“A NEW THEORY OF POLYNESIAN ORIGINS.”
A REVIEW.
UNDER the above title our fellow member, Dr. Dixon, of Harvard University, publishes in “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,” Vol. LIX., p. 261, some conclusions he has come to by the study of some of the crania derived from the area occupied by the Polynesian race.
After pointing out that the first enquirers into this subject had come to the conclusion that the Polynesians, from the connection of their language with that of the Malay, were a branch of the latter people, he proceeds to discuss the matter from the anthropometric point of view.
We may say just here that although there are undoubtedly some words in Malay that are connected with the Polynesian language, a careful analysis of the two made by the late Mr. Wm. Churchill, of the Carnegie Institution, Washington, resulted in his declaring that 250 words at the outside showed any connection, either as similar words or as words that probably had the same roots. If we state the census of Polynesian words that have been collected at the very low estimate of 25,000 words, this would give us a percentage of only one per cent.—not, we submit, a sufficient percentage on which to base a racial connection. In addition to this we have the many differences in the characters of the two races; the morose Malay and the laughter-loving and yet dignified Polynesian. There is, we think, another explanation of this connection between the two peoples other than language.
The author then goes on to describe the methods adopted by him, and shows that the measurements resolve themselves into groups of .… “fundamental or primitive types, while those having one or more of their indices medial in value, were the result of crossings or blending of the fundamental type” … “When, moreover, the same methods of analysis were applied to the data from Melanesia, Micronesia, Australia and Indonesia, and carried on into the eastern portion of the Asiatic continent, it was found that these fundamental types and their derivations, and no others, made up the population of - 80 
the vast majority of the population of this whole great area, although the different elements were combined in very different proportions in the various parts of the field. By viewing the problem whole in this way, the conviction grew that the racial history of the Oceanic area could be logically and satisfactorily explained by a series of waves of fundamental or derived types spreading from west to east throughout the whole area. The theory of a series of successive waves bringing different types into Oceania is, of course, in no sense new, the novelty of the present results lies in the character and ultimate affiliation of the fundamental types assumed.”
the vast majority of the population of this whole great area, although the different elements were combined in very different proportions in the various parts of the field. By viewing the problem whole in this way, the conviction grew that the racial history of the Oceanic area could be logically and satisfactorily explained by a series of waves of fundamental or derived types spreading from west to east throughout the whole area. The theory of a series of successive waves bringing different types into Oceania is, of course, in no sense new, the novelty of the present results lies in the character and ultimate affiliation of the fundamental types assumed.”The outcome of the author's investigations results in, “The underlying and probably historically the oldest of the fundamental types in Polynesia is one which, so far as crania alone are concerned, is practically identical with that of the Negrito. .….” “The geographical distribution of this Negrito type as it may tentatively be called, is significant, but at the same time puzzling, for it survives in any strength only in the Hawaiian Islands, and there seems concentrated in Kauai, the northernmost of the Group. The influence of the type in derivative forms may be traced in most of the other marginal groups in the east and south of Polynesia, but, on the basis of our very scanty data from Tonga and Samoa, seems to be absent in the west.”
