219: Melanesian Influence

As recent as 1967 there were still articles published about a Melanesian sub-culture present in New Zealand. This is obvious enough if you view some of the earliest photos taken by Europeans of Maori in the interior areas, mostly untouched by change and interbreeding. There was a strong Melanesian influence here once.

The Ngati-Mamoe have often been used as a reference to that, but there are many cases of strong Melanesian traits even some 500 years after they were supposed to have sailed here with the Polynesian immigrations involving some 250 people on 7 waka. Even now that long held tradition of 7 waka leaving the islands together in some sort of ceremonial pilgrimage is being rewritten – that means accepted history is being changed – it always will be. Some now say there were up to 40 such vessels over time; and that would equate to some 1400 immigrants over say 100 years up unit 1380. So where did the strong Melanesian trait seen in Maori in 1820 come from? Just to recap, what was once taught as recently as 10 years ago is now being rewritten. Much more will be rewritten yet. We hope to influence as great rewrite of history yet.

If there had been remnants from Melanesians migrating east about 500AD, those traits would have been bred out unless they were treated as a lower class. And if they were treated as a lower class, why did Polynesians bring them at all instead of their families? Yes, you guessed it, they were already here, treated as a lower class, kept and slaves and for all intents and purposes….wiped out. Yet, those ones were not even the first here. Time will prove that if all that exits isn’t obliterated before they can all be revealed at once. We are not the only ones doing what we are doing.

Modern opinion on New Zealand prehistory considers that there was an initial “basic stock” out of which all later peoples evolved, with the likelihood that any new arrivals had only minor impact on the course of overall culture evolution; and that the span of New Zealand prehistory saw the arrival at separated intervals of various groups from several parts of the Pacific. But were the new arrivals or pre-arrivals? Based on art styles and tools the evidence supports pre-arrivals.

The suggestion that there existed in New Zealand a people with Melanesian affinities (in the form of the Ngati-Mamoe) cannot be claimed as new, but it should be made clear at this point that the need to establish and accept that a Melanesian influence was present is not an attempt to re-establish the old theory of a purely Melanesian migration, but a complex pattern involving influx from other parts of Oceania as well. At least there is now a growing acceptance that Melanesia influence is more pronounced than before and a lot of that has been from people asking n questions and presenting evidence - like us.

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 interior (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.

Wairarapa tohunga, Te Matorohanga, told of three canoes arriving in Taranaki, possessing crews of * dark-skinned people who, with time, spread in the North Island (later to reach the Chatham Islands) forming one of the tangata-whenua tribes that were encountered by the later Fleet Maori arrivals. If that is true, it proves what we have said about The Chatham Islands all along. Maori (Polynesian migration peoples) were NOT the first here.

They say that archaeological work over recent years in New Zealand has firmly established that cultural derivation was from Eastern and Central Polynesia. Yet they can’t explain features that are not directly traceable to Eastern or Central Polynesia but rather point to the non-Polynesian western area of the Pacific. Observable evidence of scattered Melanesian physical traits amongst the Maori as of the lower classes only. (Yes, Maori had a class system too).

The Ngati-Mamoe are the group that perpetuated these elements. Their culture was substantially Polynesian, but because of the included Melanesoid element (the means by which they can be recognised) it is only treated from a New Zealand viewpoint as a sub-cultural variant of the basic Polynesian culture that has been present throughout the prehistory of the country. This is seen that way due to no other positive proof of dominant Melanesian influence, despite artifacts and designs that are more Melanesian than Polynesian, including Kaiatia, Waikato, Marlborough and Otago.

The Ngati-Mamoe originally 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, a date for the proto Ngati-Mamoe arrival is placed as being about 1200 A.D. This is curious, as there are artifacts much older than 1150AD and even 1200AD in Otago and charcoal ovens found deep underground down there have been dated back another 800 years before that (1000AD). There were a people here long before any Polynesian ever saw these islands, of that you can be certain.

With pressure from the Tini-o-Toi, the Ngati-Mamoe were compelled to move from the Hawke Bay, to Wellington, the Marlborough Sounds and later, to the Wairau in the deep south about 1500 A.D. Now why would they be forced south? Why would what we know as ‘Maori’ take their lands off them? Yes, they did. Maori claim Europeans stole their land while being guilty of it themselves. That is not justifying anything, juts proving the point no one is pure in their accusations. Or maybe we shouldn’t accuse ‘Maori’ generally, but specific tribes?

