![]() ![]() ![]() I have a great number of such lines from Toroa, given by persons of both the Tuhoe and Ngati-Awa tribes. Reckoning on the basis of twenty-five years to the generation this would mean twenty-two generations ago, whereas the Tuhoe genealogies from Toroa do not approach that number. The date of the latter event is usually placed by writers at about - 40 the year 1350 or five hundred and fifty years ago. ![]() And yet Nga-potiki were according to all traditions, in occupation of Tuhoeland long before Matatua arrived. The concrete fact is that Nga-potiki traditional history begins with Potiki I., who flourished about fifteen or sixteen generations ago, or say four hundred years ago, i.e., about the year 1500. The next five, and including Hine-pukohu-rangi are, if not mythical, utterly unknown as those of persons, that is to say no record exists of the whence of such persons, their abiding places, or actions in the world of life. ![]() The first seven names are purely mythical. We will now look at the origin of Potiki that is given by Tuhoe whenever questioned upon the subject. It may, or may not, be a fact, but there is no proof of it. When I reflect that no other members of the Tuhoe tribe can give the descent of Potiki from Toi, then I must return to my original view, viz., that no such descent can be proved. Observe the different places assigned to Whatonga, Hine-ruarangi and Te Maunga. Toi Rauru, Whatonga, Māhu, Māhu-rangi, Māhu-tapoa-nui, Hine-pukohu-rangi, Tukutuku, Hekeheke, Uaua, Hine-ruarangi = Te Maunga, Potiki I. They therefore handed in the following genealogy:-įamily Tree. Nga-potiki of old held no sway over that land, but as Tuhoe are Nga-potiki, as well as Tini o Toi, they wished to prove tkat Potiki I. When Tuhoe claimed a certain block of land before a Native Land Court, they claimed under Toi, i.e., as descendants of Toi, as the land, in ancient times was held by descendants of Toi, and conquered by - 39 Tuhoe, who are also descended from Toi. Several glaring cases of this nature have come under my own notice. False genealogies are not infrequently given by natives for the above purpose. One man only has given such a descent for Potiki, and I place but little faith in that, as it was given in a Native Land Court in support of a claim for certain lands. I say never because no native seems to know it when asked. 3, 6, 7, 8), but Potiki is never given as a descendant of Toi. Connections by intermarriage between Nga-potiki and Te Tini o Toi were numerous since the time of Potiki (see Genealogical Tables, Nos. would also be a descendant of that well known ancestor. As all other original tribes in their vicinity, except, perhaps, Te Hapu-oneone, were derived from Toi, it would be thought that Potiki I. But the origin of Potiki, the founder of the tribe, is a lost quantity. Their descent from Toroa, and other Matatua migrants, by intermarriage, is plain and indisputable. The descent of the people from Te Tini o Toi, Te Hapu-oneone, and other original tribes, by intermarriage, is clear to all. is entirely mythical and, although believed by his descendants, is absurd to us. This is a very singular state of things to find in connection with a Maori tribe, and needs some explanation, inasmuch as we know the Maori to be most accomplished and conservative genealogists. The descent of the people from Potiki I., otherwise known as Potiki-tiketike, is quite clear, but the origin of Potiki I. In examining the traditions of Nga-potiki, or Tuhoe, one is struck by the absence of clearness in the accounts of the origin of Nga-potiki as Nga-potiki, i.e., as to the origin of Potiki the first, from whom the tribe derived their name. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |