Moorish History of Polynesia
Have you ever wondered why these images were on Hawaii's Coat of Arms?
In the JOURNAL OF THE POLYNESIAN SOCIETY Volume 11 1902 > Volume 11, No. 3 > The whence of the Maori, by Lieut.-Col. Gudgeon, p 179-190, it addresses the autochthonous history of the Maori.
- 179 Part I. It is an interesting subject for research and one on which many opinions have been offered, as to how or in what manner it came to pass, that the ancestors of the Maori people found their way across the broad ocean—known to them as the great Sea of Kiwa—and succeeded in colonising Islands so remote from each other as Hawaii, Rapa-nui (Easter Island) New Zealand and the Chathams. There are writers who apparently incline to the belief that these Polynesian Colonies are the result of mere chance, and that most if not all of the Islands of the Pacific were discovered by wind-tossed errant canoes, that had been driven far out of their course, and so drifted hopelessly on the open sea until by mere good fortune they once more came within sight of land.
It cannot be denied that Islands have been peopled and re-peopled in this manner; and therefore chance may have been one of the factors in this ancient effort to colonise the remote corners of the Earth; but if so, it was certainly the least of them. The writers to whom I have referred have not, I think, sufficiently considered the ancient character and attainments of the Polynesian people, and are prone to regard their migrations from the narrow standpoint of our modern experience; and from this aspect it must be confessed that the modern Maori canoe does appear to be unequal to the transport of men, women, and children, to say nothing of the food and water absolutely necessary for a long sea voyage. I will not now refer to those migrations, which at the present day are recognised as having colonised certain of the Pacific Islands; for that part of my subject will be considered later on. We must first account for the
presence of the Polynesian not only in the Pacific, but also westwards in the Eastern Archipelago, and still further west in Madagascar. We must also try to account for the fact, that certain African tribes have linguistic affinities, which would seem to connect them with the Polynesians.
To localise with some degree of certainty the ancient home or birth-place of the Maori, we must look for a people who are neither Papuan, Malayan, or Dravidian; a race of men who in days long passed were famous as navigators; for it must be conceded that no bolder or more skilful race of Sea Rovers ever existed than the Polynesian progenitors of the true Maori.
If we carefully examine the old traditions of the Pacific, from whatsoever Island they may be drawn we shall find that a voyage such as that from Tahiti to New Zealand, Rapa-nui, or Hawaii was made not only without hesitation, but also on the least possible provocation. In no other way can we account for the large number of canoes, which Maori tradition asserts to have visited the shores of New Zealand. It is moreover obvious, that, as the Maori has not been a trader for the last thousand years of his history,—whatever he may have been previous to that date—these voyages must have been undertaken either from mere motives of curiosity, or from pure love of adventure. My reason for adopting this conclusion is, that though we hear of the visits of many famous Sea Rovers to the Coast of New Zealand, but few of them remained there, at any rate they have left no descendants in that part of the country; we may therefore presume that they were merely passing visitors.
This indifference to the dangers and discomforts incidental to a long and dreary sea-voyage, in vessels that at the best were not more safe, if indeed so safe, as an ordinary whale-boat, must be the result of evolution; only to be attained by a race naturally brave and adventurous. It must indeed be the result of familiarity with danger during many generations, and of minds fortified by the tradition of numerous successful though hazardous voyages.
The Polynesians, including the Maoris of New Zealand, have very distinct traditions to the effect that at a very remote period of their history they migrated East into the Pacific, from a place called Hawaiki,1 and further they speak of subsequent migrations from other places, many of which were called Hawaiki in loving memory of their ancient home. External evidence confirms this tradition, in so far that all through the Pacific we find the name of Hawaiki reproduced under varying forms; such as Habai, Savai'i, and Hawai'i.
In New Zealand we have at least one Hawai,2 and in the great Island of Ceram in the Eastern Archipelago, we have not only the name of Sawai, but also a Polynesian colony living in that neighbourhood, among, but apart from their foreign neighbours.
If the traditions to which I have referred are reliable, we may fairly expect to find evidence thereof; for instance we should find:
1. Colonies of Polynesians on some of the islands of the Malay Archipelago, that being the undoubted route of the migration.
2. We may hope to trace the name of Hawaiki back to its source.
3. We should find some trace of the ancient stock from which the Maori has sprung, and should recognise these people, either by the structure of their language, similiarities of custom, or physical characteristics.
If we are to locate the ancient home of the Maori, we must I think pay special attention to three most important lines of enquiry. We ought to ascertain what ancient people were pre-eminent in maritime enterprise. We ought to locate the origin of the word Maori or Mauri, and, lastly, we should trace back the name of Hawa or Hawaiki to its source.
