114: Further early contact evidence of Melanesians
Early explorers and writers who recorded the ethnology of the native people of New Zealand frequently described physical characteristics (broad bridgeless noses with wide nostrils, everted lips and curled hair) that suggested that a distinct Melanesian element was present amongst the indigenous population. Best, during his observations in the Urewera added further to this record by noting that strong Melanesoid traits were present amongst the Tuhoe people. From these observations came the theory that these Melanesoid features must have been inherited from a mixture of the later-coming Polynesians with Melanesian people of a prior migration to New Zealand. The results of early craniological studies were believed to support this theory as long-headedness amongst the New Zealand Maori was considered to be a factor showing relationship to the Fijian Melanesian type. (The Ngatimamoe: The Western Polynesian-Melanesoid sub-culture in New Zealand, by I. W. Keyes)
Archaeological work over recent years in New Zealand has firmly established that cultural derivation was mostly from Eastern and Central Polynesia. In spite of the certainty of the origin of New Zealand culture, however, there does exist a certain group of features that remain enigmatic in that they are not directly traceable to Eastern or Central Polynesia but rather point to the non-Polynesian western area of the Pacific and into Melanesia proper. Observable evidence of scattered Melanesian physical traits amongst the Maori (as mentioned in early records) remained, but was left unexplained. Melanesoid traces amongst the Maori have been considered to be part of a heritage shared throughout most of Polynesia. However, the frequency of these occurrences in certain regions of New Zealand along with important items of material evidence leads, in the writer's opinion, to the more satisfactory explanation that within New Zealand prehistoric culture lay a subtle intrusive Melanesoid element, but of far greater proportion than could have been derived from Eastern or Central Polynesia.
The Ngati-Mamoe originally belonged to the tangata-whenua complex of tribes that occupied the North Island before the arrival of the Fleet Maori, and traditionally were the people Toi and Whatonga encountered about 1150 A.D. They were not part of the original inhabitants as they were preceded by earlier arrivals from Eastern Polynesia, but at a later date they co-existed with the descendants of this earlier migration. The original 'proto' Mamoe group of which there is record, were known as Te Tini-o-Mamoe, adopting a tribal name from their chief Whatu-Mamoe, but with the arrival of the Fleet Maori, the prefix “Ngati” came into use. About 1550 A.D. saw Ngati-Mamoe influence dominating territories south of Waipapa to Stewart Island, but warfare with the stronger of the new arrivals, the Ngai-Tahu, kept the Ngati-Mamoe moving further southwards where they finally amalgamated with the Waitaha and later with the Ngai-Tahu in Murihiku to form one group. Assimilation continued until the 19th Century, so that it was only in the Urewera and Murihiku that remnants of Ngati-Mamoe stock remained.
The Tongan archipelago is considered to meet the requirements for providing a Polynesian population that has undergone “Melanesianization”, for (along with Samoa), contact over past centuries with Fiji, across the Polynesian racial border, has produced complex mixing and racial interplay that has created considerable cultural hybridisation in both areas. This is due to no one wanting to admit the probability that Polynesians were not first. When you do not like a reality, or even a possibility, you find another explanation that tries to present something you produce as actual reality. That can go both sides of an argument however, but in this case we draw attention to the first paragraph above. There was not hints of Melanesian influence in the late 1700's, there was strong evidence and that would have been purer back 600 year before and pure is pure which can only mean one thing. Melanesians were here first. However, we will say what we always say without full evidence - it is likely they were here first. Melanesians also likely dispersed elsewhere in Polynesia as well.
Tongans had contact with Fiji and assimilated Melanesian ideas and people which became part of the Tongan Polynesian culture. Maori pa came from Melanesian warfare techniques. Early mamoe weapons were similar to known Melanesian types. The Paramata necklace found in 1963 at the bottom level of occupation shows Fijian (Melanesian) influence. Four canoe outrigger floaters found here are also Melanesian in origin.
This item does not show in any current Museum record we can find as yet
As suggest in an earlier post, the occurrence of Maori curvilinear art amidst the rectilinear style of Polynesia is an enigma that has not been satisfactorily explained. The usual rectilinear style of Polynesian art was definitely present amongst the earlier inhabitants of New Zealand for the “straight-line” geometric tuhi and moko-kuri, and crossed pukauwae tattoo patterns were recorded amongst descendents of the earliest groups, and recovered archaic carvings show the rectilinear design. At the other end of the time scale, the Fleet Maori arrivals of the 14th Century evidently had nothing new to contribute in Polynesian art forms, but yet by the 18th Century, they had become masters of a complex flourishing curvilinear art style that penetrated into all avenues of their culture. This change in art style within New Zealand must be considered as “rather revolutionary than evolutionary”, for without the presence of some important stimulus in the country, art style would not have departed from the traditional Polynesian design.
There is too much to ignore. Design, artifacts, personal observation, art, weapons, carving, material used... and the list goes on