The question arises here as to whether the author's hypothesis as expressed above is born out by the traditions of the Polynesian people themselves—whether there is any trace in these traditions of a race foreign to themselves as at some time occupying either Hawaii or Eastern Polynesia. We may observe that the ordinary anthropologist who has no personal knowledge of a race like the Polynesians, is very apt to discount the value of any statements derived from tradition. Whenever such “arm-chair” anthropologists do by chance come into contact with the native races, knowing nothing of their languages or history, they have to trust to interpretors, more often than not people who have a superficial knowledge of a language sufficient for every day wants, but have no knowledge whatever of the more refined ideas of the natives, and to whom the self-respecting native would look upon it as “throwing pearls before swine” to communicate, what is to them, information which is frequently of a semi-sacred nature. In other cases these same gentlemen pay short visits and have to trust to some native to answer his questions in pigeon-English, or some other dialect of the “Beche-la-mar.” There are some notable instances of the results which flow from such conferences. It is an absurdity to suppose that the best informed natives will disclose to strangers the higher knowledge of their well preserved traditions—to any one who comes along, and has to trust to such means as indicated to obtain authentic information. No, the learned of the native races must have - 81 a knowledge of, and confidence in, his interlocator before he will freely part with his knowledge. Luckily we have had such men as collectors of Polynesian traditions, and the matter thus secured thereby has a value unknown to the “arm-chair” anthropologist. 1
a knowledge of, and confidence in, his interlocator before he will freely part with his knowledge. Luckily we have had such men as collectors of Polynesian traditions, and the matter thus secured thereby has a value unknown to the “arm-chair” anthropologist. 1Now there appears to be some traditional evidence which supports the author's theory, though, as we shall point out, there is another possible explanation of it. So far as the Hawaii Group is concerned we have only to turn to Fornander's “Polynesian Race” to find several references to the Menehune people, who are said to have lived in that group in ancient times, and who are described as a dark and little people, as great workers, often living in the mountainous parts, and who worked for the Polynesian people in the building of fish-ponds, making irrigation canals, etc. Again we have in Mr. Thos. G. Thrums' “Story of the race of people called Menehune of Kauai Island”—published in this “Journal,” Vol. XXIX., page 70, further evidence of this people who were not Polynesians. Unfortunately the description of them is meagre, and wanting in detail; the account of them might apply either to Negritos or to Melanesians, though, judging from all we know of Hawaiian history, the Negrito theory is more probable, for Hawaiians have apparently had little to do with Melanesia.
When we come to Eastern Polynesia we have equally somewhat similar storys as to a race occupying Tahiti who were not Polynesians, and who are known by the same name as those of Hawaii, i.e., Manahune. In very ancient times, as we learn from Miss Teuira Henry—the first of Tahitian scholars, now, alas! passed on—that these people occupied the position of serfs, and that they were a small people. So long ago as thirty-eight generations past they had a high chief named Ta'aroa-manahune from whom sprung lines of chiefs now living. Unfortunately the personal description of these people is not given.
Again in the Rarotongan history of their great chief Tangiia, who flourished in the thirteenth century, and who at one time lived at Tahiti, among the tribes who were under his rule we have the name of Mana'une, and some of these tribes are mentioned as a little people, but no other particulars are given. There is at the present day a tribe in Mangaia Island called Mana'une; and the Maoris of New Zealand have a traditional knowledge of such a people, named by them - 82 Manahune, the word meaning a cicatrize on the flesh, such as the Melanesians adorn themselves with. 2
Manahune, the word meaning a cicatrize on the flesh, such as the Melanesians adorn themselves with. 2We have from Maori records a description of the people of Ra'iatea Island of the Society Group in the times of Whatonga, who flourished in the thirteenth century. The following is the description of the three or four kinds of man-kind, as handed down in the Maori College of teaching:— 3
- 1st. A light colored people with light colored, somewhat reddish hair—but not like that of Europeans. 4
- 2nd. Another was a short, stout, but well built people; both men and women walked with an upright carriage.
- 3rd. The other people had dull reddish hair—but not like that of white people—which was thick, straight and stiff. Some of the people had their hair in little curls, or crisp, and were reddish in their skins, and lean, thin in growth, their legs were short in the calves, and muscular.
- 4th. Another people had dark skins, and were very dark in color, with the hair standing out from the head, the hair was very dark, the faces flat with flat noses, the nostrils flattened out below, with overhanging prominent eyebrows; their legs were thin, with small calves; they were lean, little flesh, but much bone. They were quite small in stature.
Quite possibly the old teacher has got somewhat mixed up in his description of these people. But part of it would apply (the fourth description) to Negritos; other parts to the Melanesians.
The descriptions we have of the tangata-whenua, or original settlers of New Zealand, will apply to Melanesians, crossed with Polynesians, rather than to a Negrito race. Who the light haired, light skinned people were, our investigations have so far not resulted in any solution. But the Maoris hold, it was from them the urukehu, or light haired people, still seen occasionally among them, are descended.
- 83 THE SECOND, OR MELANESIAN ELEMENT.
