to 1950, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1980, p. 137. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.63 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 84-85 (also referred to in Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 50) with my annotations and additions inserted in brackets.
8.64 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Maori Dictionary, p. 447: tapatapa, to bestow a name on.
8.65 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 84 to 85. Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), p. 50. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.66 Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck), The Coming of the Maori, 2nd edition, Whitcombe and Tombs, Christchurch, 1974, pp. 55–56.
8.67 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 84 to 85. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.68 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942, p 62
8.69 Ron Crocombe, notes on the manuscript of this series, 12 October 2008, pp. 1 to 3, on pages 95 to 104 of the draft; the Samoan tradition is in the Journal of the Polynesian Society under the references to Manu’a and ‘Ari’a. The traditions themselves are in Volume Two of this series, Pre-European Southern Cook Islands Social Organisation, Chapters 17 and 18. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.70 Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, BMB 122, Honolulu, 1934: 107
8.71 F. J. Moss, The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894, sent to the Governor of New Zealand with report No. 4 of 9 September 1893; 1894 AJHR A-3, pp. 20 to 26, pp. 20 to 22. Also in Report of Judge Harvey to the New Zealand Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1945, pp. 10 to 11. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.72 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, pp. 89–92; Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, p. 54; published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with the author’s annotations and additions in brackets.
8.73 Declaration as to Land of the Parliament of the Cook Islands Federation, 3 August 1894; 1895 AJHR A-3, p. 8. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.74 Such land was known as ‘enua tao'anga rima' (it was known as ‘topenga piro' on some islands).
8.75 House of Ariki, statement of custom as to land, Rarotonga. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.76 All recorded instances of marriage gifts of land concern the daughters of chiefs. While some informants claimed that only ariki and mataiapo had the privilege of setting aside such lands, occasional examples of leading rangatira having done so have been noted.
8.77 The information in this paragraph was supplied to Ron Crocombe by informants in Rarotonga, who were familiar with the pre-Land Court (i.e. pre-1902) situation. (Early indigenous sources deal only cursorily with marriages.) Whether or not the details they outlined also applied pre-contact cannot be verified, though the informants considered that they did. While I did not locate any instances of marriage portions being loaned to custodians, Judge Morgan informs me that such instances have been brought to the notice of the Court.
8.78 This view is supported by the comments of informants to Ron Crocombe, and by the fact that when the Land Court investigated the title to all the lands on the island, very few portions were claimed as marriage lands.
8.79 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, pp. 99–102; Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, pp. 56–57; published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with the author’s annotations and additions in brackets.
8.80 With a population of about 7,000 people living on a small island and only very limited contact with other islands, every person was no doubt related to every other. The significant factor in adoption would no doubt be whether or not the relationship between the parties was recognized.
8.81 This supposed tendency may possibly be due to the lack of evidence about such adoptions by commoners. However, as the adoption of non-relatives appears generally to have been motivated by political considerations it is unlikely that commoners were involved to the same extent as chiefs, if at all.
8.82 This is still almost invariably the case today.
8.83 ‘If native custom is properly carried out the lands to be awarded to an adopted child are made known at the time of adoption…. Unfortunately this procedure was not always followed….’ - Judge Morgan, MB 22:339 Native Land Court.
8.84 The number of children adopted today is reducing year by year and the land rights of the respective parties are now clearly specified. Nevertheless, the [former] Registrar of the Land Court (Mr L.H. Trenn) estimates that nearly ninety per cent of the land disputes which come before his notice concern rights acquired by adoption or by permissive occupation. There is evidence to indicate that this is no new phenomenon, for indigenous histories contain numerous instances of disputes over the rights of adoptees.
8.85 Re Te Taora Section 128D, Avarua 190A No.2, Avarua 190A No.1, Tapatea 107B No.1 & No 2, Tapatea 223, Parako 134, all in the District of Avarua, Rarotonga, (1970) AMB 3 pages 75-78, at 76
8.86 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 184
8.87 Savage, S., The Origin of the Name Tinomana, JPS 18 (1909) 217
8.88 Moss, JPS 3:23. This is still generally the case today.
8.89 No pre-contact example of this type has been located but a post-contact example wherein neither family were prepared to make adequate provision of lands for the child of a deceased adoptee is given in MB 22:318–20 Native Land Court
8.90 Moss, F.J., The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894: 23
8.91 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 186
8.92 The Policy In The Island of Rarotonga, JPS 3 (1894) 23
8.93 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 188-189
8.94 Baddeley, Josephine G., Rarotongan Society..., 1978: 190
8.95 Moss, F.J., The Maori Polity of Rarotonga, 1894: 23
8.96 Customs Approved by the House of Ariki, 1970, Part V: 10
8.97 Maori Customs Approved by the House of Ariki, 1970, Mimeographed material, Justice Department, Avarua, Rarotonga, Part V: 11
8.98 Tama ‘ū’ā is also sometimes used to refer to an adopted child in the contemporary context
8.99 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 9
8.100 Durie, E.T., Custom Law, 1994: 83
8.101 Lands were frequently given for outstanding service in war.
8.102 This is, of course, a relative difference. Assuming an element of reciprocity to have existed in all exchanges, the underlying cause of the difference was no doubt that whereas in the former case the quid pro quo (in the form of some service redered) was already met, in the latter case it was still to come.
8.103 Samuela Te Rei, Avaavaroa 17, (1904) M.B. 1 page 117
8.104 Samuela Te Rei, Avaavaroa 17, (1904) M.B. 1 page 114
8.105 Rangahaua Whanui National Theme c, The Crown’s Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, First Release, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997: para. 7.6, page 134
8.106 Cook and Other Islands Report for the Year Ended 31st March 1906, being part of the Report of the Resident Commissioner dated 18 April 1906: 5
8.107 Rangahaua Whanui National Theme c, The Crown’s Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, First Release, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997: para. 7.6, page 134
8.108 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 72
8.109 Williams, David V., He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished revised draft as at 10 November 1998 of Williams, Joseph, He Aha Te Tikanga Māori, unpublished paper for the Law Commission, 1996: 9
8.110 Pitman, Journal 12.5.1827.
8.111 No instance has been noted wherein a refugee married other than into the lineage in which he resided. Presumably if he did marry into another lineage it would be in his interests to shift his residence there.
8.112 M.B. 1 page 90
8.113 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 70 (cited Judges O Brien and Von Sturmer, with no additional reference)
8.114 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 49, 62-72; and Waitangi Tribunal, National Theme C Report; 1997, Chapter 4: 59
8.115 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 490
8.116 Buse, Jasper, Cook Islands Dictionary, ...: 9: ‘ai ka means fire
8.117 Smith, Judge Norman, Native Custom and Law..., 1942: 49, 62-72; and Waitangi Tribunal, National Theme C Report; 1997, Chapter 4: 59
8.118 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 59
8.119 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 52
8.120 Erueti, A., Māori Land Law, 2004, paragraph 3.3.7
8.121 Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 20
8.122 Avaavaroa case - MB 1:107-39. It will be noted that the above persons were users and did not necessarily have proprietary rights in the land.
8.123 See Volume 2 Appendix A
8.124 Even in the case of conquest or banishment rights were often not entirely lost, for they may be gratuitously restored, or action may be taken to repossess them. Likewise in the case of gifts, the donor retained residual rights.
8.125 Even if a claim to unused land was impregnable to an aggressor it could nevertheless be vulnerable to the humble request of a friend and potential supporter.
8.126 8: paragraph 3.2
8.127 Crocombe, Ron, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961: 92-93 (also referred to in Crocombe, Ronald G., Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964: 53-54); published with the consent of his wife Marjorie Crocombe, with my annotations and additions inserted in brackets.
8.128 This may have been done either voluntarily or under pressure. Strong neighbours would be tempted to spread into vacant lands, and a voluntary merger may have been preferable to the possibility of loss by force.
8.129 E.g. MB 4 page 277
8.130 Baltaxe, James Bernard, The Transformation of the rangatira..., 1975: 72-73
8.131 The actual driving out of the family was known as ‘akataa’ and a person who had been so driven out was accordingly known as a ‘tangata akataa’. The act of seizing his possessions was known as ‘aru’, and that of devastating his crops and destroying his house was called ‘akatanea’. This system of plunder was similar to the New Zealand Māori custom of muru.
8.132 Campbell, Matthew, Settlement and Landscape in Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, 2001, unpublished doctoral thesis, Sydney, Australia: 115
8.133 E.g. Pitman, who graphically describes the banishment and confiscation of lands of a set of brothers for a crime committed by one of them. - Journal 14.8.1829.
8.134 Cook and Other Islands (Report on the visit of members of the General Assembly to the) 1903 AJHR A-3B: 9
8.135 Report F.J. Moss to the Earl of Onslow, 17 January 1891, 1892 AJHR A-3: 16
8.136 Moss, F.J., The Polity of Rarotonga, 1894, which he sent to the Governor of New Zealand with his report No 4 dated 9 September 1893; 1894 AJHR A-3: 20-26:20-22; also in the Report of Judge Harvey to the New Zealand Department of Island Territories, 1945, Wellington: 10, 11
8.137 A Compilation of Acts and Instruments Relating to the Government of the Cook and Other Islands..., 1905
8.138 Gudgeon, Report on Trade of the Cook and Other Islands for the year 1901. 1908 AJHR A-3, Item 85: 47-55: 6
8.139 Gudgeon, Report on Trade of the Cook and Other Islands for the year ending 31 March 1908. 1908 AJHR A-3: 48
8.140 Gilson, R., The Cook Islands 1820 - 1950, 1980: 137
8.141 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.142 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785,
8.143 Campbell, Matthew, Ritual Landscape in Late Pre-contact Rarotonga: a Brief Reading, JPS (2002) Volume 111, No. 2, p 147-170: 162-163
8.144 Campbell, Matthew, Settlement and Landscape on Late Prehistoric Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands, 2001 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney:155
8.145 Chief Judge Harvey, In re Vaimaanga section 6 and Tikioki section 45, Tākitumu, Native Appellate Court minute book 1, pp. 160 to 162, 18 October 1948, at 162. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.146 See Volume Three of this series on the mission period, and Volume Four of this series, Chapters 4 and 10.
8.147 The marker dates and their consequences are developed in Volume Four, Chapter 3, where the author’s conclusion on the appropriate date is stated.
8.148 Josephine Baddeley, Rarotongan Society: the Creation of Tradition, PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 1978, p. 184. The first edition’s section: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-8
8.149 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.11
8.150 (1905) M.B. 1 page 368: 10 April 1905
8.151 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.11
8.152 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a MauiI, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2, which was prepared after considering research reports by historians David Armstrong, Tony Walzl, Dr Bryan Gilling, Dr Maui John Mitchell, Professor Atholl Anderson, Dr James McAloon, Dr Te Maire Tau, Harry Evison, Dr Grant Phillipson, Dr Angela Ballara, the original documents on which they were based, and numerous submissions from claimant kaumatua and kuia on customary rights
8.153 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2
8.154 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2
8.155 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Report on Northern South Island Claims Volume I, WAI 785, 2008, paragraph 3.2
8.156 Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tau Ihu O Te Waka a Maui, Preliminary Report on Customary Rights in the Northern South Island, Wai 785, 2007: paragraph 2.2
8.157 Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu: A Report on Moriori and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands: 143
Volume One, Chapter 9
Chapter 9: Conquest and warfare in the Southern Cook Islands before Christianity
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- John Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga (1954)
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
1. Ten generations of peace, and why they ended
2. What the missionaries overstated
3. Weapons
4. Conquest, competition and the feast
9.28 John A. Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga, manuscript, 1954, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, p. 3. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-28 The passage in full
5. The fearful season
each went back to the position he had been in before the conquest … Uritaua took possession again of the lands they had acquired before the conquest.9.35
6. What this means for the land
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The introduction to this chapter is Ron Crocombe’s, from his thesis of 1961, and the section on conquest, competition and the feast is his text as he corrected it in 2008. Both are reproduced with his family’s consent and are marked in amber. His handwritten corrections of 2008 to his own 1961 text are reproduced word for word.
Peter Buck, William Gill, S. Percy Smith, Stephen Savage, Te Rei, Te Aia and Tamuera Terei died more than fifty years ago; their published work is in the public domain in New Zealand and the Cook Islands. Joe Gray’s thesis of 1975 and John Numa’s manuscript of 1954 appear in extract only. Land Court evidence is a court record.
Peter Buck’s full text on the weapons of the group, which the second edition condenses to a paragraph, is kept here in full; his figures 172, 174, 177, 178, 181, 185 and 187 are in Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands and are to be added when the Bishop Museum’s permission is confirmed.
Part 1: Ron Crocombe’s introduction
Note 9.2: Ten generations of peace, then Rongo‘oe
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 27–30; also Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1964, pp. 13–15. The words quoted within it are Te Aia’s, Journal of the Polynesian Society 2 (1893), p. 275.
“After the defeat of the invaders from Tahiti by Tangi‘ia-nui and Karika Tara‘ape, there followed ten generations of relative peace. In the tenth generation the notorious chief Rongo‘oe (who founded the Arorangi district) arose and ‘commenced the killing of men and likewise the eating of them; then began evils and troubles in the land’. Spasmodic warfare continued thereafter until the arrival of the mission some thirteen generations later. The ten generations of relative peace no doubt resulted in considerable population expansion, and it may well have been that the consequent pressure on the island’s resources was a factor in initiating and perpetuating the later conflicts.
The more important wars are recorded in the traditional histories, and though accounts of the less spectacular battles have never been assembled together, the fact of their occurrence is confirmed by many individual family histories, and by evidence given in the Land Court. Mission and mission-influenced reports, however, tend to overemphasise the extent of warfare and the related evils of ‘heathen darkness’.
Missionaries and other early European writers often convey the impression (in their published works at least) of an island permanently divided into hostile tribes whose only contact was in war. This view has become widely accepted by later Europeans, including some Land Court judges, and it is accordingly necessary to determine as far as possible the nature and occasions of intertribal contact.
Indications of some degree of movement are suggested firstly by the existence of a well maintained inland road which ran right round the island about half a mile from the coast. Secondly, many accounts refer to members of various tribes, and even the whole island, assembling for the offering of first fruits and certain other ceremonial activities. Thirdly, it was customary for ariki to participate in the installations of ariki of other districts. Fourthly, there was intermarriage between districts, with concomitant obligations and subsequent blood ties linking the families concerned. Whether as a result of inter district marriages or not, there were pre-contact examples of persons living in one district and having land rights in another. Fifthly, there is an indigenous term ‘ui ariki’, which, while commonly used today as a simple plural of ariki, strictly means ‘the assembled ariki’ – i.e. as a functional group rather than as an agglomeration. Finally, one finds in the writings of indigenous authors such comments as the following: ‘The island then lived in peace… and the people moved freely between all the districts.’ Admittedly this passage is sandwiched between others which describe sanguinary battles, but the picture drawn is one of considerable intervals of peace during which relatively free movement was possible and usual.
Warfare, which was common, would be the major factor inhibiting freedom of movement. Another danger against which precaution was probably necessary was that of being attacked in retaliation for a grievance against a relative. A system of tattoo marks acted as a reminder of vengeance to be exacted, not necessarily on the offender himself, but equally satisfactorily on one of his issue or other relatives. This no doubt added an element of risk to travelling alone and probably accounts for the fact that most intertribal visits recorded involve groups of people in the company of a chief.”
Notes 9.5 to 9.12 rely on this passage and on its footnotes, which follow. On the ten generations of peace (Notes 9.2 and 9.3): “The traditions claim that Tangi‘ia ‘outlawed’ war – e.g. Toarua, JPS 20:140. It may be claimed that the description of this period as one of peace merely reflects ignorance of what actually did go on, but as wars are recorded both before and after, it seems reasonable to assume that no major conflict took place during the period.” On the installations (Note 9.8): “Details of the installation of Makea Pori Ariki by Kainuku Ariki and Pa Ariki are given by Maretu, MS 29. Terei describes the installation of Tinomana in the district of the Makeas. He notes in another connection that once installed to office an ariki was sometimes carried right round the island.” On land rights in another district (Note 9.9): “Maretu refers to the land of the Makeas on the south side of the island – MS 162; Aaron Buzacott refers to claims by several Avarua people to land in the Tākitumu district – Buzacott to LMS ‘early 1830’ SSL. The mata‘iapo of Rangiātea (part of Tākitumu) claimed a piece of land at Nikao (in the Avarua district) on the basis of pre-contact incidents – MB 22 page 343. These are admittedly atypical cases, and the number of them was relatively few.” On ui ariki (Note 9.10): “The significance of this term as an index of interaction between tribes was first pointed out to me by Judge Morgan. Its relevance is supported by the fact that at Arai-te-Tonga, the chiefly court of the Makeas, elders can still identify the named seating stones, each of which was specifically set aside for one or other of the ariki of the other tribes on the island.”
The population would double every hundred years
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, handwritten annotations on page 278 of the manuscript of this series, 2008, against his own 1961 introduction.
“This, however, would not have lasted even a few hundred years, as with ample food, no predators and no contagious illness the population would be expected to double every hundred years.”
On the same page he changed “Originally” to “in the early stages of settlement” (Note 9.17), wrote “Conflict”, and corrected John Williams’ “inferior” to “not inferior”.
Note 9.7: What William Gill wrote, and what Charles Pitman recorded
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE William Gill, Gems from the Coral Islands, volume 2, Ward and Co., London, 1856, p. 12; and Charles Pitman, journal, 28 July 1827, London Missionary Society, South Seas Journals.
“Gill: … so general and constant were the enmity and jealousy of one tribe toward another, that the majority of the people were confined to the range of district where they were born, only hearing vague reports, but knowing little definitely, respecting the tribes beyond them.
Pitman: This week the evenings have been devoted to conversation with the principal chiefs as to the propriety of what laws it would be best to introduce among the people. Formerly they used to find some pretext to seize one another’s kaingas of land. Consequently nothing but quarrels and war were known among them. The principal difficulty appears to be whether the present holder of the land shall keep what he has or restore it to the person from whom it was taken. If the latter be adopted it is likely to be attended with many unpleasant circumstances. The former at present appears to be the most likely for continuation of peace.”
Charles Pitman assumed that the seizing of land was a traditional and permanent part of life. As Volume Three shows, the seizures of the principal chiefs after 1823 arose from the changes in Rarotongan society that followed the mission, not before it.
“The island then lived in peace”
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Tivini Haueti (Stephen Savage) and Tamuera Terei, E Tuatua Ta‘ito, Kua Neneiia ki o te Neneianga o te Kavamani, Government Printer, Cook Islands, 1908, p. 37.
“The island then lived in peace… and the people moved freely between all the districts.”
Charles Cowan, Kainuku Ariki, told Joe Gray in 1975 (A History of Rarotonga, 1800–1883, p. 132): “Before the missionaries there were a lot of little wars, not big wars, among the people within any particular tribe. Primarily between the mataiapo not between the rangatira who would always side with his mataiapo or his ariki.” And Taarua, in the Land Court on 29 July 1908 (Rarotonga minute book 4, p. 209): “We did not fight in the very old times, only at later dates.”
Part 2: Weapons
Note 9.14: Peter Buck on the weapons of the group
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, pp. 460–464.
“First Period. … The weapons of each island in the Cook group are so diverse that it is possible that the first settlers on each island brought in different forms of clubs. Spears under the widespread name of tao are extremely simple as compared with the many-pointed composite spears of Melanesia, and the usual form with shaft and point in one piece was probably the form introduced. Short spears were used as throwing javelins and long spears as pikes. The notching of the point to form simple barbs is probably old. Separate wooden points were made in the Austral Islands, Niue, Aitutaki and probably in other islands as an alternative form…
The diversity in clubs offers a greater problem as to prototypes. Unfortunately no old clubs were available from Aitutaki for comparative study. The simplest form of Cook Islands club is the narrow-bladed, pointed club of Atiu (fig. 172, a–e) which developed a wider blade in the unique club from Mauke (fig. 172, f). A wider and longer plain blade is also found in Rarotonga (fig. 178, a). The smooth-edged blade with a distal point might well have been the precursor of later types developed during occupation. The sling was used throughout the volcanic islands of Polynesia except in Easter Island and New Zealand where they were evidently abandoned. It must have come in with the first settlers of the Cook Islands.
Second Period. Later elaboration occurred with the spear points. The Rarotongan spear (fig. 187) with a series of four short barbs and the Aitutaki puapua inano point are examples of a development which reached a peak in the Samoan form known as le tala o le lo (the barb of the porcupine fish), in which the barbs point in three directions. The narrow Rarotongan serrated club (fig. 174) resembles in general form the shape of the Atiu blade and the affinity is increased by the V-shaped flange treatment of the butt point in Atiu and Rarotonga… Leaving out the Mangaian serrated clubs for the present, the nearest serrated clubs occur in Tuamotu and Samoa. In these island groups, the serrations are either straight or slightly convex, whereas the Rarotongan serrations are formed by beautifully executed concave curves. The Atiu serrated clubs were evidently similar to those of Rarotonga, for Cook describes the edges as “nicely scalloped.” The Rarotongan serrations are further defined by curved flanges, a feature absent in Samoa and Tuamotu. If diffusion from the west through Samoan ancestors is accepted, all we can admit is the general idea of a serrated blade, for the technique of conveying that idea into effect is unique for Rarotonga and Atiu and is hence a local development during the period of occupation.
The Mangaian local myth regarding the digging up and splitting of the first ironwood tree implies that the spade club is ancient, but as the form preserved in the British Museum is peculiar to Mangaia we cannot be sure that the spade referred to in the myth was of the same shape. However, it was evidently the prototype of the Mangaian serrated club. The serrations differ from those of the Rarotongan technique in that the edges of the serrations are convex, the flanges are absent, and the distal end is broadly convex instead of pointed. The paddle-shaped club, though reminiscent of the paddle-shaped blade of the Mauke clubs, is unique in the addition of the long slender point… Another characteristic of Mangaian clubs is the use of spaced bands of sennit around the shaft for ornamentation. Samoa has a similar usage with an identical technique.
A feature shared by Mangaian and Rarotongan clubs is the shoulder ornament, which follows the form of carving developed independently in each island. The clubs with lozenge-shaped blades characteristic of the Society and Austral Islands also have shoulder ornaments carved in their own forms of art. Hence, the Cook, Society, and Austral Islands share another feature, all using a carved protuberance to ornament the boundary between blade and shaft. The carved shoulder ornament does not exist elsewhere in Polynesia.
A more significant feature, shared by Atiu, Mauke, Rarotonga, Mangaia, and probably Aitutaki, is the pointing of the butt ends of long clubs. This introduces the important principle of using both ends of the club, the blade for striking or thrusting and the butt end for thrusting. The functional double-ended clubs form a marked contrast to the short, heavy clubs of Samoa and Tonga which usually have lugs for suspension on the blunt or slightly flared butt end. The butt point is not known in Hawaii, Marquesas, Mangareva, and Easter Island. It occurs on some of the long clubs of the Society and Austral Islands and on all the three main types of New Zealand clubs… The Cook Islands clubs, with few exceptions, have flanged butt points; but two forms have been developed, the two-point or V-shaped flange in Atiu and Rarotonga (fig. 177) and the four-pointed flange in Mangaia (fig. 185)… The true flanged point is thus restricted to the Cook Islands.
I was told in Aitutaki that the butt point in long clubs was used to deal with an attack from the rear when attention was being primarily devoted to an opponent in front. It is probable that the butt point in the long clubs of the Society and Austral Islands were originally made for a similar purpose. If so, it was this purpose that originally diffused from the Society group probably to the Austral and Cook Islands. In the Cook Islands, however, some of the clubs were shortened and the butt point of such clubs could be used as an alternative form of frontal attack. Unfortunately we have no details as to how the double-ended clubs were used. In New Zealand, however, the principle of the double-ended club, carried on possibly from the Cook Islands, was definitely developed in the school of arms into an organized series of strokes, guards, and parries, in which the butt point was regarded as the more dangerous end of the club.
Third Period. Though organized warfare ceased after the general acceptance of the Christian faith, spears and clubs were made for use in dances at festivals. The Atiuans made good replicas of their old clubs, and the Rarotongans made cruder forms of their serrated clubs. The Mangaians, however, seem to have departed from old models for none of those made for dances resemble the old clubs preserved in museums.”
Note 9.14 relies on the same pages. S. Percy Smith (Hawaiki, 1899, p. 24) observed that the Polynesians never used the bow in war, their fighting being hand to hand, but that the sling, maka, is often mentioned in Rarotongan history and was an old custom.
Note 9.16: The war call
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, pp. 20, 21, 32 and 39.
“Aoa-tamaki: a war call or cry: a call or challenge sent out by a special messenger by a chief in olden days to call his warriors together to prepare for war, or to repulse an attack: a challenge to combat, a shout of defiance.
Akateniteni: an olden day war-cry… to vociferate a war-cry. Akatara: the name of a kind of spear used in olden days, to a great extent in warfare. Akatara-kuri: a war weapon, a spear. Ara‘a: an ancient weapon which was used as a skull cleaver, a club and spear combined.”
Note 9.17: Rongo‘oe learns to fight
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Stephen Savage and Te Rei, An Ancient History of Tangi‘ia, 1907, part IV, p. 3.
“During Rongo-oi’s reign the art of warfare was taught. Tekaia had already told him that place could only be acquired by war. The teaching of fighting was done at Taurupau when one learned to fence and any other methods of warfare such as the use of the stone and sling.
Rongo‘oi then thought that he has “overcome” the art of fighting and prepared for war. He then started to make his weapons from the “ono” and the “rupo,” the wood used by warriors. He then made war on Takitumu and many people were killed on both sides. The fighting got worse and many were killed. This was the first time that fighting occurred on this island right from the time of Tangi‘ia. The only time that fighting occurred in Tangiia’s time was when Tutapu-aru-roa was killed. Rongo‘oi was eventually killed and ariki descendants came from him.”
The eyes of a slain opponent were offered to the atua from before Tangi‘ia’s time. When Pu-kuru helped Ata-i-te-kura defeat Apopo he swallowed Apopo’s eyes, hence the saying recorded by Percy Smith (Hawaiki, 1899, p. 29): “Catch the eyeballs, offer them to Tangaroa in the skies, Tauronga and Tane; an evil pastime is war.”
Part 3: Conquest, competition and the feast
Ron Crocombe’s 1961 text, and his corrections of 2008
IN COPYRIGHT — reproduced with the Crocombe family’s consent
SOURCE Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, 1961, pp. 29–30, as reproduced on pages 278 to 284 of the manuscript of this series; and his handwritten annotations on those pages, 2008.
“Page 278. “Originally” struck; “in the early stages of settlement” written in. Against “always cultivating”: “more lack of need for productivity — two hours a day”, and a cross. Against “initially tended to prevent war”: “or provoked it?” Against “essentially peaceful nature”: a cross.
Page 284. Against “powerless”: “not unable — insufficient power”. “Basic human territorial imperative.” Against the conquest claims: “true, but conflicts with your earlier statements about multiple claims to the same land”. Against the exchange of land for peace: “How does he know?” Against punanga: “Check meaning”. Against the mana-eating passage: “?? probably an ancient practice”. “1700s” for “18th century”. “unknown” for “unparalleled”. “Records suggest that”.”
Notes 9.18 to 9.21, 9.23, 9.24, 9.26 and 9.27 rest on these two pages. The 1961 text itself — on the factors that kept down the value of a military answer, the competition to outproduce a neighbour, the feast as the gauge of success, land as the main object of ambition, the exchange of land for peace, the first refuges in the mountains, and the eating of the enemy as the last step in competition — is to be transcribed here from the thesis, pp. 29–30, with his corrections shown against it. The chapter gives it as corrected.
Anautoa, Tamarua and Te Pa: claims by conquest
COURT RECORD — reproduced under the open-justice principle
SOURCE Savage and Te Rei, An Ancient History of Tangi‘ia, 1907; and the Land Court evidence cited in the first edition of this chapter, notes 1606 to 1608.
The three claims — Anautoa’s to Kairoa because it had been taken by war, Tamarua’s to Mangaiti Kairoa through conquest, and the account of Te Pa making war on Te Kou for trying to take his land by force — are to be reproduced here from the minute books once the first edition’s notes 1606 to 1608 have been checked against them. Ron Crocombe’s caution against them (Note 9.23) is under Note 9.17.
Note 9.28: Piako, Maungaroa and the word punanga
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE John A. Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga, manuscript, 1954, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, p. 3; the definition of punanga is Savage’s (Dictionary, 1962).
John Numa records that Piako, the fort of Pa, was built high in the Avana valley and that Maungaroa became a permanent refuge for clans under Tinomana. Ron Crocombe asked that the meaning of punanga be checked; the chapter gives it as a stronghold or retreat, from Stephen Savage. John Numa’s passage is to be added here in his words. His view of the earlier wars (p. 3) was that they “were wars to win the favours of the gods”: only an ariki declared war, after inquiring of the atua, and the victor normally claimed the atua of his opponent.
Part 4: The fearful season
Note 9.31: A full island: Joe Gray’s count of one family
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
SOURCE J. D. Gray, A History of Rarotonga, 1800–1883, thesis, University of Otago, 1975, pp. 58 and 175; the genealogy is from Stephen Savage, Manuscript on Rarotongan Traditions, Land Court, Avarua, pp. 3–6.
“Several extensive genealogical tables of certain families record this growth. For instance, Uriarau had six children, two male and four female. One of these had no issue but the other five produced between them forty-one children (one of them had eighteen). Complete genealogies continue into the fourth generation from only fourteen of the forty-one (though all but two had issue). Of the twenty-two children of the fourteen above, four lines are continued in the tables with fourteen offspring. Assuming that the fertility rate of those families whose genealogies are not recorded was similar, the number of blood-relatives (excluding wives and adopted members) in the Uriarau family would have increased from one in the first generation to well over two hundred in the fifth generation. If the fertility rate of the first three generations was maintained throughout, there could have been over 1,400 people in this line by the fifth generation.
It is, of course, unlikely that any tribe increased at such a rate, but it is obvious that what began as a simple family unit of a husband, wife and six children might well have expanded rapidly into a large tapere or even into a sub-tribe… From the descendants of Te Ora, grandson of Uriarau, sprang a new ngati (Te Ora). Some, such as Io-totora and Io Tama, no doubt feeling the pressures of competition and over population, moved to Puaikura and acquired land… Thus from a ngati was formed a simple tapere called Punako, and from this arose an extended clan at Kirikiri with at least three mataiapo titles, numerous lesser titles, and close blood-ties to the other clans, especially those in geographic proximity… This same type of expansion occurred all over the island.”
Joe Gray’s finding at p. 58, on which the chapter relies for the realignment of allegiances between the middle of the 1700s and 1814, is to be added in his words. The phrase “fearful season” is George Gill’s, an aged Christian looking back on his youth, in a letter to the London Missionary Society of January 1842.
Note 9.33: John Williams’ battlegrounds
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE John Williams, A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands, John Snow, London, 1837, pp. 210–214.
John Williams wrote that there were battlegrounds half a mile wide between each vaka, where wars were fought to protect the kāinga. His passage is to be reproduced here from the 1837 edition. The first edition’s comment stands: every account of fighting in the fearful season describes battles that were not on battlegrounds, and there is no evidence of more than one vaka on Rarotonga before the late 1700s; the half-mile probably records the tradition that the Tupapa–Matavera boundary once lay half a mile further south.
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 9, Note 9.16, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-9, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
9.1 John Numa, Maurua section 20, Avaavaroa, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 232 to 234, 12 August 1949; the decision, 9 August 1949 [sic in the book’s order], p. 249; Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, (1949) 1 AMB 249, published online at the series’ website. The clerk headed the hearing “Ngauna”; the block is Maurua 20 in the Land Court’s register. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-1
9.2 Te Aia, in Journal of the Polynesian Society 2 (1893), p. 275. The introduction is from Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 27 to 30. Also in Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 13 to 15. The passage in full
9.3 Toarua, in Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), p. 140.
9.4 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 27, note. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-4
9.5 Ron Crocombe, annotations on the manuscript of this series, pages 278 to 284, 2008, p. 278.
9.6 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 27. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-6
9.7 William Gill, Gems from the Coral Islands, volume 2, Ward and Co., London, 1856, p. 12. The passage in full
9.8 Te Ariki-tara-are, “History and Traditions of Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 28 (1919) and 30 (1921), 30 (1921), p. 140. Maretu, manuscript account; edited by Marjorie Crocombe as Cannibals and Converts, Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva, 1983, MS p. 21.
9.9 Maretu, Cannibals and Converts, MS p. 29. Tivini Haueti (Stephen Savage) and Tamuera Terei, E Tuatua Taito, Government Printer, Cook Islands, 1908, pp. 31 and 46.
9.10 Charles Pitman, journal, London Missionary Society, South Seas Journals, 9 November 1829. Aaron Buzacott to the London Missionary Society, early 1830, South Seas Letters. Land Court, Rarotonga minute book 22, p. 343.
9.11 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 28, note 9. The significance of ui ariki was first pointed out to Ron Crocombe by Judge Morgan. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-11
9.12 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 28.
9.13 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 29. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-13
9.14 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, pp. 460 to 464. The passage in full
9.15 Buck, Arts and Crafts, pp. 460 to 464. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-15
9.16 Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 32. Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, Ministry of Education, Rarotonga, 1995, p. 156. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-16 The passage in full
9.17 Stephen Savage and Te Rei, An Ancient History of Tangi‘ia, 1907, IV, p. 3. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-17 The passage in full
9.18 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 278 of the draft; the original at pp. 29 to 30. The phrase “in the early stages of settlement” is Ron Crocombe’s 2008 correction of his own “originally”.
9.19 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 29 to 30.
9.20 Crocombe, annotations (2008), p. 278.
9.21 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 30. as corrected by Crocombe, annotations (2008), p. 278.
9.22 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 30. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-22
9.23 Savage and Te Rei, Ancient History of Tangi‘ia. and the Land Court evidence cited in the first edition, notes 1606 to 1608.
9.24 Crocombe, annotations (2008), p. 284.
9.25 Tom Crummer, Arakuo Karika ki Uta section 38, Arakuo Karika section 34 and Arakuo Makea section 35, Takitumu, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 25 and 31, 10 August 1950; (1950) 2 AMB 52. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-25
9.26 Tuaine Nicholas, Te Koiti Raukura section 6C, Ngatangiia, Appellate Minute Book 1, p. 309, 22 August 1949.
9.27 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 30.
9.28 John A. Numa, A Pre-European History of Rarotonga, manuscript, 1954, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, p. 3. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-28 The passage in full
9.29 Crocombe, annotations (2008), p. 284.
9.30 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 30. “1700s” for “eighteenth century”, on Ron Crocombe’s advice. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n9-30
9.31 J. D. Gray, A History of Rarotonga, 1800 to 1883, thesis, University of Otago, 1975, p. 58. The passage in full
9.32 Volume Two of this series, Chapter 24.
9.33 John Williams, A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands, John Snow, London, 1837, pp. 210 to 214. The passage in full
9.34 Volume Two, Chapter 24.
9.35 In re Arepakii section 36, Araiava section 37 and Uruau section 77, Avarua, Native Appellate Court (Morison and Beechey JJ), 25 August 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, p. 321, citing Raea Rupe, Rarotonga Minute Book 5, pp. 116 to 117, and Vaikai Maoate, p. 122 (1912); (1949) 1 AMB 319.
Volume One, Chapter 10
Chapter 10: Rights to land
What this chapter rests on
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
- Land and people
- The levels (notes 10.6 to 10.7)
- The tapere and how it was divided
- Two kinds of right: belonging and use
- Rights of the individual
- Those placed on the land
- The ariki’s land
- Title land and family land
- What the witnesses said, and what the administrators and the courts made of it
- What this adds up to
The passages and documents
- Patu Titaa, for Ngāti Uritaua in the same case, drew the line the way Ron Crocombe draws it:
- all tribes render aratiroa and arevananga but people who own land rend…
- ; the other factors were:
- voluntary allocation of the various lands to different members of the …
- Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
- Terekia asked for permission to plant on this land. He asked my father…
- So a Rarotongan held his land at four levels at once, and the courts o…
- The archive: the passages in full
1. Land and people
2. The levels
the people belonged to the ariki and the ariki belonged to the people.10.8
Patu Titaa, for Ngāti Uritaua in the same case, drew the line the way Ron Crocombe draws it:
all tribes render aratiroa and arevananga but people who own land render no other atinga.10.9
10.6 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 62 to 71.
10.7 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 63. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-6
3. The tapere and how it was divided
4. Two kinds of right: belonging and use
a blood right alone is not sufficient to prove ownership of land. If it were then all persons who can trace from Tangiia (circa 1250) would have a claim to all the lands that Tangiia owned
; the other factors were:
voluntary allocation of the various lands to different members of the family and subsequent occupation of these lands by the families concerned.10.18
5. Rights of the individual
The fact that rights were invariably held by more than one person has often led to the view that they were held in common. That the rights of each member were equal, or of the same order as those of the others. The blanket term “communal tenure” has often been used with this connotation. To the extent that the term is given this connotation, it is quite inappropriate to describe the land tenure system of Rarotonga, and probably equally inappropriate for many other societies to which it is applied. It hides, or denies the existence of, the diverse nature and complex structure of the rights held by the various individuals and groups within the society.10.21
Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, 1961
6. Those placed on the land
Terekia asked for permission to plant on this land. He asked my father Parau who consented. That is a Maori custom.
7. The ariki’s land
8. Title land and family land
9. What the witnesses said, and what the administrators and the courts made of it
10. What this adds up to
So a Rarotongan held his land at four levels at once, and the courts of the twentieth century found room for only one of them. That is the whole of the disagreement between the custom and the law, and the rest of this volume and the next are its working out. But a right is only half a thing. A right to land is a right to do something with it. What the people of these islands did with their land is the matter of Chapter 11. It asks what they planted, what they took from the sea and the forest, what the feast was, and why the man who ate at it was bound. The rights set out here were worth having because of what the land gave; the next chapter is about the giving.
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The passages by Ron Crocombe are reproduced with his family’s consent, recorded in the Foreword, at the length the chapter relies on. They remain in copyright and are marked in amber.
Baltaxe and the Law Commission paper appear only in the passage quoted or relied on, with citation.
Part 1: Land, people and the levels of right
Nobody owned land
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“It is inappropriate to say that anyone ‘owned’ land in Rarotonga, for this might suggest that individuals had absolute power to use and dispose of land as they wished. In fact, more than one person was involved in every piece of land and the rights of every individual were conditioned, not only by rights of a similar order held by others in the same land, but also by a hierarchy of rights of different orders held at various levels within the society. No rights were recognized as belonging to the island as a whole,2 and all the rights in any particular piece of land have never belonged to anyone individual.”
Note 10.4: ‘Enua as placenta
CROWN COPYRIGHT — reproduction permitted with attribution
“For Maori, whenua has an added meaning, being the human placenta or afterbirth. Through various birth ceremonies the placenta is returned to the land, and that results in each Maori person having personal, spiritual, symbolic and sacred links to the land where their whenua (placenta) is part of the whenua (land).”
The limited rights of the tribe
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The rights of the tribe may be more properly described as those rights of its component individuals which were held in common or exercised collectively. Tribal rights in land were limited. Firstly there were rights of access. In daylight and on approved activities members of the tribe could move freely within the area provided they kept to the appropriate pathways and were on friendly terms with the lineages whose lands they were crossing. Secondly there were rights to those lands specifically set aside for tribal use. These were small in area and restricted to particular functions. There was the kōutu of the ariki, and within it, one or more marae or sacred grounds which were the centre of religious activity of the tribe.”
How a tapere was divided
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The most common indigenous pattern of division within the tapere was to take the central stream-bed as the basic boundary, then allocate sections of land running at right angles from the stream-bed back to the flanking ridge which formed the boundary with the next tapere. On the flat lands the ancient inland road was taken as the starting point lands were allocated at right angles to the road running either seaward to the lagoon or inland to the hills.”
Part 2: Kinds of right, and the individual
Rights of belonging and rights of use
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“A distinction was drawn between proprietary rights in the land on the one hand, and rights to its usufruct on the other. Proprietary rights were held by the various descent groups, and as entry to any of these groups could only be acquired by descent or adoption, these rights were held by primary, contingent and secondary members of the groups concerned (the status of permissive members was such that they did not have any proprietary rights). Usufructuary rights (with the exception of land set aside for special purposes such as marriage lands, and rights to festive harvesting of self-propagated crops like plantains) were exercised only by persons resident in the area - the primary and permissive members of the groups concerned. Only the primary members held both proprietary and usufructuary rights concurrently.”
Why “communal tenure” is the wrong word
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The fact that rights were invariably held by more than one person has often led to the view that they were held in common, and that the rights of each member were equal, or of the same order as those of the others. The blanket term ‘communal tenure’ has often been used with this connotation. To the extent that the term is given this connotation, it is quite inappropriate to describe the land tenure system of Rarotonga, and probably equally inappropriate for many other societies to which it is applied.126 It hides, or denies the existence of, the diverse nature and complex structure of the rights held by the various individuals and groups within the society.”
Part 3: Those placed on the land
Note 10.23: What the transactions before 1903 were
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“a Before 1903, these kāinga and larger areas could be given as gifts, loaned out for short or long periods, or assigned to people outside of the ngāti under certain conditions. In addition, they could be pre-empted by a title holder for certain purposes and, finally, before 1823, there was always the possibility of conquest. b None of these transactions implied the notion of private ownership of land. Each was phrased in terms of relationships among tā’onga. c Many of these transactions were considered to be temporary, in principle, even though they might have lasted for several years or perhaps several generations. The people placed on a piece of land without “blood right,” i.e. demonstrable consanguineal connection, were called tanu kai, planters, or tauta’unga, workers, tenants. Anyone, regardless of his personal rank or other connection to the ngāti, who was placed on land through any of these "temporary" transactions was considered a tiaki, or guardian of a superior interest, either that of a titleholder or the ngāti.”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 10, Note 10.16, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-10, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
10.1 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 60 to 62. Also in Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 30 to 31. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-1
10.2 What follows in this paragraph is not a record. No mata‘iapo wrote down what he felt in the court at Avarua in 1903, and the minute books record the questions and the answers, not the silence between them. It is written as one of them might have told it, from what the minute books, the witnesses of 1949 and the language itself allow us to know. The reader then meets the question of this chapter where the people of Rarotonga met it, on a bench, in a room, being asked something their language could not say.
10.3 Jasper Buse with Raututi Taringa, Cook Islands Māori Dictionary, Ministry of Education, Rarotonga, 1995, p. 91. Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 60.
10.4 Patu Hohepa and David Williams, The Taking into Account of Te Ao Māori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession, New Zealand Law Commission, 1996, p. 20. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-3 The passage in full
10.5 Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua; Hohepa and Williams, Te Ao Māori, p. 20.
10.6 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 62 to 71.
10.7 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 63. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-6
10.8 In re Arepakii section 36, Araiava section 37 and Uruau section 77, Avarua (Makea Nui Teremoana Ariki v Ngāti Uritaua), Native Appellate Court (Morison and Beechey JJ), 25 August 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 320 to 322; Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, (1949) 1 AMB 319, published online at the series’ website.
10.9 Patu Titaa, the same appeal, Appellate Minute Book 1, p. 290, 17 August 1949, in the presiding judge’s hand.
10.10 Savage, Dictionary, p. 143.
10.11 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 64 to 65.
10.12 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 66. A few tapere, such as Tauae, do not run from the sea to the mountains. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-11
10.13 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 67.
10.14 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 67 to 68, with the map of Turangi and adjacent tapere. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-13
10.15 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 67.
10.16 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 69 to 70.
10.17 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 70. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-16
10.18 In re Turamatuti section 106D, Avarua (Tataraka v Mautaua), Native Appellate Court (McCarthy CJ and Morgan J), 14 December 1949, Appellate Minute Book 1, p. 336; (1949) 1 AMB 336.
10.19 Volume Four, Chapter 11, on Enuakura section 4 and Ngatitiare sections 91 and 92 (1949) 1 AMB 268 and on Kauarikirangi section 62 (1948) 1 AMB 105, where the same court decided the two ways. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n10-18
10.20 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 70.
10.21 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 71 to 72. Also in Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), pp. 38 to 49.
10.22 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 71.
10.23 James Baltaxe, The Transformation of the Rangatira: A Case of the European Reinterpretation of Rarotongan Social Organization, PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1975, pp. 118 to 120. The passage in full
10.24 Baltaxe, Transformation of the Rangatira, p. 120.
10.25 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 10, on the Nikao award of 1905.
10.26 Te Roo Parau, Vaiakura section 127S, Avarua, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 280 to 283, 16 August 1949; the decision, (1949) 1 AMB 302, ordered a rehearing as to the three planters.
10.27 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, p. 39, on enua ariki taonga and enua rautao; Ayson J, Te Tupuna, Native Land Court, Rarotonga, 1917, Minute Book 8, p. 377, as set out in the author’s submissions for Raina Mata‘iapo in the Te Tupuna rehearing, Court of Appeal CA 3/10, 4/10 and 5/10 (Archives 34) and the closing submissions of 2 October 2009 (Archives 41). The Karika and Vakatini titles are examined in Volume Two, Chapter 24, and the Te Tupuna case in Volume Four, Chapter 9.
10.28 W. E. Gudgeon, Cook and Northern Islands reports, AJHR A-3, 1906 and 1908, 1906 p. 80; 1908 pp. 5 to 6.
10.29 Application 34, Puaao section 44, Avarua (1950) Native Appellate Court minute book 2, pp. 74 to 75, 25 August 1950.
10.30 Baltaxe, Transformation of the Rangatira, p. 118.
Volume One, Chapter 11
Chapter 11: The utilisation and role of land in the Southern Cook Islands
What this chapter rests on
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- The taro flats are about 40 feet above sea level, where the streams th…
- That is the law of contract, and the law of evidence, in one meal.
- The land and the society were woven together. No rank title and no des…
- Terekia asked for permission to plant on this land. He asked my father…
- The archive: the passages in full
1. Rarotonga
2. Mangaia
The taro flats are about 40 feet above sea level, where the streams that supply the water to them issue from the valleys. They descend by a series of artificial terraces and end about 20 feet above sea level at the base of the makatea wall. Here the water enters a sink, which may be as much as 10 feet below the general surface, and passes in channels through the makatea, finally issuing on the inner side of the reef flat in the form of springs.11.6
Peter Marshall, Geology of Mangaia, 1927
3. Boundaries
The transfer of land was confirmed by a feast, to which every interested party was invited. Anyone who ate at the feast was taken to have agreed to the arrangement.11.10
Ron Crocombe, 1961
That is the law of contract, and the law of evidence, in one meal.
4. What the land was for
The land and the society were woven together. No rank title and no descent group could be conceived apart from the lands that went with it, and nothing of value could be had except from the land or the sea. Recruiting new members and providing the ceremony and hospitality on which the group’s standing depended, needed land and labour. So, land carried prestige, and a man was great according to the number of his kāinga, his farms.11.12
Ron Crocombe, 1961
Terekia asked for permission to plant on this land. He asked my father Parau who consented. That is a Maori custom.11.15
Te Roo Parau, Tamaiva mata‘iapo, Native Appellate Court, 16 August 1949
5. Rank, and the share of the feast
6. What follows from this
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
The passages by Ron Crocombe are reproduced with his family’s consent, recorded in the Foreword. Marshall and Buck are Bishop Museum publications of 1927 and 1934 and are quoted as extracts. All are marked in amber.
Part 1: The land
Note 11.2: The physical features of Rarotonga
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“...the physical features of the island, . . . have had clearly discernible and important effects on land use and concomitant tenure; and with this may be coupled the archaeological record - marae and house sites, boundary marks and graveyards, irrigation works and terracing. There is also the one paved road which is still clearly discernible and which led right round the island following the low-lying fertile strip, but there were no roads or paths across the mountains.”
Note 11.6: The taro flats of Mangaia
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The taro flats are about 40 feet [12.192 meters] above sea level, where the streams that supply the water to them issue from the valleys. They descend by a series of artificial terraces and end about 20 feet [6.096 meters] above sea level at the base of the makatea wall. Here the water enters a sink, which may be as much as 10 feet [3.048 meters] below the general surface, and passes in channels through the makatea, finally issuing on the inner side of the reef flat in the form of springs.”
Note 11.7: The three zones of Mangaia
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“There were three zones of plant life, but those of the coastal fringe and the mountainous interior supplied relatively few of the needs of the people, the bulk of the food and other subsistence requirements (apart from marine products) being obtained from the middle zone, the whole of which had been cropped at one time or another, and was covered entirely with either second growth or cultivations.29 It was in this zone that the dwellings of the people were situated.”
Boundaries within the tapere
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“Within the tapere the stream which ran down the middle of the valley very frequently formed a boundary, with holdings extending from the stream to the top of the adjacent ridge. Natural features, rocks and trees were used to indicate important points, the boundary itself being an imaginary straight line running from one landmark to the next.”
A feast confirms a transfer
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The transfer of land was confirmed by the preparation of a feast to which all interested parties were invited, and any person who partook of the feast was considered to have concurred in the arrangements.”
Part 2: The role of land in social relations
The land and the society were interwoven
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“As discussed earlier, each tapere of land was associated with a particular descent group which, conquests apart, traced its connection with that land back through generations of illustrious ancestors to founder chiefs who were held in such veneration that they had assumed some of the qualities of deities. The spiritual and temporal prosperity of the group was closely related to the sanctity of the local marae, the presence of the buried remains of countless forbears, and the fertility of the soil from which the occupants of the tapere derived their sustenance. The land and the society were intricately interwoven. No rank title and no descent group was conceivable apart from the lands associated with it, and no material good could be acquired other than from the land or the sea. The recruitment of additional members, and the provision of ceremonial and hospitality so vital to the continued status of the group, depended on adequate resources of land and labour. It is accordingly understandable that land acquired a considerable prestige value and that a man was ‘great according to the number of his kaingas or farms’.”
The obligations that went with land
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The necessity to defend the land from those who would acquire it by aggression or encroachment united those with common interests - both to hold the land against outsiders and to discourage antisocial acts on the part of members. The exercise of land rights carried with it certain obligations to other members of the groups which held rights in the land concerned. There were obligations which functioned to maintain and reinforce social relations, such as the necessity to supply produce for marriages, funerals and other occasions of social interaction, and those requiring mutual assistance and the provision of land for the use of particular kin on appropriate occasions.”
The share of the feast
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The status of chiefs was reinforced by making certain products their exclusive prerogative. [At a feast the pig was cut up and a specific cut given to each of the ranks in the society - the head was always the ariki's share.”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 11, Note 11.10, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-11, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
11.1 What follows is not a record. It is written as a mata'iapo of Rarotonga might have told it, from what the traditions and the court's witnesses allow us to know of how land changed hands before 1823: in public, at a feast, among people who knew one another's names.
11.2 Ronald G. Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1964, pp. 5 to 7. Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 4 to 9. The geology is in P. Marshall, Geology of Rarotonga and Atiu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 72, Honolulu, 1930. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-1 The passage in full
11.3 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 5.
11.4 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 107 to 114.
11.5 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 4.
11.6 P. Marshall, Geology of Mangaia, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 36, Honolulu, 1927, p. 35. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-5 The passage in full
11.7 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 125 to 126. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-6 The passage in full
11.8 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 118. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-7
11.9 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 118, note 39.
11.10 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 119. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-9
11.11 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 114 to 120. Also in Crocombe, Land Tenure (1964), pp. 20 to 24. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-10
11.12 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 115. The saying is from William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, Religious Tract Society, London, 1876, p. 41.
11.13 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 115 to 116. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-12
11.14 Maka Kea, Te Autuatea, Atiu, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 100 to 101, 4 September 1951; (1951) 2 AMB 116, Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, published online at the series’ website. The passage in full: cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#v1n11-13
11.15 Te Roo Parau, Vaiakura section 127S, Avarua, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 280 to 283, 16 August 1949; (1949) 1 AMB 302.
11.16 The inquiry, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 14 and 17 to 29, 13 and 14 September 1948; the decision, In re Arepepe section 67 (1948) 1 AMB 102. Ua Turua on the tutaka, the Resident Commissioner and the doctor ordering a house site cleared, Ukaoa, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 134 to 135 (1951).
11.17 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 116. Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, on the division of the pig.
11.18 Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, p. 96.
11.19 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 116.
11.20 The Ma‘uke reserved fish are dealt with in Chapter 15, from the evidence recorded there.
11.21 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 9, on Vaima‘anga section 6.
Volume One, Chapter 12
Chapter 12: Aitutakian customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- Walter Gudgeon’s manuscripts and genealogies
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
1. The names of the island
| Name | Meaning or origin | Who gave or recorded it |
|---|---|---|
| Te Ararau-‘enua-o-Ru-ki-te-Moana | Ru’s search for land over the ocean; the name given on sighting the island | Ru; Peter Buck, Timi Koro and Drury Low |
| Utataki-‘enua-o-Ru-ki-te-Moana | A land searched for and found upon the sea by Ru; or the leading of a cargo of people by Ru over the ocean | Ru; Timi Koro and Drury Low, Peter Buck |
| Ara‘ura | Fragrant wreaths for dancing (William Wyatt Gill); where the wind drove Ru in his search for land (John Pakoti); a shortening of Ararau (Peter Buck) | Ru |
| Aitutaki | Given by the warrior Utataki-‘enua; or Utataki worn to Ututaki and altered by the Ra‘iatean missionaries; or Tu-Tataki-‘enua corrupted by Europeans; or God-led, aitu a god, taki led, the name given by Te Erui | John Pakoti; Timi Koro; Leslie G. Kelly; William Wyatt Gill |
| Wytootackee, Whytootackee | William Bligh’s spellings, 1789 | Peter Buck, Explorers of the Pacific |
| Whylootackee | Charles Darwin’s spelling, 3 December 1835 | Peter Buck, Explorers of the Pacific |
| Itotake | William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles | |
| Aitutake | William Ellis, Polynesian Researches | |
| Aitoutaki | Rodolphe Festetics de Tolna, 1903 | |
| Uaitutate | M. Aylic Marin; E. Petit, 1888 | |
| Aitutaike, Aitotake, Wytootach, Whytootacke, Vaitutake | William G. Coppell, 1973 | |
| Tootate | The Tahitian name | Henry Evans Maude, 1958 |
12.4 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 12. First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.6 Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, p. 21.
2. Ru
Ru Te Tokorangi (Ru - the supporter of the Sky)
Many years ago the sky was said to be very low. There lived in those days three brothers, Ru te Tokorangi, Ru Atete, and Ru te Tuapuku. Their one great desire was to lift up the sky to a reasonable height. The eldest brother was the first to try but he failed. Then the second brother tried and he, like his elder brother, failed to push the sky up. Then the youngest brother, Ru Tuapuku (Hunchback), made his attempt and after a hard struggle he at last managed to support the sky. Since that day the sky has never been lowered. Ru Tuapuku, pleased with his prowess, intended to tell the world of his feat. Unfortunately there were only about twelve people who knew about him, and through them this story has been handed down to this day.
Typed page among Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; author unknown
Te Rui Nga Matareka.
Many years ago a little group of islands lay in the tropical portion of the Southern Hemisphere. These little islands were inhabited by Maoris, but there was still one island that had not been settled - “The most beautiful of all”. This isle was called Araura Land. Ru was the first man to discover Araura (Ru’s voyage was enacted by the Ngatangiia Club some months ago). This story commences a few years after Ru’s landing there.
Two brothers known as ‘Te Rui Nga Matareka’ wished to conquer this island. When they neared the reef they were met by a messenger sent by the king - Ru, who told them to depart and search elsewhere for another island. The brothers refused to depart. Ru sent a second messenger. Still the brothers stayed on. Then Ru sent the third messenger named ‘Mokoroa’ to inform them that the outcome of their stubbornness would be death. The result was war. During the short struggle which ensued Mokoroa (Ru’s messenger) was killed. His body was cut up and placed at different points to act as landmarks. 1. Mokoroa’s Tongue - 2. Mokoroa’s Knees - 3. Mokoroa’s Heart. The stones stand there to this day and still bear the same names.
After Mokoroa’s dissection had been completed the brothers continued on their way to the shore. Reaching there Te Rui said “May this pretty isle be yours and your children for ever. Behold! my eyes are dim (reureu) with age so I shall call this place by this name ‘Reureu te mata o te Rui’” which means ‘The dimness of Te Rui’s eyes’. In such manner the village of Reureu in Aitutaki received its name.
The same page
3. Te Erui, and the five canoes
| Order | Canoe | Chief | Passage and landing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Te Uatoaua | Te Munakōrero, a Tongan chief | Avaroa passage; Te Muna named the islet Maina, mainaina ra |
| 2 | Katopa-‘enua | Kai | Vaimotu passage; landed at Taravao |
| 3 | Irakau | Ui-tario | Taketake passage |
| 4 | The double canoe of Te Erui | Te Erui | Avatapu passage |
| 5 | Tue-mona | Ruatapu | Ava-kōpūanua |
4. Ruatapu and Taruia
5. Maro-una and the war against the Aitu
| Generation | Person | What the tradition says |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ruatapu | Came from Taputapuatea; became ariki of Aitutaki in place of Taruia |
| 4 | Maeva-kura (Maeva-rangi in John Pakoti’s account) | Great-grandson of Ruatapu; ariki when the Aitu invaded |
| 5 | Maine-marae-rua | Daughter of Maeva-kura, living on Rarotonga |
| 6 | Maro-una | Her son; raised warriors on six islands, destroyed the Aitu and divided Aitutaki into districts; married Ua-nuku-kaitai |
| 7 | Te Au-kura | Son of Maro-una and Ua-nuku-kaitai |
| 8 | Tapu-o-Rongo | Son of Te Au-kura; took three wives |
| 9 | Vaeruarangi; Tamatoa; Te Urukura | The three ariki families of Aitutaki, one from each wife |
12.31 Pakoti, “History of Ru”.
6. The chants of the three ariki
AKATENITENI ANGA O TE AU ARIKI O AITUTAKI.
VAERUARANGI ARIKI.
Vaeruarangi e Tiroa e tu ki te Rangi a Iro. / E taiakotokoto e te uru pou roa. / Te akapiri i rotopu i te kurangaatu– / E tu te Matangi e Kona. / E Ariki Miria ki Tuarea te ina i te upoko o Tapotu Kura. / E Ariki e noo maira i nga ruru Atua i Arekeri, / Ko to Atua e te Ii Matetapu e – / E Ariki e noo maira i te Tarau i Orongo. / Ko Vaerua rangi te mata Katau o Urira[…]
Typed copy B, Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives; the line ends are marked here by strokes
TAMATOA ARIKI KI AVARUA.
Te Veenga Ariki a Iro ki te tua o Enuakura. / Ka ru te enua / Ka ngaa te enua / Ka tuera te enua / Ka oi te enua / Ka tete te enua / Ka ora te unga mate Potiki iakoe e taku Ariki. / E Ariki e noo maira i te Iarau i Oronga. / Ko koe e Tamatoa Ru Enua.
The same papers
TEURUKURA ARIKI KI AVARUA.
Te Veenga Ariki a Iro ki tua o Enuakura. / E Parekura ki runga i te rangi. / E Marokura ki raro i to Kauara. / E Pu e Pau e Raukava e Akaariki aru mai i te tua e Maeva. / Maeva te Ariki a Tangaroa Aura. / Ka Pu koe ei Anuanua Mata a ma akapiri ki te rangi mate rau / Arukia; / Karukea akera oki te enua ia koe e tau Ariki e Rongo Teurukura. / E Ariki e noo maira i te Tarau i Orongo. / Ko Teurukura Niomanga e, / Te maeva maira te Tapu e.
The same papers, two identical copies
7. Manuae
12.41 Gill, Myths and Songs, pp. 5 and 17. Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12.
12.44 Pakoti, “History of Ru”, pp. 62 and 68.
8. Where the people lived
9. The wars
Tukaitaua and Tutavake An Aitutakian Legend.
Tukaitaua was the hero of the skies whilst Tutavake was the champion of the realms of the seas. Tukaitaua’s war lance was called ‘Nio e Katoti’ (tooth) and Tutavake’s lance was named ‘Taveu Moana’ (ruffled waters).
Enmity existed between these two heroes.
One day Tukaitaua called to him his two younger brothers, Tukarere and Tupuakino, and said “I wish to declare war on the King of the Ocean. Will you help me?” The two younger brothers readily agreed to aid him and gave their consent to his proposals.
So Tukaitaua called to his war gods to help him in the forthcoming battle.
Typed page among Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives; the page ends here
10. What made Aitutaki different
11. Aitutaki and the court
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Gill, Large, Pakoti, and Koro and Low were published before 1929 and are out of copyright; they are reproduced at the length the chapter relies on. Court records may be reproduced.
Buck’s Bishop Museum bulletins of 1927, 1934 and 1944 remain in copyright and appear only in the passage quoted. Marked in amber.
Part 1: The finding and naming of Aitutaki
Ru’s voyage
PUBLIC DOMAIN — may be reproduced in full
“He sailed with his four wives, four brothers, and twenty “tamaine tapairu,” in a canoe named Nga-Puariki, in search of an uninhabited land. After many days and a severe storm, they found a new land.”
The name Ru gave the island
IN COPYRIGHT — quoted extract only
“The proper name given to the island by Ru after landing was Utataki-Enua-O-Ru-Ki-Te-Moana. Two meanings are given: A Land Searched for and Found upon the Sea by Ru,4 or The Leading of a Cargo of people by Ru over the Ocean, as “uta” is a shortened form of “utauta” meaning a cargo of people, and “taki” meaning to lead.”
Maro-una divides the island; the three ariki lines
PUBLIC DOMAIN — may be reproduced in full
“Maro-una divided the island into districts. He married Ua-nuku-kaitai, by whom he had a son, Te Au-kura. The son of Te Au-kura, named Tapu-o-Rongo, took three wives, from whom the three ariki families of Aitutaki are descended: Vaeruarangi, Tamatoa, and Te Uru-kura.”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 12, Note 12.1, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-12, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
All the notes of the chapter
12.1 Tere Kainuku, Rima Tataraka and Manga Taivaka, Ariki title of Vaeruarangi, Native Appellate Court at Aitutaki, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 361 to 365, 17 July 1950; (1950) 1 AMB 366, Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, published online at the series’ website.