Many of those writers who have endeavoured to trace the origin of the Polynesians have treated this subject as though it was beyond all doubt that they were Malays. By what method of reasoning they have arrived at this conclusion it is not easy to say; unless indeed their minds have been biased by the fact that some three per cent. of Polynesian words are derived from the Malay.3 Mr. A. R. Wallace, in his fascinating book “The Malay Archipelago,” explains this occurrence by saying that though the brown Polynesians may remotely have been the produce of some Malay or lighter coloured Mongol race, with the dark Papuan; yet, if so, the inter-mingling took place at such a remote epoch, that it has become a fixed and stable race, showing no sign of mongrelism; and he adds “The occurrence of a decided Malay element in the Polynesian language, has evidently nothing to do with any such ancient physical connection. It is altogether a recent phenomenon, originating in the roaming habits of the chief Malay tribes, and this is proved by the fact that we find actual modern words of the Malay and Javanese languages in use in Polynesia so little disguised by peculiarities of pronounciation, as to be easily recognisable. Not mere Malay roots, only to be detected by the
philologist, as would certainly have been the case had their introduction been as remote as the origin of a very distinct race, a race as different from the Malay in mental and moral, as it is in physical characters.” After this expression of opinion on the part of so able a man as the author of “The Malay Archipelago”, we may safely reject the theory, of a Malay origin for the Maoris. We may also put on one side the theory, that the Malay element in the Maori language has any connection with the roaming habits of the former people. That the Malay or some other Mongol tribe, may have a good deal to do with the formation of the tribes now in occupation of the Carolines, and the adjacent Groups is quite possible; but we have no reason to suppose that they ever visited the Eastern Pacific, which is the home of the true Polynesian. Had Mr. Wallace known the last named people and their history, he would probably have arrived at the conclusion, that it was they who had passed through the Eastern Archipelago, and that they had left that locality shortly after the Malays arrived in that neighbourhood.
Mr. Wallace is evidently under the impression that what he terms the brown Polynesian, is but a modification of the Papuan. It must however be remembered that he had not seen the true Polynesian, and probably did not know the radical differences in the structure of the two languages. During his travels in the Archipelago he was on the line of route of the Polynesian migrations, and in some instances actually among colonies of that people; but it seems possible that these tribes, however distant they may have been at one time, must have become more or less modified both in physical type and language by inter-marriage, very much as we find to be the case at Fiji; and therefore Mr. Wallace was not in a position to judge fairly between the Papuan and the Polynesian.
It will not be out of place if I here give Mr. Wallace's description of the Malays with whom he sojourned, for not only was he one of the most competent of modern observers, but he also spent many years among these very people, and therefore enjoyed opportunities, that have fallen to the lot of but few travellers. He describes the Malays as “Impassive in character, exhibiting extreme diffidence and even bashfulness; in stature much below the European, face broad and flat, nostrils broad and slightly exposed, cheek bones prominent. That when alone the Malay is taciturn, and neither talks nor sings to himself. That he is is cautious of giving offence even to his equals, and does not quarrel easily about money matters; he even dislikes asking too frequently for the payment of his just debts.” Mr. Wallace is further of the opinion that the Malay is rather deficient in intellect, and incapable of anything beyond the simplest combination
of ideas. These are the impressions of a man who not only knew the Malays well, but also appreciated their simple kindly character, and he could hardly have described a people more unlike the Polynesian generally, or the Maori especially. Whether physically or mentally we have here a race of men described, who have actually no affinity with the tall and self-assertive, though dignified Polynesians who although intensely appreciative of a joke, would nevertheless resent a liberty as quickly as a Malay; men so tenacious of their rights that they would walk twenty miles to demand a shilling, if they believed it to be justly due to them, and would never cease to demand it so long as it was owing,
That the Maori and other Polynesian tribes have Papuan or Melanesian blood in their veins, is however quite possible; for we have reason to suppose that the migrations dwelt for some years among the Melanesian people of Whiti (Fiji) and other places. There are also a few Maori tribes, such as the Ngati-Hako of the Thames, and in a less degree the Tuhoe, whose features seem to bear witness in favour of an admixture of Mongol blood, but whence derived I cannot say, though it has been suggested to me that it is an inheritance from the old Mongol and Naga stock of the Himalayas. The two tribes I have mentioned are generally admitted to be the descendants of the most ancient of all the migrations to New Zealand, and they may possibly have inter-married with the ancient owners of the land, or on the other hand may have been among the last to migrate from the land of the Malay, and finding that all the islands of Polynesia were occupied, were compelled to push on to New Zealand. Whatsoever the cause, it is very certain that they differ greatly from the Ngati-Maru, Waikato, or other high class tribes.