Our author says, “Second in historical sequence, probably, is the Dolichocephalic, Hypsicephalic, Platyrhine type, whose approximate affiliations lie with the negroid population of Melanesia and Australia. That some element of the Melanesian character had entered into the Polynesian complex has long been recognised, but has usually been explained as due to the absorption of a certain amount of Melanesian blood by the Polynesian ancestors in the course of their migrations through or along the margin of Melanesia. The geographic distribution of crania of this type, as shown by the present study, seems to show this view to be practically untenable, 5 and to lead to the conclusion that a stratum of relatively pure Austro-Melanesian type must have preceded the “Polynesians” in Polynesia. For like the Negrito type, this also is marginal in its occurrence; and while the Negrito type survives most strongly in Hawaii in the north, this [? the Melanesian] appears in greatest strength in Easter Island on the eastern margin of the area. It makes its influence felt in the northern islands of the Hawaiian Group, in the Marquesas and Central Polynesia, and plays a notable part in New Zealand, where there is interesting evidence to show that one of its most common derivations, very numerous throughout Melanesia, has played a double rôle, entering into the composition of the Maori people not only at an early date, but reappearing again much later as a relatively recent factor in the make-up of that extremely complex people.”
So far, the author's ideas as to the Melanesian element in the present Polynesian people: Is there any evidence from tradition to support his views?
With regard to the Hawaii Group—we write this with diffidence—if we exclude the references to the Menehune, which, if anything, must refer to the Negrito element, we do not know of any thing in the published traditions that might be construed as referring to Melanesians. In fact, judging from the recorded routes of the migrations to Hawaii, the ancient navigators went straight across the Pacific from Indonesia and never were near the Melanesian Islands, properly so called, i.e., The Solomons, New Hebrides, Fiji, etc. Just here we may say that it is probable Hawaiian scholars are sometimes mistaken in assuming that the name Kahiki 6 always means Tahiti in Eastern Polynesia. We know from the well preserved Maori traditions, supported as they are by those of Rarotonga, that there are two Tahitis in Indonesia. When the Hawaiian traditions speak - 84 of Kahiki-ku and Kahiki-moe (east and west Kahiki) they probably refer to Tawhiti-nui and Tawhiti-roa of the Maoris, places that are certainly in Indonesia. It might have been in these places that the Hawaiian voyagers came across either Papuans or Melanesians, and brought some of them as crews across the Pacific. But this is assumption, not tradition.
of Kahiki-ku and Kahiki-moe (east and west Kahiki) they probably refer to Tawhiti-nui and Tawhiti-roa of the Maoris, places that are certainly in Indonesia. It might have been in these places that the Hawaiian voyagers came across either Papuans or Melanesians, and brought some of them as crews across the Pacific. But this is assumption, not tradition.With regard to Melanesians in Eastern Polynesia, the description of some of the people of Ra'iatea Island (already quoted) as they were found by Whatonga, the Maori ancestor, on his enforced visit to that island somewhere about the beginning of the thirteenth century, might easily fit the Melanesians.
At a later date than that of Whatonga, or in the times of the Rarotongan ancestor Tangiia, who dwelt a large part of his life in Tahiti—about the middle of the thirteenth century—we have the names of the several tribes under that distinguished navigator, which, though described merely as “little people” may also include some Melanesians in that term, as well as the Mana'une. But this again is assumption, though at the same time there are reasons for thinking that some of the crews, brought from Fiji by Tangiia to Tahiti, were Melanesians.
Whilst on the subject of Tahiti, and in order to place the suggestion on record, attention is drawn to a later date than that of Tangiia, to the middle of the fourteenth century, when the “Taki-tumu” migration to New Zealand was on the point of starting. The very full account of this migration, to be found in our “Memoirs,” Vol. IV., p. 205, describes three of the tribes living adjacent to the people about to migrate, by names, which, in an earlier account are used as descriptive of “a lanky, thin people.… dark, and not like the Maoris.” So it is possible that some of the (? Melanesians) were still to the fore in Tahiti at the time of the departure of the “Taki-tumu” canoe for New Zealand.