12.2 W. E. Gudgeon, A Journal of My Residence in the South Seas, unpublished manuscript, Hocken Collections, University of Otago, pp. 41 to 42. See Volume Four of this series, Chapter 5.
12.3 John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 59 to 70, at pp. 61 and 67. Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Aitutakian Genealogies”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), fold-out facing p. 144, note 9. First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.4 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 12. First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.5 Timi Koro and Drury Low, “Traditions of Aitutaki, Cook Islands: The Story of Ru’s Canoe and the Discovery and Settlement of Aitutaki”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 43 (1934), pp. 17 to 24, at p. 23.
12.6 Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, p. 21.
12.7 Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), The Material Culture of the Cook Islands (Aitutaki), Board of Maori Ethnological Research, New Plymouth, 1927, p. xix.
12.8 Leslie G. Kelly, “Cook Islands Origin of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 64 (1955), pp. 181 to 196, at pp. 193 and 194. William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17.
12.9 Ronald Syme, Cook Islands: Book I, The Coming of Man, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London, 1955, pp. 59 and 65, quoting John Pakoti. First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.10 Buck, Material Culture (Aitutaki), p. xix.
12.11 Timi Koro and Drury Low, “Traditions of Aitutaki, Cook Islands: The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 43 (1934), pp. 171 to 186 and 258 to 266, at p. 266. Tom Crummer, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe and the Discovery and Settlement of Aitutaki”, in A Collection of Legends (cyclostyled, no date), pp. 15 to 20, at p. 19, published in Education Department, Māori Assignments, Rarotonga, 1963, Grade 8, pp. 49 to 53.
12.12 Kelly, “Cook Islands Origin of the Māori”, p. 194.
12.13 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Explorers of the Pacific, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 43, Honolulu, 1953, p. 37.
12.14 Buck, Explorers of the Pacific, p. 98. Charles Darwin’s spelling is in his journal for 3 December 1835.
12.15 Henry Evans Maude, “In Search of a Home: From the Mutiny to Pitcairn Island (1789 to 1790)”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 67 (1958), pp. 104 to 131, at p. 118.
12.16 The spellings in the table are from William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, Religious Tract Society, London, 1876, p. 336 (Itotake); William Ellis, Polynesian Researches, second edition 1831, reprinted Rutland, 1969, p. 1309 (Aitutake); Rodolphe Festetics de Tolna, Chez les Cannibales: Huit ans de croisière dans l’Océan Pacifique à bord du yacht “Le Tolna”, Paris, 1903, p. 90 (Aitoutaki); M. Aylic Marin, Promenades en Océanie, Le Tour du Monde, p. 214, and E. Petit, En Océanie, Paris, 1888, p. 65 (Uaitutate); William G. Coppell, About the Cook Islands, 1973, p. 27 (Aitutaike, Aitotake, Wytootach, Whytootacke, Vaitutake); and Maude, “In Search of a Home”, p. 118 (Tootate). First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.17 Syme, The Coming of Man, p. 16. Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, p. 21; Pakoti, “History of Ru”, pp. 61 and 67. First edition, Volume 1, p. 440.
12.18 Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, pp. 22 to 23.
12.19 Peter S. Bellwood, “The Cook Islands and Pacific Ocean Prehistory”, Cook Islands News, 17 May 1972, pp. 2 to 4, at p. 3.
12.20 Tama and Large, “Aitutakian Genealogies”, fold-out facing p. 144.
12.21 Typed page, English, unsigned and undated, “Ru Te Tokorangi”, “Te Rui Nga Matareka” and “Tukaitaua and Tutavake”, among the uncatalogued papers of Stephen Savage, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga, photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager, and transcribed whole in Archives 07 of the repository. The page is complete apart from burn damage at the edges. Second edition.
12.22 Gill, Myths and Songs, pp. 17 and 139 to 141. First edition, Volume 1, p. 439.
12.23 W. E. Gudgeon, “The Origin of the Ta-Tateu or Heraldic Marks at Aitutaki Island”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 14 (1905), pp. 217 to 218. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 439 to 440.
12.24 Gudgeon, “Ta-Tateu”, pp. 217 to 218.
12.25 Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, pp. 21 to 23. First edition, Volume 1, p. 440.
12.26 Pakoti, “History of Ru”. First edition, Volume 1, p. 440.
12.27 William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, George Didsbury, Government Printer, Wellington, 1880, p. 36, which the first edition cited for an account of Maro-una from the Mangaian historians “which go to prove the truth of that here related”. First edition, Volume 1, p. 442.
12.28 Pakoti, “History of Ru”. Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Ruatapu, e Tupuna Māori Rongo Nui, ma tona au uri i teia pā ‘enua”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 15 (1906), pp. 209 to 219. Hare Hongi, “Ruatapu, Son of Uenuku”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 19 (1910), pp. 89 to 93. Timi Koro and Drury Low, “The Story of Te Erui Ariki and His Canoe Viripo-Moetakauri”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 43 (1934), p. 231. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958, pp. 101 to 103 and 110; Buck, Material Culture (Aitutaki), p. xix. Education Department, Māori Assignments, Rarotonga, 1963: George Pekamu, “The Race: A Story of Rarotonga”, Grade 5, p. 42; Junior Mana and Maitoe Nootai, “Teerui”, Grade 6, p. 52; Tom Crummer, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, Grade 8, pp. 49 to 53; “Tangi‘ia-nui and Karika”, Grade 8, p. 55; Maui and Tanga, “The Battle of Kurukava (Atiu)”, Grade 8, p. 56. A. W. Reed, The Cook Islands, Wellington, no date, pp. 3 to 7. William McBirney, Folklore Tales of Cook Islands, manuscript, Cook Islands Library and Museum, Avarua, no date, “Ruatapu and Taruia”. First edition, Volume 1, p. 440.
12.29 The sources in the preceding note.
12.30 Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Te Autara ia Iro: The Aitutaki Version of the Story of Iro”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), pp. 133 to 146. Tama and Large, “Ruatapu”, pp. 209 to 219. Pakoti, “History of Ru”. Stephen Savage, “Extracts”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 149 to 151. First edition, Volume 1, p. 559, where the passage stood in the chapter on Ma‘uke.
12.31 Pakoti, “History of Ru”.
12.32 Pakoti, “History of Ru”. First edition, Volume 1, p. 440.
12.33 J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 22 (1913), pp. 67 to 76, at p. 71, from Tuia Akapira, a mata‘iapo of Te‘enui.
12.34 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 37 to 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 443.
12.35 Tama and Large, “Ruatapu”, pp. 217 to 219. Tama and Large, “Aitutakian Genealogies”, fold-out facing p. 144. Pakoti, “History of Ru”, p. 70. S. Percy Smith, “Niue Island, and Its People”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), pp. 1 to 31 and 85 to 119, at p. 2. William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, pp. 61 to 63. First edition, Volume 1, p. 442.
12.36 Tama and Large, “Aitutakian Genealogies”, fold-out facing p. 144; Koro and Low, “The Story of Ru’s Canoe”, p. 24.
12.37 Smith, “Niue Island”, p. 2.
12.38 Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life, p. 173. Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 240 to 241. First edition, Volume 1, p. 442.
12.39 “Akateniteni anga o te au ariki o Aitutaki: Vaeruarangi Ariki” (three typed copies), “Tamatoa Ariki ki Avarua” and “Teurukura Ariki ki Avarua” (two typed copies), among the uncatalogued papers of Stephen Savage, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga, photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager, and transcribed in Archives 20 and 03 of the repository. The Tamatoa and Te Urukura chants are typed on the same sheets as the Rarotongan chant “Manarangi Ariki ki Avarua”. Second edition.
12.40 Koro and Low, “The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai”, p. 177. Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17. First edition, Volume 1, p. 438.
12.41 Gill, Myths and Songs, pp. 5 and 17. Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12.
12.42 Pakoti, “History of Ru”, pp. 64 and 70.
12.43 Koro and Low, “The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai”, pp. 177 to 178 and 180 to 181. First edition, Volume 1, p. 442.
12.44 Pakoti, “History of Ru”, pp. 62 and 68.
12.45 “Looking at Manuae”, Cook Islands News, 8, 9 and 11 November 1965. First edition, Volume 1, p. 443.
12.46 “Looking at Manuae”, Cook Islands News, 8, 9 and 11 November 1965.
12.47 “Looking at Manuae”, Cook Islands News, 8, 9 and 11 November 1965.
12.48 J. C. Beaglehole (editor), The Journals of Captain James Cook: II, The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772 to 1775, Hakluyt Society, 1969, p. 90 and note, and William Anderson’s journal at p. 848. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 438 to 439.
12.49 Roger Duff (editor), No Sort of Iron: Culture of Cook’s Polynesians, Christchurch, 1969, p. 17.
12.50 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17. Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12.
12.51 Beatrice Grimshaw, In the Strange South Seas, Hutchinson, London, 1908, p. 164 (Manuwai). J. L. Kelly, South Sea Islands: Possibilities of Trade with New Zealand, Auckland, 1885, p. 48 (Manauai). First edition, Volume 1, p. 439.
12.52 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 4, on the proclamation of 27 September 1888.
12.53 Ernest Beaglehole, Social Change in the South Pacific: Rarotonga and Aitutaki, London, 1957, p. 6. First edition, Volume 1, p. 443, which placed both Vaipae and Tautu on the west coast; they lie on the eastern side of the island.
12.54 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 37 to 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 443.
12.55 The typed page cited above; Archives 07.
12.56 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 71 to 72, summarising John Williams’s account of his visit of 1823. First edition, Volume 1, p. 457.
12.57 Gudgeon, Journal, pp. 41 to 42. Volume Four, Chapter 5.
12.58 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, pp. 250 to 271. See Volume Four, Chapter 13.
12.59 Statute of Aitutaki 1899, passed 22 August 1899, section 50, and the Rules for the Conduct of the Resident Magistrate’s Court and Native Land Court made under it, with their schedule of fees; 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 71 to 75. See Volume Four, Chapters 5 and 8.
12.60 Cook and other Islands Land Titles Court Order in Council 1902. Volume Four, Chapter 8.
12.61 Aitutaki Minute Book 12, pp. 63 to 64, 19 May 1947, Judge H. J. Morgan, evidence of Tupou Tiraa; the page is reproduced in Volume 2, Chapter 24.
12.62 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author of 17 January 2008, p. 1: “Each of the other islands is a different story – Mangaia from all of them, Ngaputoru with its own internal variations …”. The letter is transcribed in full in the archive for Volume 1, Chapter 1. Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 250 to 271, is the study of Aitutaki’s tenure that the chapter relies on.
12.63 In re the Ariki title of Vaeruarangi (Toarere v Iokai), Native Appellate Court (Morgan, Beechey and Dykes JJ), 18 July 1950, Appellate Minute Book 1, pp. 366 to 367. The same sitting heard Aupokea 22 and Areonga 57, on Te Aro’s declaration of 1921 to Geoffrey Henry as acting Resident Agent (pp. 368 to 374), and the Manuae application, withdrawn (p. 372).
Volume One, Chapter 13
Chapter 13: Atiuan customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
- Enua-manu (notes 13.3 to 13.7)
- The first people (notes 13.15 to 13.20)
- Where the Atiuans came from
- Utatakienna, and the rule of Mokoero (notes 13.32 to 13.32)
- Inutoto
- The three ariki titles
- How an ariki was made
- The coming of Captain Cook (notes 13.40 to 13.40)
- The wars (notes 13.46 to 13.46)
- Rongomatane, and the coming of the gospel
- What Rupe collected
- Takutea (notes 13.53 to 13.53)
- Atiu and the court
The passages and documents
- Atiu is said to be the name of the first man on the island. A pigeon s…
- Mariri’s full name was Mariri‑tutu‑a‑Manu and his canoe was named Te K…
- It is a curious fact that the people of Atiu, though they retain a kno…
- Utatakienna [also a great ancestor of Aitutaki from whom that island w…
- Atiu, like Mangaia (of which it is the counterpart), is perforated wit…
- Another extensive and famous cave on the east side of the island is Te…
- The warning
- Trumpet and drum are sounded and the people signify their acceptance o…
- Captain Cook’s landing place, Ora Varu, Atiu. © Ewan Smith.
- Another play performed by the [struck: Atiuans] Atiu people was the at…
- Who will order an attack on these gods from the lower world / Will an …
- This is an ancient saying uttered by Titau, “The shadow of Ikurangi (a…
- The passages moved from the chapter to the archive, 31 October 2026
1. Enua-manu
Atiu is said to be the name of the first man on the island. A pigeon sped hither from spirit‑land and rested awhile in a grotto still known as “The Pigeon’s Fountain.” Big drops of water kept falling from the stony roof, producing little eddies in the transparent water beneath. As the pigeon was refreshing itself by sipping the cool liquid, it noticed a female shadow of great beauty in the fountain. Now the pigeon of Tangeroa was in reality one of the gods, and therefore readily embraced the lovely shadow, and then returned to its home in the nether‑land. The child thus originated was named Atiu, that is “First‑fruit,” or “Eldest‑born.” Because of the divine origin of its ancestor the island was called “Land of Gods,” that is: ‘enua O Te Au Atua. This name was heard by (0‑) Mai, the Tahitian who accompanied [James] Cook on his third voyage. Cook wrote it down as Wenua No Eatua.
William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, 1880
13.3 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17. William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, George Didsbury, Government Printer, Wellington, 1880, pp. 16 to 17.
13.7 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17. Gill, Historical Sketches, pp. 16 to 17 and 188 to 189. William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, pp. 262 to 263. First edition, Volume 1, p. 446.
2. The first people
Mariri’s full name was Mariri‑tutu‑a‑Manu and his canoe was named Te Kutikuti rau Matangi. Kutikuti is the name of a swamp grass having a sharp pointed leaf with serrated edge. Rau Matangi is the term given to the edges of the decking on what we would call the sheer strake at the bow. The complete name clearly implies “the canoe with the cutting prow.”
In spite of the title ariki given to Mariri in the genealogy mentioned, the Atiuans claim that their island was governed by a council of seven mata‘iapo until a generation or so prior to the arrival of the Rev. John Williams in the schooner Endeavour (renamed Te Matamua) in 1823, from Ra‘iatea via Aitutaki.13.15
Available records show that the history of Atiu, third largest volcanic island of the Cook Group, has some variations on the general pattern usually associated with these little tropical outposts of New Zealand. A recorded genealogy of 47 generations points to Mariri Ariki as the earthly male ancestor of the people of Atiu. Tradition has it that he came from ‘Avaiki‑i‑Raro, and that his son was named Atiu‑mua (the first Atiu).
| Māori | English |
|---|---|
| Urau o Mariri, urau o Mata | Welcome to Mariri, Welcome to Mata |
| E ‘enua ko Atiu e! . . . | The island is Atiu! . . . |
| Atiu i te taa o te ra; | Atiu facing the rising of the sun; |
| Atiu i te taa o te marama. | Atiu facing the rising of the moon. |
| Potipoti ‘enua, e Kura e Pena, | Potipoti on land, oh Kura and Pena, |
| E kāinga! | Eat them up! |
| Ka ivi ‘enua ko Marauta! | Even the land ridges of Marauta! |
| Māori | English |
|---|---|
| Urau a Mariri, Urau a Mata, | Farewell of Mariri, Farewell of Mata, |
| E ‘enua ko Atiu e! . . . | The island is Atiu! . . . |
| Atiu i te taa o te ra; | Atiu facing the rising of the sun; |
| Atiu i te taa o te marama | Atiu facing the rising of the moon. |
| Potipoti ‘enua, e Kura e Pena e, | Potipoti on land, oh Kura and Pena, |
| E kāinga! | Eat them! |
| Ka ivi ‘enua ko Marauta! | Even the land ridges of Marauta! |
| Ka ivi ‘enua ko Atiu! | Even the land ridges of Atiu! |
It is a curious fact that the people of Atiu, though they retain a knowledge of the history of their island generally, and of the names, sequence. Leading events in the careers of their remote ancestors, have lost the names of the ancestral canoes, and state that their forefathers either originated in Atiu, begotten by the gods, or like Uta‑takienna swam hither across the ocean.
J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, 1913
13.15 G. F. Russell, “Rongomatane Ariki VI: Historical Ceremony at Atiu Island (1957)”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 66 (1957), pp. 165 to 170, at p. 165. First edition, Volume 1, p. 448.
13.20 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 67.
13.16 Pa Kura, “The First Man on Atiu”, told to Ngatamariki Manu, in Atiu Nui Maruarua: E au tua ta‘ito, Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific, in association with the South Pacific Creative Arts Society, 1984. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 448 to 452.
3. Where the Atiuans came from
4. Utatakienna, and the rule of Mokoero
Utatakienna [also a great ancestor of Aitutaki from whom that island was named] the great great grandson of Te Erue - who was a descendant of the god Tanga‑roa of ‘Avaiki - along with his friend Tara, came to Atiu from across the sea to the district of Tengatangi. Tutuaiva was the ruler of the land at that time. Utatakienna humbled himself before the daughters of Tatuaiva, he and his companion Tara, by saying:- “We have come as the foam of the sea on to the land of our parents, who are exalting themselves above us.” These two notables then feeling ashamed went away to Mau‘ke. Ere long they returned to Atiu, landing at Oruvaro, on the west side of the island, whence Utatakienna sent a message to a chief inland, named Ikuvae, saying: “I am out of breath at Tonoaia [a famous Tou tree on the track going inland from the landing place]. I hold in my hand the head of Tamatiti Ariki.” Tatuaiva fled to Rarotonga. Utatakienna thus established his rule on Atiu by killing the ancient people of the island. He lived at Mokoero, where his marae and the ancient burial cave named Te Anakura - of his Ariki descendants - may be seen. From this sacred spot the rule of Utatakienna over Atiu was named “Te au o Mokoero,” which carried on and extended by the Arikis descended from him, existed down to the annexation of the Cook Island by the British Government.
The tenth Ariki in descent from Utatakienna named Tukuata espoused the woman Pāpāui te Eiau, a descendant of Mariri, a very ancient ancestor of the Atiu people - like Te Erue said to have been of divine origin. Their son Te Ruaautu thus united in his person rival lines of ancestry hitherto in deadly enmity. He is spoken of as a good Ariki, and the island enjoyed profound peace under his rule.
Tuia Akapira, mata‘iapo of Te‘enui, recorded by J. T. Large, 1913
Atiu, like Mangaia (of which it is the counterpart), is perforated with caves. A very fine one on the south side of the island is Poautea, the entrance to which is a pit, down which you descend by a ladder; it has numerous winding passages, and chambers with stalactites, etc. It is famous as the retreat, many generations ago, of a tribe of the ancient people of Atiu, named Ngaatua, who were fore‑doomed by the ruling power of the island, “Te Au o Mokoero” (above mentioned) to extinction. They fled into the uttermost recesses of this cave and were never seen afterwards; their fate remains a mystery. At the time they disappeared another kindred tribe, named Ngatitinorau, and their chief Tane Kakerangi, were ambushed and destroyed by the Mokoero clan, Ngatitamatou, under Te Maua. The victors searched everywhere for Tane’s son, Ngurau, who eluded his enemies by being hidden in hollow trees. When he grew up to man’s estate he succeeded by stratagem in killing Te Maua, thus avenging his father’s death. His party - the ancient people - gaining the ascendancy he became in turn the ruling chief of the island. It was not till Te Ruaautu Ariki, some generations afterwards, defeated Te Ranginui that Atiu was finally united under “Te Au o Mokoero.” Atiuans were in frequent contact with neighbouring islands:
Tuia Akapira, recorded by J. T. Large, 1913
13.32 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69. First edition, Volume 1, p. 454.
5. Inutoto
Another extensive and famous cave on the east side of the island is Te Aua Taketake. It has many branches with different entrances. It contains a small lake and other curious features. The following interesting story is related in connection with this cave.
Inutoto and her husband, Paroro, went to one of the island dances. The former was adorned in the usual heathen fashion of those days, and attracted the attention of a man who made love to her, which Paroro perceiving he beat his wife unmercifully. (This is the native fashion of avenging an affair of this kind on the unfortunate wife, whether guilty or not; the male offender invariably escaping punishment.) Poor Inutoto fled to the Makatea and found her way to Te Aua Taketake by the help of her god Tu‑te‑rangi‑Marama. The now sorrowing husband searched everywhere for her, but in vain, and finally gave her up for lost. Months passed away, Inutoto living by herself and subsisting on wild fruits and roots, particularly the wild yam, Mararaurau, which she was able to find in the vicinity. During her solitary life here she composed a lament for her husband, which is well‑known. I give a rough and abbreviated translation:
Tuia Akapira, recorded by J. T. Large, 1913
O propitious gods / Direct the winds, to carry / My longing to my husband. / The Maoake (N.E. wind) celebrated / Our nuptials. Arise east wind / And tell Paroro to come hither / To take his loving wife home. / Month after month thinking of thee / O Tu (the god, make calm the sea / That the canoe may return to its resting place. / My elder sister calls, “Remain you here / ‘Till they speak well of thee / In the sacred precincts of Tangaroa.” / O brother Ngarue Ariki / Let me stand at Tauera, and invoke / The god Kaukura, when Inu’s head / Will be crowned with a pare Ariki.
Inutoto’s lament, in J. T. Large’s “rough and abbreviated translation”. A pare ariki is a chief’s head-dress of feathers. The line ends are marked by strokes
Inu’s god Tu heard her lament and inspired a bird - the kingfisher - to carry the message to Paroro.
The bird flew in front of Paroro, and its peculiar cry attracted his attention. He enquired of the bird, “Have you come for me?” The bird nodded three times yes. He again enquired, “Shall we both go?” The bird again nodded. Paroro and his friends followed their feathered guide to Te Auataketake (which does not appear to have been known to them before) where they found
Inutoto, and husband and wife were joyfully reunited.
Tuia Akapira, recorded by J. T. Large, 1913
6. The three ariki titles
7. How an ariki was made
In the olden days the installation of an ariki on the island must be carried out on the marae‑i‑Orongo (Courts at Orongo), believed to be the most sacred court of Tutavake Ariki. A place where offerings were made to the god Rongo. A high chief would not be regarded as such if his investiture was carried out elsewhere . . .
Vaine Rere, recorded by G. F. Russell, 1957
On his arrival back from church the Ariki seated himself upon the supposed‑to‑be Chair of Investiture in the ngāti‑Tiaki‑Tauvira pa, the present‑day marae‑i‑Orongo. Soon Ukarau Mateariki, reciter of the incantation, appeared on the courts. His attitude and fierce look; his headgear and pre‑European dress suggested heathenism; the spear in his hands posed shakingly as if ready to strike; his steps slow and cautious as he approached the chief. As far as the Atiuans are concerned this used to be a moment of great suspense and anxiety, because of its tragic results should the incantation go wrong. Superstitions, one might be inclined to say, but there was the case when one ariki was elected, the reciter lost all the incantation; even the trumpeter could not get a sound out of his trumpet. Result? That ariki reigned only for seven months.
Now Ukarau reached his appointed position and having menacingly driven his spear into the earth in front of him he let out a loud and long shout of “Ei . . . e . . . Ko Ko . . . o!” Such was the beginning of the incantation Then the Warning:
Vaine Rere, recorded by G. F. Russell, 1957
The warning
| Māori | English |
|---|---|
| Akarongo mai koe e taku Ariki! | Take heed, Oh my chief! |
| Me karakia au e topa taku Karakia, | If I miss the Incantation in reciting, |
| E au toou ka poto; | Your reign will be short; |
| Me kore ra taku Karakia e topa, | But if it ends without a hitch, |
| E au toou ka roa! | Your reign will be long! |
| Māori | English |
|---|---|
| Ka tika, ka tika, kare aku tuitui . . ., kare aku paua . . ., kare aku rivetau! | Verily, verily! No light (tuitui) have I; neither food (paua) nor sceptre (rivetau)! |
| E tupuranga ariki, e neke ‘anga ‘enua; | Ariki may exist, land may shift; |
| Ka tupu ki te nu . . . i, ka tupu ki te ra . . . i; | It grows bigger, it keeps growing; |
| Ka tupu ki Itingaiei. | It grows at Itingaiei. |
| Ka oi te po . . .! Ka oi te ao . . .! Ka oi te ra . . .! | Night may come and go; the day, the sun, the moon |
| Ka oi te mara . . . ma! Ka oi te au etu! | And stars; may all come and go. |
| E ‘enua ko ‘Avaiki: E Ariki ko Tutavake. | The land is ‘Avaiki, the Ariki is Tutavake. |
| Ko Tutavake ka noo i te vaine ia Aumea-ki-aitu, | Tutavake took the woman Aumea-ki-aitu, |
| Anau tana tamaiti, ko Turi-arau. | And begot the child, Turi-arau. |
| Ko Turi-arau ka noo i te vaine ia Ina-Tokoai-Kura, | Turi-arau took the woman Ina-Tokoai-Kura, |
| Anau tana tamaiti, ko Tutonga. | And begot the child Tutonga. |
| Ariki atu ei ki tona Kōutu! | Thus he became an Ariki upon his Kōutu. |
| Tana Pu . . . u! Tana Pa . . . u! | His Trumpet! His Drum! |
| E pu e pau e akaariki e . . . o . . .! | Trumpet and Drum for the Investiture! |
| Mae . . . va! | Mae . . . va! (Acclamation by the people.) |
Trumpet and drum are sounded and the people signify their acceptance of the new ariki by loud and long repeated shouts of “Mae . . . va!” So ends the karakia that proclaims the new ariki as officially elected and fully recognised by the people.
Vaine Rere, recorded by G. F. Russell, 1957.13.39
8. The coming of Captain Cook
It is singular that Captain Cook in his voyages through these seas discovered only three islands in this group, Mangaia, Atiu, and Manuae. [James] Cook himself did not set foot on this island, but his first‑officer, Lieut. Gore, with an armed party landed at Oruvaro on the east side. They were well received by the people, who looked upon the white strangers as a divine race, “the hidden sons of Te Tumu,” conducting them inland to Mokoero, where Tiaputa, the head chief of the island at that time, and his people accorded them great honours and hospitality; entertaining them with songs and dances. They purposed indeed, to detain their guests on the island, by force if necessary. Mai, the Tahitian interpreter of the party, gave the natives such a terrifying account of the prowess of the seamen, and the deadly nature of their firearms, that the Atiuans desisted from their purpose. Those natives also who went off to the “Resolution” and “Discovery” were astounded with all they saw on board those ships, so different from anything in their own experience. These islanders have a tradition that a god called Tanemai‑tai (Tane from the sea) went away at some remote period with the intention of returning. The size and armament of Cook’s vessels, coming from the outer world, the strange appearance (to them) of the white men led these ignorant savages to regard the great navigator as their lost Tanemai‑tai. They were prepared to pay him divine honours. In “Cook’s Voyages,” they are supposed to have remained only one day at “Wateeoo” (as they term this island), but the natives say three, as they regard the two days spent by Cook in taking in coconuts at the Atiuan islet of Takutea, near by, as time devoted to Atiu. Amongst the many presents given by Captain Cook and his party to these islanders was the interpreter Mai’s kuri (dog), which was adopted as an ancestor by a section of the Ngatiarua people, who are known to this day as the Ngatikuri tribe.
J. T. Large, from Atiuan tradition, 1913
Captain Cook’s landing place, Ora Varu, Atiu. © Ewan Smith.
13.40 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 71 to 72. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 456 to 457. The date of the visit is from Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One.
9. The wars
Another play performed by the [struck: Atiuans] Atiu people was the attack upon Mitiaro by the Atiuans in about the year 1820. The name of the battle fought was “Tupaenua” which means “a clean sweep up of rubbish”. This particular war was carried out by the sons of the chiefs of Atiu. When news reached Atiu that a great number of the Mitiaro braves had died from unknown causes the sons of the Atiu chiefs asked permission of the Chiefs to make war on Mitiaro. The Chiefs consented and an expedition was arranged, and, it was the intention of that expedition to exterminate the Mitiaroans and so secure the island for themselves, hence the name given to the battle which followed (Tupaenua). The Atiu war party consisted of 800 braves. Canoes were prepared for the voyage across to Mitiaro. When all was ready the party set out. On their way across they prayed to the god “Tangaroa” to give them victory. The party reached Mitiaro in one day (the distance between the two islands is about [25?] miles). When the Mitiaro people saw [the] Atiu war party coming they called on their God or deity “[Tepanu?]” to create [waves] and so prevent the Atiuans from [landing ...] with their slings. The Atiu warriors protected themselves with their paddle blades. When the Mitiaro people saw that the Atiuans would effect a landing they fled to their strong hold inland - taking their women and children. The name of this particular stronghold was “Te-Pare”.
When the Atiuans effected a landing they searched for the road to the stronghold but could not find any. The only way they could go was over the sharp jaggered coral reef which cut their feet like glass. The braves of Atiu then laid down their spears upon the sharp coral so as they could walk over in that manner and so crossed the barrier. But whilst crossing on the spears they were assailed by shower of stones thrown by the Mitiaro people. When all the Atiuans had crossed over they in turn assailed the stronghold with such a shower of heavy stones that they made a large breach and so effected an entrance, and killed the people. The strung the victims on their spears like fish - forcing the spear through the heads from ear to ear. Some of the Mitiaro people begged for mercy saying in their old language “Ake ekarama, ake ekarama!” Some of the people were saved by this piteous appeal which is translated “Oh don’t friends have compassion.” The supremacy or overlordship was handed over to Atiu and the [Mitiaro people] were subject to Atiu up to the time of annexation when, as British subjects, they became free.
Account of the heathen plays, pages 5 and 6 and a continuation sheet, Stephen Savage’s papers; author unknown
13.46 The same account, pages 5 and 6 and a continuation sheet on ruled paper; Archives 10.
10. Rongomatane, and the coming of the gospel
Who will order an attack on these gods from the lower world / Will an ignorant people (like the natives) be able to cope with such a knowing race? / Behold their ship! Look at its masts, / See the innumerable maze of ropes!”
The rebuke was sufficient, nothing more was heard of the project.
Rongomatane’s words, in J. T. Large’s free translation, 1913
J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, 1913
11. What Rupe collected
This is an ancient saying uttered by Titau, “The shadow of Ikurangi (a chief of Te Enui Settlement) was only that of a man, had it been the shadow of ‘Kuekue’ (a rock near Mokoero) it would have stood and not passed away.” It originated in this way: A big party of natives of the Enui and Araki districts was sent to catch Mangaa (barracouta) as food for Ikurangi. They first performed their incantations at Orua (in the Akaara district); Titau, a man of no rank, caught two vena (a large fish common to the island). He gave one to Ikurangi, the other he hid in the earthen floor of his house, under his sleeping place. Ikurangi knew intuitively that Titau had caught two vena; he was angry and sent people to search for the missing fish. They looked everywhere but without success. At last they dug up the floor of Titau’s house, where they found the missing vena which they took to Ikurangi, where it soon disappeared. Not long afterwards Ikurangi and his children went away to Mau‘ke where they perished at the landing place. Hence arose Titau’s saying that, “The shadow of the chief Ikurangi quickly disappeared, while that of the big rock Kue‑kue lasts for ever.”
There is another proverb: “The sun is declining says Katoaporo.” The latter was a frugal man because his land, Mitiaro, frequently suffered from famine; he taught his children the correct use of food, that is to eat sparingly and at long intervals. To be content with a little food in the morning, and none again until evening when the sun declines.
This is a saying of the wise men of Avarau (the native name of Palmerston Island; it is also a place name in other islands): “He has two ears says Meturi. Live like the people of the land when you come to Avarau, says Peretea.” This is the meaning: A certain Ariki of Mau‘ke, named Rongo‑te‑puaka, went to Avarau where he saw some fish called Manini‑Onu, which he took a fancy to. He was told, “Do not eat those fish they are poisonous at Avarau.” He gave no heed to the advice, but ate the fish and died. His two ears did not save him. It shows the folly of a stranger disregarding the advice of the people of the land.
This is a saying by Tuangauru: “Seize a man by his wrists if you want to hold him, not by his fingers, for they will slip through your grasp.” Moral: Adopt the best method for accomplishing any task you take in hand.
Te Arai and Toanui, two ancient warriors of Atiu, determined to kill Ngatiuru, the dominant tribe at that time; the reason being that Ngatiuru had ill-treated their parent Mapu when he was standing before the marae at Arangirea. They questioned each other as to their readiness for the fray. Te Arai enquired of Toanui: “How is your courage?” Toanui replied: “Anaonua is low lying compared with my prowess, which is high above it.” (Anaonua is a rocky cliff at Atia.) Toanui then asked Te Arai: “And how does your fighting power stand?” Te Arai said in reply: “Tuporoeva is small in comparison with what I can do in a battle.” (Tuporoeva is a bank of earth at Atiu.) They fought the Ngatiuru and beat them, thus becoming the rulers of the land, and their words have become powerful in Atiu amongst their descendants. (At Takauroa, on the east side of Atiu, there is a red stain in the rock alongside the path leading down to the landing place, which is known as Te Mimianga o te Arai, after the above toa.)
Rupe’s collection, translated by J. T. Large, 1913
12. Takutea
13.53 Richard Thomson, “An Island Called Takutea”, Cook Islands Review 9 (1968), no. 3, pp. 30 to 32, at p. 30.
13. Atiu and the court
The passages moved from the chapter to the archive, 31 October 2026
Pa Kura’s story of Mariri
The first man on Atiu
There lived in the land of ‘Avaiki a man named Mariri. He performed such great deeds at different stages of his life that the people gave him these three names - Mariri Toa (Mariri the Hero), Mariri Tutu-a-Manu (Mariri like a bird) and Mariri Ariki (Mariri the High Chief). Because land was scarce in ‘Avaiki, Mariri decided to leave and search for a new land.
He called his people together to discuss the idea. They agreed to make a canoe, as the first part of their preparation for the journey. The length of the canoe was about fifteen metres. It took them about eight to ten months to complete the canoe. They named the canoe TE KUTIKUTI RAU MATANGI or The-Sharp-Edged-Leaf-In-The-Wind.
Food and water were collected for the journey. Mariri did not take his wife with him. She stayed behind in ‘Avaiki.
Mariri’s party traveled across the sea for a long time. One fine morning at daybreak, they sighted land. They were all happy because to see land meant the journey was coming to an end.
As they got closer to the island, they searched for a passage through which to land. They found a passage which they named Tautara. On landing, they explored the island: first to find a suitable place to live, and second to find a good source of food and water. They built a house.
One day Mariri wanted to go fishing. He used sennit for a fishing line. A hook was made from the jaw bone of a shark. For a fishing rod he used the branch of the ngangie tree. Not long after he began fishing, Mariri caught a white bass, a fish named ku in Māori. Bass fish, as we know it, is red, but the one that Mariri caught was white. Because of this, Mariri called the island Takutea, derived from TAKU-KU-TEA (My White Ku). It is now shortened to TAKUTEA, as it is easier to pronounce. The party stayed on Takutea for about one month.
One day Mariri went out again to have another look around the island of Takutea. At a point of the island called Aumatangi, he saw the reddish colour of the soil of an island lying to the east. He looked carefully at the island and was convinced that it was much bigger than Takutea. So he asked his people to prepare to sail there. Soon they landed at the landing named Tautara, a name similar to the one on the island of Takutea.
They found no one living on the island, but they saw a large number of insects named potipoti or gnats. Since the only inhabitants of the island were small non-human creatures, Mariri named the island “ENUAMANU,” the Island of Birds and Creatures.
Soon after landing, Mariri inspected the island to see what it was like. After his tour round the island, he was satisfied that it would be a good place for him and his party to settle. There was plenty of food, more than enough land, and there was also water. He chose to live at a place called Tekapi. The members of his party also wanted to live on Enuamanu and Mariri agreed.
Mariri now had time to think about his wife he had left behind in ‘Avaiki. He sat down for several hours working out ways of bringing his wife from ‘Avaiki to Enuamanu. After a considerable time, he thought of a plan. The plan was to fly to ‘Avaiki to get her. This is what he did. For the frame of his wings, Mariri used the branches of the “tutu” tree, which were very strong and supple and easy to bend into shape. He caught a number of birds called “rakoa” and used their feathers to glue onto the frame. Thus, Mariri had wings like a bird. He then set out to learn how to fly like a bird. Mariri chose a high hill named Te Kurikuri as his take -off point. His landing place was at Kuekue. Every time Mariri tried to fly, he found himself falling down after a very short distance. He became frustrated, yet he was much more determined to succeed. Each time he failed, he rearranged the attachment of his wings to his arms and continued to practice. After several attempts he was able to use his wings properly. He was then able to fly and land safely at his intended landing ground. He practised taking off and landing for many more days, until he was fully confident of his ability to move in the air safely. Only then did he finalise his plan to return to ‘Avaiki to fetch his wife. He bid his people good-bye and wishing them peace, he took off on his long flight to ‘Avaiki.
As he drew near to ‘Avaiki, Mariri began calling for his wife. At first, there was no answer. Then very softly but surely, he heard his wife’s voice drifting on the soft breeze that blew through the leaves of the reeds. She was evidently lamenting for her absent husband, who had gone to a far distant land beyond ‘Avaiki. Once again Mariri called. This time she answered, emerging from behind the reeds. Mariri’s wife was greatly surprised to discover her husband wearing wings like a bird, but she was very happy to see him again.
Mariri told his wife all that had happened on his journey. He told her that he had come to take her to their new land. The wife readily agreed to go with him. Immediately she began preparing herself for the journey to Enuamanu, the new land that would be their own. However, she kept asking herself how she could possibly travel with her husband, now that he had arrived without a canoe. Soon she was ready. She was greatly surprised when Mariri told her to climb on his back. Soon they were in the air and on the way back to Enuamanu. There was great rejoicing among Mariri’s people on Enuamanu when their leader returned with his wife. From that day on they called him “MARIRI TUTU-A-MANU” (Mariri-Who-Is-Like-A-Bird).
After a time, Mariri Tutu-a-Manu and his wife had a son. They named him Atiu Mua. It was said that Mariri had four sons altogether. The second was named Atiu Muri, the third Atiu Uri, and the last one was called Atiu Tea. It is said too, that it was in honour of these names that Enuamanu Island was re-named Atiu Island, the name by which it is known today.
However, the name Enuamanu is still referred to many times, especially on important occasions.
Because of his courage and his ability as a leader, Mariri’s followers decided to elevate him to the position of Ariki or high chief. He was then renamed MARIRI ARIKI.
At this time, the people were very much disturbed by the insect ‘potipoti’ which ate all their food plants. Mariri Ariki was forced to do something about the problem. According to the tradition, Mariri decided to return once again to ‘Avaiki to see what creature he could bring back to Atiu to rid the island of the troublesome ‘potipoti’. In ‘Avaiki, Mariri found two types of beach crabs, known as “Kura” and “Pena.” He caught these in large numbers and brought them back with him to Atiu. His people let the crabs loose all over the island. The crabs ate all the gnats, and in honour of Mariri Ariki’s success, they composed the following chant, which is still sung on Atiu today: Pe‘e (Chant) Urau o Mariri, urau o Mata Welcome to Mariri, Welcome to Mata E ‘enua ko Atiu el. . . The island is Atiu! . . .
Pa Kura, told to Ngatamariki Manu, Atiu Nui Maruarua: E au tua ta‘ito, 198413.16
Mariri Ariki had done a lot for his people. Soon his strength and physical energy was diminishing slowly but surely, because of age. His eldest son Atiu Mua was the undoubted leader-to-be. He learned a lot from his father. The spirit of courage and capability became apparent in him, so the people were quite ready to accept him as their next leader. When Mariri Ariki and his wife later decided to return to ‘Avaiki and spend the rest of their days there, Atiu Mua became the appointed leader to succeed his father. Before they departed for ‘Avaiki, Mariri repeated the chant referred to above:
Thus, Mariri Ariki and his wife flew back to ‘Avaiki. He left his people to live in peace and happiness under the leadership of his eldest son Atiu Mua or First Atiu. It is believed that this was how Atiu became inhabited, and the name Mariri Toa remained forever with the people of Atiu.
EXPLANATION of the three names given to Mariri Toa: 1. MARIRI TOA: He was given this name because of the great courage he had shown when he took his people in his canoe Te Kutikuti Rau Matangi. 2. MARIRI TUTU - MANU: This name was given him because of the daring feat he achieved when he flew ‘like a bird’ to ‘Avaiki to bring his wife to the new land of Enuamanu 3. MARIRI ARIKI: At the time when his people honoured him by promoting him to the position of High Chief, this name was bestowed upon him as a mark of high respect from his people.
The house of Mokoero, as retold in the first draft
The tradition that explains Atiu's ruling line, however, is a later one, and it is a single family's. Tuia Akapira gave it to J. T. Large in 1913, and it is the history of the house of Mokoero, told by the house of Mokoero. It says that Utataki-'enua, a great-great-grandson of Te Erui, the Aitutaki ancestor who was himself a descendant of the god Tangaroa of 'Avaiki, came to Atiu from across the sea with his friend Tara and landed in the district of Tengatangi, where Tatuaiva then ruled. The two humbled themselves before Tatuaiva's daughters, saying that they had come 'as the foam of the sea on to the land of our parents, who are exalting themselves above us', and in their shame went away to Akatokāmanava, which is Ma'uke. They came back, landing at Oruvaro on the west side, and from the landing place Utataki-'enua sent word to the inland chief Ikuvae that he was out of breath at Tonoaia, the tou tree on the track, and held in his hand the head of Tamatiti Ariki. Tatuaiva fled to Rarotonga. Utataki-'enua then killed the ancient people of the island, the Ngaatua, and made his home at Mokoero, where his marae and the burial cave of his ariki descendants, Te Anakura, are still to be seen; and from that place his rule and his descendants' took the name Te Au o Mokoero, which lasted until the annexation.A13.2 The Mokoero people were also known as the Utavarau.A13.3 Their ascendancy was not at once secure. Another tribe, ngāti Tinorau, was destroyed by the Mokoero people, ngāti Tamatou, under Te Maua, but Ngurau, a son of the chief killed, escaped, later killed Te Maua, became ariki himself, and for a time the ancient people ruled again.A13.4 Two warriors of the old stock, Te Arai and Toanui, are remembered for defeating ngāti Uru, the tribe that had ill-treated their parents, and Rupe's collection, printed earlier in this chapter, keeps the sayings they made of it.A13.5 The ascendancy of Mokoero was settled only in the tenth generation from Utataki-'enua, when Tukuata married Pāpāui-te-eiau, a descendant of Mariri, and their son Te Ruaautu, uniting in himself the two lines that had been enemies, defeated Te Ranginui and brought the island under one rule; Atiuans remember him as a good ariki under whom the island had peace.A13.6
Tuia Akapira on the voyages and the old names
From the accounts handed down from generation to generation they were in frequent communication with Rarotonga and other islands to the westward, and with Tahiti and neighbouring islands to the eastward, by means of their large double canoes. A knowledge of navigation, which their degenerate descendants, who now travel by steamers and sailing vessels, have lost. In those ancient days all these islands had different names from those of later times. Atiu was known as Te Euna Manu; Mau‘ke as Akatoka‑Manava; Mitiaro as Nukuroa; Rarotonga as Tumute Varovaro; Mangaia as Auau; Aitutaki as Te Araura; while the small Atiu territory, Takutea Island - only twelve miles from here - was Areuna. My informant, Akapira, mentions in regard to the latter dot - of which he is recognised in Atiu as the principal owner - that it was Mariri who changed its name to Takutea from the circumstance of his eating a fish named the ka there. Another ancestor Manatu dug the only well of fresh (or rather brackish) water on the island which he called Vaipiro from its lead odour, a name which it bears to this day.
Tuia Akapira on the marae
The great ancestor Tangi‘ianui Ariki, who after he had defeated his brother, Tu-tapu‑aru‑roa, at Rarotonga - with the assistance of Karika Tara‘ape Ariki - settled down there permanently, appears to have left his mark on all these islands, which he visited from time to time. While at Atiu he established a marae, which he called Taputapuatea (between Rongomatane’s enclosure and the present court‑house in the settlement) after the greatest marae of the same name in the South Seas at Ra‘iatea, one of the ‘Avaikis of his race. A very important focus of tribal activity and incantation here was the marae of the god Rongo (after Tangaroa, the greatest divinity of these islands in heathen times), situated close to the Tanuganui landing place. Another fine marae, in good preservation, is Wairakaia, below Rongomatane’s settlement Tengatangi, and close to the track leading to the East Coast of the island.
J. T. Large on Ruatapu and Maro-una
The next part of J. T. Large's notes carries Atiu from the voyagers to the first European ship. Ruatapu, the navigator whom Chapter 12 follows to Aitutaki and Chapter 15 to Ma'uke, also came to Atiu, where the tradition says he improved the landing passage; Large tells it in his article on Ruatapu, and then goes on to Maro-una and to Captain Cook.A13.1
In my article on Ruatapu, published in the Journal some years ago, I mentioned how that redoubtable ancestor had visited Atiu and engaged in the arduous task of improving the landing place at Ta‘unganui (by chipping the rocky slope leading down thereto - Te Tukinga) at the request of Renga the Ariki of the island. In the same article it was related that Ruatapu’s descendant Marouna called at Atiu in quest of warriors wherewith to make war on the Aitu, a strange tribe who had taken possession of Aitutaki and ousted his grandfather Maevakura the Ariki of that island. Marouna obtained one warrior at Atiu named Tara‑apai (the marae of this toa in the district of Mapumai here is still pointed out by his tribe), with the aid of the braves Marouna obtained in the different islands he succeeded in delivering Aitutaki from the yoke of the Aitu whom he destroyed, and in restoring his grandfather to his dignity and possessions.
J. T. Large on John Williams and Rongomatane, 1823
In “[John] Williams’s Missionary Enterprises” a good account is given of the first visit to Atiu of that great and benevolent missionary John Williams (who afterwards met a martyr’s death at Eromanga). The Rev. Mr. Williams, who came in his vessel from the chief station of the London Missionary Society at Ra‘iatea in 1823, first called at Aitu‑taki, where he had on a previous visit left a couple of Native teachers. He found that during the interim, the Aitutakians had burnt some of their idols and given up others into the hands of the Native teachers. They had all embraced Christianity, and erected a new chapel, which the Revs. Williams and Burne opened the day following their arrival. Mr. Williams and party then left Aitutaki; spent some days in searching for Rarotonga then undiscovered - but without success. Called at Mangaia to land two Native teachers and their wives - these unfortunates on landing met with such abominable treatment, being nearly torn to pieces, robbed, and their wives outraged, that Mr. Williams had to take them on board again, and leave the island to its own heathen devices. The Missionary vessel then called at Atiu, where he found that two Native teachers, who had been sent there from Ra‘iatea some time before to induce these natives to give up idolatry, had not made any converts. On the contrary, they had been robbed of all their property, and nearly starved. Very soon a large double canoe, commanded by a Māori of distinguished appearance, seated on an elevated stage, was seen approaching the vessel. He turned out to be Rongomatane Ariki, the high chief of the island, the one who two and three years before had led the Atiuans in their murderous cannibal raids on Mau‘ke and Mitiaro, when the unfortunate people of those islands were nearly exterminated. Soon after he reached the vessel Tamatoa Ariki, of Aitutaki, who was accompanying Williams to Ra‘iatea, took him on one side, told him all that had been done in Aitutaki, showed him their idols lying ignominiously in a heap in the ship’s hold, all of which, combined with Williams’s exhortations during the night he remained on board the Missionary vessel, had such a powerful effect on Rongomatane’s mind that he became a convert at once. By his influence also idolatry was forthwith abolished at Atiu, teachers established to instruct the people, while soon after churches and schools were built. Not only that, he accompanied and showed the Missionary vessel the way to Mitiaro and Mau‘ke, where he personally effected the same transformation in the state of those islands. Thus were the three islands “Ngaputoru” - christianised in a few weeks by the great Maua of Rongomatane Ariki. On the return of the Missoinary vessel to Atiu, Williams enquired of Rongomatane if he knew anything about Rarotonga. The latter assured him that it took them a day and a half to go there. He got Williams to sail the vessel round to their starting point, where he showed him the direction to take to Rarotonga, which Williams on his subsequent return to Atiu, after he had discovered the former island, found was the true compass course S.W. by W. (In all these islands they have a fixed starting point for this purpose, which is the ava or landing place in the most direct line with the island they wish to go to. In olden times they steered by the land marks, while they were visible, then by the stars, sun, etc. Now they use the mariner’s compass.) Williams made several visits to “Ngaputoru” afterwards. On one of these he went to Mitiaro to open a new church there, he remarked that the building was far too big for the number of people. He was told in reply: “Had you come here three years earlier, and saved us from the Atiuan invasion, you would have found this building much too small to hold all the people of the island.” On the day that the Missionary vessel first visited Atiu, these predatory natives conspired to capture the ship. When Rongomatane heard of this scheme, he said to them in memorable words that are frequently quoted (the following is a free translation):
Rupe’s collection: the first ariki
Nuku‑kere‑i‑manu was the first Ariki of Atiu, he was sixth in descent from Te Tumu, the great original first‑cause (god ancestor) of the island. The inhabitants were birds in those days, that is why the ancient name of this island was Te Enna Manu (bird‑land). That was its spirit‑name; its worldly name arose in this fashion, Tangaroa (the god) took Inakoia Kura (Nukukeri’s aunt) to wife, and their first‑born son was Atiumua, his name was subsequently adopted as the worldly name of this island. The meaning of that name is a “tiutiu,” signifying the flight of Tangaroa to heaven. When Nuku‑kere‑i‑manu died, Mariri (also descended from Tangaroa), who belonged to a senior branch, was made Ariki, thus taking precedence of Atiu Mua.
Rupe’s collection: Veia Atua, and Uaekoroa’s sons
This is a narrative of what befell Veia Atua, an Ariki belonging to Tahiti. Some other Arikis formed a conspiracy to slay him, and the crime was rendered easier of execution on account of a chief named Moe‑tara‑uri having corrupted Veia Atua’s braves so that they deserted their Ariki. On the night that his enemies came to murder him a bird gave him notice of his impending fate. He started up from his sleep, and called out to his guard: “O Tutu, there is the warning cry of a torea.” The treacherous Tutu replied, “Sleep, on my Ariki, it is only a torea come from feeding on inanga at Vairuia.” The Ariki said, “If it had been a torea come from feeding on inanga its note would have been not so clear and piercing. (When a bird is filled with food it sings hoarsely.) Tutu’s lying words were only intended to put Veia Atua off his guard; that very night the Ariki was killed by Moe‑tara‑uri, through the treachery of his own people. Here is another Atiu story:- A party of thieves were in the habit of stealing Uaekoroa’s tied up bunches of coconuts. His sons were afraid to repel them, and called out to their parents. The mother said to them, “I, Te Pirirau‑matangi, who gave you birth have tried in vain to make you manly and courageous.” She meant that all her labours to find food for them had met with no response. They were a cowardly, helpless progeny (kope). Though equal to the enemy - the eight sons of Tangi‘ia-nui - they ran away from them instead of fighting, and thus the family was despoiled of their food. They deserved the disgraceful term kope, and it would cling to them.
The play of Aketavi
hands and he devised some method to break the monotony - as there had been peace for some time among the tribes. He decided upon making a raid upon some of his neighbours and picked upon Aketavi’s people as the victims. He wanted to have the fun of killing some like rats, but in order to do so without offending his powerful neighbours he first sent a “karere” or messenger to Aketavi asking her permission to carry out his intention. Aketavi absolutely refused to allow any of her people to be thus slain to please the whim of any chief. When Teatuatuma’s messenger returned with Aketavi’s refusal he again sent a messenger who was likewise refused. They made their answer to their chief in a language and manner that aroused Teatuatuma’s wrath. They said on approaching his presence “O Puna my chief Aketavi has closed her gates against anyone entering therein and no one can now enter.” [Teatua]tuma became very angry at [hearing] the [news and] forthwith summoned all [his warriors to] assemble and told them [that ...]
he would show this woman what it was to belittle such a great man as he, and that in his opinion
Aketavi was a conceited person and a boaster. When Aketavi, the warrior-woman received intelligence that Teatuatuma had got together a war party and intended to attack her in order to punish her for refusing his request - she summoned all the women of Ngatiaruru[?] tribe to come to her and also obtained three toas (warriors) named Kopukanga, Paraia & Mana respectively. And thus she addressed her women warriors when they were assembled before her “O my tribe, gird each one of you on the girdle “parekau” and behave and act as if you were men, for Teatuatuma is coming to attack us and intends to kill us like rats for you homes, your lands, your children and for me your chief. He coverts my sacred seat, he [is] hungering to eat pig flesh and the first fruit of the banana, [he ...] a man of note [...] his people [...] like men [...]
might become afraid and flee. Eventually Teatuatuma arrived with his warriors to attack the place.
He despatched first a party of warriors under the leadership of one of his head men. Aketavi met them with her women warriors and defeated them slaying all but one who escaped. The one who fled - fled away along the track whence his party had come yelling “O Puna, my chief, Aketavi has slain your warriors.” What? Thundered Teatuatuma, “What manner of warriors were they that they were defeated, they must have became like women.” The man replied “O Puna she is a monster.” Teatuatuma despatched another war party but they met with the same fate - only one escaped to tell the news of the second defeat. Teatuatuma became exceedingly angry and set out himself with a third party of warriors. He met Aketavi and a battle was fought. Aketa[vi] again proved victorious - she [and her] party succeeded in killing all of the [...] party - Teatuatuma [included?]. The woman who play[ed the part of] Aketavi [...]
Account of the heathen plays, pages 2 to 4, Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives; author unknown
Notes to these passages
A13.1 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 71 to 76, at p. 71. First edition, Volume 1, p. 456.
A13.2 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 68 and 70. Williamson, Social and Political Systems, Volume I, p. 295.
A13.3 Pierre van Megen, “Les traditions des habitants des īles Cook”, Anthropos 23 (1928), pp. 1053 to 1054.
A13.4 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 70.
A13.5 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 75.
A13.6 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 68 and 70. First edition, Volume 1, p. 462.
All the notes of the chapter
13.1 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 6, on the meeting of 6 September 1900 and the second instrument Ngamaru signed that day.
13.2 John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 59 to 70, at pp. 64 and 70. First edition, Volume 1, p. 446.
13.3 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17. William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, George Didsbury, Government Printer, Wellington, 1880, pp. 16 to 17.
13.4 Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 139.
13.5 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 12. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958, p. 60.
13.6 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17. Gill, Historical Sketches, p. 189. Buck, Vikings of the Sunrise, p. 111.
13.7 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17. Gill, Historical Sketches, pp. 16 to 17 and 188 to 189. William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, with Illustrative Clan Songs, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, pp. 262 to 263. First edition, Volume 1, p. 446.
13.8 J. C. Beaglehole (editor), The Journals of Captain James Cook: III, The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776 to 1780, Part One, Hakluyt Society, London, 1967, p. 87.
13.9 Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One, p. 87 (Wautieu); Part Two, pp. 836 (William Anderson) and 1009 (David Samwell). J. C. Beaglehole, “Cook in the Cook Islands and Tonga”, in Cook Bicentenary Expedition in the Southwest Pacific 1969, Wellington, 1971, pp. 15 to 20 and Plate V, Thomas Edgar’s plan of Whatdew and Mo-du (Atiu and Takutea). First edition, Volume 1, p. 447.
13.10 A. G. Findlay, Directory of the Pacific Ocean, London, 1884, p. 495 (Vatiu). M. Aylic Marin, Promenades en Océanie, Le Tour du Monde, p. 214, and E. Petit, En Océanie, Paris, 1888, p. 65 (Watiu). E. H. Lamont, Wild Life Among the Pacific Islanders, p. 72 (Atien). William G. Coppell, About the Cook Islands, 1973, p. 29 (Watiou, L’Atoui, Katutia, Atui). Jacques-Antoine Moerenhout, Voyages aux īles du Grand Océan, Paris, 1837, Volume I, p. 153 (Atiou). Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: II, William Anderson’s journal, p. 842 (Fenooa Manoo). Jack Golson (editor), Polynesian Navigation, 1962, Table I, pp. 133 and 136 (Temanno, Te-Manno, Oaiyu). Roger Duff (editor), No Sort of Iron: Culture of Cook’s Polynesians, Christchurch, 1969, p. 18 (Oateeu). First edition, Volume 1, p. 447.
13.11 Ta Ka, “Ko Atiu, Ko Enuamanu ia”, Torea Katorika, 1934, no. 319, pp. 116 to 117. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 447 to 448.
13.12 Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12. Buck, Vikings of the Sunrise, p. 111.
13.13 “Atiu”, Cook Islands Review 6 (1960), no. 10, p. 7.
13.14 Buck, Vikings of the Sunrise, pp. 60 and 111.
13.15 G. F. Russell, “Rongomatane Ariki VI: Historical Ceremony at Atiu Island (1957)”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 66 (1957), pp. 165 to 170, at p. 165. First edition, Volume 1, p. 448.
13.16 Pa Kura, “The First Man on Atiu”, told to Ngatamariki Manu, in Atiu Nui Maruarua: E au tua ta‘ito, Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific, in association with the South Pacific Creative Arts Society, 1984. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 448 to 452.
13.17 Pa Kura, “The First Man on Atiu”, 1984. First edition, Volume 1, p. 451.
13.18 Pa Kura, “The First Man on Atiu”, 1984. First edition, Volume 1, p. 452.
13.19 J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 22 (1913), pp. 67 to 76. First edition, Volume 1, p. 452.
13.20 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 67.
13.21 W. E. Gudgeon, “Phallic Emblem from Atiu Island”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 13 (1904), pp. 210 to 212, at p. 210. First edition, Volume 1, p. 461.
13.22 Robert W. Williamson, The Social and Political Systems of Central Polynesia, 1924, Volume I, p. 294.
13.23 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 70.
13.24 Gill, Historical Sketches, p. 39.
13.25 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69.
13.26 Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Ruatapu, e Tupuna Māori Rongo Nui, ma tona au uri i teia pā ‘enua”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 15 (1906), pp. 209 to 219, at p. 215.
13.27 Tamuera Terei (More-ta‘unga-o-te-tini) and Stephen Savage, “Ko te Are-Kōrero teia no Rata Ariki: The Rarotongan Version of the Story of Rata”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 19 (1910), pp. 142 to 168, at p. 144.
13.28 Vakaporo-Uatini, “E Tuatua no te Kapua-anga i te ‘enua ra ko Taurutu (koia a Rurutu): The Origin of the Name of the Island of Rurutu”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 215 to 218 (Gill’s Extracts, no. 16), at p. 217. Leslie G. Kelly, “Cook Islands Origin of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 64 (1955), pp. 181 to 196, at p. 194. First edition, Volume 1, p. 461.
13.29 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 71.
13.30 Javier Gutierrez Marcilla, “Tara-Apai-Toa y Año 1455”, Revista de Antropología y Etnología 12 (1958), pp. 77 to 104.
13.31 Tuia Akapira, a mata‘iapo of Te‘enui, recorded by Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 67 to 69. The bracketed notes are J. T. Large’s. First edition, Volume 1, p. 453.
13.32 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69. First edition, Volume 1, p. 454.
13.33 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69.
13.34 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 69 to 70.
13.35 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 70 to 71. First edition, Volume 1, p. 455. Janet Holmes, née Mateariki, is of Atiu; Inutoto is her ancestor.
13.36 Ron Crocombe, “From Ascendancy to Dependency: The Politics of Atiu”, Journal of Pacific History 2 (1967), pp. 97 to 111, at p. 97. Roger Duff, “Notes on the Prehistory of Atiu, Cook Islands”, in Cook Bicentenary Expedition in the Southwest Pacific 1969, Wellington, 1971, pp. 41 to 46, at p. 45. First edition, Volume 1, p. 462, which printed the district as “Ngatangi”; it is Tengatangi, Rongomatane’s settlement.
13.37 Russell, “Rongomatane Ariki VI”, pp. 168 to 170. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 462 to 465.
13.38 Russell, “Rongomatane Ariki VI”, p. 169.
13.39 Russell, “Rongomatane Ariki VI”, pp. 169 to 170. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 463 and 465.
13.40 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 71 to 72. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 456 to 457. The date of the visit is from Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One.
13.41 James Cook, journal, 31 March to 4 April 1777, and William Anderson, journal, 3 April 1777, in Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One (Cook), pp. 82 to 86, and Part Two (Anderson), pp. 838 to 844. Mai’s fear of the oven is Anderson’s account, 3 April 1777, p. 842.
13.42 Cook, journal, 3 and 4 April 1777, in Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One, pp. 86 to 87; the three Tahitians and Cook’s reflection on the peopling of the islands.
13.43 Cook, journal, 4 April 1777, in Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part One, pp. 87 to 88; David Samwell, journal, 3 April 1777, in Beaglehole, Journals of Captain James Cook: III, Part Two, pp. 994 to 995, for the spelling Watdu and his account of the landing party.
13.44 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 37 to 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 465.
13.45 Account of the “heathen plays” performed by the Atiu, Mangaia and Rarotonga people at a festival, handwritten in English, unsigned and undated, pages 2 to 9 surviving, among the uncatalogued papers of Stephen Savage, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga, photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager, and transcribed whole in Archives 10 of the repository. The festival was held after annexation: the writer speaks of “Government Buildings” on Takuvaine. Words lost to burning are marked in square brackets. Second edition.
13.46 The same account, pages 5 and 6 and a continuation sheet on ruled paper; Archives 10.
13.47 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 70 to 71.
13.48 Judgment of Walter Gudgeon in the Land Titles Court at Ma‘uke, 1905, printed in 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 27 to 28, and given whole in Chapter 15.
13.49 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 72 to 73, summarising John Williams, A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands, 1837. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 457 to 458.
