Acknowledgments

This study of the atoll of Tongareva, commonly known as Penrhyn Island, is based on field work conducted under the auspices of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in 1929.

Tongareva is served by two trading schooners which sail from Rarotonga. These schooners do not make their first trip until late in March or April, when the hurricane season is over. In November they sail to Tongareva to lie up for the hurricane season within the lagoon at Omoka, the only safe port in this part of the Pacific. I arrived at Tongareva in the end of June by the schooner Tiare Taporo, which left seven days later for Tahiti. Through the kindness of Judge Hugh Ayson, resident Commissioner for the Cook Islands, arrangements enabling me to leave Tongareva with the British sloop H. M. S. Veronica, which called there and left again on July 13, were made by wireless. Seventeen days were spent on Tongareva, all too short a time to do justice to the special problems of that extremely interesting island.

My thanks are due to Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister in charge of the Cook Islands in the New Zealand Government, for his Polynesian welcome conveyed to the group by letter. I am under deep obligation to Judge Ayson for assistance in arranging that my first six days of work should fit in with his official holding of the Land Court in Tongareva. Mr. S. Savage, Registrar of the Court, assisted with the Tongarevan genealogies, and Mr. H. Williams with the recording of anthropometrical measurements. To Mr. Wilson, resident government Agent, I am indebted for accommodation during my stay and, together with W. Phillip Woonton, for invaluable assistance in locating and mapping out the maraes in the various islands. To Captain Viggo of the Tiare Taporo, Mr. Wilkenson, trader, and others I am indebted for many kindnesses. Pa, the oldest inhabitant, with Ma, his wife, Tupou Isaia and others of the Tongarevan people contributed field information for this work, and by recognizing my Polynesian kinship, enabled me to adjust my Maori background to that of Tongareva. To Commander Robertson of H. M. S. Veronica my thanks are due for hospitality and transport to Raiatea, where I was able to connect with a mail steamer to Rarotonga and resume work in the Cook Islands. My thanks are due to Mr. J. A. Campbell of the Cook Islands Trading Company for promptly clearing up by correspondence some obscure points in ceremonial observances.

Geography

Tongareva, an atoll situated in latitude 9° S. and longitude 157° 10″ W., is the largest and farthest north of the lagoon islands under the Cook Islands administration of New Zealand, but it is not, geographically, one of the Cook Islands. It is composed of a ring of islands spaced along a reef about 40 miles in circuit with a contained lagoon of about 108 square miles.

The name, Tongareva, means “Floating Tonga” and was given to the atoll by the Polynesian discoverers. Gill (6, p. 11)

Numbers in parentheses refer to literature Cited, pages 221 and 222.

gives Fararanga as an older name, which he interprets as “land.” As the Tongarevan dialect contains no f sound, Gill probably confused it with Raroranga, which is mentioned in one of the genealogies collected, “The growth of the human stock of Raroranga, Tongareva.”

Figure 1. Map of part of the central Pacific showing the position of Tongareva (Penrhyn) Island.

No complete survey of the atoll has been made; figure 2 is a rough approximation. The sizes of the islands are only indicated, but their relative positions and correct native names were checked with the assistance of Tupou Isaia, who acted as the guide during various expeditions to locate the maraes. Smith (23, p. 90), from data given by Lamont (15), gives a list of 14 islands, with one small island. Here confusion has arisen because Lamont did not make it clear that some of the names he gave were of divi- sions or districts. Thus, the first four names on Smith's list are all on the one large island to the southwest; of these, Mangarongaro and Hakasusa are the two main divisions of the island. Sararak, which figures prominently in Lamont's account, cannot be located, but it was probably the district in which Opaka, the leading chief, lived. Tahiti was also a district in which Opaka lived, and it is definitely located. Similarly, Omoka and Motukohiti are not separate islands but two divisions of the large island which lies on the west. Te Puka in the southeast and Motu-unga (“Motunga”?) to the

Figure 2. Map of Tongareva showing islets, passages, land divisions, villages, and maraes. Based on a British survey of 1881. (Additions by K. P. Emory and Te Rangi Hiroa.)

north of Omoka and Motukohiti are separate islands. Tokerau in the north is undoubtedly correct as the name of an island which is divided into a number of districts, but Ruahara, also in the north, is part of an island of which the other division is Torea. Tautua and Motu-nono (“Motumuno”) are the two divisions of one island in the east, and Te Mata (“Tamata”) is one of the three divisions of another island on the east, the other divisions being Naue and Patanga. Hangarei (“Hangary”) is one of four small islands separated from Mangarongaro by shallow channels. The other islands are Matapurarua, Tuahua, and Manono. Etukaha, which Smith considered the correct form of Lamont's “Etuchacha,” is the small island of Atutahi in the south. Thus Smith's list of 15 islands diminishes to 8 islands and parts of two others. On the other hand, the following small islands that once were inhabited have been omitted: in the south, Vaiari and Atiati; in the east, Tepetepe, Kavea, Vaselu, and Takuha; and in the north, Niu-te-kainga. Of these seven islands, all except two have maraes. In addition, there are two large islands in the north, one containing the district of Rukutia and the other that of Nahe. The names of 33 small islets not fit for permanent occupation were given and marked on the map in their approximate positions, but there are probably others. One small island is situated well within the lagoon, and it is curious that its name of Motu-taiko should be the same as the name of the one island situated in Lake Taupo in New Zealand. The larger islands had no single name but were distinguished by the divisional names.

The islands are composed of coral and sand and nowhere rise more than 50 feet above sea level. In official records the total area is given as 40,000 acres.

Three passages through the reef admit small vessels into the lagoon. The northeast passage named Takuha is situated between the islands of Te Rae and Takuha. The northwest passage named Sekelangi lies between Te Kasi and Tokelau. The west passage between Motu-unga and Omoka is the largest and is about 40 yards wide and 21 feet deep. It admits vessels of fair size, such as H. M. S. Veronica, which can anchor within the lagoon. Trading schooners can tie up against the wharf at Omoka and those trading in the Cook Islands usually go to Omoka to lie up for the hurricane season. The lagoon is very deep but contains upgrowths of coral which have to be avoided in navigation. The natives have names for the various shallows and coral upgrowths. The reef on the lagoon side of the islands extends a varying distance from the shore and the deeper channels influence the location of landing places on the islands. The large pearl shell —responsible for the eventual growth of trade—and the small pipi shell are both abundant. The small Tridacna (pasua) abounds and forms an important food supply.

Contact with Western Culture

Lieutenant Watts of H. M. transport Lady Penrhyn was the first European to discover the Tongarevan atoll, in August, 1788, while he was on his way to China from Tahiti.

Kotzebue, the Russian navigator, visited the atoll in the Rurik on April 30, 1815, during his first voyage to the South Seas (1815–1818). He states (14, vol. 3, p. 217): “As soon as we had approached the shore, innumerable boats surrounded us, and a peaceable people offered to trade with us.” The people, however, had nothing to trade except coconuts, some utensils which they had taken by chance with them, and their weapons. “They first hesitated to barter their arms, and would not part with them, except for long nails or scarlet worsted girdles.” Kotzebue had no trouble with the islanders, who passed around the vessel “with much affability and confidence” but would not accept invitations to go on board. In addition to Kotzebue's account of his voyage, Choris (3), the artist who accompanied him, published an illustrated description of the voyage which contains an illustration of a Tongarevan canoe and two types of spears.

Endicott (5), sailing from Maui, Hawaii, in the Glide on a trading expedition to Fiji, sighted Penrhyn on November 6, 1830. He described the natives, who “came off in great numbers … perfectly savage and fierce, hallowing and shaking their spears.” According to his account the captain, in trying to persuade one of them to come on board, was slightly wounded in the neck by the spear of another native. The aggressor probably thought that the captain was trying to capture his relative. The captain immediately ordered his men to fire, and seven or eight natives were killed. Endicott (5, p. 30) sums up the position as follows: “We immediately filled our sails and stood on our course leaving the natives to bewail the visit of civilized people to their uncivilized shores.” He evidently saw no incongruity in his statement.

The Porpoise, one of the ships of the American Exploring Expedition under Wilkes, touched at Tongareva on February 15, 1841, while Wilkes was in Hawaii. The atoll was found to be 30 miles west of the position given by Captain Cash (31, vol. 4, pp. 296–298). A large number of canoes came out to the vessel and many of the people were allowed on board. A little unpleasantness occurred because of pilfering, but it blew over without any casualties. A certain amount of trade went on. The natives were found to be absolutely fair and honest in handing up their own goods for exchange after receiving the desired articles from the ship. Unlike the Glide, the Porpoise left without causing the natives to bewail the visit of a civilized people.

The brig Chatham, after trading in the Society Islands, Marquesas Islands, and the Cook Islands was wrecked on Mangarongaro in 1853, while on her voyage back to San Francisco. The whole crew was hospitably received by the inhabitants. The captain, doctor, and a few others sailed away in a boat made on the island, abandoning Lamont, the trader who chartered the Chatham, and some other members of the crew. Lamont, who subsequently got away on a whaling ship and wrote up his experiences, reached a position of great influence on the atoll. His book (15) is one of the best narratives of first-hand contact with a group of Polynesian people before they were influenced by western culture. As he described many customs that have disappeared entirely, his observations will frequently be referred to in this work.

In the year following the wreck of the Chatham, Christianity was introduced by native pastors from Rarotonga, the headquarters of the London Missionary Society in the Cook Islands. The people were collected together in four villages to facilitate the teaching of the new religion, which they readily accepted.

In 1864 Tongareva was almost depopulated by Peruvian slavers. Sterndale, quoted by Smith (23), states that in 1864 at least 1000 men, women, and children were taken to South America. The present population attributes to the influence of native pastors the chief responsibility for this exodus. The four villages were strongly desirous of building large churches. The slavers held out promise of good pay and a safe return, and pastors and people decided to go abroad to earn enough money to erect buildings worthy of the worship of God. However, the thousand people who left their island homes all died as slaves in exile, the victims of hypocritical and inhuman types of white men.

Through missionary influence the contact of Tongareva was with headquarters at Rarotonga. The London Missionary Society taught largely through native pastors and instituted a system of laws which applied to temporal as well as to spiritual matters. Many of the customs that had served their purpose in the old culture were displaced by the culture associated with the new religion. Also, the power of the chiefs was curtailed and much of it transferred to the missionaries.

As trade developed a loose British Protectorate was maintained over the Cook Islands, in spite of French attempts to link up the islands with the French Administration in the Society Islands. A British Consul was appointed at Rarotonga in 1888 and paid for by New Zealand. The ariki (high chiefs) of the Cook Islands formed a Federal Council at about the same time to administer the group. In 1900 the council of ariki petitioned the Governor of New Zealand to annex the Cook Islands as part of the British Empire and recommended that Penrhyn, Manihiki, Rakahanga, Palmerston, Pukapuka, and, if possible, Niue be included in the federation with New Zealand.

In 1901 the Government of Great Britain issued an Imperial Order in Council extending the boundaries of New Zealand to include the islands mentioned above. On June 10, 1901, a Proclamation was made at Auckland by Lord Ranfurley, then Governor of New Zealand, in the presence of H. R. H., the Duke of York, who later succeeded to the throne as King George V. Since that date Tongareva has been part of New Zealand.

People

Because so many of the islands were settled and because divisions of the large islands put war parties in the field it may be inferred that the atoll once supported a much larger population that it does at present. The estimate that 1000 were taken away by the Peruvian slavers in 1864 makes it likely that the pre-European population was about 2000. A contrast is revealed by the figures of the last few censuses.

Year Males Females Total 1906 420 1911 335 1916 326 1921 376 1926 201 189 390

The last census does not include five Europeans. The figures show a decrease down to 1916, after which there is a definite increase.

The Cook and Other Islands Report of the New Zealand Government for the year ending March 31, 1929, states that for the year the births were 22 (males, 17; females, 5) and the deaths 4 (males, 1; females, 3). There was thus an increase in population of 18 for the year.

The early navigators remarked on the well set up figures of the men. Kotzebue (14, p. 217) stated that they were strong and well made, and that the elderly people were corpulent and large.

Time permitted of the anthropometrical measuring of but 21 fullblooded males, details of which will be published later. A few remarks, however, are offered here.