With regard to the Marquesas, Mangareva, and Easter Islands, so far as is known, no traditions are extant that would tend to support to Dr. Dixon's conclusions; though it is quite possible the strange and unknown element that exists in the adjacent Paumotu Group may be a Melanesian one.
This supposition is based on the considerable difference that exists in the Paumotu dialect between it and other dialects of Polynesia. It is also possible there may be something in the Easter Island tradition of the “long eared” people that is said to have occupied that island prior to the advent of the Polynesians in those parts—a date which is somewhat prior to the eleventh century. A writer in “Man,” reviewing Mrs. Scoresby Routledge's “Mystery of Easter Island,” comes to the conclusion that the culture of that island is akin to that of the Melanesian-Solomon Islanders, but he gives no - 85 evidence in support of his ideas. And Mrs. Scoresby Routledge herself supplies a picture of an Easter Island carving, and compares it with a figure from the Solomon Islands, showing great similarity in design. After all, traditional evidence from the extreme Eastern Polynesia is weak and unsatisfactory.
evidence in support of his ideas. And Mrs. Scoresby Routledge herself supplies a picture of an Easter Island carving, and compares it with a figure from the Solomon Islands, showing great similarity in design. After all, traditional evidence from the extreme Eastern Polynesia is weak and unsatisfactory.We wonder if the author has considered the statement of Oviedo, the Spanish historian of the conquests of Central America? In referring to Balboa's discovery of black people on the coast of Panama, he says, they were a tribe of dark skinned, heavily tattooed people with frizzled hair, that were not African negroes—indeed how should African negroes have ever reached the shores of the Pacific so early as 1513? Were it not for the statement that these people were frizzled haired, one might have thought them Polynesians, and it would seem probable that they were the crews of Polynesian chiefs brought from Melanesia.
We may touch on the question as to whether the author's idea that New Zealand Maoris have a strong Melanesian strain in them. The idea is not new; it has often been stated so; but until the second volume of our “Memoirs” was published, the question was largely suppositional. In the documents incorporated in that volume, matter derived from the teachings of the old priests in the Whare-wānanga, or House of teaching, we find descriptions of the first settlers in these islands.
It was about the years 900 to 925 that Kupe, the Eastern Polynesian navigator, discovered New Zealand. He sailed all round both islands exploring and searching everywhere for inhabitants, or signs of man, and found none, as the narrative repeatedly states. When Toi-te-huatahi, the first Eastern Polynesian to settle here permanently arrived in the middle of the thirteenth century, he found the west coast of the North Island from south of Cape Egmont, up to the North Cape and along the East Coast to about Poverty Bay, settled by a people differing from his own Polynesian people in several respects. The description of these people has been preserved and is to be found in the volume quoted above, page 71, from which the following is copied. These people had various tribal names but are alluded to, as a general name, as the Tangata-whenua, or “people of the land.” From many considerations it is clear they arrived in New Zealand not long after Kupe's discovery of the islands, and moreover had in early times also settled the South as well as the North Island.
The description of these people is as follows: “It was some time after Kupe's return to Rarotonga that a different people came to New Zealand; they were a very different people. They were a thin, upright, tall people, large framed, with big bones and tall, with thin calves to their legs, with protuberant knees. Their faces were flat, the eyes glancing out of the corners. The nose was flat in the bridge, - 86 the ridge narrow, with bulging nostrils, and blunt. The hair was straight; with some it was very lank. The skin was purplish-black. They stuck close to their fires, sleeping constantly. Their houses were lean-to-sheds. On cold days they wore kilts, and on hot days aprons of leaves, or went quite naked. . … They were called Pakiwara (naked), or Kiri-whakapapa (black skins).” They had arms differing from the Maoris, and were a treacherous people. The names of many of the subdivisions of these people have been preserved; they differ from the Maori tribal names a good deal, and it has been suggested (loc. cit., p. 77) that these show somewhat of a totemistic tendancy, a common Melanesian feature.