13.50 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, pp. 73 to 76; the translation is J. T. Large’s. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 458 to 461. Inanga, in the story of Veia Atua, is a small fresh-water fish like the New Zealand fish of that name.
13.51 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69. First edition, Volume 1, p. 465.
13.52 “Atiu”, Cook Islands Review 6 (1960), no. 10, p. 7.
13.53 Richard Thomson, “An Island Called Takutea”, Cook Islands Review 9 (1968), no. 3, pp. 30 to 32, at p. 30.
13.54 Alphons M. J. Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, 1976, p. 53.
13.55 Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 14.
13.56 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69.
13.57 Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands, p. 53.
13.58 Crocombe, “From Ascendancy to Dependency”, pp. 105 to 106; records of the Land Court, Rarotonga. Volume Four of this series, Chapter 8, on the first sitting of December 1902. First edition, Volume 1, p. 465.
13.59 W. E. Gudgeon, report on the Cook and Northern Islands for the year 1901 to 1902, 1902 AJHR A-3.
13.60 Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1937 (New Zealand), section 10; declaration of 15 March 1938; order of the Land Court of 13 February 1950 appointing three ariki and four mata‘iapo as trustees for the people of Atiu. Crocombe, “From Ascendancy to Dependency”, pp. 105 to 106.
13.61 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 7, citing Walter Gudgeon’s despatch on the native judges, island by island.
13.62 Crocombe, “From Ascendancy to Dependency: The Politics of Atiu”, pp. 97 to 111. Ron Crocombe, letter to the author of 17 January 2008, p. 1: “Each of the other islands is a different story – Mangaia from all of them, Ngaputoru with its own internal variations …”; transcribed in full in the archive for Volume 1, Chapter 1.
13.63 Maka Kea, Te Autuatea, Atiu, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 100 to 101, 4 September 1951; the decision, (1951) 2 AMB 116, Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, published online at the series’ website.
13.64 In re Enuaaraara, Atiu, Native Appellate Court, 1957, Appellate Minute Book 2, p. 322; (1957) 2 AMB 322. The permission to occupy as an Atiuan arrangement, and the court’s remedy as the court’s, are distinguished in Volume Four
Volume One, Chapter 14
Chapter 14: Mangaian customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page (on this page)
- The manuscripts
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A Notes
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- Mangaia as Peter Buck drew it in 1934: the six puna radiating like the…
- As Temporal Lord of the island of Mangaia, he was the equivalent of a …
- Mourua, who swam out to the Resolution on 29 March 1777 and told James…
- A carved slab from Mangaia. Mangaian carving is the most distinctive i…
- The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
1. The island that came up from the underworld
2. The people who came after
3. How the island was held
Mangaia as Peter Buck drew it in 1934: the six puna radiating like the segments of a fruit from the summit of Rangimotia, each crossing the taro flats and the makatea to reach the reef.
Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, p. 4. Reproduced in the first edition of this volume at page 477.
As Temporal Lord of the island of Mangaia, he was the equivalent of a military dictator, and his power was passed on, not through hereditary succession, but through defeat in war. Each battle led to a confirmation or change of the Temporal Lord. The victor, if he let the office go to someone else for political or other reasons, remained as the military support (toko) of the Temporal Lord.14.19
Peter Buck, Mangaian Society, 1934
4. The Tongaiti’s turn
5. Mautara
14.32 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 57 to 61, translating Mamae’s manuscript, which is printed in Rarotongan and English with Vaarua’s lament for the sons of Vara and Koroa’s song for the sons of Mautara. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 508 to 512, and Table 8, p. 513.
14.37 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 65 to 67. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 516 to 517.
14.38 Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 212; Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 67. First edition, Volume 1, p. 517.
6. Captain Cook, and the years before the gospel
Mourua, who swam out to the Resolution on 29 March 1777 and told James Cook, through Mai, that the chief of the island was Ruaika. John Webber drew him on the ship; the engraving was published with the account of the voyage in 1785. Mangaians later told William Wyatt Gill that he was a friend and relative of Kirikovi, the temporal lord of the day, and that he afterwards took the name Kavoro.
John Webber, “A Man of Mangea”, engraved for James Cook and James King, A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, London, 1785. Public domain. Reproduced in the first edition of this volume at pages 466 and 474.
7. The last lord of Mangaia
14.50 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 78 to 80, and Tables 12 and 13; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 299. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 531 to 532.
8. What it adds up to
14.57 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 34. First edition, Volume 1, p. 476.
9. Mangaia and the court
A carved slab from Mangaia. Mangaian carving is the most distinctive in the group, and its ceremonial adzes were the emblems of a temporal power that was won in battle rather than inherited.
Reproduced from the first edition of this volume.
The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
First edition, page 1
Chapter 14
Mangaian customary law - Ākono’anga Pa Enua Tonga o te Mangaia by Ross Holmes
Oral traditions as to the first settlement of Mangaia - Tua taito no te au tangata tei no ‘o mua ki A ‘ua ‘u enua The creation of Mangaia The creation myth of Mangaia was been well described by Dr. William Wyatt Gill,1 and better described by Peter Buck.2 Mamae’s manuscript, which Peter Buck referred to, gives, in addition, the names of the lands occupied by the spirits and also the marriages and offspring of the brothers of Vatea. The “Garden of the Cook Islands”3 has a rather unique myth of origin. It was not discovered by some ancient voyager, but emerged from the under world of Avaiki with the first human settlers upon it. Mamae states that there were four spiritual beings who, in the order of their distance away from this world, were Te-Aka-ia-Roe, Te Tangaengae, Te Manavaroa, and Vari. The four were of one kind, all spirits (Ka toko ‘a ratou, e apinga ‘okota ‘i ratou, e au vaerua anake).4 Dr. William Wyatt Gill5 said the universe of the Mangaians is to be conceived of as the hollow of a vast coconut shell. He places the first three spirits (vaerua) below the coconut shell and pictures them as occupying space represented by “a thick stem, gradually tapering to a point, which represents the very beginning of things. This point is a spirit or demon, without human form, and is named Te-aka-ia-Roe, or The-root-of-all existence.” In a note6 he says, “Roç = thread-worm. The idea is of a quivering, slender, wormlike point at which existence begins, i.e. the extremity of the threadworm.” According to Peter Buck:7 Though the thin line may represent the beginning of existence, it does not represent the universe, for, according to Mamae, the four spirits occupied definite lands ( ‘enua), of which he gives the names. Te Aka-ia-roe was the spirit farthest away . . . Te Tangaengae was the second spirit. Gill translates this as “Breathing.” The word also carries the meaning of the movement of the ribs during breathing . . .
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 1-22
2 Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 9-18 which can be obtained from http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-BucMangi-t1-body-d2.html
Anon., Mangaia, CIR 6 (1960) no. 8: 1
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 9
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 2
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 1
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 9-14
First edition, page 2
2 Te Manava-roa came next. See the following chant. Gill8 translates Te Manava-roa as “The-long-lived.” The word conveys the idea of a continuation of breathing. The term manavaroa is applied to persons of sound wind whose breath will hold a long time . . . Vari, a female, the fourth spiritual being, is admitted by Gill (6, p. 3) to page 10the interior of the coconut shell. Her name in full is Vari-ma-te-takere, which he translates as “The-very-beginning.” The word vari, however, also means “mud,” and, taken in conjunction with takere (canoe bottom or keel), the name literally means “The-mud-and-the-bottom”; it suggests the mud on the bottom of the figurative coconut shell. Vari is the mud of taro swamps and connotes potential plant growth. As applied to a female, it means the menses and conveys a connection with the female womb and the origin of human growth. The association of plant and human growth in the Mangaian mind is evident in the phraseology describing the process by which children of Vari were produced . . . Beings with human characteristics (tangata) grew within Vari (no roto i a ia i a Vari). The six evidently sprouted up successively from either side of her body from the region of the thorax below the armpits (kaokao). That they became external growths is indicated by the fact that they were picked off from Vari (no runga i a Vari). The term for picking ( ‘aki ‘akia) is used with reference to mature or ripe fruit. The six were not torn or pulled up ( ‘u ‘uti). According to Mangaian concept, growths within the fertile mud (vari) sprouted up like plants and were picked off when they reached maturity. The fruit picked off had human characteristics, indicated, perhaps, by the double meaning of vari, but the plant idea predominates. Vari had no husband and her children no father. The land of Vari received a special name: Tera te ingoa o to Vari ‘enua o Te Aiti-i-te-apiapi. The name of Vari’s land was Te Aiti-i-te-apiapi . . . The six fatherless children of Vari, in order of plucking, are given by Mamae, with the lands they occupied.
Avatea or Vatea was the first child of Vari. Vatea had two bodies, a human body and a fish body.9 Vatea embraced in his sleep a woman, named Pāpā (Rock), the daughter of Tima-te-kore (Nothing-more). Out of this union were born the first beings with a perfect human form: Tangaroa and Rongo.10 Rongo, the principal god of the island, fathered three sons by his own daughter, Tavake. The eldest was Rangi. His younger brothers were Te Akatauira, and Moko (Mokoiro).11 They were living on Auau, a land in the netherworld, until Rongo’s sons brought this land up from Avaiki to the light of day. They became the first inhabitants, and the ancestors of the Ngariki (Nga
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 3
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 14
10 Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 1-22; Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 9-15; Buck, Sir Peter, Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958: 115-116; Gill, William Wyatt, Life in the Southern Isles..., 1876: 87110; Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924, Volume 2: 376-380; Williamson, Robert W., Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia, 1933, Volume I11-14: Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924: Volume I 251-263
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 19
First edition, page 3
3 Ariki) tribe, who claimed to be autochthonous.12 Peter Buck records the oral traditions that:13 The three brothers were the High Chiefs (nga ariki), and the term Ngaariki, subsequently shortened to Ngariki, was, in the course of time, applied as a tribal name to the combined groups under them. With the later increase of population the Ngariki split into three subgroups which evidently traced descent to each of the three brothers; the Ngariki proper, or Parangi, from Paparangi, the son of Rangi; the Ngati-Vaeruarangi from Vaeruarangi, son of Moko; and Te Akatauira from Te Akatauira. The three groups still come under the name Ngariki. From the distribution of authority by Rongo, certain titles were estab-page 20lished by succession in the Ngariki tribe. Of these, the two priests of Rongo and the Ruler of Food remained in the Ngariki tribe throughout Mangaian history in spite of the vicissitudes and defeats that it subsequently suffered. The office of Supreme Temporal Lord which went with the drum of peace was kept in the Ngariki for some generations, but, becoming intimately merged in a military dictatorship, it passed to the strongest military power of the time.
During the period of Rangi many voyagers came to the island; some from the underworld, others from Rarotonga and Tahiti.14 Later canoes arrived from Rarotonga, Aitutaki, Atiu,15 Tonga,16 and even from New Zealand.17 Peter Buck gives the following explanation of Mangaia’s oral tradition of origin: When Tangi’ia came to Rarotonga from Tahiti (c. 1250), he brought with him a group of the rankless “Manaune.”18 As they had no chance of rising in social status, some of them under the leadership of Rangi migrated to Mangaia to start life anew (circa 1450 to 1475).19 Their antagonism toward Rarotonga made them conceal the land of origin, and invent an origin from a spiritual Auau in the netherworld of Avaiki.20 William Wyatt Gill gives Samoa as the original homeland.21 According to Mangaian tradition Rangi, Te Akatauira and Mokoiro were the first settlers. No canoes are mentioned in these traditions, although it is assumed that Rangi and his people
12 Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 1-22; Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 9-15; Buck, Sir Peter, Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958: 115-116; Gill, William Wyatt, Life in the Southern Isles..., 1876: 87110; Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924, Volume 2: 376-380; Williamson, Robert W., Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia, 1933, Volume I: 11-14: Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924, Volume I: 251-263
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 19-20
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 20-22, 36-37
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 39, 41
Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, BMB 179, Honolulu, 1944: 13
Graham, Geo., Te Ngutu-Au, JPS 31 (1922) 53-56: 56
18 Haueti, Tivini, and Terei, Tamuera, Ko te Rarotonga Are-Korero teia no Iro-Nui-ma-oata. The Period of Iro-Nui-ma-oata and Tangiia-nui-ariki, JPS 25 (1916) 131-137, 138-149; 26 (1917) 1-9, 10-18, 45-51, 52-59: 58
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 28; Buck, Sir Peter, Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958: 24
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 30-33; Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 13
Gill, William Wyatt, Life in the Southern Isles..., 1876: 25
First edition, page 4
4 were part of the Tangi’ia migration from Tahiti to Rarotonga. The Rarotongan ancestor Tongaiti is also known, the traditions saying that people of this name landed in a fleet of canoes during the period of Rangi. A series of wars followed. Eventually the new arrivals were allowed to stay. Another group arrived from Iti (Tahiti) after Tongaiti. Several other invasions are recorded. One says Tangi’ia of Rarotonga sent his sons Mōtoro, Ruanuku, Kereteki and Utakea to Mangaia. Tamatapu wiped these invaders out. On another occasion, a fleet carrying 200 warriors from Rarotonga also invaded Mangaia. Invasions from Atiu and Aitutaki are also recorded.22 The classical name of the island is A’Ua’u, meaning “akatautika,” that is “levelled off.”23 William Wyatt Gill explains it in this way: “As an individual consists of two parts, viz. body and spirit, so this land has a sort of essence, or spirit, the secret name of which is Akatautika, i.e. the “well-poised.” The body was called Auau; it is the earthly form, dragged up to light, while there remained behind in the obscurity of the netherworld the ethereal form, or spirit, the “well-poised.”24 He translated Auau as “terraced.”25 The present-day name Mangaia was given by Tamaeu, an Aitutakian, who came to the island some two years before Cook. He called the island Mangaianui-Neneva that is: Mangaia-Monstrously-Great.26 “Mangaia” means “temporal power,” or “peace.”27 The tribes descended from the various groups of settlers, retained their individuality, but they fought frequently for the “supremacy,” or “temporal power” over the whole island. As soon as one party gained the “mangaia,” peace was restored.28 Both William Wyatt Gill and Peter Buck give lists of the 42 Temporal Lords and the battles through which they came into power.29 Some other ancient names may or may not refer to Mangaia. One of these is Manitea.30 Another is Purutea, mentioned in the story of the Bounty mutineers.31 The Pukapukans have a legend about Te Akuaku, a god from Akalava, which MacGregor identifies as Mangaia but
Buck, Sir Peter, Ethnology of Tongareva, 1932: 19-21, 31-40
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934 18; Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 13
Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 11
25 Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 16; Gill, William Wyatt, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia..., 1880: 177
26 Gill, William Wyatt, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia..., 1880: 177; Gill, William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs,1894: 241
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 34; Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876:
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 34; Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 13
301-302
29 Gill, William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs,1894: 308-311; Gill, William Wyatt, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia..., 1880: 224-226; Gill, William Wyatt, Jottings from the Pacific, London: Religious Tract Society, 1885: 105-107; Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 35; Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924: Volume I 261
30 Smith, Stephenson Percy, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori; Being an Introduction to Rarotonga History, in JPS 7 (1898) 137-177, 185-223; 8 (1899) 1-48; The Settlement of Rarotonga, 8 (1899) 29-39:193
Gosselin, Jim, The Discovery of Rarotonga, CIN 1 June, 1972, 3-5; 2 June, 1972, 4-5
First edition, page 5
5 with a question mark.32 The spelling of Mangaia-nui-neneva in the Journals of Cook’s third voyage is Mangia-Nooe-Nai-Naiwa.33 Mangaia is spelt as Mangaeea or Mangia.34 Other spellings were Mangya,35 Mangeea,36 Mangea,37 Mangeer,38 Maniaa,39 Maonia,40 Mangee, Manaia.41 Captain Cook’s spelling of the Atiuan pronunciation of Auau is: Owha-Va-Rouah.42 The spelling of this name in the Tahitian lists is Oahooahoo, O-Ahoua-Hou, Oaauaha,43 Ahoua-Hou, Oahoo-Hoo,44 and Ahu-Ahu.45
The initial settlement of Mangaia The myths and traditional narratives of Mangaia are confusing:46 because of the short genealogical lines covering the settlement period, the emergence of the first human settlers from an underworld without canoe transport, and the immediate divine origin of the Ngariki chiefs as the sons of the god Rongo. The traditional statement that Rangi, the Ngariki chief, was a contemporary of Tangiia, who settled in Rarotonga in 1250, cannot be accepted as correct. A solution to the Mangaian departures from orthodox Polynesian traditional lore is to be sought in the true origin of the Ngariki settlers.
Macgregor, Gordon, Notes on the Ethnology of Pukapuka, 1935: 22
33 Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: II The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775, 1969: 80, 88; Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: II The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775, Anderson’s Journal, 1969: 827; Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: III...Samwell’s Journal, 1967: 1004
34 Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: II The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775, Anderson’s Journal, 1969: 827
35 Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: II The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775, Anderson’s Journal, 1969: 842
36 Buck, Sir Peter, Explorers of the Pacific, 1953: 30; Desmedt, Maurice, Centenaire de ta Fondation du Vicariat Apostolique de l’Océanie Orientale, Braine-le-Comte, 1933: 24, 31, 32, 33
37 Desmedt, Maurice, Centenaire de ta Fondation du Vicariat Apostolique de l’Océanie Orientale, Braine-le-Comte, 1933: 24, 31, 32, 33
Lamont, E. H., Esq., Wild Life Among the Pacific Islanders: 73
Ellis, Rev. William, Polynesian Researches, 1831: I83
Ellis, Rev. William, Polynesian Researches, 1831: Volume I123
Coppell, William G., About the Cook Islands..., 1973: 30
Beaglehole, J. C., editor, Journals of Captain James Cook: II The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775, 1969: 87; Golson, Jack (ed.), Polynesian Navigation. .., 1962; Table I, Geographical Knowledge of the Tahitians, ...: 133 note 1 43
Golson, Jack (ed.), Polynesian Navigation. ..., 1962; Table I, Geographical Knowledge of the Tahitians, ...: 135
Duff, Roger (ed.), No Sort of Iron. Culture of Cook’s Polynesians, Christchurch, 1969: 17, 18
45 Hall, James Norman and Nordhoff, Charles Bernard, Faery Lands of the South Seas, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1921: 65
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 29-34
First edition, page 6
6 The Ngariki, after landing in Mangaia, were faced with the intellectual problem of accounting for themselves to posterity. It would be absurd to think that any Polynesian group as late as the year 1450 could have forgotten the human genealogies of their leaders, the island whence they came to Mangaia, and a human narrative covering some period of their stay in that land. Yet these features have been concealed by mythical explanations which depart from the orthodox Polynesian technique. The Mangaian historians stated that the brothers Rangi, Akatauira, and Mokoiro were the sons of Rongo. The divine origin of chiefs is an orthodox Polynesian technique; but between the divine origin and the time of settlement should extend a long period bridged by a pedigree which, for a number of the later generations, is human. The Mangaian version is thus unorthodox. The only explanation reconcilable with Polynesian psychology is that the human pedigree is not illustrious enough to give initial prestige to a people who were making a new start in life. The new school, therefore, made their leaders the sons of the god Rongo to give them the aristocracy of divine origin and, at the same time, to remove the evidence of what might have been a plebeian ancestry. The new teachers could not have had a high scholastic attainment, or from a wider knowledge they would have lengthened the period between Rongo and their chiefs. With their limited knowledge they took a short cut regardless of or perhaps not realizing the fact that their technique could not withstand criticism in the years to come. The technique of the Mangaian school, however, may not be so crude as it seems at first sight. The method of placing Rongo and his human sons in the spiritual land of Auau in the underworld of Avaiki effectively disposed of the island whence they came. The immediate divine origin also obviated the necessity for recording a previous earthly sojourn that might have been embarrassing to the prestige that every Polynesian colony desires. The question of the immediate island of origin of the Mangaians must be considered. Gill47 for linguistic reasons, identified the Mangaian Avaiki as Savaii in Samoa and held that the Ngariki came from Savaii to Mangaia. Too much stress has been laid on Savaii because the name is the present appellation of that island. The fact that Hawaii (Avaiki) was the old name of Raiatea in the Society Islands is often overlooked, and many of the historical incidents connected with Avaiki would be more correctly associated with Raiatea than with Savaii. A cultural feature showing affinity between Mangaia and Samoa is the game of pitching discs (tupe). Both areas use the term tupe, the number of discs is five, and the principles of playing and scoring are the same. Minor details differ. The Samoans pitch to the ends of a single long narrow strip of hala matting, and the discs are made of coconut shell. The Mangaians pitch onto two separate small mats of coconut leaf, and the discs are made of wood. So far as I know, the tupe game has been described only for Mangaia in eastern Polynesia. As against this one cultural element, there are several reasons for connecting the Ngariki ancestors more closely with the nearby island of Rarotonga. First, there are Vatea and Papa with their children Tangaroa, Rongo, Tane, and Tongaiti. This mythological family occurs in Rarotonga and other parts of eastern Polynesia, but not in Samoa. The historical tradition concerning Tangiia and the theological fact that his son Motoro was accepted as the tribal god of the Ngariki directly connect the Ngariki ancestors with Rarotonga. As Rangi and his brothers belonged to a period two centuries later than that of Tangiia, Rangi could not have sent over to Rarotonga to ask Tangiia for his son as a god. The anomaly of Rangi’s knowing so much about Rarotonga after his emergence from the underworld is dispersed if it is inferred that the Ngariki settlers came from Rarotonga to Mangaia and brought their god Motoro and the memory of Tangiia with them. The association of the Ngariki with Tangiia is intimate, and a possible explanation is to be found in the Rarotongan traditions concerning Tangiia. Tangiia renamed his adopted son Te-ariki-upoko-tini (The-chiefry-head-of-many). The tini (many or thousands) referred to the groups of people that Tangiia brought from Tahiti. In a manuscript in the possession of Kainuku-ariki of Rarotonga, the group of people is referred to as follows: 47
Gill, Rev. W., Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 166
First edition, page 7
7 E varu tu tangata i runga i te vaka o Tangiia. Teia nga tu tangata. (There were eight kinds of people on the canoe of Tangiia. These were the kinds). 1. Ko te Kakipoto 2. Ko te Raetiki 3. Ko te Ne’epoto 4. Ko te Ataatapua 5. Ko te Tatavere 6. Ko te Vakevake 7. Ko te Kairira (Kairia) 8. Ko te Mangaia In the list of groups (tribes probably), the last is the Mangaia. In a list obtained from another manuscript, the name Manaune replaces Mangaia. The name Manahune was applied in Tahiti to the early Polynesian inhabitants. At a later period, certain families became dominant, secured the government, and established the ruling arii families. Tangiia belonged to an arii family, and it is evident that for the settlement of Rarotonga he supplemented his own family followers and chiefs with recruits from the older inhabitants of Tahiti. In the subsequent development in Rarotonga, the “eight kinds of people” were merged in the population. The positions of chiefs and priests were conferred on the people of rank who accompanied Tangiia, and the offices became hereditary. The Mangaia or Manaune groups had no chance of rising in the social scale. My belief is that after about two centuries of repressed life in Rarotonga, members of these groups migrated to Mangaia under the leadership of Rangi and his brothers. In Mangaia they commenced life afresh. With the broken threads of myth and tradition with which they were conversant they built up a new story of their origin. Their reaction was one of antagonism toward Rarotonga. They concealed their own origin in that land by inventing an origin from a spiritual Auau in the underworld of Avaiki. They could not come from an earthly Avaiki without passing through Rarotonga, hence the deliberate suppression of the truth. Tangaroa was the principal god of the ruling classes in Rarotonga. The Ngariki myth builders, therefore, must have derived considerable satisfaction in supplanting Tangaroa by Rongo, even to the details of the greater share of food and the taking of Tangaroa’s wife. The means by which Tangaroa was belittled in favor of Rongo, because their mother Papa could not eat with the firstborn, is ingenious. A reason was also provided for Tangaroa’s leaving and so ceasing to be actively worshiped. Rongo, having been elevated to the most important position in the pantheon, was also given the new position of war god; and two hereditary high priesthoods were instituted. Tangiia in Rarotonga had been apotheosized 200 years before the advent to Mangaia. Tangiia had been their first protector and chief, so in gratitude and to enrich the local mythology he was raised to the position of brother to Rongo and son of the primary parents, Vatea and Papa. Motoro, son of Tangiia, may perhaps have been deified by the Ngariki ancestors in Rarotonga, but for the purposes of the concealment mechanism he had to be sent for. Other subterfuges were: making Tangiia and Rangi contemporaries; details of a voyage that never took place; the extra brothers of Motoro not known in Rarotonga; and the incidents surrounding the possession of Papaau-nuku, the first priest of Motoro. The divine descent of the three leaders was decided upon. They were made ariki (chiefs), and what had been denied them in Rarotonga was placed beyond all cavil by the descendants’ assumption of the group name of Ngariki (The-high-chiefs). The short-circuiting of history resulted in complications. Tinirau and other traditional characters could not very well be made brothers of Rongo, so they were relegated to the earlier family of Vari and became brothers of Vatea. The contradictions were ignored, and all scattered scraps of myth and tradition that were remembered were conveniently stuffed into the underworld of Avaiki. In spite of the concealment plan adopted, the Ngariki compilers of myth and history, by the very material they used, have indicated clearly enough to the student of comparative mythology and religion that Rarotonga was the island whence the Ngariki came.
First edition, page 8
8 Some significant Rarotongan contacts could not be disposed of, for instance, the origin of Tui, the first Shore High Priest of Rongo. The Mangaian historians do not state why Tui should have shared the authority with Rangi. The most logical explanation is that Rangi and Tui came from Rarotonga together, and that Rangi had to share authority with his colleague. It was the necessity for sharing the authority that probably led to the creation of two high priesthoods of Rongo instead of one. The prejudice against Rarotonga seems to have been perpetuated in the disparaging attitude toward the Ngati-Amai tribe, who came later in voyaging canoes (no te pa’i mai) from Rarotonga. The association of Mangaia with the older Polynesians is also supported to some extent by the presence of Manaune as a tribal name. Though the name was derived from a fairly recent ancestor named Manaune, the fact that such a personal name was used infers some memory of an ancestral use of the name. Handy,48 in distinguishing between Old Tahitian and Arii culture, lists plaiting with the Arii and carving with the Old Tahitian. It is interesting to note that the Ngariki, whom we have associated with the Old Tahitians of Handy, did not plait floor mats or sleeping mats of hala, but used bark cloth as sleeping covers. This forms a marked contrast to the other Cook Islands, in which the plaiting of sleeping mats in hala material reached a higher standard than in Tahiti. Carving, which was well developed in one direction, was not a Ngariki art but was introduced at a later period from Tahiti. Unfortunately, we cannot obtain in Mangaia a clear picture of the older culture, for the Ngariki ancestors had been for two centuries in contact with Rarotongans and the later Ngati-Tane and Tongaiti immigrants must have added new elements to Mangaian culture. Evidence has been adduced of the comparatively late rationalization that took place in Mangaia with regard to myth and tradition. Although interesting as showing the working of the minds of the early historians, the results cannot have the same value for comparative studies as the myths and traditions of older Polynesian schools. In the historical narrative to follow will be seen the valiant attempt of the Ngariki to maintain their temporal supremacy on the island. They kept it long enough to impose some of their institutions on later immigrants and to have them adopted in the national pattern. Thus Rongo became the national god served by all tribes. The positions of High Priests to Rongo, through early usage, became established as hereditary positions held within the Ngariki tribe. Later comers evidently accepted the divine origin of the Ngariki ancestors and so could not interfere with the succession and ritual established by the Ngariki in connection with Rongo. The Ngariki immunity from providing victims for sacrifice was also a victory. Their fictitious divine descent thus stood them in good stead. The history of Mangaia illustrates the attempt of the Ngariki to keep the position of Temporal Lord of Mangaia within their own tribe, and their ultimate failure through the ambition of the warlike Tongaiti. Once precedent was broken down in this direction, the hope of establishing a hereditary ariki with temporal power over the whole island vanished. The principle that temporal power was the reward of war and not of hereditary descent led to frequent changes of secular government and offers a marked contrast to the social organization of Rarotonga, where secular power remained in the hands of the ariki families and succession was hereditary.
The initial settlement patterns in Mangaia In Mangaia the early tribes settled in definite localities and for a time kept together:49 Apart from historical narrative, their localities are indicated by the maraes they built to their tribal gods (p. 175). The Ngariki evidently spread over the northern, western, and southwestern parts of the island.
48 Handy, Edward Smith Craighill, The problem of Polynesian origins: B. P. Bishop Museum, Occasional Papers, vol. 9, no. 8, 1930: 7
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 106-108
First edition, page 9
9 They built the Ivanui marae to Rongo in the Ivanui district but later abandoned it and built the marae of Orongo on the west coast in the Tavaenga district near the boundary with Keia. Their marae of Araata to their tribal god Motoro was built in Keia, and the Akaoro marae presided over by the Inland High Priest was close beside Araata. With the increase of other tribes, they evidently withdrew from the Ivirua and Karanga districts and concentrated in the Tavaenga, Keia, and Veitatei districts. It appears that the Akatauira were in Tavaenga, the Paparangi in Keia, and the Vaeruarangi in Veitatei. The Tongaiti tribe landed in the south and occupied the Tamarua district. Their principal marae was Aumoana, situated close to the inner side of the makatea not far from the present church at Tamarua. The cave of Tautua, which formed the refuge of the tribe after defeat, is also situated in the Tamarua district. The Ngati-Tane landed on the east and occupied the Ivirua district. Their first two maraes, Taumatini and Maputu, are in the northern part of the district and close to the original Ngariki marae, Ivanui. The reason given for the abandoning of the Ivanui marae was that, as the sun was too hot on Rongo’s back, the marae of Orongo was made on the west. It is probable that the arrival of the Ngati-Tane in the Ivirua district caused the scattered outposts of the Ngariki to withdraw toward the west to avoid being picked off. The scattered family groups were killed later by the Ngati-Tane to furnish the filling for the Maputu marae. When the priest Ue landed on the east, he found all the land in the Ivirua district occupied and had to push on toward the south, where he built the marae of Maungaroa just across the boundary with Tamarua. The Te Kama tribe also landed on the east, but they worked north beyond the part occupied by Ngati-Tane and pushed into the Karanga district on the northeast, forming a wedge between Ngati-Tane and the Ngariki living in the Tavaenga district. After their first unsuccessful bid for power and subsequent minor attempts, they ceased to exist as a distinct tribe. The Ngati-Vara developed in the Veitatei district. Vara, the son of Papaaunuku, lived in Veitatei and his sons were attacked at Tangikura in that district. Koroa, in a song referring to the family of Mautara, speaks of the growth of a tribe in the valley of Raupo and of the men of Te Tuapoto who brought it to affluence. Te Tuapoto is a tapere (subdistrict) in Veitatei. The marae at which Potiki and Koroa worshiped Te-aio was Takti in the Veitatei subdistrict of Te Tukono, for which Te Tuaroa is another name. The two ancestral tapere of the Ngati-Vara are Te Tuapoto and Te Tekono in the Veitatei district, and the Ngati-Vara also had authority over the tapere of Te Noki. With their rise to power, the Ngati-Vara increased their land holdings. Mautara lived part of his time in the Keia district. The family meeting of the Ngati-Vara before the death of Rautoa took place on the marae of Are-una in the Ngaangarino subdistrict of Veitatei. When the Ngati-Vara practically exterminated the Tongaiti, they spread their boundaries into the Tamarua district. After their defeat by the combined Ngati-Tane and Manaune, they concentrated in the Tamarua district and fought their last battle at Putoa in that district. The Manaune tribe developed in Karanga and the neighboring part of Ivirua. It is evident that Mautara must have given some subdistricts to Manaune in that area. Pangemiro, the Manaune leader who became the last Temporal Lord of Mangaia, had his two maraes, Te-ra-tui-vero and Are-vaka, in the Karanga district. Of the other smaller tribes which became extinct, there is lack of detail as to their territory, except that the Tangiia or Kanae tribe lived near Lake Tiriara in the Veitatei district and that their marae was Rangitaua. The tribes originally occupied definite continuous areas, but the subsequent wars led to a break in the continuity of the areas occupied. The conquerors, in annexing food lands from the conquered, took subdistricts which were remote from their original lands. The food lands and the rule over districts and subdistricts were the important spoils of victory. The redistribution of food lands led to the scattering of tribes; some families remained on the original land, but others settled on land awarded them in other districts. The tribe was nevertheless held together by the social mechanism which decided the grouping of individuals at birth and by the necessity for protection
First edition, page 10
10 against other tribes. Other territorial complications were brought about through the giving of presents of land by conquerors to friends of other tribes. Mautara gave land to Manaune in another district, and the Maunaune tribe grew up there. Mautara gave presents of land to Te-vaki in a district other than Ivirua, with the result that the reborn Ngati-Tane grew up in districts other than their original home.
The division of Mangaia into districts (puna) and sub-districts (tapere) Managaia was divided into districts (puna):50 ....the six districts (puna) form segments which radiate from a common center on the summit of Rangi-motia. The side boundaries follow leading ridges, cross the makatea, and extend to the reef.
As was the case with the tapere in Rarotonga, the side boundaries follow leading ridges, cross the makatea, and extend to the reef. As was the case in Rarotonga the districts (puna) were divided into sub-districts (tapere). However unlike most of the tapere in Rarotonga:51 Some of the subdistricts (tapere) did not reach the makatea wall, as their boundaries were influenced by the nature and direction of the streams and ridges within the district. Each subdistrict, however, had a portion of makatea and reef awarded to it so that all subdistricts should have a share in the rau-tuitui and the lagoon and reef.
The following map of Mangaia prepared by Peter Buck shows its six districts (puna) namely Tavaenga, Karanga, Ivirua, Tamarua, Veitatei, and Keia:52
As Peter Buck recorded:53
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 127
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 127
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 4
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 126-129
First edition, page 11
11 According to a myth quoted by Gill,54 the god Te-manava-roa lies buried face downward on Mount Rangimotia with his head toward the east. The half-mile crest of the mountain forms his backbone. This story forms another example of the inconsistency of the Mangaian myth-makers, for Te-manava-roa is also described as one of the primary spirits who dwelt in a region far below Avaiki. Owing, however, to the disposal of the body of Te-manava-roa, the south of the island is referred to as the right (katau) and the north side as the left (kaui). In Pangemiro’s time the island had become definitely divided into 6 districts, 3 on the right and 3 on the left. The island is referred to in ceremonial speeches as “the fish of Rongo” (te ika o Rongo). Following the Te-manava-roa myth, the head of the fish lies to the east. The fish is divided longitudinally to represent the three land districts on the right and left. The right and left land districts on the east represent the head (pauru) of the fish, the right and left districts on the west represent the tail (‘iku), and the two middle districts represent the body (pori) of the fish. It has now become customary to omit the word “fish” in speeches. Thus Tamarua, which is the eastern district on the right is referred to as te pauru o Rongo i katau (the head [of the fish] of Rongo on the right). The other districts are referred to similarly according to the part and “the side” they represent. In addition to these honorific names, the districts have their ordinary names which are now different from those originally applied to them: Present Name Tamarua
Old Name Mangonui
Veitatei
Patiki-enua-o-Rangi
Keia (Keir’a) Ivirua Karanga Tavaenga (Tava’enga)
Te-apunavai Ivirua Karanga Te-kura
Honorific Name Te pauru o Rongo i katau (head on right) Te pori o Rongo i katau (body on right) Te ‘iku o Rongo i katau (tail on right) Te pauru o Rongo i kaui (head on left) Te pori o Rongo i kaui (body on left) Te ‘iku o Rongo i kaui (tail on left)
....After Pangemiro secured the temporal power, the districts and subdistricts were distributed among the Manaune and Ngati-Tane tribes. The distribution on the right (tu’a a katau) was supposed to favor Ngati-Tane, and the distribution on the left (tu’a a kaui) to favor the Manaune. In actual fact, the Manaune received a greater number of subdistricts than the Ngati-Tane. In the manuscript of Mamae, the following lists of subdistricts with the awards of district and subdistrict chiefs were written under the heading, “Te tu’anga ia A’ua’u, i te tara a te aronga pakari” (The distribution of Mangaia, according to the story of the old people): 1. Tamarua (Parima held the pauru-o-Rongo) Tapere Chief 1. Maru-kore Maunganui 2. Poutoa-i-uta Kaimoe 3. Poutoa-i-miri Te-ouapuku 4. Akaea Teau 5. Te-vai-kao Pekai 6. Angauru (Autaki)
Arakauvae
7. Vaitangi (Pukuotoi) 8. Te-vai-taeta-i-uta 9. Te-vai-taeta-i-tai
Tia-iti Aitama Maueue
Remarks
Given by the Manaune to Numangatini Ariki as a present. Afterwards given to T ereavai (Ngati-Vara) Ua tutukuia ia Tereavai).
Note: The first three tapere in List 1 were awarded to Ngati-Tane, and the remaining six to Manaune. The Ngati-Tane gave one and the Manaune gave two to members of other tribes. Parima, the district chief, had no subdistrict.
Gill, Rev. W., Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 128
First edition, page 12
12 2. Veitatei (Motuanga had the spear wound) 1. Te-noki 2. Te-tuaroa (Te-tukono) 3. Te-tuapoto 4. Te-tarapiki 5. Kaikatu 6. Angarino
Motuanga Taia-iti Punga-rua Pakuunga Ruaporo Arokapiti
Note: Three subdistricts in List 2 went to Ngati-Tane, of which Arokapiti was the leader, and three to Manaune, of which Pangemiro was the leader. Motuanga was district chief and held a subdistrict. 3. Keia (Muraai had the battle scar) 1. Akaoro 2. Tapuata 3. Tongamarama 4. Te-inati 5. Rupetau-i-miri 6. Rupetau-i-uta
Muraai and Tangataroa Te-ika Raoa Metua-uti Okinga Te-ao, the deposed high priest
Note: Mamae states, “Eia tu’anga e ono nei, tei a Pangemiro te ‘aka’aere; kareka o te tutara i runga i’o tei Arokapiti.” (These six shares, the distribution was with Pangamiro; but the title above them was with Arokapiti). This seems to mean that Pangemiro appointed the subdistrict chiefs, but Arokapiti selected the district chief. 4. Ivirua 1. Te-pauru-o-Rongo 2. Te-korokoro 3. Te-uturei 4. Te-ara-nui-o-Toi 5. Te-i’i-maru 6. Avarari
Mauri Takitaki Nia (Tuarau) Tane Tuamoru’ia (Tumutoa) ?
Note: Mamae gave no details and omitted the sixth subdistrict of Avarari. Local informants stated that Te-pauru-o-Rongo went to the Ngariki tribe, the Ara-nui-o-Toi went to Ngati-Tane, and the remaining four subdistricts went to the Manaune. As Mauri, the subdistrict chief of Te-pauru-o-Rongo, was a son of Pangemiro, it would appear that, though he ruled over the subdistrict, the land was for division among the Ngariki tribe. Tuarau and Vairota of the Karanga district and the two subdistricts of Te-uturei and Te-ii-maru, to which these men belonged, are coupled together under the name of Nga-toki (the adzes) to commemorate the use they made of their adzes. 5. Karanga (Pangemiro had the spear wound) 1. Kaau-i-uta 2. Kaau-i-miri 3. Teia-pini 4. Teia-poto 5. Teia-roa
Pangemiro Mauri Pangemiro Are-tupe Makaatu
Note: In another manuscript the word Teia in the third, fourth, and fifth subdistricts is spelled Te-i’i-a and is followed by the same endings. Pangemiro, the Temporal Lord, lived in Karanga, and all the subdistricts went to the Manaune. Though there are only five tapere, the Manaune say there are six with the wood (e ono i te rakau). The story is that Vairoto, who belonged to Karanga, was indicated as a human sacrifice to Rongo. It was evidently left to the Manaune to bring the sacrifice to the marae in Keia. Thereupon Tuarau and Tumutoa of Ivirua carved a figure to
First edition, page 13
13 represent Vairoto, and Pangemiro sent it into the marae. The Manaune were strong enough to carry off this disobedience to the high priest, and they commemorated the event by making a wooden effigy of Vairoto a metaphorical sixth tapere. 6. Tavaenga (Are-rua had the spear wound) 1. Te-pueu 2. Te-mati-o-Pa’eru 3. Au-ruia 4. Maro 5. Te-rupe 6. Ta’iti
Are-rua Te-kako Numangatini Karo-matangi Vai-‘are Vaipo
Note: The six subdistricts in List 6 were shared equally between Ngati-Tane and the Manaune. In a list given to me by the district chiefs of Veitatei, Keia, and Tavaenga, only Taiti and Maro coincide with the above, and Te-ivi-o-Ru, Rangatira, Te-tua-roa, and Tiroango are given as the names of the other four subdistricts.
‘Tika Raupatu’ - Acquisition of land rights by conquest by Ross Holmes The men of defeated tribes often sought out some powerful protector for whom they worked:55 A protector might be sought out by a man’s wife in her own tribe, in which case the arrangement was instituted by the woman. So long as the tama va’ine tribe was not the one actively opposed to them, such an incorporation was easily arranged. The people so included usually occupied a menial position and were on probation until they proved their loyalty to the tribe by assisting it in war. After a successful battle, the outsider who had proved his valor was rewarded with a share of land and so became a free man in the tribe he served. His children became absorbed into the tribe in the course of events. It is extremely probable that some of the tribes which became extinct were not all killed off, but that the survivors, after the last disastrous defeat, sought refuge in other tribes or were enslaved by the victors and so absorbed.
People who were defeated and accepted a menial position forced upon them in order that they might live were also added to the tribe:56 The women of defeated tribes were spoils to the victors. They were often taken as supplementary wives by chiefs, and their children became tama tane in the conquering tribe. The pedigrees transmitted orally are those of the leading families in the tribe and take no cognizance of the lower stratum of the tribe formed of additions from outside sources.
The lowest class in the community were those who had been defeated in war and had not had time to reorganize their tribes:57 These people (‘ao or ivi panga, “fatherless people”), immediately after battle, were fugitives hiding in the makatea or the mountain. After the sounding of the drum of peace they came forth and sought sustenance with their wives’ relations, or became menials in the households of powerful chiefs. The refuge caves and forest shelters of the ‘ao were termed punanga. Mention of one of these refuges is made in a song composed by Koroa . . . : Tei Takimivera ‘oki te punanga
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 105
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 105-106
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 111-112
First edition, page 14
14 At Takimivera is the refuge, Punanga i te ‘ao e! The refuge of the conquered. The fugitives lived on such fruits and berries as they could find in the vicinity of their shelters. In the night they descended to the taro lands, but the danger was great. They also moved about frequently when the enemy were hot on their trail. The difficulty of obtaining food drove some fugitives to cannibalism. Rats were trapped and occasionally fish were obtained secretly from the lagoon. Large bodies of fugitives hid in caves which could be easily defended from openings situated some distance up the side of the cliff. One of the outstanding features in Mangaian history is the way in which the wives of fugitives stuck to their husbands. They arranged secret meeting places and brought food to them. Even when refuge caves were blockaded, wives were allowed to pass the guards and take what scanty food they could conceal about their persons. It was but rarely that the blockade was made so strict that the wives were searched and deprived of the food they were carrying. Sometimes wives obtained protection for their husbands under some powerful relation in their own tribe. During the period of concealment, many of the refugees made nets and other objects to store up as wealth with which to buy protection. When the peace drum sounded and the fugitives emerged from their refuges, the victors gave them a feast (taperu kai) in public recognition of their safety. The conquered, however, had lost their holdings in the rich taro lands of the puna districts. They were awarded shares in the upper narrow ends of the valleys where they could still grow a certain amount of taro. They were also given land in the makatea, where sweet potatoes and paper mulberry plants could be produced. The conquered were rather unjustly blamed for the shedding of blood that had occurred and therefore became servitors in the households of the victors. They grew the paper mulberry, caught fish, and grated the taro (poke) for their masters to pay for the blood which had been spilt (ei tutaki i te toto i ta’e). Their masters then allowed them some share in the taro land which is expressed by the phrase, “Ka ‘angai i roto i te puna.” (They fed them in the irrigated taro lands.) The lot of the serf depended on the character of the chief he served. The serfs were naturally inclined to plot for a reversal of power. When a chief became dissatisfied with his servitor, he evicted him without compunction by sending him word to go or by indicating expulsion in some other form. One method was for the chief to sit down near the hut of the serf and make fire himself with the fire plough of two pieces of wood. This indicated that the serf’s services were no longer needed in the household. When warned, the serf had to leave and seek another master. Gill relates a pertinent story: The serf Autea, when asked by his master for the loan of a nanue hook, replied that the one he was using was all that he had. The fact that the master asked for a loan and allowed the serf to continue using his hook shows that the master was considerate. The master subsequently found out that the serf had several other nanue hooks in his fishing basket and so dismissed him summarily. The incident passed into the disciplinary saying, “Remember Autea.” When the serfs bought protection with goods manufactured during exile, as hooks, nets, and lines, they gave the best to their new masters. The masters generally made a show of magnanimity by allowing them to keep considerable quantities for themselves.
Wars in Mangaia There were incessant wars in Mangaia:58 The incessant wars that ravaged Mangaia led to the arbitrary taking up of sides by certain people.
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 105
First edition, page 15
15 Married women were the only ones who could move freely between tribes, their own and their husbands, during a state of war. As the result of intertribal adoptions, members of the same biological family were forced to meet each other in battle. Sometimes blood overruled the law and sometimes it did not. In a battle between the Ngati-Vari and Ngati-Tane, Poito’s two sons, who had been shared to the Ngati-Tane, fought against their father’s tribe. In the battle they approached an enemy who was fighting valiantly. The elder son cried out to his brother, “Let us engage elsewhere. It is our father Poito.” The younger son took no notice. Poito, recognizing his opponent, made a mere pretence of striking at him and allowed, himself to be killed. The younger son, though literally obedient to custom, is not admired in Mangaia for his action.
He also ascertained that:59 A number of men have deliberately given themselves up to death as a propitiatory sacrifice to Rongo to ensure their tribe’s success in battle. Tiroa, priest of Tane, did it to bring success to Panako. Kauate, a chief of the Ngariki, sought out a violent death to restore his tribe to power under Ngangati. Arokapiti of Ngati-Tane sacrificed himself in place of his younger brother to turn the tide of battle against Ngati-Vara . . .
The frequency of intertribal wars placed an increasing emphasis on individual valor as against hereditary chieftainship:60 The puna lands of the conquered became the sport of the victors, so that with each battle the land ownership changed. Land tenure came to depend on conquest, which obliterated the rights of previous occupation and cultivation. In the re division of conquered land, the largest shares went to the principal warriors (too). The large landholders today claim the right to their lands through their warrior ancestors. The loss of their puna lands led the conquered (‘ao) to seek sustenance in the rau-tuitui and rau-tuanu’e lands. In the course of time it became recognized that the conquered had a right to these inferior lands and that, after peace, the conquerors should not interfere with their occupation of them. Hence, a dominant chief encroaching on the makatea was told by the conquered to return to his puna land: “E ‘oki ki uta!” (Go back inland!) Similarly, a chief who advanced his cultivations into the narrow valleys of the rau-tuanu’e was told to return to the puna: “E ‘oki ki miri!” (Go back behind you!) Public opinion was with the conquered, and the greedy chief was condemned. The conquered were entitled to the produce of their inferior lands, but they took presents to a dominant chief to ensure his protection. If the conquered tribe regained supremacy, they ceased to be ‘ao and, by securing shares in the rich puna lands, they abandoned their previous holdings. The conquered husband who worked on his wife’s land was not subject [page 130] to eviction, because the land belonged to his wife. The conquered man who received a portion of taro land from a chief was in a different position. He was a serf to a master who demanded a share of the produce. If the serf annoyed his master, he was summarily evicted. The master notified him verbally or by planting his staff in the taro patch or by commencing to weed the sloping sides of the patch himself. The action denoted that the chief was about to take back his land.
The Temporal Lord of Mangaia The leader of a war party, by securing the victory, was said to have acquired the mangaia (temporal power):61 59
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 106
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 126-129
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 34-36
First edition, page 16
16 As Temporal Lord of the island of Mangaia, he was the equivalent of a military dictator, and his power was passed on, not through hereditary succession, but through defeat in war. Each battle led to a confirmation or change of the Temporal Lord. The victor, if he let the office go to someone else for political or other reasons, remained as the military support (toko) of the Temporal Lord. The list of Temporal Lords and the battles through which they came into power (Table 5) is slightly altered from that of Gill62 in the placing of the ninth and tenth battles, and adds the names of the tribes to which the Temporal Lords belonged. The office of Temporal Lord, which started in the Ngariki tribe with a tendency to become hereditary in that tribe, through their successive defeats became an open position to be won by success in war. It is evident that after the second battle when the office passed to Te-akatauira, a brother of Rangihough Mata-tau-kiu as leader of the Tui-kura tribe was the real victor - the Nigariki regarded the office as one to be held by them and not by the real military leader. After the third battle the office passed to Vaeruarangi, a son of Moko-iro, so that all three families of the Ngariki enjoyed office in turn. In the fourth battle, Amu, the Ruler of Food, was victor, but he allowed the office to be held by another member of the Ngariki. In the fifth battle Te-ao as victor took office as Temporal Lord. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth battles, Tirango of the Tongaiti tribe was the real victor as head of the combined forces, but the Ngariki kept the office to themselves. After the treacherous massacres that followed, the two Ngariki chiefs responsible for organizing the destruction of Ngati-Tane took office. The eleventh battle was won by a Ngariki.
The coming of the Tongaiti During the period of Rangi a fleet of canoes containing a people termed Tongaiti-akareva-moana (Tongaiti-sailing-over-the-seas) landed on the south side of the island at Tamarua:63 The newcomers were guided by a priest, Te Ao-roa (The Long-line), so named because during the voyage be held in his hand a vast ball of string which he payed out as the canoe sailed. He had just reached the end of the line when, the canoe made Mangaia. Presumably he would have worked back along the line had he not discovered land. It was held that the ocean was smooth in those days, and the roughness of after ages was due to the shedding of blood and ceaseless wars which disturbed the balance of the elements. Te Ao-roa was the first high priest of the god Turaenga. Another member of the immigrant group was a chief named Te Tipi, the founder of the Tongaiti tribe. The Tongaiti people brought with them the toa or ironwood tree (Casuarina) and the miro (Thespesia populnea). They made clubs from the ironwood, were very warlike, and soon attempted to take possession of the entire island by engaging the Ngariki in battle. The Ngariki reinforced their troops with warriors from the underworld, or, as Gill64 quotes moderns as interpreting it, they were reinforced by a reserve force hidden behind the rocks. The small force of Ngariki at first apparently deceived the Tongaiti and defeated them. The fugitives fled to the south, where they took refuge in the cave of Tautua. Three of the Ngariki were killed, from which was established, according to Gill:65 the ancient doctrine (ara taonga) that victory and chieftainship of all degrees can only be secured by first shedding the blood of some of the victorious party, so as to secure the
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 308-311
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 36-37
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 287
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 288
First edition, page 17
17 favor of Rongo, the arbiter of the destinies of war. The battle was fought at Te-rua-nonianga, in the Keia district . . . Vaioeve, a fugitive from the battle, was overtaken and slain. He was offered as a sacrifice to Rongo, and thus was established the custom of offering a human sacrifice to Rongo after every battle before peace could be cemented. Peace having been made, Rangi consented to the Tongaiti tribe’s permanently occupying the southern part of the island where they had landed. The Tongaiti developed into a strong, warlike tribe. Their headquarters were at Tamarua, and the principal marae upon which they worshiped their god, Turenga, was Aumoana. Gill66 alludes to the newcomers as driftaways from Tonga, but he had nothing to support this statement except the presence of the word Tonga in Tongaiti. Tongaiti has been shown to be the third son of Vatea and Papa, thus a younger brother of Rongo. In the distribution of property by Vatea among his five sons, Tongaiti was awarded bravery and military enterprise. As the Tongaiti were looked upon as the possessors of these qualities and the most stubborn fighters in Mangaia, there was an implied association between the Tongaiti tribe and the god Tongaiti. Tongaiti, the god, is not a projection back from the tribe, for he is established in the Rarotongan pantheon and occurs also as Toahiti (To’ahiti) in Tahiti. Teuira Henry67 translates Toahiti as “Bordering-rock,” under the mistaken idea that the glottal comma represents k, thus making the first part of the name toka (rock), whereas the elided consonant was ng. The Cook Islands form of the name shows that the ng was dropped in Tahitian dialect, and the Tahitian form shows that the h was dropped in the Cook Islands.
The invasion of the Ngati-Tane from Tahiti After the arrival of the Tongaiti and still in the period of Rangi, another group of voyagers arrived on the east coast from Iti (Tahiti). They were worshipers of the god Tane. As detailed by Peter Buck:68 Gill69 states that Te Rangai was the original founder of the existing tribe of Tane and that he came from Tahiti. Other chiefs of the original canoes were Vairanga, Kaki, and Mataroi, who are mentioned in the following song composed by Tuka:70 Kua kake te uri a Vairanga O ngati Kaki, te takina i te ra nei. Takina i te ra ia ‘Iti Te ra ia Roi, ei tukirua I te pou ta’i o Tane e, reia.
The descendants of Vairanga arrive, The tribe of Kaki now prosper. The sun shines upon [the people from] Tahiti, Upon Mataroi, despite the two attacks Against the single post of Tane.
Some confusion exists as to the period of Mataroi, for he is also stated to have been companion of Ue, a much later arrival from Tahiti.71 Traditions from Aitutaki, Atiu, Mitiaro, and Mauke show that waves of people from Tahiti descended upon the coasts of the islands and fought with the people already in occupation. In some islands they obtained a footing and became merged with the local population, but in other islands they were driven away. They are everywhere alluded to as the Aitu or Ngati-Tane, worshipers of Tane. Tahitian tradition shows that after the god Tane was superseded by Oro in
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 287
Henry, Teuira, Ancient Tahiti, B. P. Bishop Museum, Bulletin 48, 1928: 163
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 37-39
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 65
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 59
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 58
First edition, page 18
18 Raiatea, the cult of Oro spread to Tahiti and other islands. It is probable that adherents of Tane who refused to go over to Oro migrated to the nearby Cook Islands. Aitutaki, Atiu, Mitiaro, and Mauke acted as an intercepting fringe to Rarotonga, and the Ngati-Tane never reached that island. The canoes of the Ngati-Tane that directed their course farther south arrived at Mangaia. Some were held to have come on to Mangaia after being driven from other islands of the Cook archipelago, upon which they had failed to establish themselves. There appear to have been three distinct incursions of Ngati-Tane people. The first wave came in the period of Rangi. The god Tane was worshiped under a number of different names, but all worshipers of Tane were regarded as belonging to the same tribe. The Mangaian myth gives Tane-papa-kai (Tane-piler-up-of-food) as the fourth son of Vatea. It would be inconsistent to admit that this god was introduced by the newcomers from Tahiti, as he was stated to be a local production. Tane-papa-kai must have been later accepted by Ngati-Tane, for his image in ironwood was among the four forms of Tane kept in the god house. The next Tane was Tane-ngaki-au (Tane-striving-for-power), who was worshiped at the marae of Maputu by the second wave of Ngati-Tane. Gill72 further complicates matters by saying that Tane-ngaki-au was a brave warrior who gave important assistance to Rangi in the first battle fought against the Tongaiti at Te-rua-nonianga, and as a reward received the chieftainship of Ivirua. He was subsequently deified by his family, and the marae of Maputu was erected to him. Tane-ngaki-au must, therefore, have belonged to the Ngati-Tane visitors and, to reconcile the statements, a first wave of Ngati-Tane must have landed in Mangaia before Tongaiti fought the first battle of Te-rua-nonianga. Under what name Tane was worshiped by the first Ngati-Tane settlers is thus not apparent. The priest of Tane who accompanied the first wave from Tahiti was Turuia. The Ngati-Tane were also known as the Aitu (God) tribe on Mangaia, and on the other islands of the Cook archipelago. They evidently established themselves and conformed to the laws and customs that had been laid down by the Ngariki tribe. While still in the period of Rangi, disaster overtook the Ngati-Tane: Tui, the original Shore High Priest, died and was succeeded by his son Tamatapu. The Ngati-Tane, living on the east coast, prepared for a feast in honor of the gods by fishing. In the day they were all in the sea, and at night they slept in the large cave of Te-ana-nui (Big-cave). Having caught a large turtle, custom demanded that it should be taken to the Shore High Priest, Tamatapu, at the marae of Orongo on the west coast. About a mile from the marae, the two carriers of the turtle perceived a fragrant smell and one of them made a disparaging remark about Tamatapu, little thinking that it was heard by Tamatapu, who had concealed himself on hearing approaching footsteps. The incident is mentioned by the warrior poet Koroa in one of his many death laments: Kua ‘akarongo te ariki Tamatapu, Aua e kai i te ua i te ika, I te ‘onu a Rongo; Kua, va’ia te ‘aunga puariri paoa, No taua tae ra.
The high-chief Tamatapu heard, Why should he eat the fish, the turtle of Rongo; Ah, the fragrance of sweet-scented flowers comes, From that fool.
Tamatapu in a towering rage went to his mother’s tribe, Te Tui-kura (The Red-marked), in the southwest where they resided. He called them together with his triton shell trumpet and told of the insult. With candlenut torches concealed in scooped-out green calabashes, a war party under the warrior chief, Matataukiu, set out at night for Te-ana-nui to slay the Ngati-Tane. In passing through the district of Tavaenga they slew Turuia, the priest of Tane, by clubbing him in his sleep. This was the propitiatory offering to Rongo to insure success, and the next day the victim was laid on the marae of Rongo. In the district of Karanga they slew two more chiefs of the Ngati-Tane. The cave of Te-ana-nui was blockaded and the Ngati-Tane within slaughtered. One man, Papakea, escaped from the cave but was killed on the reef. Another named Te-rua-tonga obtained exit through a hole in the roof, and the guard, recognizing him as an old friend, allowed
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 30
First edition, page 19
19 him to escape. This massacre was looked upon as a surprise and not counted as a battle. The details are given by Gill.73 The remnants of the Ngati-Tane and a number of friends were gathered together by Ivi-tu, a nephew of Rangi. To the number of 140, they gave battle to Matataukiu and Tamatapu at Tangikura in the Veitatei district. The leader and most of the warriors were killed and the first wave of Ngati-Tane almost annihilated. Two fugitives, Te-moa-akaui and his son, Uri-ite-pito-kura, escaped to the makatea in Tavaenga. Their history is related by Gill.74 Tangikura constituted the third battle in Mangaian annals (Table 5). The victors are bracketed in the records as Rangi and Tamatapu. The battle constituted the first battle defeat of Ngati-Tane, but the tribe was later reinforced by fresh arrivals from Tahiti. Table 5.- Temporal Lords of Mangaia Battle
Victors
1. 2.
Te-ruanonianga Tangi-kura
3.
Rua-matangi
4. 5. 6.
Iotepui Ikuruaka Parainui
7.
Rangiue
8.
Areutu
9.
12.
Tutaeuu, Putoa (First oven) Angaitu (Second oven) Vaikakau (Maungarua) Taaonga
13.
Kumekume
14. 15. 16.
Kouramaiti Tepapa Terua-kere-tonga
One Panako One One Ngauta
17.
Arakoa
Ngauta
18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Auruia Iotepui Punanga Terua-nonianga Ikuari
Ngauta Ngauta Ngauta Ngauta Ngauta
23.
Murdered by slaves
10. 11.
24. 25. 26.
Maueue Ariki (1st) Ariki (2d)
Vanquished
Installed Lord of Mangaia
Leader
Leader
Tribe
Tribe
Person
Tribe
Tongaiti
Rangi
Ngariki
Ngati-Tane
Te-akatauira
Ngariki
Rarotongan Aitutakian Atiuan
Vaeruarangi Teina-o-vatea Te-aio
Ngariki Ngariki Ngariki
Te-kama
?
Ngariki
Te-kama
?
Ngariki
Te-kama
?
Ngariki
Ungakute Ngariki
Ngati-Tane
Ungakute
Ngariki
Kaveutu Ngariki
Ngati-Tane
Kaveutu
Ngariki
Ruariki One
Tongaiti Ngariki Vaeruarangi
Te-nau
Ngariki
One
Tongaiti
Te-Kama Te-Kama Ngariki Akatauira
Panako I Panako II Panako III Ngauta I and Taia
Akatauira Akatauira Akatauira
Ngauta II Ngauta III Ngauta IV Ngauta V Ngauta VI Terea (consent of Ngauta)
Tongaiti Tongaiti Tongaiti Tongaiti Tongaiti
Rangi Ngariki RangiTamatapu Tui-kura Ivi-tu Moke Ngariki? Kateate-oru Amu Ngariki? Toapini Te-aio Ngariki? Matatia Tirango Tongaiti and Ngariki Tirango Tongaiti and Ngariki Tirango Tongaiti and Ngariki
Ngariki Tirango Tongaiti Ruaika
Tongaiti Vete Akarauira Mokora Akarauira Kotaa Akarauira Ruaika
Tongaiti Tata Panako Teipe Tongaiti Maruataiti Akatauira Tongaiti Motuoro Tuma (N) Tongaiti Tiauru Ngariki Tongaiti Teipe Tongaiti Arepee Tongaiti
Ngangati Tongaiti
Tauii Ngariki Ngangati Ngariki Ngangati Ngariki
Ngauta
Tongaiti Ngariki Teipe
Arekare Vaeruarangi Namu Tangiia Kanae
Tuinui (consent of Ngangati) Tauii Ngangati I Ngangati II
Tongaiti
Tongaiti
Ngariki Ngariki Ngariki Ngariki
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 17-23
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 24-31
First edition, page 20
20 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
Ariki (3d) Te-au-papa (1st) Te-au-papa (2d) Aua Tapatiu
Ngangati Ngariki Ngangati Ngariki Ngangati Ngariki Akatara Ngariki Te-uanuku Ngariki
32.
Arira
33.
Pukuotoi
34.