The skin color is darker, probably due to extra exposure in fishing and diving for pearl shells and pipi pearls. The hair is black in color and straight or in low waves. Beards are not now worn but Lamont (15) remarked that they were abundant, and some were curled and with auburn ends. He also remarked on auburn hair among some of the women. The men have little or no hair upon the body. The eyes are medium-brown to dark-brown with no trace of the Mongoloid fold at the inner angle. The foreheads are well formed and the glabella is more prominent than in the people of the Cook Islands.

Early writers remarked on the tall stature of the men, but the small series averaged 170 cm., which is shorter than in most branches of Polynesian stock.

The maximum head length averaged 192 mm.; the head width, 158 mm.; the minimal frontal, 104 mm.; and the cephalic index, 82.3. The faces of many were very high and broad, the average face height being 130 mm.; bizygomatic width, 149.5 mm.; bigoniac, 116.6 mm., and the face index, 86.

The nose matches the face with the average height of 62 mm.; width, 43.2 mm.; and nasal index, 69. The high, broad faces, broad noses, and prominent glabellae make the countenance strong and massive in expression.

The women are much more slender than the men, and the expression is softer and milder. As in other branches of their race, their hands are small and beautifully formed.

Both sexes have all the hospitality of their race and are ever ready to make presents of coconuts and fish. They have so few material goods with which to express their feelings that the giving of pipi pearls, which they can secure by diving, has become their method of expressing friendship to the visitor who sojourns among them. They are quick to express their opinions and sometimes a village argument takes place with so much noise that a stranger imagines that blood will flow. Having expressed themselves, sometimes physically, the tumult subsides and no bad feeling is retained. The people are honest and outspoken, and kind, under an apparently austere demeanor.

Language

The Tongarevan language is a distinct dialect of the Polynesian tongue. Reading and writing have been taught by native pastors, who have been trained by the London Missionary Society in Rarotonga. The Bible has been translated into the Rarotongan dialect, and the alphabet taught is that compiled for Rarotonga. This alphabet is quite inadequate for the recording of the Tongarevan speech, for not only has the h sound been omitted from Rarotongan, but it has no l, s, or w, all of which are present in Tongarevan speech. The vowels consist of the usual Polynesian five, a, e, i, o, and u. The Rarotongan consonants used consist of seven, k, r, m, n, p, v, and ng. The early missionaries who drafted the alphabets for the various Polynesian dialects had extreme difficulty in distinguishing between the sounds of l and r and of v and w. These and other doubtful sounds were settled for the usage of the Hawaiian alphabet by a committee which, as recorded by Spaulding (25, pp. 32, 33), took the votes of nine missionaries. Though the English language contained all the letters, the missionaries have standardized the Polynesian dialects by restricting them to one sound of a doubtful pair, though both sounds were evidently in use. Some of the difficulty arose because subdialectical differences occurred in different localities of the same group of islands and standardization was felt to be necessary for printing the Bible and other religious literature. Thus in Hawaii the original k sound had been dropped and was represented in speech by the glottal closure. Later, the k sound began to displace the original t sound, but the process was by no means complete. The committee settled the matter by adopting k and discarding t and thus arbitrarily completing the transition. The difficulty with the l and r and also with v and w is that probably the original sounds were intermediate.

In time the tendency was to go in one or the other direction. Thus, in New Zealand the l-r sound became definitely r and the v-w sound became w, so that the dialect became standardized in the sounds by the Maoris themselves. In Samoa, the l-r sound became definitely l and the v-w sound became v, so that the dialect also standardized itself in these two sounds. In the Cook Islands, however, and probably other areas such as Hawaii the process of the sharper definition of the uncertain sounds went in both directions. With regard to the assumed l-r sound, in some words the tongue reached the palate with more pressure and produced the distinct l sound, and in others the tongue was kept away from the palate and produced the r sound. Similarly, in the v-w sound in some words the lips contracted in and produced the w sound, whereas in others the closure of the buccal orifice was produced by the upper teeth touching the lower lip so that a v sound resulted.

The proper method of exact study would have been to watch and inquire as to the movements of the mouth and tongue in order to supplement the sense of hearing. Each word should then have been recorded phonetically and an alphabet compiled to meet the needs of the dialect. As it was, the compilers of the alphabets, with few exceptions, did not adequately represent the sounds of the Polynesian dialects. Table 1 gives the alphabets and sounds of some dialects for comparison with those of Tongareva.

If the s, which I doubt, l-r, v-w, and f-wh are treated as original consonant sounds, the total number of original consonant sounds is eleven. Of these Tongareva has maintained ten, but the f-wh sound is represented by h. There are thus no dropped sounds or glottal closures in the dialect. Furthermore, by duplicating the original l-r and v-w sounds into distinct l, r, v, and w, the dialect has added two more consonants and thus totals twelve consonant sounds. In the number of consonants it is only equalled by Manihiki. Tongarevan is more nearly allied with Rarotongan in consonant sounds, however, for, though Tongareva has the s, both are without the f-wh sound, and there is thus but one positive difference. Manihiki, by not having the s and having the wh sound, has two points of difference. In Tahiti the absence of the ng increases the difference from Tongareva. The presence of the s in Samoa is offset by the presence of the f and the dropping of the k and the standardization of l-r and v-w into l and v, which is opposite to the tendency in Tongareva. Tongarevan has also the distinct sibilant sound of ch which will be dealt with under the letter t.

Table 1. Polynesian Consonants Original sound Tongareva Manihiki Rarotonga Society Islands New Zealand Hawaii Samoa 1. H h h h H H H (sorf) 2. K K K K ' K ' ' 3. L l l L R R R L R R R r 4. M M M M M M M M 5. N N N N N N N N 6. P P P P P P P P 7. T T T T T T (K) T 8. V V V V V v V W V W w w w W 9. Ng Ng Ng Ng ' Ng (N) Ng 10. F Wh (as F) (h) wh (h) F (h) F Wh Wh 11. S(?) S (h) (h) (h) (h) (h) S 11 12 12 10 8 11 9 9

Capital letter = Present in alphabet.

Small letter = Present in speech but not in alphabet.

( ) = Sound absent, but represented by letter in brackets.

Hamzah' = Sound dropped, but represented by glottal closure.

Rarotongan h, probably more correctly represented by the hamzah, is inserted for comparative purposes.

The h sound in Tongarevan is distinct. In a few words Tongareva follows the same usage as Rarotonga and New Zealand. In the following tables the h is inserted in Rarotongan words, though it is not included in the alphabet. The Samoan h is replaced by s or f.

Tongareva Rarotonga New Zealand Samoa Meaning Tahuhu Tahuhu Tahuhu ('au'au) ridgepole Aroha Aroha Aroha Alofa love Hakiri ? Hakiri Sa'ili (to seek) to throw away

This h also appears in hanga, which forms the noun ending to verbs as surahanga (the turning over) from sura (to turn).

In most words, however, the h represents the wh of New Zealand and the f of Tahiti and Samoa. In this, it follows the Rarotongan usage.

Tongareva Rarotonga New Zealand Tahiti Samoa Meaning Hare Hare Whare Fare Fale House Hara Hara Whara (Astelia) Fara Fala Pandanus Haka- Haka- Whaka- Fa'a Causative Prefix Hari Hari Whiri Firi Fili To braind Hariki ? Whariki Fari'i — To place under

The Tongarevan k resembles that of Manihiki, the Cook Islands, and New Zealand and distinguishes the dialect from Tahitian, Hawaiian, and Samoan, in which the k has been dropped and is represented by the glottal stop (').

The distinct l is present in such words as talanga (story), talolo (messenger between lovers), and alelo (tongue).

The presence of the r was noted in such words as waru (to scrape), roro (coconut cream) and Rangi-saruru (an ancestor). Lamont (15) uses the r in several native words and never the l. It is probable that some words are in the intermediate stage, but on the whole the r is more common than the l.

The m, n, and p require little comment, except that n generally replaces ng in na for nga, the plural of the definite article, “the.”

The s, except in a few words, takes the place of the pure h of the Cook Islands and New Zealand and in this usage resembles Samoa. The following are examples.

Tongareva Rarotonga New Zealand Samoa Meaning Saruru Haruru Haruru Salulu (to blow) to sound Sape Hape Hape Sape mistake, club foot Sere Here Here Sele to tie, to snare Vavasi Vavahi Wawahi — to break Songi Hongi Hongi Songi to press noses Sosore Hohore Hohore — to peel off Kaso Kaho Kaho 'aso part of house frame Asu Ahu Ahu Asu to heap up, to bail out

Lamont (15) seems to have heard and sh sound, for he writes sarasara (to wave the hands) as “sharashara” and Hakasusa as “Haka Shusha.”

The t sound has undergone a curious modification in the sibilant sound of tch. The tip of the tongue is not so far forward against the incisor teeth as it is when producing the usual Polynesian t sound. The sibilant sound is more marked before the vowels i and e. Thus the line of the song, “Titia mai to titi maire” (Gird on your sweet-scented kilt) sounds like “Tchitchia mai to tchitchi maire.” The phrase “Taku ate” (my liver), used as a cry of alarm or anger, is sounded as “Taku atchě.” In the phrase quoted the t before e becomes sibilant, but the t before a is sounded as an ordinary t. Before o the t sound is unchanged, as in to (a spear), pro- nouncedpronounced to. Before u there seems to be a tendency to use the sibilant, for, though in all the island names commencing with “Motu” the t seemed to be distinctly sounded, Mr. Wilson, the resident government Agent, held that Motukohiti was pronounced “Motchukohitchy.” Lamont, on the other hand, who wrote the sibilant t as ch wrote the same word as “Mutagohichy.”

The sibilant t does not occur in Samoa, but in Niue the t before i and e is sounded as s, which shows a similar tendency in sibilant change. Williams (32, p. 418) quotes the method in Tonga of variously representing the pronunciation of t when it is followed by i, j, or s. The nearest approach to the Tongarevan t appears to be in the Chatham Islands where the t undergoes a change in sound before all the vowels except o. As quoted by Williams (32, p. 418), Shand represented the sound by writing tch, tchi, tche or tc for t. The peculiar pronunciation also occurred with k before a and with h before a or o. Williams remarks that in producing the sound “the tongue appears to be somewhat arched into the palate and the letter uttered with a slight emission of breath which not infrequently produces the effect of a suppressed I, or sometimes E, sound before the proper vowel of the word.” Handy (8, p. 9) points out that in the Marquesan dialect, “In combination with different vowels there is a variation from a simple h sound to a distinct German ch, through sch to s, with a w sound often included.” The resemblance of the Marquesan treatment of h to that of the Chatham Islands further supports the contention of Williams (32, p. 420) that of the affinities he discovered between the Chatham Islands dialect and other Polynesian dialects that with the Marquesan dialect figures most frequently.

The v sound is present in such words as velo (canoe stern) and mataki-vikivi (to turn aside); the w sound in such words as wananga (teaching), waka (canoe), wahine (woman). In spelling native words Lamont uses oa as in oaka (canoe) and niu oara (grated coconut). The word for canoe must be either waka or vaka. If oaka, waka, and vaka are carefully pronounced, and the position of the mouth, lips, and teeth noted for each, it will be evident that Lamont's oa was meant to represent wa and could not represent va. The same applies to niu oara which was meant for niu waru, the oa again representing the w sound. In recording Polynesian words for the first time I have often failed to distinguish between the sounds oa and wa and have had to repeat the word slowly to get the correct sound. Lamont uses other words such as “oahine” (wahine), showing that before the advent of the Rarotongan alphabet the sound that he heard was w. Lamont did not use the letter v in any native word. This does not signify that the v was not present in the dialect, but only it was not present in the few words that Lamont used. Thus, the tendency with the v-w sound was more toward the w than the v, just as the l-r sound was more inclined toward the r.

The ng sound is present as in the Cook Islands, New Zealand, and Samoa as contrasted with Tahiti, where it is represented by the glottal stop, and with Hawaii, where it is represented by n.

The affinities in dialect given above are based entirely on the sounds. My impression from the vocabulary acquired during my brief stay was that there was more affinity with Rarotonga and New Zealand than with Samoa. The compilation of a complete vocabulary for the Tongarevan dialect may disclose other closer affinities. With a knowledge of the Maori and Rarotongan dialects I had no difficulty in speaking and understanding Tongarevan, whereas I experienced much more trouble with Samoan and Tahitian.