the ridge narrow, with bulging nostrils, and blunt. The hair was straight; with some it was very lank. The skin was purplish-black. They stuck close to their fires, sleeping constantly. Their houses were lean-to-sheds. On cold days they wore kilts, and on hot days aprons of leaves, or went quite naked. . … They were called Pakiwara (naked), or Kiri-whakapapa (black skins).” They had arms differing from the Maoris, and were a treacherous people. The names of many of the subdivisions of these people have been preserved; they differ from the Maori tribal names a good deal, and it has been suggested (loc. cit., p. 77) that these show somewhat of a totemistic tendancy, a common Melanesian feature.The old priest and teacher, through whose means the above details have been preserved, winds up one of his contributions thus:—(Loc. cit., p 271) “You must understand, the tribes of this island are descended by inter-marriage with the people named” (he then recites the tribal names of the Tangata-whenua people, and adds those of the leaders of the first migration here of the Eastern Polynesians). He goes on, “And remember that we all descend from Toi (the first Eastern Polynesian to settle here) his offspring and those Tangata-whenua people mentioned above. We have in us the blood of those people who occupied this land before Toi and his descendants . … because it was through the women of those tribes they had descendants. This fact cannot be contradicted. Those of the Tangata-whenua who kept separate and did not inter-marry with the migrations at the period of Hotu-roa and others (circa 1350), were exterminated by the last comers . … and their young women served as wives to the migrants.”
The story of the expulsion of those Tangata-whenua who did not become incorporated in the Polynesian tribes, is well known. These people were expelled from the West Coast, North Island, and fled to the Chatham Islands where they became the people called Moriori, now nearly extinct. This event occurred about 1150. It must be remembered, however, that there have been probably two migrations of Eastern Polynesians to the Chatham Islands at a date subsequent to the arrival there of the people expelled from New Zealand, and inter-marriage between these two peoples would naturally modify the appearance of the original settlers there. Were it not for the fact that these Moriori people were subsequently intermixed with migrants of the purer Polynesians from Eastern Polynesia, their crania should show fairly well the Melanesian element in them. As a matter of fact it does show, as we may gather from the observations of Prof. J. H. Scott, Professor of Anatomy, Otago University, described in “Journal Polynesian Society,” Vol. 6., p. 82 (note), and more fully in “Transactions, New Zealand Institute,” Vol. XXVI., p. 62. After an examination of over two hundred Maori and forty-six Moriori - 87 skulls he comes to the conclusion, as abbreviated, as follows:—“The description of the Maori skull contained in the preceding pages agrees in all essentials with that already given by previous observers. … If any further proof were wanted of the mixed origin of the Maori race, it is given in this paper. … These demonstrate two distinct types and intermediate forms. At the one extreme we have skulls approaching the Melanesian form as met with in the Fiji Group .… At the other are skulls of the Polynesian type, such as are common in Tonga and Samoa” … Probably the above very much abbreviated account is sufficient to show the Melanesian element in these Tangata-whenua Morioris. Personal observations by the writer some fifty-three years ago, during twelve months residence on the Chatham Islands, and in constant touch with the Moriori people, who were then comparatively numerous, enables one to say that their general appearance, and other things, struck the writer as differentiating them from the Maoris; while a subsequent knowledge of the Niuē Island people tended to the idea that, in ancient times, there had possibly been some connection between the two peoples. These observations were of course of a superficial nature, such as one interested in the Polynesian people generally, but without the scientific knowledge of anthropometry would note.
skulls he comes to the conclusion, as abbreviated, as follows:—“The description of the Maori skull contained in the preceding pages agrees in all essentials with that already given by previous observers. … If any further proof were wanted of the mixed origin of the Maori race, it is given in this paper. … These demonstrate two distinct types and intermediate forms. At the one extreme we have skulls approaching the Melanesian form as met with in the Fiji Group .… At the other are skulls of the Polynesian type, such as are common in Tonga and Samoa” … Probably the above very much abbreviated account is sufficient to show the Melanesian element in these Tangata-whenua Morioris. Personal observations by the writer some fifty-three years ago, during twelve months residence on the Chatham Islands, and in constant touch with the Moriori people, who were then comparatively numerous, enables one to say that their general appearance, and other things, struck the writer as differentiating them from the Maoris; while a subsequent knowledge of the Niuē Island people tended to the idea that, in ancient times, there had possibly been some connection between the two peoples. These observations were of course of a superficial nature, such as one interested in the Polynesian people generally, but without the scientific knowledge of anthropometry would note.As bearing further on the general appearance of the Tangata-whenua people of New Zealand, the following quotation, supplied by Mr. H. Beattie, derived from the, at present, most learned Maori of the South Island, is to the point, particularly as showing that these Southern Maoris were fully aware that the original settlers were of a different appearance to the later migrations of the true Polynesians: J. C. Tikao related to Mr. Beattie the Maori idea that there had been the following immigrations into the South Island:—
- 1. The people known as Hawea, who are said to have been “not much good—an inferior people,” with “dark skins and curly hair.”