Aua
Te-uanuku Sons of Mautara Te-uanuku Ngati -Vara Ruanae Mautara Ngati -Vara Raei
35.
Tuopapa Seized without battle
Potiki
36.
Teopu
Kirikovi
37.
Taukuara
Pai
38.
Akaoro Seized without battle
Potiki
39.
Teatuapai
Koroa
40.
Rangiura Seized without battle
41.
42.
Araeva
Putoa
Ngari -Vara Ngati -Vara Ngati -Vara?
Ngati -Vara Ngati -Vara
Makitaka Ngati -Vara
Pongaiti Kotuku Vaeruarangi Kaoa Ngariki Ngangati Ngariki Akatara Tuokura
Ngangati III Ngangati IV Ngangati V Akatara Not conferred
Ngariki Ngariki Ngariki Ngariki
Teipe
Te-uanuku I
Ngati-Vara
Ngariki?
Te-uanuku II
Ngati-Vara
Ngariki
Mautara
Ngati-Amai
Tongaiti
Uarau Ngara
Ngati-Vara
Tongia
Ngati-amai
Kirikovi
Ngariki
kirikovi
Tongaiti?
Pai
Ngariki
Potai
Ngariki
Potiki Marokore
Ngati-Vara
Marokore Ngati-Vara
Koroa
Ngati-Vara
Koroa
Makitaka Pangemiro I
Ngati-Vara
Pangemiro Manaune Ngati -Tane Makitaka Ngati-Vara Numangatini Christian Tereavai Ngati-Vara
Pangemiro II Pangemiro III umangatini
Ngati-Vara
Ngati-Vara Manaune
Manaune Manaune Ngariki
but he passed the office of Temporal Lord over to a fellow tribesman as he himself held the office of Inland High Priest. Thus for eleven battles the office was apparently considered hereditary and was held by the Ngariki. In the twelfth battle One obtained revenge for the death of Tirango and evidently took office, though belonging to the Tongaiti tribe. Evidently One was not altogether sure of the right of anyone outside the Ngariki to keep the mangaia. He became allied with Panako of the Akatauira division of the Ngariki and relinquished the mangaia to him. In three battles he acted as Panako’s military support. Then commenced a series of victories by the Tongaiti under Ngauta. Ngauta felt that Panako had been holding office on the sufferance of the Tongaiti. When he succeeded his uncle One, he determined to enjoy the fruits of victory himself and in spite of the attempts of the Ngariki held the office six times. The principle that victors should enjoy the mangaia by holding office thus became established. Three times the office passed without bloodshed because the people were dissatisfied with the Temporal Lord. Thus Ngara took the office from Uarau, Marokore from Potiki, and Pangemiro from Makitaka.
The Rarotongan invasion After Rangi’s death, but while Papaaunuku, the first priest of Motoro, was still alive, a fleet of double canoes containing 200 warriors led by Kateateoru arrived from Rarotonga:75 They landed on the west coast at a place named Avarua after the place in their own island from which they came. They lived peacefully at first but later killed a man named Tepuvai, who Gill
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 39-40
First edition, page 21
21 states was the third king of Mangaia.76 The name does not appear in any of the lists of “kings” given by Gill. The mythical element once more appears in the story of Moke:77 Moke was the illegitimate son of Tavare, who slept between the months corresponding to July (Pipiri) and February. He was born at Ukuroi in one of the sequestered valleys and was swept by a freshet into Lake Tiriara and the subterranean passage under the makatea by which Tiriara flows through to the sea. Tumu-te-ana-oa, the personification of echoes, reared him and finally allowed him to drift out into the sea. His mother Tavare, happening to be on the reef in her wakeful period, saved him and brought him up on fish and other food until he became a giant 60 feet high. Moke, under the guise of friendship, led the Rarotongans into an ambuscade in a taro swamp in the Tamarua district. Twenty Mangaians were killed, but all the Rarotongans perished except their leader, Kateateoru, who was allowed to escape to carry back the fame of Moke to his own land. Kateateoru reached Rarotonga alone in a double canoe and fitted out a second expedition. Among the warriors was Te-ua-o-pokere, a giant only 30 feet high. Moke built a fortification of rough stones on the hill opposite the Avarua landing place. He cleared the hillside and lopped off the undergrowth to the height of ordinary men. The stumps he dressed up with cloth to look like men of an army with spears poised in their hands. The Rarotongan fleet duly appeared, guided to the landing place by Kateateoru. The appearance of the huge army reinforced by men moving about deceived the Rarotongans and made them hesitate to land. Meanwhile Moke, who had submerged himself in the sea outside the reef, emerged and stepped onto the reef. The sight of his gigantic form caused terror, and the fleet turned and sailed straight back to Rarotonga. Moke threw some pieces of rock at them which fell on the reef. They are still pointed out as Moke’s missiles and, according to Gill (12, p. 37), weigh about 20 tons each. Moke is said to have charged Amu, the fourth king, to dispatch all strangers on landing. Moke figures as the third virtual Lord of Mangaia, and Amu comes third on the list of Rulers of Food. The battle in the Tamarua district was termed Raumatangi and is the fourth on the Mangaian battle list (Table 5). Although outsiders were supposed to be killed on landing, a later story78 shows that a Rarotongan chief named Tairi-te-rangi came to Mangaia to pay unsuccessful court to Matakore, the daughter of Te-aio, the fifth recognized Lord of Mangaia. One Akatea-ariki of Atiu subsequently came to Mangaia in search of his father’s twin kites which had blown away on a south wind. Akatea-ariki married Matakore after having ingratiated himself in her favor by singing a song concerning the two kites. On returning, however, to Atiu with his bride, he met Tairi-te-rangi at sea, returning again to sue for the hand of Matakore. When Tairi-te-rangi saw that another had been successful, a fight ensued. The husband and wife and most of the crew were slain. Tairi-te-rangi returned to Rarotonga with the body of Matakore, which was treated with oil and kept in a marae. The members of the crew who were spared returned to Mangaia. Pukenga, an uncle of Matakore, made an expedition to Rarotonga, slew Tairi-te-rangi, and succeeded in carrying off the body of his niece. This story shows definite communication between Rarotonga and Mangaia. In Aitutaki, however, a different story is told.79 Tairi-te-rangi is said to be a giant from Mangaia who was slain by Pukenga, a native of Aitutaki disguised as a woman, with a sharp-pointed ironwood thatching
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 34
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 32-38
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 39-44
79 Hiroa, Te Rangi (P.H. Buck), Material Culture of the Cook Islands (Aitutaki), New Plymouth, N.Z., Thomas Avery & Sons, 1927, Board of Māori Ethnological Research Memoirs Volume 1: 351
First edition, page 22
22 needle concealed in a fan composed of a bunch of ti leaves. The Mangaian story is more likely, as Tairi-te-rangi is a well-known Rarotongan name.
The Aitutaki invasion The next battle in chronological sequence was at Iotepui in the Tavaenga district:80 A war party from Aitutaki under the warriors Toa-pini and Toa-rere was defeated by the Ngariki under Amu. Amu was thus the victor and real Lord of Mangaia after Moke, but the recognized holder of the title was Teina-o-Vatea, another member of the Ngariki tribe. At this time, Vara had succeeded Papaaunuku as priest of Motoro.
The Atiu invasion In the time of Vara, second priest of Motoro, a band of warriors from Atiu were defeated by Te-aio at Iku-ruaka in the Keia district:81 The battle of Iku-ruaka forms the fifth in the Mangaian list, and Gill (12, p. 308) states that the people defeated were the Atiuans under Matatia. Appropriately enough, further mention is made in the song of the two kites82 composed by Akatea-ariki of Atiu, who came to Mangaia and married Matakore, as already related. Gill’s translation and explanatory notes are as follows: Tangi reka mai, e reira e; O te pa’u i karavau Na ‘Akatea-ariki. Na’ai e rutu e - ? Na te mana o Mani’i kake mai ei?
Ah! soft indeed its notes; The drum which ever sounds Is Akatea-ariki’s. Who shall beat it? Who has the skill of Manii to attempt it?
Manii is an Atiuan chief slain in Mangaia because he would not part with his beautiful breast ornament. The spot where he fell is a place of pilgrimage now to his countrymen; it is called Matatia. The use of “Matatia” as a place name and also as a personal name is confusing. Fortunately, information gathered in Atiu prior to my visit to Mangaia throws light on this historical event. The Atiuan expedition to Mangaia was recorded in local tradition. The leaders were Te Manii-o-te-rangi, Tane-nui, and Tearo. In a song (pe’e) describing the death of the three chiefs, Matatia is called a battlefield: No Te Mani’i-o-te-rangi teia pe’e: Maoake tai ki te uru, Papa nui ki te tonga. Nga ariki ia tokotoru e-! Taia ki Mangaia; No Atiu mai, ‘akaoti noa e-! Kua ‘akaoti noa i ‘oki Te Mani’i-o-te-rangi e-! Ki te tumu koia Matatia.
This song is for Te-Mani’i-o-te-rangi: O maoake breeze from the sea, Bearing sad news from the south! The high chiefs were three, alas! Who were killed in Mangaia; From Atiu they came, their lives were ended, alas! The life was ended also Of Te-Manii-o-te-rangi, alas, At the battlefield of Matatia.
As a check on the time of the invasion, an Atiuan pedigree beginning with Tane-nui, who was killed with Te Manii-o-te-rangi, is given in Table 6.
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 41
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 41-43
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 44
First edition, page 23
Table 6.- Genealogy of Tane-nui of Atiu Table 6 shows a pedigree on the female side (generations 9, 10, 12) of the Rongo-ma-tane ariki family. From Tane-nui to Mataio in 1900 is 16 generations. In Table 3 the corresponding period from Vara to Vaevae covers 15 generations. The two pedigrees thus check up, for a difference of one generation is of no significance. The Atiu pedigree supports the value of the Ngati-Vara pedigree as an approximately correct chronology. As the Atiuan pedigrees go back for a period of settlement antedating Tane-nui by some generations, they confirm the comparative lateness of the early settlement of Mangaia. Te Aio, the victor in the battle of Ikuruaka, was the first to be both the real and the recognized Lord of Mangaia. After his death he was deified and later became the tribal god of the Ngati-Vara.
The invasion of the Te Kama from Tahiti In the time of Te Rau, third priest of Motoro, another group of people under the name Te-kama had developed into a tribe with ambitions for temporal power:83 Gill states that they originally came from the Vaiiria district in Tahiti.84 They had first landed at Atiu but were driven off by the warlike people of that island. They came on to Mangaia and were allowed to settle in the Karanga district. Probably allied to the Ngati-Tane, they married women of the island and, having increased in numbers, began to plot for more power. They decided to accomplish by treachery what might be in doubt through number:85 The Te-kama sent out invitations to the leading men of the districts to assist them in weeding a large taro plantation named Puamata close to the inland cliffs of the makatea wall. The Te-kama were to provide a feast for their guests and the weeding was to be done by moonlight to avoid the heat of the day. Acceptance of the invitations was never in doubt. A great demonstration was made of the preparations for the feast and large numbers of coconut leaflet baskets were plaited to provide the guests with receptacles in which their shares of the feast could be carried away. The preparations were merely a blind, as the food for the guests consisted of pieces of green wood carefully wrapped in green leaves and placed in the ovens with much ostentation.
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 43-44
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 45
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 48
First edition, page 24
24 The guests arrived in small parties. The Te-kama, who were weeding, received each group with expressions of joy and danced the war dance (reru taki) as an official welcome. During the performance they surrounded their guests and smote them on the head, at the same time drowning their death cries in the prolonged yells of the war dance. The bodies of the victims were pressed down in the soft mud of the taro patch for concealment. All went well for Te-kama until an approaching party of guests heard the death yells of some victims who had not succumbed during the war dance. Thus warned, they fled to spread the alarm, and the scheme of the Te-kama was rendered incomplete. The men of the alarmed tribes assembled the next day under Tirango, a noted warrior of Tongaiti. They attacked the expectant Te-kama where they were entrenched between taro swamps with a path of escape up the makatea cliff at their back. The Te-kama were routed, and in fleeing up the steep rocky path they threw away their heavy clubs. The survivors of the Te-kama gathered again under their leader, but, having lost their ironwood clubs, had to fashion new ones out of a softer wood (mariri), owing to the need for rapid arming. They offered battle again in the Ivirua district near Putoa but were again defeated. The bad quality of their weapons is given as an excuse for the large number killed. Again the Te-kama remnants offered battle near Maungarua, but they were outmaneuvered by another party of the enemy, which cut off their retreat while they were hotly engaged in front. The men were practically all slain. The women were spared and married into the Tongaiti tribe. The few children who survived were taken into their mother’s tribe. In telling the story of Te-Kama Gill, calls the first engagement the “Battle of Rangiue.”86 He lists all the battles against the Te-kama,87 but the order and names are confusing. He gives Parainui as the sixth battle in Mangaia, in which Te-kama were defeated by Tirango. He then interpolates the slaying of Ngati-Tane at the “first oven” of men at Tutaeuu Putoa as the seventh battle, whereas in another place,88 he states that the destruction of Te-kama took place after the first oven. He then gives Rangiue as the eighth battle and the last Te-kama battle as the ninth, fought at Areutu, in Ivirua. In the three battles, Tirango was the leader of the combined forces of Tongaiti and Ngariki. Though he was the real military dictator who won the battles, the title of the recognized Lord of Mangaia went to a member of the ancient Ngariki tribe whose name is not recorded. The series of murders that took place at the taro swamp were not regarded as a battle, so the sixth battle termed Parainui must have been the battle next day which Gill called “Rangiue.”89 The next battle, fought with mariri spears, should be the real Rangiue, the seventh battle on the Mangaian list. The final battle of Areutu is thus the eighth, and all three battles precede the first fiery oven in which the Ngati-Tane were consumed.
The recovery and fall of the Ngati-tane The Ngati-Tane were not all exterminated by Matataukiu at Te-ana-nui:90 Those who were fortunate enough not to have slept in the cave on the night of the attack were allowed to live on in the district of Ivirua. They would not, however, have become of significance numerically had it not been for the advent of six canoes from Tahiti. The newcomers were all
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 45-48
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 308
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 48
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 47
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 44-47
First edition, page 25
25 worshipers of the god Tane. They spread over Putoa and the district of Ivirua. It is extremely likely that Vairanga, Kaki, and Mataroi came with this second wave instead of with the first settlers in the time of Rangi. The newcomers and the remnants of the original Ngati-Tane joined together and grouped themselves under the name Aitu or Ngati-Tane. Evidently Tane-ngaki-au, the warrior who assisted Rangi against the Tongaiti, was given a chieftainship over Ivirua and was not only deified by his descendants of the first wave but was accepted by the second wave as one of the forms of Tane. The later comers were probably influenced by the fact that Tane-ngaki-au had had local power and prestige. By accepting him, they became associated with a settlement that had preceded their own date of coming. A leader named Pauteanua set about erecting a marae to Tane-ngaki-au. The site selected was on a low ridge just before it ran out into the low land at the base of the makatea wall in the subdistrict now known as Te-pauru-o-Rongo in the Ivirua district. The boundaries of the marae are still sharply defined by basaltic rocks firmly embedded in the ground. It is a long, narrow rectangle, the greatest length running with the line of the ridge. Measurement showed a width of 32 feet and a length of 114.5 feet on one side and 118.5 feet on the other, figures somewhat larger than those given by Gill.91 The Mangaian marae, after having the sides and ends defined, was filled in with earth to form a low rectangular raised platform. Pauteanua, however, decided to make his marae famous by filling it in with human heads. From the account by Gill it appears that:92 … to accomplish this object, Ngati-Tane sent out raiding parties in the evening which attacked the scattered families of the other tribes, usually while they were assembled at their evening meal. Whole families were killed and their heads carried off to form the filling for the marae. No official war was declared against any particular tribe, but the raids were conducted against individual families of any tribe. A period of terror set in. Families ate their evening meal before sunset and then hid to avoid being taken by surprise. The saying spread from family to family, “Hasten our meal or the Aitu will be upon us bringing terror and death.” The marae was filled in with human heads, leveled over with earth, and covered with a layer of sea gravel. It was named Maputu and dedicated to Tane-ngaki-au. It is curious that there were no immediate reprisals on the part of the Ngariki and other tribes upon whom the capital levies had been made. Possibly there was no outstanding warrior at the time whose family had suffered. Tirango, the great warrior of the Tongaiti, was alive, but as the Tongaiti territory was in the south the Ngati-Tane raids may not have reached that far. Raids on the Ngariki would be no concern of the Tongaiti, who would be pleased at the incursions upon them. The Ngati-Tane were probably very strong at this time. Near the Maputu marae is a marae named Taumatini which was also erected by Pauteanua to Tane-ngaki-au. Most likely, this marae was built before Maputu and served the purposes of the Ngati-Tane until their growing strength convinced them that they could wipe off old scores with their enemies by a series of raids. The building of Maputu was an excuse to enable them to carry out their plan of revenge and at the same time to add to their prestige. Reprisals against the Ngati-Tane did not take place until some time after the building of Maputu. A treacherous scheme was devised by Ungakute, a chief of Ngariki. Taro is scarce in the dry season (July to December), when the main food is the flesh of the mature coconut and wild yams. It was customary, during this time of scarcity, to cook the underground stems of the ti (Cordyline terminalis) in large ovens. Families within the tribe combined to make one large oven in which the marked bundles of the various families were cooked. Ungakute sent out invitations to a large oven (umuti) for all Mangaia. The oven was dug in the Ivirua district in the midst of the homesteads of the Ngati-Tane, so that the home tribe would all be present. The oven was dug and prepared by
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 50
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 49-53
First edition, page 26
26 the Ngati-Tane; according to Gill,93 they were the proper party, descended from Tane-papa-kai (Tane-piler-up-of-food) under whom all other Tanes were grouped. A huge oven was dug. It took a correspondingly large quantity of firewood to heat the huge basaltic stones placed on the fire. When the stones in the fiery furnace were red hot, the unburnt wood was ejected with long, forked poles of green wood. The stones were also pushed and pulled into position with the poles to form an even floor for the cooking of the ti root bundles. The stones being heated, the Ngati-Tane stood by with their poles to commence the leveling (uru) when the word of command should be given by Ungakute. The command had been arranged by the plotters as a signal of another nature. When Ungakute shouted, “Ka uru te umu” (Let the stones be leveled), each Ngati-Tane found himself seized by a neighbor of another tribe and hurled into the glowing pit. The plotters seized the pointed ironwood sticks used for digging the oven and, with them, beat back any who attempted to crawl out. Of the Ngati-Tane, only those who were absent from the gathering escaped death. This massacre is referred to historically as the “first oven” at Tutaeuu, Putoa. It was regarded as a battle and, as Ungakute was the leader, he was officially recognized as the War Lord of Mangaia. The women of Ngati-Tane fled to the mountain and makatea, but after the peace drum was sounded in honor of Ungakute’s supremacy they returned in safety. Some time after the first oven, a priest of Tane named Ue arrived in a double canoe from the eastern side of Taiarapu in Tahiti. An incident involving his contemporary, Marouna, is derived from Aitutaki sources. The god of Ue was Tane-kio, and Ue set up a marae to him at Maungaroa on the southeastern side of the island. The older Ngati-Tane survivors, who worshipped Tane-ngaki-au, would not have anything to do with Tane-kio, and Ue was pushed out of the inhabited territory to the barren coast. Ue decided to leave the inhospitable island. A friend named Mataroi, belonging to the second migration of Ngati-Tane and celebrated for his skill in making stone adzes, accompanied him. They crossed the island to its western side where Ue erected another marae to Tane-kio and where a spring is still named after him. Gill94 states that at this time the warrior Marouna arrived from Rarotonga seeking warriors to assist him in succoring his maternal grandfather, Tama-eva, high chief of Aitutaki, from the dominance of invaders who were overrunning Aitutaki. Ue and Marouna fought together, but, being evenly matched, they made peace and became friends. Ue accompanied Marouna to Aitutaki, where, after a successful campaign, he settled down and became the progenitor of a tribe. The Mangaian story ends when Ue and Mataroi leave Mangaia. The advent of Ue occurred, according to Gill,95 between the two ovens that consumed the Ngati-Tane and the period of Te Rau, the third priest of Motoro. Ue, Marouna, and Te Rau were contemporaries. An Aitutakian pedigree of Marouna (Table 7), gathered in Mauke, shows his descent from Tangiia of Rarotonga as follows:
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 52
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 62
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 56
First edition, page 27
Table 7.- Pedigree of Marouna The genealogy of Marouna did not run down to 1900 but, working down from Tangiia in the 26th generation, Marouna is placed in the 17th generation. Table 3 shows that his contemporary, Te Rau, if worked back from Vaevae in 1900, would be in the 14th generation. In the two genealogies there is thus a difference of three generations, which is approximate enough. The Ngati-Tane recovered and increased in numbers. The Ngariki, however, still bore a grudge for Maputu. Kaveutu, now the leading chief of Ngariki, emulated the treachery of Ungakute by planning a second oven. The oven was prepared at Angaitu in the northern part of the island near the boundary line between the districts of Tavaenga and Karanga. With a lack of suspicion that is extraordinary, the Ngati-Tane again dug the oven. Gill, who saw the site of the oven, says that it was quite round, 48 feet in diameter, and deep.96 History repeated itself, and almost all the Ngati-Tane, men, women, and children, were slain in the second oven. The second oven at Angaitu figures as the tenth battle, and Kaveutu of the Ngariki became Lord of Mangaia. Those who were known to have escaped were Te-punga (priest of Tane), Te-vaki, and Te-Ko. Some inconsistency is apparent, for Gill97 gives this as happening in the period of Te Rau, third priest of Motoro, and states that Te-Ko was the wife of the famous Mautara.98 Mautara certainly married Te-Ko of Ngati-Tane, and Te-vaki was a contemporary of his. Mautara, however, was the great-grandson of Te Rau and became the sixth priest of Motoro. Both Te Vaki and Te Ko must have been very young at the second oven, or else the second oven occurred after Te Rau’s term of office. After the second oven, the Ngati-Tane were left with but two known males to continue the stock. Probably there were other Ngati-Tane of lesser note who survived.
Ngariki Supremacy It is recorded that in the battles against Te-Kama, though Tirango of the Tongaiti tribe was the leader of the war parties, the office of Lord of Mangaia was held by a member of the Ngariki
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 54
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 308
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 55
First edition, page 28
28 tribe:99 In the two ovens in which Ngati-Tane were slain, the actual leaders and subsequently recognized Lord of Mangaia were both members of the Ngariki tribe. After the second oven, trouble arose between the Ngariki and the warlike Tongaiti. The Ngariki were led by Ruaika, the fifth Inland High Priest. In a battle fought at Vaikakau in the Veitatei district, the Tongaiti were defeated and their leader, the famous Tirango, was slain. Probably because Ruaika held the position of hereditary High Priest, the position of Lord of Mangaia was given to Te-nau, another member of the Ngariki. After the battle Vaikakau, the eleventh battle, the Tongaiti sought revenge under the leadership of One. The twelfth battle was fought at Taaonga in the Veitatei district and Ruaika was defeated. Panako, a high chief of the defeated party, with forty warriors, took refuge in the cave of Tangiia, a cavern formed by the exit waters of Lake Tiriara. Gill states that the title of Lord of Mangaia was held by One.100 Much confusion concerning the Ngariki exists in the historical narrative of this period. It is evident from Gill’s account of Panako that the Tongaiti had been assisted in the battle against Ruaika by a section of the Ngariki which blockaded Panako’s retreating force in the cave of Tangiia and were evidently intent on annihilating them:101 A fence of stakes was driven into the lake bottom at the entrance of the cave to prevent the nightly excursions of Panako’s men in search of food. A strict guard was also maintained around the lake. Though Panako and One had been on different sides in the last battle, their ancestors had been on good terms. Panako, in desperation, determined to seek One’s assistance on the strength of the ancient friendship. On a wet day when the guards were keeping in shelter, Panako managed to get through the blockading fence and, disguised as a woman, eluded the guards. He reached One safely and was promised succor. Again Panako eluded the guards and reached his men to unfold the plan and the night fixed for the relief. In the consultation that ensued, it was decided that the next man in rank to Panako should offer himself as a sacrifice to Rongo to insure success. This happened to be Tiora, the priest of Tane, who was present among the fugitives. A contradiction is again apparent. Tiroa is listed as the priest of Tane immediately preceding Te-punga.102 Te-punga has been given as one of the fugitives of the Ngati-Tane who escaped from the second oven and also as a contemporary of Mautara, who does not come into the historical narrative until a much later time. It is evident, therefore, that Te-punga, Te Vaki, and Te-Ko were the offspring of people who escaped from the second oven and that they were not there personally. Tiroa accepted the supreme sacrifice demanded of him by going out openly the next day among his enemies and allowing himself to be slain. His body was laid on the altar of Rongo. His enemies did not realize that the victim had previously dedicated himself to a specific purpose that would lead to their defeat. The day after, One with his Tongaiti forces arrived at Lake Tiriara with the ostensible purpose of assisting in the blockade. They took up a position in a cave near the opening that led to Panako’s retreat. In the night they played the game of pitching wooden discs (tupe) and danced war dances
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 44-47
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 309
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 72-82
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 313
First edition, page 29
29 at intervals. Ngariki stragglers visited the Tongaiti cave from time to time to see what was going on. These men were promptly dispatched by One’s forces. Panako and his men emerged from their refuge with the bodies blackened and white bands of bark cloth wrapped around their heads to distinguish them. They joined the Tongaiti and assisted them in cutting off the Ngariki stragglers. The bodies of the dead were trampled down out of sight in the taro path known as Kumekume. In this way, the blockading force of Ngariki was largely disposed of and the remnant fled for shelter to the makatea. Gill says that this was the first time that the ancient tribe of Ngariki took refuge on the rocks.103 The battle is termed Kumekume, the thirteenth on the list. It occurred in the period of Te Rau, third priest of Motoro.
The reign of Akatauira In his list of battles William Wyatt Gill104 states that the tribe defeated at Kumekume was the Vaeruarangi under the chief Vete:105 The original Ngariki had by this time split into the three subdivisions, Ngariki, (Paparangi), Vaeruarangi, and Akatauira. Dissension had occurred among them, for some joined the Tongaiti against Ruaika. If the Ngariki and Vaeruarangi were grouped together as the people defeated at Kumekume, as Gill relates, Panako and his men must have belonged to the Akatauira division. Gill lists106 One as Lord of Mangaia after the previous battle of Taaonga, but he does not allude to him in this office in his longer story concerning Panako. After the Kumekume battle, One and Panako were grouped together as victors, but One evidently allowed the official title of Lord of Mangaia to go to Panako. He probably felt that it was more correct for the title to be held by one who came of the original Ngariki stock. Two more battles are listed as occurring during the Akatauira period of supremacy. The fourteenth battle was fought at Kouramaiti in Veitatei. The tribe causing trouble was Te-kama under the chief Mokora. The Te-kama tribe, supposedly almost annihilated at the eighth battle of Areutu, had evidently resuscitated. They were defeated by One, and the official rank of Lord of Mangaia was retained by Panako. The defeated Te-kama rallied under the chief Kotaa and fought the fifteenth battle at Te-papa in Veitatei. One was victorious and Panako retained the title of Lord of Mangaia a third time. From Gill’s account,107 it appears that a section of the Tongaiti tribe under Tauai and Te-karaka had been involved in the plot to secure the supreme chieftainship. It is stated that Tauai and Te-karaka were exiled by Aeru, a chief of the Vaeruarangi division of Ngariki. It is difficult to reconcile this possession of power with the previous statements describing the defeat of the Vaeruarangi by One and Panako at the thirteenth battle of Kumekume. However, Aeru consulted Paeke, who had succeeded his father, Te Rau, and become fourth priest of Motoro. Paeke, speaking oracularly for Motoro, recommended that the plotters be exiled and not slain. Tauai and Te-karaka with their families and adherents set off in two double canoes duly provisioned. Gill108 associates the Mangaian Te-karaka with a man of the same name mentioned in New Zealand tradition and thus deduces that the exiles safely reached the North Island of New Zealand. From
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 79
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 309
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 49-50
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 309
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 130
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 131
First edition, page 30
30 their contemporary, Paeke, priest of Motoro, to 1900 is 13 generations (Table 3). I do not know of any canoes that landed in New Zealand thirteen generations ago. The Tongaiti chief, One, won the three battles fought after his first battle against Ruaika, but he was magnanimous enough to allow the office of supreme chieftainship to be held by his ally, Panako, who was descended from the older Ngariki tribe. When the last battle of Te-papa took place, Paeke had succeeded his father Te Rau and become the fourth priest of Motoro.
The military rise of the Tongaiti The Tongaiti tribe had continued to occupy the southern district of Tamarua:109 Though they worshiped the lizard god Matarau, they were credited with deriving their military prowess from the god Tongaiti, who had been apportioned bravery (toa) and military enterprise (vaingaere) by Vatea. Though defeated in their first battle against the Ngariki shortly after their landing, defeat did not lessen their desire for military power. They produced war leaders of note in Tirango and One. The alliance between One and Panako had prevented their taking the supreme military chieftainship which One’s successful battles entitled them to hold. On the death of One, his nephew Ngauta succeeded to the military leadership of the Tongaiti. Te-karaka, sometimes confounded with the chief of that name exiled by Aeru in the reign of Panako, fomented trouble against Panako on the grounds that but for the Tongaiti he and his people would have starved in the cave of Tangiia. Ngauta assumed the leadership of the Tongaiti with the full intention of enjoying any power to which subsequent campaigns might entitle him. Ruaika, still holding the office of Inland High Priest, made another bid for military supremacy with his division of the Ngariki tribe. He fought the Tongaiti under Ngauta at the sixteenth battle of Te-rua-kere-tonga in the Karanga district. He suffered defeat and was killed by Ngauta. Among the fugitives was the original Mautara, who lived in the rocks and became a notorious cannibal.110 Ngauta after his victory assumed the title of Lord of Mangaia. The machinations of Te-karaka against Panako also came to a head. Panako, supported by Tata, was attacked at the seventeenth battle fought at Arakoa, in the Keia district. Panako and many of his tribe were slain by Ngauta, who thus settled his right to the supreme military chieftainship and assumed the government of the island. Thus the title of Lord of Mangaia definitely passed from the Ngariki tribe to the leader of the victorious party in war. Though Ngauta had definitely obtained the mangaia (office of Lord of Mangaia) at the battle of Arakoa, he evidently still had qualms about the official title, for he allowed a chief named Taia to exercise a nominal holding with him. Ngauta subsequently gained seven more victories and was regarded as invincible. His next battle was against the Teipe tribe which was a subdivision of the Tongaiti. The Teipe under Maruataiti were defeated in the eighteenth battle of Auruia in the Tavaenga district. After this, Ngauta seems to have dispensed with Taia and enjoyed the supreme chieftainship without assistance. The Akatauira division of Ngariki under Motu-oro tried conclusions at Iotepui (nineteenth battle) in the Tavaenga district and were defeated. At this time, Akunukunu had succeeded Paeke and become fifth priest of Motoro. The next battle (twentieth) was fought at Punanga in the Tamarua district. The. defeated people are given as the Tuma tribe under Tiauru.111 The Tuma were evidently a section of the Ngariki,
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 50-53
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 103-105
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 309
First edition, page 31
31 for Tuka’s war dirge112 shows that Tiauru was seeking revenge against the Tongaiti for his father who was buried in the taro patch at Kumekume where the Ngariki met disaster at the hands of One and Panako. Ngauta’s sixth mangaia was against the Ngariki at Te-rua-nonianga (twenty-first battle) in the Keia district. The Teipe tribe, after their disagreement with the Tongaiti at the battle of Auruia, had been united with it in friendly alliance. In the latter part of Ngauta’s sway, someone maliciously injured the yam vines growing in front of Ngauta’s house and fouled his drinking pool. Ngauta accused the Teipe and sent a challenge to their chief Are-pee. The battle was fought at Ikuari (twenty-second battle) in the Keia district, and the Teipe were routed. Among those who escaped was Inangaro, who, with some companions, took refuge in the cave of Tungapi. Their unfortunate betrayal is related by Gill in detail.113 Gill’s battle list114 gives Terea as recognized Lord of Mangaia by consent of Ngauta. This was Ngauta’s last success. He thus acquired seven mangaia but did not officially hold the last one. Ngauta was a powerful man, and the spear he used in battle was said to be 30 feet long. The end of the Tongaiti supremacy came about by an organized plot: Among the fugitives from the twentieth battle of Punanga were Kauate and his son Reketia, members of the Ngariki tribe. Though exiles, they had many friends who supplied them with food. One morning they slew the notorious cannibal Mautara who was foraging in a taro swamp. Akunukunu, priest of Motoro, had been slain by the Tonga-iti, and his son Rongo-i-mua held office as the sixth priest of Motoro. Kauate and Reketia were accustomed to pay visits to the priest of their god and hold conferences with him and Ngangati, a Ngariki warrior, as to means whereby the Ngariki supremacy could be restored. At these midnight meetings, the priest took to eating human flesh and was nicknamed Mautara, after the cannibal who had been slain by his visitors. One night under the influence of kava, Mautara informed his visitors that the supremacy of the worshipers of Motoro could only be restored if Kauate himself would make the supreme sacrifice by seeking a violent death at the hand of his foes. Kauate, to insure the success desired, purposely took a bunch of green bananas belonging to the enemy and buried it near at hand to ripen. Kauate was the tallest man in Mangaia, and the height at which the bananas had been wrenched off indicated the thief to the enraged owner. Search revealed the ripening fruit near at hand. On the fifth day, after the time required for ripening bananas, Kauate openly went to the pit, well knowing that the enemy would be on the watch. The father begged his son not to accompany him but to live. The son refused to leave his father, and both Kauate and Reketia were slain by their waiting foes. In this way the Ngariki were assured of the success of their subsequent plot, for the wishes of their god Motora had been complied with. This magnificent sacrifice by a chief of Kauate’s high rank is such an outstanding incident that the words of the fēte song composed by Tangarerua in commemorating the story are worth quoting:115 Reketia urunga i Kauate te ‘are o Ngariki. Kua motu koe ia Motoro, ka ta e - ! O Ngariki ‘oki te puanga. Pua i Tava’enga, o te Tikute, O Ngati-Marua:
Mataira Reketia slain at Mataira, Kauate, chief of the house of Ngariki, Thou art slain through Motoro, killed, That Ngariki might revive. Born in Tavaenga, [son] of Tikute, Belonging to the tribe from the Shades,
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 82
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 88-98
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 310
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 107
First edition, page 32
32 Te ivi matakeinanga ia Ngariki e No’o i Ivirua, kopu tangata o Motoro, Amu te tuarangi eEi tauka ia Ngariki, O Vaeruarangi au e -
[Head of] the people of Ngariki. He lived at Ivirua, the tribe of Motoro, Like Amu of ancient times. Prospective ruler of Ngariki, I am of Vaeruarangi.
Note: In the last line the singer states that he is of the Vaeruarangi division and thus claims kinship with the heroes of the song. In the plot carried out under the leadership of Ngangati all the enslaved Ngariki arose at a given time and slew their masters of Tongaiti. The surprise was successful. Ngauta was slain by his nephew, and thus the rule of the Tongaiti came to an end.
The restoration of the Ngariki The rise of the Ngariki consisted of a number of simultaneous murders, and though not dignified by a common name, it is counted as the twenty-third battle:116 The flower of the Tongaiti were slain and the tribe never regained prominence. Though Ngangati was the virtual victor, he allowed the mangaia to be held by Tuanui. Iro and Tuavera of the defeated tribe planned to kill the leaders of the Ngariki, but one Tia revealed the plot and the ambuscade failed. The plotters would have been put to death if the god Motoro speaking through his priest Mautara had not announced that “the sacred clothing of the gods must not be defiled with human blood.” As making the bark cloth known as tikoru mata’iapo, “as thick as cardboard,” for use in clothing the wooden images of the gods, the great chiefs, and the priests, called for a technique known only to Pati, the priest of the Tongaiti, the interpretation of the fiat of Motoro was that Pati could not be killed. The restriction was made to include his fellow tribesmen. Tuanui, in his position of supreme Lord of Mangaia, ordered that the remnants of the Tongaiti be exiled from the island. Two large double canoes were built in Tuavera. They were 60 feet long and were provisioned. The movable property of the exiles was also taken on board. During the whole time of preparation, the Tongaiti were not molested in any way. A farewell feast was given by their friends on the morning of departure. One canoe was commanded by Iro and Tuavera and the other by Akaina and Pati. Just before leaving, Iro called aside his nephew Are-kare and exhorted him to avenge his expulsion by splitting up the Ngariki into hostile factions. Are-kare’s mother was the sister of Iro, and Are-kare thus remained on Mangaia with his father’s tribe. Taora, who remained behind at the request of his uncle Manini, was slain by Tuanui as a sacrifice to Rongo. According to Rarotongan sources, the canoes reached Rarotonga and the exiles settled at Titikaveka on the southern side of the island, where their descendants are to be found to this day. Are-kare obeyed the wishes of his exiled uncle by deliberately stirring up strife among the chiefs of the Ngariki and so splitting them into jealous factions. After some years of Tuanui’s reign, Are-kare with a number of friends made a night attack upon those concerned in the expulsion of Iro. The killing of a number of people with powerful friends led the Ngariki to divide into two parties who sought battle at Maueue (twenty-fourth battle) in the Tamarua district. Tuanui, Are-kare, and others to the number of 60 warriors were slain. Among them was Ronga-ariki, whose father Una was an expert in carving and sennit work and who had arrived at Mangaia on a drift canoe from Tahiti.117 In the battle Rongo-ariki’s son, Rori, stood behind him, spear in hand, to fill his father’s place should he fall. In the rout which followed, father and son escaped to their house with pursuers hot on their trail. The father urged Rori and his other children to flee to the makatea. Rori escaped while his father nobly engaged the enemy and thus delayed their movements to give his son the start that carried him to safety. The expert skill of the master craftsman, Una, had been
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 53-57
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 222
First edition, page 33
33 taught to Rori, who occupied his many years of exile in the raei kere (black makatea) on the eastern side of the island in making stone adzes and other objects. This story of the “exiles” is given more fully by Gill.118 “Rori, the Hermit” is one of the popular stories of Mangaia.119 Tauii was the leader on the victorious side and he assumed the supreme chieftainship.120 Ngangati, the warrior chief of Ngariki, does not appear in the narrative on either side. The twenty-fifth battle was fought between the Ngariki under Ngangati and the Vaeruarangi under Namu at Ariki in the Veitatei district. The Ngariki were victorious and Ngangati assumed the title of Lord of Mangaia for the first time. Three days later121 another battle was fought by Ngangati against the small tribe of Tangiia on the same battlefield of Ariki (twenty-sixth battle). The origin of the Tangiia tribe is not clear, but they worshiped Tangiia, the fifth son of Vatea and Papa. The tribe lived on the shores of Lake Tiriara, where their marae was situated. A former priest named Tangiia had demanded from Marere, a former chief of the Akatauira division of the Ngariki, his little son to be eaten with his bowl of kava. To save his son, Marere poisoned the priest by mixing three vegetable poisons in his kava. Ngangati was a descendant of Marere. On taking up his abode in the district, he determined to exterminate the remnant of the Tangiia tribe, whose leader at this time was Tangi-kaara, a direct descendant of the priest Tangiia. Ngangati, therefore, called a feast at which kava was to be drunk and invited the Tangiia people to it. The kava was prepared, a host sitting by each guest. On the signal to drink, each Ngariki host seized his guest by the hair as he lowered his head and killed him. Tangi-kaara, however, refused to drink at Ngangati’s invitation. When Ngangati seized his hair, Tangi-kaara, a man of giant size and strength, ran toward the lake with his assailant clinging to him. As he was about to leap into the lake to drown his assailant with himself, Ngangati let go and Tangi-kaara escaped.122 This massacre was regarded as a battle and counted as Ngangati’s second mangaia. A third battle was fought at Ariki by Ngangati, and a tribe named Kanae was almost exterminated. There seems to have been some connection between the Tangiia and Kanae tribes, for they are grouped together in a death song composed by Koroa.123 Tangaka, the cannibal,124 was a member of the Kanae tribe and probably fled for refuge to the rocks after this engagement instead of an earlier one, as stated by Gill.125 These three victorious battles fought at Ariki by Ngangati firmly restored the Ngariki to power. The Ariki battles were followed by an attempt of the Tongaiti under Kotuku, father of Ngauta, to defeat the Ngariki. The battle took place at Te-au-papa (twenty-eighth battle) in Veitatei, and Ngangati added a fourth mangaia to his list. Another battle took place at Te-au-papa (twenty-ninth battle) in which the Vaeruarangi tribe under Kaoa tried conclusions and failed. This formed the last of Ngangati’s successes. He was regarded as a brave warrior and held the mangaia five
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 130-142
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 222-239
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 310
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 310
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 143-148
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 147
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 108-114
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 310
First edition, page 34
34 times. During their period of supremacy the Ngariki fought among themselves and twice against the Vaeruarangi who were descended from the same stock. The fall of the Ngariki was brought about by Akatara, a nephew of Ngangati. While his uncle was tending his yam vines one evening, Akatara killed him treacherously. Probably some of Ngangati’s closest supporters were similarly disposed of, for this incident is alluded to as a night surprise and the thirtieth official battle takes its name from Aua in the Keia district where the slaying took place. Akatara declared himself Temporal Lord and thus held the mangaia. Akatara’s chief adviser, Aro, was a man as treacherous as himself. Mau-tara, the sixth priest of Motoro, had a family of six sons of whom the first two were on the way to become warriors of renown. Aro told Akatara that if he wished to hold the mangaia for any length of time, he must dispose of Mautara and his two sons. A plot was hatched to murder them at a feast to which they should be invited.126 A woman named Karua overheard the plot. Her sister was married to Raumea, the second son of Mautara. The next night she slipped away from a fishing party, made her way over the makatea track, and reached Raumea’s house. Laying a large fish before Raumea, she told him it would be the last he would ever eat if he accepted the invitation to Akatara’s feast. She regained her party with a satisfactory explanation of her absence. When the food for the feast had been gathered, Aro went round with the invitations. Both Mautara and his eldest son Te Uanuku accepted, but when Aro reached Raumea’s residence he found Raumea with his foot bandaged up with rolls of bloodstained bark cloth. The story given was that Raumea’s foot had been pierced by the sharp, circular-edged shield guarding the hole of an ungakoa, a marine animal that is found on the coral reef. Aro expressed a wish to see the wound so the matted bandages were slowly unwrapped. Raumea, however, begged them to desist before the last layer was reached, as he was in great pain. From the dried blood and the offensive odor that arose from the bandages, Aro was satisfied that the foot was really injured and that Raumea could not attend the feast. He did not suspect that the blood was from freshly killed rats and that a decayed rat was included under the last layers for his deception. The guests duly arrived and the feast was postponed as long as possible on the chance that Raumea would turn up. Akatara and Aro realised that it was useless to kill Mautara and Te Uanuku while the warrior Raumea remained alive. As Raumea did not appear, the plot was deferred for another occasion. Mautara and his sons had had a warning, however, and their only chance of surviving was to dispose of Akatara. A return feast was accordingly prepared at Tapiti in the Keia district. As the Mautara family was small, they drew reinforcements from the fugitives of the previous battles who were only too eager for a chance to revive their fallen fortunes. The site of the feast was cleared, and banana and coconut leaves spread over the ground. Upon them the food was heaped, but weapons were concealed underneath. As the guests arrived, they were courteously invited to be seated, and the hosts arranged themselves to sit beside the individual guests. Akatara came last of all to make an impressive arrival befitting his high rank. As he approached, Te Uanuku advanced to greet him saying, “Ua ta’ata’a rava koe e tao i to mangaia.” (You are putting on overmuch style, O, Brother-in-law, with your rank.) The hosts were scraping taro with pipi shells and they awaited Te Uanuku’s next words as the signal for attack. Te Uanuku, as he approached Akatara, said, “Era te pipi ra, e mau.” (There are the pipi shells, grasp.) At the same time he seized Akatara by the hair and, jerking him to the ground, killed him. Simultaneously the hosts turned on their guests and slew them all save a single survivor. Among the supporters of the Mautara family was Kanune, the Shore High Priest. He had been supported in his elevation to the title by Mautara’s two sons, in order, as the astute father told them, that he might sound the drum of peace after their victories. Kanune and Raumea were both men of enormous strength. Before the attack, Raumea had on his right a guest of whom he was
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 160-167
First edition, page 35
35 rather fond. When the signal was given, he seized the neighbor on his left by the head and swung it under his left thigh under which he pinned him to the ground. He did not touch his friend but waited to see what he would do. When he saw him groping under the leaves for a weapon as he had seen the other hosts do, Raumea grasped him also by the head and pinned it to the ground under his right thigh. Kanune, having killed two men and seeing Raumea still seated with two struggling men, picked up his victims and throwing them in front of Raumea said, with a swaggering air, “O Raumea, mine are both dead.” Raumea killed his men, but Kanune’s words rankled in his mind. He saw that Kanune was boastful and would be a possible danger in the future. The massacre at Tapati ranks as the thirty-first battle, but it did not carry the decision of the supreme chieftainship, though Akatara was killed. It formed a preliminary skirmish to the battle that followed. Mautara mustered his family and their adherents and marched over with his small force to Ivirua to give battle to the Ngariki. The Ngariki, though dispirited at the death of Akatara, had mustered a large army which stood eight deep instead of the usual two or four deep. This gave rise to the expression, koapa kaka’o (like the reeds in the walls of a house). The Ngariki were under the command of Ruanae. Though the Mautara party was small, both Te Uanuku and Raumea were tried warriors who had proved their prowess at the battle of Maueue. The Ngariki preliminary war dance shook the ground, but Mautara coolly exhorted his men, informing them that it was either victory or the cooking ovens. The usual formation in battle was for the two sides to arrange themselves opposite one another in parallel lines. Owing to their small number, however, Mautara’s force advanced down the slope in column and suddenly fell upon the enemy center, cutting them in two. After a desperate battle, the Ngariki were defeated and the fugitives with Raunae sought shelter in the Cave of the Tern (Te Ana Kakaia). The opening of the cave is some distance up the cliff side and can be approached only by a narrow track, thus rendering it impregnable to attack.127 This defeat of the Ngariki is listed as the battle of Arira (the thirty-second in Mangaian history). In this battle the official priest of Motoro occupied a unique position, fighting against his employers. The Ngariki, on the other hand, could not kill Mautara, as they would have forever cut themselves off from communication with their tribal god. Mautara himself knew this and went through the battle without a weapon but with an enormous coconut leaflet fan. Gill128 states that the tribes defeated in the battle of Arira were the Tuokura and the Teipe. The Tuokura may have been a section of the Ngariki, and some members of the Teipe division of the Tongaiti tribe may have been present. The main forces, on the enemy side, however, were Ngariki, who were determined to avenge the death of Akatara and retain their military supremacy. After their defeat, the mangaia passed to the victors. Mautara himself preferred to remain priest of Motoro, and the supreme chieftainship was conferred on his eldest son, Te Uanuku. Through the miscarriage of Aro’s plot to murder Mautara and his two sons, this priestly family not only ended the military power of the Ngariki but also forced upon themselves the acceptance of the temporal power that had by this time become identified with military success.
The rise and fall of the Ngati-Vara The rise of the Ngati-Vara was detailed by Peter Buck:129 The family to which Mautara belonged were known as Te Amama (The Open-mouth), from the opening of the mouth of their ancestor Papaaunuku when the god Motoro took possession of
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 166-167
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 310
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 53-57
First edition, page 36
36 him.130 The name referred to their priestly functions. As a social group they were known as Ngati-Vara, through the acceptance of Vara, the son of Papaaunuku, as their eponymous ancestor. The Ngati-Vara were evidently the only tribe that managed to preserve genealogies until the post-European period, when they were written down by Mamae. Two lines, springing from two sons of Mautara, have been given in Table 3 as a chronological record. Mamae, in his introduction to the full Ngati-Vara genealogies, sketches the origin of the tribe from Papaaunuku. After describing the priestly functions of Papaaunuku, whose father and mother were not known, he goes on: Tera te ingoa o ta Papa-au-nuku va’ine, o Te Rangi-ti’a. Anau mai ra a raua puke tamariki tokorua, e tamaroa teta’i, e tama’ine teta’i. Tapa i’ora te ingoa o te tamaroa, o Vara-i-te-manuku. Tera te aite anga o tona ingoa, e “au manga,” e mangakai nei. O te aite anga ia o te manuku. Nona te ingoa i taiku’ia i nunga i te kopu tangata ra e, e Ngati-Vara. The name of Papa-aunuku’s wife was Te Rangi-tia. Their group of children born were two, one a boy, one a girl, The name given to the boy was Vara-i-te-manuku. The meaning of his name was “food,” a portion of food. That is the meaning of manuku. His was the name that was given to that tribe, the Ngati-Vara. Tera te ingoa o tona tua’ine, o Rangi-rutua. Kua rave i’ora a Vara i nga va’ine tokorua nana, o Tonganui te in-goa o teta’i, o Raurau te ingoa o teta’i. The name of his sister was Rangi-rutua. Vara took two wives for himself, Ton-ganui [being] the name of one, Raurau [being] the other. ‘Anau mai ra ta te va’ine mua tamariki, toko’a. Tera to ratou au ingoa, o Te Rau te tama, o Te Ni’a, o Tuarau, o Nga’ae te openga, e puke tamaroa. The children born from the first wife were four. Their names were Te Rau the first-born male, Te Nia, Tuarau, Ngaae the last, a group of boys. ‘Anau mai ta tata’i va’ine ta Raurau, e tamoroa, o Te-ivitu te ingoa. ‘Okota’i ‘ua ra ana. One only [was] hers. Borne by the other wife, by Raurau, [was] a son, Te-ivitu [being] the name. Kareka o te ‘anau a Vara nei, kua mate eta’i toko’a, ua taia e te Ngati-Tangiia, e te Ngati-Tonga’iti, e te Ngariki ‘oki. But of the family of this Vara, some died, numbering four, killed by the Tangiia tribe, by the Tongaiti and by the Ngariki also. ‘Okata’i ‘ua tei ora mai, o Te Rau, e te metua ‘oki o Vara. Only one survived, Te Rau, and the father also, Vara. Ua vai’o’ia e Ngariki ei pi’a atua no ratou. [They] were spared by the Ngariki as a priest for them. Kareka o Te Ni’a, e Tuarau, e Nga’ae, e Te-ivitu, ua taia ratou. I taia i Tangikura i teta’i nga’i i te tapere o Veitatei. O ta ratou ia ta’ua puruki o ratou anake ua mate i’ora a Te-ivitu, pue’u rikiriki eta’i i te ra’ei i te makatea. Thus Te Nia, Tuarau, Ngaae and Teivitu were killed. [They were] attacked at Tangikura in a part of the district of Veitatei. On their battlefield, Te-ivitu was killed, the others fled to the rocks in the makatea. E tae ake ra i teta’i tuatau, kite atu ra i teta’i nga’i, o Mangonui te ingoa, tei te tapere i Tamarua. Taia i’ora e mate atu ra. ‘Aere atu ra a Vara i te kimi aere i te ‘anau ma te aue ia ratou.
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 57-73
First edition, page 37
37 On reaching a certain time, [they were] seen at a place, Mangonui by name, in the district of Tamarua. [They were] struck down and died. Vara went to search for his family and wailed for them. E tae atu ra a ia i teta’i nga’i o Tuauko te ingoa, tei te tapere i Kei’a, no’o i’ora i reira ma te ‘akuru i teta’i puakapa nona i runga i teta’i tua’ivi maunga ma te aue ‘ua ra i te ‘anau, no te mea kare ratou. When he reached a place called Tuauko, in the district of Keia, he stayed there and raised a shelter for himself on a ridge of the mountain and he wailed for his family because they were no more. Mari ra o tana tama mua ‘ua tei ‘akaora’ia e te kopu Ngariki, ko ia ‘oki Te Rau, e te matua katoa ‘oki o Vara. Ua mate e toko’a. But his first-born son alone was spared by the tribe of Ngariki, namely Te Rau, and the father also, Vara. Four were killed. Tera te pue i ‘atua no te ‘anau a Vara, no Va’arua i ‘atu: This is the song composed for the family of Vara, composed by Vaarua: Tanumia i Nukuroa te toa, i kotia e tupeke ia Mautara, O te ivi o Tu e - ‘Ae. Planted was the ironwood at Nukuroa and cut down to drive out Mautara of the tribe of Tu-e-Ae. Kauero te ra i Uira, ua tangi mai a Nga’ae i te uru kainga i te tapere ‘Ae. The sun rises over the hill of Uira, Ngaae weeps for his home and the district [of Veitatei]. No’o mai Vara i Tuauko Vara remains at Tuauko, ‘Ua reka tana moe i te ‘anau tei te ra’ei kere. His sleep is sound but his family are in the black rocks. ‘Akaronga atu e Te Ni’a e e te tangi o te tai. O Te Nia, listen to the sound of the sea. Note: The reference to the sun rising over the hill of Uira conveys to the composer and his hearers the picture of the fugitive Ngaae watching, from his refuge in the rocks, the sun rise over a hill in Veitatei where their home was situated, and brings up the poignant grief for the home and the land which they will never occupy again. Similarly, Vara sleeps the comparative sleep of safety which his sons in the black rocks will never more enjoy. All that is left to Te Nia is to listen to the sound of the waves over which he will never more ply his canoe in safety. E tae ake ra i te tuatau i no’o va’ine ai a Te Rau, o ‘Uitau te ingoa o tana vaine. ‘Anau mai ra ta raua tamaiti, o Pa’eke. O Amo ta. Pa’eke vaine. ‘Anau mai ra te raua, o Anukunuku te tama, o Te’ora te tua’ine. When the time was reached that Te Rau married, Uitau was the name of his wife. Born was a child to them [two], Paeke. Amo was Paeke’s wife. Born to them [were] Akunukunu, a son, [and] Teora, [his] sister. Riro atu ra a ia e va’ine na Rurae. No roto ia tangata i te kopu o Manarangi. ‘Anau, ai ta raua tamaiti, o Mana’une te ingoa. Koia ‘oki tei karanga’ia ra e o te kopu o Mana’une. She [Teora] was taken as a wife by Ru-rae. That man belonged to the tribe of Manarangi. Born was their son, Manaune [was] his name. Hence was named the tribe of Manaune. E tae ake ra i te tautau i no’o va’ine ai a Akunukunu, o Kura-pe’au tana va’ine.
First edition, page 38
38 E tama’ine na Te Rangai, o Te Vaki te tungane, o Te-moea’u to raua metua va’ine, o te va’ine ia a Te Rangai. E tama’ine a Moea’u na Ivi. No roto a Ivi i te kopu o Tonga’iti. When the time was reached that Akunu-kunu married, Kura-peau [was] his wife. [She was] a daughter of Te Ran-gai, Te Vaki was her brother, Te-mo-eau was their mother, she [being] the wife of Te Rangai. Te-moeau was a daughter of Ivi. Ivi belonged to the tribe of Tongaiti. E tama va’ine te Ngati-Vara i roto i te Ngati-Tane. The Ngati-Vara were connected on the female side with Ngati-Tane. Note: Except in adoptions, the children belonged to the father’s tribe but were termed tama va’ine to their mother’s tribe. Thus Ivi was a Tongaiti and his daughter, Te-moeau, was also Tongaiti. Te-moeau married Te Rangai of Ngati-Tane, and their daughter Kura-peau was a Ngati-Tane. Kura-peau mrried Akunukunu of Ngati-Vara and their children were Ngati-Vara but were tama va’ine to the Ngati-Tane through their mother Kura-peau. The Ngati-Vara as a tribe were said to be tama va’ine to Ngati-Tane because Kura-peau was the mother of Mautara, the most famous of the Ngati-Vara and from whom the tribe really spread out. E tae ake ra i te tuatau i ‘anau mai ai ta Akunukunu ia Kura-pe’au, koia ‘oki Mautara. When the time arrived that a child by Akunukunu was born of Kura-peau, then it was Mautara. O Te-ko ta Mautara va’ine. ‘Anau mai ra ta raua ‘anau tokovaru tamaroa, to-korua tama’ine. Te-Ko was Mautara’s wife. Born was their family, eight sons, two daughters. Tera nga tamaroa: o Te Uanuku, te ki-komua, o Rauhea, o Ikoke, o Karaea, o Takurua, o Karorau, o Kakina, o Ngara. These are the sons: Te Uanuku, Raumea, Ikoke, Karaea, Takurua, Karorau, Kakina, Ngara. I mate uki ‘ua Karorau e Kakina. Itaia e te tamaki i te po. Karorau and Kakina died without issue. They were slain in a fight at night. Tera nga tama’ine: o Kura-pe’au te ‘ine, o te ingoa o tona metua, va’ine ra; o Te-uoro. These are the daughters: Kura-peau, the eldest daughter, named after her mother, Te-uoro. Ka ta’inga’uru te ‘anau a Mautara te ka-toatoa. Tera te pe’e i ‘atua no nga tokovaru a Mautara. No Koroa i ‘atu. Tera te tumu: The family of Mautara was ten in all. This is the song composed for the eight [sons] of Mautara. Koroa composed it. This is the theme: Teia te vao ra e ngati ra ia Raupo, This is the valley that forms a tribe at Raupo, Nga tangata i Te Tuapoto ia kai ake to ‘anau e - Taipo e. The men of Te Tuapoto [subdistrict] who enabled the family to eat [in plenty]. O Ngara koe i Te Rimu-kura, O Ngara, thou art at the Rimu-kura. Nga tokovaru i te anaunga a Te-Ko, e The eighth born of Te-Ko. ‘Ae e.
First edition, page 39
39 Raumea pa’a, o Te Uanuku Raumea and Te Uanuku, Nga tama i mua a Mautara, The first-born sons of Mautara, Ka tupu e [The tribe] will increase from Te-Ko. O a Te-puakato e Note: This song contains the reference to the commencement of the Ngati-Vara greatness through the eight sons of Mautara. The vao (valley) was, according to Mamae’s notes, a valley of men who formed the ngati (tribe). Raupo, Te Tuapoto, and Rimu-kura are place names associated with Ngati-Vara, and Te-puakato was another name for Te-Ko, the mother of the eight. It is clear from the genealogy given by Mamae (Table 8) that as the four brothers of Te Rau were killed in the third generation, in the sixth generation Mautara was the sole male of the Ngati-Vara stock. The first two battles against the Ngariki were fought when Te Uanuku and Raumea were grown up and married. Te Unauku was married to Tangitoa, the sister of Akatara, whom he slew. Mautara and his sons formed the nucleus of a group recruited from the defeated members of other tribes, for the Ngati-Vara, as a tribe of blood kinsmen, did not develop sufficient numbers to make themselves felt until the second and third generation after Mautara. However, of the mixed group which conquered the Ngariki at Arira, Mautara supplied the brains and his two warrior sons the leadership and personal valor in battle. Though defeated at Arira, the Ngariki refugees in the Cave of Terns were too numerous for the country to be at peace. Though Te Uanuku held the mangaia, he could not order the drum of peace to be sounded until he had forced another more decisive battle to consolidate his position. The forces of Ruanae remained in the Cave of Terns by day and sallied out at night to forage for food and to cut off stragglers. They avoided a pitched battle and waged guerrilla warfare. Among the refugees in the cave were Mautara’s aunt Teora with her husband Rurae and their son Manaune. Women often accompanied their husbands into exile, though they were not molested by their own tribe should they be the conquerors. Manaune (Table 8) was a Ngati-Vara on his mother’s side and first cousin to Mautara. His father, however, being on the enemy side, made the son an enemy also, and his life was not safe from the conquerors should he fall into their hands. His mother, realizing that the defeat of her husband’s party was only a question of time, determined not only to save her son’s life but at the same time to provide for his future: She accordingly made her way by night with her son to Mautara’s encampment in the west. Entering Mautara’s hut, Teora, after paying her respects to her nephew, begged him to adopt her son into his tribe. Mautara consented and after seeing her on her way back to the Cave of Terns to recover her property there, Mautara and Manaune returned to the camp. According to Gill,131 the news of the adoption had got about, and as they were sighted the armed warriors made a dash toward them and fought a mimic battle in honor of the occasion. My informants say that Te Uanuku and Raumea, on sighting Manaune, dashed up with the intention of killing him. Mautara, however, shouted at the top of his voice, “Spare him that he may cut grass with which to floor your houses.” A show of attack ended the affair. The sons of Mautara were always suspicious of Manaune and made disparaging remarks about him, for they felt that in any battle he would side with his father’s tribe.