Traditional History

The study of the social organization of a Polynesian community is best introduced by a consideration of traditional history, which retains the accepted facts of ancestral origin and settlement upon the land, together with the social status through inheritance of all members of the community and their rights to land through occupation and succession. For the Polynesian the recital of historical events lacks conviction unless it is accompanied by the appropriate chants and songs; the mention of historical characters lacks force unless descent can be traced from them. Literature, history, and poetry are combined in the oral recitals which are listened to with the greatest of interest and attention even to the present day.

The chronological sequence of events is maintained in family pedigrees, and the learned historian is also an expert genealogist. The preservation of traditional narratives is in the care of respected experts of priestly or chiefly rank, the recipients of previous knowledge instructing suitable members of the next generation in order to preserve the family records. Family pedigrees are no longer memorized but written down in notebooks which are referred to when occasion demands. Some old men have been careless, and their families have had to seek advice from others. The genealogical method used by Rivers (21, a) in his study of Melanesian society is in reality in constant practical use among Polynesians in analyzing their position and relationship in their own social structure. Polynesian genealogies may be divided roughly into three periods that may be designated the mythical, exploratory, and settlement periods. The early lack of scholars is evidenced by the shortness of the genealogies dealing with the migrational and mythical periods, but complete pedigrees from the settlement period are preserved in detail by every family.

The settlement period is definite, for most Polynesians recognize the ancestral migrations to the islands they now occupy. The traditional history gives the names of the progenitors who came from another land and usually gives such details as the name of his canoe, the names of some of those who accompanied him and anything of note that was brought. If more than one canoe brought settlers the genealogical line to each one is preserved. If settlement occurred at different periods the difference in time is usually correctly indicated by the differences in length between the lines of descent. The historical narratives supplement the tables by reference to contemporaries and to the marriages between distinct lines. The genealogies of the later immigrants, who usually became dominant, are generally clear-cut, but those of the older settlers are sometimes obscured. Obscurity may have been brought about because of untrained historians in the earlier migration or through the forgetting of details in tracing descent to the later, more socially important arrivals with whom the older lines intermarried. The pedigrees covering the settlement period retain the names of both husband and wife and generally of all of their children. In Tongareva the definite commencement of the settlement period is traced from Mahuta-nui, through the descendants of his two wives, and Taruia, but a third line seems to have been in occupation before either of them.

The exploratory period covers the time occupied between leaving a remote homeland and the settlement upon a certain island. The genealogies covering this period vary considerably. In Mangaia there is no exploratory period, for the sons of the well known god, Rongo, drew the island out of an underseas spiritual Avaiki to its present material position, with themselves upon it. With them commences the settlement period which thus links directly with the mythical period. In some localities, such as Rarotonga, the exploratory period may cover 60 generations or more, and the explorations of different ancestors figuring in the tables are given with fair detail. The local differences are doubtless due to the absence or presence of scholars in the different migrations, the social status of the immigrants, and accidents that removed recording historians. Details concerning the nearer ancestors may be preserved in bilateral pedigrees giving collaterals. In this period the names of famous explorers appear in the genealogies of separated groups, thus showing common descent. As the period becomes more remote, details disappear, and the pedigree becomes a single list of names. The single list merges into the mythical period, from which it is often not clearly defined.

Genealogies of the mythical period may contain allusions to a fatherland from which the migrants set out into the Pacific. They may embody a theory of creation. Most of them give a list of gods and derive them from two primary parents representing a sky father and an earth mother. A philosophy of the order and sequence of natural phenomena may also find expression in a pedigree in which the exploratory and settlement periods are linked together.

The Genealogical Record

At the meetings of the Native Land Court at Omoka the genealogies of the island were collected to form the basis of the rights of the people to land. Every inhabitant claims descent from one of the three main lines of ancestry which, through intermarriage, have been fused. Table 2, which shows the three sources as they are traced in the family of Pa through twenty-six generations, illustrates the fusion that has taken place.

In generation 9 Mahuta and Taruia were both immigrants, but Takatu seems to have belonged to a previous migration. Taruia arrived in Tongareva before Mahuta. He came from Savaiki, from “na turuturu matua” (the large villages). He is stated to have built the marae at Tokerau and left two men there, one of whom jumped overboard and swam to Omoka when the canoe was leaving. Taruia himself did not remain at Tongareva but, according to the genealogy of Pa, one of the men who remained must have been Taruia's son, Titia. Taruia is said to have met Mahuta later and given him two men to guide him to Tongareva. An Aitutaki tradition states that Taruia was an ariki in the island, and he was deceived by Ruatapu into making a voyage around the islands. Subsequently, on discovering that Ruatapu had supplanted him in the position of ariki in Aitutaki, Taruia sailed off and eventually brought up at Mangarongaro. Mangarongaro, the name of one of the island divisions, is used by the Aitutakians to distinguish the Tongarevan atoll. It is further stated that some of the descendents of Taruia subsequently returned to Aitutaki. The Tongarevan version associates Taruia with Tokerau and stresses his leaving. He probably went to Tahiti, where he met Mahuta. The Rarotongan genealogies of Ruatapu would place the Aitutakian Taruia at an earlier period than that shown in the Tongarevan list (Table 2).

Mahuta is a historical character in Rakahangan traditions, and he lived on Rakahanga until domestic troubles caused him to leave. His first wife, Roriki, was from Rakahanga. Both she and her son, Puneke, were drowned at sea, but a daughter, Pokiroa, survived. According to the Tongarevan story, Mahuta went to Tahiti, where he married Hotio, the daughter of Tu-koropanga, a well known chief of that island. Mahuta. after learning of Tongareva from Taruia, set sail for it in his canoe, Waimea. The canoe was so large that the outrigger float struck against a rock well to the side of the western passage, by which he entered the lagoon. He settled down and his daughter, Pokiroa, married Purua. Mahuta built the marae of Punaruku on Te Puka, in which he was buried. The Tongarevans are descended not only from Pokiroa, Mahuta's daughter by his first wife, but from the children of

Table 2. The Three Main Lines of Descent

his second wife, Hotio. Of Hotio's children, the eldest was a male named Pange. Although the closeness of Rakahanga to Tongareva makes direct communication seemingly easy, the traditional evidence of Mahuta's second marriage to the daughter of a Tahitian chief named Tu-koropanga supports the statement that Mahuta came to Tongareva via Tahiti. The names of Tu-te-koropanga and his wife, Rukutia, occur in Maori tradition relating to the period of occupation of the Society Islands. The same names are found in Hawaiian traditions in the form of 'Olopana and Lu'ukia. That this couple was known to the Tongarevan ancestors is evidenced in the names of the two adjoining islands on the north side of the lagoon, Koropanga and Rukutia. The Hawaiian ancestor, 'Olopana, came from Tahiti and the name occurs in Tahitian tradition as 'Oropa'a. Mahuta's father-in-law Tu-koropanga was married to Pouri and belongs to a later period than the Koropanga who was married to Rukutia. However, the association of the family name of Koropanga with Tahiti is sufficient evidence that Mahuta's route via Tahiti is probably correct.

The settlement period in Tongareva, as taken from the contemporaries Mahuta and Taruia to the year 1900, averages 18 generations. Taking the average number of years to a generation, adopted by the Polynesian Society as 25 years, the second settlement of Tongareva would have occurred in about the middle of the fifteenth century. This is fairly late, for genealogical evidence places the final settlement of New Zealand in the middle of the fourteenth century and the settlement of Rarotonga by Tangiia in about the middle of the thirteenth century. If, however, the Taruia of the traditions of Aitutaki and of Tongareva was the same person, the second settlement in Tongareva must be put back a century earlier, for Ruatapu, the contemporary of Taruia of Aitutaki, would be assigned to that date by genealogies of both New Zealand and Rarotonga.

The line which gives the descent from Purua, husband of Mahuta's daughter, goes back to the primary nature parents, Atea and Hakahotu. In answer to my inquiry as to which of Purua's ancestors first arrived on Tongareva and what the name of his canoe was I was told that there was no canoe because the Purua line had been on Tongareva from the time of the creation. It was emphatically held that Purua belonged to the soil and had no connection with the Taruia expedition. Thus there is evidence of an earlier migration, the details of which have been forgotten or overlaid by the Mahuta tradition. Working backward, Takatu, the father of Purua, is the genealogical contemporary of Mahuta and Taruia. From Takatu to the mythical Atea and Hakahotu, the genealogical table records but six generations. The shortness of this line is accentuated by comparison with Mahuta's genealogy, which goes back to Iki, and contains eight generations or two more without reach- ingreaching the mythical period. The migrational period of the Purua line is thus not only lacking in historical detail but shortened out of scholastic acceptance by being linked with the primary nature parents, Atea and Hakahotu, sometime around the period when Tangiia settled in Rarotonga. One of the Rarotongan genealogical tables contains no less than 68 generations from the period of Tangiia back to Atea. The discrepancy indicates a serious loss of scholarship in the Tongarevan tradition, which in itself is extremely valuable information concerning the events of some of the minor migrations. The absence of historical detail, combined with a mutilated pedigree, may indicate that the first settlers were without an educated priesthood and that the discovery of the atoll may have been made by chance by a small group of people who made the best of the fragments they remembered. The Taruia expedition was exploratory. The Mahuta expedition, with known data concerning the geographical location of the atoll, was a definite voyage for settlement, as is brought out by the tradition of introducing the coconut and the Pandanus, the marriage alliance with the people already there, and the history of permanent occupation. Other islands have a similar history of an earlier settlement followed by the arrival of settlers with more dominant chiefs from 'Avaiki (Tahiti).

During the 18 generations from the time of Mahuta the people multiplied and the three lines were connected by intermarriages. They spread over the habitable islands and planted the coconut wherever they went. They built their religious inclosures (maraes) and houses and made the most of the material which their environment provided. The foundations of their culture had been laid in other lands, but their environment, with its meager natural resources, exerted its influence on adaptation and adjustment in a flat island.

The importance attached to blood relationship is shown by the care given to the preservation of family pedigrees. The genealogies prove the blood kinship and the derivation from common ancestors. The older men were accustomed to recite a preliminary introduction to the genealogy. One recited by Tupou Isaia at the Land Court reads as follows:

1. Teia te titi te hanange nei, Teia te hohoke te hanange nei, Uruanga te kakau o te kite nei, Uruanga te tamasi mate. Kete onoono, kete matakitaki, Pu aso kura, pua kau marama, Soro mai ra. 2. Tatai roa ki na tupenaki o te rangi matua Tatai roa ki te tau o Atea. Tapekahia kia mau Kia mau te serenga Kia mau te napenga Kia mau. 2. The descent goes back to the very regions of the heavens, The descent goes back to the line of Atea. Bind it to hold firmly, Let the tying be firm, Let the knotting be firm, That it hold. 3. Tauria atu ra ki na tupenaki o te rangi matua, Koi te rau mata kakã, Koi te sau kakatonga ia Itu-ma-eva, Koi te tini o Rava-tangi-sere Koi te hanaunga a Iki, Koi te aoanga a Atea ma Hakahotu. From the family of Iki, From the creation of Atea and Hakahotu.

This introduction contains so many archaic words that I was unable to get a literal translation. The general meaning in its application, however, can be understood. In the first stanza the reciter indicates the sources from which the knowledge of the person's pedigree is derived and ends with “Soro mai ra” (emerge from thence). The second stanza deals with the necessity for preserving the lines of descent. The third stanza again indicates the sources of descent and the last two lines mention the descent from Iki (ancestor of Mahuta) and the primary parents Atea and Hakahotu.

The introductory recitation is termed a tau or tauranga. It is usual to have one for each main line of descent. The one already given introduces the descent from Atea and Hakahotu through Mahuta's first wife, Roriki, whose daughter, Pokiroa, married Purua, the descendant of Atea and Hakahotu. A tauranga copied from a Tongarevan manuscript is attributed to Pouri, wife of Tukoropanga and mother of Mahuta's second wife, Hotio. Before commencing a genealogy through Pange or the other children of Hotio it was correct to recite the following:

Na Tangi-tuai, na Kahuruhuru, na Pokaiatu, na Tiakura, na Kura-tata. I taka ki ko ra, i taka ki konei ra. Na Akaiti mai, na Perai atu; naku, naku te mea o te po, naku naku te mea o te ao, te mea o te Kaumarama, te anga siri marie, te rangi taupe, te rangi tau, te maea, te makita—tina, karoa, tiakura.

