Sidestep: Were bows ever used in NZ?

When one asks this question, the answer is an emphatic 'no'. That is because Europeans never saw Maori using them, there has never been any bows found in NZ, nor any stories from Maori that they used them or saw anyone previous use them. So, there is absolutely no reliable evidence to support this seeming ridiculous assumption.

But who said that we were talking about those who left Polynesia using the bow? We are not referring to them at all. They were not here first, so the question was has any previous inhabitant ever used them? Probably not most will say - because there is no evidence of such. Keep in mind that last year we said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" meaning you keep an open mind (but a rational one).

We know now that Polynesians have been coming into contact with Melanesian's for many centuries, and Melanesian's used the bow. Polynesians however, have persistently declined to adopt the bow and arrow as a war weapon, though some divisions, such as Tahitians and Hawaiians, used it in sport. The bow was certainly used to some extent by native lads in NZ after it had been made known by early European visitors.

Although there is no evidence to show that the Maori folk of New Zealand ever used the bow and arrow, even as a toy, it is certain that their ancestors certainly came into contact with bow using peoples of Melanesia, where its use was almost universal, though not known in New Caledonia and Australia. There is also, in Maori traditions concerning the Maruiwi (original inhabitants of New Zealand), found in occupation of the North Island by immigrants from Polynesia about thirty generations ago, some curious statements that appear to denote that the aborigines employed the bow and arrow as a weapon.

Many bows in our museums come from Melanesia and some examples are below...

Have a look at the general shape shape (the lack of bend) and noting the 'nock' which holds the string at the ends. Not all from Melanesia have this nock but it seems to be the only island country in the Pacific that had nocks on their bows.

One of the most puzzling problems known to anthropologists is to account for the apparent dislike shown by the Polynesians for the use of the bow and arrow. They found the weapon of the archer in the hands of almost every Melanesian or Papuan inhabitant of the neighbouring islands; they had experience of its fatal powers, and yet, except in the case of the Tongans, the weapons appeared to be viewed with dis-favour and neglect. The bows used by the Tongans in the days of Cook were slight, and by no means powerful instruments. Each bow was fitted with a single arrow of reed, which was carried in a groove cut for that purpose along the side of the bow itself. By the time that Mariner arrived among these islanders in 1806, they had possessed themselves of more powerful bows and arrows, probably procured from Fiji, or imitated from Fijian weapons, as constant intercourse of either warlike or pacific character was then going on between the Friendly and Fijian Islands. Moreover, they had also procured guns at that epoch. The Hawaiian weapons were spears, javelins, clubs, stone-axes, knives and slings; the use of the bow being confined to rat-shooting. The Tahitians used the bow only as a sacred plaything; the bows, arrows, quiver, &c., being kept in a certain place in charge of appointed persons, and brought out on stated occasions. The arrow was not aimed at a mark, but merely shot off as a test of strength and skill, one archer trying to shoot farther than another. The Samoans did not use the bow, but fought with the club and spear, the sling being the missile-weapon, as it also was in the Marquesas.

But here is something few of you may have known about - it involves the discovery of a bow at Mangapai, near Whangarei in New Zealand many years ago. It was dug up by a man on his own land and well below the surface of the ground, and tends to favor the view that the bow was known to the early inhabitants. This bow is said to have been deposited in the Dominion Museum.

In regard to New Zealand, the subject has been handled at any length only by two writers. The first was Mr. C. Phillips, whose paper appeared in the “Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,” vol. x., p. 97. The article did not deal with the bow proper so much as with the weapon known to the Maoris as kotaha, which consists of a stick and whip with which a spear is thrown. Mr. Phillips made some incidental remarks in this paper which provoked Mr. Colenso to reply in an article published in the “Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,” vol. xi., p. 106. Mr. Colenso's argument, briefly summarised, refers to the subject as follows. He considers,—

• 1st. That the bows and arrows found in the hands of Maori children were probably imitated from models shown to them by Tupaea, the Tahitian interpreter brought to New Zealand by Captain Cook. Or, perhaps, from models shown by foreigners, some of whom—notably a Hindoo, a Marquesan, and a Tahitian—were resident among the Maoris when the Rev. Mr. Marsden arrived in 1814.

• 2nd. That neither Tasman, Cook, Parkinson, Forster, Crozet, Polack, Cruise, Nicholas, Marsden, nor any other of the early visitors to New Zealand mention seeing the bow, or hearing of its use. That Mr. Colenso himself, in his frequent journeys about the country (in 1834), and continual listenings to stories of war, never heard of the bow being used in combat.

• 3rd. That there is no mention in old legends of the bow being used as a weapon either in the stories of the destruction of monsters, the deaths of chiefs in battle, or in the lists of arms, although these lists are given with great fidelity and attention to detail.

Of these three divisions, the first is not scientifically decisive. It is possible, and even probable, that the Maoris were taught the use of the bow by early visitors, but it cannot now be proven. The bow might have been kept as a childish toy, although not used as a weapon; exactly, for example, as with the modern English, with whom bows and arrows are playthings, although but a few years ago (ethnologically speaking) they were the national weapons. The second argument is from negative evidence. There may have been bows and arrows in New Zealand, and yet they may not have been produced or spoken of in the presence of new-comers. But that such a reticence occurred is most improbable, and, although the evidence is negative, it is of great value. Few impartial people will - 58 believe that the bow was a weapon of the New Zealander during the last century if no explorer or missionary saw or heard of it. The third argument is an exceedingly important one. If in the lists of weapons mentioned in New Zealand tradition the bow has no place, the conviction left in the minds of most Maori scholars will be that the omission marks the absence of the bow itself from Maori knowledge.