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 196
First edition, page 40
Table 8. - The Descent of Mautara During the period preceding the adoption Raumea had put the Inland High Priest, Kanune, to the test: Raumea sent one of his younger brothers ahead of him into Kanune’s plantation when he knew the owner would be there and told the boy to pick a bunch of bananas in the sight of Kanune. The boy did so, and Kanune, after reviling him, threw him into the adjacent taro swamp. As the boy was crawling out, Kanune pushed him back with his foot. Raumea arrived on the scene and demanded an explanation. Words led to blows, as Raumea had planned. They were the two strongest men in Mangaia at that time. Raumea killed the priest. When Mautara heard of it, he was very angry with Raumea, saying that misfortune would come upon him as he had angered the gods by slaying that which the gods had commanded him to set up. The fugitive tribe of Ruanae, after months of cannibal feasting on the stragglers they could cut off, determined to pay a visit to the Tamarua district to get a supply of coconuts. Ruanae traveled at night to pick the nuts at the light of dawn. The day before, Te-Ko, wife of Mautara, had had a waking dream in which she repeated the words, “Te kere puru i au tamariki tei A ‘atea.” (The fallen chestnut flowers of my sons are at Aatea.) She went on to say, “Aua e oro re poke.” (Do not grate provisions.) Mau-tara regarded his wife as a medium through whom her god Tane-ngaki-au spoke on occasion. He was accustomed to interpret her sayings. He thus considered that the fallen chestnut flowers referred to the number of the enemy and that they would be gathered at Aatea in the Tamarua district. The injunction not to scrape taro for food indicated haste. That very night Te Uanuku and Raumea, accompanied by the newly adopted Manaune, set off with an armed force for the Tamarua district. In the early morning, while advancing stealthily over a ridge at Puke-o-toi, they espied the forces of Ruanae engaged in gathering coconuts. Some were up in the trees hurling down the fruit, and others were busy on the ground husking the nuts on pointed stakes. Manaune, in his haste to prove himself, dashed over the hill to kill the first man. According to Gill,132 the father of Manaune had already fallen in battle, but my informants maintained that the first man that Manaune found descending a tree was his father, Rurae. Rurae, realizing his hesitation in staying his hand, said, “Kill me quickly that your adoption may be sealed with my blood.” Manaune slew him and in a fit of frenzy at what he had done performed prodigies of valor. Ruanae’s forces were cut off from their weapons, which they
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 193
First edition, page 41
41 had stacked together in one place. Those in the trees fought by hurling coconuts down on their enemies, and those on the ground fought with the pointed husking sticks of green wood. However, a decisive victory was gained, and so many were killed in this thirty-third battle of Puku-o-toi that the tribe of Ruanae ceased to be a menace to the rule of Te Uanuku. The drum of peace was sounded after the sacrifices to Rongo, and an era of peace commenced. Manaune, suffering from the psychological effect of his patricidal act, was said to have been demented for some time as a manifestation of the anger of the gods. He finally rose to a high position in the favor of Mautara and was granted the rule over a district. From him sprang the Manaune tribe which was to be afterwards instrumental in wresting the supreme power from the descendants of Mautara, the man who had saved Manaune from death. The great Raumea was wounded in the thigh with a green husking stick. The wound became infected, and Raumea died from a trivial hurt that was rendered fatal by the anger of the gods at his slaying of Kanune. The short rule of Te Uanuku, the first of the Ngati-Vara Lords of Mangaia, was beneficent, and the people enjoyed some two years of peace and prosperity. It was ended by an act of human frailty. The story, based on the narrative by Gill,133 is as follows: Te Uanuku had a love affair with the wife of Raei, a secondary chief of the Ngariki. Raei discovered his wife’s misconduct but he could not himself attempt to kill Te Uanuku, as they were both worshipers of Motoro. He drew public attention to his wrongs by acting as one demented in parading the district of Keia with a red hibiscus flower stuck above his ear. This, in Mangaia, was an insult to the gods and had resulted in the slaying of the supreme lord, Te-aio for a similar offense. Mautara, who would have taken steps to punish the offense, questioned Te Uanuku as to the cause; on hearing the truth, he refrained from action. After some time, the trouble seemingly died down. Raei, however, had planned revenge by plotting with Kikau and the Tongaiti people to kill Te Uanuku. Te Uanuku returned from Keia to his home in Te Ivirua and on the very night of his arrival he was killed by Kikau and his men. Kikau thereupon gathered a large force on the northern end of the island with the intention of crushing Mautara’s party and obtaining the mangaia for Raei. They marched over the hills into the Keia district and took up a position at Aua. Meanwhile Mautara had been warned. He crossed the hills with members of his family to Ivirua to secure the corpse of his son, which he hid. He then gathered recruits for his army, most of them being obtained from his ancestral district of Veitatei. His total force was much inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. In Kikau’s army a private conference was held by three influential men, Namu, the official Ruler of Food of the island, Manini, a great warrior, and Parae, the priest of the Tongaiti tribe. Manini asked whom they should pity, Mautara or Raei. Namu at once replied, “Te atua” (the god), meaning Mautara in his capacity as priest of Motoro. It was thereupon plotted that Parae should warn Mautara that night in order that he might make a sudden attack in the early morning before the hungry army of Raei could have their morning meal. The three friends, with their adherents, were to attack Raei’s troops in the rear. The priest did not go, but he delayed the feeding of the troops by ordering a set feast. The taro had to be grated instead of cooked whole. The preparations for the feast thus delayed the meal for some time. In the midst of the preparations, Mautara and his small army appeared descending the hill above the encampment. The priest Parae saw at a glance that the path by which Mautara was descending would lead him onto dry ground where the full weight of Raei’s superior numbers could be hurled into action. As all faces were turned toward Mautara’s force, Parae from his position at the back could not be observed. He therefore waved with his hands to catch Mautara’s attention, and having secured it, signaled for Mautara to change his course and approach on the rear of one
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 209-213
First edition, page 42
42 flank. This Mautara did, with the result that the lie of the taro patches prevented the full force of the enemy from becoming engaged against him at the same time. In the midst of the battle, the three friends who had maneuvered their forces into position without being suspected suddenly attacked on the rear. The army of Raei was caught between two forces without chance of escape. In the slaughter that took place, Raei was killed and Kikau captured. Victory once more smiled on Ngati-Vara. Kikau was taken before Mautara and asked why he had killed Te Uanuku. Torture, which is not common in Polynesia, was resorted to. After the question, a finger was cut off with a sharp piece of stone. The same question was repeated until the fingers, toes, hands, feet, and limbs were in turn severed. To each question, the unfortunate Kikau replied, as long as he could, “Kua ‘e i a Ra.” (I erred through Raei.) This, as Gill remarks,134 became a saying. A human sacrifice was offered to Rongo on the same day, but the drum of peace was not sounded until after the funeral ceremonies connected with Te Uanuku had taken place. Both Te Uanuku and Raumea, the warrior sons of Mautara, being dead, Mautara himself took the mangaia, thus combining temporal power with his priestly office. In the redistribution of lands which always followed a battle, Namu, Manini, and Parae, who helped materially to decide the day, received ample reward. With regard to the favorable attitude of the three plotters towards Mautara, it is easy to understand Manini’s action, for he was married to Mautara’s two sisters. Namu, after a previous battle, had been pursued by his enemies of the Tongaiti and had for months concealed himself in the makatea. His wife had become a servant to Mautara. Mautara, on learning from her that Namu was still alive, had restored him to his hereditary office of Ruler of Food in the period between the battles of Arira and Puku-o-toi. For conducting the religious ceremonies in connection with his office he had been rewarded with three subdistricts of land. At the time of Te Uanuku’s death, he was still under Mautara’s protection. He probably found himself with. Raei’s army because his own division of the Ngariki had mobilized with the others of that tribe. How they fought on the battlefield was subject to their own chiefs. Namu’s gratitude to Mautara thus influenced his reply. The action of Parae is not so clear. Parae was priest of the remnants of the Tongaiti who were deeply involved by Kikau’s slaying of Te Uanuku. He was evidently a great friend of Manini and Namu, and Namu’s reply that their sympathy should undoubtedly be with the medium of the god must have appealed very strongly to another priest. Mautara is regarded as the wisest and most sagacious priest and leader that Mangaia produced. His wisdom is illustrated by the manner in which he discovered the murderer of his nephew, Raumea. Raumea, not to be confounded with the warrior brother of Te Uanuku, was treacherously murdered on the summit of Rangimotia, the central peak of Mangaia. The reason of the murder is not clear. The story runs: Moerangi, a son of Tokoau, seeing Raumea descending one of the paths from Vei-tatei on his way to Ivirua, arranged his own rate of progress so as to meet him near the summit of Rangimotia. As Raumea passed, Moerangi threw a sennit rope noose (puao‘uru) over his head so as to imprison his arms. Raumea was rendered helpless and was killed. Moerangi drew the corpse under some ironwood trees and covered it with dead leaves. Raumea was missed, and as he had not arrived at Ivirua foul play was suspected. Moerangi, to divert suspicion from himself, made the announcement that if the body was found in the valley the murderer might be himself, but if found on the mountain, then the murder was committed by Ue-vai and Tanga, high chiefs of Paparangi against whom he nursed a grievance. When the body was found on the mountain, Mau-tara sent for Ue-vai and Tanga and charged them with the murder, which they strongly denied. As they realised that Mautara still suspected them, the two chiefs imbedded two large stones upright in the ground before Mautara’s house as an everlasting monument that they spoke the truth. These two rocks are still to be seen 134
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 212
First edition, page 43
43 firmly imbedded. Mautara accepted their action as absolute proof of their innocence. Mautara now turned his attention to the accuser, Moerangi, whose plan had miscarried. Moerangi lived at Tamarua. At the same place dwelt Parai, a noted man of learning ( ‘are korero). This was probably the priest of Tongaiti whose assistance had saved Mautara at the battle of Aua, for though Gill spells the name “Parae,” it should, most likely, have been “Parai.” Mautara sent a woman to Parai to ask him if he could shed any light on the murder of Raumea. Her instructions were that if Moerangi was present, as he most likely would be, she was to listen to Parai but secretly to watch Moerangi’s face during the interview. The woman duly arrived at the house of Parai, where she also found Moerangi. After due greetings, she made known her embassy. Parai immediately said, “Have not Ue-vai and Tanga been charged with the killing?” “Yes,” replied the woman, “but they have proved their innocence by imbedding two upright stones before the house of Mautara.” Parai bent down his head in deep thought. He had reason to suspect Moerangi, but Moerangi was his kinsman. If he evaded with a lie, his reputation as an ‘are korero was at stake. When at last he raised his head with the determination of telling the truth, Moerangi, seated at an angle towards the side of the woman and anxiously watching Parai, felt that he was going to voice his suspicion. Unknown to the woman, as he thought, he caught the glance of Parai, closed his eyes, and bent his head as a signal not to tell. Parai had opened his mouth to speak but he hesitated and then lamely said, “I do not know anything.” The woman returned to Mautara, who asked, “What did you hear?” The woman said, “Parai says that he does not know anything.” “Now,” said Mautara, “what did you see?” The woman replied, “After I had told him of the innocence of Ue-vai and Tanga, Parai bent his head and remained silent for some time. He finally raised it and opened his mouth to speak, but out of the corner of my eye I saw Moerangi frown, whereupon Parai hesitated with open mouth and said he knew nothing.” “You have done well,” said Mautara, “Moerangi was the slayer of Ramuea.” The subsequent punishment of Moerangi is told elsewhere.135 Mautara is supposed to have ruled more than 25 years and to have lived until his teeth dropped out through sheer old age. Much land was planted for food, and it was said that “the chestnut trees fruited on the trunks as well as the branches” - a figure of speech used to denote a period of plenty. No battles occurred. As Gill says,136 the enormous fan and ornamented staff took the place of spear and club. Mautara composed the following chant: Ua purukia e a ‘u tamariki My sons fought battles E maraerae io Mangaia o -. That brought peace to Mangaia, Ka ‘aere ‘ua ra to raua metua. So that their father walks about in peace. During Mautara’s rule, his cousin Manaune prospered and became rich in land and authority. Rori, the grandson of the Tahitian craftsman, Una, had, since his escape from the twenty-fourth
See: 160
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 212
First edition, page 44
44 battle of Maueue, been living in the makatea. Much romance surrounds the story of Rori,137 for the technical skill of his grandfather in carving, sennit work, and working stone had been handed on to him. When he escaped, he took with him some of the original red parrakeet feathers that Una had brought from Tahiti. His father had deliberately sacrificed his own life that his son might escape and the family knowledge of craftsmanship might be transmitted to future generations. In the makatea Rori built himself two houses thatched with birds ‘ nest ferns (rau-kota ‘a), as hala was not available. He made stone adzes but used banyan bark in place of the unobtainable coconut husk fiber. He snared birds and stored up a quantity of feathers for headdresses. From stalactites, he made food pounders. Thus, by means of his craft knowledge, he whiled away the many years of his exile and accumulated much valuable property. On one occasion he left the makatea and joined with the cannibal tribe of Ruanae in the Cave of Terns, but having been warned by a friend that it was proposed to eat him, he again escaped to his home in the makatea. He made sandals of banyan bark to protect his feet from the sharp coral points. On several occasions he was seen and pursued, but his extraordinary fleetness of foot, combined with the use of sandals, made his escape easy. On one occasion he was surprised with his sandals off. He dashed away with them in his hands and, after gaining a little distance, managed to put them on. He then turned to his pursuers and told them to go back, as he had his sandals on. The phrase, “Kua mau nga tamaka o Rori” (Rori has his sandals on), became a saying. The drum of peace sounded after many battles, but Rori had learned to distrust both friend and foe. Manaune and a companion, going down to the beach, surprised Rori where he was making a meal from the scrap of food discarded by a woman’s fishing party. As Rori was about to flee, Manaune recognized him from their previous meeting in the Cave of Terns. Manaune called to him to stay and carve his god for him. The craftsman’s interest was aroused and Rori paused. After hearing that Mautara was ruler, and the whole island at peace, Rori accepted Manaune’s offer. He thus returned to civilization and was given land and a home in the Ivirua district. The replica of the gods housed in a marae in Keia had been burned and Rori was given the work of reconstruction. During Mautara’s lifetime six of his eight sons had produced issue and they in their turn had produced families. In the sixth generation from Papaaunuku, the Ngati-Vara consisted of one male, Mautara. In the seventh generation it consisted of eight males, making nine with Mautara. The eighth generation assembled 24 more males, and the ninth generation added 92 males. The Ngati-Vara increased in strength and became an actual tribe. They held the power in Mautara’s time and the one or two generations following, not because of their numerical strength but through mobilizing other families and groups to their assistance. After the death of Mautara from natural causes, war broke out. Gill states138 that the new generation wished to avenge the slaughter of their sires. Aiteina states that the battle of Tuopapa (thirty-fifth) in the Tavaenga district was fought between the Ngati-Amai and a section of the Ngati-Vara. The Ngati-Amai were said to come from Rarotonga and desired to make a bid for supremacy. They were under the leadership of Uarau. In the battle Ikoke, the third son of Mautara, was killed. Both his son, Potiki, and grandson, Koroa, were present and seem to have ruled the Ngati-Vara forces. The Ngati-Amai were defeated, and Potiki called to his son Koroa, asking who should have the power ( ‘Ei a ‘ai te ‘au?). Koroa replied, “Ei ‘Uarau.” (Uarau.) The father consented, so Koroa pursued the fleeing Uarau, calling upon him to wait (E ‘Uarau no ‘o mail). Uarau fled the faster, but Koroa gained on him and shouted, “E tu mai!” (Stand!) As Uarau came to a standstill Koroa approached him and cried, “‘Amama mai to va ‘a.” (Open your mouth.) Uarau obeyed, and Koroa spat into his open mouth, thus transferring to him the power ( ‘au) of the winning side. Uarau was subsequently invested with the supreme temporal power, which he held on the
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 222-239
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 213
First edition, page 45
45 sufferance of the Ngati-Vara. Aiteina could not explain why the fruits of victory should have been handed over to the defeated side, but probably there was some political cause that has been forgotten. Uarau’s warrior support (toko) was Manini. This Manini was probably the man who had married Mautara’s two daughters and who had supported Mautara at the thirty-fourth battle of Aua. He was subsequently murdered by Moerangi at the instigation of Potai, who wished him out of the way, as he was aspiring to power. Uarau had a short reign of about two years. He decided to hold a feast (takurua) on the central peak of Rangimotia. Ngara, the last son of Mautara, who had succeeded his father as priest of Motoro, regarded the idea as an act of excessive pride ( ‘akangateitei) in elevating himself above those who had held similar positions. Uarau, at his command, was peacefully deposed from his position by the Ngati-Vara - “I pukea mai te mangaia ia ‘Uarau.” (The mangaia was taken away from Uarau.) A woman named Ike was laid on the altar of Rongo as the sacrifice, and Ngara became Lord of Mangaia without a battle. The title was thus held in order by the eldest son, the father, and the youngest son. Ngara, like Mautara, held both the temporal office of Lord of Mangaia and the religious office of priest of Motoro. He had a peaceful reign of about 15 years139 and died of natural causes. In order to follow the manner in which the mangaia passed to various members of the Ngati-Vara, the main lines of descent from Mautara are given in Table 9.
Table 9. - Ngati-Vara Holders of the Supreme Temporal Power After the death of Ngara, Te Ka, a son of Raumea, became priest of Motoro. It is related that Koroa, grandson of Ikoke, wished a woman named Te-umu-kura to be married to Te Ka, but the woman was frightened of him because he had very prominent eyes. She fled and took refuge with Tongia, son of Karaea, who eventually married her. Tongia returned from fishing with a pu ‘i eel which he handed over to his wife, and then went off to wash his nets and bathe himself in fresh water. While he was away, Te Ka and a younger brother who had been watching from the Ara-kiore track on the inner cliff of the makatea in Keia descended and came to the house. The woman, thinking that the visit was an ordinary one, welcomed them, saying, “Come and sit down while I cook for you the pu ‘i eel caught by your relative.” The younger brother had a short weapon concealed in a wrapping. He came up to the woman and killed her. Tongia, on his return, found his wife slain and saw the murderers ascending the Ara-kiore path. He called to them challenging them to wait for him and, seizing his club, was about to dash off in pursuit, 139
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 213
First edition, page 46
46 when a cousin persuaded him to desist as it was near night. Subsequently Tongia found that his section of the Ngati-Vara would not assist him in killing Te Ka and his brother. He therefore sought assistance from the Tongaiti tribe and with them attacked Te Ka’s family and supporters at the battle of Te-opu (thirty-sixth) in the Karanga district. On the opposing side was Kirikovi, whom Gill says140 was the grandson of Mautara. If so, he must have been the son of Manini who married Mautara’s daughter (Table 9), for he does not appear in the male lines from Mautara. In the battle, Marokore, son of the Te Ka, was the toko of Kirikovi. Marokore personally engaged his second cousin Tongia and killed him. The Tongaiti were defeated, and the supreme power passed with Marokore’s consent to Kirikovi, who was a tama va ‘ine (female line) to Ngati-Vara. The first victim selected to cement Kirikovi’s office was Arauru of the Teipe tribe. When he was placed on the marae of Rongo, Uanuku, a scholar and member of the winning tribe, objected so strongly to the recitation of prayers over the body of his relative that they were not completed. A second victim without powerful friends was selected in Maruata, also of the Teipe tribe. This man, in spite of the promises of safety, was enticed out of his cave of refuge and killed. He formed the “fish of Rongo” which legalized Kirikovi’s accession to the title of Lord of Mangaia. Any doubt as to Kirikovi’s being tama tane to one of the Ngariki tribes is removed by Korea’s song for Maruata.141 In speaking of the promises (erepua) of safety made by the victors to Maruata, he says: Atuia mai taua e! Pae atiati Ngariki e!
All alas! soon broken by Deceitful, lying Ngariki.
Kirikovi’s rule lasted about five years. During Kirikovi’s term of office, Captain Cook appeared off the coast of Mangaia in March 1777.142 Mourooa, who went aboard the “Resolution” and whose picture, drawn by the artist Webber, appears in Cook’s Atlas, was identified by Gill143 through native informants as Mourua, a friend and relative of Kirikovi. He afterwards took the name Kavoro. Mourua told Cook, through the Tahitian interpreter Omai (Mai), that the chief of the island was “Orooaeeka.” Leaving out the definite article O, which Cook invariably attached to proper names, the word becomes “Rooa-eeka,” which is the exact pronunciation of Ruaika. Ruaika II was the ninth High Priest of the Interior and was thus holding the senior High Priest’s office at the same time that Kirikovi held the secular power. Kirikovi was among those who swam out to the boats, and he received from Cook a metal ax which was afterwards used for slaying the human victims selected as a sacrifice to Rongo.144 Captain Cook was known to the Mangaians as Tute, and his Tahitian interpreter as Mai. Gill145 recorded a song used in a pantomime description of Captain Cook’s visit which was composed by Tioi and formed part of an entertainment organized by Poito, a chief of the Ngati-Vara. Both Tioi and Poito died before the advent of Christianity. About this time a seemingly trivial incident led to the defeat of Kirikovi and the transfer of the
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 213
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 307
Cook, James, A voyage to the Pacific Ocean, 1776-1780, 3 vols., 2d ed., London, 1785, vol. 1: 170-173
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 244
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 265
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 251-258
First edition, page 47
47 mangaia to his brother, Pai.146 A stone thrown in the dark struck Kaiau, brother of Kirikovi, on the chest. Some time after, the culprit, Toe, confessed to his friend Paoa that it was he who had thrown the stone that struck his father Kaiau. Kaiau, learning the name of the offender, wished to kill him but was restrained by the fear of disturbing his brother’s reign. However, he made his son promise never to ally in marriage with Toe’s family in order that he might wreak his vengeance later should opportunity occur. Paoa, with his wife and sister, went to live in another part. He forgot his promise to his father and allowed his sister to marry his friend Toe. When Kaiau heard what had happened, he was furious with his son and ordered him to leave the island. Paoa sulked over his father’s words, and, in spite of the protestations of his wife and friends, he paddled out to sea in a small single canoe determined to leave the island alone and forever. A number of relatives, hearing the news, put out to sea in their small canoes to overtake the fugitive and bring him back. Among them was Te Ivirau, the twelfth High Priest of the Shore. The wind changed and the sea became rough. When night fell, no canoes had returned. The people ashore set fire to the dry undergrowth on the mountain as a beacon. In the middle of the night, several canoes returned with the news that the foremost canoes had almost overtaken Paoa when a huge wave capsized the boats and drowned both the pursuers and the unfortunate fugitive. Kaiau, hearing of the disaster which had drowned prominent men as well as his son, became frantic with grief. He took the name Pai (Voyaging-canoe) to commemorate the death of his son. He determined on a plan of revenge to kill, first of all, Toe, whom he blamed for the whole misfortune. He called in his cousin, Mourua, and their followers went on killing until the people ranged into two parties, one supporting the temporal lord Kirikovi and the other his brother, Pai. A fratricidal battle was fought at Taukuara (thirty-seventh battle) in the Keia district. Kirikovi was defeated and Pai declared Lord of Mangaia. Before the marae ceremonies could be completed, Mourua was killed at night in a surprise attack carried out by Kirikovi and his friends. The reasons for the selection of Kirikovi and Pai as temporal Lords of Mangaia are not clear. The Ngati-Vara were still powerful and had not been defeated in battle. Tongia fought as an individual with the Tongaiti because his own section of the Ngati-Vara would not espouse his cause against another section of the tribe. Evidently the battle between the two brothers, Kirikovi and Pai, was a family affair which concerned their own divided tribe. The leader of the winning force automatically took office as Lord of Mangaia after the religious ceremony. The powerful Ngati-Vara looked on while the office of ruler passed temporarily out of their hands. A train of events, however, took place which was to force them again into the fighting arena. Potai, a nephew of Namu, the Ruler of Food, was an ambitious man of one of the Ngariki tribes. He had engaged in the various minor engagements during the campaign of Pai.147 Potai was utterly unscrupulous and began removing people who might stand in his way to supreme power. By pretending a mortal sickness he induced his uncle Namu and the great warrior Manini to visit him. While in his house, both were slain by a party of Tongaiti whom Potai had invited to carry out the murders. Though he could not shed his tribesmen’s blood during peace, he held his uncle by the hair until the Tongaiti slew him. This disregard for the claims of kinship is referred to by the poet warrior Koroa in a lament for Namu.148 Mamae’s manuscript describes the events leading to a change of regime: In the division of the Ngariki owing to the struggle between Kirikovi and Pai, Potai had ranged himself on the side of Kirikovi. He plotted the death of Mourua, or Kavoro, as he was the chief supporter of Pai. Before the murder Mourua was encamped with a party
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 275-282
See 12: 283-285
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 158
First edition, page 48
48 of friends at Avarua for the purpose of fishing. In the party were Te-aki and Vaitumu of the Te-aaki tribe and also Rautoa, son of Ikoke by his second wife Mika and a prominent member of the Ngati-Vara. Rautoa was a learned man (‘are korero) devoted to the services of his god (e tangata miri atua) Tane, though most of the Ngati-Vara had changed to the worship of Te-Aio. Potai wished to be rid of Raittoa because of his status in the Ngati-Vara. The Ngariki, recognizing that the god Tane was in Rautoa (tei roto i a ia taua atua ra o Tane), were also inimically disposed to Rautoa, for they had maintained an inherited animosity to the Ngati-Tane which included any followers of the god Tane. In the plot laid against the members of the fishing party, Potai had especially exhorted his men to be sure to include Rautoa in the killing. Kirikovi, who was related to Rautoa on his mother’s side and had also a personal friendship for him, came to him secretly at night (‘aere poiri) and warned him not to sleep at Oneroa or he would be killed. The next day Rautoa visited his half-brother Potiki and his kinsmen Te-Ka, Te-pa, and Uri-aute in the Veitatei district. They had a family feast with the drinking of kava. Rautoa’s farewell words to Uri-aute were “E Uri e, nga atua!” (O Uri, the gods!) The farewell indicated that he was prepared to die for his god, and was also an exhortation to his kinsmen to remain faithful to the gods even though death threatened. He pressed noses with his kinsmen and returned to Oneroa. That night the Kirikovi section of the Ngariki under Potai attacked the fishing camp, and Rautoa, Mourua (Kavoro), Te-aki, and Vaitumu were slain. The same night Kaukare, a leading chief of the Ngati-Tane, was killed in his home at Tamarua. Takurua of the Ngati-Vara was also killed. These killings not only prevented the carrying out of the ceremonials connected with the mangaia of Pai, but they precipitated a wider conflict. The Ngati-Vara under the leadership of Potiki, son of Ikoke by his first wife, took the field to avenge the murder of Rautoa. The force of Potai numbered 200 (rau); that of Potiki was only 120 (ono takau). The battle was regularly arranged and took place at Akaoro in the Keia district: The field (ta ‘ua) was cleared of bananas and shrubs, and the Ngati-Vara drew up into position. The day was well advanced and Potai made no move to place his men in position opposite the ranks of Ngati-Vara. Te-Ka, a son of Potiki, thereupon taunted Potai, saying, “Pota ‘i oi, e a ‘a ai e roa ai?” (O Potai, why is it so long?) To this Potai replied, “Vao ‘o ra o taua anatu ma ‘ie ‘ua ra, ia karo ke i te ra. O te ra e ‘opu atu, o au atu ia.” (Let our meeting wait a while that the sun may be gazed upon. The sun that sets may be me.) Potai’s premonition of the setting of his life was realised, for in the engagement that followed he was slain by Potiki. The battle of Akaoro was the thirty-eighth in Mangaian history and by it the Ngati-Vara regained the supreme power. The rule of Pai automatically ended without his having been properly inducted to office. Potiki, the leader of the victorious force in the last battle, became Lord of Mangaia and was regularly inducted. Gill149 places the date as somewhere about 1787. The rule of Potiki extended over a prosperous period. Toward its end it was broken by jealousies among the leading families of Ngati-Vara. The tribe split into two factions, the leader of one being Marokore, a son of Te-Ka, who had succeeded his uncle Ngara as official priest of Motoro. Marokore was a warrior of note, having been the prop of Kirikovi in his first campaign. Old grievances were remembered against the Tongaiti tribe and a number of them were killed. The depleted tribe planned a surprise midnight attack on the Ngati-Vara, but the plot was revealed by a woman and failed. The remnants of the Tongaiti took refuge in the cave of Tautua in the Tamarua district, where they were safe, as the entrance could be reached only by a ladder. The Ngati-Vara, enraged by the plot against them, resolved to exterminate the Tongaiti. They could not carry the cave by assault, but they blockaded the entrance. Their only sustenance was that brought by the wives and relatives who were allowed to visit them. The Ngati-Vara, however, determined on extermination, began searching all visitors and depriving them of any food concealed in their belts 149
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 311
First edition, page 49
49 or long hair. In spite of a little food which came in through a secret passage at the back of the cave, the Tongaiti were being starved to death. They became so weak that they could hardly keep guard at the mouth of the cave. On one occasion an enemy named Terake climbed up the ladder at night and killed the sleeping guard, Ngakau-varaea, with the iron ax that Captain Cook had given Kirikovi. Another fugitive named Matenga was saved by his wife, who was a sister of Raoa, an influential chief in Keia.150 Now and then a refugee was caught while searching for food. The bodies of the slain were collected and sun dried. When they had accumulated to about 50, they were taken and offered up on the marae of Orongo, on the coast. At last the governing tribe decided to put an end to the fighting by electing Maro-kore as supreme ruler. An official human sacrifice to Rongo was needed. A warrior armed with Captain Cook’s ax climbed up the ladder to the Tautua cave and killed Ngutuku, the sleeping guard. The remaining survivors within the cave were too weak to offer any active opposition, so the body of Ngutuku was thrown down the cliff and borne off as the sacrifice to Rongo. The rule of Potiki ended thus, and the mangaia passed to Marokore without any definite battle. The drum of peace was sounded and the few survivors of Tongaiti were saved from extermination. The rule of Marokore was evidently of short duration. Aiteina states that the next battle was due to a land squabble. Komata, a son of Te Tonga of Ngati-Tane, had been awarded the chieftainship over the district known as ‘the Pauru-o-Rongo-i-katau (Tamarua). He wished to add to it the district of the Pauru-o-Rongo-i-kaui (Ivirua). This desire was opposed by the section of Ngati-Vara under Koroa, the son of Potiki, and supported by Marokore, the Lord of Mangaia. The two sections of Ngati-Vara met at the battle of Te-atu-apai (thirty-ninth) in the Ivirua district. Marokore was killed and the mangaia passed to Koroa, the leader of the victorious section of Ngati-Vara. Koroa was a great poet as well as leader, and many of the death chants composed by him are recorded by Gill. He was also a tirango (expert) responsible for providing the knowledge and ceremonial in connection with fishing and was said to be absolutely fearless on the sea. According to Aiteina, considerable jealousy was aroused in the families of the younger sons of Mautara, Karaea, Takurua, and Ngara. Though a dispute had occurred between the senior Raumea and Ikoke families, the junior families began to envy their senior cousins, not only because of their power over the lands but because they had a greater share of women, owing to their success in war. Vaarua, a son of Ngara, thereupon stole Poroiti, a wife of his nephew Koroa, the supreme ruler. Vaarua was promptly evicted from the land he held at Oaki in the Veitatei district. A second cousin named Vaangaru, descended from Tukurua (Table 8), saw him weeping and asked the cause. Vaarua replied, “Ua tangi i te marumaru ko ‘atu i O ‘aki.” (I weep for the shade of the rocks at Oaki.) Vaangaru repeated the saying to his elders and they explained that the words referred to the eviction of Vaarua. Vaangaru determined to restore his cousin to his lands by arms and raised a force among the dissatisfied junior families. To obtain success, a man named Ika-kona was killed at Tamarua as a sacrifice to Rongo. The body was carried to the official marae of Akaoro in the Keia district, but as Koroa lived in the intervening district of Veitatei, the body was taken around the back of the island through Ivirua so as to avoid any chance of interference at Veitatei. Koroa, however, appeared at the marae and taunted his junior cousin, Vaangaru, on his immaturity with the words, “To ure piapia.” (Your glans penis [is still covered] with smegma.) The taunt conveyed the idea that Vaangaru was so young that he had not yet gained experience in sex matters, let alone aspiring to fight. Vaangaru replied with considerable spirit, “E ure piapia ‘ua ra ia e a ‘u taeake, noku ra ia teia kai ‘ara.” (I may only have such a penis, O my relatives, but the victory in battle will be mine.) Koroa asked where the battlefield (vai tamaki) should be and the answer was at Rangi-ura in Veitatei. The Ngati-Vara was thus involved in another intra tribal war (tamaki kopu tangata). On his side 150
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 291
First edition, page 50
50 Vaangaru enlisted Makitaka, a grandson of Ikoke by his second wife Mika. Makitaka, who had succeeded Te Ka as priest of Motoro and was ninth priest from Papaaunuku, was probably jealous of Koroa, who was descended from Ikoke’s first wife, and saw an opportunity of wresting the power from his senior cousin. In the battle of Rangi-ura (fortieth), Koroa was defeated. According to Gill151 he was killed, but Aiteina maintains that he was not slain until a later battle. The power thus passed to the younger branches of Ngati-Vara, and Makitaka was elected supreme ruler. Makitaka’s rule lasted about three years and was marked by a season of famine. Discontent grew up among the people, and his reign ( ‘au) was referred to disparagingly in song. Te ‘au o Makitaka, E ‘au kai tuitui.
The reign of Makitaka [Was] a candlenut-eating reign.
Makitaka was deposed, without battle, by a combination of two tribes that had been increasing steadily in numbers while the Ngati-Vara were being torn by intra tribal warfare.
The resurrection of the Ngati-Tane The Ngati-Tane had been almost exterminated in the second oven (umu ti) that inaugurated the rule of Kaveutu:152 Of the three named survivors, Te-Ko married Mautara and her Ngati-Tane blood was absorbed into Ngati-Vara. Te-punga, priest of Tane, was killed by the Ngariki and offered as a sacrifice to Rongo by Tuanui, the Ngariki supreme ruler. Instead of casting the body into the bushes at the back of the marae of Orongo, after the ritual the Ngariki cut the head off, cooked and sent it as a food present to Mautara. Mautara, though the official priest of the Ngariki god Motoro, himself worshiped Tane. The action was intended to show Mautara that the god he represented was more powerful than the god he served. The Ngariki virtually told him to eat his own god. Te-vaki, a learned man and adept in the use of weapons, was now the sole male survivor of the Ngati-Tane, and only through him could the tribe be resurrected from the dead. He took upon himself the position of official priest to Tane and devised the scheme by which Mautara avenged the insult offered by the Ngariki and at the same time avenged the death of his own priest. Mautara, while officiating in the marae of Motoro, took kava and announced that Motoro required a great sacrifice from his worshipers. The voice of Motoro, issuing from the mouth of Mautara, demanded that on a certain day the leading Ngariki families should sacrifice and eat their firstborn in honor of the god Rongo. Against the command of the god there was no possible appeal, and the fearful sacrifice was carried out. Thus Mautara avenged the insult with interest, for not only were the Ngariki forced to sacrifice their dearest, but actually to eat them, whereas Mautara had not eaten the head of Te-punga and could himself come to no harm, for the command was given by Motoro and not by the priest. The hatred of Ngariki against the worshipers of Tane was now directed against Te-vaki and his four sons. Te-vaki and his four sons were hunted from refuge to refuge, and finally all the sons were killed. Te-vaki hid in the fastnesses of the Tavaenga makatea, but at last, in desperation, he sought out Mautara at night. Mautara sent his two eldest sons, Te-uanuku and Raumea, to convey Te-vaki at night to a cave in Putoa where he was left with a supply of provisions. Sometime afterwards, Mautara’s sons brought Te-vaki back to Mautara’s house, as the enemy had begun to suspect that the fugitive was hidden in Putoa. As priest of Motoro, Mautara had part of his house curtained off with a screen of bark cloth (pa tikoru), which recess was sacred as the sanctuary of the god. Te-vaki was concealed within the pa tikoru, where he was safe from any attack by the Ngariki.
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 311
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 73-76
First edition, page 51
51 The place of refuge eventually became known and armed men kept watch near the house in the hope that Te-vaki might venture forth. Even Toko-au, Mautara’s military supporter, urged the advisability of killing Te-vaki. Mautara remained firm in his protection, and his power is indicated by the fact that Te-vaki remained in safety for a year in the curtained room though his armed foes were constantly prowling round seeking his destruction. When the supreme temporal power passed from the Ngariki to the Mautara family, Te-vaki emerged from his refuge and enjoyed safety in the peaceful reign of Mautara. He was given land and became a man of influence. While Te-vaki was being hunted in the makatea after the death of his four sons he had the desire to continue his family line. Te-vaki decided upon the daughter of a chief named Te-rangi-tataia as a suitable person for the mother of his child. He caught a fish to provide a material form of approach and hid himself in a grove of bamboos beside the water spring near the girl’s home. When the girl, Te Kura-a-rou, came to the spring for water, Te-vaki showed himself and held up the fish. Kura-a-rou took the fish back to her father, and then returned to the spring to ask Te-vaki what he wanted to say to her. Te-vaki proposed to her that she should have a child by him to continue his line. She replied, “What is the use? As soon as it is known that the child is yours, it will be killed.” Te-vaki said, “You must conceal the fact that I am the father by attributing the parentage to someone else who is not hated.” The girl consented, and in due time a male child was born. The child was named after the front-hanging end (taumua) of the loin girdle (maro) of his mother’s father, hence Taumua-maro-i-te-Rangi-tataia. When sufficiently grown, he was spirited away by Te-vaki, who placed him under the protection of Mau-tara. He grew up under the shadow of Mautara with Mautara’s sons and was taught the use of arms by Te-vaki. When Te-vaki’s son, Taumua, grew up, the question of continuing his line came up. Mautara told Taumua to go in to Itia, a girl in the retinue of his wife Te-ko, at night, and if the girl resisted slay her. Te-ko, who liked the girl and did not wish her to suffer violence, instructed her that if a man came in to her at night and placed his hand upon her breast, she must not scream or resist. She was to grasp his wrist and draw him down beside her. Itia carried out instructions and became with child. The child born was a girl and was named Amaraa. She grew up and married Tuka, a Ngati-Vara descended from Raumea. Her offspring thus became Ngati-Vara. Taumua married a second wife named Keukeu by whom he had male children from whom the true Ngati-Tane of the present day are descended. Confusion exists as to authentic Ngati-Tane pedigrees from Taumua. According to my Ngati-Vara informants, the Ngati-Tane were reinforced by a later tribe from Rarotonga named Ngati-Amai. The Ngati-Amai are somewhat disparagingly referred to by the older tribes as no te pa‘i mat (from the voyaging canoe) so as to stress their more recent origin. The mixed Ngati-Tane and Ngati-Amai are thus inclined to conceal their Ngati-Amai descent and attribute it all to Ngati-Tane stock through a son of Taumua. Tamangaro, a blind Ngati-Tane, gave me a couple of pedigrees which neither Aiteina nor Akaeakore accept. Akaeakore gave a pedigree (Table 10) showing his own descent on the Ngati-Vara side and indicating the males from whom the Ngati-Tane are descended.
First edition, page 52
Table 10.- The descendants of Te-vaki Note: As in the type genealogy (Table 3), Tuka appears in the tenth generation. Though Makitaka, the deposed temporal ruler, appears with Koroa in generation 9, making the allowance between senior and junior lines, Tuka and Makitaka were contemporaries. Tamangaro gave Te-tonga, a prominent chief, as the son of Taumua and his first wife Itia, but this is strongly denied by my Ngati-Vara informants. They held that Te-tonga did not descend directly from Te-vaki but is to be ascribed to Ngati-Amai stock. Be this as it may, Te-tonga produced, a powerful family, which played a significant part in the Ngati-Tane and Ngati-Manaune alliance. His children are here listed:
First edition, page 53
Makitaka, as priest of Motoro, was succeeded by Tereavai (Table 10), the son of Tuka. It is thus evident that the Ngati-Tane, who rose up against Makitaka, could have consisted of only one generation of people, or, in other words, of the sons of Taumua and his second wife, Keukeu. The Ngati-Vara contention that the Ngati-Tane were strongly reinforced by another tribe seems correct. Cross marriages between the descendants of Te-vaki through Taumua and the Ngati-Amai has led to their fusion into one tribal group.
The growth of the Ngati-Manaune The term manahune was applied in Tahiti to the common people:153 In Hawaii, the menehune were stated to be a people of short stature, skilled in stonework, who occupied the islands before the advent of the more dominant families from Tahiti. In Mangaia, the Ngati-Manaune were a definite tribe showing descent from an eponymous ancestor, Manaune. The term does not refer to a grade of society or a distinct early wave of settlement as in Tahiti and Hawaii. Manaune had been adopted by his cousin Mautara. His father, Rurae, was descended from Tama-keu, who belonged to the Manarangi family in Rarotonga. According to my informants, Tama-keu chanced to come to Mangaia on a canoe voyage planned to carry him to Raiatea in a canoe newly made at Kiikii. In the evening Tama-keu and some young men decided to give the canoe a trial trip around the island of Rarotonga. They started from Avarua, but off Matavera a parapu wind sprang up that was too strong to tack against. The canoe ran before the wind and made for Mangaia. On picking up the west coast of that island, the wind veered to the tokerau and the canoe had to sail round to Ivirua in the north to make a landing. The canoe came ashore through the Ovarea channel in Karanga-nui. Women who were torching on the reef took the men inland. As they were few in number and unarmed, their lives were spared and they became associated with the Ngariki tribe. The Tama-keu story looks like a variation of the story of Tamaeu recorded by Gill.154 The points of difference are the absence of the letter k in the name, the canoe coming from Aitutaki, the landing on the south side of the island, and the later return of Tamaea to Aitutaki. The story illustrates, at least, how new blood was infused into the population. The importance of an ancestor depends upon the status and numerical strength attained by his descendants. I must frankly confess that I do not think the genealogy in Table 11 is correct. It is about three generations too short. Mautara and Manaune were first cousins and thus on the same genealogical stratum 6 as shown in Table 3. Tangi-Vaipo in generation 10 (Table 11) marries Vaa-kai-tamaki in generation 14 (Table 3) with the result that the child Au-metua is 13 generations
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 76-78
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 240-242
First edition, page 54
54 on the Manaune line and 17 on the Ngati-Vara line. Furthermore, Revareva, whose other name is Pangemiro, is given as a younger brother of Manaune. If it was necessary for Mautara to adopt Manaune in order to save his life, it should have been necessary for him to adopt Revareva also, yet there is no record of such an adoption. Revareva could not live through the long reign of Mautara in the sixth generation and then supplant Makitaka, who lived three generations later. The eight sons of Manaune and his wife Takina were a source of fighting strength to the new tribe and were poetically referred to as being bound together like a coconut leaf torch. ‘Ua ruru a rama te ‘anau a Takina, Ko Pute ra ko Ma ‘aru, Ko Vaipi ‘a ra ko Vaitumu, Ko Tukuta ‘a ra ko Vaekava, Ko Te- ‘a ‘aki ra ko Nau, I te rurunga i te Mana ‘une.
Bound together as a torch are the family of Takina, There are Pute and Maaru, Vaipia and Vaitumu, Tukutaa and Vaekava, Teaaki and Nau, in the binding together of the Manaune.
All these sons were given shares of land in 5 of the 6 districts of Mangaia after the accession of their uncle Revareva to the supreme rulership. There seems little doubt that Revareva, or Pangemiro, was a younger brother of Manaune and that the generations following the two brothers in Table 11 are correct. What has evidently happened is that a Manaune of a later period has been identified with the Manaune who was the contemporary of Mautara. Between the two Manaunes about three generations have been omitted.
Table 11. - The Manaune Descent The descent from Rurae and Tamakeu of the Manarangi family is referred to in song celebrating Revareva’s accession to power. Rurae metua ia ne ‘e, la ‘anau ia Revareva, la pua ake i Karanga. O Te Oro ‘una na tinainga i te vai uru. Ei Manarangi au e. Ka mau Miro e te rae.
Rurae, father of old, From whom was born Revareva, Who grew up in Karanga. Te Orouna was the extinguisher in battles. Descended from Manarangi am I. Pangemiro secures the supreme power.
First edition, page 55
55 Some difference of opinion exists concerning the identity of Te Orouna in Table 11 with the person mentioned above. It is maintained by some that Te Orouna of the genealogy never took part in any of the battles and therefore could not be the extinguisher (tinainga) referred to in the song. Tangi-Vaipo naturally takes up the other side and holds that the song refers to his grandfather.
The ngati-Tane and Manaune alliance While the Ngati-Vara were fighting among themselves and quarreling with sections of the Ngariki, the Ngati-Tane and Manaune families enjoyed a respite from persecution:155 As both Te-vaki and Manaune enjoyed the protection and friendship of Mautara, the Ngati-Vara had no active animosity toward these growing families. Furthermore, Mautara worshiped Tane and in spite of the subsequent transfer of allegiance to the god Te-aio it is evident from the incident regarding Rautoa (p. 70) that a section of the Ngati-Vara continued to worship Tane. In the providing of human sacrifices to Rongo, the Ngati-Tane also enjoyed a respite, for the Ngati-Vara turned their attention to the Tongaiti as victims and almost exterminated that tribe. The Ngariki, split by the dissensions between its three sections, were in an unorganised condition. When the dissatisfaction against the “candlenut rule” ( ‘au kai tuitui) reached its height, Makitaka, the last supreme ruler of Ngati-Vara, found himself opposed by the leading families of Manaune and Ngati-Tane, who owed their very existence to the clemency of the great Mautara. The Manaune families were under the leadership of Revareva, the younger brother of Manaune. Of the mixed Ngati-Tane and Ngati-Amai group, a leading family was that of Te-tonga. Of his sons, Arokapiti was a prominent warrior. Two of his daughters, Tungane and Kie, made marriages which brought male children into the group on the female side. Tungane married Poito of Ngati-Vara, and the sharing of children resulted (Table 12).
Table 12.—Genealogy of Te-tonga Of the family of 7 sons, 4 remained with the father and 3 went to the mother’s tribe. It was not explained why the first and second sons both went to the mother’s share, as one would have expected the eldest son to remain with the father. Both Motuanga and Pakuunga became a
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 76-78
First edition, page 56
56 source of strength to the Ngati-Tane. Another important marriage was that of Kie to Atatoa, a chief of Keia and a member of one of the Ngariki divisions (Table 13).
Table 13.—Genealogy of Paeke Iramata was given in Mamae’s manuscript as a sister of Akunukunu of Ngati-Vara. Kaunio, during the faction fights between Ngati-Vara, became bitterly opposed to Atatoa for supporting the section opposed to him. Kie, fearful that the enmity against the father would be directed against her children, persuaded her family to adopt her children, Mura-ai and his brothers, into the Ngati-Tane tribe. Thus when Kaunio attacked and slew both Atatoa and his father Tukua, the children of Atatoa remained safe from attack. Kie was a very handsome woman and was referred to in song as te tau ‘inu para o Marua (the fair-leaved tauinu of Marua). Marua is the place where the Atatoa family lived in Keia. Kie displayed the greatest courage in remaining beside Atatoa during the attack and carrying her mortally wounded husband from cave to cave in her attempt to save his life. The other section of Ngati-Vara came to the succor of Atatoa, but too late to save his life. To requite the kindness of those who had tried to save him, Atatoa, before he died, gave one of them, Kapua, the authority over the makatea in the Keia district. Koroa and Tuka, who were both in the section of Ngati-Vara supported by Atatoa, composed laments to his memory. In the lament by Tuka, reference is made to the adoption of Kie’s children into the mother’s tribe.156 Na ‘ai ra e ranga? Na Tamarua, na Metua-iviivi, Na tama va‘ine ia Tane e! E Mura-ai aura koe e vavao e !
Who shall obtain revenge? Tamarua and Metua-iviivi, The children allotted on the female side to N‘Tane! Kia ‘u‘una atu ite mata ra i te metua e - O Mura-ai never forget, Thy father’s face was hidden away. Note: Tuka, the poet, evidently looked upon Kie as belonging to the Ngati-Tane tribe. The revenge referred to was for the death of Atatoa. By the adoption of Mura-ai and his brothers the Ngati-Tane was further strengthened. Arokapiti, the third son of Te-tonga, was a leader of the Ngati-Tane. Parima was also a leading chief. The
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 299
First edition, page 57
57 priest of Tane was Vaekura. The political alliance of Manaune and Ngati-Tane forced the abdication of Makitaka. Makitaka was deserted by the chiefs who had formerly accepted him. Revareva, the leader of the Manaune, was selected as the temporal lord, and he succeeded Makitaka without any opposition in battle from the divided Ngati-Vara. He could not take office, however, without a human sacrifice to Rongo. The Manaune held a meeting in their district of Karanga. They consulted their priest as to who should be the sacrifice, and their god, speaking through the priest, said, “O Teata.” A Manaune warrior named Te Orouna announced that he would secure the victim. Te Orouna, however, was diverted from the immediate quest of the victim through an amour with a Ngati-Tane woman. Day dawned without his having secured the victim. Since then his family have been taunted as failing in achievement through being deflected to sex matters. The delay, however, enabled Ngati-Tane to hear of the Manaune meeting. Arokapiti sought further details from the Manaune but was everywhere told, “Kare mau i reira.” (There is nothing for you there.) The Manaune wished to do without the services of Ngati-Tane in securing the sacrifice, as it influenced the distribution of land which was to follow. Arokapiti, however, found that the victim nominated was to be Teata who lived in Tamarua. On the next night, when the Manaune warriors arrived at Tamarua, they were immediately joined by Arokapiti and some of his warriors. The hut of Teata was found to be empty. Teata had left his residence and was staying in a house built on poles in a taro swamp. That same evening Teata, his sister’s son Rokoia, and another relative had been rehearsing songs and discussing the prevailing famine. According to Gill (6, p. 303), Teata, who belonged to one of the tribes dedicated to providing victims for sacrifice, patted his own head and said, “Could they only get this (as an offering) the gods would send plenty again.” Rakoia, on returning to his own hut, met the searching warriors. As he foresaw a reward in land for information regarding the victim, he led the way to the place where Teata was staying. A race took place among the warriors as to who should be first to slay the “fish.” One version states that Arokapiti entered the hut first and killed Teata. Another version maintains that the first spear to enter the body of the sleeping victim was that of Ararua and the second that of Mauria, a son of Revareva. Be this as it may, Arokapiti insisted that the victim be carried to the marae in Keia by the direct route on the right side of the island and not by the longer route through the Manaune territory in Ivirua and Karanga. The victim was thus carried through Arokapiti’s territory, and his share in the proceedings could not be overlooked. The victim was laid on the marae that night and thus ushered in the rule of Revareva, who took the new name, Pangemiro. According to Gill,157 the date was about 1814. The feelings of Makitaka at his desertion and the loss of his temporal authority were expressed by the poet Tuka. A portion of the song recorded by Gill (6, p. 314) is given below, but I have departed from his translation. Ua riro rai Mangaia rai e te ‘au Ua ‘e ia Makitaka, O te ivi koia i ‘akamoea i e! Teipoi arire riro ake ra Mangaia e i te rave. la Makitaka te ua. A motu te toa ia Ngaki te miro. la Ngaki te miro ia Te ‘ata: O te uri ‘oki na ‘Aemata. Tei nunga e i te kapua.
Mangaia is lost to me and the rule. Disaster came to Makitaka, The people also have been deceived. Alas! Mangaia has gone through craft. The power was with Makitaka But his prowess was ended by the victory of Tane-ngaki-au. Tane-ngaki-au had victory through Teata: A descendant of Aemata, Placed upon the altar.
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 311
First edition, page 58
58 Kore rai ooku taeake, Korekore rai e taeake tangi e! E tini na Tane i ka riro Mangaia.
I have no friends, No friends to weep for me! Through the multitude of Ngati-Tane Mangaia has passed [from me].
After the placing of the sacrifice upon the marae, the sympathies of Te Ao, the Inland High Priest of Rongo were opposed to Pangemiro. He refused to sound the drum of peace on the grounds that Pangemiro was too young to hold the position of supreme ruler. This statement supports the contention that the Manaune and Revareva listed in Table 11 could not have been contemporaries of Mautara, and that about three generations have been omitted from the genealogy. The opinion of Te Ao found expression in the following song composed by Makitaka’s sister. Mangaia kiritia, Mangaia raveravea, Raveravea ‘ua ‘ia e teia takinga tamariki. Takinga tangata e Takinga i te tamariki.
Power cast away, Power being played with, Played with by a youthful generation. A generation of men is discarded, A generation of children supplants them.
In spite of the lapse in ritual, Pangemiro retained the power. He lived in the Karanga district, and the position of authority and the taro lands were divided up among the leading chiefs of Manaune and Ngati-Tane. The Ngati-Vara had lost their supremacy but were still a force to be reckoned with. According to Aiteina, Koroa had not been killed in the last battle of Rangi-ura as Gill records.158 After about seven years of Pangemiro’s rule, the factions of the Ngati-Vara joined together to make a bid for temporal supremacy. The battlefield was Araeva in the Keia district. The Ngati-Tane determined to insure success by offering a voluntary sacrifice to Rongo during the battle. The person selected to offer his life was Maungaati, a younger brother of Arokapiti, who was to allow himself to be killed in the name of Rongo during the early part of the battle. After the battle commenced, Arokapiti sought out Koroa to avenge an insult about his head. One day as Arokapiti of Ngati-Tane was having his hair combed, Koroa passed a disparaging remark saying, “E a‘a e upoko tapu ? Va ‘i ki te aro‘a.” (What, is it a sacred head? Split it open with a four-sided club.) As his head was not sacred, it could be split open without any trouble. Koroa at this time must have been a much older man than Arokapiti. The two met, and youth prevailed. As Arokapiti pierced Koroa with his spear, he said, “O te upoko tapu.” (It is the sacred head.) The battle continued to be waged for a considerable time without success to the Ngati-Tane. Arokapiti thereupon found that his younger brother Maungaati had stayed at home with his wife and refused to come to the battle to offer himself up as the “fish” of Rongo. Arokapiti decided to offer himself in his brother’s place and thus bring victory to his tribe. He went out of the fight temporarily, plucked a ripe banana, and ate it to fortify himself. He then returned to the battle and allowed himself to be killed by the enemy. This voluntary sacrifice to Rongo turned the day, and the combined forces of Manaune and Ngati-Tane prevailed over Ngati-Vara. The victory over Ngati-Vara in the battle of Araeva (the forty-first battle in Mangaian history) gave Pangemiro his second mangaia. Reonatia159 was selected as the victim for sacrifice to Rongo. Reonatia was betrayed to the searching warriors by Rouvi and speared on his return from fishing at night. The body was borne to the marae of the Inland High Priest in Keia and left there. The
Gill, Reverend William Wyatt, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs, 1894: 311
Gill, Rev. William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific,...1876: 304
First edition, page 59
59 cold air revived Reonatia, who had not been killed by the spear which transfixed him. He managed to crawl off the marae and ascend the hillside for a few yards. The returning warriors, however, discovered him and dispatched him with a stone adz. The body was again laid on the altar, but dissension arose over the manner in which the victim had been offered. It was held that the gods were angry, and it can be inferred from his former disagreement with Pangemiro that Te Ao, the Inland High Priest, was only too ready to seize upon the incident as a reason for obstructing the ceremonies. Owing to the refusal of Te Ao to accept the victim at the inland marae, the victim was not taken on to the shore marae of Orongo and hence the drum of peace could not be sounded. The slaying of Reonatia took place a month or two before the arrival of the first missionaries in 1823. He was the last victim to be offered to Rongo. Te Ao, as Inland High Priest, had authority over the subdistrict of Rupetau-i-uta in the district of Keia. After his refusal to sound the drum of peace on Pangemiro’s first election, he had made friends with Vaipo, who was chief over the subdistrict of Taiti in the district of Tavaenga. Vaipo gave Te Ao a share of land in Taiti. Later Te Ao began to plot with sections of the Ngati-Tane to dispose of Vaipo by having him made a human sacrifice for some ceremony so that he might succeed in chieftainship over the Taiti subdistrict. Vaipo, however, discovered the plot and deprived Te Ao of the land he had given him in Taiti. Pangemiro also had a grudge against him, and, as his power was assured by the battle of Araeva, he deprived Te Ao of his office of Inland High Priest. He conferred the office upon Numangatini, whom he had appointed Shore High Priest after his first accession. For the first time in history, the office of Inland High Priest and Shore High Priest were combined. Numangatini was both ariki-pa-uta and ariki-pa-tai. In the distribution of office and land which followed Pangemiro’s victory, the titles of pava over the six districts (puna) into which Mangaia had been divided and the titles of kairanga nuku over the subdistricts (tapere) in each district were divided up among the Manaune and Ngati-Tane chiefs.160 The history of Mangaia has been brought down to Pangemiro, who was ruling in the eventful year 1823. The subsequent history may be satisfactorily written only after the changes wrought by Western culture are more clearly understood.
See p. 127
All the notes of the chapter
14.1 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 34 to 36. On the meaning of mangaia as temporal power or peace, William Wyatt Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, Religious Tract Society, London, 1894, p. 213. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 471, 486.
14.2 Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 308 to 311; William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, London, 1880, pp. 224 to 226. Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 35 and Table 5. The two lists, with the victors, the vanquished and the tribe of each lord, are printed in full in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 490 to 491.
14.3 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, pp. 1 to 22. Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 9 to 15, quoting Mamae’s manuscript. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 468 to 469.
14.4 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 15 to 19. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 469 to 470.
14.5 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 19 to 20. First edition, Volume 1, p. 470.
14.6 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 28 to 34, where the argument is set out at length; the Rarotongan manuscript of Kainuku Ariki listing the eight kinds of people on Tangi‘ia-nui’s canoe is quoted there. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 471 to 476. Ron Crocombe’s rule that a tradition be credited to the side that told it applies with particular force to a reconstruction like this one, which no Mangaian informant offered.
14.7 William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, Religious Tract Society, London, 1876, p. 25; Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 166. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 471, 473.
14.8 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 18, 34; Gill, Myths and Songs, pp. 11, 16, 301 to 302; Gill, Historical Sketches, p. 177; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 241. First edition, Volume 1, p. 471.
14.9 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 36 to 37; Gill, Myths and Songs, pp. 287 to 288. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 486 to 487.
14.10 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 37 to 39; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 58 to 59, 65. Tuka’s song for the descendants of Vairanga is printed in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 487 to 488.
14.11 Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 17 to 31; Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 38 to 39. Koroa’s lines on Tamatapu and the turtle are in the first edition, Volume 1, p. 489. On the number 140 as a conventional figure for a war party, Ron Crocombe, notes of 12 October 2008, and Volume 1, Chapter 5.
14.12 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 39 to 43; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 32 to 44. The story of Moke, the story of Matakore and the two kites, the Atiuan song for Te Manii-o-te-rangi and the pedigree of Tane-nui (Table 6) are in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 492 to 494.
14.13 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 43 to 44; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 45 to 48, 308. On the order of the Te Kama battles, first edition, Volume 1, pp. 495 to 496.
14.14 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 44 to 47; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 49 to 56. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 496 to 499.
14.15 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 106, 127. First edition, Volume 1, p. 478.
14.16 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 126 to 129; Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 128. The present, old and honorific names of the six puna are tabulated in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 478 to 479.
14.17 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 106 to 108, 10. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 476 to 478.
14.18 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 10. First edition, Volume 1, p. 478.
14.19 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 34 to 36. First edition, Volume 1, p. 486.
14.20 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 36. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 486, 489.
14.21 Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 213; Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 34, 36. The three peaceful successions were Ngara from Uarau, Marokore from Potiki and Pangemiro from Makitaka. First edition, Volume 1, p. 489.
14.22 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 10, 126 to 129. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 478, 485.
14.23 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 111 to 112. The saying “Remember Autea”, about a serf dismissed for hiding his fish-hooks from a considerate master, is told in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 484 to 485.
14.24 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 126 to 129. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 485 to 486.
14.25 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 105 to 106. First edition, Volume 1, p. 483.
14.26 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 10, 106. First edition, Volume 1, p. 485.
14.27 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 47 to 50; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 72 to 82, 309. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 499 to 502.
14.28 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 50 to 53; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 103 to 105, 309 to 310. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 502 to 504.
14.29 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 52 to 53; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 107. Tangarerua’s song for Kauate and Reketia, in Rarotongan and English, is in the first edition, Volume 1, p. 504.
14.30 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 53 to 54; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 130 to 142. First edition, Volume 1, p. 505. The Titikāveka connection is taken up in Volume 2, Chapter 19.
14.31 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 54 to 55, 68; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 130 to 142, 222 to 239. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 505, 517 to 518.
14.32 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 57 to 61, translating Mamae’s manuscript, which is printed in Rarotongan and English with Vaarua’s lament for the sons of Vara and Koroa’s song for the sons of Mautara. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 508 to 512, and Table 8, p. 513.
14.33 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 55 to 56; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 160 to 167. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 506 to 507.
14.34 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 56 to 57; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 166 to 167, 310. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 507 to 508.
14.35 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 61 to 63; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 193, 196. The version in which Manaune kills his father is that of Peter Buck’s ngāti Vara informants; William Wyatt Gill had it that Rurae had already fallen in battle. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 512 to 515.
14.36 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 63 to 65; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 209 to 213. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 515 to 516.
14.37 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 65 to 67. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 516 to 517.
14.38 Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 212; Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 67. First edition, Volume 1, p. 517.
14.39 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 73 to 76, and Table 10, the descendants of Te-vaki. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 524 to 528.
14.40 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 76 to 78, and Table 11, the Manaune descent, with Peter Buck’s reasons for thinking it three generations too short. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 528 to 530.
14.41 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 68 to 69; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 213. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 518 to 519.
14.42 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 69 to 70, and Table 9, the ngāti Vara holders of the supreme temporal power; Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 307. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 519 to 520.
14.43 James Cook, A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, second edition, London, 1785, vol. 1, pp. 170 to 173; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 244, 251 to 258; Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 265; Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 70 to 71. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 520 to 521.
14.44 Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 275 to 282; Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 71. First edition, Volume 1, p. 521.
14.45 Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 158, 283 to 285, 311; Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 71 to 72, quoting Mamae on Rautoa and on the battle of Akaoro. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 522 to 523.
14.46 Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 291; Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 72. First edition, Volume 1, p. 523.
14.47 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 72 to 73, on Aiteina’s account. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 523 to 524.
14.48 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 73; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 311. Koroa’s taunt and Vaangaru’s answer are given in Rarotongan and English in the first edition, Volume 1, p. 524.
14.49 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 73. First edition, Volume 1, p. 524.
14.50 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 78 to 80, and Tables 12 and 13; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 299. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 531 to 532.
14.51 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 76 to 78, 80 to 81. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 528 to 530, 534.
14.52 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 80 to 81; Gill, From Darkness to Light, pp. 303, 311, 314. Tuka’s song for Makitaka and the song by Makitaka’s sister are in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 533 to 534.
14.53 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 81 to 82; Gill, From Darkness to Light, p. 311; Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 304. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 534 to 535. Aiteina told Peter Buck that Koroa had survived Rangi-ura and died at Araeva; William Wyatt Gill had him killed at Rangi-ura.