An exact translation could not be found. The first proper names evidently form a list of ancestors who probably belonged to the home land of Hotio, that is Tahiti. The reciter goes on to say, “It falls there, it falls here,” referring to the line of descent. “Mine, mine, are the things of the night, mine, mine, are the things of the day” refers to the fact that everything is clear to the reciter. He concludes with mystic words of knowledge which prove his contention. The reader, like the hearer, has to take the assertion for granted, as the very fact that such introductions are used shows that the person who used them had been well taught. That the meaning of words may be forgotten does not in any way detract from their value in an orthodox commencement. The reciter experiences pleasure and satisfaction in making the correct opening and his hearers are influenced by the mere sound of the words to regard him not only as a scholar, but to accept the veracity of the pedigree that he subsequently unfolds.

Some of the tau have been composed for a particular line such as that of the high chief, Poaru, which commences with, “Tautaitini, Tautaitini, ko te tini o Atea” (Myriads, myriads, it is the myriad of Atea). Then follows a list of names: Rangiatea, Haitonga, Rehua, Matanui, Rorangi, Arotoki, Kaniu, Te Tau, Te Toronaki, Te Tapinga, Tangiruru, Te Isu, Te Taringa, Te Murimuringa, Tauaepuke, Tuarea, Te Matekaipo, and Maurirua and his younger brother, Tekeputa. The line then follows down from Maurirua. From Rangiatea to Maurirua there are 18 generations which with another 10 on to Poaru make 28. As Poaru, in another line of descent, is only 9 generations from Mahuta, the. tau carries Poaru's line back for 19 generations beyond Mahuta's period. However, as the words Te Isu (nose) and Te Taringa (ear) occur in the list, it is likely that all the names are not those of real persons, but rather are fragments of forgotten lore that are recited in genealogical form to add dignity and length to the introductory chant.

The genealogist may preface his recital with the words, “Ko te hakatupuanga teia i te katirianga tangata o Raroranga, Tongareva” (This is the growth of the human lines of descent of Raroranga, Tongareva). Increase in population is tupuanga or hakatupuanga—words derived from tupu, to grow. A line of descent is katiri or katirianga; and, as growth and descent are not confined to human beings, it is qualified by tangata (human) to indicate clearly that human growth and increase are being dealt with. A genealogical term applied to descendants is tira, as in the phrase, “Te tupuanga teia o te tira o Mahuta” (This is the growth of the descendants of Mahuta). In dealing with the complete genealogical line the scholarly reciter will run down through the mythical period if it has not been included in the set form of introduction used. On reaching the names which are known to be human the father and mother may be given with such a qualifying phrase: “Noho atu Purua ia Pokiroa, te tamahine a Mahuta; kua hanau mai ko Te Vaihakatupua” (Purua stayed with Pokiroa, the daughter of Mahuta; there was born Te Vaihakatupua). The term noho (to stay or remain with) is used to indicate what is understood by marriage. If the reciter is concerned solely with his own descent, he will mention the one offspring of each marriage that concerns him. The other brothers or sisters are the concern of those who are descended from them and are left for them to trace down. If, however, he is required to expound his knowledge as an expert, he will recite the names of all the children of each marriage together with their sex, and he will then repeat the name of his particular ancestor, the person married, and all of their children. If the ancestor had more than one wife, the wives and offspring in the order of marriage will be enumerated. In denoting sex. the following terms are used:

Tamaiti: male child

Tamahine: female child

Tuangane: brother of a female

Tuahine: sister of a male child

Teina: younger brother of a male

Teina: younger sister of a female

Tane: male, husband

Wahine: female, wife

If there is only one child to the marriage the male sex is indicated by adding e tane (a male) to the proper name, or tamaiti may be used; if a female, tamahine is used, but wahine may be used. Usually the main lines of descent are so well known that the reciter does not specify the sex of single births. When two children are named the form of recital indicates the sex of the second if it differs from that of the first. Thus, “Anau mai ko Sinatae ma te tuahine to Sikira” is literally, “Born were Sinatae and his sister Sikara.” The use of the term tuahine indicates that Sikira is a female and sister to Sinatae, who is therefore a male. If the first born is a female the term tuangane is applied to the second name: “Anau mai ko Tiakura ma te tuangane ko Arenikau” (Born were Tiakura and her brother Arenikau). If the first born had more than one brother, as Tiakura had, the plural, mana, must be prefixed to tuangane instead of the singular, ma te, as in “Anau mai ko Tiakura mana tuangane ko Arenikau ko Maurisare” (Born were Tiakura and her brothers Arenikau, Maurisare). The grammatical construction of mana is ma (and) and na (the plural form of the definite article te, meaning “the,” and corresponding to the nga of other dialects). The term tuahine may thus be translated literally “his sister”; and tuangane, “her brother.” When the two offspring are of one sex, the term teina is used: “Anau mai ko Matakunui ma te teina ko Takikava” (Born were Matakunui and Takikava, who was younger and of the same sex). The term teina indicates that the person to whom it is applied is of later birth and of the same sex as the person first named, but there is nothing in the word itself to indicate the sex. It is well known throughout Tongareva that Matakunui was a male, and that Takikava was, therefore, his younger brother. The stranger from outside would have to ask what the sex of Matakunui was, when the position would be made clear. The same word, teina, is applied to the younger of two sisters, and again the sex of the elder must be asked for by the ignorant. In a careful recital the sex which is not clear in the term teina may be cleared up by indicating the sex in the subsequent marriage which follows as a matter of course in a genealogical recital. Thus the sex of both Matakunui and Takikava is cleared up when the genealogist goes on to say, “Noho atu Matakunui i te wahine ia Hakarere” (Matakunui married a wife, Hakarere). The sex of the female teina is also cleared up by the subsequent marriage as “Noho atu Hakau i te tane ia Apikara” (Hakau married a husband, Apikara). The use of the relationship terms also indicates the sex quite clearly where more than two are involved, thus: “Kua puta ko Hakau mana teina ko Kikauae mana tuangane ko Mahuta” (There came forth Hakau and a younger of the same sex [named] Kikauae and her brother, Mahuta). Here teina shows that Kikauae is of the same sex as Hakau, but the sex is not indicated until the term tuangane is applied to Mahuta. The general term for birth is hanau, but in the above quotation puta (to come forth or emerge from within) is used as an alternative term. Some genealogists, when enumerating a large family of which the first born is a male, will recite all the males in order of birth and then the females in order of birth, though some of the females may have preceded some of the males.

The terms tupuanga and katiri are applied to the general genealogy, but a particular line of descent from a specified ancestor is termed ara (a path). Matakunui and his wife, Hakarere, had seven sons and three daughters. The ramifications of this large family have made Matakunui an important ancestor. A person who is descended from more than one member of that family has more than one path (ara) to Matakunui and in a recital runs them down in order of their seniority. In Table 3 the pedigree of a woman named Toreapo is given as an example of multiple descent from three brothers and one sister of the one biological family.

Table 3. Genealogy of Multiple Descent, Showing the Ara from One Family.

The reciter, a half-brother named Tangi-metua, after enumerating the family of Matakunui, commenced with the eldest son, Horauroa. He prefaced the recital with the explanation, “Te ara o Horauroa” (The path or line of Horauroa). The Tongarevans use the possessive, o (of), which in English would be expressed by “from.” The husbands and wives of each marriage were given, but the second member is left out of the table except where they link up the lines of descent. Matakunui is the 5th generation from Mahuta, the colonizer, and Toreapo comes out in the 18th generation. Masuhoa, the younger brother of Tukekemoana, was omitted in the first recital to be presented later. The reciter then took the ara of Tuatini, a younger brother of Horauroa. When he reached Akatapuria in the 14th generation the lines of Horauroa and Tuatini were joined by the marriage with Sauika, but he ran the line out to Toreapo as a matter of form. The ara of Ponakino, a younger brother to Tuatini, was then run down to Kauia in the 13th generation, who united the three lines of descent by marriage with Namuata of the 16th generation through the Horauroa-Tukekemoana line and the 15th generation through the Tuatini line. The ara of Mohotu, a sister of the three brothers dealt with, was carried down to Te Vae in the 14th generation, who married Moepo of the same generation in the Horauroa line. The union of the Mohotu and Horauroa lines took place before that with either Tuatini or Ponakino but was recited last as it was the junior line. The reciter then concluded with what he termed “te pae ki Tokerau” (the part toward Tokerau), in which the Horauroa line was traced down through his second son, Masuhoa, who evidently went to Tokerau on the north side of the lagoon. Takaniniua, in the 12th generation through Masuhoa, joined the two branches through marriage with Renaua of the 13th generation through Tukekemoana. The term used in working out a particular line is hakasari (to trace down), as “hakasari te ara ia Hakau” (trace down the path from Hakau).

A comparison of the number of generations through different lines is interesting. Thus, from Matakunui to Toreapo, inclusive, the number of generations through Horauroa-Tukekemoana is 14, Horauroa-Masuhoa 13, Tuatini 13, Ponakino 11, and Mohotu 14. It is natural to expect a longer line through the senior members of a large family, as they reach the marriage age some years in advance of the youngest members of the same family. In the course of several lifetimes even a few years of difference in each generation may total one or more generations. Taking the common parent as zero for comparison with the senior Horauroa-Tukekemoana line, a minus difference of 1 generation occurs in the Horauroa-Masuhoa line in 6 generations, and the same difference is found in the Tuatini line in 9 generations, whereas a minus difference of no less than 3 is found in the Ponakino line in 8 generations. The late start of junior members in some generations may, however, be made up by senior members in other generations, and the junior Mohotu line shows just as many generations as the first senior line. A presumably younger marrying age for females may also be a factor in increasing the number of generations over a given period, for in the three shorter lines the males exceed the females, and in the longer Horauroa-Tukekemoana and Mohotu lines the females exceed the males. In the period covered by an average of 18 generations from Mahuta to 1900 in one locality the differences in the numbers of generations of many lines are not great, but over longer periods taking in different islands they may create chronological problems.

The preservation by the whole population of family pedigrees connecting with historical ancestors different family lines of descent indicates clearly the importance attached to blood relationship. The social organization of the people was knitted by ties of blood which were memorized and transmitted from generation to generation. Though in some societies the relationship with a common ancestor may be fictitious, in Tongareva there is no reason to doubt that the pedigrees of the settlement period which have been preserved were authentic oral records of ancestors who lived, married, and bore their children on Tongareva.

Blood Relationship Terms

The independent groups of people who occupied the small islands and land districts on the large islands of Tongareva were separated by the channels between the islands or by artificial boundaries created between the divisions. Though all claimed blood kinship from three lines of ancestors united by subsequent marriages, such general kinship was relegated to the background. The independent groups found their cementing bonds in their common descent from the more recent ancestors who had established the secondary centers on the land which the group occupied.

Blood kinship as revealed by pedigrees is viewed from two important angles, that of direct lineal descent and that of collateral relationship. When a person uses the terms grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren, he visualizes five genealogical strata of which he himself forms the middle stratum. The five generations are in direct lineal descent, and the family lines of the grandparents and parents are respectively two generations and one generation shorter, and the lines of his children and grandchildren are one and two generations longer than the line of the intermediate person.

A man applies to his collateral relations the same classificatory five strata into which they fall when measured from a common ancestor. Theoretically, it is immaterial how distant the common ancestor is. The counting of the generations from the common ancestor by both parties will reveal the same number, two or one shorter, or two or one longer. The collateral relationship term is indicated by the difference in the count. In Table 4 the individual in the middle stratum of the lineal column is regarded as a first born male.

Table 4. Relationship Terms Genealogical Stratum Lineal Collateral Marriage 2 or more shorter Tupuna (grandparents) Tupuna 1 shorter Tahava (parent) Tira (father) Taueka (uncle) Matua (father-in-law) Papa (mother) Matua-wahine (aunt) Matua (mother-in-law) Same number Tuakana (elder brother) Teina (younger brother) Tuangane (brother of sister) Tuahine (sister of brother) 1 longer Tama (son) To ate (nephew) Hunonga (son-in-law) Tamaiti (son) Tamahine (daughter) Taukohera (niece) Hunonga (daughter-in-law) 2 longer Mokopuna (grandchildren) Mokopuna

Under the most favorable conditions five generations were about all that could have lived at one time, and the actual terms stop at the range of grandparents and grandchildren. The terms of tupuna and mokopuna, however, are extended in usage to include others beyond the range of two generations shorter and two longer. Thus, all ancestors are included under the general term of tupuna and great-grandchildren are termed mokopuna.