The arrival of immigrant Ngati-Mamoe in Marlborough forced the Waitaha into a gradual southwards retreat. So even they displaced others before them. 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.

Mamoe weapon

The proto Ngati-Mamoe origin from the Pacific is said to have come from a time when Melanesia had developed its strong racial and cultural distinctiveness. This occurred when the proto-Polynesian culture in the western Pacific became influenced and finally dominated by later Melanesian invasions—probably about 1000 A.D. (in Fiji).

Direct influence the proximity of Melanesia (Fiji) had on Western Polynesia (Tonga and Samoa) was perpetuated by the Polynesians themselves, who continuously maintained trans-oceanic contact. The Tongans are considered to have been the most adept and daring voyagers amongst the Polynesians and the crossing of Tongan canoes over the 220 miles oceanic gap to Fiji was the routine of generations. Because of the military organisation possessed by the Fijians through constant intertribal warfare, “Fiji became the war college of Tonga”. It is said that from this contact the Tongans assimilated Melanesian ideas and people which became part of the Tongan Polynesian culture and that is what we see in New Zealand. That seems reasonable but doesn’t match the unusual carving that are of Melanesian influence but bear no resemblance to either Fiji or Tonga. Can you see where explanations are accepted by the public with statements by experts where no one questions beyond the statement; because a professional said it. This is another reason today’s archaeologists are treated with suspicion.

In the past, many non-Polynesian or seemingly inexplicable elements in New Zealand culture were assigned to the Maruiwi people on account of their assumed Pacific source, supported by the information in the Te Matorohanga tradition. Many of these features are legitimately Western Polynesian-Melanesian in origin.

Normal warfare in Polynesia traditionally took the form of open combat whereas fortified sites (stockaded with ditch and rampart) were characteristic of Melanesian warfare. It seems interesting then that a subtle influence of Melanesia from a small group from Tonga influenced the all the tribes of Maori. But did it? It is considered that the proto Ngati-Mamoe were responsible for transplanting this defensive architecture into New Zealand, introducing the prototype of what was to develop into the complex Maori fighting pa of later years. That could be true, as all defensive works are within the last 500 years. And that was because of the infighting of the Polynesian arrivals. That is strange if they came from the same place, with the same purpose, to a land able to sustain 100000x more than the numbers that arrived.

THE PATU

Regarding warfare, the pahu, an important accessory to fighting pa equipment, is considered to be a further Melanesian acceptance. Two types were used in a suspended position and both forms are of Melanesian derivation and spread to West Polynesia from Fiji. The suggest Melanesian traits carried west and then south. But could the gong already have been here and used for another purpose? A series of specialized spears for both attack and defence are attributed to Melanesian sub-cultural origin.

However, hand-clubs (unique to New Zealand prehistoric warfare), had very large hand-grips suggesting they belonged to the hands of men capable of wielding large weapons. The first note is they are unique to New Zealand. One size, the Fijian Melanesians are the largest known members of the Melanesian race and any intermarriage with the stalwart Tongans (as involved in the formation of the proto Ngati-Mamoe) would certainly not lead to a reduction of large physical characters. It suggest that regardless of whether these stockier, taller, people were Ngati-Mamoe or a tall race here long before them, there were humans of greater in strength and stature than the Maori.

Even ‘archaic’ adzes have strong Melanesian influence upon them. We stress ‘archaic’ as they are dated to about 1200-1300 for the only reason archaeologists do not accept earlier arrival times yet. 2B type adzes are a very significant but rare group of adzes that are believed to warrant recognition as Melanesoid. Adzes with a pointed poll are unique to Melanesia. Many have been found here.

However, back to the note about uniqueness. No other island has clubs anything like those in NZ ecept the Chatham’s and [parts of South America (which has clubs similar to those of the Chatham’s. The style may have come West and been adapted by Maori, but why? Why not use the type of clubs you were used to at home? Why design an entire new set of tools, clubs and adzes upon arriving in a new Southern Land? The answer is you would not. So where did they designs come from? They were already here when the Polynesian arrived is our suggestion. And while many might scoff at that, they are unable to come up with anything remotely plausible themselves.