14.54 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 82, 128 to 129, quoting Mamae’s “The distribution of Mangaia, according to the story of the old people”. The six lists, tapere by tapere with the chief who received each, are in the first edition, Volume 1, pp. 479 to 483, 535.
14.55 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 82. First edition, Volume 1, p. 535.
14.56 Buck, Mangaian Society, Table 5, battle 42 (Putoa). The author’s own research in Auckland and on Mangaia in March 2015, when he learned of the island’s closed-book policy towards its land. First edition, Volume 1, p. 491.
14.57 Buck, Mangaian Society, p. 34. First edition, Volume 1, p. 476.
14.58 Ron Crocombe, letter to the author of 17 January 2008, p. 1: “Each of the other islands is a different story – Mangaia from all of them, Ngaputoru with its own internal variations …”. The letter is transcribed in full in the archive for Volume 1, Chapter 1.
14.59 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, p. 250.
14.60 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 254 to 256. See Volume Four of this series, Chapter 13.
Volume One, Chapter 15
Chapter 15: Ma‘ukean customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Native Appellate Court decisions the notes cite (Cook Islands Appellate Court Reports)
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A1 A2 Notes
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- The genealogy from Atea to Parepora, as the paper of 1882 gives it
- 283. When Tangi‘ia-nui reached Mau‘ke Island he landed in the district…
- It would seem that the great ariki Tu-tapu of Tahiti, conceived a disl…
- . . . Tangi‘ia-nui departed for Mau‘ke, where he seduced two daughters…
- He (Moenau) had a son in Rarotonga, Tamaiva. When he heard about his f…
- The akapapa from ‘Iro-nui Maoata to Ruatapu
- Once upon a time Ruatapu fitted out his great canoe Kare-roa-i-tai, an…
- The original inhabitants of this island (Mau‘ke) and those of Mitiaro …
- In his report for the year to 31 March 1905, he described the island’s two parties.15.38
- And in 1908, a year before his first retirement, he told Wellington how the court had found the island.15.39
- Mau‘ke has long been famous for the bitterness displayed by the inhabi…
- We will now consider the claim of Te Au. This is a very unsatisfactory…
- There is one other matter that the Court must mention. Reference has b…
- My informant was named Tangata, the father of the present Tamuera Tang…
- The documents the chapter summarises, in full
- The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
1. The names
15.4 Vakaporo-Uatini, “The Origin of the Name of the Island of Rurutu”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), p. 216.
15.8 Ronald Syme, Cook Islands: Book I, The Coming of Man, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London, 1955, p. 16.
15.10 H. Nicholas and S. Percy Smith (editors), “Genealogy of Pa, Chieftainess of Tākitumu” and “The Royal Genealogy from ‘Avaiki Downwards, from Pāpā”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 1 (1892), pp. 20 to 29 and 65 to 75. John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 64, 68 and 70. Kiva, translated by Arthur H. Browne, “E Tuatua Tupuna no Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 6 (1897), pp. 1 to 3. Putua-ariki, translated by Arthur H. Browne, “E Tuatua no Karika Tara‘ape o Rarotonga: Karika’s Migration to Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 6 (1897), pp. 3 to 9, at pp. 4 and 7. S. Percy Smith, “Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 7 (1898) and 8 (1899), “The Settlement of Rarotonga”, 8 (1899), pp. 29 to 39, at p. 36. Elsdon Best, The Discovery and Settlement of Rarotonga by Polynesians, 1927, p. 134. First edition, Volume 1, p. 538.
2. Uke, and the growth of Ma‘uke
A word about the growth (history) of Mau‘ke Island. November 4th, 1882.
(We do not know who this brief history was written by, but it is one of the papers in Dr. Wyatt Gill’s collection, and was probably due to one of the teachers on the island. Mau‘ke is one of the Cook Group of islands, situated about one hundred and fifty miles N.E. by East from Rarotonga. The following is a brief history, which shows that the island was first occupied by Tara-matie-toro and her husband Tura twenty-six generations ago, or about the year 1250 (i.e., by allowing twenty-five years to a generation). It is, however, scarcely safe to trust to only one line for a date. This was an important period in Polynesian history, for, if the genealogical table is correct, Tura would have been a contemporary of Tangi‘ia-nui and Karika Tara‘ape, under whom Rarotonga received large accessions to its population from Samoa and Tahiti. And it was at this time Iro (Whiro in New Zealand Māori) also flourished and made some of his noted voyages in the Pacific, on one of which Tura was his companion to the island of Vavau (either the island of that name in the Tonga Group, or Porapora of the Society Group, the old name of which was Vavau - probably the former). It is not at present certain if this Tura is the same as mentioned in New Zealand and Rarotongan histories, though the period agrees well. It was at this period also that a great unrest appears to have overtaken the Eastern Polynesians, which led them to extend their settlements to many new islands. A century afterwards brought large accessions to the population of New Zealand. The dialect in which this short history is expressed is Rarotongan.)
A TEA was the “spreader” (or creator) of all things. Atea dwelt with a woman named Pāpāroa-i-te-itinga (Pāpāroa of the sunrise) and there was born to them Te Tumu; thus:
”Oh Te Tumu, O! Draw near! / I will not approach thee, / For I am Te Tumu (the origin) of the land.”
Te Tumu dwelt with the woman Pāpāroa-i-te-opunga (Pāpāroa at the sunset), and there was born to them Tumu-te-nekeneke, whose song, or “saying”, is:
”Oh Papa. O! Draw near! / I will not approach thee, / For I am the Papa (foundation) of the land.”
This was Uke-umu of the “evil pit” (? Hades). He came to this world, and became a man. Uke dwelt with the woman Puai-angauta, and there was born to them: Tara-matie-toro = Tura.
It was these two who spread the population of Mau‘ke and Atiu Islands. Tura was a man from Atiu who came to Mau‘ke to take one of Uke’s daughters, Tara-matie-toro, as a wife. They had: Purea = Tarangi-Enuamanu. (See the original for their descendants.)
”There are six of these names from the Po (or ages of darkness - ages of the gods), and twentyfive generations from Uke down to Parepora” (to which two are added to bring the table down to the year 1900).
The translation, with the editor’s bracketed introduction, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911)
The genealogy from Atea to Parepora, as the paper of 1882 gives it
| Generation | Husband = wife |
|---|---|
| 32 | Atea = Pāpāroa-i-te-itinga |
| 31 | Te Tumu = Pāpā-i-te-opunga |
| 30 | Tumu-te-nekeneke = Tumu-te-oioi |
| 29 | Tumu-tikei = Tumu-aro |
| 28 | Toka-rukuruku = Toka-eaea |
| 27 | Uke = Te Puai-angauta |
| 26 | Tara-matie-toro = Tura |
| 25 | Purea = Tarangi-Enuamanu |
| 24 | Kura = Vai-koukou i te Kauariki |
| 23 | Tiutiu = Tuakau |
| ’Ona-ariki = Rangi-marie | |
| Patu-kura = To‘ere | |
| 20 | Tu-ariki = Te Tau |
| Te Ao-marama = Te Kura-i-te-ata | |
| ’Ona-kai-kino = Oa | |
| Ra‘iri = Tiamata-o-Te-Rongo | |
| Tona = Nga-vaine-mei-te-ra | |
| 15 | Tamaiva = Tu-korora |
| Purea = Matarua | |
| Ruaau = Vai-tunga | |
| Te Ariki-‘ape‘ape = Ko‘u-ata | |
| Te Atua-te-io = Maeva | |
| 10 | Vaia = Arutonga |
| Rangi-nui = Aketuke | |
| Kopati = Aro‘i | |
| Kai-moko = Karo-pae-rangi | |
| Ka‘u = Mae’va | |
| 5 | Tura = Ina |
| Te Ariki-taka-i-rangi = ’Mauturi | |
| Parepora |
| Order | Ariki = wife |
|---|---|
| 1 | Uke-ariki = Te-pua-a-nga-atua |
| 2 | Taramatietoro = Maro-ariki |
| 3 | Purea = Rangi-Enuamanu |
| 4 | Kura = Vai-koukou-te kau-ariki |
| 5 | Tuitui = Tuakau |
| 6 | Ona-ariki = Rangi-marie |
| 7 | Patu-kura = Taere |
| 8 | Tua-ariki = Te-tau |
| 9 | Te-ao-marama = Te-kura-i-te-ato |
| 10 | Ona-kai-kino = Oa-te pakari |
| 11 | Rairi = Te-amata-o te-rongo |
| 12 | Tona = Nga-vaine-mei-te-ra |
| 13 | Tamaiva = Tu-korora |
| 14 | Purea II = Vai-tunga |
| 15 | Ruaau = Matarua |
| 16 | Te-ariki-apeape = Kou-ata |
| 17 | Te-atua-i te-io = Maeva |
| 18 | Vaia = Arutonga |
| 19 | Rangi-nui = Aketuke (a great chieftainess of Atiu) |
| 20 | Kopati = Aroi |
| 21 | Kai-moko = Karo-pae-rangi |
| 22 | Kauta-rua = Maevarua |
| 23 | Tura = Ina |
| 24 | Te-ariki-takai-rangi = Mou-turi |
| 25 | Samuela = Tangata |
3. Tangi‘ia-nui at Ma‘uke
283. When Tangi‘ia-nui reached Mau‘ke Island he landed in the district of Utaki, where is the kōutu (or sacred place of religious ceremonies, meetings, etc., etc.) named Rangi-manuka. He went to look for the girls, and found them by the path beating out bark (for cloth). He stealthly drew near to them, through the bushes, and as he approached he felt inspired and composed the following love song:
(Which song I do not feel competent to translate - see the original.) . . .
Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, translated by S. Percy Smith, 1919
It would seem that the great ariki Tu-tapu of Tahiti, conceived a dislike to his brother Tangi‘ianui, and the latter to escape death fled to the small island of Mau‘ke, where he co-habited with Moetuma who gave birth, to a son named Motoro. This man finally took up his abode on the island of Rarotonga, where he become the ancestor of a very numerous people.
Walter Gudgeon, “The Whence of the Māori”, 1903
. . . Tangi‘ia-nui departed for Mau‘ke, where he seduced two daughters of the local ariki Upon his return to Taiti, he sent for his children from Mau‘ke. Shortly after the children’s arrival, Tu-tapu came to Taiti seeking to recover his father’s sacred weapon and the rights to human sacrifice. Tangi‘ia-nui refused to concede these, offering only the breadfruit tribute, already in Tutapu’s possession. War commenced,. . .During the battle Tu-tapu set fire to the ridges, burning to death one of Tangi‘ia-nui’s Mau‘ke sons. The other, Motoro, was saved by the goddess Ta‘akura who, following the advice of Tangaroa, wrapped a thick cloak around Motoro under the cover of the smoke. The son was then spirited away by a large bee and butterfly (these insects were, therefore, sacred to Motoro’s vaka, Arorangi).
Jeffrey Sissons, “The Seasonality of Power”, 1989
4. Moenau
He (Moenau) had a son in Rarotonga, Tamaiva. When he heard about his father, he came back. He wanted to know who killed him and he found out that it was Tapou. He killed Tapou and all the people on Mau‘ke were killed. He had a chant:
Moenau e, te ariki mua i ‘Akatokāmanava, / Puta mai ei a Tamaiva Ariki, / Tairi ia ei a Mau‘ke nei ki te rauti, / E puruki te ka tupu, e rauti para, e rauti para.
In the olden days, if they decorated the cane with yellow rauti, yellow leaves, that means, there’s war. That’s when he came over to Mau‘ke, he had yellow rauti surrounding his canoe. So that’s how the people knew there’s war.
Pirioi Tairea, 1984, recorded by Anna-Leena Siikala
KO te aka Pāpā-ranga teia i a Ruatapu mei roto mai i a Iro-nui Maoata mei runga mai mei Taputapuatea:
Iseraela Tama, 1906
The akapapa from ‘Iro-nui Maoata to Ruatapu
| Māori | English |
|---|---|
| Nga Iro-nui Maoata i takoto ki a Te Koao-o-te-rangi | Ironui ma Oata married Te Koao-o-te-rangi, |
| Anau tana ko Tai-te-ariki | who begat Tai-te-ariki, |
| Anau tana ko Taitoe | who begat Taitoe, |
| Anau tana ko Rua-raki | who begat Ruaraki, |
| Anau tana ko E-panui | who begat Epanui, |
| Anau tana ko Tevarikura | who begat Tevarikura, |
| Anau tana ko Nga-maru-e-rua | who begat Nga-maru-e-rua, |
| Anau tana ko Tangi‘ia-nui | who begat Tangi‘ia-nui, |
| Anau tana ko Motoro | who begat Motoro, |
| Anau tana ko Uanuku-rakeiora | who begat Uanuku-rakeiora, |
| Anau tana ko Ruatapu | who begat Ruatapu. |
Once upon a time Ruatapu fitted out his great canoe Kare-roa-i-tai, and made sail to these Western Islands from Taputapu-atea, he and his ship’s company. They came to Avarua (Rarotonga) where they remained some time. Ruatapu married a woman of the land, Uanukutapu, by whom he had a son Tama-iva, whom he left at Rarotonga to become an Ariki, and eat the flying fish of that island. Ruatapu and his ship’s company, then sailed away to the westward, to Tonga, and sojourned there a lengthy period; Ruatapu taking to himself another wife named Tapotu-ki-Tonga, who bore him a son whom he named Moenau. When the boy had grown up to man’s estate, his father sent him to Avarua to join Tama-iva in eating the flying fish of that land (i.e. to share his authority); but Tama-iva had no desire to share his rank or privileges with his younger brother. So he sent him off to Nga-pu-toru (ancient name of the three windward islands of the Cook Group - Atiu, Mau‘ke, and Mitiaro), Moenau went to Akatoka-manava (Mau‘ke) where he married Te Rau-maro-kura. A son was born to them, Te Au-kura - who became Ariki of Mau‘ketau. Moenau remained there and feasted on the flying fish of the land; but ere long he was killed (by the Mau‘ke people) at Avaava-roa with a snare for catching sea eels. Te Au-kura was living on Mau‘ke at this time.
Subsequently, Ruatapu and his people returned from the westward from Tonga, in quest of Moenau. Ruatapu first went to Avarua, where he inquired of Tama-iva: “Where is Moenau?”
Tama-iva replied, “I have sent him to Nga-pu-toru to eat the flying fish of those lands of ours.” Ruatapu then exclaimed, “Your brother is dead.” The father and his ship’s company then went on to Ngapu-toru, in search of Moenau, and landed on Akatoka-manava (Mau‘ke). While they were staying on that island, Ruatapu took notice of a boy there, and asked him about his parentage. The boy said, “I am by Moenau.” Ruatapu had marked the resemblance, and inquired further, “Where is Moenau?” The boy answered: “He was killed with a sea eel snare, at Avaava-roa.” In reply to Ruatapu’s further interrogation, the boy revealed, “I am Te Au-kura, Ariki of Ma‘uketau.” Ruatapu then made arrangements for slaughtering the Mau‘ke people in revenge for Moenau’s murder. The plan he hit upon was to cut up the cocoanut trees into logs, which he had carried up on to the high places of the island. Then he fought the Mau‘ke people and rolled these logs down on top of them: great numbers were killed with this device.
Leaving his grandson, Te Au-kura, to enjoy his Arikiship at Mau‘ke, Ruatapu and his ship’s company crossed over to Te Enuamanu (Atiu) . . .
(Note.- Tararo, Ariki of Mau‘ke, who is a descendant of Ruatapu, writes me that he objects to having any details of his family history or genealogy published, lest his opponents should make use of the information to their advantage and his detriment, in land disputes on that island. I learn from a native of Atiu, living on this island (Mangaia) that one of the Atiu clans is called Ruatapu, but he knows nothing beyond that. Nothing is known about him here.) Another different version of that oral tradition was recorded by Drury Low in which Ruatapu did not take revenge as he had departed from Mau‘ke before he learned how his son had died:
J. T. Large’s translation, 1906, with his note on Tararo’s objection
5. The Atiuan conquest
The original inhabitants of this island (Mau‘ke) and those of Mitiaro were killed off about the year 1820 by a raid of the Atiu warriors. Since that date each island has been held by a garrison, who occupy as the representatives of the whole tribe.
Walter Gudgeon, report for the year ending 31 December 1900, with the author’s bracketed note
6. The ariki’s food
7. Ma‘uke as Walter Gudgeon found it
The six tribes of Atiu number about 1,530 of all ages and sexes, of whom eight hundred live on the island. Some two hundred more live permanently at Tahiti on land they have purchased, and the remainder occupy the conquered islands of Mau‘ke and Mitiaro.
Walter Gudgeon, report on the Cook and Northern Islands, 1902
In his report for the year to 31 March 1905, he described the island’s two parties.15.38
At Mau‘ke, Tararo is the only chief of good character and intelligence, but he, unfortunately, is the head of the Atiu people who some eighty-five years ago conquered and enslaved the Mau‘ke people, and as a natural result the followers of Tamuera, who were conquered, regard him as an enemy. To show their independence have joined the Roman Catholic Church, thus adding sectarian bitterness to the old quarrel. The Land Court will, however, settle most of the difficulty. In 1908, a year before his first retirement, Walter Gudgeon in his Cook and Northern Islands Report for Year Ending 31st March 1908, reported to his superiors in Wellington:
Walter Gudgeon, report for the year ended 31 March 1905
And in 1908, a year before his first retirement, he told Wellington how the court had found the island.15.39
Mau‘ke has long been famous for the bitterness displayed by the inhabitants one towards another, the result of an old conquest by the Atiu people and of their short-sighted policy in allowing certain of the old inhabitants to live. The descendants of the latter are now the most numerous section of the inhabitants of this island, and, whether for good or evil, they oppose the influence of the conquerors on every possible occasion. The virulence of this feeling did not, however, interfere with the work of the Court. No difficulty was found in determining the title to the land indeed, valuable assistance was received from the chief Tamuera, who is a most useful man, so long as there is no matter of debate between himself and Tararo (the Government Agent), who represents the conquerors.
Walter Gudgeon, report for the year ending 31 March 1908
8. The court at Ma‘uke, 1905
We will now consider the claim of Te Au. This is a very unsatisfactory case, Tararo has laid down a definite boundary that the Court can understand, but that of Te Au is absurd. It includes the Taotu land already awarded to Tararo; it includes the mission-house which was given by Tararo, and his right to do so never disputed. It also includes the church and school sites of the London Missionary Society. It is, however, on record in the Taotu case that the northern boundary was there fixed as between Pāpā Marangai and Tararo. As the former has now joined his case to that of Te Au, the Court fixes the following boundary for present purposes, and leaves the piece of land cut out to be dealt with on a future occasion. The northern boundary now laid down for the Makatea is as follows: From the iron peg at the junction of the Ta‘unganui Road with the Church Road near the house of Te Au, thence westerly by the Ta‘unganui Road to the south-east corner of the mission-house grant, thence north and west by the boundary of that grant to its junction with the Taotu Block, and following that boundary to its north-west corner. Thence by a straight line to Tararo’s peg on the reef near Ta‘unganui-viz., Te Opua o Uao to this case, the Court is of opinion that there need have been no dispute as to this line had Pāpā arranged beforehand with Tararo. There is evidently much personal feeling that ought not to have been imported into the case. Pāpā has been used as a tool by Te Au. The claim of Mana is altogether untenable. He bases this claim on the fact that he is one of three survivors of the ngāti-Arua, and that he owned this land before his tribe was destroyed. This contention may be perfectly true, but during the last two hundred years the lands of ngāti-Arua have been held by different sections of the Areora conquerors. The evidence of Tararo shows that Takere Marama protected Mana’s ancestor and gave him land whereon to live. Any claim that Mana may have is under Tararo, whose Mata‘iapo he is. He is not the chief owner of Te Makatea. The claim of Tarei and Tamuera are really one and the same, since they both contend that the upper portion of this block is not Te Makatea, but Araki. There are many inconsistencies in these two claims and we think that these cases would not have come before the Court were it not that the people are afraid that any award made by the Court would dispossess those living thereon under the old mission arrangement. And now as to the evidence. Tamuera’s witnesses are all people who have a personal interest in the award to Tamuera, whereas three of Tararo s witnesses are leading men of Tamuera’s own tribe who have no interest. Who have intervened in order to prevent what they believe to be an attempt at robbery. The Court has no doubt in its mind that Te Makatea belongs to Tararo and his people. The award of the Court will therefore be in favour of Tararo and such other people as the Court may find to have an interest m the block, but subject to the old residential rights acquired under the akonoanga oire before referred to. The Court congratulates Tararo on his attitude with respect to the land called Taputurangi. It was a wise and kindly action to present it to Tamuera, and it has removed the religious question from the Court.
It has been reported to the Court that threats have been made, that certain persons who have brought their lands before the Court will, when the Court leaves, be turned off the lands. We hope that no one will be so foolish as to interfere with owners of land who have placed themselves in the hands of the Court. There must be no interference with such people, or the offender will be heavily fined. The Court will, moreover, report any offence of this nature to the Government of New Zealand, and recommend that the offender, whether Ariki or Mata‘iapo, be removed from his office.
Ma‘uke’s own voice in court is in the Appellate book of 1952. In August of that year the Native Appellate Court sat on Ma‘uke for a week and heard eleven cases, most of them about house sites in the mission villages of Areora and Kimiangatau and about who should succeed to the dead, and it took down the genealogies the families gave it, which are reproduced as the court’s clerk drew them.15.41 The witnesses were Ma‘ukeans speaking of their own island, and what they said of the house site, the swamp and the succession is the nearest the record comes to Ma‘uke’s custom stated by Ma‘ukeans.
Judgment of Walter Gudgeon, Land Titles Court, Ma‘uke, 1905
There is one other matter that the Court must mention. Reference has been made during this hearing to the so-called mana of Atiu over the people or land of Mau‘ke, and the Court has official knowledge that some of you have written to Atiu. Have asked the people of that island to come here and assert their mana over a section of the Mau‘ke people. The men who have done this are both mischievous and foolish, and did not know what they were doing. If it be true, as some of you assert, that Atiu had mana over Mau‘ke, I ask you was that mana over the people or over the land? If it was mana tangata, then we tell you that the mana was absolutely destroyed by the greater mana of Great Britain on the day that these Islands were annexed to the British Empire. If on the other hand, it is over your lands that Atiu has mana, then that mana is still in existence and the people of Atiu may come here and claim a share in all the lands conquered by them. Whether the Court would give them the land so claimed is another matter. It is true that about the year 1820 Atiu, at the request of Tararo, sent a war-party to Mau‘ke, and almost destroyed that people. A section only escaped, and they were spared for reasons well known to the Court and which may be found in the writings of the early missionaries. This war-party was the war-party of Tararo; they came at his request, and were paid for as an Ariki would for such aid-that is, Tararo gave his daughter Akeina as a wife to Rongomatane. Therefore Tararo was the conquerer and Atiu can have no mana over him, his lands, or his people, and when the war party left there was no chief on this island but Tararo. In a book written by the Rev. John Williams, the first missionary, it will be seen that he came here in 1827 from Atiu accompanied by Rongomatane, and that the latter used his influence with the then Tararo in favour of the Gospel. Tararo accepted the new religion, and it was that religion that reinstated the conquered people in their old position. So far as I can ascertain, Atiu has never asserted a right over the Mau‘ke lands and they can have none over those of Tararo. If there be any question in future over the lands of Te Au or Tamuera, the Court will deal with that aspect of the affair whenever it arises. As to the Atiu people coming here to interfere, the Resident Commissioner will know how to deal with them should the occasion arise; it is not a matter that this Court can entertain or consider.
Judgment of Walter Gudgeon, Land Titles Court, Ma‘uke, 1905
My informant was named Tangata, the father of the present Tamuera Tangata-ariki, and one of the arikis, or high chiefs, of Mau‘ke, who was a very old man when I saw him, about eighty years of age or more. He remembered heathen days in Mau‘ke, and he was one of the descendants of the few that escaped the massacre when the Atiu people raided Mau‘ke . . .
Stephen Savage, “The Period of Rata (No. 2)”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911)
| Printed number | Name |
|---|---|
| Tere-anaunau | |
| 55 | Mina-te-aoao |
| Te Tumu-kena-o-‘Vaiki | |
| Mou-te-rua-ariki | |
| Te Pito-kena-o-‘Vaiki | |
| 25 | Te-Karii-i-te-ao-tere |
| Te-Raurora-tangata | |
| Te Karii-pepera | |
| Te Pua | |
| Aruaru-kura | |
| 50 | Te Rito |
| Aruaru-tea | |
| Te-Atea-i-te-rā | |
| Te-Marumaru-‘enua | |
| 20 | Teiteianga-o-te-ra-o-‘Avaiki |
| Te Kaokao-‘enua | |
| Te-Pakarukaru-‘enua | |
| Te-Opunga-o-te-ra-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Te Uia-o-‘Vaiki | |
| Tangapatoro-o-‘Avaiki II | |
| Taratoa | |
| 45 | Tai-te-tupu |
| Tangapatoro III (e toa, a warrior) | |
| Te-Mau-e-o-‘Avaiki | |
| 15 | Tane-nui (e toa, a warrior) |
| Atakura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Te-Ra-iti-kura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Tane-kake-rangi (e toa, a warrior) | |
| Ngai-tu-te-au | |
| Niurau | |
| 40 | Atakura-o-‘Avaiki |
| Mou | |
| Tamatoa | |
| Te-Ra-iti-Kura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Te Ngaru = Te-Iku-peva-marama | |
| Tangapatoro-Ariki (This is Ema.) | |
| 37 | Taaki-ariki |
| Te Kiri-kura-o-Taaki | |
| 35 | Taramua-o-‘Avaiki |
| Karii | |
| 10 | E inga |
| Vaieroa | |
| Kuraaei | |
| Rata-Ariki | |
| Ikaoro | |
| Te-Papa-kura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Takere-marama = Akaroto | |
| Te-Kurakura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Taravaovao | |
| Te Nukunuku-o-‘Avaiki | |
| 5 | |
| Tararo II | |
| Rerekura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Tararo III | |
| 30 | Te-Paurua-nui-o-‘Avaiki |
| Tararo IV | |
| Te-Paau-kura-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Te-Pai-rerea-o-‘Avaiki | |
| Vero | |
| Nooau (aged about 42 in 1911) |
9. The titles
The documents the chapter summarises, in full
“E tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mau‘ke”, 1882: the Māori text
No. 7. E tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mau‘ke. November 4th, 1882.
KO Atea te katiri o te au mea katoatoa. Ko Atea ka noo i te vaine, i a Pāpāroa-i-te-itinga; anau ta raua ko Te Tumu:
E Te Tumu e! neke mai, / Kare au e neke atu, / Ko Te Tumu au no te ‘enua.
Ko Te Tumu ka noo i te vaine i a Pāpā-i-te-opunga, anau ta raua ko Tumu-te-nekeneke.
E Pāpā e! neke mai, / Kare au e neke atu, / E Pāpā au no te ‘enua.
Uke-umu o te vaarua kino. Kua tae mai ki te ao nei, kua tangata. Kua noo a Uke i te vaine, i a Te Puai-angauta, anau ta raua ko: Tara-matie-toro = Tura.
Na raua i katiri te tangata i Mau‘ke e Atiu. E tangata Atiu a Tura, e kua aere mai a ia ki Mau‘ke nei e rave i tetai tamaine a Uke, i a Tara-matie-toro.
E toko-ono to te po mai; e 25 Pāpā-uki tangata mei i a Uke mai e tae ua mai ki a Pare-pora.
“E tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mau‘ke”, 4 November 1882, from William Wyatt Gill’s papers, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911); the genealogy that the text runs through is in the table below
Te Ariki-tara-are, paragraph 283: the Māori text and the pe‘e
283. E tae atura a Tangi‘ia-nui ki Mau‘ke kua kake atura ki uta ki te tapere ra, ko Utaki, ko Rangi-manuka te kōutu. E kite atura aia i aua nga vaine ra, te noo ra ki runga i te renanga, te tukai ra i te ara. Kua akapiri aere atu aia na roto i te ngangaere; e tae atura aia i vaitata, kua tae mai te au ki aia, kua atu iora i te pee, na-ko atura:
Ka tukaiia, ka tukaiia tau oki, rirerire e, Ki te ara-kura ua, Pua-tara e, ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine, e Moetuna, E tungou o mata e te ariki Ka kite ra ia koe - e, Ka tukaiia ra, ka uka Ta Ka ukaia mai ana.
Kotai pakia ia, a paki akanui, Katakata noa koia e, Kua inga te ta urua, Puatara e - ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine, e Moe-tuna, A tungou nga mata o te ariki Ka kite ra ia koe e, a kia mou a aroa.
Akatae, akatae e rire taku au ki Mau‘ke e, Ra Pua-tara ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna, Tungou nga mata ki te ariki Ka kite ra i a koe e, Ko akaa, akatere ki Mau‘ke e, Ki a Tama-tino-rere, kua rere ua Ki te rangi tapu e rire e, Ko te rei o Tangi‘ia-nui, Pua-tara e, ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna, A tungou o mata ki te ariki, Ka kite ra i a koe e, E poupou pou ra ki tai e, Ko te tai o Kori-mata oki Ko te kau ra tena ra, Ki te tama rirerire e Ki te kape uti i a Pua-tara e, ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine e Moe-tuna Tungou nga mata ki te ariki, Ka kite ra i a koe, e, E ko ikiiki iki na runga ki te tai Opukia ko te kauranga tena ra E te tama a ki runga i te koko Ki taku uutia ua, Pua-tara e - ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna Tungou nga mata o te ariki Ka kite ra i a koe, a kia mou aroa - e,
The Māori text and the pe‘e, Te Ariki-tara-are, paragraph 283
Moenau, as Mapu Taia told it, 1983
Moenau was the son of the first born daughter of ‘Uke who was called Kaitinere and Moenau’s father was Temaru. He had a younger brother who was called Kaitapu. When theywere born, the parents divided the island of Mau‘ke into two halves. One half, which was called ‘Ttaki, belonged to Moenau and the other half, which was Vaerota, was given to the younger brother Kaitapu. As the first born son Moenau became the pet of his parents, he was trained in the ‘Are Kōrero and the ‘Are Toa and the ‘Are Karioi and after his initiation ceremony he married a woman from his own tribe and they gave birth to a son called Tamaiva.
There was a time when there was not enough food in ‘Iraki and Moenau heard that the fishermen from Vaerota were getting a lot of fish on their fishing trips from the southern part of the island and this created greed in him. He wanted to own all the fish. So one evening, when the fishermen had gone out after mackerel, Moenau decided to go there and get all the mackerel from the fishermen. Beside the track to the beach there was a cave where Moenau used to live and wait for the fishermen to come back. So this particular evening he went down and he waited for the fishermen in this particular cave. About dusk the fishermen came back home. They had caught a lot of fish - a lot of mackerel and as they were walking along the track they did not know that Moenau was waiting for them beside the track. When they got to the cave, Moenau came out of the cave and got all the fishermen to give him all their fish. They had to oblige because Moenau was the son of the chief at the time and also Moenau was a great warrior. They were frightened that Moenau might kill all of them so they had to surrender their fish to Moenau. Moenau went home very happy and when he got there he asked his wife to cook the fish and they had a splendid meal that night. The next day the fishermen of Vaerota thought they would go out to fish for some more mackerel because they didn’t have any from the previous evening because Moenau had taken all of the catch. So they went down the second evening and they caught a lot of fish. Moenau came back that same evening and waited for them at his cave. So when the fishermen came back and they got to the cave, there was Moenau waiting for them. They were not pleased, they mumbled, but they couldn’t do anything because they were frightened of Moenau. So once again they had to surrender all their fish to Moenau, who was quite happy, but the fishermen went away home sad. They knew they were going home to a hungry family and there was nothing for the family to eat that evening. Amongst the fishermen there were two boys, brothers; the elder brother was named Tapou and he had a younger brother. They were thinking of looking into Moenau’s doings. The next evening was the third night. The fishermen decided to go out again to fish or they thought Moenau wouldn’t come back again because he had enough fish the previous evening. They went out that evening and they caught a lot of fish but the same thing happened on their return there; Moenau was waiting for them at the cave. They were very angry now and they knew that Moenau was a very greedy man, and so these two boys decided that they were going to kill Moenau. They must do something first, so when they went home that night, they went to see the ta‘unga. The ta‘unga was just like a witch doctor and they asked the ta‘unga for some help how they could kill Moenau. The ta‘unga told them: “You must go home and prepare a sennit. When you have done that, come back to me and I am going to make a trap.”
So the boys went home and the next day they’ve got the sennit prepared and they went back to the ta‘unga and showed the ta‘unga the sennit they had prepared. So the ta‘unga made a special trap and the ta‘unga said: “You know Moenau’s cave. You must go down in the cave before Moenau arrives and you have to set the trap at the mouth of the cave.” One thing special with Moenau was that he had very big testicles. So this was what the ta‘unga was thinking, this was the way how the two boys would be able to kill this warrior, Moenau. So that evening the boys prepared themselves for battle and with the trap they set off to the cave; they were lucky, they arrived before Moenau got to the cave. At the mouth of the cave they set the trap and they went down to the cave, one on the right side of the cave and the other one on the left side of the cave. The ta‘unga had told them that when they pulled the trap tight they must chant and the chant is: “Akerenga o kanapea, akerenga o kanapea” (Akerenga (the name of the trap), please kill, akerenga, please kill). So they went down in the cave and not long afterwards they heard the sound of footsteps on the rocks and they knew that Moenau was coming down in the cave and then they listened carefully, and shortly afterwards the mouth to the cave was darkened by the body of Moenau entering the cave. The first thing they saw were the big testicles of Moenau. So as Moenau came down, the testicles fit properly into the trap and the older brother called out “Pull”, and both of them pulled with all their might. Then Moenau cried out in pain and they pulled hard because Moenau was so strong. As they tried to get out of the cave his testicles broke away and the two brothers shouted with joy because they knew that very soon Moenau would be killed and die.
The cave was about a mile away from Moenau’s home. He did not die straight away but he tried to get back to his home, and right in front of his home he fell down and died. When his wife saw him, his wife cried and she knew that someone had tried to kill her husband. Then she vowed that when their son, Tamaiva, grew up to be a man he would try to revenge the death of his father, Moenau. So in later years, when Tamaiva grew up and became a warrior, he went to seek out those two who had caused the death of his father and he caught up with them and he killed them both. The saying goes that Tamaiva had been able to revenge the death of his father, Moenau. That is the end of the story.
Mapu Taia, 1983, recorded by Anna-Leena Siikala
Ruatapu and Moenau, Iseraela Tama, 1906: the Māori text
Kua rarangoa a Ruatapu i te vaka, tera te ingoa i te vaka, ko te Kare-roa-i-tai, ka tere mai ki raro nei mei runga mai mei Taputapu-atea, kua tere mai ma tona vaka tangata, kua tere mai ki Avarua, kua noo ki uta ma toona vaka tangata, kua noo a Ruatapu ki te vaine ki a Uanuku-tapu, anau ko Tamaiva, kua vaoo i a ia ei ariki ei kai i te maroro i tei reira ‘enua. Kua tere a ia ma tona vaka tangata ki raro ki Tonga, kua noo ki uta i te ‘enua ma tona vaka tangata. Kua takoto a Ruatapu ki te vaine ki a Tapotu-ki-Tonga, anau ko Moenau. E kia pakari a Moenau kua akaunga mai a Ruatapu i a ia ki Avarua kia kai kapiti raua i te maroro. Nga te kite ra o Tama-iva ka ngaa te kāinga i te maro-kura a ka unga atu ra i te teina kia aere ki Ngapu-toru. Tere atura a Moenau ki Akatoka-manava, kia tae a ia ki runga i te ‘enua kua takoto a ia ki te vaine ki a Te Kau-maro-kura, anau a Te Au-kura-ariki i Ma‘uketau ma te kai a Moenau i te maroro i tei reira ‘enua. E tae ki tetai tuātau kua mate a Moenau ki te Nati-Pui ki Avaavaroa, te noora te tamaiti i runga i te ‘enua. E tae ake ra ki tetai tuātau kua tere mai ra a Ruatapu mei raro mai mei Tonga ma tona vaka tangata i te aru i a Moenau ki Avarua. Kia tae a ia ki uta e ui atu ei a Ruatapu ki a Tama-iva “Teiea a Moenau?” Tera ta Tama-iva, “Kua akaunga e au ki Ngapu-toru ei kai i te maroro i tei reira nga ‘enua o tatou.” Kua karanga atu ra a Ruatapu, “Kua mate to teina.” Tere atu ra a Ruatapu ma tona vaka tangata i te aru i a Moenau ki Ngaputoru. E tae atu ra a ia ki Akatoka-manava kake atu ra a ia ki uta ma tona vaka tangata. Kia noo a ia ki runga i te ‘enua e kite ei a ia i tetai tamaiti, e ui ei a Ruatapu “Ngaai koe?” E karanga atu ei te tamaiti “Nga Moenau,” e akatau ia tona tutu e tutu Moenau. E ui ei a Ruatapu, “Teiea a Moenau?” Tera tana “Kua mate ki te Nati-Pui ki Avaavaroa.” E ui atu ei a Ruatapu, “Koai toou ingoa?” Tera ta te tamaiti, “Ko te Aukura-ariki ki Ma‘uketau.”
I reira kua kimi a Ruatapu i te ravenga ka ta a ia i a Mau‘ke ei ono i te tai o Moenau. Tera tana ravenga i rave, kua tipupu a ia i te niu i te ‘enua, kua tari ki runga i te ngai teitei, e kia tae ki te ra tamakianga kua uriia te niu ki runga i to Mau‘ke, kua pou te tangata i te mate, kua vaoo i te mokōpūna i a Te Aukura ei ariki ki runga i te ‘enua. Tere atu ra a Ruatapu ki Enuamanu ma tona vaka tangata, e kia tae a ia ki Enuamanu, ko Renga te ariki i tei reira ‘enua.
Iseraela Tama, 1906, the Māori text
Moenau, in Drury Low’s version, 1934
While Moenau was still very young Ruatapu decided to move on but first he sent his son Moenau to Rarotonga in charge of his grandfather, a noted canoe voyager called Rangiura. Ruatapu told Rangiura that on arrival at Rarotonga he was to place Moenau with his half-brother Tamaiva, son of his Rarotongan wife. To this, his wife Tapotu-ki-Tonga agreed. Rangiura built a new canoe for the voyage and when it was finished he named it Pouara. Ruatapu told Rangiura that he would find Uanuku-kaiatia, the mother of Tamaiva, living in the settlement of Matavera. Soon after this Rangiura and his grandson sailed from Tonga-tapu and later arrived safely at Rarotonga. During the voyage Moenau had been very much afraid, and on getting close to the reef at Rarotonga begged Rangiura to take him quickly ashore or else he would die. As the sea broke heavily on the reef Rangiura wanted to take time to find a suitable passage to make a landing, but fearing that Moenau might die if not landed at once, tried to shoot the reef. The canoe was upset and smashed, and Moenau was swept some distance away by the waves. Rangiura swam after him and brought him safely ashore, then he went after the broken canoe and brought it ashore. The place where the canoe upset he named Vaenga meaning ‘the place where we parted.’ The place where they landed he named Pouara after his canoe. Rangiura then asked some people who had come to the beach where Tamaiva, son of Ruatapu, was to be found. A man named Anga offered to take Rangiura and Moenau to him. On meeting Tamaiva and his mother Rangiura explained who he was and said that it was Ruatapu’s wish that Moenau should live with them in Rarotonga. This did not please Tamaiva or his mother, who were jealous of Moenau. They asked where Ruatapu was and on being told that he was at Tonga-tapu told Rangiura they did not want to take charge of Moenau and that he had better take Moenau away to some other islands called Ngaputoru, meaning Atiu, Mau‘ke. Mitiaro, where they said Moenau would become a man of rank and also have plenty of flying-fish to eat. Rangiura and Moenau were very much angered on hearing this. Rangiura decided that as soon as they had rested and he had repaired his canoe or obtained another, they would continue on to Ngaputoru as he would not leave Moenau where he was not wanted. Five days later Rangiura and Moenau having rested and repaired the canoe left Rarotonga for Ngaputoru. This time the struck very bad weather at sea. Weak and exhausted, Rangiura at last reached Mau‘ke, but when trying to reach the shore he was killed on the reef. Moenau, however, was rescued by the people of Mau‘ke, taken ashore, and well treated. Some years later when he had grown into a strong young man Moenau married a Mau‘ke woman named Te Kaumarokura. A son was born whom they named Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Ma‘uketau.
Moenau, who had by this time grown into a very big and powerful man, was very proud of his size and strength and also of the fact that he was a son of Ruatapu. He would seldom go fishing, but would go down to the beach and meet the canoes coming in from fishing. He would then help himself to any fish he fancied often taking all the fish from one canoe and leaving the owner to go home hungry without any fish for his family. This made the Mau‘ke men very angry but for a long time they suffered in silence, being afraid of Moenau’s size and strength. At last they met secretly and planned to kill him. Two of the strongest fighting men were appealed to to try and surprise Moenau and kill him with spears. But they would not agree, saying that Moenau was more than a match for any six men on the island, and would surely kill them. In the end they decided to try to kill him by using what they called kaa natipui, a fine rope or cord made out of coconut-fibre, their plan being to catch Moenau unprepared. On the day chosen for the deed Tara-te-kui, one of the two men, who was a very good fisherman, went out fishing; the other toa chosen, named Tara-te-kurapo, was to stay ashore and prepare the trap. Tara-te-kui was to stay out fishing until after sunset then he was to come quickly ashore to the spot agreed upon. As soon as Tara-te-kurapo made sure that enough fish were caught he went to Moenau’s house telling him that Tara-te-kui was just coming in from fishing and had made a good catch. Moenau started for the beach at once and Tara-te-kurapo went with him. When they reached the canoe it was dark and Tara-te-kui was just beginning a meal of taro and fish. This was all part of their plot. Tara-te-kui had the rope snare all set where he intended Moenau to sit down. Tara-te-kui invited both Moenau and Tara-te-kurapo to sit down and have some food with him before Moenau took some fish home. This pleased Moenau, who readily sat down where Tara-te-kui placed his food. As soon as he commenced to eat Tarate-kui and Tara-tekurapo each took an end of the snare and pulled it tight. Moenau was caught by the testicles and was soon overpowered and killed with spears hidden close by. When dead his body was dragged to a cave nearby and thrown in. This done, they took their fish and went home. Next morning they told the people of Mau‘ke that they had killed Moenau. This greatly pleased the Mau‘ke people, who had feared Moenau and were glad to be rid of him and his fish-stealing ways. At the time of Moenau’s death his son Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Ma‘uketau was about four years old. Moenau’s wife grieved over the killing of Moenau, and for a long time it was thought that she would die. Tara-te-kui and Tarate-kurapo were very sorry for her and the child. They looked after her like a sister and took fish to her each week. All these years Ruatapu had waited on Tonga-tapu for Rangiuri to bring him word of the safe arrival of Moenau at Rarotonga. He feared that both Rangiura and Moenau were dead and he decided to follow them to Rarotonga to see if they were there. He reached Rarotonga safely and on finding his son Tamaiva, asked where his younger brother Moenau was. Tamaiva replied, “He came here but I and my mother told Rangiuri to take him on to Ngaputoru so that he would be sure of having plenty of flying-fish to eat.” On hearing this Ruatapu was angered and shouted, “Well I am sure you sent him to his death. I sent him to you to be cared for and now he is dead.” Ruatapu sailed at once from Rarotonga, leaving his son Tamaiva behind. He soon sighted Mau‘ke and passed the reef and landed on the beach. He noticed a number of children playing near the landing place one of whom was very like Moenau as Ruatapu remembered him. Calling the child to him he asked his name and who his father was. The boy said he was called Te Kura-ariki-kiMa‘uketau, and that his father’s name was Moenau. Ruatapu asked for Moenau, and on being told that he was dead, lamented. Later he asked the boy if his mother were still alive and where she was to be found. The boy replied that his mother, Te Kaumarokura, still lived. Ruatapu asked to be taken to her, and when they reached the house he met Moenau’s wife and also found there Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo. Ruatapu asked Te Kaumarokura if she was the wife of Moenau and she replied, “Yes.” He also asked her where Moenau was and she told him that he was dead. Ruatapu asked her if the two men were her new husbands. Te Kaumarokura said that they were not, but that they were relatives and like fathers to her and her child. She then asked Ruatapu what had brought him to Mau‘ke and he said that he had come in search of his son Moenau. She said that he had come too late - Moenau was dead. Ruatapu asked her how many children Moenau had. Te Kaumarokura answered that he had only one son, Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Ma‘uketua, who was standing beside him. Te Kaumarokura then asked Ruatapu how long he intended staying in Mau‘ke, and he said he would decide on the next day. Te Kaumarokura, Tara-te-kui, and Tara-te-kurapo prepared food for Ruatapu, and after he had eaten he soon fell asleep.
Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo and Moenau’s wife talked quietly together and the two men said that they were frightened of Ruatapu who, they said, must be either a powerful ariki or else a god, as never before had they seen a man like him. They asked her if she did not feel sorry for them and begged that she would not tell Ruatapu that they had killed Moenau. Te Kaumarokura promised saying that they were now more to her than brothers.
Early next morning Ruatapu arose and his first questions were “How did Moenau die? Was he killed in fighting and, if so, who killed him?” Moenau’s wife answered that Moenau had not been killed in fighting but had fallen into a cave or hole in the Makatea. Ruatapu told her that he had supposed Moenau had been killed fighting; but if her answer was true he could not avenge his death. Ruatapu then told Te Kaumarokura that he would not remain long in Mau‘ke but asked to be allowed to take Moenau’s son with him. To this Te Kaumarokura would not agree, saying that she had already lost Moenau and that if she were to lose the boy she would die. Ruatapu then asked Moenau’s son if he would not like to go with him, but Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Ma‘uketau replied that on the island where his father had died there also would he die. Ruatapu then said to the mother and son that they were right; for if he were to take the boy away Moenau’s name would be forgotten in Mau‘ke. All the people of Mau‘ke had heard that Ruatapu, the father of Moenau, had arrived looking for his son, and when they had seen him they were very much afraid lest he should hear how Moehau had died. But no word of the truth reached Ruatapu and he left Mau‘ke three days later. After clearing the reef he met some fishing canoes. A man in one of the canoes hailed him and asked why he was leaving so soon. Ruatapu replied that as Moenau was dead and as he had seen his wife and child there was nothing more to stay for. The fisherman then asked Ruatapu if he knew how Moenau had died. Ruatapu replied that he had met his death by falling into a cave. The man then told Ruatapu the truth about Moenau. Ruatapu asked who had done the killing and was told that the two men living in the house with Te Kaumarokura, Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo. Ruatapu replied, “It is now too late. They have lied to me. Had I known this while I was ashore I would have killed both Kura-te-kui and Kura-te-kurapo, but I have parted from them in peace and cannot return now.”
Drury Low, “The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai”, 1934
The battles of Ma‘uke, Tamuera’s narrative, 1916
A legend of the battles that happened on the island of Mau‘ke. The first battle was about Moenau Ariki. Moenau Ariki was the son of Temaru-‘enua-O‘Avaiki. His mother was Ariki Vaine.
When Moenau’s parents died, he took over his parents’ Ariki title. When he was reigning, his way of controlling the people changed. This was the change. When the men went out to sea to fish, he would also go onto the reef and wait around for the time the fishermen came back. When they came back he would go onto the white sand on the beach and sit down. He would get his basket and put it besides him. Then he would show his fingers and toes. The fishermen would come closer to hurt and kneel down. Then they would give him some fish, a fish for each finger and each toe. One day a fisherman went out to sea. His name was Tapou. Moenau also saw him going out and he followed. The fisherman was lucky and caught plenty of fish. When he came ashore he saw Moenau sitting on the beach. This fisherman came ashore at the passage called Nuka. He went before the Ariki crying quietly. When he arrived before the Ariki, he knelt down before him and gave him some fish, one for each finger and toe. Then he went and lifted his canoe into place. He ran home and asked his wife: “My wife, where is my nati?” (strong rope plaited from strands of coconut fibre). His wife replied: “It is there on the place were you put your things.”
He took his nati and ran very quickly to Tukume, where Moenau Ariki’s cave was. He climbed down into Moenau’s cave and waited for Moenau’s return. Not long after Moenau Ariki returned to his cave. This fisherman got his nati ready. When Moenau Ariki climbed down into his cave, the fisherman saw his two testicles hanging down. He quickly ran and put his nati around Moenau’s two testicles and pulled it very tightly. Moenau used all his strength to break the nati but the coconut fibres which were used to plait the nati were too strong for him to break. He tried again but this only cut off his two testicles. He then ran from Tukume to Turu and died there. That was where he was buried.
Moenau’s wife was Kareatumu and his son was Teaukura. When Ruatapu of Aitutaki heard that Moenau Ariki was dead, he sent his canoe Tueu-Moana from Aitutaki. When the canoe arrived at Mau‘ke, it came ashore at Avaavatoa. They stayed on the island and looked out for Moenau’s son, Teaukura, to take him to Aitutaki to Ruatapu. That was where the Aitutakian saying, “look at the image of Moenau” came from. They were lucky they caught this boy and the canoe too, the boy, Teaukura.
When the canoe arrived at Aitutaki, Ruatapu gave this boy Teaukura another name. He called him Tamaiva. This was so that the people who wished to kill him would not find him. Ruatapu treated this boy as his very own son. He put him in the house of the high chiefs, onto the maraeO-Rongo, to be taught how to fight. The first thing that was done to him was, he was thrown with an Utu seed. From there he was taught on the bow and arrow and then on the sling, then the spear and other types of fighting.
He knew these things well. One night Ruatapu took this boy and asked him what he knew about the death of his father, Moenau. The boy answered that he had just heard that his father Moenau was killed.
Ruatapu said to him: “Well my son, that is the reason why I put you in the house of the high chiefs. Your father was an Ariki. You must go and replace your father, take over his Ariki title. Akatoka-Manava is the island. My son, be strong. You have one more problem. We will go to NukuTere (Rarotonga) to Tangi‘ia-nui’s high chiefs. You will stay at Rangiātea Tepou Kāinga. You may live and you may die.”
After that Ruatapu’s canoe sailed to Rarotonga to take Tamaiva. The canoe was still TueuMoana. When the canoe arrived it came ashore at the passage called Maro-toto. He gave this boy to the high chiefs to be taught how to fight and this boy was offered to Tuorongi. Ruatapu’s canoe went to Manuae, and when he arrived there a battle started - one island against another. Ruatapu took the weapons and returned to Aitutaki.
He stayed at Aitutaki for a long time. Then he got ready to return to Rarotonga to visit Tamaiva. When he went he took two canoes, Anganui and Tueu-Moana. Two hundred people from Aitutaki went with him. When they arrived at Rarotonga they stayed at Rangiātea. Then Ruatapu went to the high chiefs and told them what he wanted Tamaiva, Moenau’s son for and also how Moenau died. Then the high chiefs agreed and so did the people of Rarotonga. Then Ruatapu led this boy to Titama-nui and spoke to him: “My son, this will be the last time I will speak to you and this will be our last meeting. Show me your strength.”
Then they stood up. They started fighting with adze, then the spear, then the club, then bow and arrow and then the sling. Then Ruatapu knew that Tamaiva was now a warrior.
He told Tamaiva, “Here are your 200 men from Aitutaki. Go to Akatoka-Manava and avenge the death of your father, Moenau, whose two testicles were tied with a nati at Tukume.” They returned to the village and Ruatapu told his people about their journey. Ruatapu told them, “When you go, turn in to Atiu and the shark will lead you to the passage Oravaru”. And he told them what to do at Atiu before they went on to Akatoka-Manava.
Then three canoes left, Anganui, Tueu-Moana and one from Rarotonga called Marua-A-Po.
They sailed to Atiu, and when they arrived there, the shark came and led them to the passage called Oravaru, just as Ruatapu had told them.
They stayed at Moekoero and told the people of Atiu that they were going to Akatoka-Manava, and that they were being sent by Ruatapu to take his son to see his ancestors in Akatoka-Manava. The people of Atiu did not know that that was Moenau’s son and that they were on a war expedition. They covered their weapons with rauti-para, and when this was done, they went on to Akatoka-Manava. A rauti-para is a peace sign so the people of Mau‘ke would think that they were just visiting.
When they left for Akatoka-Manava, a canoe from Atiu came with them. It was called Manumanu-Ka-Rere. When they arrived at Mau‘ke, the shark came and led them to the passage called Anaio. This shark was called Kau-Mango. When the people of Mau‘ke came to see them, they saw that they were decorated with rauti-para and their weapons also. They told the people of Mau‘ke that they were sent by Ruatapu to bring his son. The people of Mau‘ke also did not know that this was Moenau’s son. There was no Ariki there at that time and the land was being looked after by the Matai‘apos.
They were led to Vaimotu, where they stayed. Tamaiva cried and asked the people of Mau‘ke about the marae called Rangi-Manuka and about Moenau Ariki’s wife, Kareatumu.
After that Tamaiva and his people went on to the marae Rangi-Manuka beating the Ka‘ara with their weapons. Here was the chant from the beating of the drum:
There will be a battle / A battle on Akatokāmanava / On Akatokāmanava.
Then the battle began between ngāti Tamaiva and the people of Mau‘ke until all the people of Mau‘ke were killed. Tamaiva had avenged his father’s, Moenau Ariki’s death and he took over the throne. Here is the chant:
It was Temaru-‘enua-O-‘Avaiki / the first ariki of Akatoka-Manava / Moenau was born / Then came Tamaiva Ariki / Mau‘ke was adorned with rau-ti / My great chief, where do you go / Where do you go / A long way to Tangi‘ia-nui. / Then Ariki Tara‘are was born / then Uru, Ua tukuariki / Ngatua Nunui / Then Tinokura came / Our Ariki . . .
Then Tamaiva Ariki stayed on the island, the canoes and all the people returned home.
Tamuera, 1916, in Stephen Savage’s manuscript book “E Buka tuatua ‘enua”
The Atiuan conquest of Ma‘uke, William Wyatt Gill, Jottings from the Pacific, 1885
A FAT chief of Atiu, named Akaina, paid a visit to the island of Mau‘ke - a distance of fifty-five miles. Canoes from Atiu first make Mitiaro, and after resting there awhile, start again for Mau‘ke. For such voyages, instead of a single canoe steadied by an outrigger, it is customary to fasten together two canoes and lay a deck across them. A mast is then set up; and with the aid of a large mat sail, plaited from the leaves of the pandanus, they rapidly skim the surface of the ocean.
Guided by the stars only, these islanders have in this manner found their way from island to island from time immemorial. Occasionally, however, they are driven out of their course, and are either lost at sea or fetched up on some distant isle. It is in this way that the multitudinous islands of the Pacific have become populated.
On reaching the pretty island of Mau‘ke, Akaina sent back his crew, himself remaining behind. The motive was a secret resolve to get possession of the wife of one of the chiefs. He succeeded in inducing the foolish woman to abandon her husband. The chagrined partner naturally resolved to be revenged.
He collected his friends one dark night, surrounded the dwelling of the renowned Atiuan warrior-chief, and killed him. That same night his body was cooked and eaten in revenge. Quite a number of Akaina’s countrymen happened to be living peacefully on Mau‘ke under the protection of a chief named Tararo. None of these visitors were molested; but not long afterwards some of them found a pretext for sailing back to Atiu to tell the news of Akaina’s fate. The ‘meek-faced’ Atiuans instantly resolved on vengeance. They had but recently returned from the extermination of the natives of Mitiaro.
Eighty double-canoes were speedily equipped and sent to sea with all the warriors that the island could furnish. The designation of this second expedition was ei tiki inu, i.e. to be avenged on the Mau‘ke people for eating Akaina’s fat.
The little fleet touched at Mitiaro for refreshment and to pick up Nukuhiva, who willingly accompanied them. As soon as the invading fleet hove in sight, the inhabitants of Mau‘ke knew (having heard of what had occurred on the sister island) that their fate was sealed. Although more than double the number of the exterminated Mitiaro people, they had not the courage to strike a blow at the invaders. They at once abandoned their homes and run off in all directions, to hide themselves by twos and threes in caves and dense thickets.
The first care of the invaders was to haul up their great double canoes out of the reach of the surf. The entire body of warriors then marched up into the interior and took possession of the forsaken dwellings and plantations of the doomed islanders.
Disappointed of a fight, it was arranged that a great manhunt should come off on the following day. Accordingly at the appointed time, the invaders scattered themselves all over the island, peering into almost every crevice, and dashing into the densest thickets and dragging thence their trembling victims. These poor creatures were marched to the encampment and counted. They were then compelled to collect firewood and banana leaves, each party of two or three having to heat a separate oven, the conquerors meantime encircling them to prevent the possibility of escape. Bitter jibes and sarcasms were all the while lavished on their victims. When the stoves were red-hot, and the embers removed with many tears, the wretched captives were clubbed and cooked in those very ovens.
A diabolical feast followed. Next day another hunt was made, and numerous new victims secured. All these, without distinction of age or sex, were treated in the same barbarous way as the first.
Infants were snatched from their mothers’ arms and brained, and then cooked with their parents! The spot where these atrocities were committed was pointed out to the writer. A huge block of tamanu (Calophyllum inophyllum), or native mahogany, covered with deep indentations - on which the heads of many were chopped off - was shown as a proof of the hard service which the Evil One exacts from his subjects. In this way in the course of a few days the invaders nearly exterminated the original inhabitants of Mau‘ke - a race confessedly sprung from themselves. After devouring all they could, a large quantity of this disgusting food remained. This was re-baked from time to time, and packed in baskets for their wives and children at Atiu.
When the surviving starvelings were assured that the invaders were gone, they emerged out of the most inaccessible caves into the light of day. Their first care was to bury the ghastly relics of their relatives, and then slowly rebuild the huts burnt down the day the invaders left.
But new troubles were preparing. Maiti, the leading man amongst the survivors, was exceedingly disgusted to find that Tararo had been appointed by the Atiuans sole ruler of Mau‘ke, in place of the former chief; but, of course, subject to Roma-Tane. When the fugitives had in a great degree recovered their former physical strength, and completed their house-building, Maiti collected forty fighting men, and openly defied Tararo. In the ensuing fight Maiti lost his younger brother and ten of his men, but Tararo’s party became utterly scattered. Tararo and his aged father fled to the principal marae - Tangi‘ia, or Great Tangi‘ia, in the vain hope of safety. Maiti and his surviving followers determined to desecrate the sacred grove by slaying the deputy-king of the Atiuans and his father. But Tararo, getting a glimpse of the advancing foe, nimbly climbed up one of the topmost branches of a magnificent chestnut, which is still pointed out. Like our own royal Charles, he was completely hidden from sight by the thick foliage. By this time the attacking party had encircled the house which Tararo had so recently left. Found only the father Tapokikiri sitting quietly at the doorway, under the shade of the sacred tamanu trees, awaiting his fate, being too much of a warrior to run to save his life. He at once fell under their blows. They looked everywhere for Tararo; but he could nowhere be found. Some of them even looked up at the very chestnut tree in which he was hidden, but perceived only gigantic limbs covered with moss and ferns and a wondrous wealth of foliage. After a long and fruitless search, they returned to the interior.
At dusk Tararo betook himself to the rocks, where he long remained, subsisting as best he could upon wild fruits. One day he chanced to fall in with his near relative Kairae. They agreed to live together in a cave, very difficult of access, the entrance to which was pointed out to me. Maiti and his party scoured the island to discover their hiding-place. On one occasion they came to the very cave where the fugitives were hiding. A long spear was thrust in at hazard, and nearly pierced Tararo. The spear was withdrawn, and the foe thinking they were not there, passed on, thus enabling them to breathe freely again. But one hope remained: could Kairae get to Atiu to tell Roma-Tane of Tararo’s miserable state? The brave Kairae resolved to attempt it. As the wind was then fair for the projected voyage, Kairae the same night made his way to the seaside, where he took possession of a tiny canoe. Alone he dragged it across the reef, launched it on the ocean, and without food or water dared to cross over to Mitiaro, a distance of thirty miles! (Many years later a grandson of this same man repeated this marvellous feat, in consequence of a bitter family quarrel.) By daylight the canoe was out of sight, so that the flight of Kairae was unsuspected. The adventurous voyager reached Mitiaro much exhausted. After obtaining a little rest and food there, he started again for Atiu - still alone in that little canoe!
Kairae’s arrival set Atiu in a blaze of excitement. Roma-Tane ordered his warriors at once to get ready their double-canoes for a fresh descent upon Mau‘ke. As soon as the wind veered round to the north, the little fleet put to sea.
In expectation of the arrival of the Atiuan warriors, Tararo had taken up his abode at the seaside, hiding amongst the ironwood (Camarina equisetifolia) trees that grow most luxuriantly there. Occasionally he even ventured to climb one of the loftiest of them, to get the first glimpse of coming assistance. At last it came, to the dismay of Maiti and his followers.
As on the former occasion, not the slightest resistance was made. The invaders took possession of the deserted dwellings of Maiti and his clan, Tararo openly joining them. The entire party of Maiti was taken alive, and were leisurely slain, cooked, and eaten. But on this occasion, happily, the women and young children were spared. A few of the younger women were taken to Atiu by the invaders as wives. An aged woman told me that she was one of those who were compelled to go - in a canoe laden with the flesh of her countrymen!
Numbers of the invaders ultimately settled down on the fertile little island of Mau‘ke. The stay of Roma-Tane this time was short. Tararo was again appointed deputy-chief.
A third expedition was subsequently planned by Roma-Tane to kill off the children of those formerly slaughtered. But God had thoughts of mercy towards the poor remnant. In 1823 the Rev. J. Williams touched at Atiu; his first convert there was this fierce Roma-Tane! The ruthless conqueror and cannibal threw the entire weight of his authority in favour of Christianity. And thus the remnant was saved; for Roma-Tane remained consistent to the period of his death.