- 2. The people called Rapuwai, “who were copper-colored and had ‘lots of ginger hair,’” like the Fijians Tikao had seen at the Christchurch Exhibition (ginger hair means some-what reddish, and we can only suppose he referred to hair colored with lime, which is a custom of the Fijians as with some Polynesians).
- 3. The Waitaha people, “which were a much better people than either of the foregoing.” They were Maoris (i.e., Eastern Polynesians, and we learn from the northern traditions that they came from Tahiti with the other members of the “Takitimu” canoe in circa 1350).
Tikao adds, “The inter-mixture of these peoples of old created four types of Maori as existing when the White man arrived (early nineteenth century), viz.: 1. The Kiri-pango, or dark skins, with straight hair. 2. The Uru-mawhatu, curly-haired with dark skins—but not like that of the negro. 3. The Kiritea, brown, or copper-colored skin and dark hair—if the hair was gingery such a person was called an urukehu” (a type seen everywhere among the Maoris). (Dr. Wyatt Gill says, “the same type in Rarotonga was called ‘Nga tama uruke'u a Tangaroa,’ the light haired descendants of Tangaroa,” god of Ocean, whereby, no doubt hangs a tale.) 4. “The Korakorako, with light skin, light eyes, and whitish hair.” (This is the ordinary albino, occasionally found in all tribes.) So much for the South Island description of mankind that peopled New Zealand. But we have further information from the northern traditions of a race differing from the ordinary Maori. Mr. Elsdon Best, whose observations on the Tuhoe and connected tribes of the Bay of Plenty are so well-known, writing in 1902, says, “Some Melanesians came to New Zealand, for a good reason I expect, for the men would be eaten, and the women retained by the Maoris. They appear to have come with Whiro and others, and are said to have been a black skinned people, speaking a strange tongue. The descendants of Whiro are known as Ngai-Tama-Whiro; they lived at Maheu, near Matata, in the Bay of Plenty, but are now lost as a separate people. Another account says, in times long past a strange people came to Kakaho-roa (the ancient name of Whakatane—not far from Maheu above). They were mangumangu (black skinned people), and spoke a language unlike the Maori tongue; they remained here (for a good reason I expect).”
Now, a good deal is known about Whiro, who was an ancestor of both Maoris and Rarotongans, and was a very noted navigator in his time. He flourished twenty-seven generations ago, or about the early thirteenth century, and to our mind, these dark people were some of the crew of his vessel, either from Fiji, where Whiro had been, or from perhaps the New Hebrides. At that time the Polynesians were very active navigators, passing frequently from the Western to the Eastern Pacific, and northwards to Hawaii. It was a little before the times of Whiro that the old Rarotongan historian records the number of islands visited by these able navigators, and says, “They thereby became able navigators.” It was about one hundred years after Whiro's time that the fleet left Tahiti for New Zealand, following the sailing directions left on record by Kupe, the discoverer of New Zealand. From hints to be found in the too brief narratives of some of the voyages made at this period, we gather that the crews included some of the Melanesian peoples of the Western Pacific.
- 89 In the foregoing notes we have brought together what evidence has been supplied by tradition in support of Dr. Roland B. Dixon's theory; and it is more than probable, that had those who first entered on the work of collecting the traditions made careful enquiry into the subject, much more positive information as to the Melanesian occupation of some of the islands would have been obtained.