In Taiwan they have an identical club, bigger but identical in shape called... wait for it... a 'batu'. We already have a post just on those.

OTHER MELANESIAN ITEMS

The Paremata necklace is also of both typologically and archaeologically as an intrusive Ngati-Mamoe introduction into New Zealand.

The presence in New Zealand of outrigger canoe remains that bear direct relationships to Fijian and West Polynesian forms is considered to be in accordance with Melanesian influence but this did not rule out the likelihood that outrigger craft showing strictly Polynesian analogies may turn up in the future (which it did in 2012).

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 norm.

From the Marquesan Islands an art style using curvilinear motifs has also been reported. It is thought that this in no way can be compared with the elaboration and complexity of Maori art style, as it is both primitive in development and infrequent in occurrence. However, as mentioned above, proto-Polynesians or later Tongan voyagers may have had a bearing on its appearance.

Maori curvilinear art have found the stylistic relationships to lie with coastal New Guinea and its off-shore archipelagoes, particularly with Geelvink Bay in the West and the Massim region in the East, and with Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides. In these areas curvilinear art is predominantly practised, and stylistic design, particularly the unique koru pattern as employed by the Maori in New Zealand for rafter decoration is duplicated.

Melanesians however had a very linear pattern much like the earliest carvings found with chevrons of the Kaiatia lintel and the Awatea slab. Early Rei Puta had notching, uncommon in Polynesia but prevalent in Melanesia. Once again, why arrive from Polynesia and immediately take up a from unknown to you…immediately! You would not. You might if you saw patterns you liked or took items you desired from another people already here, by trade or conquest.

THE MOKO

There is yet another and more important reason for presuming the former existence of an ancient and non-Polynesian people; and that is the peculiar and highly conventional carving and moko (tatooing) of the Maori. It seems beyond a doubt that they did not bring this carving or moko with them from beyond the seas, for it is not to be found in any Polynesian or Melanesian Island; and it is hardly possible that the complicated designs that may be seen, even in the oldest Maori carvings, have been the indigenous growth of a few hundred years. Very many beautiful specimens of carving have been found deeply buried in swamps, where they have probably lain for seven or more generations, but in these we see no sign of the unskilled hand. They are generally of the same type as those of the present day though better finished, and of a pattern to be found in New Zealand only, but when or where originated we know not.

SUMMARY

This outline of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand provides an explanation for the presence of subtle Melanesian physical and cultural elements within New Zealand Polynesian culture. Unlike early attempts which endeavoured to explain these anomalies by considering an early migration of people of pure Melanesian strain (“the Maruiwi myth”), the writer's alternative explanation is that a mixed Polynesian group with a decided Melanesian physical and cultural element acquired, as Williams suggested, “before they migrated to New Zealand”. 208 The Ngati-Mamoe in New Zealand are selected as being the tribal group that appears to have carried (and diffused) a large element of Melanesian physical and cultural traits through its history, and for the purpose of cultural terminology, their tribal name is taken to designate this subtle Melanesian element. The origin of this influence is traced into the West Pacific and the Tongan archipelago, through its relationship with Fiji, is postulated as the homeland for the proto Ngati-Mamoe migrants. This is determined by seeking the likely Pacific source for the various Melanesian traits in New Zealand culture. The recognition of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture underlines the need for regarding New Zealand prehistory as a development from a series of separate arrivals and culture introductions, out of which late Maori culture finally stemmed.

Micronesia

The concept of a large-bodied oceanic phenotype must be applicable to Micronesia. The seafaring comments have a familiar ring. Between 1668 and 1710 the native Chamorro people were reduced in numbers from an estimated 50,000-100,000, to the 3439 counted in the first census (Cordy 1983). The men were tall, robust, well-built and of great strength “The Marianos are in colour a somewhat lighter shade than the Filipinos, larger in stature, more corpulent and robust than Europeans”. According to Mendoza, the natives were light-complexioned, like Europeans, “although in their bodies they do not resemble the latter for they are as large as giants and of such great strength, that it has actually happened that one of them, while standing on the ground, has laid hold of two Spaniards of good stature seizing each of them by one foot with his hands and lifting them as easily as if they were children”. Oliver summarises the early descriptions of the Chamorros: “— in other words, much like Polynesians”.