William Wyatt Gill, Jottings from the Pacific, 1885, pp. 48 to 56
The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
First edition, page 1
Chapter 15
Ma’ukean customary law - Ākono’anga Pa Enua Tonga o te Ma’uke by Ross Holmes
The information in this Chapter is a short summary. Detailed research, which is beyond the scope of this book, is needed on Ma’ukean customary law.
Oral traditions as to name of Ma’uke Ma’uke, the most easterly of the Cook Islands, is named after a settler from Avaiki called Uke. William Wyatt Gill recorded that:1 Mauki - land of Uki (the first inhabitant).
This should have read Ma’uke and Uke. The classical names of the island are Te Rae-O-Te-Pa’u, meaning the lip of the drum; Rurutu,2 and Akatokāmanava.3 William Wyatt Gill gives as the meaning of “akatoka”: stony. “Manava” means “heart” (seat of emotions). Thus he translates Akatokāmanava as “Stony Heart” It was according to him the secret name of the island’s etherial form in the netherworld.4 Against this translation is the fact that in Māori the adjective comes after the noun. An informant gave Alphons Kloosterman the following explanation:5 When Uke came ashore, he had here his first good rest since he started his voyage. When he awoke, he called the place: Akatokāmanava, that is: my heart rested. Hence other translations the place of rest,6 a heart in peace, or a heart in love.7 In many legends an island, named Maketu, is mentioned. This was said to be Ma’uke.8 More
Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 17; Anon., Mauke, in CIR 6 (1960) no. 12: 7
Vakaporo-Uatini, ...The Origin of the Name of the Island of Rurutu..., 1911: 216
3 Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 16; Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 12
Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 17
Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 25
Syme, Ronald, Cook Islands: Book I The Coming of Man, ...1955: 16
Anon., Cook Islands. The As-Always Isles, Cook Islands Tourist Authority, Rarotonga, 1972: 14
8 Nicholas, H., and Smith, Stephenson Percy (ed.), Native of Rarotonga, E Tuatua teia no te Tupuanga mai o Pa Ariki o Takitumu. No roto Aia i te Uanga ariki a Ātea ma Pāpā, mei Avaiki. Genealogy of Pa, Chieftainess of Takitumu, in Genealogies and Historical Notes from Rarotonga, JPS 1 (1892) 25-29: 20-24, 25-29; Nicholas, H., and Smith, Stephenson Percy (ed.), Native of Rarotonga, Ko te Pāpā Ariki teia mei Avaiki mai, mei roto ia Pāpā. The Royal Genealogy from Avaiki Downwards, from Pāpā, in Genealogies and Historical Notes from Rarotonga, JPS 1 (1892) 65-75: 65-69, 70-75; Pakoti, John, ...The first Inhabitants of Aitutaki; The History of Ru 1895: 64, 68, 70; 339; Kiva, translated by Browne, Arthur H., E Tuatua Tupuna no Rarotonga (An account of some early ancestors of Rarotonga) (1897) 6 JPS:1-3; Putua-ariki, translated by Browne, Arthur H., E Tuatua no Karika o Rarotonga. Karika’s migration to Rarotonga, (1897) 6 JPS 3-9: 4, 7; Smith, Stephenson Percy, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori; Being an Introduction to Rarotonga History, in JPS 7 (1898) 137-177, 185-223; 8 (1899) 148; The Settlement of Rarotonga, 8 (1899) 29-39: 36; Best, Elsdon, The discovery and settlement of Rarotonga by Polynesians, (1927): 134
First edition, page 2
2 recently it was thought to be the island of Meetia.9
Oral traditions as to the first settlement of Ma’uke - Tua taito no te au tangata tei no’o mua ki Ma’uke In the following anonomous genealogical account recorded by William Wyatt Gill, Uke is called Uke-umu o te vaarua kino: Uke oven of the evil pit (? Hades). The account infers that his ancestors were gods, as his parents are recorded as Ātea and Pāpā. Uke married Te Pua I angauta, and their daughter, Tara-matie-toro, married Tura (a contemporary of Tangi’ia and Karika Tara’ape who lived about 1250), a son or grandson of Atiu-mua from Atiu, and that “It was these two who spread the population of Ma’uke and Atiu.” The genealogy of William Wyatt Gill traces 25 generations from Uke down to Pare-pora, who lived at the time of the introduction of the Gospel:10 No. 7. E TUATUA NO TE TUPUANGA O MAUKE. November 4th, 1882. KO Atea te katiri o te au mea katoatoa. Ko Atea ka noo i te vaine, i a Paparoa-i-te-itinga; anau ta raua ko Te Tumu:— Atea=Paparoa-i-te-itinga 31 Te Tumu=Papa-i-te-opunga E Te Tumu e! neke mai, Kare au e neke atu, Ko Te Tumu au no te enua. Ko Te Tumu ka noo i te vaine i a Papa-i-te-opunga, anau ta raua ko Tumu-te-nekeneke. E Papa e! neke mai, Kare au e neke atu, E Papa au no te enua. 30 Tumu-te-nekeneke=Tumu-te-oioi 29 Tumu-tikei=Tumu-aro 28 Toka-rukuruku=Toka-eaea 27 Uke=Te Puai-angauta Uke-umu o te vaarua kino. Kua tae mai ki te ao nei, kua tangata. Kua noo a Uke i te vaine, i a Te Puai-angauta, anau ta raua ko:— 26 Tara-matie-toro=Tura Na raua i katiri te tangata i Mauke e Atiu. E tangata Atiu a Tura, e kua aere mai a ia ki Mauke nei e rave i tetai tamaine a Uke, i a Tara-matie-toro. Anau ta raua ko:— 25 Purea=Tarangi-enua-manu 24 Kura=Vai-koukou i te Kauariki 23 Tiutiu=Tuakau ‘Ona-ariki=Rangi-marie Patu-kura=To’ere
9 Kelly, Leslie G., Cook Islands Origin of the Māori, JPS 64 (1955) 181-196: 185; Maretu, E Tuatua no te Kai-tangata i Rarotonga. A Word about Cannibalism at Rarotonga, JPS 20 (1911) 196-201, 201-207; Notes by S. Savage, 208-209 (Gill’s Extracts, no. 14): 208 note 3; Te Ariki-Tara-Are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga. (Translations by Smith, Stephenson Percy, J.T. Large, and S. Savage), 1919: 196 note
10 Anon., E Tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mauke. A Word about the Growth (History) of Mauke Island, in JPS 20 (1911) 134-136 (Gill’s Extracts, no.7); Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 12; Buck, Sir Peter, Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958: 111
First edition, page 3
3 20 Tu-ariki=Te Tau Te Ao-marama=Te Kura-i-te-ata ‘Ona-kai-kino=Oa Ra’iri=Tiamata-o-Te-Rongo Tona=Nga-vaine-mei-te-ra 15 Tamaiva=Tu-korora Purea=Matarua Ruaau=Vai-tunga Te Ariki-‘ape’ape=Ko’u-ata Te Atua-te-io=Maeva 10 Vaia=Arutonga Rangi-nui=Aketuke Kopati=Aro’i Kai-moko=Karo-pae-rangi Ka’u=Mae’va 5 Tura=’Ina Te Ariki-taka-i-rangi=Mauturi Parepora E toko-ono to te po mai; e 25 papa-uki tangata mei i a Uke mai e tae ua mai ki a Pare-pora. [Translation of No. 7.] A WORD ABOUT THE GROWTH (HISTORY) OF MAUKE ISLAND. November 4th, 1882. [We do not know who this brief history was written by, but it is one of the papers in Dr. Wyatt Gill’s collection, and was probably due to one of the teachers on the island. Mauke is one of the Cook Group of islands, situated about one hundred and fifty miles N.E. by East from Rarotonga. The following is a brief history, which shows that the island was first occupied by Tara-matie-toro and her husband Tura twenty-six generations ago, or about the year 1250 (i.e., by allowing twenty-five years to a generation). It is, however, scarcely safe to trust to only one line for a date. This was an important period in Polynesian history, for, if the genealogical table is correct, Tura would have been a contemporary of Tangiia-nui and Karika, under whom Rarotonga received large accessions to its population from Samoa and Tahiti; and it was at this time Iro (Whiro in New Zealand Maori) also flourished and made some of his noted voyages in the Pacific, on one of which Tura was his companion to the island of Vavau (either the island of that name in the Tonga Group, or Porapora of the Society Group, the old name of which was Vavau - probably the former). It is not at present certain if this Tura is the same as mentioned in New Zealand and Rarotongan histories, though the period agrees well. It was at this period also that a great unrest appears to have overtaken the Eastern Polynesians, which led them to extend their settlements to many new islands, and a century afterwards brought large accessions to the population of New Zealand. The dialect in which this short history is expressed is Rarotongan.] A TEA was the “spreader” (or creator) of all things. Atea dwelt with a woman named Paparoa-i-te-itinga (Paparoa of the sunrise) and there was born to them Te Tumu; thus:— 32 Atea=Paparoa-i-te-itinga 31 Te Tumu=Paparoa-i-te-opunga “Oh Te Tumu, O! Draw near! I will not approach thee, For I am Te Tumu (the origin) of the land.” Te Tumu dwelt with the woman Paparoa-i-te-opunga (Paparoa at the sunset), and there was born to them Tumu-te-nekeneke, whose song, or “saying”, is:— “Oh Papa. O! Draw near!
First edition, page 4
4 I will not approach thee, For I am the Papa (foundation) of the land.” 30 Tumu-te-nekeneke=Tumu-te-oioi 29 Tumu-tikei=Tumu-aro 28 Toka-rukuruku=Toka-eaea 27 Uke=Te Puai-angauta This was Uke-umu of the “evil pit” (? Hades). He came to this world, and became a man. Uke dwelt with the woman Puai-angauta, and there was born to them:— 26 Tara-matie-toro=Tura It was these two who spread the population of Mauke and Atiu Islands. Tura was a man from Atiu who came to Mauke to take one of Uke’s daughters, Tara-matie-toro, as a wife. They had:— 25 Purea=Tarangi-enua-manu (See the original for their descendants.) “There are six of these names from the Po (or ages of darkness - ages of the gods), and twenty-five generations from Uke down to Parepora” (to which two are added to bring the table down to the year 1900).
Tangata of ngāti Tamuera, gave the following list of the ariki of Ma’uke from Uke (which is not therefore a genealogy):11
List of ariki of Ma’uke by Tangata recorded by Walter Gudgeon, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii
First edition, page 5
First edition, page 6
6 According to one oral tradition on a visit to Ma’uke Tangi’ia (who lived circa 1250, and settled in Rarotonga) married two sisters, Moe-tuma and Pua-tara, who were daughters of Uke.12 Tangi’ia accordingly had close connections with Ma’uke:13 TANGIIA VISITS MAUKE ISLAND. 283. When Tangiia reached Mauke Island he landed in the district of Utaki, where is the koutu (or sacred place of religious ceremonies, meetings, etc., etc.) named Rangi-manuka. He went to look for the girls, and found them by the path beating out bark (for cloth). He stealthly drew near to them, through the bushes, and as he approached he felt inspired and composed the following love song: [Which song I do not feel competent to translate - see the original.]... 283. E tae atura a Tangiia ki Mauke kua kake atura ki uta ki te tapere ra, ko Utaki, ko Rangi-manuka te koutu. E kite atura aia i aua nga vaine ra, te noo ra ki runga i te renanga, te tukai ra i te ara. Kua akapiri aere atu aia na roto i te ngangaere; e tae atura aia i vaitata, kua tae mai te au ki aia, kua atu iora i te pee, na-ko atura:— Ka tukaiia, ka tukaiia tau oki, rirerire e— Ki te ara-kura ua, Pua-tara e, ki au e— Ka moe noa te vaine, e Moetuna, E tungou o mata e te ariki Ka kite ra ïa koe - e— Ka tukaiia ra, ka uka īa Ka ukaia mai ana. Kotai pakia ïa, a paki akanui, Katakata noa koia e— Kua inga te ta urua, Puatara e - ki au e, Ka moe noa te vaine, e Moe-tuna, A tungou nga mata o te ariki Ka kite ra ïa koe e, a kia mou a aroa. Akatae, akatae e rire taku au ki Mauke e— Ra Pua-tara ki au e— Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna, Tungou nga mata ki te ariki Ka kite ra i a koe e— Ko akaa, akatere ki Mauke e— Ki a Tama-tino-rere, kua rere ua Ki te rangi tapu e rire e— Ko te rei o Tangiia, Pua-tara e, ki au e— Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna, A tungou o mata ki te ariki, Ka kite ra i a koe e— E poupou pou ra ki tai e— Ko te tai o Kori-mata oki Ko te kau ra tena ra, Ki te tama rirerire e
12 Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 22; Toarua, Genealogical Table of Uenga, JPS 20 (1911) 142-143: 143; Te Ariki-Tara-Are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga. (Translations by Smith, Stephenson Percy, J.T. Large, and S. Savage), JPS 28 (1919) Introductory Note: 183-184; Tangiia’s Birth and Disputes at Tahiti: 184-186, 198; Tangiia visits Mauke Island, 186, 199; War at Tahiti between Tangiia and Tu-Tapu: 186-189, 199-202; Tangiia starts on his voyages: 189, 202; They interview the Gods: 190-191, 202-204; The Expedition returns south: 191-192, 204-205; Easter Island: 192, 205; Tangiia and his Sister make peace: 192-195, 205-207; TuTapu in chase of Tangiia: 195, 207; Tangiia meets Karika: 195-197, 207-208; Tangiia Settles at Rarotonga: 197, 208: 186, 199; Gudgeon, Walter Edward, The Whence of the Māori, JPS 12 (1903) (45): 51-61; (46): 120-130; (47): 166-179: 121
13 Te Ariki-tara-are, translated by Smith, S, Percy, History and traditions of Rarotonga, Part VII (1919) JPS Volume 28, No. 112, p 183-208: 186 and 199
First edition, page 7
7 Ki te kape uti i a Pua-tara e, ki au e— Ka moe noa te vaine e Moe-tuna Tungou nga mata ki te ariki, Ka kite ra i a koe, e— E ko ikiiki iki na runga ki te tai Opukia ko te kauranga tena ra E te tama a ki runga i te koko Ki taku uutia ua, Pua-tara e - ki au e— Ka moe noa te vaine Moe-tuna Tungou nga mata o te ariki Ka kite ra i a koe, a kia mou aroa - e—
The oral traditions recorded by Walter Gudgeon differed and recorded that while he resided on Ma’uke, Tangi’ia co-habited with Moetuma who gave birth to a son named Motoro:14 It would seem that the great ariki Tutapu of Tahiti, conceived a dislike to his brother Tangiia, and the latter to escape death fled to the small island of Mauke, where he co-habited with Moetuma who gave birth, to a son named Motoro, and this man finally took up his abode on the island of Rarotonga, where he become the ancestor of a very numerous people.
In another oral tradition it is recorded that Tangi’ia seduced two daughters of the local ariki and had two Ma’ukean children including Motoro, the other son having died in Tahiti:15 ....Tangiia departed for Mauke, where he seduced two daughters of the local ariki..... Upon his return to Taiti, he sent for his children from Mauke. Shortly after the children’s arrival, Tutapu came to Taiti seeking to recover his father’s sacred weapon and the rights to human sacrifice. Tangiia refused to concede these, offering only the breadfruit tribute, already in Tutapu’s possession. War commenced,...During the battle Tutapu set fire to the ridges, burning to death one of Tangiia’s Mauke sons. The other, Motoro, was saved by the goddess Ta’akura who, following the advice of Tangaroa, wrapped a thick cloak around Motoro under the cover of the smoke. The son was then spirited away by a large bee and butterfly (these insects were, therefore, sacred to Motoro’s vaka, Arorangi).
‘Tika Raupatu’ - Acquisition of land rights by conquest by Ross Holmes It is clear that for some time prior to the arrival of Christianity the Ma’ukeans had been under the domination of Atiu. Raiding parties from Atiu went over from time to time for food and women.16 Akaina a chief from Atiu was the cause of the first major invasion of Ma’uke by Rongamatane of Atiu:17
A FAT chief of Atiu, named Akaina, paid a visit to the island of Mauke - a distance of fifty-five miles. Canoes from Atiu first make Mitiaro, and after resting there awhile, start again for Mauke. For such voyages, instead of a single canoe steadied by an outrigger, it is customary to fasten
14 Gudgeon, Walter, Lieut.-Col., The whence of the Maori: Part III, (1903) JPS Volume 12, No.2, June 1903, pp 120-130: 121
15 Sissons, Jeffrey, The seasonality of power: the Rarotongan legend of Tangiia (1989) JPS Volume 98, No. 3, pp 331-348: 337
Crocombe, R.G., From Ascendancy to Dependency (Atiu). The Politics of Atiu, 1967: 99
Gill, William Wyatt, Jottings from the Pacific, London: Religious Tract Society, 1885: 48-56
First edition, page 8
8 together two canoes and lay a deck across them. A mast is then set up; and with the aid of a large mat sail, plaited from the leaves of the pandanus, they rapidly skim the surface of the ocean. Guided by the stars only, these islanders have in this manner found their way from island to island from time immemorial. Occasionally, however, they are driven out of their course, and are either lost at sea or fetched up on some distant isle. It is in this way that the multitudinous islands of the Pacific have become populated. On reaching the pretty island of Mauke, Akaina sent back his crew, himself remaining behind. The motive was a secret resolve to get possession of the wife of one of the chiefs. He succeeded in inducing the foolish woman to abandon her husband. The chagrined partner naturally resolved to be revenged. He collected his friends one dark night, surrounded the dwelling of the renowned Atiuan warrior-chief, and killed him. That same night his body was cooked and eaten in revenge. Quite a number of Akaina’s countrymen happened to be living peacefully on Mauke under the protection of a chief named Tararo. None of these visitors were molested; but not long afterwards some of them found a pretext for sailing back to Atiu to tell the news of Akaina’s fate. The ‘meek-faced’ Atiuans instantly resolved on vengeance. They had but recently returned from the extermination of the natives of Mitiaro. Eighty double-canoes were speedily equipped and sent to sea with all the warriors that the island could furnish. The designation of this second expedition was ei tiki inu, i.e. to be avenged on the Mauke people for eating Akaina’s fat. The little fleet touched at Mitiaro for refreshment and to pick up Nukuhiva, who willingly accompanied them. As soon as the invading fleet hove in sight, the inhabitants of Mauke knew (having heard of what had occurred on the sister island) that their fate was sealed. Although more than double the number of the exterminated Mitiaro people, they had not the courage to strike a blow at the invaders.18 They at once abandoned their homes and run off in all directions, to hide themselves by twos and threes in caves and dense thickets. The first care of the invaders was to haul up their great double canoes out of the reach of the surf; the entire body of warriors then marched up into the interior and took possession of the forsaken dwellings and plantations of the doomed islanders. Disappointed of a fight, it was arranged that a great manhunt should come off on the following day. Accordingly at the appointed time, the invaders scattered themselves all over the island, peering into almost every crevice, and dashing into the densest thickets and dragging thence their trembling victims. These poor creatures were marched to the encampment and counted. They were then compelled to collect firewood and banana leaves, each party of two or three having to heat a separate oven, the conquerors meantime encircling them to prevent the possibility of escape. Bitter jibes and sarcasms were all the while lavished on their victims. When the stoves were red-hot, and the embers removed with many tears, the wretched captives were clubbed and cooked in those very ovens. A diabolical feast followed. Next day another hunt was made, and numerous new victims secured. All these, without distinction of age or sex, were treated in the same barbarous way as the first. Infants were snatched from their mothers’ arms and brained, and then cooked with their parents! The spot where these atrocities were committed was pointed out to the writer. A huge block of tamanu (Calophyllum inophyllum), or native mahogany, covered with deep indentations - on which the heads of many were chopped off - was shown as a proof of the hard service which the Evil One exacts from his subjects. In this way in the course of a few days the invaders nearly exterminated the original inhabitants of Mauke - a race confessedly sprung from themselves. After devouring all they could, a large quantity of this disgusting food remained. This was re-baked from time to time, and packed in baskets for their wives and children at Atiu.
For which the Atiuans twit their descendants to this day.
First edition, page 9
9 When the surviving starvelings were assured that the invaders were gone, they emerged out of the most inaccessible caves into the light of day. Their first care was to bury the ghastly relics of their relatives, and then slowly rebuild the huts burnt down the day the invaders left. But new troubles were preparing. Maiti, the leading man amongst the survivors, was exceedingly disgusted to find that Tararo had been appointed by the Atiuans sole ruler of Mauke, in place of the former chief; but, of course, subject to Roma-Tane. When the fugitives had in a great degree recovered their former physical strength, and completed their house-building, Maiti collected forty fighting men, and openly defied Tararo. In the ensuing fight Maiti lost his younger brother and ten of his men, but Tararo’s party became utterly scattered. Tararo and his aged father fled to the principal marae - Tangiia-Nui, or Great Tangiia, in the vain hope of safety. Maiti and his surviving followers determined to desecrate the sacred grove by slaying the deputy-king of the Atiuans and his father. But Tararo, getting a glimpse of the advancing foe, nimbly climbed up one of the topmost branches of a magnificent chestnut, which is still pointed out. Like our own royal Charles, he was completely hidden from sight by the thick foliage. By this time the attacking party had encircled the house which Tararo had so recently left, but found only the father Tapokikiri sitting quietly at the doorway, under the shade of the sacred19 tamanu trees, awaiting his fate, being too much of a warrior to run to save his life. He at once fell under their blows. They looked everywhere for Tararo; but he could nowhere be found. Some of them even looked up at the very chestnut tree in which he was hidden, but perceived only gigantic limbs covered with moss and ferns and a wondrous wealth of foliage. After a long and fruitless search, they returned to the interior. At dusk Tararo betook himself to the rocks, where he long remained, subsisting as best he could upon wild fruits. One day he chanced to fall in with his near relative Kairae.20 They agreed to live together in a cave, very difficult of access, the entrance to which was pointed out to me. Maiti and his party scoured the island to discover their hiding-place. On one occasion they came to the very cave where the fugitives were hiding. A long spear was thrust in at hazard, and nearly pierced Tararo. The spear was withdrawn, and the foe thinking they were not there, passed on, thus enabling them to breathe freely again. But one hope remained: could Kairae get to Atiu to tell Roma-Tane of Tararo’s miserable state? The brave Kairae resolved to attempt it. As the wind was then fair for the projected voyage, Kairae the same night made his way to the seaside, where he took possession of a tiny canoe. Alone he dragged it across the reef, launched it on the ocean, and without food or water dared to cross over to Mitiaro, a distance of thirty miles! (Many years later a grandson of this same man repeated this marvellous feat, in consequence of a bitter family quarrel.) By daylight the canoe was out of sight, so that the flight of Kairae was unsuspected. The adventurous voyager reached Mitiaro much exhausted. After obtaining a little rest and food there, he started again for Atiu - still alone in that little canoe! Kairae’s arrival set Atiu in a blaze of excitement. Roma-Tane ordered his warriors at once to get ready their double-canoes for a fresh descent upon Mauke. As soon as the wind veered round to the north, the little fleet put to sea. In expectation of the arrival of the Atiuan warriors, Tararo had taken up his abode at the seaside, hiding amongst the ironwood (Camarina equisetifoUa) trees that grow most luxuriantly there. Occasionally he even ventured to climb one of the loftiest of them, to get the first glimpse of coming assistance. At last it came, to the dismay of Maiti and his followers. As on the former occasion, not the slightest resistance was made. The invaders took possession of the deserted dwellings of Maiti and his clan, Tararo openly joining them. The entire party of Maiti was taken alive, and were leisurely slain, cooked, and eaten. But on this occasion, happily, the women and young children were spared. A few of the younger women were taken to Atiu by the invaders as wives. An aged woman told me that she was one of those who were compelled
19 Sacred ‘ as overshadowing the marae of Tangiia-Nui. All trees on a marae are sacred ; the sanctity priginatiDg in the god worshipped.
Kairae’s son, named Vairatai, was still living in 1882. My friend is one of the most influential men on Mauke.
First edition, page 10
10 to go - in a canoe laden with the flesh of her countrymen! Numbers of the invaders ultimately settled down on the fertile little island of Mauke. The stay of Roma-Tane this time was short. Tararo was again appointed deputy-chief. A third expedition was subsequently planned by Roma-Tane to kill off the children of those formerly slaughtered. But God had thoughts of mercy towards the poor remnant. In 1823 the Rev. J. Williams touched at Atiu; his first convert there was this fierce Roma-Tane! The ruthless conqueror and cannibal threw the entire weight of his authority in favour of Christianity. And thus the remnant was saved; for Roma-Tane remained consistent to the period of his death.
The Roma-Tane referred to was Rongomatane Ngaakaara. These oral traditions were also recorded by a number of others.21 That last conquest of Ma’uke was in 1820:22 The original inhabitants of this island [Ma’uke] and those of Mitiaro were killed off about the year 1820 by a raid of the Atiu warriors, and since that date each island has been held by a garrison, who occupy as the representatives of the whole tribe.
In relation to the 1820 conquest Walter Gudgeon recorded:23 There is one other matter that the Court must mention. Reference has been made during this hearing to the so-called mana of Atiu over the people or land of Mauke, and the Court has official knowledge that some of you have written to Atiu, and have asked the people of that island to come here and assert their mana over a section of the Mauke people. The men who have done this are both mischievous and foolish, and did not know what they were doing. If it be true, as some of you assert, that Atiu had mana over Mauke, I ask you was that mana over the people or over the land? If it was mana tangata, then we tell you that the mana was absolutely destroyed by the greater mana of Great Britain on the day that these Islands were annexed to the British Empire. If on the other hand, it is over your lands that Atiu has mana, then that mana is still in existence and the people of Atiu may come here and claim a share in all the lands conquered by them. Whether the Court would give them the land so claimed is another matter. It is true that about the year 1820 Atiu, at the request of Tararo, sent a war-party to Mauke, and almost destroyed that people; a section only escaped, and they were spared for reasons well known to the Court and which may be found in the writings of the early missionaries. This war-party was the war-party of Tararo; they came at his request, and were paid for as an Ariki would for such aid-that is, Tararo gave his daughter Akeina as a wife to Rongomatane. Therefore Tararo was the conquerer and Atiu can have no mana over him, his lands, or his people, and when the war party left there was no chief on this island but Tararo. In a book written by the Rev. John Williams, the first missionary, it will be seen that he came here in 1827 from Atiu accompanied by Rongomatane, and that the latter used his influence with the then Tararo in favour of the Gospel. Tararo accepted the new religion, and it was that religion that reinstated the conquered people in their old position. So far as I can ascertain, Atiu has never asserted a right over the Mauke lands and they can have none over those of Tararo. If there be any question in future over the lands of Te Au or Tamuera, the Court will deal with that aspect of the affair whenever it arises. As to the Atiu people coming here to interfere, the Resident Commissioner will know how to deal with them should the occasion arise; it is not a matter that this Court can entertain or consider.
21 Tuia Akapira a mata’iapo from Te’enui, Atiu, recorded by Large, J.T., Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific, JPS 22 (1913) 67-76: 68-69; and Marshall, P., Geology of Rarotonga and Atiu, BMB 72, Honolulu: B. P. Bishop Museum, 1930: 47
22 Gudgeon, Walter, Report on the Trade and Social Condition of the Cook Islands for Year ending 31st December, 1900, 1902 AJHR A-3: 50 with my notation in brackets
1905 AJHR A-03: 27-28
First edition, page 11
11 The impact of these conquests of Ma’uke by Atiu are shown by the case of Mana.24 He was one of three survivors of the Ngati-Arua, who had customary rights to the land Te Makatea (which is dealt with below) before his tribe was destroyed. After the conquests the lands of Ngati-Arua were held by different sections of the Areora, Atiu conquerors. However Takere Marama protected Mana’s ancestor and gave him land live on. Mana was also appointed as a mata’iapo under Tararo. Ma’uke was still ruled by Atiu when it was annexed to New Zealand. As Walter Gudgeon recorded in his report on the Cook and northern Islands for the year 1901-2 a substantial number of that garrison still resided on Ma’uke in 1901:25 The six tribes of Atiu number about 1,530 of all ages and sexes, of whom eight hundred live on the island; some two hundred more live permanently at Tahiti on land they have purchased, and the remainder occupy the conquered islands of Mauke and Mitiaro.
On 11 April 1905 in his Report on the Cook and Northern Islands for the Year Ended 31 March 1905 Walter Gudgeon wrote:26 At Mauke, Tararo is the only chief of good character and intelligence, but he, unfortunately, is the head of the Atiu people who some eighty-five years ago conquered and enslaved the Mauke people, and as a natural result the followers of Tamuera, who were conquered, regard him as an enemy, and to show their independence have joined the Roman Catholic Church, thus adding sectarian bitterness to the old quarrel. The Land Court will, however, settle most of the difficulty.
In 1908, a year before his first retirement, Walter Gudgeon in his Cook and Northern Islands Report for Year Ending 31st March 1908, reported to his superiors in Wellington:27 Mauke has long been famous for the bitterness displayed by the inhabitants one towards another, the result of an old conquest by the Atiu people and of their short-sighted policy in allowing certain of the old inhabitants to live. The descendants of the latter are now the most numerous section of the inhabitants of this island, and, whether for good or evil, they oppose the influence of the conquerors on every possible occasion. The virulence of this feeling did not, however, interfere with the work of the Court, and no difficulty was found in determining the title to the land - indeed, valuable assistance was received from the chief Tamuera, who is a most useful man, so long as there is no matter of debate between himself and Tararo (the Government Agent), who represents the conquerors.
The existence of this bitterness is also shown in the Te Makatea judgment of Walter Gudgeon:28 We will now consider the claim of Te Au. This is a very unsatisfactory case, Tararo has laid down a definite boundary that the Court can understand, but that of Te Au is absurd. It includes the Taotu land already awarded to Tararo; it includes the mission-house which was given by Tararo, and his right to do so never disputed. It also includes the church and school sites of the London Missionary Society. It is, however, on record in the Taotu case that the northern boundary was there fixed as between Papa Marangai and Tararo, and as the former has now joined his case to that of Te Au, the Court fixes the following boundary for present purposes, and leaves the piece
1905 AJHR A-03: 27-28
1902 AJHR A-3: 49-50
1905 AJHR A-3: 78
1908 AJHR A-3: 4-7
1905 AJHR A-03: 27-28
First edition, page 12
12 of land cut out to be dealt with on a future occasion. The northern boundary now laid down for the Makatea is as follows: From the iron peg at the junction of the Taunganui Road with the Church Road near the house of Te Au, thence westerly by the Taunganui Road to the south-east corner of the mission-house grant, thence north and west by the boundary of that grant to its junction with the Taotu Block, and following that boundary to its north-west corner, and thence by a straight line to Tararo’s peg on the reef near Taunganui-viz., Te Opua o Uao to this case, the Court is of opinion that there need have been no dispute as to this line had Papa arranged beforehand with Tararo. There is evidently much personal feeling that ought not to have been imported into the case. Papa has been used as a tool by Te Au. The claim of Mana is altogether untenable. He bases this claim on the fact that he is one of three survivors of the Ngati-Arua, and that he owned this land before his tribe was destroyed. This contention may be perfectly true, but during the last two hundred years the lands of Ngati-Arua have been held by different sections of the Areora conquerors, and the evidence of Tararo shows that Takere Marama protected Mana’s ancestor and gave him land whereon to live. Any claim that Mana may have is under Tararo, whose Mataiapo he is. He is not the chief owner of Te Makatea. The claim of Tarei and Tamuera are really one and the same, since they both contend that the upper portion of this block is not Te Makatea, but Araki. There are many inconsistencies in these two claims and we think that these cases would not have come before the Court were it not that the people are afraid that any award made by the Court would dispossess those living thereon under the old mission arrangement. And now as to the evidence. Tamuera’s witnesses are all people who have a personal interest in the award to Tamuera, whereas three of Tararo s witnesses are leading men of Tamuera’s own tribe who have no interest, but who have intervened in order to prevent what they believe to be an attempt at robbery. The Court has no doubt in its mind that Te Makatea belongs to Tararo and his people. The award of the Court will therefore be in favour of Tararo and such other people as the Court may find to have an interest m the block, but subject to the old residential rights acquired under the akonoanga oire before referred to. The Court congratulates Tararo on his attitude with respect to the land called Taputurangi. It was a wise and kindly action to present it to Tamuera, and it has removed the religious question from the Court. It has been reported to the Court that threats have been made, that certain persons who have brought their lands before the Court will, when the Court leaves, be turned off the lands. We hope that no one will be so foolish as to interfere with owners of land who have placed themselves in the hands of the Court. There must be no interference with such people, or the offender will be heavily fined. The Court will, moreover, report any offence of this nature to the Government of New Zealand, and recommend that the offender, whether Ariki or Mataiapo, be removed from his office
Tangata also gave the genealogy of Tararo, the Atiuan “governor” of Ma’uke as follows:29 .....My informant was named Tangata, the father of the present Tamuera Tangata-ariki, and one of the arikis, or high chiefs, of Mauke, who was a very old man when I saw him, about eighty years of age or more. He remembered heathen days in Mauke, and he was one of the descendants of the few that escaped the massacre when the Atiu people raided Mauke.....
Tangata, recorded by Savage, Stephen, (1911) JPS Volume 20, No.3, The period of Rata (No. 2.) p 155-158
First edition, page 13
First edition, page 14
First edition, page 15
First edition, page 16
16 Wars in Ma’uke As detailed by Peter Buck30 traditions from Aitutaki, Atiu, Mangaia, Mitiaro, and Mauke show that waves of Aitu or Ngati-Tane (worshipers of Tane) from Tahiti descended upon the coasts of the islands and fought with the people already in occupation. One of the main historical figures on the island of Ma’uke is Moenau. According to the tumu kōrero, Tengaru Tobia, Moenau lived thirteen generations before “recent times”, that is thirteen generations before the coming of the missionaries in 1823. Ruatapu of Aitutaki paid a visit to Ma’uke. During his stay in Tonga, Ruatapu sent his son Moenau by a Tongan woman, Tapotu-ki-Tonga, to his son in Rarotonga, Tama-iva. The latter, however, sent his younger brother, Moenau, to the Nga-Pu-Toru. Moenau settled on Ma’uke, and married Te Rau-maro-kura. Their son, Te Au-kura, became ariki of Mauke-tau. Before Ruatapu himself arrived at Ma’uke, his son Moenau was killed by the Ma’ukeans at Avaavaroa. In 1983 Mapu Taia one of ariki’s speakers on Ma’uke told the following narrative about Moenau:31 Moenau was the son of the first born daughter of ‘Uke who was called Kaitinere and Moenau’s father was Temaru. He had a younger brother who was called Kaitapu. When they were born, the parents divided the island of Ma’uke into two halves. One half, which was called ‘Ītaki, belonged to Moenau and the other half, which was Vaerota, was given to the younger brother Kaitapu. As the first born son Moenau became the pet of his parents, he was trained in the ‘Are Korero and the ‘Are Toa and the ‘Are Karioi and after his initiation ceremony he married a woman from his own tribe and they gave birth to a son called Tamaiva. There was a time when there was not enough food in ‘Iraki and Moenau heard that the fishermen from Vaerota were getting a lot of fish on their fishing trips from the southern part of the island and this created greed in him. He wanted to own all the fish. So one evening, when the fishermen had gone out after mackerel, Moenau decided to go there and get all the mackerel from the fishermen. Beside the track to the beach there was a cave where Moenau used to live and wait for the fishermen to come back. So this particular evening he went down and he waited for the fishermen in this particular cave. About dusk the fishermen came back home. They had caught a lot of fish - a lot of mackerel and as they were walking along the track they did not know that Moenau was waiting for them beside the track. When they got to the cave, Moenau came out of the cave and got all the fishermen to give him all their fish. They had to oblige because Moenau was the son of the chief at the time and also Moenau was a great warrior. They were frightened that Moenau might kill all of them so they had to surrender their fish to Moenau. Moenau went home very happy and when he got there he asked his wife to cook the fish and they had a splendid meal that night. The next day the fishermen of Vaerota thought they would go out to fish for some more mackerel because they didn’t have any from the previous evening because Moenau had taken all of the catch. So they went down the second evening and they caught a lot of fish. Moenau came back that same evening and waited for them at his cave. So when the fishermen came back and they got to the cave, there was Moenau waiting for them. They were not pleased, they mumbled, but they couldn’t do anything because they were frightened of Moenau. So once again they had to surrender all their fish to Moenau, who was quite happy, but the fishermen went away home sad. They knew they were going home to a hungry family and there was nothing for the family to eat that evening. Amongst the fishermen there were two boys, brothers; the elder brother was named Tapou and he had a younger brother. They were thinking of looking into Moenau’s doings. The
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 37-39
Siikala, Anna-Leena, Return to culture..., 2005: 159-161
First edition, page 17
17 next evening was the third night. The fishermen decided to go out again to fish or they thought Moenau wouldn’t come back again because he had enough fish the previous evening. They went out that evening and they caught a lot of fish but the same thing happened on their return there; Moenau was waiting for them at the cave. They were very angry now and they knew that Moenau was a very greedy man, and so these two boys decided that they were going to kill Moenau. They must do something first, so when they went home that night, they went to see the ta’unga. The ta’unga was just like a witch doctor and they asked the ta’unga for some help how they could kill Moenau. The ta’unga told them: “You must go home and prepare a sennit. When you have done that, come back to me and I am going to make a trap.” So the boys went home and the next day they’ve got the sennit prepared and they went back to the ta’unga and showed the ta’unga the sennit they had prepared. So the ta’unga made a special trap and the ta’unga said: “You know Moenau’s cave. You must go down in the cave before Moenau arrives and you have to set the trap at the mouth of the cave.” One thing special with Moenau was that he had very big testicles. So this was what the ta’unga was thinking, this was the way how the two boys would be able to kill this warrior, Moenau. So that evening the boys prepared themselves for battle and with the trap they set off to the cave; they were lucky, they arrived before Moenau got to the cave. At the mouth of the cave they set the trap and they went down to the cave, one on the right side of the cave and the other one on the left side of the cave. The ta’unga had told them that when they pulled the trap tight they must chant and the chant is: “Akerenga o kanapea, akerenga o kanapea” (Akerenga [the name of the trap], please kill, akerenga, please kill). So they went down in the cave and not long afterwards they heard the sound of footsteps on the rocks and they knew that Moenau was coming down in the cave and then they listened carefully, and shortly afterwards the mouth to the cave was darkened by the body of Moenau entering the cave, and the first thing they saw were the big testicles of Moenau. So as Moenau came down, the testicles fit properly into the trap and the older brother called out “Pull”, and both of them pulled with all their might. Then Moenau cried out in pain and they pulled hard because Moenau was so strong. As they tried to get out of the cave his testicles broke away and the two brothers shouted with joy because they knew that very soon Moenau would be killed and die. The cave was about a mile away from Moenau’s home. He did not die straight away but he tried to get back to his home, and right in front of his home he fell down and died. When his wife saw him, his wife cried and she knew that someone had tried to kill her husband. Then she vowed that when their son, Tamaiva, grew up to be a man he would try to revenge the death of his father, Moenau. So in later years, when Tamaiva grew up and became a warrior, he went to seek out those two who had caused the death of his father and he caught up with them and he killed them both, and the saying goes that Tamaiva had been able to revenge the death of his father, Moenau. That is the end of the story.
The revenge was presented in a little more detail by Pirioi Tairea in 1984:32 He (Moenau) had a son in Rarotonga, Tamaiva. When he heard about his father, he came back. He wanted to know who killed him and he found out that it was Tapou. He killed Tapou and all the people on Ma’uke were killed. He had a chant: Moenau e, te ariki mua i ‘Akatokamanava, Puta mai ei a Tamaiva Ariki, Tairi ia ei a Ma’uke nei ki te rauti, E puruki te ka tupu, e rauti para, e rauti para. In the olden days, if they decorated the cane with yellow rauti, yellow leaves, that means, there’s war. That’s when he came over to Ma’uke, he had yellow rauti surrounding his canoe. So that’s how the people knew there’s war.
Siikala, Anna-Leena, Return to culture..., 2005: 162
First edition, page 18
18 One oral tradition records that recognising his grandson Te Au-kura, Ruatapu took revenge by killing great numbers of the Ma’uke people:33 KO te akapapa-ranga teia i a Ruatapu mei roto mai i a Iro-nui Maoata mei runga mai mei Taputapu-atea:Nga Iro-nui Maoata i takoto ki a Te Koao-o-te-rangi Anau tana ko Tai-te-ariki Anau tana ko Taitoe Anau tana ko Rua-raki Anau tana ko E-panui Anau tana ko Tevarikura Anau tana ko Nga-maru-e-rua Anau tana ko Tangiia Anau tana ko Motoro Anau tana ko Uanuku-rakeiora Anau tana ko Ruatapu Kua rarangoa a Ruatapu i te vaka, tera te ingoa i te vaka, ko te Kare-roa-i-tai, ka tere mai ki raro nei mei runga mai mei Taputapu-atea, kua tere mai ma tona vaka tangata, kua tere mai ki Avarua, kua noo ki uta ma toona vaka tangata, kua noo a Ruatapu ki te vaine ki a Uanuku-tapu, anau ko Tama-iva, kua vaoo i a ia ei ariki ei kai i te maroro i tei reira enua. Kua tere a ia ma tona vaka tangata ki raro ki Tonga, kua noo ki uta i te enua ma tona vaka tangata. Kua takoto a Ruatapu ki te vaine ki a Tapotu-ki-Tonga, anau ko Moenau. E kia pakari a Moenau kua akaunga mai a Ruatapu i a ia ki Avarua kia kai kapiti raua i te maroro. Nga te kite ra o Tama-iva ka ngaa te kainga i te maro-kura a ka unga atu ra i te teina kia aere ki Ngapu-toru. Tere atura a Moenau ki Akatoka-manava, kia tae a ia ki runga i te enua kua takoto a ia ki te vaine ki a Te Kau-maro-kura, anau a Te Au-kura-ariki i Mauketau ma te kai a Moenau i te maroro i tei reira enua. E tae ki tetai tuatau kua mate a Moenau ki te Nati-Pui ki Avaavaroa, te noora te tamaiti i runga i te enua. E tae ake ra ki tetai tuatau kua tere mai ra a Ruatapu mei raro mai mei Tonga ma tona vaka tangata i te aru i a Moenau ki Avarua. Kia tae a ia ki uta e ui atu ei a Ruatapu ki a Tama-iva “Teiea a Moenau?” Tera ta Tama-iva, “Kua akaunga e au ki Ngapu-toru ei kai i te maroro i tei reira nga enua o tatou.” Kua karanga atu ra a Ruatapu, “Kua mate to teina.” Tere atu ra a Ruatapu ma tona vaka tangata i te aru i a Moenau ki Ngaputoru. E tae atu ra a ia ki Akatoka-manava kake atu ra a ia ki uta ma tona vaka tangata. Kia noo a ia ki runga i te enua e kite ei a ia i tetai tamaiti, e ui ei a Ruatapu “Ngaai koe?” E karanga atu ei te tamaiti “Nga Moenau,” e akatau ia tona tutu e tutu Moenau. E ui ei a Ruatapu, “Teiea a Moenau?” Tera tana “Kua mate ki te Nati-Pui ki Avaavaroa.” E ui atu ei a Ruatapu, “Koai toou ingoa?” Tera ta te tamaiti, “Ko te Aukura-ariki ki Mauketau.” I reira kua kimi a Ruatapu i te ravenga ka ta a ia i a Mauke ei ono i te tai o Moenau. Tera tana ravenga i rave, kua tipupu a ia i te niu i te enua, kua tari ki runga i te ngai teitei, e kia tae ki te ra tamakianga kua uriia te niu ki runga i to Mauke, kua pou te tangata i te mate, kua vaoo i te mokopuna i a Te Aukura ei ariki ki runga i te enua. Tere atu ra a Ruatapu ki Enua-manu ma tona vaka tangata, e kia tae a ia ki Enua-manu, ko Renga te ariki i tei reira enua. Ironui ma Oata married Te Koao-o-te-rangi, who begat Tai-te-ariki, who begat Taitoe, who begat Ruaraki, who begat Epanui, who begat Tevarikura, who begat Nga-maru-e-rua, who begat Tangiia,34 who begat Motoro, who begat Uanuku-rakeiora, who begat Ruatapu. Once upon a time Ruatapu fitted out his great canoe Kare-roa-i-tai, and made sail to these
33 Tama, Iseraela, and Large, J.T., Ruatapu, e Tupuna Māori Rongo Nui, ma tona au uri i teia pa enua, (1906) JPS Volume 15, No. 4, pp 209-219: 209-215
Tangiia flourished in Rarotonga about the year 1250, as shown by many genealogical descents from him.—[Ed.]
First edition, page 19
19 Western Islands from Taputapu-atea,35 he and his ship’s company. They came to Avarua (Rarotonga) where they remained some time. Ruatapu married a woman of the land, Uanuku-tapu, by whom he had a son Tama-iva, whom he left at Rarotonga to become an Ariki, and eat the flying fish of that island. Ruatapu and his ship’s company, then sailed away to the westward, to Tonga, and sojourned there a lengthy period; Ruatapu taking to himself another wife named Tapotu-ki-Tonga, who bore him a son whom he named Moenau. When the boy had grown up to man’s estate, his father sent him to Avarua to join Tama-iva in eating the flying fish of that land (i.e. to share his authority); but Tama-iva had no desire to share his rank or privileges with his younger brother. So he sent him off to Nga-pu-toru (ancient name of the three windward islands of the Cook Group - Atiu, Mauke, and Mitiaro), Moenau went to Akatoka-manava (Mauke) where he married Te Rau-maro-kura. A son was born to them, Te Au-kura - who became Ariki of Mauke-tau. Moenau remained there and feasted on the flying fish of the land; but ere long he was killed (by the Mauke people) at Avaava-roa with a snare for catching sea eels. Te Au-kura was living on Mauke at this time. Subsequently, Ruatapu and his people returned from the westward from Tonga, in quest of Moenau. Ruatapu first went to Avarua, where he inquired of Tama-iva: “Where is Moenau?” Tama-iva replied, “I have sent him to Nga-pu-toru to eat the flying fish of those lands of ours.” Ruatapu then exclaimed, “Your brother is dead.” The father and his ship’s company then went on to Ngapu-toru, in search of Moenau, and landed on Akatoka-manava (Mauke). While they were staying on that island, Ruatapu took notice of a boy there, and asked him about his parentage. The boy said, “I am by Moenau.” Ruatapu had marked the resemblance, and inquired further, “Where is Moenau?” The boy answered: “He was killed with a sea eel snare, at Avaava-roa.” In reply to Ruatapu’s further interrogation, the boy revealed, “I am Te Au-kura, Ariki of Mauketau.” Ruatapu then made arrangements for slaughtering the Mauke people in revenge for Moenau’s murder. The plan he hit upon was to cut up the cocoanut trees into logs, which he had carried up on to the high places of the island. Then he fought the Mauke people and rolled these logs down on top of them: great numbers were killed with this device. Leaving his grandson, Te Au-kura, to enjoy his Arikiship at Mauke, Ruatapu and his ship’s company crossed over to Te Enua manu (Atiu).... [Note.- Tararo, Ariki of Mauke, who is a descendant of Ruatapu, writes me that he objects to having any details of his family history or genealogy published, lest his opponents should make use of the information to their advantage and his detriment, in land disputes on that island. I learn from a native of Atiu, living on this island (Mangaia) that one of the Atiu clans is called Ruatapu, but he knows nothing beyond that. Nothing is known about him here.]
Another different version of that oral tradition was recorded by Drury Low in which Ruatapu did not take revenge as he had departed from Ma’uke before he learned how his son had died:36 While Moenau was still very young Ruatapu decided to move on but first he sent his son Moenau to Rarotonga in charge of his grandfather, a noted canoe voyager called Rangiura. Ruatapu told Rangiura that on arrival at Rarotonga he was to place Moenau with his half-brother Tamaiva, son of his Rarotongan wife. To this, his wife Tapotu-ki-Tonga agreed. Rangiura built a new canoe for the voyage and when it was finished he named it Pouara. Ruatapu told Rangiura that he would find Uanuku-kaiatia, the mother of Tamaiva, living in the settlement of Matavera. Soon after this Rangiura and his grandson sailed from Tonga-tapu and later arrived safely at Rarotonga. During the voyage Moenau had been very much afraid, and on getting close to the reef at Rarotonga begged Rangiura to take him quickly ashore or else he would die. As the sea broke heavily on the reef Rangiura wanted to take time to find a suitable passage to make a landing, but fearing that Moenau might die if not landed at once, tried to shoot the reef. The canoe was upset and
Probably Taputapu-atea is the place of that name in Raiatea Island.—[Ed.]
36 Low, Drury, Traditions of Aitutaki, Cook Islands, 3. The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai (Sea Foam) Which Was Sailed by Ruatapu, Ariki, Who Was All Alone, (1934) JPS Volume 43, No. 171, pp 171-186: 172-177
First edition, page 20
20 smashed, and Moenau was swept some distance away by the waves. Rangiura swam after him and brought him safely ashore, then he went after the broken canoe and brought it ashore; the place where the canoe upset he named Vaenga meaning ‘the place where we parted.’ The place where they landed he named Pouara after his canoe. Rangiura then asked some people who had come to the beach where Tamaiva, son of Ruatapu, was to be found. A man named Anga offered to take Rangiura and Moenau to him. On meeting Tamaiva and his mother Rangiura explained who he was and said that it was Ruatapu’s wish that Moenau should live with them in Rarotonga. This did not please Tamaiva or his mother, who were jealous of Moenau. They asked where Ruatapu was and on being told that he was at Tonga-tapu told Rangiura they did not want to take charge of Moenau and that he had better take Moenau away to some other islands called Ngaputoru, meaning Atiu, Mauke, and Mitiaro, where they said Moenau would become a man of rank and also have plenty of flying-fish to eat. Rangiura and Moenau were very much angered on hearing this, and Rangiura decided that as soon as they had rested and he had repaired his canoe or obtained another, they would continue on to Ngaputoru as he would not leave Moenau where he was not wanted. Five days later Rangiura and Moenau having rested and repaired the canoe left Rarotonga for Ngaputoru. This time the struck very bad weather at sea. Weak and exhausted, Rangiura at last reached Mauke, but when trying to reach the shore he was killed on the reef. Moenau, however, was rescued by the people of Mauke, taken ashore, and well treated. Some years later when he had grown into a strong young man Moenau married a Mauke woman named Te Kaumarokura. A son was born whom they named Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Mauketau. Moenau, who had by this time grown into a very big and powerful man, was very proud of his size and strength and also of the fact that he was a son of Ruatapu. He would seldom go fishing, but would go down to the beach and meet the canoes coming in from fishing. He would then help himself to any fish he fancied often taking all the fish from one canoe and leaving the owner to go home hungry without any fish for his family. This made the Mauke men very angry but for a long time they suffered in silence, being afraid of Moenau’s size and strength. At last they met secretly and planned to kill him. Two of the strongest fighting men were appealed to to try and surprise Moenau and kill him with spears; but they would not agree, saying that Moenau was more than a match for any six men on the island, and would surely kill them. In the end they decided to try to kill him by using what they called kaa natipui, a fine rope or cord made out of coconut-fibre, their plan being to catch Moenau unprepared. On the day chosen for the deed Tara-te-kui, one of the two men, who was a very good fisherman, went out fishing; the other toa chosen, named Tara-te-kurapo, was to stay ashore and prepare the trap. Tara-te-kui was to stay out fishing until after sunset then he was to come quickly ashore to the spot agreed upon. As soon as Tara-te-kurapo made sure that enough fish were caught he went to Moenau’s house telling him that Tara-te-kui was just coming in from fishing and had made a good catch. Moenau started for the beach at once and Tara-te-kurapo went with him. When they reached the canoe it was dark and Tara-te-kui was just beginning a meal of taro and fish. This was all part of their plot. Tara-te-kui had the rope snare all set where he intended Moenau to sit down. Tara-te-kui invited both Moenau and Tara-te-kurapo to sit down and have some food with him before Moenau took some fish home. This pleased Moenau, who readily sat down where Tara-te-kui placed his food. As soon as he commenced to eat Tarate-kui and Tara-te-kurapo each took an end of the snare and pulled it tight. Moenau was caught by the testicles and was soon overpowered and killed with spears hidden close by. When dead his body was dragged to a cave nearby and thrown in. This done, they took their fish and went home. Next morning they told the people of Mauke that they had killed Moenau. This greatly pleased the Mauke people, who had feared Moenau and were glad to be rid of him and his fish-stealing ways. At the time of Moenau’s death his son Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Mauketau was about four years old. Moenau’s wife grieved over the killing of Moenau, and for a long time it was thought that she would die. Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo were very sorry for her and the child. They looked after her like a sister and took fish to her each week. All these years Ruatapu had waited on Tonga-tapu for Rangiuri to bring him word of the safe arrival of Moenau at Rarotonga. He feared that both Rangiura and Moenau were dead and he decided to follow them to Rarotonga to see if they were there. He reached Rarotonga safely and on finding his son Tamaiva, asked where his younger brother Moenau was. Tamaiva replied, “He came here but I and my mother told Rangiuri to take him on to Ngaputoru so that he would be sure of having plenty of flying-fish to eat.” On hearing this Ruatapu was angered and shouted, “Well I am sure you sent him to his death. I sent him to you to be cared for and now he is dead.”
First edition, page 21
21 Ruatapu sailed at once from Rarotonga, leaving his son Tamaiva behind. He soon sighted Mauke and passed the reef and landed on the beach. He noticed a number of children playing near the landing place one of whom was very like Moenau as Ruatapu remembered him. Calling the child to him he asked his name and who his father was. The boy said he was called Te Kura-ariki-ki-Mauketau, and that his father’s name was Moenau. Ruatapu asked for Moenau, and on being told that he was dead, lamented. Later he asked the boy if his mother were still alive and where she was to be found. The boy replied that his mother, Te Kaumarokura, still lived. Ruatapu asked to be taken to her, and when they reached the house he met Moenau’s wife and also found there Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo. Ruatapu asked Te Kaumarokura if she was the wife of Moenau and she replied, “Yes.” He also asked her where Moenau was and she told him that he was dead. Ruatapu asked her if the two men were her new husbands. Te Kaumarokura said that they were not, but that they were relatives and like fathers to her and her child. She then asked Ruatapu what had brought him to Mauke and he said that he had come in search of his son Moenau. She said that he had come too late - Moenau was dead. Ruatapu asked her how many children Moenau had. Te Kaumarokura answered that he had only one son, Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Mauketua, who was standing beside him. Te Kaumarokura then asked Ruatapu how long he intended staying in Mauke, and he said he would decide on the next day. Te Kaumarokura, Tara-te-kui, and Tara-te-kurapo prepared food for Ruatapu, and after he had eaten he soon fell asleep. Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo and Moenau’s wife talked quietly together and the two men said that they were frightened of Ruatapu who, they said, must be either a powerful ariki or else a god, as never before had they seen a man like him. They asked her if she did not feel sorry for them and begged that she would not tell Ruatapu that they had killed Moenau. Te Kaumarokura promised saying that they were now more to her than brothers. Early next morning Ruatapu arose and his first questions were “How did Moenau die? Was he killed in fighting and, if so, who killed him?” Moenau’s wife answered that Moenau had not been killed in fighting but had fallen into a cave or hole in the Makatea. Ruatapu told her that he had supposed Moenau had been killed fighting; but if her answer was true he could not avenge his death. Ruatapu then told Te Kaumarokura that he would not remain long in Mauke but asked to be allowed to take Moenau’s son with him. To this Te Kaumarokura would not agree, saying that she had already lost Moenau and that if she were to lose the boy she would die. Ruatapu then asked Moenau’s son if he would not like to go with him, but Te Aukura-ariki-ki-Mauketau replied that on the island where his father had died there also would he die. Ruatapu then said to the mother and son that they were right; for if he were to take the boy away Moenau’s name would be forgotten in Mauke. All the people of Mauke had heard that Ruatapu, the father of Moenau, had arrived looking for his son, and when they had seen him they were very much afraid lest he should hear how Moehau had died. But no word of the truth reached Ruatapu and he left Mauke three days later. After clearing the reef he met some fishing canoes. A man in one of the canoes hailed him and asked why he was leaving so soon. Ruatapu replied that as Moenau was dead and as he had seen his wife and child there was nothing more to stay for. The fisherman then asked Ruatapu if he knew how Moenau had died. Ruatapu replied that he had met his death by falling into a cave. The man then told Ruatapu the truth about Moenau. Ruatapu asked who had done the killing and was told that the two men living in the house with Te Kaumarokura, Tara-te-kui and Tara-te-kurapo. Ruatapu replied, “It is now too late. They have lied to me. Had I known this while I was ashore I would have killed both Kura-te-kui and Kura-te-kurapo, but I have parted from them in peace and cannot return now.”
Stephen Savage’s 1916 manuscript contains the narrative of a Ma’ukean, Tamuera, that was written in 1916, which describes the first Ma’ukean battles and the reasons for them. Moenau’s death was the cause of the first battle on the island:37 A legend of the battles that happened on the island of Mauke. The first battle was about Moenau Ariki. Moenau Ariki was the son of Temaru-Enua-O’Avaiki. His mother was Kaitini Ariki Vaine.
Savage, Stephen, E Buka tuatua enua...,1916
First edition, page 22
22 When Moenau’s parents died, he took over his parents’ Ariki title. When he was reigning, his way of controlling the people changed. This was the change. When the men went out to sea to fish, he would also go onto the reef and wait around for the time the fishermen came back. When they came back he would go onto the white sand on the beach and sit down. He would get his basket and put it besides him. Then he would show his fingers and toes. The fishermen would come closer to hurt and kneel down. Then they would give him some fish, a fish for each finger and each toe. One day a fisherman went out to sea. His name was Tapou. Moenau also saw him going out and he followed. The fisherman was lucky and caught plenty of fish. When he came ashore he saw Moenau sitting on the beach. This fisherman came ashore at the passage called Nuka. He went before the Ariki crying quietly. When he arrived before the Ariki, he knelt down before him and gave him some fish, one for each finger and toe. Then he went and lifted his canoe into place. He ran home and asked his wife: “My wife, where is my nati?” (strong rope plaited from strands of coconut fibre). His wife replied: “It is there on the place were you put your things.” He took his nati and ran very quickly to Tukume, where Moenau Ariki’s cave was. He climbed down into Moenau’s cave and waited for Moenau’s return. Not long after Moenau Ariki returned to his cave. This fisherman got his nati ready. When Moenau Ariki climbed down into his cave, the fisherman saw his two testicles hanging down. He quickly ran and put his nati around Moenau’s two testicles and pulled it very tightly. Moenau used all his strength to break the nati but the coconut fibres which were used to plait the nati were too strong for him to break. He tried again but this only cut off his two testicles. He then ran from Tukume to Turu and died there. That was where he was buried. Moenau’s wife was Kareatumu and his son was Teaukura. When Ruatapu of Aitutaki heard that Moenau Ariki was dead, he sent his canoe Tueu-Moana from Aitutaki. When the canoe arrived at Ma’uke, it came ashore at Avaavatoa. They stayed on the island and looked out for Moenau’s son, Teaukura, to take him to Aitutaki to Ruatapu. That was where the Aitutakian saying, “look at the image of Moenau” came from. They were lucky they caught this boy and the canoe too, the boy, Teaukura. When the canoe arrived at Aitutaki, Ruatapu gave this boy Teaukura another name. He called him Tamaiva. This was so that the people who wished to kill him would not find him. Ruatapu treated this boy as his very own son. He put him in the house of the high chiefs, onto the Marae-O-Rongo, to be taught how to fight. The first thing that was done to him was, he was thrown with an Utu seed. From there he was taught on the bow and arrow and then on the sling, then the spear and other types of fighting. He knew these things well. One night Ruatapu took this boy and asked him what he knew about the death of his father, Moenau. The boy answered that he had just heard that his father Moenau was killed. Ruatapu said to him: “Well my son, that is the reason why I put you in the house of the high chiefs. Your father was an Ariki. You must go and replace your father, take over his Ariki title. Akatoka-Manava is the island. My son, be strong. You have one more problem. We will go to Nuku-Tere (Rarotonga) to Tangi’ia’s high chiefs. You will stay at Rangiatea Tepou Kainga. You may live and you may die.” After that Ruatapu’s canoe sailed to Rarotonga to take Tamaiva. The canoe was still Tueu-Moana. When the canoe arrived it came ashore at the passage called Maro-toto. He gave this boy to the high chiefs to be taught how to fight and this boy was offered to Tuorongi. Ruatapu’s canoe went to Manuae, and when he arrived there a battle started - one island against another. Ruatapu took the weapons and returned to Aitutaki. He stayed at Aitutaki for a long time. Then he got ready to return to Rarotonga to visit Tamaiva. When he went he took two canoes, Anganui and Tueu-Moana. Two hundred people from Aitutaki
First edition, page 23
23 went with him. When they arrived at Rarotonga they stayed at Rangiatea. Then Ruatapu went to the high chiefs and told them what he wanted Tamaiva, Moenau’s son for and also how Moenau died. Then the high chiefs agreed and so did the people of Rarotonga. Then Ruatapu led this boy to Titama-nui and spoke to him: “My son, this will be the last time I will speak to you and this will be our last meeting. Show me your strength.” Then they stood up. They started fighting with adze, then the spear, then the club, then bow and arrow and then the sling. Then Ruatapu knew that Tamaiva was now a warrior. He told Tamaiva, “Here are your 200 men from Aitutaki. Go to Akatoka-Manava and avenge the death of your father, Moenau, whose two testicles were tied with a nati at Tukume.” They returned to the village and Ruatapu told his people about their journey. Ruatapu told them, “When you go, turn in to Atiu and the shark will lead you to the passage Oravaru”. And he told them what to do at Atiu before they went on to Akatoka-Manava. Then three canoes left, Anganui, Tueu-Moana and one from Rarotonga called Marua-A-Po. They sailed to Atiu, and when they arrived there, the shark came and led them to the passage called Oravaru, just as Ruatapu had told them. They stayed at Moekoero and told the people of Atiu that they were going to Akatoka-Manava, and that they were being sent by Ruatapu to take his son to see his ancestors in Akatoka-Manava. The people of Atiu did not know that that was Moenau’s son and that they were on a war expedition. They covered their weapons with rauti-para, and when this was done, they went on to Akatoka-Manava. A rauti-para is a peace sign so the people of Ma’uke would think that they were just visiting. When they left for Akatoka-Manava, a canoe from Atiu came with them. It was called Manumanu-Ka-Rere. When they arrived at Ma’uke, the shark came and led them to the passage called Anaio. This shark was called Kau-Mango. When the people of Ma’uke came to see them, they saw that they were decorated with rauti-para and their weapons also. They told the people of Ma’uke that they were sent by Ruatapu to bring his son. The people of Ma’uke also did not know that this was Moenau’s son. There was no Ariki there at that time and the land was being looked after by the Matai’apos. They were led to Vaimotu, where they stayed. Tamaiva cried and asked the people of Ma’uke about the marae called Rangi-Manuka and about Moenau Ariki’s wife, Kareatumu. After that Tamaiva and his people went on to the marae Rangi-Manuka beating the Ka’ara with their weapons. Here was the chant from the beating of the drum: There will be a battle A battle on Akatokamanava On Akatokamanava. Then the battle began between Ngati Tamaiva and the people of Ma’uke until all the people of Ma’uke were killed. Tamaiva had avenged his father’s, Moenau Ariki’s death and he took over the throne. Here is the chant: It was Temaru-Enua-O-Avaiki the first ariki of Akatoka-Manava
First edition, page 24
24 Moenau was born Then came Tamaiva Ariki Ma’uke was adorned with rau-ti My great chief, where do you go Where do you go A long way to Tangiia-nui. Then Ariki Taraare was born then Uru, Ua tukuariki Ngatua Nunui Then Tinokura came Our Ariki... Then Tamaiva Ariki stayed on the island, the canoes and all the people returned home.
