Sidestep: Te Uenuku (Pt2)

We have mentioned this item before back on 3rd February 2016. Here is the link – http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/2/3/Sidestep-Te-Uenuku. That post focused more on the sacred stone that was supposed to be sitting in the hole at the top of the carving.

This post is more about the post itself (called a pou in Maori).

It is said that this pou was 'lost during a battle' around 1780 at Lake Ngaroto. However, what is exceedingly interesting and very rarely challenged, is why no known Maori lore or stories, most of which were recorded by many people including Elsdon Best, ever (and I stress the word) EVER mention Uenuku as being anything but a human historical figure from Hawaiki. No story exists of a carving holding a sacred rock from Hawaiki. It is said that Uenuku (the stone) was brought to Aotearoa in a carving about 25cm high. Interesting because the hole in Te Uenuku is about 20cm, (a hole intended for the stone to sit snuggly inside). That's only 2.5 cm as a circumference surround and we mention it for the most obvious reason. Mind you, the thickness of the surround on Te Uenuku is between 1.5-4.0cm.

So, there is a story about the stone this pou once held, as being brought here. This is now on official record...YET...no story exists of it being brought here on the Tainui, or any other canoe. Zip, nada, nothing! But I may be wrong. It would have to have been recorded and published before 1905 to be genuine. If there is one - please let me know. Of course the reason will be that Maori say not all was mentioned to Europeans and that sacred stories and items were kept hidden. If that is true why is Te Uenuku on permanent public display. We need to think about what is said, and what is done, and the conflict therein.

Believe us when we say that what we find will SUDDENLY be remembered as something never previously mentioned or recorded for the reason of...well, you fill in the rest.

Remember what we stated about the Korotangi – http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/07/14/The-Stone-Bird-2 The stories about the bird were only about a live duck that could talk. Yes that is the legend. The story was he cast himself into water an died. Yet no story ever mentioned his being carved in solid jade. No story, legend or tradition has Korotangi as an inanimate object...not a single one recorded prior to his being found (!). By the way it’s made of jade, not pounamu, which means it was not carved in New Zealand (which we know) and somehow cannot be explained as being in Hawaiki around 1280AD yet made from Indonesian jade.

That obvious fact aside, Tainui still maintain that the Korotangi came with them from Hawaiki. Yet once again, not a single recorded verbal traditional tale EVER confirms this prior to it's discovery.

Why are people too afraid to ask questions? Because questioning incorrect tradition will cause offense is why.

Now keep in mind that historians were told all the lore and legends by Maori in the hope they would be recorded forever. In both cases these items were never part of what is supposed to be an accurate rendition of reliable oral tradition. Yet…..after each discovery suddenly they are claimed as being something never before previously remembered, verbalized or recorded ( to preserve...).

There is no record within Maori tradition of the above pou existing in any shape or form prior to 1906. As verbal traditions are regarded as very strong and accurate within Maori culture, is it fair to ask why there is no story of this pou? After all, verbal tradition is the backstay of Maori tradition. It is worth nothing again at this point, that when Uenuku was discovered, no one (and I’ll stress that again - NO ONE - even knew what it was. Not even local Maori. That means no oral history was prevalent in anyone’s mind. No oral history. Curious as to why yet?

True this is an accurate observation and one based on all known recorded information ever available both prior to and post discovery, but convenience of fact is a common theme of Maori. To prove that conclusion, please read this article which is both a typical and humorous account of the principle of Maori ownership – http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/2/6/Sidestep-The-tradition-of-land-ownership

In most publications and on the internet you will find that Uenuku is said to an early Maori carving from pre-1500 representing a similarity to Hawaiian styles. This is said to occur because of Hawaiian/Polynesian cross contact. Yet there is no known cross contact. All Pacific styles have a uniqueness about them.

Te Uenuku is a post carved out of NZ Totara that, (so the story now goes even though prior to it's find no one knew what it was), was carved to hold the stone of Uenuku that came over from Hawaiiki on the Tainui in a smaller pou of the same shape. Wait? What? ...a smaller pou of the same shape? Only 25cm high? Anyone see what we are questioning?