But the amount of matter recited above, though apparently supporting the author's theory, is, it is submitted, capable of another explanation. That explanation, in brief form, is that wherever the Melanesian, Negrito or other element in the crania or culture in the North, East, or South Paciffc is found, it is not due to an original and separate occupation by those peoples, but is due rather to the inclusion of some of those people in the crews of the Polynesians, who made serfs of them, and who were of a much lower grade either in culture or warlike ability. The only traditional record of what might, on a cursory view, be classed as a Melanesian migration, is that of the Tangata-whenua of New Zealand; but it is quite obvious that these people, while having a strong Melanesian element in them, were in reality a mixed race—a Melanesio-Polynesian people. This much is fairly certain from the few words of their language handed down, but more particularly from the pure Polynesian place-names due to that people that have been preserved. And we hold that it was the Polynesian element in that people that enabled them to navigate their vessels from the Western Pacific to New Zealand.
Can it be shown on reliable evidence that the Melanesians ever made such extensive voyages as would have enabled them to reach the distant and solitary Easter Island? We think there is no such evidence forthcoming. So far as it is available, the Melanesians never made voyages other than what may be called coasting trips among the islands of their own groups.
The author says (p. 264), “That some element of Melanesian character had entered into the Polynesian complex has long been recognised, but has usually been explained as due to the absorption of a certain amount of Melanesian blood by the Polynesian ancestors in the course of their migration through, or along the margin of Melanesia. The geographical distribution of the crania of this type, as shown by the present study, seems to show this view to be practically untenable (the italics are ours), and to lead to the conclusion that a stratum of relatively pure Austro-Melanesian type must have preceded the Polynesian in Polynesia.”
This “practically untenable” theory, as the author calls it, is to our mind, the one that specially accounts for the Melanesian element in the Polynesians. So far as tradition goes, we have to account for the proceedings of the Polynesians from the period at which they left Indonesia early in the Christian era, until we find them located in the - 90 Lau Islands (and probably other adjacent groups of Fiji) somewhere about the end of the fourth century. And we hold that it was during this long period they were in close touch with the Melanesians of the Solomon, New Hebrides, and other groups, conquering and absorbing many of those people, and carrying them with them as crews for their canoes, and as serfs. It is thus we should account for the Melanesian element in Eastern and Southern Polynesia, rather than by separate migrations of which there is no evidence.
Lau Islands (and probably other adjacent groups of Fiji) somewhere about the end of the fourth century. And we hold that it was during this long period they were in close touch with the Melanesians of the Solomon, New Hebrides, and other groups, conquering and absorbing many of those people, and carrying them with them as crews for their canoes, and as serfs. It is thus we should account for the Melanesian element in Eastern and Southern Polynesia, rather than by separate migrations of which there is no evidence.Of the other theory accounting for the population of the Pacific Islands, by ancient land connetions, we can only suggest that the evidence of such connection within the period of human occupation of that part of the world, is at present wanting.
- i Page is blank
- ii Page is blank 
SKETCH OF MAORI CARVING FOUND IN KAITAIA SWAMPIllustration
1 Dr. Roland B. Dixon will understand that the above remarks do not apply to him—he is not that kind of anthropologist.
2 Since the above was written, we find in an interesting paper on the Religion of Tonga, by Mr. E. E. V. Collocot (which will appear later on) that the Tongans were acquainted with this name Manahune under the form Meneuli, but by them applied to a place in east Tonga. The name there is Haa-Meneuli, and the question arises as to whether this name did not mean a people originally, for we learnt from Dr. Moultan, of Tonga, that Haa, is the same as Samoan Saa, meaning family, or descendants of.
3 See “Memoirs,” Polynesian Society, Vol. IV., page 105.
4 This tradition as to a light colored people dwelling in some of the islands is supported by the records of other tribes—see “J.P.S.,” Vol. V., Supplement, p. 6. At present this fair people is a mystery.
5 See infra.
6 It must be remembered that it was not until the end of the eighteenth century, or beginning of the nineteenth, that the Hawaiians substituted the letter “k” for “t.” Hence Kahiki=Tahiti.
No comments:
Post a Comment