Ruatapu is one of the great ancestors of the Aitutaki people and his relation with Moenau and the Ma’uke people is also detailed in the Aitutaki tradition:38 Once upon a time Ruatapu fitted out his great canoe Kare-roa-i-tai, and made sail to these Western Islands from Taputapu-atea, he and his ship’s company. They came to Avarua (Rarotonaga) where they remained some time. Ruatapu married a woman of the land, Ua-nuku-tapu, by whom he had a son Tamaiva, whom he left at Rarotonga to become Ariki, and eat the flying fish of that island. Ruatapu and his ship’s company, then sailed away to the westward, to Tonga, and sojourned there a lengthy period; Ruatapu taking to himself another wife named Tapotu-ki-Tonga, who bore him a son whom he named Moenau. When the boy had grown up to man’s estate, his father sent him to Avarua to join Tamaiva in eating the flying fish of that land (i.e. to share his authority); but Tama-iva had no desire to share his rank or privileges with his younger brother. So he sent him off to Nga-pu-toru (ancient name of the three windward islands of the Cook Group - Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro), Moenau went to Akatoka-manava (Mauke) where he married Te Rau-maro-kura. A son was born to them, Te Au-kura -who became Ariki of Mauke-tau. Moenau remained there and feasted on the flying fish of the land; but ere long he was killed (by the Mauke people) at Avaava-roa with a snare for catching sea eels. Te Au-kura was living on Mauke at this time. Subsequently, Ruatapu and his people returned from the westward from Tonga, in quest of Moenau. Ruatapu first went to Avarua, where he inquired of Tama-iva: “Where is Moenau?” Tama-iva replied: “I have sent him to Nga-pu-toru to eat the flying fish of those lands of ours.” He father and his ship’s company then went on to Nga-pu-toru, in search of Moenau, and landed on Akatoka-manava (Mauke). While they were staying on that island, Ruatapu took notice of a boy there, and asked him about his parentage. The boy said “I am by Moenau.” Ruatapu had marked the resemblance, and inquired further, “Where is Moenau?” The boy answered: “He was killed with a sea eel snare, at Avaava-roa.” In reply to Ruatapu’s further interrogation, the boy-revealed, “I am Te Au-kura, Ariki of Mauke-tau.” Ruatapu then made arrangements for slaughtering the Mauke people in revenge for Moenau’s murder. The plan he hit upon was to cut up the coconut trees into logs, which he had carried up on the high places of the island. Then he fought the Mauke people and rolled these logs down on top of them: great numbers were killed with this device. Leaving his grandson, Te Au-kura, to enjoy his Arikiship at Mauke, Ruatapu and his ship’s company crossed over to Te Enua-manu (Atiu).
Ruatapu then went on to Atiu, Manuae and finally to Aitutaki, where he married Tutunoa. Their son was Kirikava. Ruatapu removed the ariki Taruia and installed himself as ruler. Kirikava voyaged to Tahiti, where he challenged the champion Tutakura to a wrestling match and lost. Years later his nephew Te Aunui also went to Tahiti, where he successfully avenged the defeat 38 Large, J. T., Ruatapu - e Tupuna Maori Rongo Nui - Ma tona au uri i teia pa enua, Na Israela Tama, i Aitutaki. Ruatapu - a Celebrated Maori Ancestor - and his Cook Island Descendants, JPS 15 (1906) 209-219
First edition, page 25
25 of Kirikava.39
39 Tama, Iseraela, and Large, J. T., Te Autara is Iro. The Aitutaki version of the story of Iro, JPS 12 (1903) 133-146; Large, J. T., Ruatapau, a celebrated Māori Ancestor. His Cook Island descendants, JPS 15 (1906) 209-219; Pakoti, John, ...The first Inhabitants of Aitutaki; The History of Ru 1895; Savage, S., Extracts..., 1911: 149-151
All the notes of the chapter
15.1 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 27 to 28. First edition, Volume 1, p. 547.
15.2 William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, Religious Tract Society, London, 1876, p. 336. Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17. “Mau‘ke”, Cook Islands Review 6 (1960), no. 12, p. 7. First edition, Volume 1, p. 538.
15.3 Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, p. 336.
15.4 Vakaporo-Uatini, “The Origin of the Name of the Island of Rurutu”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), p. 216.
15.5 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 16. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 12. Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 17.
15.6 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17.
15.7 Alphons M. J. Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, 1976, p. 25.
15.8 Ronald Syme, Cook Islands: Book I, The Coming of Man, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London, 1955, p. 16.
15.9 Cook Islands: The As-Always Isles, Cook Islands Tourist Authority, Rarotonga, 1972, p. 14.
15.10 H. Nicholas and S. Percy Smith (editors), “Genealogy of Pa, Chieftainess of Tākitumu” and “The Royal Genealogy from ‘Avaiki Downwards, from Pāpā”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 1 (1892), pp. 20 to 29 and 65 to 75. John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 64, 68 and 70. Kiva, translated by Arthur H. Browne, “E Tuatua Tupuna no Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 6 (1897), pp. 1 to 3. Putua-ariki, translated by Arthur H. Browne, “E Tuatua no Karika Tara‘ape o Rarotonga: Karika’s Migration to Rarotonga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 6 (1897), pp. 3 to 9, at pp. 4 and 7. S. Percy Smith, “Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 7 (1898) and 8 (1899), “The Settlement of Rarotonga”, 8 (1899), pp. 29 to 39, at p. 36. Elsdon Best, The Discovery and Settlement of Rarotonga by Polynesians, 1927, p. 134. First edition, Volume 1, p. 538.
15.11 Leslie G. Kelly, “Cook Islands Origin of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 64 (1955), pp. 181 to 196, at p. 185. Maretu, “E Tuatua no te Kai-tangata i Rarotonga: A Word about Cannibalism at Rarotonga”, with notes by Stephen Savage, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 196 to 209 (Gill’s Extracts, no. 14), p. 208 note 3. Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, translated by S. Percy Smith, J. T. Large and Stephen Savage, 1919, p. 196 note.
15.12 “E Tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mau‘ke: A Word about the Growth (History) of Mau‘ke Island”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 134 to 136 (Gill’s Extracts, no. 7). Buck, Arts and Crafts, p. 12. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Vikings of the Sunrise, 1958, p. 111. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 538 to 541.
15.13 “E Tuatua no te Tupuanga o Mau‘ke”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 134 to 136. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 539 to 541.
15.14 List of the ariki of Ma‘uke by Tangata, recorded by Walter Gudgeon; Bishop Museum, Honolulu. First edition, Volume 1, p. 541.
15.15 The same list.
15.16 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, p. 22. Toarua, “Genealogical Table of Uenga”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 142 to 143, at p. 143. Te Ariki-tara-are, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Journal of the Polynesian Society 28 (1919), pp. 183 to 208, at pp. 186 and 199. Walter Gudgeon, “The Whence of the Māori”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), p. 121. First edition, Volume 1, p. 541.
15.17 Te Ariki-tara-are, translated by S. Percy Smith, History and Traditions of Rarotonga, Part VII, Journal of the Polynesian Society 28 (1919), pp. 186 and 199. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 541 to 542.
15.18 Walter Gudgeon, “The Whence of the Māori: Part III”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), pp. 120 to 130, at p. 121. First edition, Volume 1, p. 543.
15.19 Jeffrey Sissons, “The Seasonality of Power: The Rarotongan Legend of Tangi‘ia-nui”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 98 (1989), pp. 331 to 348, at p. 337.
15.20 Nicholas and Smith, “Genealogy of Pa” and “The Royal Genealogy from ‘Avaiki Downwards”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 1 (1892), pp. 20 to 29 and 65 to 75. Volume 2 of this series, Chapter 19, on Motoro.
15.21 Tengaru Tobia, tumu kōrero, as recorded in the first edition, Volume 1, p. 550.
15.22 Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Ruatapu, e Tupuna Māori Rongo Nui, ma tona au uri i teia pā ‘enua”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 15 (1906), pp. 209 to 219. First edition, Volume 1, p. 550.
15.23 Anna-Leena Siikala, Return to Culture, 2005, pp. 159 to 161. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 550 to 551.
15.24 Siikala, Return to Culture, p. 162. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 551 to 552.
15.25 Tama and Large, “Ruatapu”, pp. 209 to 215. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 552 to 553, and again at pp. 558 to 559, where the first edition printed J. T. Large’s translation a second time.
15.26 Tama and Large, “Ruatapu”, p. 209 and the editor’s notes.
15.27 Drury Low, “Traditions of Aitutaki, Cook Islands: 3. The Story of the Canoe Te Kare-roa-i-tai (Sea Foam) Which Was Sailed by Ruatapu, Ariki, Who Was All Alone”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 43 (1934), pp. 171 to 186, at pp. 172 to 177. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 553 to 556.
15.28 Stephen Savage, E Buka tuatua ‘enua, manuscript, 1916, the narrative of Tamuera. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 556 to 558.
15.29 Iseraela Tama and J. T. Large, “Te Autara ia Iro: The Aitutaki Version of the Story of Iro”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 12 (1903), pp. 133 to 146; Tama and Large, “Ruatapu”; Pakoti, “History of Ru”; Stephen Savage, “Extracts”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 149 to 151. First edition, Volume 1, p. 559; the passage is now in Chapter 12.
15.30 Ron Crocombe, “From Ascendancy to Dependency: The Politics of Atiu”, Journal of Pacific History 2 (1967), pp. 97 to 111, at p. 99. First edition, Volume 1, p. 543.
15.31 William Wyatt Gill, Jottings from the Pacific, Religious Tract Society, London, 1885, pp. 48 to 56. Gill’s own footnotes: to “they had not the courage to strike a blow at the invaders”, “For which the Atiuans twit their descendants to this day”; to “the sacred tamanu trees”, “Sacred as overshadowing the marae of Tangi‘ia. All trees on a marae are sacred; the sanctity originating in the god worshipped”; to Kairae, “Kairae’s son, named Vairatai, was still living in 1882. My friend is one of the most influential men on Mau‘ke.” First edition, Volume 1, pp. 543 to 546.
15.32 Tuia Akapira, a mata‘iapo of Te‘enui, Atiu, recorded by J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 22 (1913), pp. 67 to 76, at pp. 68 to 69. Patrick Marshall, Geology of Rarotonga and Atiu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 72, Honolulu, 1930, p. 47.
15.33 Walter Gudgeon, Report on the Trade and Social Condition of the Cook Islands for the Year Ending 31 December 1900, 1902 AJHR A-3, p. 50. First edition, Volume 1, p. 546.
15.34 Evidence recorded on Ma‘uke; see Chapter 11, note 11.16.
15.35 “Ko te korero ia Kainuku e Kupotoa”, Cook Islands Māori typescript, unsigned and undated, first and last pages, from the Savage box, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed as Archives 26 of this series.
15.36 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 6.
15.37 1902 AJHR A-3, pp. 49 to 50. First edition, Volume 1, p. 547.
15.38 1905 AJHR A-3, p. 78.
15.39 1908 AJHR A-3, pp. 4 to 7.
15.40 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 27 to 28. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 547 to 548.
15.41 Native Appellate Court at Ma‘uke, August 1952, Appellate Minute Book 2, pp. 146 to 169; the eleven reports are in Cook Islands Native Appellate Court Reports, published online at the series’ website, Volume 2, with the genealogy pages reproduced as images.
15.42 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 27 to 28. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 546 to 547.
15.43 Tangata, recorded by Stephen Savage, “The Period of Rata (No. 2)”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 20 (1911), pp. 155 to 158. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 548 to 549.
15.44 Savage, “The Period of Rata (No. 2)”, pp. 155 to 158. First edition, Volume 1, p. 549.
15.45 Ron Crocombe, Land Tenure in the Cook Islands, thesis, Australian National University, 1961, p. 250.
15.46 Crocombe, thesis (1961), pp. 254 to 256.
15.47 Crocombe, thesis (1961), p. 271. See Volume Four of this series, Chapter 13.
15.48 Buck, Mangaian Society, pp. 37 to 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 550.
Volume One, Chapter 16
Chapter 16: Mitiaran customary law
What this chapter rests on
- The Journal of the Polynesian Society articles the notes cite
- The parliamentary papers (AJHR) the notes cite
- The Land Court minute books the notes cite
- The ariki title decisions (Cook Islands Ariki Title Reports)
- The Stephen Savage collection and the other manuscripts of the Cook Islands National Archives
- Every book and article the chapter cites (Bibliography)
- The Cook Islands Māori words used in the chapter (Glossary)
Parts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A1 A2 Notes
The parts of the chapter
The passages and documents
- The Nukuroa manuscript uses almost the same words, and its opening line survives only in part.16.21
- [... fir]st arrived at this island and therefore gave it the name of N…
- The genealogy from Mariri to Kea te tupua, Rongomatane Ariki, as Stephen Savage obtained it on Atiu
- The ship from Maiao.- One time in the 18th century a large canoe arriv…
- But before these events took place on Mau‘ke, Rongomatane had conquere…
- There is another proverb: “The sun is declining says Katoaporo.” The l…
- And his report for 1901 to 1902 shows that the garrison was still there.16.37
- The six tribes of Atiu number about 1,530 of all ages and sexes, of wh…
- The archive: the passages in full
- The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
1. The names
16.4 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17. John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 64 and 70. First edition, Volume 1, p. 562. The passage in full
16.6 D. S. Walsh and Bruce Biggs, Proto-Polynesian Word List I, Auckland, 1966, p. 74.
16.10 Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 162.
16.12 S. Percy Smith, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori, 1899, p. 9.
16.13 Te Ariki-tara-are, “A Collection of Stories (or History) of the Ruling Chiefs, and the Priests, and the Lesser Chiefs”, translated by S. Percy Smith, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899), pp. 62 to 64 and 75 to 77, at p. 74.
16.17 A. G. Findlay, Directory of the Pacific Ocean, London, 1884, p. 495. M. Aylic Marin, Promenades en Océanie, Le Tour du Monde, p. 214. E. Petit, En Océanie, Paris, 1888, p. 65. J. L. Kelly, South Sea Islands: Possibilities of Trade with New Zealand, Auckland, 1885, p. 48.
2. The two manuscripts
3. The first owners: Uke, Tekutikuti and Mariri
The ancient name of the island of Mitiaro was Nukuroa. How it derived the name of Nukuroa cannot now be explained for certain by any of the present generation. The suggestion offered by some of the natives is as follows: the first inhabitants (to their knowledge) had been a long time at sea when they eventually discovered the island. On landing gave it the name of Nukuroa, which means “Long island”.
The first inhabitants, so far as the old men of Mitiaro can give any information of were Uke Ariki and Tekutikuti-rau-matangi and their respective followers and also another chief named Mariri. The two chiefs first mentioned had a dispute as to the ownership of the island, and during their argument, Tekutikuti asked Uke Ariki for a sign to prove what he claimed. Uke thereupon replied “I have four large rocks - two on eastern side and two on the western side of the island.” Tekutikuti was not satisfied with this answer and [in] [the] proceedings, Uke in turn asked [him to] show his mark of ownership. He said “I divided the sea and brought forth the land”. It was at this juncture that Mariri joined in the dispute saying: “The island belongs to neither of you, it belongs to me”. Uke and Tekutikuti then had a controversy with Mariri, and finally asked him to prove his assertion. Mariri thereupon said, “I brought the red soil to this land” which meant that he had been here before; the other two disputants had to give in and acknowledge Mariri as the owner and therefore their superior on the land.
Stephen Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 1 to 2, Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives
The Nukuroa manuscript uses almost the same words, and its opening line survives only in part.16.21
[... fir]st arrived at this island and therefore gave it the name of Nukuroa.,,
The Beginning of Nukuroa. Uke and Tekutikuti-raumatangi had a dispute, both claiming ownership of the island, during the dispute Tekutikuti asked Uke for a sign to prove what he claimed, where Uke answered: „I have four large rocks, two on the eastern side and two on the western side of the island.” This answer did not satisfy Tekutikuti, so still disputing Uke asked Tekutikuti to show what sign he had to show. Tekutikuti raumatangi said: „I split the sea so the land came forth.” Then stood up a third party, by the name of Mariri, saying, „Neither of you two are the owners of Nukuroa, the island belongs to me.” Uke and Tekutikuti then got into controversy with Mariri, and they asked him to prove his claim; where to Mariri answered: „I brought the red soil to Nukuroa.” and the [other] fellows had to give in [and ...] acknowledge [...]
“The history of Nukuroa”, p. 1, Stephen Savage’s papers, Cook Islands National Archives; the page is burnt at the end
Mariri is also the ancestor of a great many branches of the original inhabitants of Atiu and to show somewhat near the period when this chief lived and the time that the Mitiaro people say the island was colonised I give the following genealogy which I secured from Atiu, which shows 46 generations from Mariri down to Kea te tupua, the present holder of the title of Rongo-ma-tane ariki.
Stephen Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 2
The genealogy from Mariri to Kea te tupua, Rongomatane Ariki, as Stephen Savage obtained it on Atiu
| Generation | Name | Generation | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mariri ariki | 24 | Te taa o te marama |
| 2 | Tukukore i manu (?) | 25 | Ruavairaka |
| 3 | Mararara (?) | 26 | Mariri-toa = Manatu |
| 4 | Ruataiti (?) | 27 | Rongoua (?) |
| 5 | Ruatanganuku | 28 | Teaio |
| 6 | Ruatangarangi | 29 | Amani (?) |
| 7 | Te…i (torn) | 30 | Tu… (torn) |
| 8 | Mariri-rere (?) | 31 | Tu… (torn) |
| 9 | Kaia | 32 | Tuatara ariki (?) |
| 10 | Mairiavaipoa (?) | 33 | Poratere (?) |
| 11 | Tekaroa | 34 | Kavau |
| 12 | Tekapoto | 35 | Tekura o te ao (?) |
| 13 | Te tuki o te rangi | 36 | Teauetapaia (?) |
| 14 | Mapuia (?) | 37 | Rongoua |
| 15 | Tei | 38 | Kaitupuariki |
| 16 | Puatere ariki | 39 | Neva |
| 17 | Rangienua | 40 | Teakapuka |
| 18 | Takitupou | 41 | Tupaniteeiau = Tukuata |
| 19 | Kavau | 42 | Teruautu = Akeina |
| 20 | (lost) | 43 | Tinokura; and by a second line Poona = Ngaatii (?) |
| 21 | Te ariki tapokiau (?) | 44 | Ngakaara; Manaariki = Teatuatara |
| 22 | Tu renga tana (?) | 45 | Mataio; Poona II = Mairi |
| 23 | Te taa o te atua | 46 | Kea te tupua |
4. Te au o Vaikaa
5. The ship from Maiao
The ship from Maiao.- One time in the 18th century a large canoe arrived at Nukuroa and landed on the northern side of the island at a place called „Ooore”. The people, who came from Maiao, landed and went inland, it appears that they were received all right enough; but during their stay they did not behave themselves decently, and they used to rape the several mataiapos daughters. This made the Nukuroa people angry and was the cause of the Maiao peoples finish. The Maiao people were invited to have a feed in the tapere of Takaue, they went there and were sitting down while the feast was being prepared. The food preparing was grated young cocoanuts (nu varuvaru). A crowd of Mitiaro men were grating away on their tuais, only one man was sitting a little distance away from them doing nothing, this man managed to attract the attention of the people grating. At a look from this man, every Mitiaro man that had a tuai, jumped up and knocked the Maiao men on the head killing them all, except one, who managed to escape. This Maiao mans name was Maka. Maka ran along into the tapere of Atai, where he climbed up in a large chestnut tree, an Atai man saw him but did not give him away he only told Maka to keep very quiet. It did not take long before the pursuers of this fugitive came along from Takaue searching for Maka, they did however not find him, and went back again to Takaue.
When the Takaue men had gone away, Maka came down and begged the Atai man to save him from the Takaue people if he could. The Atai man did so by putting Maka on to the „paata rangi” where nobody could touch him. Afterwards the trouble must have blown over because Maka has descendants living here at Mitiaro. The chest nut tree is still growing and bears the name of Maka. This happened in the reign of Tirau supposed to have been a King.,,
“The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 10 to 11
6. The conquest, as Mitiaro told it
7. The conquest, as Atiu told it
But before these events took place on Mau‘ke, Rongomatane had conquered Mitiaro, attacking that island with an overwhelming force, while the inhabitants were suffering from a sort of epidemic. The brave warriors of Mitiaro - unlike the meanspirited men of Mau‘ke, who are still twitted for their want of courage - held their stronghold Te Pari against the invaders, till it was captured by stratagem: the usual cannibal feast followed. The so‑called Arikis of . . . Mitiaro, from that time onward held their positions as feudatories at the pleasure of the Arikis of Atiu. These three adjacent islands - a group within a group - were known in those days as Nga‑putoru.
Tuia Akapira, recorded by J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, 1913
16.31 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 73, summarising John Williams. First edition, Volume 1, p. 458.
8. What Mitiaro was remembered for
There is another proverb: “The sun is declining says Katoaporo.” The latter was a frugal man because his land, Mitiaro, frequently suffered from famine; he taught his children the correct use of food, that is to eat sparingly and at long intervals. To be content with a little food in the morning, and none again until evening when the sun declines.
Rupe’s collection, translated by J. T. Large, 1913
9. Mitiaro under Atiu, and the court
The original inhabitants of this island (Mau‘ke) and those of Mitiaro were killed off about the year 1820 by a raid of the Atiu warriors. Since that date each island has been held by a garrison, who occupy as the representatives of the whole tribe.
Walter Gudgeon, report for the year ending 31 December 1900, with the author’s bracketed note
And his report for 1901 to 1902 shows that the garrison was still there.16.37
The six tribes of Atiu number about 1,530 of all ages and sexes, of whom eight hundred live on the island. Some two hundred more live permanently at Tahiti on land they have purchased, and the remainder occupy the conquered islands of Mau‘ke and Mitiaro.
Walter Gudgeon, report on the Cook and Northern Islands, 1902
The archive: the passages in full
WHAT IS AND IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE
Gill, Large, Pakoti, and Koro and Low were published before 1929 and are out of copyright; they are reproduced at the length the chapter relies on. Court records may be reproduced.
Buck’s Bishop Museum bulletins of 1927, 1934 and 1944 remain in copyright and appear only in the passage quoted. Marked in amber.
The two manuscripts on Mitiaro from Stephen Savage’s papers in the Cook Islands National Archives are unpublished. They are transcribed in full in Archives 08 and 09 of the repository, quoted here at the length the chapter relies on, and reproduced in facsimile in Part 3 so that every reading can be checked against the page.
Part 1: The making and the names
Note 16.1: How Tane made the island
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, 1876, p. 171; Historical Sketches, 1880, p. 39.
“The gods drew this island up from the depth of the ocean, but it was bare rock, without any soil. One of the gods, Tane, decided to beautify the island. Suddenly two ironwood trees sprang out of the rock near the sea: one on the east coast, facing Ma’uke, the other on the west coast, facing Atiu. Both trees touched the skies. No wonder, for they were embodiments of Tane-tarava, Tane the all-sufficient. The trees bowed down until their tops rested on the neighbouring islands. Fairies collected soil in coconut-leaf baskets, which they put in the branches. The trees raised themselves and the soil in the baskets was poured out over the island. This process was repeated many times until the island was fit for human habitation. One can still see the glens from which the fairies took the soil on Atiu and Ma’uke.”
Note 16.4: Nuku-Roa, the large land
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876, p. 17; Cook Islands Review 6, no. 4, 1960, p. 9.
“The ancient name of the island is Nuku-Roa, translated by William Wyatt Gill as “Vast Host,” not “Vast Boat.” An old meaning of “Nuku,” however, was “Land,” and a better translation seems to be “Large Land.” This meaning is in any case substantiated by the facts. Aerial photographs taken in 1959 showed that Mitiaro is twice as big as previously thought, and 1,000 acres bigger than Ma’uke. It is the fourth island by size of the whole group.”
Part 2: The Savage papers on Mitiaro: the first owners, Te au o Vaikaa, the ship from Maiao and the war with Atiu
Notes 16.8 to 16.13 and 16.17
The two manuscripts
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE Stephen Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, four handwritten pages in ink; and “The history of Nukuroa”, manuscript in English, eighteen pages in a hand that is not Savage’s, with Savage’s pencil draft “The period of Vaikaa”. Savage papers, uncatalogued, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga.
Both manuscripts are from a box marked “Savage” among the uncatalogued papers of the Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga — the surviving part of Stephen Savage’s collection — photographed there by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager. They are transcribed whole, with the conventions of the series, in Archives 08 (“Mitiaro, History”) and Archives 09 (“The history of Nukuroa”), and the facsimiles are reproduced in Part 3 below. The Nukuroa manuscript is unsigned. Its writer uses the continental opening quotation mark, writes “what” for “which”, and speaks of “here at Mitiaro”. It is cited for what it records and not as authority for any rule of custom. Savage’s four pages are a reworking of the longer account: they take the naming of Nukuroa and the dispute of Uke, Tekutikuti and Mariri from it and add a genealogy of forty-six generations from Mariri. The heading of Savage’s first page is partly burnt.
Note 16.20: Uke, Tekutikuti-rau-matangi and Mariri
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 1–2; “The history of Nukuroa”, p. 1, “The Beginning of Nukuroa”.
“The ancient name of the island of Mitiaro was Nukuroa. How it derived the name of Nukuroa cannot now be explained for certain by any of the present generation. The suggestion offered by some of the natives is as follows: the first inhabitants (to their knowledge) had been a long time at sea when they eventually discovered the island, and on landing gave it the name of Nukuroa, which means “Long island”.
The first inhabitants, so far as the old men of Mitiaro can give any information of were *Uke Ariki and Tekutikuti-rau-matangi and their respective followers and also another chief named *Mariri. The two chiefs first mentioned had a dispute as to the ownership of the island, and during their argument, Tekutikuti asked Uke Ariki for a sign to prove what he claimed. Uke thereupon replied “I have four large rocks - two on eastern side and two on the western side of the island.” Tekutikuti was not satisfied with this answer and [in]
[the] proceedings, Uke in turn asked [him to] show his mark of ownership. He said “I divided the sea and brought forth the land”. It was at this juncture that Mariri joined in the dispute saying: “The island belongs to neither of you, it belongs to me”. Uke and Tekutikuti then had a controversy with Mariri, and finally asked him to prove his assertion. Mariri thereupon said, “I brought the red soil to this land” which meant that he had been here before; the other two disputants had to give in and acknowledge Mariri as the owner and therefore their superior on the land.”
The same story in the Nukuroa manuscript, p. 1, whose opening line survives only in part: “[... fir]st arrived at this island and therefore gave it the name of Nukuroa. — —” The Beginning of Nukuroa. Uke and Tekutikuti-raumatangi had a dispute, both claiming ownership of the island, during the dispute Tekutikuti asked Uke for a sign to prove what he claimed, where Uke answered: „I have four large rocks, two on the eastern side and two on the western side of the island.” This answer did not satisfy Tekutikuti, so still disputing Uke asked Tekutikuti to show what sign he had to show. Tekutikuti raumatangi said: „I split the sea so the land came forth.” Then stood up a third party, by the name of Mariri, saying, „Neither of you two are the owners of Nukuroa, the island belongs to me.” Uke and Tekutikuti then got into controversy with Mariri, and they asked him to prove his claim; where to Mariri answered: „I brought the red soil to Nukuroa.” and the [other] fellows had to give in [and ...] acknowledge [...] — [At least one page is missing here: it ended with the list of chiefs of whom Vaikaa’s forebear was the “greatest of these and owner of Nukuroa”.] The two texts agree almost word for word; which was written first is not known.
Note 16.22: The genealogy from Mariri
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 2–4.
“Mariri is also the ancestor of a great many branches of the original inhabitants of Atiu and to show somewhat near the period when this chief lived and the time that the Mitiaro people say the island was colonised I give the following genealogy which I secured from Atiu, which shows 46 generations from Mariri down to Kea te tupua, the present holder of the title of Rongo-ma-tane ariki.
[1] [Ma]riri ariki [2] [Tu]kukore i manu [?] [3] Mara[rara?] [4] Ruataiti [?] [5] Ruatanganuku [6] Ruatangarangi [7] Te[...]i [8] Mariri-rere [?] [9] Kaia [10] Mairiavaipoa [?] [11] Tekaroa [12] Tekapoto [13] Te tuki o te rangi [14] Ma[pu?]ia [15] Tei [16] Puatere ariki [17] Rangienua [18] Takitupou [19] Kavau [20 – lost] 21 Te ariki tapokiau [?] 22 Tu renga tana [?] 23 Te taa o te atua 24 Te taa o te marama 25 Ruavairaka 26 Mariri-toa —— Manatu 27 Rongoua [?] 28 Teaio 29 Amani [?] 30 Tu[...] 31 Tu[...]
[32] [Tu?]atara ariki [?] [33] Poratere [?] [34] Kavau [35] Tekura o te ao [?] [36] Teauetapaia [?] 37 Rongoua 38 Kaitupuariki [39] Neva [40] Teakapuka [41] Tupaniteeiau = Tukuata (Teari[...]) [42] Teruautu = Akeina (Te [...] ariki [?]) 43 Tinokura 43 Poona = Ngaatii [?] Kura[...] 44 Ngakaara 44 Manaariki = Teatuatara 45 Mataio 45 Poona II = Mairi 46 Kea te tupua”
Pencil notes beside the chart are illegible except “Kea te tupua”, repeated. Pages 3 and 4 are faded and torn at the left edge where the generation numbers stood; the bracketed readings are uncertain and should be checked against the facsimiles in Part 3. The struck-out words on p. 2 read “Chief … genealogy”.
Note 16.24: Te au o Vaikaa
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 2–8.
“greatest of these and owner of Nukuroa. — Te au o Vaikaa. In olden times, before the war between Atiu and Mitiaro, some time most likely in the beginning of the 18th century, there were in the tapere of Takaue two chiefs (Toa) by the names of Tetuiiti and Taku, they had never done anything what would justify them being chiefs, only through bullying the Takaue people had they raised themselves up to the ranks of chiefs, and the Takaue people were simply their slaves. Tetuiiti and Taku were very bad men, who made their slaves rob and steal food for them from the neighbouring taperes, and they also used to steal the wives from other chiefs and so on. Now at the time there lived in the tapere of Atai on the land called Akura a mataiapo by the name of Vaikaa, he was a peaceful enough sort of man and [attend]ed to his lands, [planting] it [...] some of his [...] kava, it [...]
quite a lot of kava planted. One morning early he got up, and going outside of his house looking over his land, he saw that some of his kava was rooted up and missing. he felt of course a bit put out about it, but anyhow he did make no fuss. A few days passed by and again some of his kava was stolen, he now commenced to get really angry about it and suspected, that Tetuiiti and Taku were the thieves, or that at least whomsoever had stolen the kava had done so at the command of Tetuiiti and Taku. Before making up his mind what to do it happened again, that one morning as Vaikaa was a looking over his land, kava was again missing, this was now the third time, and Vaikaa was furious and made up his mind to go to Takaue and see about it all and try to kill Tetuiiti and Taku. Now Vaikaa had a friend, [a fisherman?], by the name of T[akiriko], [who] lived [close] to the sea. He
did not plant or anything like that, but lived on fish. Vaikaa sent for Takiriko to come and see him before departing for Takaue. Takiriko went into Atai to Vaikaas house, and asked why he had been sent for. Vaikaa said: „I sent for you my friend, because Tetuiiti and Taku have stolen my kava, now three times, and I am going to Takaue to day to see about it.” „Do not go to day,” said Takiriko, „wait and I will go along with you to morrow.” Vaikaa was hard to persuade from his purpose. „Do not you know,” he said, „that to morrow the clouds may have drifted away,” meaning thereby that his anger might have gone after a nights sleep. Takiriko answered: „The clouds will not drift away so easily, wait and I will take you to Takaue to morrow.” After much talking, one way and another, Vaikaa was at last persuaded to wait untill the morrow. Now in the evening Takiriko went, unbeknown to Vai[kaa], around to the [three]
three taperes, to Atai, Auta and Mangarei, binding them to him with a bond of mutual help to go along with Vaikaa next day to avenge their wrongs on Tetuiiti and Taku. Everybody agreed to go, because all of them had suffered more or less from the two Takaue chiefs. One had had his Taro stolen another his pigs another his wife another his daughter and so on and so forth. All were eager to grasp the opportunity of avenging the wrongs they had suffered. That same night Atai and Auta tapere gathered together at Vaikaas place and Takiriko went into the house. „What is all this about,” asked Vaikaa. Takiriko told him that they would all go along together to Takaue and that Mangarei tapere had also promised their help. „I shall never reach to Takaue,” said Vaikaa, „they will kill me on the road before I get sight of Tetuiiti and Taku.” „Do not be afraid,” said Takiriko, „I shall take you there for sure, and you [shall] go there with a [following]
[appr]oving of none but friends”. Vaikaa after much talking was at last convinced of the good intentions of the three taperes, and everybody went to their nights rest. Next morning the drums were a beating and everybody gathered together, a big umukai was made and about noon they had a good feed, when Vaikaa and Takiriko followed by the fighting men of Atai and Auta started on their way to Mangarei, where they again had a big feed, this was now in the afternoon about three oclock. Vaikaa was anxious to make a start for Takaue; but the Mangarei people said: „Wait untill later on towards dark, then they will all be together drinking the kava, and we will be able to surround them, if we go too early they will take alarm and spread out and our trouble will be for nothing.” Vaikaa, though very impatient, was forced to accept this wise counsel and they waited untill
untill late in the afternoon towards sundown when they all started for Takaue. Spies were sent out ahead and soon returned, informing them that the Takaue people had gathered together and that kavadrinking was going on. Vaikaa and Takiriko devided their followers into two parties, one party was to take the road direct to Takaue and the other party to make a detour and make a kind of flank attack. They had also arranged, that the party what discovered the house, where the two Takaue chiefs were drinking, were to yell out and so give the information to their other party. It was now dark and they advanced and after some time someone let out a yell and everybody gathered together and surrounded a house where the two Takaue chiefs were drinking kava with their followers. The house was entered and Tetuiiti and Taku were killed. Such people as had not joined in the kavadrinking were surprised in their
their houses, and running out asking one another what might be the matter, however when they found out that the two bullying chiefs had been done to death, the Takaue people were rather glad than otherwise, seeing that also they had suffered much from Tetuiiti and Taku. They all acknowledged Vaikaas power and begged him hard to rest the night over with them. Vaikaa would not be persuaded and told them no; but that he would again visit them the next day. He departed with his followers, and when they came to Mangarei, the Mangarei people wanted him to rest over night with them; but Vaikaa would not do so, promising to visit them next day, so Vaikaa left Mangarei and departed from there with his Atai and Auta followers and returned to his home at Akura the same night and went to sleep. Next morning drums were a beating and everybody went to Vaikaas place, and when”
The page numbers are those of the transcription; the manuscript’s own numbering begins only at p. 11. At least one page is missing before this section, which opens in mid-sentence with the last words of a list of chiefs.
“Now you are a mataiapo”
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 9–10.
“gathered together, Vaikaa went around among them shaking every man by the hand saying: „Now you are a mataiapo” so that every man from Atai and Auta now had the tittle of mataiapo. After having a big feed Vaikaa with his followers went to Mangarei where he performed the same thing to all the Mangarei men, shaking every man by the hand and calling him a mataiapo, he thereafter went with his crowd to Takaue. The Takaue people had gathered together perhaps not knowing what to expect from Vaikaa; but he went around and shook every Takaue man by the hand and told them one by one: „Now you are a mataiapo”. So that now they were all, every man on Nukuroa, Mataiapo.
Nobody was obliged to serve under anybody, seeing that they now were of equal rank. Every man could now plant his food and raise his pigs without being bound bound to give part of it to his chief or mataiapo, seeing that he now was a mataiapo himself. So this is the tale of the „Au a Vaikaa” which was a very good au. Vaikaa returned to his home and his friend Takiriko returned to his place on the beach to catch and live on fish.”
Savage’s pencil draft, “The period of Vaikaa”
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE Stephen Savage, pencil draft, one sheet, reworking the opening of “Te au o Vaikaa”.
“In ancient times, long before the war between Atiu and Mitiaro, probably in the beginning of the 18th century, there lived in the Takaue division of the island of Mitiaro two chiefs who were toas (warriors) name Tetui-iti and Taku. Although these two men were [reckoned?] toas, they had done nothing notable to justify the name it was only through their arrogance & bullying [of] the Takaue people [that they] succeeded [struck: ...] in raising themselves up to the status of a chief, and almost reduced the Takaue people to the standing of slaves. [struck: These ... made the people] Tetui-iti & Taku were very bad men they made their slaves rob and steal food for them from the people of the adjoining divisions, not content with stealing of food - they were sometimes made to abduct the wives of the other chiefs & people of standing, and committed [...]”
A faint pencil draft in Savage’s hand, reworking the opening of “Te au o Vaikaa” above; a second, fainter sheet of the same draft was also photographed (vaikaa-pencil-draft-b.jpg) and is not legible enough to transcribe.
The ship from Maiao, and how Atiu conquered Mitiaro
ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 10–18.
“The ship from Maiao.- One time in the 18th century a large canoe arrived at Nukuroa and landed on the northern side of the island at a place called „Ooore”. The people, who came from Maiao, landed and went inland, it appears that they were received all right enough; but during their stay they did not behave themselves decently, and they used to rape the several mataiapos daughters. This made the Nukuroa people angry and was the cause of the Maiao peoples finish. The Maiao people were invited to have a feed in the tapere of Takaue, they went there and
were sitting down while the feast was being prepared. The food preparing was grated young cocoanuts (nu varuvaru). A crowd of Mitiaro men were grating away on their tuais, only one man was sitting a little distance away from them doing nothing, this man managed to attract the attention of the people grating, and at a look from this man, every Mitiaro man that had a tuai, jumped up and knocked the Maiao men on the head killing them all, except one, who managed to escape. This Maiao mans name was Maka. Maka ran along into the tapere of Atai, where he climbed up in a large chestnut tree, an Atai man saw him but did not give him away he only told Maka to keep very quiet. It did not take long before the pursuers of this fugitive came along from Takaue searching for Maka, they did however not find him, and went back again to Takaue.
When the Takaue men had gone away, Maka came down and begged the Atai man to save him from the Takaue people if he could. The Atai man did so by putting Maka on to the „paata rangi” where nobody could touch him. Afterwards the trouble must have blown over because Maka has descendants living here at Mitiaro. The chest nut tree is still growing and bears the name of Maka. This happened in the reign of Tirau supposed to have been a King. — —
How Atiu conquered Mitiaro.
From olden times and untill to day Mitiaro is divided into four districts or tapere, namely Atai, Auta, Mangarei and Takaue. Atai, Auta and Mangarei were always peaceful; but Takaue was always very quarrelsome and savage. From olden times it has been the use to form teres or pleasure trips to go from one island to another [to vi]sit and to look around. Now
every time, when some Atiu [people] would come over to Mitiaro, or rather as they called it Nukuroa, the Takaue people used to catch some of them and kill and eat them. The Takaues would watch for them at night times when perhaps some of the Atiu people would be on the reef with torches to look for fish, also Takaue used to pick out mataiapo children which of course made the Atiu chiefs very angry. Time after time this happened, and one trip there came over from Atiu a tere of 140 people. Takaue caught many of them and ate them up, so that when Atiu got news of this outrage they made up their mind to come over and punish the Takaue people. Three tribes came over namely Ngati tiaka, Ngati paruarangi and Ngati tinorau. Takaue meanwhile retreated from their homes and went to the eastside of the island to a place called Teunu[?], where they [had built] a heavy stone fortress. This
fort was built up of heavy stones piled up rather high and having a flat roof where the „Toas” stood with their „Makas” or slings, where with they were sending showers of stones at their enemy, and when the stones gave out they used pandanus nuts. The Takaues were led by their chief Maaru, all the Takaue population together with some people what had come to their help from the other three taperes all were indside of this fort, besides there were three Maiao Toas, what afterwards turned out to be splendid fighters, especially were they powerful with their Makas or slings, throwing stones with tremendous force. The fort must have been of a good size, since it could contain this crowd. The women and children were indside while the fighters were on the platform forming the roof. Now looking at the position of this fort and the approaches. The fort was built on the eastern side of the island not very far from the sea,
inland it was surrounded by very rough makatea rocks and the Atiu people had to get across this makatea to get to the fort. The distance would be somewhat over a mile over sharp rocks where walking is almost impossible, seeing that the rocks form crevices or holes not very deep but still deep enough to make progress very fatiguing. You have to climb over a rock perhaps 6 or 8 feet high only [to] have to go down into a hole of perhaps the same dept before you can again commence to climb the next rock and so on the whole way, and the rocks [are] so sharp that you can hardly touch them without feeling pain, also they are mostly overgrown with Pandanus whose prickly leaves are also very unpleasant. There is at present a narrow track across this makatea; but, so far I understand, there was no such track at the time of this trouble, so the Atiu crowd ha[d a] very difficult [task to]
get to the fort. However let us return to the Atiu people. As I said, three tribes came over to Nukuroa to avenge their wrongs on Takaue. They went to the Takaue tapere where they stayed, from Takaue they went to the fort, only they did not get close at the first attempt, and the fort looked quite impregnable to them, so they returned to Takaue. Next day they started again and split into three parties, each tribe forming a party, and each party was to approach the fort from a different side. Now it had been prophesied at Atiu that Ngatitinorau would not reach to the fort before the fort would have been conquered by the two other tribes, and so it turned out afterwards. Well, they made a start from Takaue. Going [over] the makatea they used their [spears], laying spears from [rock] to rock and so forming a kind of bridge [for them] to walk on [shifting]
[shift]ing the spears as they moved along. Ngatitiaka and Ngatiparuarangi at last got close up to the fort, most likely, the Takaue people had fired away all their ammunition, they had a parley. The Takaue chief Maaru had a daughter by the name of Teaueroa, she was also in the fort. Now the Atiu people wanted this daughter, and perhaps made the besieged believe, that if Teaueroa was given to the Atiu[s] the war would be over. However Maaru was no fool, he told his people to kill Teaueroa; but they would not do so. „How can we kill your daughter”, they said, „we will do no such thing.” „Well”, said Maaru, „if you do not kill Teaue[roa] you will all be in the fire to [morr]ow.” Meanwhile the Atiu[s were] crying out. „Tuku mai ana [ia] Maine”. Maaru kept on [com]manding his people to kill Teaueroa. „I[...] kill her” [...]
[...] at their chief and said: „[...] and she is your [...] we kill your daugh[ter ...] „Tuku mai ana ia Ma[ine” cried] the Atiu people, and at [last the] Takaue people let her out of [the] fort to the Atiu people, who [now] entered into the fort where a terrible slaughter now comm[enced]. They impaled their prisoners on spear[s] and held them up to show to such Takaue people as had managed to escape and were witnessing the massacre from a distance. Many of these Takaue people, when they saw their children wriggling in torture on the Atius spears, would return back again at the [sight] of their children, only also [to] be killed. At last the carnage [was] over and peace esta[b]lished [and t]hat is how Nukuroa came [to b]e under the rule of Atiu. [Tea]ueroa was [tak]en away to Atiu where”
[The account continues on a page not found.] The name of the place where the fort stood is hard to read (“Teunu”?); Gill and Large call the stronghold Te Pari. The account of the war is the island’s own, and its cause is the killing of Atiu visitors by Takaue, not the epidemic that Gill reports.
Part 3: The conquest in the published sources
Note 16.23: Rongomatane takes Te Pari
PUBLIC DOMAIN — reproduced in full
SOURCE J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, JPS 22 (1913), pp. 70–71, from Tuia Akapira.
“But before these events took place on Mauke, Rongomatane had conquered Mitiaro, attacking that island with an overwhelming force, while the inhabitants were suffering from a sort of epidemic. The brave warriors of Mitiaro - unlike the meanspirited men of Mauke, who are still twitted for their want of courage - held their stronghold Te Pari against the invaders, till it was captured by stratagem: the usual cannibal feast followed. The so-called Arikis of . . . Mitiaro, from that time onward held their positions as feudatories at the pleasure of the Arikis of Atiu. These three adjacent islands - a group within a group - were known in those days as Nga-putoru.”
Part 4: Facsimiles of the Savage papers on Mitiaro
Twenty-three photographs — Archives 08 and 09
Facsimiles The Savage papers on Mitiaro
#v1n16-facsimiles ARCHIVAL MANUSCRIPT — Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; transcribed and reproduced for the record
SOURCE Savage papers, uncatalogued, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga; photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager.
Reproduced at reading size. The order is that of the transcriptions: Savage’s “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 1–4; then “The history of Nukuroa”, its first surviving page, the eight pages of “Te au o Vaikaa”, the page carrying its end and “The ship from Maiao”, p. 11, and pp. 12–18 “How Atiu conquered Mitiaro”; and last Savage’s pencil draft.
Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 1
Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 2
Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 3 — the genealogy, generations 1 to 31
Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 4 — generations 32 to 46
“The history of Nukuroa”, first surviving page — The Beginning of Nukuroa
“The history of Nukuroa”, Te au o Vaikaa, first page (transcription p. 2)
Te au o Vaikaa, second page (p. 3)
Te au o Vaikaa, third page (p. 4)
Te au o Vaikaa, fourth page (p. 5)
Te au o Vaikaa, fifth page (p. 6)
Te au o Vaikaa, sixth page (p. 7)
Te au o Vaikaa, seventh page (p. 8)
Te au o Vaikaa, eighth page (p. 9)
The end of the Au a Vaikaa, and The ship from Maiao (p. 10)
“The history of Nukuroa”, p. 11
How Atiu conquered Mitiaro, p. 12
p. 13
p. 14
p. 15
p. 16
p. 17
p. 18 — the account breaks off
Stephen Savage, pencil draft, “The period of Vaikaa”
How to cite this page
CITATION
Ross Holmes, Southern Cook Islands Customary Law, History and Society, Volume 1 (second edition, 2026), archive for Chapter 16, Note 16.1, at cookislandscustomarylaw.com/volume-one#chapter-16, accessed [date].
Anchors are permanent. A note number, once published, is never reused and never renumbered.
The first-edition chapter, 2014, page by page
First edition, page 1
Chapter 16
Mitiaran customary law - Ākono’anga Pa Enua Tonga o te Mitiaro by Ross Holmes
The information in this Chapter is a short summary. Detailed research, which is beyond the scope of this book, is needed on Mitiaran customary law.
Oral traditions as to the first settlement of Mitiaro - Tua taito no te au tangata tei no‘o mua ki Mitiaro by Ross Holmes The gods drew this island up from the depth of the ocean, but it was bare rock, without any soil. One of the gods, Tane, decided to beautify the island. Suddenly two ironwood trees sprang out of the rock near the sea: one on the east coast, facing Ma’uke, the other on the west coast, facing Atiu. Both trees touched the skies. No wonder, for they were embodiments of Tane-tarava, Tane the all-sufficient. The trees bowed down until their tops rested on the neighbouring islands. Fairies collected soil in coconut-leaf baskets, which they put in the branches. The trees raised themselves and the soil in the baskets was poured out over the island. This process was repeated many times until the island was fit for human habitation. One can still see the glens from which the fairies took the soil on Atiu and Ma’uke.1 The island was settled from Atiu.2 An ancestor was Kutikuti-rau-matangi, and an ancestress Te Rongo-te-maeva.3 The ancient name of the island is Nuku-Roa, translated by William Wyatt Gill as “Vast Host,”4 not “Vast Boat.”5 An old meaning of “Nuku,” however, was “Land,”6 and a better translation seems to be “Large Land.” This meaning is in any case substantiated by the facts. Aerial photographs taken in 1959 showed that Mitiaro is twice as big as previously thought, and 1,000 acres bigger than Ma’uke. It is the fourth island by size of the whole group.7 The present-day name Mitiaro is translated by William Wyatt Gill as “Face of the Ocean.”8 “Aro” can mean “face.” “Miti” for “ocean” is not frequently used today, although Stephen Savage gives it as a second meaning; the first being “salt.”9 But “miti” is the Tahitian word for “ocean.”10
1 Gill, William Wyatt, Life in the Southern Isles..., 1876: 171; Gill, William Wyatt, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia..., 1880: 39
Gill, William, Gems from the Coral Islands, 1856: 254
Buck, Sir Peter, Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, 1944: 12
4 Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 17; Pakoti, John, ...The first Inhabitants of Aitutaki; The History of Ru 1895: 64, 70
Williamson, Robert W., The social and political systems of central Polynesia, 1924: Volume I 2580
Walsh, D.S., and Biggs, Bruce, Proto-Polynesian Word List I, Auckland, 1966: 74
Anon., Mitiaro, in CIR 6(1960) no. 4: 9
Gill, William Wyatt, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, 1876: 17
Savage, Stephen, A Dictionary of the Māori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 162
Tryon, D.F., Conversational Tahitian, Canberra, 1970: 154
First edition, page 2
2 Another explanation is that Mitiaro is a shortened form of Motia-Aro,11 also spelt as Motea-Aro.12 “Motia” means: settlement, village, region.13 Mitiaro is also said to mean: L’Īle en lutte contre la mer,14 the Isle in combat with the sea. The late Tangata Nekeare explained the name of his home island as follows: The original name was Miti-Vai-Aro. “Aro” is the immature coconut; “vai aro” is the fluid of the “aro”, and “miti” is “to lick.” This name is said to refer to a battle with the Atiuans, when the blood of the victims was licked up like “vai aro.”15 Mitiaro was sometimes spelt as Mittiero, Mitièro, Mattiaro,16 and Metiaro.17 Shortly before the arrival of the Gospel in 1823, Rongomatane ariki of Atiu attacked the island. The brave warriors of Mitiaro held their stronghold Te Pari against the invaders, until it was captured by stratagem.18
Wars in Mitiaro As detailed by Peter Buck19 traditions from Aitutaki, Atiu, Mangaia, Mitiaro, and Mauke show that waves of people Aitu or Ngati-Tane (worshipers of Tane) from Tahiti descended upon the coasts of the islands and fought with the people already in occupation. J. T. Large recorded the following oral traditions as to the invasion of Mitiaro by Rongomatane Ngaakaara, which Tuia Akapira “the fine old Mataiapo (chief) of Te Enni Settlement” told him:20 But before these events took place on Mauke, Rongomatane had conquered Mitiaro, attacking that island with an overwhelming force, while the inhabitants were suffering from a sort of epidemic. The brave warriors of Mitiaro - unlike the meanspirited men of Mauke, who are still twitted for their want of courage - held their stronghold Te Pari against the invaders, till it was captured by stratagem: the usual cannibal feast followed. The so-called Arikis of . . . Mitiaro, from that time onward held their positions as feudatories at the pleasure of the Arikis of Atiu. These three adjacent islands - a group within a group - were known in those days as Nga-putoru.
Smith, Stephenson Percy, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori..., 1899: 9
12 Te Ariki-Tara-Are, A Collection of Stories (or History) of the Ruling Chiefs, and the Priests, and the Lesser Chiefs, Translated by Smith, Stephenson Percy, JPS 8 (1899): 62-64,75-77: 74
Savage, Stephen, A Dictionary of the Māori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 167
Villaret, Bernard, lles des Mers du Sud, Paris, 1966: 240
Kloosterman, Alphons M.J., Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, ...1976: 27
16 Findlay, A.G., Directory of the Pacific Ocean, London, 1884: 495; Marin, M. Aylic, Promenades en Océanie. Le Tour du Monde: 214; Petit, E., En Océanie, Paris, 1888: 65; Kelly, J.L., South Sea Islands: Possibilities of Trade with New Zealand, Auckland, 1885 (Cook Islands, 48-54): 48
Ellis, Rev. William, Polynesian Researches, 1831: Volume I 359
Large, J.T., Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific, JPS 22 (1913) 67-76: 69
Buck, Sir Peter, Mangaian Society, 1934: 37-39
Large, J.T., Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific, JPS 22 (1913) 67-76: 69
First edition, page 3
3 The last conquest of Mitiaro was in 1820:21 The original inhabitants of this island [Ma’uke] and those of Mitiaro were killed off about the year 1820 by a raid of the Atiu warriors, and since that date each island has been held by a garrison, who occupy as the representatives of the whole tribe.
As Walter Gudgeon recorded in his report on the Cook and northern Islands for the year 1901-2 a substantial number of that garrison still resided on Mitiaro in 1901:22 The six tribes of Atiu number about 1,530 of all ages and sexes, of whom eight hundred live on the island; some two hundred more live permanently at Tahiti on land they have purchased, and the remainder occupy the conquered islands of Mauke and Mitiaro.
21 Gudgeon, Walter, Report on the Trade and Social Condition of the Cook Islands for Year ending 31st December, 1900, 1902 AJHR A-3: 50 with my notation in brackets
1902 AJHR A-3: 49-50
All the notes of the chapter
16.1 William Wyatt Gill, Life in the Southern Isles, Religious Tract Society, London, 1876, p. 171. William Wyatt Gill, Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia, George Didsbury, Government Printer, Wellington, 1880, p. 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 562. The passage in full
16.2 William Gill, Gems from the Coral Islands, London, 1856, p. 254.
16.3 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179, Honolulu, 1944, p. 12. For the canoe, Chapter 13, from Vaine Rere and Pa Kura.
16.4 William Wyatt Gill, Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, Henry S. King, London, 1876, p. 17. John Pakoti, “The First Inhabitants of Aitutaki: The History of Ru”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 4 (1895), pp. 64 and 70. First edition, Volume 1, p. 562. The passage in full
16.5 Robert W. Williamson, The Social and Political Systems of Central Polynesia, 1924, Volume I, p. 258.
16.6 D. S. Walsh and Bruce Biggs, Proto-Polynesian Word List I, Auckland, 1966, p. 74.
16.7 “Mitiaro”, Cook Islands Review 6 (1960), no. 4, p. 9.
16.8 Stephen Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, p. 1; Archives 08.
16.9 Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 17.
16.10 Stephen Savage, A Dictionary of the Maori Language of Rarotonga, Department of Island Territories, Wellington, 1962, p. 162.
16.11 D. T. Tryon, Conversational Tahitian, Canberra, 1970, p. 154.
16.12 S. Percy Smith, Hawaiki: The Whence of the Māori, 1899, p. 9.
16.13 Te Ariki-tara-are, “A Collection of Stories (or History) of the Ruling Chiefs, and the Priests, and the Lesser Chiefs”, translated by S. Percy Smith, Journal of the Polynesian Society 8 (1899), pp. 62 to 64 and 75 to 77, at p. 74.
16.14 Savage, Dictionary, p. 167.
16.15 Bernard Villaret, Îles des Mers du Sud, Paris, 1966, p. 240: “L’Île en lutte contre la mer”.
16.16 Tangata Nekeare, as recorded by Alphons M. J. Kloosterman, Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the Names they Gave, 1976, p. 27. First edition, Volume 1, p. 562.
16.17 A. G. Findlay, Directory of the Pacific Ocean, London, 1884, p. 495. M. Aylic Marin, Promenades en Océanie, Le Tour du Monde, p. 214. E. Petit, En Océanie, Paris, 1888, p. 65. J. L. Kelly, South Sea Islands: Possibilities of Trade with New Zealand, Auckland, 1885, p. 48.
16.18 William Ellis, Polynesian Researches, 1831, Volume I, p. 359.
16.19 Stephen Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, four handwritten pages; and “The history of Nukuroa”, manuscript in English, eighteen pages in a hand that is not Stephen Savage’s, with his pencil draft “The period of Vaikaa” reworking its opening. Both are from the box of Savage’s papers, uncatalogued, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga, photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager, and are transcribed whole in Archives 08 and 09 of the repository and reproduced in facsimile in the archive for this chapter. The Nukuroa manuscript is unsigned; its writer uses continental quotation marks, writes “what” for “which”, and speaks of “here at Mitiaro”; it is cited for what it records and not as authority for any rule. Second edition.
16.20 Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 1 to 2. The asterisks Stephen Savage set against the names of Uke and Mariri are omitted; his footnote to them, if there was one, has not survived. The passage in full
16.21 “The history of Nukuroa”, p. 1, “The Beginning of Nukuroa”. Which of the two texts was written first is not known.
16.22 Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 2 to 4. The passage in full
16.23 Savage, “Mitiaro, History”, pp. 3 to 4. The pencil notes beside the chart are illegible except “Kea te tupua”, repeated. For Tukuata, Te Ruaautu and Rongomatane Ngaakaara, J. T. Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island, Cook Group, South Pacific”, Journal of the Polynesian Society 22 (1913), pp. 67 to 76, at pp. 68 to 70. The passage in full
16.24 “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 2 to 10, “Te au o Vaikaa”. The page numbers are those of the transcription; the manuscript’s own numbering begins only at p. 11. The passage in full
16.25 Stephen Savage, pencil draft “The period of Vaikaa”, one sheet, reworking the opening of “Te au o Vaikaa”; a second, fainter sheet is not legible enough to transcribe.
16.26 “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 10 to 11, “The ship from Maiao”.
16.27 “The history of Nukuroa”, pp. 11 to 18, “How Atiu conquered Mitiaro”.
16.28 Account of the “heathen plays” performed by the Atiu, Mangaia and Rarotonga people at a festival, handwritten in English, unsigned and undated, among the uncatalogued papers of Stephen Savage, Cook Islands National Archives, Rarotonga, photographed by Ross Holmes by permission of the late George Paniani, then Manager; pages 5 and 6 and a continuation sheet; transcribed whole in Archives 10 of the repository. The festival was held after annexation: the writer speaks of “Government Buildings” on Takuvaine. Second edition.
16.29 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 69, from Tuia Akapira, “the fine old Mata‘iapo (chief) of Te Enui Settlement”. First edition, Volume 1, pp. 562 to 563.
16.30 Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), Mangaian Society, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 122, Honolulu, 1934, pp. 37 to 39. First edition, Volume 1, p. 563.
16.31 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 73, summarising John Williams. First edition, Volume 1, p. 458.
16.32 Large, “Some Notes on Atiu Island”, p. 74, from Rupe’s collection; printed whole in Chapter 13. First edition, Volume 1, p. 459.
16.33 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 4.
16.34 Statute of Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro 1899, passed 22 August 1899; 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 71 to 75. Volume Four, Chapter 5.
16.35 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 6.
16.36 Walter Gudgeon, Report on the Trade and Social Condition of the Cook Islands for the Year Ending 31 December 1900, 1902 AJHR A-3, p. 50. First edition, Volume 1, p. 563.
16.37 1902 AJHR A-3, pp. 49 to 50. First edition, Volume 1, p. 563.
16.38 Mitiaro Minute Book 1, Native Land Court of the Cook Islands, 1936 to 1974 (microfilmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Rarotonga, 3 May 1975): folios 2 to 4, Pa Ariki part of section 4, 4 September 1936, H. F. Ayson, Chief Judge; folios 5 to 7, succession, Rarotonga, 8 November 1965; folios 8 to 12, the school site and an adoption, Mitiaro, 20 December 1965, J. A. Fraser, Judge; folios 13 to 20, Tamoemoe section 5, investigation of title, Rarotonga, 8 March 1966 to 15 May 1971; folios 22 to 33, Paukea, investigation of title, 11 April 1974, T. J. MacCauley, Judge, confirmed at Rarotonga 10 November 1974. The book is indexed in Archives 44 and its full transcription is to follow for Volume Four.
16.39 Constitution of the Cook Islands, in force 4 August 1965, Article 48, which withholds from the Land Court (now the Land Division of the High Court) jurisdiction over customary land in Mangaia, Mitiaro and Pukapuka.
16.40 Judgment of Walter Gudgeon in the Land Titles Court at Ma‘uke, 1905, printed in 1905 AJHR A-3, pp. 27 to 28, and given whole in Chapter 15.
16.41 Volume Four of this series, Chapter 7, citing Walter Gudgeon’s despatch on the native judges, island by island: on Ma‘uke and Mitiaro the Resident Agents were also the local magistrates.