The Tongarevan terms are interesting in that the term tahava is used to include both parents and the special terms tira and papa are applied to father and mother. A distinction is thus made from the collateral terms of taueka (uncle) and matua-wahine (aunt) which apply to all collaterals on the father-mother stratum. The term matua-wahine is usually applied to mother in other areas, whereas the widespread term of matua-tane, which applies to both father and uncle, has been displaced by the special term taueka. The Tongarevans have thus departed from the usual Polynesian usage by using distinguishing terms for lineal and collateral descent in the father-mother stratum.

Marriage places the father-in-law and mother-in-law in the same stratum as the lineal father and mother, and the general term of matua as originally applied to parents and their collaterals is also applied to them, qualified no doubt by the sex designations of tane (male) and wahine (female). Thus, though the Tongarevans have distinguished between parents and collaterals, they have evidently lost the special “in-law” term of other areas as represented by huangai in Manihiki and hungawai in New Zealand.

The terms, tuakana and taina, used to denote seniority of birth in the same sex, are widely spread, but the Tongarevans have the additional local term of tauhatu. Mr. J. A. Campbell writes me that the term is honorific (ingoa ngateitei), and that the word could be written taau hatu (your hatu) or taku hatu (my hatu). The honorific word is thus used to express the seniority embodying the hatu, or core of family rank. From its presence in Tongareva alone, it is evidently a local development meant to stress seniority in chiefly families. It was also used to indicate an uncle, but not an aunt, and hence it stressed the male seniority in patrilineal descent. The general seniority terms tuakana and taina, however, are used within the same sex by both males and females but cannot be applied to opposite sexes. The taina of a male is his younger brother and the taina of a female is her younger sister. The brother-sister relationship between opposite sexes is represented by the reciprocal terms, tuangane and tuahine. A person speaking of someone as a tuangane indicates that the speaker is a female referring to her brother; and so in speaking of a tuahine, the speaker is a male referring to his sister. Such terms refer solely to sex and there is no indication in the terms as to which is the older or younger. Both the sex terms and the seniority terms apply to collaterals on the same genealogical stratum. The seniority terms indicate seniority within collateral groups descended from common ancestors and help in the solving of problems connected with succession to rank and social status.

A system which includes the lineal and collateral descendants of the same generation under a common relationship term has been called “classificatory” to distinguish it from a “descriptive” system, the terminology of which is supposed to distinguish degrees of consanguinity more definitely. The Tongarevan classification is based on the numerical relationship two genealogical strata bear to each other through the link provided by a common ancestor. The present relationship of collaterals may depend on a past ancestor who may be remote from the five living generations, but their position with regard to each other is made clear by the preservation of pedigrees. The purpose of the pedigrees was to record collateral as well as lineal descent in order to preserve the structural framework of social organization.

The working of the system cannot be understood fully without considering the system of naming individuals. Each individual was given a personal name, corresponding with the European Christian name, by which he or she was addressed by all, including children. The individual had no surname in the European sense. The place of the surname was taken by the group appellation, whether derived from an eponymous ancestor or from the territory occupied, but the group name was used in referring to the group only. When two persons of the same name had to be distinguished the name of the father with the particle a (of or belonging to) was used. This is often done in reciting pedigrees. Thus, in the ninth generation through Matakunui and his son Takatu the name of Rangisani appears.

Rangisani had a daughter, Tinonui, who married Rangisani. To avoid confusion the pedigree reciter says, “Tinonui married Rangisani of Pohatu.” Rangisani, the father of Tinonui, has already been shown in the pedigree to be Rangisani of Hakatapuria, and any confusion as to whether or not Rangisani married his own daughter is avoided.

There is no need for the appellations of “father” and “mother” or for relationship terms to be used in addressing blood uncles and collateral uncles. The degree of consanguinity was not rendered unimportant by the use of common classificatory terms for collaterals of various degrees of removal through a common ancestor. The children were brought up to know who were their own parents and who were their paternal and maternal uncles and aunts. The same usage applied to collateral relations of more distant kinship, and the child learned the exact degree of consanguinity from parents and relatives, and through the family pedigree. Thus, degrees of consanguinity were clearly recognized and appreciated in spite of the common terms used. The use of personal names combined with the exact knowledge of degrees of consanguinity through the pedigrees supplied the descriptive element that students find lacking in the bare terms of a so-called “classificatory” system.

In Tongareva lineal descent from the group ancestor formed the tie that united families in the area occupied by the social group. The use of collateral terms indicated the relationships between the members of the group through that lineal descent. The greater the number of collaterals, the stronger the group. A descriptive system would have emphasized the degrees of remoteness in the distant relationships, whereas the collateral use of direct lineal terms such as were applied to grandparents, parents, sons and daughters, and grandchildren emphasized the blood tie and stressed the basic idea that in the community the individuals composing it should render close cooperation and mutual assistance. Distant relatives were thus drawn together by the use of relationship terms which exaggerated the closeness of blood kinship, and in thus stressing blood kinship the system served a purpose in the mechanism of the social structure.

An early theory concerning the classificatory system was that the use of one term to describe father, uncles, and collateral uncles implied that all persons so designated were putative fathers, and that society was originally promiscuous, with family life as a later development. In other words, it was thought that the collateral use of relationship terms preceded the lineal use. From a Polynesian point of view, however, the biological family with lineal relationship terms comes first. The use of lineal terms in a collateral sense followed the desire to keep families together in groups for mutual cooperation. The isolation of relationship terms from their background of home experience, personal naming, teaching of pedigrees, and function in their own society forms a study approach which has been responsible for the artificial arrangement of relationship terms into “classificatory” and “descriptive” systems. Though the Polynesian system has generally been termed classificatory, a number of the Tongarevan terms are descriptive, and the exceedingly wide classificatory usage of “cousin” in the English descriptive system is represented by a number of terms which indicate genealogical strata, seniority, and sex. The relationship term should be studied in its human background and the word “classificatory” abandoned lest it convey to students the errors made through its use.

To a people placing such emphasis on descent from a group ancestor it seems natural that a convenient form of group name should be the name of the common ancestor. Such a name unites the group under one heading and serves to distinguish it from other groups descended from different ancestors. The name of an eponymous ancestor, usually with the prefix Ngati, was used in New Zealand to distinguish the group of descendants. When the group became large it divided into smaller groups by taking the names of more recent ancestors. The smaller groups became subtribes under their own names, but they joined together for cooperative effort under the original group name, which became a tribal name. A somewhat similar system was employed in the Cook Islands. To the general system there were exceptions in both areas.

In Tongareva it was stated that in the very early period the different parties were named after their chiefs, such as Ngati-Mahuta and Ngati-Taruia. Later, however, when secondary centers were established on the various islets, the group was designated by the name of the land division it occupied, and the group naming, instead of being eponymous, became territorial. Thus, when a Mahuta was chief of Te Puka, Opaka, who had conquered Hakasusa, was chief of both Mangarongaro and Hakasusa. The two sections were not united in name. The adjustment of blood group and territory was alike in New Zealand and Tongareva, but the systems of naming were directly opposite.

The Biological Family

Puberty Customs

Puberty was judged, not by age entirely, but by the growth and quantity of the pubic hair. Up to this period the child usually went entirely naked, as his sex organs were regarded merely as part of his anatomical topography, so far not associated with any ideas of sexual function. At the stage of puberty, as evidenced by the pubic hair, the boy had to be instructed in sexual matters in a practical manner. The father appointed a woman of mature age to act as instructress and perform the ceremony of pressing back the foreskin of the penis. The purpose of this manipulation was “to snap the tie,” kia motu te sele. The snapping of the tie was not the rupturing of the frenum as the wording might imply but the stretching of the opening of the foreskin so that it might pass over the glans. For the custom the instructress and the victim retired to a hut where the coconut leaf wall sheets were lowered and only themselves were present. The ceremony of manipulation and instruction ended in coitus, which was regarded dispassionately as the practical culmination of the ceremony. The boy now knew from practical experience the use of the male organ from the viewpoint of sex. With the advent of knowledge, the sex organ could no longer be exposed and from then on the boy wore the maro loin cloth as a garment of concealment. He had eaten of the tree of knowledge and could no longer go naked. Beyond this ceremony, there seems to have been no other custom connected with the period of puberty. Though my informants did not mention it, probably a feast was given by the parents after the ceremony.

Girls also went about naked until the growth of the pubic hair indicated that puberty had been attained and that the sex organs could function. The parents prepared a feast and selected a man of another family to perform the required ceremony. The custom was to puncture the hymen digitally. The operation took place in a closed house and was not made public like the virginity test before marriage observed by the Samoans. The object was stated to be ei wahi i te maki wahine (to clear the way for menstruation). If the hymen was found to be already ruptured, presumably by previous sexual connection, the parents of the girl were shamed, and the festive celebrations to mark the occasion were a failure.

After the ceremonial rupturing of the hymen the girl had to wear the titi skirt as a garment of concealment. The ceremony was thus called hakatiti (to cause to wear the titi skirt).

The ceremonial rupturing of the hymen was a puberty custom which might precede marriage by a considerable amount of time. It was only a surgical operation, in accordance with the prevalent medical opinion, to remove what was considered an obstruction of the physiological flow of the menses. It differed from the Samoan custom, which was confined to the special class of village taupou and was carried out as part of the marriage ceremony for the purely social reason of adding prestige to the girl's parents.

The physiological attitude toward the custom must also be clearly distinguished from the attitude of the people of the Trobriands described by Malinowski (17, p. 155) that the hymen must be ruptured in order that the spirit child may enter and the woman conceive. Malinowski further points out that, owing to early sexual indulgences, there are no virgins at puberty, so that the story has no application except in myths. The hakatiti ceremony as a puberty rite is clear evidence that games between Tongarevan boys and girls did not all develop into the full sexual form that they did in the Trobriands, and when they did it was without the approval of the parents, who were shamed when the puberty ceremony was found to have been anticipated.

After the puberty ceremony, boys entered upon a period of sex activity upon which, evidently, there were no restrictions so long as they avoided those who were prohibited by the degrees of consanguinity or marriage. Girls, by the corresponding puberty ceremony, were also admitted to free sexual life. The girl could have love affairs with whom she fancied with the exceptions imposed by consanguinity or marriage. Sexual appetites could be satisfied without social stigma that would affect her prospects of marriage. Though freedom was not restricted in principle, Tongarevan girls are said to be much more reserved in granting favors than others of their race. It was regarded as immodest for a girl to make advances or to go to the house of a lover even upon his solicitation. The male must seek the girl at her house, and her self-respect having been thus considered, she could cohabit with her lover without losing her social status. Parents, however, never willingly agreed to the free intercourse of their daughters, and love affairs were conducted with a certain amount of reserve and secrecy. The custom of segregating the sexes, which exists in some cultures, did not exist in Tongareva. Young people slept in the houses of their parents, who thus exercised some direct personal control over their actions. However, it may be said that young people had no general sex restrictions until they were married.

Theoretically, the freedom of unmarried people has been curtailed by missionary teaching. Public opinion has been educated to regard the sexual intercourse of unmarried people, whether adolescent or adult, as wrong and an offense against morals. Delinquents are tried and fined in court. The puberty customs are not carried out, and children wear clothes to cover their nakedness. The life of the adolescent is now one perpetual intrigue to avoid deacons of the church, policemen, and parents, to bring love affairs to what is still considered the only successful accomplishment.

Marriage

The primary object of marriage, from the Tongarevan point of view, was the procreation of children to perpetuate the family. Young people had their sexual experiences dating from instruction in the mysteries of sex, and marriage was not the only means of consummating sexual love. Marriages, especially among people of higher status, were arranged as alliances between two lines of descent by the two families concerned, for pedigrees were jealously preserved, and the descent of the contracting parties was well known. Though occasional love affairs may have been protracted on into permanent unions, an attitude of acceptance of matrimonial arrangements had become ingrained by culture. Occasionally, however, a couple managed to make their own arrangements in spite of parental opposition. A few years ago a couple, whose union was resisted by the parents, eloped in a boat and, after setting a course for Tahiti, lost their sail and oars in a storm and finally drew up in American Samoa.

