108: Is this NZ's most important unheralded artefact?
Many of the artefacts and items shown on this website since 2016, were unknown to many NZers before seeing them presented here. They were curiosities and unexplained objects that didn't fit the Polynesian mould, but shown in museums (in some cases) regardless of the ambiguity. Some are no longer displayed. In 2016 we said we would produce articles showing more unusual items. We have. But this one artifact that only we have revealed so far, remains an enigma to us all.
The Okehu (Popoia) Tribrach
It is made of a hard dense flint-like stone, probably metamorphosed Argillite, a rock possessing the qualities of toughness and hardness necessary to shape in such a form simply by the chipping process. In stone-fashioning technique in NZ native cultures it is unique, matching the supreme skill of flint-shaping craftsman of Europe and Ancient Egypt [JPS, Vol 46, No.3 (1937) P126)]. Actually, the material appears to be “blackstone” (i.e., metamorphosed argillite), a rock possessing the qualities of toughness and hardness necessary to shape such a form by the chipping process. In stone-fashioning technique in New Zealand native cultures it is entirely unique. The only similar form from NZ is a triple hollow scraper from the Nevis Valley, an implement bearing a real relationship of form to the Oheku Tribrach above. It is impossible to say what it was used for. It would be possible to use it as an auger and many have suggested it was used for divination. A similar Celt tribrach object (made of knapped flint) was found on the Isle of Wight and another elsewhere in Britain yet no one knows what they are used for. There are only three known examples like these in the world so far as we know.
Below are ones from the UK.
Sketch - Brading, Isle of Wight Photo of same item Another from elsewhere in Britain
There is also a smaller broken example from Baskingstoke, UK (below) which is similar to that found at Nevis, Otago (right). The Baskingstoke version has the ends snapped off making it more like the tribrachs above in their original form.
In 2016 we wrote to the gentlemen who placed an article on the two large ones found in Britain, advising him them one exists in NZ. Their reply was one of a distinct lack of interest. We weren't sure why but last year we got a better reply (below).
From: Hugo Anderson-Whymark [mailto:hugo.anderson-whymark@york.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2017 8:23 p.m. To: britannia Subject: Re: Stone Tribrach
Dear IJ,
Thanks for sharing this image. No new examples gave been found in Britain in recent decades, so the review in Lithics is still current. It is possible that the examples in the UK are recent imports or fakes. It's interesting to see a broadly comparable example from NZ but I can't speculate how it got there.
Regards,
Hugo
Dr Hugo Anderson-Whymark
In the original article Dr Hugo wrote...
This article describes the discovery and recognition of a small, but unique, not to mention controversial, group of flint artefacts that have in recent years, almost as if by default, disappeared from archaeological literature. The striking feature about these extremely rare pieces is the unusual form, coupled with neat flaking and a perception that special care must have been taken regarding their manufacture. We demonstrate that while there are certainly some difficulties in replicating the form, no special techniques are required and the awkward looking concavities would have been quite within the compass of an individual used to knapping, for example, stone axes. While the available data is catalogued and discussion extended to consider whether, for example, size plays a role, the controversy concerning date and authenticity remain.
The article went on to state they are rare, unusual and entirely unknown. The UK examples (of which there are now three) were made of flint and carefully knapped with stone tools. The one most similar to the 'Okehu Tribrach' was found on the Isle of Wight on a beach near Ventnor in 1843 as is made from knapped flint. It was about 200mm in diameter, was heavy and about 65mm thick. The second one was about 170mm and 40mm thick. The third example is about 42mm and only 7mm thick, however the thinness has resulted in all three arms end having been broken off making it about 70mm. This last example too revealed that one arm would have been slightly longer than the other. It was once exhibited in the Ryde Museum. No further examples were ever found. It was originally suggested they were imported from elsewhere in the world. But no other examples exist...except in NZ. Of these UK tribrachs, one arm was ever so slightly longer than the others which was also a feature of all the UK examples and co-incidentally....also of the NZ example! So, all three, from opposites sides of the world, have one arm that is slightly longer than the other two. Does that mean something or it is entirely co-incidental?
Dr Hugo states that the possibility that one of the UK tribrachs could be a fake, but his article also suggests that the original appeared in various journals in the late eighteen hundreds and just as quickly disappeared from mention and record after causing a brief stir archaeologically - as nothing else in the world exists like them... until now. The Isle of Wight implement still exists in a museum and we have written to them seeking more information. They kindly provided much more than usually accessible we have not reproduced any photos they provided; only those we had already accessed off the internet in 2016.
LOCATION OF THE NZ DISCOVERY:
This picture above shows the general area of the Popoia Pa (1/2 mile up from the coast) which was next to the Okehu Stream, close to where the artifact was found (hence the earliest and only description of the item being labelled as the Popoia artifact). Popoia Pa is no longer discernible and does not now show on any permanent record. It is not to be confused with other locations called Popoia. The artifact was found on the left side of the stream in the sandhills below the existing pine forest (now culled) where old burials exist.
This article does not intend to confirm that the Okehu (Popoia) artifact is;
1. A Celtic artifact
2. A copy of one brought here by early arrivals (it's made on NZ stone)
3. Proof that Celts arrived here before other Europeans.
However, this artifact does raise many questions and you can draw your own conclusions. An museum employee told me they thought it was similar to a Greek phallic symbol, however there is no comparison there at all. What we do know is that it is identical to two artifacts found in Britain. Is that just just a random connection? Of all the most unusual NZ artifacts found in this country, many have similarities to some very distant cultures including the Pacific North-West, South America and Melanesia. As you will know, we are not ones to suggest any theory as fact without conclusive proof, therefore we do not make any such claim that it is of Celtic origin or influence - as many may wish to conclude even if it appears to be identical to three others found on the other side of the world, in Britain, that are of Celtic origin.
However, we will make the statement that it:
1. Is unusual
2. Does NOT appear to be of Maori, Polynesian or even Melanesian design
3. Was found in a general area with many unexplained objects of suspected pre-Maori (Polynesian) inhabitants.
In effect, the mystery deepens.