Comparative study of Pacific languages and the nuances thereof, show many words like panah, banah, fana, pana, meaning guard, shoot, bow, hunt, archer etc. In New Zealand the equivalent for the Polynesian F is WH (as fare, “a house,” becomes whare, &c.), consequently we must expect to find the word as whana. The Maori word whana means “to recoil or spring back as a bow;” “a spring made of a bent stick, as a trap.” When we compare the compound words, tawhana, bent like a bow; kowhana, bent, bowed; korowhana, bent, bowed, &c., &c., there can be little doubt but that whana originally with the Maori meant what it did with all other Pacific-islanders—viz., “a bow,” and that they knew its use as a weapon. Just as the Maori words amatiatia, taurua, etc, for the double canoe or outriggered canoe prove former use, even though the modern Maori knows nothing of such vessel. The other Maori forms, pana, “to thrust away,” and panga, “to throw,” have taken slightly divergent meanings. It is entirely possible that Maori saw bows when they arrived, or even brought them, and that just as they almost certainly knew of outrigger canoes, they discarded them (as they did outriggers) in the course of their several centuries in the islands.

• Melanesian Islands.

• Nengone, pehna, a bow.

• Aneityum, fana ”

• Rotuma, fan ”

• Fiji, fana, to shoot with a bow.

• ” vana, to shoot.

• Eddystone Island, umbana, an arrow.

• New Britain, panah, a bow.

• Santa Cruz, nepna, an arrow.

• Florida, vanahi, to shoot.

• Polynesian Proper.

• Tahiti, fana, a bow; fa'a-fana, to guard property.

• 5 Tongan, fana, to shoot; the act of shooting.

• Samoan, fana, to shoot; fanau, a bow; aufana, a bow; uāfana, a volley of arrows.

• Hawaiian. pana, a bow; to shoot as an arrow; panapua, an archer.

• Rarotongan, ana, a bow (dialect drops f and wh).

• Marquesan, pana, a bow.

• Futuna, fana, a bow; to hunt.

***

Tangatawhenua16 have already have produced many items showing that our ancient history is not all it seems. And today we can say with confidence that we do in fact, have a bow in NZ. It was found in NZ, and was made from NZ timbers. It was buried in ground undisturbed for many hundreds of years. This means the earliest inhabitants at least had some knowledge of them but even we doubt they were widespread. But this report was the first we had heard of it, and no museum seems to have it in their registered catalogues.

If one assumes, as we have previously asserted, that the Melanesian's were here before the Polynesians, then bows could have been in use as far back as 950. Few examples, if any, would still exist, at least not to public display. Yet the Museum of Te Papa has the one as described above. But there is no record and it is not on display. Strange you say? Not really - to acknowledge it would raise to many questions. But watch carefully, once we expose the existence of a people here before Maori, it will surface suddenly.

The story goes that someone was digging a drain upon his own property at Mangapai and came upon a bow in a perfect state of preservation. It was lying about 45 inches from the surface in a bed of sandy clay, the surface of which was apparently undisturbed and virgin. The finder proceeded (in the usual fashion which horrifies archæologists) to clean his treasure-trove; but, luckily, before he had finished his work of scraping and oiling the bow, a friend interfered, and the original soil adheres to a portion of the weapon. The bow was deposited in the Museum for safe keeping.

It is 6 feet 4¾ inches in length; in shape resembling the bows of Melanesia. It is also much longer than Polynesian examples of bows (another hint there). It is almost certainly a war or hunting bow, and it would try the strength of an athletic man to draw an arrow to the head upon so stiff an arc. It was unaccompanied by any relics whatsoever.

Several methods of accounting for the deposit of the bow in the locality might be suggested. It might have been buried in modern times by a European or by a visiting native of the South Sea Islands. This is improbable, as the weapon must have been of some value to its owner, and is too large to have been easily lost. Again, the bow, if not a Maori weapon, might have belonged to some pre-historic inhabitant.

In New Zealand in the late 1800's, many scholars believed that the Maori immigration dispossessed a people then in occupation. If, on further testing, the bow should be found to be of Melanesian pattern, but of New Zealand wood, it would strengthen the theory that a people of Melanesian origin once occupied this country. But as it isn't on display nor on record, we think it was tested and they didn't like what they found. And making it clear - Maori never ever used bows.

Anyway, if we only had a picture of that bow... Well, we do. This is the only one we are aware of, taken at the Dominion Museum when it was first deposited back around 1890.

But it no longer remains in the record of archives that we are aware of. And once again, there are more questions about the ancient past of this land than there are answers. It is true Polynesian islands had forms of bows, but this type shown above is Melanesian in style.

We suggest it is Melanesian and original and made of NZ timber and proves Melanesians were here before the Polynesians came. But until it is analysed to test the wood type...it has 'conveniently' disappeared from Te Papa records.