Unsuitability was usually strongly opposed, but the withholding of consent from a couple contemplating marriage was the prerogative of the family and not the prohibition of a law with severe punishments established by society. With senior families the question of rank and property in land influenced a decision. With the lower classes social and property restrictions disappeared to some extent, and marriages were consequently more readily realized by the individuals without family opposition. No prohibitions existed as to various branches of lineal descent; alliances have occurred between the main lines of Taruia, Purua, and both wives of Mahuta. (See p. 18.) Exogamy, involving compulsory marriage into another group, did not exist. The only restriction was that of consanguinity which, according to Lamont (15, p. 136), extended as far as second cousins. Unfortunately, I had no time to test the exact degree of prohibited relationship in the family pedigrees, but I take it that second cousins are in the third generation from the same grandparents. Most alliances between different lines of descent shown in the pedigrees are a considerable distance from the last common pair of parents. Thus, as shown in Table 3 (p. 24), the first alliance is 7 and 6 generations from the common parents, and the others are 9 and 9, 10 and 9, and 11 and 8 respectively. While these do not show the closeness of consanguinity allowed in marriage, they indicate that there was a strong tendency to let some time elapse before kindred lines were allied by marriage. Table 5 better illustrates the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

Table 5. Genealogy Showing Prohibited Degrees of Consanguinity

Rangisani and Sikutau are the common parents of three lines of descent which intermarry in the pedigree of Nasi, Rangisani being the ninth generation on a Mahuta line. The first generation from Rangisani consists of the two brothers, Pohatu and Kaiatia, with their sister, Tinonui. Takaiava, Tearoa, and Niukore, of the third generation, are second cousins to each other and cannot marry. In the fourth generation, consisting of Hakarere, Taranga, and Kauaia, the marriage prohibition ceases to function, although marriage may be impossible, because the persons are not contemporaries, or have an unsuitable disparity in age. Hakarere of the first line was evidently much older than Taranga and Kauaia of the same generation as herself, and she married Pasuatai of another family. Their daughter, Te Pou, of the fifth generation through Pohatu evidently belonged to an age that more nearly approached that of Taranga of the fourth generation through Tinonui, and a suitable alliance was therefore made by marriage. Their daughter, Hakerau, now in the sixth generation through Pohatu and the fifth generation through Tinonui was, in turn, of a suitable age to mate with Kauaia of the fourth generation through Kaiatia, and the marriage was accordingly made. The offspring of the last marriage united the three lines, but, owing to the different time spacing of the same generations in each line, Nasi counts seven generations through Pohatu, six through Tinonui, and five through Kaiatia. In Tongarevan collateral terminology, Te Pou married her matua and Hakarere married her tupuna. Translating this into the unsatisfactory English terminology so often used, Te Pou married her “father” and Hakarere her “grandfather,” which is absurd. If we used the terms “collateral uncle” and “collateral granduncle” we would have the exact meaning that the words matua and tupuna convey to the Tongarevan in this particular instance.

After a marriage had been arranged by the two families concerned, the bride was brought to the groom's village by her people. A meal was partaken of and a great quantity of food consumed when it was available. Probably speeches were made, and the marriage might be recognized without any special ritual.

Lamont, who had three wives during his stay on Tongareva, furnishes some interesting information. His first wife, Haka Moe Kakara (15, p. 257), was brought from another island by his adoptive parents, without any preliminary warning to the prospective groom. On returning from bathing he saw her for the first time, sitting in front of his house. She was about 16 years of age and fled on his appearance. Lamont was then informed that she was his wife. No special feast is mentioned, and he accepted her with some hesitation. The union did not turn out to be a happy one, and the girl continued to be afraid of him. Before the second marriage he cured a young girl named Chera Puna (Tere Puna) of sickness, and later the girl's mother “presented her to me as my affianced wife, to be formally married when she was of proper age” (15, p. 265). Probably Lamont's stay was too short for the formal marriage to take place, but he speaks of her as his second wife. More details are given of his third marriage with Haka Puta. This girl belonged to Motu-nono near Tautua, and during Lamont's stay on the island they had become friendly. On his announcement of his departure for Motu-unga, the girl threw her arms around him and begged him to stay or at least to take her with him. To soothe her, he told her he would make her his wife and take her with him. Hakaputa expressed her delight by vigorously pressing her nose against his, and the people present announced the news to the others, who were attracted to the scene. The kith and kin of the bride assembled for a meal which Lamont says was “strictly an ordinary meal, the same as on any other day.” However, as Lamont was being treated as a distinguished visitor, he had already been feeding on the best that could be provided, and so probably could see no difference. The meal might not differ as to the menu, but the special occasion makes it important. The bride, according to custom, remained in retirement. Lamont (15, p. 297) describes the event.

After the morning meal, the different groups assembled round the chief's tent [hut], where the groom and his friends were already seated. The men formed in a row for the pehu, and the women, before sitting down, arranged their tichès [titi], that they might not crumple them, as they prepared to chant. The bride, meanwhile, had not appeared; and it was not till she had been angrily called, that from a closed tent [hut] some young girls appeared with what seemed to be a bundle of mats in the centre. This, however, was really the young bride, who, coming forth, ran towards the tent [hut] where I was seated, and then darting back was again enveloped in the mats, and withdrawn to the remotest corner of the house. The bride does not entirely disrobe herself of the matting for several days after the marriage, when she appears with the titchè [titi], which she wears constantly for the remainder of her life. Whilst the young lady hides her maiden blushes under the matting, and the gentleman sits demurely, but more confidently in front of the hut, the ceremony of the pehu commences, accompanied by rather an extra amount of crying, scratching, and bleeding, making a most melancholy affair of the happy event. The bride is then handed over to the oldest relatives or friends present for some further ceremonies; which over, the happy couple retire to their new abode.

Lamont's account represents very well three forms of the marriage arrangement. In the first marriage the selection and arrangement were made by the groom's family without consulting the groom. In the second, the betrothal was made by Tere Puna's mother or family, the girl being immature but the marriage suitable. The third marriage was the result of a love affair, and was accepted by the bride's family as a suitable marriage.

The wrapping of mats around the bride is a distinctive feature associated with the marriage ceremony. Once when, because of a quarrel, Lamont left his first wife behind him at Motu-unga, the Motu-ungan people brought her to him at Omoka with mats wrapped around her. Lamont (15, p. 261) thought the mat wrapping was a sign of mourning, but it was more likely a reminder that the marriage tie still held good.

The significance of the titi skirt must be remarked upon. Lamont regarded it as being worn only after marriage. Thus of his first wife he said,

There was one thing that puzzled me about her; she had evidently been married before, for she wore the tichè [titi], and was certainly a very youthful widow, not more than sixteen. I was informed that she had only just been married, and, disliking her husband, had never lived with him.

Knowing the obedience paid to nuptial arrangements, it is hard to believe that a young girl would refuse to live with her husband so soon after marriage. Lamont probably misunderstood his informants and has confounded with marriage the custom of rupturing the hymen at puberty and the subsequent wearing of the titi. This first wife evidently had gone through the hakatiti ceremony and was entitled to wear the titi without actually having been married. Lamont's later description of his third wife wearing the titi only after the marriage ceremony shows that, though she had probably reached puberty, the hakatiti ceremony had not been performed. This is supported by his statement that after the pehu ceremony of crying and cutting the flesh, the bride was handed over to the oldest relatives or friends present for some further ceremonies. It was after the further ceremonies that the married couple retired to their new abode. Lamont does not specify what the further ceremonies were, but there is little doubt that it was the hakatiti which entitled the woman to wear the titi, as the marriageable age, and not the marriage itself, demanded. In the marriage with Haka Puta the wedding was sudden and unexpected so the hakatiti ceremony had to be performed on the wedding day before the bride could be handed over to her husband. It merely coincided with the wedding period but was not an integral part of the marriage ceremony itself.

The family pedigrees show that monogamy prevailed, but polygamy, in the form of polygyny, was practised by some of the leading chiefs. Not all multiple wives shown in the pedigrees are polygynous as subsequent wives have been taken after death or divorce from previous ones. On the other hand, the fact that only one wife appears in a pedigree does not always denote monogamy, for the name of a barren wife may in time be omitted. Two of the chiefs mentioned by Lamont, Opaka, ariki of Hakasusa, and Mahuta-nui of Te Puka, had more than one wife.

In the polygynous marriages all the wives lived with the husband, but usually in different establishments. Lamont (15, p. 216) mentions “Opaka's house, or rather houses, in Haka Shusha, over each of which one of his wives presided.” The houses were built in relation to a central gravelled space and accommodated the multiple household of the biological family of Opaka. Mahutanui had three wives, but they lived in separate houses some distance apart on Mahuta's land.

The term for wife is wahine, which is also the general term for woman. No confusion exists in the native mind as to the meaning of the term, as the local knowledge of the relationship in the community and the context of speech clearly indicate what is meant. The genealogical term used for marriage is noho (to stay with). The idea conveyed by noho is that the staying together is of some duration, as in marriage, and it does not apply to the temporary association of lovers.

The Household

In Tongareva the custom is for the wife to take up her residence in her husband's house. A young husband who has hitherto been living in his father's household may continue to live there with his wife in one of the spare huts, or they may share the hut with others. He may build a new hut in the immediate vicinity and thus add to the extent of his father's household. When children are born or when crowding takes place the husband may build a separate establishment on land indicated or allocated to him by his father. The household is thus patrilocal.

If the married couple remains with the husband's father, the birth of children places three generations in the one household. It often happens that the father's aged parents may live with him, the household thus consisting of four generations. If the first family is large, the first sons to marry usually break away to relieve the overcrowding and establish their own households on paternal land. The daughters, as they marry, go off to their husbands' houses, and the junior members of the family are left at home. There is thus a constant ebb and flow of succeeding generations. Grandparents die as great-grandchildren are born, and the household, though based on a single biological family, may consist of members of two, three, or even four generations.

The complex household with its sleeping huts, cooking houses, and open gravelled space is yet a single domestic unit, united by close blood relationship through the male line, the members of the household working together in harmony in supplying the small family group with food. In a household of four generations the old grandparents bask in the sun and do such light tasks as are within their scope. They look after the grandchildren. The aged grandfather relinquishes the household rule and the direction of active operations to his son. The son of the second generation has become master of the household and his wife assumes control of the domestic management. The grandson of the third generation who has elected to remain with his father's household takes an active part in procuring food supplies and in doing the heavy work of the household, but he defers to the authority of his father. The great-grandchildren of the fourth generation assist in the work of the household, carrying out such tasks as are assigned to them by either parents or grandparents. Four generations in a household is probably the extreme.

In a bilateral family the wife who comes of a family rich in food lands retains her rights to a share in her father's lands. She and her husband may visit her land from time to time to obtain the crop from her coconut trees. Her rights as an heiress are not questioned. If her husband comes of a poorer family, or if his share in his paternal estate is small, the couple may elect to settle on the wife's land, and the household becomes matrilocal. Though the husband is an outsider, perhaps but distantly connected with his wife's family by blood, he is usually welcomed by his wife's father, as a male addition to the family and another warrior to aid in resisting attack. The husband thus becomes an integral part of his wife's family division.

Through matrilocal residence the children may drop their active connection with their father's kin and become incorporated and naturally absorbed into their mother's family and the organization to which it belongs. Theoretically, however, the matrilocal household only survived for one generation. Of the family born to it, the daughters married and went to their husbands, and the sons established their households on their mother's land. These households may be considered transitional between matrilocal and patrilocal households for, though the land was the mother's during her lifetime, upon her death the respective shares passed to her sons who were in residence. In the next generation the sons inherited from their fathers and the households again became strictly patrilocal. In the first matrilocal family a younger son might return to his father's people and be brought up by them by adoption. He thus passed out of the district like his sisters.

Although patrilineal descent and patrilocal residence form the background of the social structure, matrilineal descent links up family pedigrees which might otherwise spread out, and it carries practical advantages. Every fourth generation women available for marriage within the district, being outside the prohibited degree of consanguinity, can marry within the district to strengthen the ties of blood kinship. Also, in a biological family which has daughters and no sons the parents may insist on the daughter's husband coming to live on their land in order that the grandchildren may inherit the land.