Now, regardless of size, if such an important item had arrived on that canoe, it would have been noted in tradition before Maori finally decided it was something never previously recorded and not remembered by all elders prior in any lore or tradition. Remember that the Korotangi was only changed to being a religious relic because one old woman starting weeping over it, yet that does not explain the lack of mention of that relic in their verbal history either.

According to Māori verbal history, around 1800 the Waipa District of the Waikato was invaded by a strong force led by Ngati Toa chief Pikauterangi. In the Battle of Hingakaka between Tainui and Ngati Maniapoto warriors close to Lake Ngaroto, the sacred carving of Te Uenuku was ‘lost’. That is what is stated on the internet, but read any old book or reference in all of all the JPS journals and while every other legend or story is there, Uenuku is never ever recorded in the nature now regarded as fact. I’ll repeat that: There is NO history of the item mentioned before 1906 in any story about Tainui’s prehistory. This is very important, because no one dares challenges it for fear of some cultural insult (which now it is entrenched, would be an insult). As a result, the story if it's origin and ownership are now entrenched as something different to pre-1906. That is...it never existed in any prior record, within no faint memory, nor any taught legend or story!

There is something else no one else has ever raised. It is burned and very deeply. Why would something so sacred be burned. The likely truth is that it wouldn't be done delibertaely! If it was simply 'hidden' it would not be burned prior. So why was it burned? We hint of what we believe about the burning below.

Regardless of everything written above - this item IS a national treasure, a remarkable example of a style that is not Maori in origin, and where it's real meaning and purpose is lost forever.

As a side note, you will see a series of notches on the forward section. Notches are on almost all very old original artefacts that are very different to Polynesian and early Maori design. The spikes may represent hair, the circle the head the notches the ribs. We will never know.

Official Interpretation

It was found by Mr. R. W. Bourne about the year 1906 at a lake called Ngaroto, situated some distance from the right bank of the Mangapiko Creek, and three and a-half miles from Te Awamutu. Mr. Bourne explains that the waters of Lake Ngaroto were lowered some six or eight feet about the year 1898, and that this reduced the lake to about its original size. He is of the opinion that the outlet had been blocked in olden days by the natives as being of some advantage in their eel-trapping operations. He also states that former Maori residents of the locality constructed several artificial islands in the lake, and that these had been surrounded by stockades, parts of which were still standing when the lake was reduced in level. These stockade remains have since been destroyed by fire, and the lower end of the carved post has also been burned by these fires that found much food in the logs and stumps exposed by the receding waters. He likewise states that the carved post must have been covered by seven or eight feet of water, but that it was not buried in the lake mud. It must have been lying under water a long time apparently; no Maori have lived about the lake since 1863, but it is not known when the islet refuges were abandoned, or by whom they were occupied. An enthusiastic correspondent remarks that there can be little doubt that the carving is of great antiquity, probably pre-dating the remarkable carving found at Kaitaia. In a footnote, Shawcross (1970:346) noted that scholars like Biggs (1960), Kathleen Shawcross (1967) and Vayda (1960) had pointed to changes that had occurred in Maori society and culture after European contact, but also emphasised the persistence of many features well into the 20th century with little or no noticeable change. This means that Maori are influenced by what they see – they were when they first arrived too.

An interesting report by the NZ Landcare Trust mentions that the pou was found with the sacred stone holding Uenuku’s spirit still embedded within he hole. This shows how stories are embellished and eventually believed as fact. The pou was found as it stands now.

*****

We maintain that the pou is in fact something carved from local timber by those here before the Polynesian Maori arrived and was hidden after being burned. For Maori would not touch it directly as it was a God of their enemies. Strangely, the Pou that Noel Hilliam discovered near Pouto (right) that is also not Maori-like, was hidden under the sand and was also burned in the same way - at the base. Co-incidence with the only two existing pou of obvious non-Maori origin were hidden, unknown in history by Maori when they were discovered, and were damaged by fire in the same way, at the base? The third item is a godstick (middle). See the following post on this un-Maorilike wooden item that had been damaged and burned... http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/09/08/100-Okia-artefact .

As always at tangatawhenua16 we offer this post as food for thought and as a plausible explanation of origin. Yet we can no more prove it is what we believe to be than Maori can prove their ‘new’ traditional and suddenly remembered history. Believe whatever side seems best to you.