Adoptions used to be common and a few led to complications, although most adoptions were made within the branches of the same family, so that the adopted child was really of blood kin to the adoptive parents. People with no issue of their own were naturally anxious to adopt children, whereas parents with large families could not well refuse to give up some of theirs. Parents were also influenced to promote the welfare of their children by consenting to adoption by people of rank or wealth in food lands. Also, natural love of children probably led to adoptions by people who already had children of their own. Adoptions were also particularly desired by older people whose own children had left them after marriage, and who desired sons or daughters to assist them in securing food supplies and to help in the work of carrying in coconuts, of fishing, lighting fires, and cooking food.

Complications concerning succession to the land of adopting parents have arisen. Some parents, neglected in old age by their own children, have, in revenge, left their lands entirely to adopted children. I purposely started a heated argument in Tautua by asking if it were right for adopted children to succeed to land and thus disinherit the true children. Part of the assembly maintained that land could only go to the nearest of blood. One old man, however, was vehement in asserting that the adopted child should take precedence. Pointing to his open mouth he said:

To whom should I leave my land but to him who fills that? If my own children leave me when they grow up and then do not send me food to fill my empty stomach, should I consider them? Should I not consider my adopted child, who has cared for me in my old age and fed me when my own children failed to do so?

With a grunt, he again pointed to his empty mouth. I concluded that the practical filling of his stomach with food overcame all theoretical considerations as to blood kinship. The adopted child is thus regarded as a real son or daughter and may be given property by the adoptive parents in preference to real children who have been guilty of neglect.

In adopting by native custom no special formula was followed. The adopting parents asked for or took a child and brought it up in their own home. The desire to adopt children was so prevalent that after European contact illegitimate, white, or partly white children from other districts were adopted, to the detriment of the real kin. To prevent abuse of the custom the Cook Islands Act now demands that proposed adoptions shall be properly investigated and registered before they become legal, that the child shall be native or the descendant of a native and under the age of 15 years, that the adopting parent shall apply for the adoption and shall be a fit person to have custody of the child, and that the natural parents shall consent. The adoption may be annulled by the Court on the application of the adopting parent or child.

A social or honorary adoption is described by Lamont, who states that all the members of the crew of the wrecked Chatham were adopted by different families. The people took the strangers in as permanent guests and gave them the same rights to their food lands as their own families possessed. This hospitality could be expressed only by adoption. In thus adopting them into the family the same relationship terms were used as if they were true blood kin. Thus O Pai Tangata became Lamont's father (matua); his father's wife, “Moshishe,” became his mother, or “matua oahine” (matua wahine); and their sons, his brothers. After descriptions of a ceremony conducted in a marae on the second day after the wreck and the subsequent “shukai” ceremony outside the marae, Lamont (15, p. 125) states that he learned that the ceremony through which they had passed was a form of adoption, “each of us becoming from that time forth the chosen child of some leading man in the place; standing in the same position to all his relations as his own children, and even enjoying some additional privileges.”

The ceremony, as I see it, was not part of the ordinary procedure of adoption. The chiefs had already selected them as members of their household on the preceding day, and the simple mechanism of adoption ended with that. The ceremony on the marae and the subsequent wailing constituted a formal reception into the Tongarevan community in accordance with established custom. The marae ceremony removed any tapu and foreign influence that accompanied them as strangers and brought them into accord with the religious ritual and spiritual influences that prevailed in the country. The weeping, chanting, and dancing which followed, and which the women shared, was their formal reception and welcome into the community, of which they were then a part. Though their position was thus established in the community, neither ceremony can be regarded as an integral part of the simple mechanism of adoption. In this adult adoption, as Lamont remarks, they stood in the same position to their adoptive parents and their relations as if they were their own children, and they naturally came under the laws applying to the prohibited degrees of consanguinity in marriage.

Not only is marriage prohibited in this relationship, but sexual intercourse and advances of an amorous nature are also prohibited as a matter of course. Thus Lament found that, though he could press noses with his aunts, sisters, and cousins, any attempt at a European kiss was resisted, the person flying from him in horror and calling out her relationship as the bar to such action. The attitude is quite clear. The pressing of noses together was the orthodox social greeting of the culture, but immediately the lips came into play it was regarded as an erotic approach to forbidden sexual intercourse. Chiefs and old women adopted Lamont on the other islands he visited, and he increased his circle of relations. His attempts to express his friendship with his close female relations by means of the European kiss were always received with embarrassment and repulsed.

The following avoidance customs were recorded by Lament (15, p. 136), but I did not check up on them.

In these relationships they have some strange observances. A mother can kiss her son, but he must not embrace his mother; a sister and brother on meeting after a long absence, cannot fondly rush into each others arms, but must sit down facing each other, and nod their heads, one to one side, the other to the opposite; and the adopted child may not touch the food the parents have to eat, as in that case they dare not use it.

The name for the household group is not clear. In New Zealand the mechanism is definite. The ancestor who linked all the biological families together as indicated by their pedigrees was treated as an eponymous ancestor, and his name, with a plural prefix signifying “the descendants of,” was used as a term to include the family group that had originated from him. The name became the distinctive proper name of the family group, but such a group was designated as a hapu (pregnant) or whanau (birth). These terms cryptically denote that all people belonging to such a group are descended from one pregnancy and one birth. In Tongareva, although the term hanau, which corresponds to the New Zealand whanau, is used in the genealogical recitals to denote birth, it is not used as a classificatory term to denote a group derived from one ancestral family. However, the same principle of attaching importance to descent from a common ancestor as to locality and grouping applies, and it implies cooperation in public functions and in defense and attack.

Rank and Title

The office of chief was recognized before the settlement of Tongareva. Both Mahuta-nui and Taruia were chiefs, and it is evident that Purua was the chief of the earlier settlers. To understand the system of chieftaincy involves an understanding of tuakana and taina, terms that denote seniority in order of birth in the same family or in the same genealogical stratum from a common ancestor. (See p. 28.) The eldest son in a family is tuakana to all his brothers and they are all taina to him. The second son is taina to the first son but tuakana to all his younger brothers. Thus, any member of the family is taina to those older than himself and tuakana to those who are younger. The youngest son is taina to all his brothers. It follows that all the members of a family by the first wife are tuakana to families by succeeding wives. Seniority extends collaterally. The sons of an elder brother are tuakana to the sons of a younger brother or younger sister. The sons of an elder sister are senior to the sons of a younger brother, but as the females went to live with their husbands, seniority on the female line did not affect the order in a patrilocal family. Collateral relationship more than once removed from the common ancestor also observes the order of seniority indicated.

It is natural in any family for the elder children to assume a physicial superiority over those who follow after. They are also naturally entrusted with tasks of responsibility according to their years, and authority develops chronologically. The authority developed within the family in childhood and youth was maintained throughout adult life. Children were taught to pay respect to their elders and seniors. If children too early assumed the attitude and actions of those older than themselves, they were looked upon as precocious and were admonished. Precocity, defined as “a young person making himself big,” was embodied in no less than three words, hakasina, hakakasipaka, and hakakaumatua. The child guilty of precocious conduct was reprimanded in such a phrase as “Haere atu te tamaiti hakakasipaka” (Go away, the precocious child). The three words used to denote precocity have all the causative prefix, haka, which signifies action. In hakasina, sina means grey or white and applies to hair. The whole word thus refers to action that would make the person appear like a man with grey hair. In the Maori dialet kaumatua means an old man or an adult. In Tongareva the Maori meaning is preserved in the form of hakakaumatua, which means to act in a manner beyond one's years. In the Tongarevan family the wrongful assumption of seniority was regarded as subversive to family discipline. The social structure was intimately linked with the recognition of lineal seniority. A pese, or song, arising out of a quarrel between two brothers illustrates the mental attitude toward younger people. The quarrel arose through an argument as to the nights when certain fish ran through the channels. The younger brother, though right, was struck by his senior. The aggrieved one went to his mother and recited the following:

Hakakaumatua—he ure kura. Sawasawa te maro—he tamariki. Toku mata ka tukia, Toku rehu ka to, He reka. To act like an adult—an immature penis. To dirty the maro with faeces—a child. My face has been beaten, My strength has declined, It is finished.

The signs of immaturity are here enumerated as the reasons for being beaten. The rights of seniority as recognized by public opinion lead to the quoting of the verse.

An elder brother is referred to as toro ahuru, which carries the idea of the main vine, whereas a younger brother is termed hono tangata, which means the link with the people. The terms convey the idea that the elder brother is the direct lineal link or main vine in the family pedigree, whereas the younger brother is the collateral link with the people. Thus the elder brother inherits the chieftaincy of the line, but the families of the younger brothers provide the human group to support the chiefs.

The principle of seniority was so strongly developed in childhood and maintained through adult life that the leader of the family in succession to the father was the eldest son, seniority was maintained through the collaterals, and the successive eldest sons of eldest sons were elevated naturally to the positions of group leadership. Every district occupied by a number of families had its senior family which automatically supplied the district chief through primogeniture. When all the districts in an island or division of a large island combined for mutual protection or aggression one chief, by reason of the common descent from one ancestral family, was senior to all the others. His pedigree showed that his descent was from the senior family in each generation, and he was thus senior to all the other chiefs whose families had branched off from the main stem (toro ahuru). The other chiefs, who were descended from younger brothers who had moved off to other districts, were thus in the relative position of younger brothers. The junior chiefs were hono tangata, or the links which bound the smaller group of families to the main stem and enabled the whole island or divisional group of people to act together under the senior chief of the largest group so formed.

In the settlement of the various islands and island divisions the territorial groups were derived from families which had hived off from the main lines at various periods, and, though all were related through common ancestors, certain territorial groups with pedigree links more recent showed closer relationships than others. In two or more related territories the senior family was known, and the senior chief of one of the linked territories was also, by descent, the senior chief of the combined territories. As the recognition of seniority prevailed, the status of the senior chief was increased not only by the number of collateral families in his own territory, but also by his position of seniority with regard to other territories. Seniority through birth had thus a wide-reaching influence. Absolute seniority within a group was expressed by the term ariki. In New Zealand any member of a family may refer to the senior member of the family as his ariki, and there seems little doubt that the term was originally used to denote absolute seniority within the family. During the growth of Polynesian society the use of the term widened out to apply to chiefs of larger groups and the related groups which constituted a tribe. The position of ariki was assured by the recognition of blood seniority, and the term came to be used as a title of chieftaincy. Though the title descended by inheritance on the senior male line, breaks occurred through lack of male heirs, when the title went to a junior. Incapable leadership was also a factor in interrupting direct succession. Traditional narrators give evidence that this system of leadership was well developed at the period of the later colonizing expeditions. The chiefs of voyaging canoes may or may not have been ariki in the islands from which they came, but when they settled in a new island they assumed that position and were regarded as such by their crews and by succeeding generations.

When Mahuta-nui arrived at Tongareva in the Waimea canoe he was asked by the local inhabitants who were the ariki in his canoe. He replied: “Pange e Rave.” (Pange and Rave.) These were his two sons by his second wife, Hotio, who was daughter of Tu-koropanga, an ariki of Tahiti.

Tu-koropanga of Tahiti named his sons as ariki, for he was of higher rank than Mahuta, whose sons had ariki blood in their veins through their mother. This is an example of the respect paid to matrilineal descent when it carried high rank. At the time of Mahuta's arrival he had no large group of people to support two ariki, but he saw into the future and imposed the already established ariki system upon the local population. The ariki system must have been known to the people already in occupation, or they would not have questioned Mahuta about the ariki in his canoe. The ariki system must have been known also to the people that had left Taruia, for according to an Aitutaki tradition, Taruia himself was ariki of Aitutaki, and was deposed by trickery and sailed to Tongareva. It is clear that the principle of the ariki system was in use at the time of settlement by Mahuta-nui. Tupou Isaia says there were two ariki on Tongareva about eight or nine generations from Mahuta, namely, Pohatu and Poaru, who were contemporaries. Table 6 shows their descent.

Table 6. Descent of the ariki, Pohatu and Poaru

The ariki, Pohatu, is shown as the eighth generation on the direct male line from the voyager, Taruia. It is thus evident that an ariki title which was independent of the ariki titles established by Mahuta was created by the Taruia stock. The Pange title mentioned by Mahuta descended by a direct male line to Poaru, the son of Saitu. The genealogies collected did not give any line from Rave, the younger brother of Pange. The use of the term ariki as applied to Rave by Mahuta may have been a figure of speech which did not materialize into a hereditary title through lack of issue. If there was an ariki title on the Takatu-Purua line, it was evidently merged in the Poaru title through a female break in the male line. The union of the Takatu line with that of Mahuta's first family by the marriage of Purua and Pokiroa is again shown. From Purua there is a direct line of males to Tupuawananga in the seventh generation. The male line is then broken by Hainga-noa in the eighth generation. Hainga-noa married Saitu in the direct male line from Pange. Their offspring was Poaru, a male, who therefore succeeded to the ariki title from Pange on his father's side and to any rank that may have descended from Purua through his mother. The pedigrees do not reveal any brother of Hainga-noa, so the Purua title, if there was one, was inherited through the female, and, by being vested in Poaru, the two titles became merged into one. Table 6 shows how marriages were arranged between families of chiefs. The ariki, Pohatu, had a son, Rangisani, and a daughter, Pekanoa. The daughter was married to the ariki, Poaru, joining two ariki families, but as a son had been born to Pohatu there was no question of the two titles being merged. An interesting item is the marriage of a son of Rangisani to the granddaughter of his sister, Pekanoa, which brings the union within the theoretical prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

Later, when Lamont was in Tongareva, the increasing population had evidently created other ariki positions, for he describes Mahuta-nui as “iriki” (ariki) of Te Puka, and Opaka as occupying a similar position over Mangarongaro and Hakasusa. He also speaks of an ariki of the small island of Atutahi and remarks that this ariki displayed more power over his people than any other chief he had seen. The increase in the number of individuals composing the various territorial tribes had thus led to a rise in the status of the senior family in the individual tribes.

Mention has been made of the probability that the ariki, Poaru, in the ninth generation, combined two ariki titles through lack of male issue on one of the lines. With the later development of larger independent groups of people constantly at war with one another, the combining of two titles was untenable. The ariki had to live with one of the groups, and his claims over the other group could not be enforced under the system which prevailed. When direct male issue was lacking the families concerned met together and the claims of aspirants were considered from the closeness of their kinship to the deceased ariki. Pedigrees were recited and threshed out by the district chiefs and relatives. A decision was made, not by voting or counting, but by the consensus of opinion indicated by the speakers, who based their arguments on kinship and suitability. Such an election is described by Lamont (15, p. 277).

A few days afterwards a near relation of the late Opaka made his appearance from Ruahara, and created a considerable sensation. The day after his arrival I was summoned by O Pai Tangata to Haka Shusha. As I proceeded to that solitary part of the island, I found all the people hastening in the same direction, but keeping a mysterious silence as to the cause of the meeting. I soon discovered, however, that it was to appoint an Iriki in place of Opaka. He having died without male issue, my father and the Ruahara chief were the principal competitors for the position of the departed Iriki. After much discussion, it was finally arranged that our new friend should rule over the territory of Haka Shusha (depopulated when conquered by Opaka, and now again raised to a separate kingdom), and that my father should be monarch of Sararak.

O Pai Tangata (?), Lamont's adoptive father, was chief of Tahiti, a subdistrict in Mangarongaro. Lamont's use of “Sararak” as a territorial name could not be explained by my informants. They maintained that the large island was divided into two divisions known as Mangaringaro and Hakasusa (Lamont's “Haka Shusha”). The form of the word “Sararak” with a final consonant is incorrect. The only word my informant could think of was Hakasari, which was not a land division. However, the method of selection by discussion is indicated, and also the diplomatic method of reconstituting the old territory of Hakasusa and, by satisfying the two claimants, avoiding war.

No elaborate ceremony such as occurred in the Cook Islands and in the Society Islands seems to have been associated with the investiture of the ariki title. Among the functions of the marae there was no ceremony of raising the ariki. After the selection a feast was held, as described by Lamont (15, p. 277).

Coconuts, in all their stages—from the young vai to the cooked uto—were placed in neat baskets, ornamented in a way I had never seen before, and, after passing through various hands, during which prayer was muttered over them, they, together with orora and fish, were laid at the feet of both the chiefs, who did ample justice to the repast.

The use of all stages of the coconut, together with roro (“orora,” coconut cream) showed that the full resources of food supply had been called upon to mark the occasion. The special ornamentation of the food baskets, with the recital of incantations, are special features of which I could get no detail. Lamont (15, p. 183) states that after ceremonies which consisted of officiating on a marae and being fed with turtle cooked at another marae he became a person of importance and bore the title of “Iriki.” The marae ceremonies were probably his official reception at Motu-unga and had nothing to do with the investiture of a title which could only have been honorary.

Mr. S. Savage, Registrar of the Court at Rarotonga, writes me that at one period an ariki named Turua asserted himself ariki of the whole atoll. During his term any turtles caught were taken first to Turua. This ariki is evidently the Turua in Table 6, generation 11. He was a direct descendant of the two ariki, Pohatu and Poaru, and probably claimed the power of the two ariki titles in his own person. He was evidently strong enough to maintain his position, as evidenced by his exaction of the turtle tribute. Later, in the period of Maireriki, the turtle tribute was not exacted, and each chief or individual was entitled to keep what he caught. The power also passed more into the hands of the heads of the territorial groups.

The lesser chiefs who ruled over districts and smaller islands were referred to as tangata maro kura (men with red girdles). The use of a red maro was not known, and it is evident that no such girdle could be made from the material available in Tongareva. The term must, therefore, have been derived from the usage in Tahiti of girding certain ariki with maro composed of bark cloth covered with red feathers. The memory of the custom was carried over to Tongareva, and the term was used as an honorary title but widened in its application to chiefs who were not ariki.

In another class within the community were the priests, or taura. The term taura corresponds to the taula atua of western Polynesia. Like the taula atua, the taura, were the mediums of certain lesser gods who were invoked for assistance in cases of sickness, war, and economic and social troubles. The acceptance of Christianity has led to the suppression of details concerning the office of taura. It is uncertain whether the office was hereditary in certain families or whether individuals received a special call. There was evidently a special inauguration, for Tupou Isaia states that one of the functions of the marae was the raising of the priest (hikianga taura).

Although not constituting a class, certain individuals noted for their knowledge and power of seeing into the future (mata kite) were known as karakia. The term karakia in the Maori dialect means an incantation, which in Tongareva is termed hai. It is evident that in Tongareva the meaning of karakia has been diverted to apply, not to the actual incantation, but to the person who possessed a knowledge of them.

The power of the chiefs and ariki was restricted and depended largely on the wealth of their food lands and the support they received from their people. The communities were comparatively small, and the resources of the atoll would not encourage the development of an elaborate ceremonial like that which was built up around similar positions in the larger and richer volcanic islands.

The Gods

The only information obtained regarding a creation myth was contained in the introduction to a genealogical recital. (See p. 21.) Descent is referred back to the region of the heavens and to “the line of Atea.” The incantation concludes by referring to “te aoanga a Atea ma Hakahotu” (the creation of Atea and Hakahotu). Atea and Hakahotu are thus regarded as the primary parents from whom the earliest stock in Tongareva takes its origin. Atea means light, and the space above the earth which extends upward to the star-studded sky. Hakahotu means literally, “to cause to take material form,” and in the Tongarevan mind is referred to the solid earth. Tupou Isaia held that they represented exactly the same conception as the Maori primary parents, Rangi (Sky-father) and Papa (Earth-mother). Atea represented the male principle and Hakahotu the female. Their union resulted in an aoanga (coming forth into the ao, or world) of eleven offspring, Tane, Tangaroa, Te Kapua, Mauri, Rongonui, Tahaki, Te Porourangi, Te Tou, Maru, Hakapeka, and Putahi-aitu. Tane, Tangaroa and Rongo also appear as sons of Rangi and Papa in New Zealand, and of Vatea and Papa in Mangaia, thus showing the identity of the primary parents in the three regions. In both New Zealand and Mangaia the members of the first generation of offspring from the primary parents were regarded as gods. In New Zealand they numbered as many as 70; in Mangaia they numbered only 6. Tane, Tangaroa, and Rongo were definitely regarded as gods in the neighboring Cook Islands and Society Islands, and also in distant Hawaii. The attitude of the Tongarevans to the eleven children of Atea and Hakahotu is not clear. Pa, in relating the story of the slaying of Tonu, who killed his own wife, Sokoau, stated that the avenging brothers were protected from interference by Tonu's people through the manamana (power) of Tangaroa and Tane. Supernormal powers are thus attributed to them. On the other hand, the names of the four gods who were invoked by the priests do not coincide with any of the eleven children of Atea except for Rongo, who, however, appears under the name, Rongo-poa, and not Rongo-nui.

The name, Tahaki, one of the offspring of Atea and Hakahotu, is the same as that of a widely known human ancestor who appears in the pedigrees of other Polynesian areas at a time much more recent than that of the primary parents. It is likely that in the assembling of disjointed fragments of myth and tradition, Tahaki has been post-dated.

The human stock is derived from Te Porourangi. (See p. 18.)

The functioning gods enumerated by my informants are four: Kaveau, Te Maui, Matangi, and Rongo-poa. These gods were stated to be invisible (e atua kitea kore) except to the priests (e kitea e na taura). To make up for this invisibility, the priests (taura) made material representations of the gods in coconut leaf, feathers, wood, or human hair.

The coconut leaf representations were evidently made for the single occasion on which they were used. In describing the marae ceremony at Mangarongaro Lamont (15, p. 122) says that three small branches from a young coconut tree were plaited into a shape resembling a man. After use they were thrown away on a rubbish heap. A Tautuan informant stated to me that coconut leaves were plaited to represent roughly a human form, and that these were hung over some of the upright pillars of the marae during the ceremony. In speaking of the various things made from the coconut palm Lamont (15, p. 155) says: “The images of their gods are also made from this, to them, most invaluable tree.” As he does not describe any image made out of coconut wood, it is to be presumed that he was referring to the coconut leaf representations.

The feather form of representation is described by Lamont (15, p. 180) as follows:

After an extra quantity of yelling and dancing, an old priest entered the mara-house, and brought forth a long stick, with an immense bundle of feathers and other things tied at one end, like a huge duster or mop. This he held aloft in fear and trembling, whilst he uttered some incantations, striking it, not against a stone, as the leafy gods were struck on a former occasion, but against the back of the other officiating priest. The broomstick or mop was, in fact, the representative of one of their great leading gods, of whom there are four; two good and two bad. The two good gods give life, and all that is necessary to its preservation—gifts which the other two are constantly endeavoring to counteract.

Lamont subsequently saw the feather god used in the treatment of sickness on the marae at Motu-unga.

The wood and hair representation is also mentioned by Lamont (15, p. 181): “One of the amiable spirits is married and I even saw his spouse at a deathbed scene, in the form of a piece of wood, with a lock of human hair fastened at one end.”

Lamont's statement that there were four gods agrees with the information obtained in the field. Of these, Kaveau was evidently one of the bad gods, for he was appealed to by warriors to weaken their enemies. The warriors' invocation was, “Kaveau e, suia te manava o———” (“O Kaveau, sweep away the heart of ———”). The name of the enemy was mentioned, and if Kaveau inclined his ear to the invocation the courage of the enemy was so weakened that he easily succumbed in battle.

Rongo-poa is listed by Lamont as one of the good gods, for he was associated with the production of food. His sign was the large kai moth. If the moth appeared flapping its wings in a manner that suggested the carrying of a heavy burden it was the sign of a plentiful harvest (tarutaru) of coconuts. The people, on perceiving the sign, called joyously, “Teia a Rongo e te tarutaru” (Here is Rongo with a plenteous harvest). As Rongo, the brother of Tangaroa and Tane, appears in New Zealand, Mangaia and elsewhere as the god of food, it is clear that Rongo-poa is another form for Rongo-nui. No information was obtained as to the functions of the two remaining gods, Te Maui and Matangi.

The definite use of the feather representatives on the Motu-ungan marae leads to the conclusion that the plaited coconut leaves used on Mangarongaro marae wer also representatives of the gods. The plaited green coconut material was not kept, whereas the more permanent feather representations (and probably the wood and hair forms) were preserved in the sacred houses (hare hui atua) on the maraes.

The older primary gods, such as Tangaroa and Tane, were succeeded by the four gods in active use, of which three were later creations whose influence was purely local. The creation of later gods is characteristic of Polynesian culture, and the loss of function of the older gods in Tongarevan culture is in keeping with the confusion in their myths and traditional history which may be attributed to the lack of scholars and priests among the early settlers.

Religious Procedure