Mr. Wallace has described the Papuan with the same masterly hand, but it is unnecessary to quote his views on the subject of that race; our interest centres in that portion of his book wherein he describes the so-called alfuros (indigenes). I have already stated that Polynesian tradition affirms, that they migrated into the Pacific by successive stages from the west; settling for a generation or more wherever it suited them to do so, and my chief object in quoting this valuable work is, that if we may judge from the descriptions he has given, there are still Polynesian colonies settled on the route taken by them perhaps twenty centuries ago. Speaking of the Moluccas, he says, “The islands of Obi and Batchian and the three southern peninsulas of Gilolo possess no indigenous population, but the northern peninsula is inhabited by a native race, the so-called Alfuros of Sahoe and Gillela. These people are quite distinct from the Malay, and almost equally so from the Papuan.” This statement he afterwards modifies somewhat, for he says in effect, that in stature, features, disposition and habits,
they are almost Papuans; but that their hair is only semi-Papuan, being crisp and waved and rough, and further that in colour they are even lighter than the Malay.4 Of the Galela men, he says that they are great wanderers over this part of the Archipelago, and that they build large and roomy prahu with out-riggers, and settle on any coast or island they may fancy. He moreover describes them as a very fine race, tall and light complexioned, with Papuan features, more closely resembling the drawings and descriptions of the true Polynesians than any people he had seen. On the plateau of Tondano in Celebes, he found a people as white as the Chinese, with pleasing semi-European features; and of the population of Siau and Sanguir, he remarks that he believes them to be emigrants from northern Polynesia. It did not, of course, occur to Mr. Wallace that the Polynesians, whether northern or southern, had migrated thence into the Pacific, and yet such has been the case. In the great island of Ceram there is a tribe resembling those of northern Gilolo, and there also we find one of their towns or districts, bearing the truly Polynesian name of Sawai. In the small islands Saou and Rotti, west of Timur, there is a peculiar race of people, described by Mr. Wallace as being handsome, with good features, and resembling the progeny of Arabs or Hindus with the Malays, and these people he thinks are certainly distinct from both Papuan and Timurese. The details given of the inhabitants of these two islands, are too meagre, to enable the reader to form an opinion as to their racial affinities; but it is strange that there should be this one isolated case of Arab blood. As to the Hindu blend, it is probably out of the question, since they, of all the races of men, are the most unwilling to trust themselves on the black water. The most reasonable conclusion we can come to as to these people is, perhaps, that when the Polynesians reached these islands they either found them desert or were themselves in such numbers that they found it an easy matter to kill off or otherwise dispose of the indigenes; and therefore it happens that we have here the true Polynesian, without the usual Papuan cross. One thing is at least certain, that if there be men of pure Polynesian blood in the Eastern Archipelago, then they are not likely to be found out of small and isolated islands. Under all other circumstances, matrimonial alliances would be a condition precedent to the existence of an ordinary Maori migration, who, however brave they might be, were numerically weak.
I have already pointed out that the Maoris are not a race of Pacific autochthones; but that they migrated from the west probably some twenty centuries ago, and since that date have gradually occupied every island east of Fiji, even islands so insignificent as the Chathams, for it may not be denied that the Moriori are Polynesians. We have also the independent evidence of Mr. Wallace, who supports these traditions so far that he confirms the route taken by the Polynesians in their migrations towards the rising sun, and proves that there are colonies of that people yet to be seen on the line of route, living among the woolly-haired Papuans, but easily distinguishable from them. I may also point out that it is not a characteristic of the Papuan to devote himself to canoe building, in order that he may travel about from island to island, in the manner mentioned by Mr. Wallace when speaking of the Alfuros. His tendency is rather to live in a state of murderous enmity, with both neighbours and relatives; and that this has been his character for many generations we may infer from the fact, that in one small island there may be as many as five distinct dialects, differing as widely as English does from French; a state of things that shows conclusively that their normal condition had been that of savage isolation. On the other hand, in his description of the Alfuros he has accurately described the class of men, who alone could carry out the great work of colonising the small and distant islands of the Pacific, and by them I think we may say that this work was done.
So far we have traced the Maori or Polynesian backwards from the Pacific into the Eastern Archipelago, and it now remains to follow that ancient trail still further to the west, with the hope of locating the ancient home and race from which the Polynesian has sprung.
There are certain persons, now or lately living in the Pacific, who are entitled to be quoted as authorities on the subject of Polynesian migrations, I will therefore cite the opinions of three of them: namely, the late Judge Fornander, of Hawaii; Mr. Fenton, late Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, New Zealand; and Dr. Carroll, of Sydney. All of these learned authorities trace the Maori in his migrations, either from the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf.
Judge Fornander, who is probably the most reliable authority on the brown races of the Pacific; follows the traditions of Hawai'i, and traces the Maori from “the Tai Meremere a Tane” (the yellow sea of Tane). This opinion it will be seen is not mere conjecture or idle theory, but has been arrived at after profound study of Hawai'ian traditions, which would appear to be superior to the unwritten records of other Pacific islands.
Mr. Fenton, of Auckland, who was an undoubted authority upon Maori subjects, supports Fornander's conclusions so far, that he also
ascribes to the Maori the same origin, and indicates the Sabaeans as the stock from whence they have sprung. He points out that the Sabaeans were notable sea-rovers and merchants, who are known to have visited Java and the East years before the Christian era; and that one of the most powerful sections of these people were the Himyarites, or Mahri who were driven from the continent of Asia by Chosroes the Persian, between the years 560 and 600 A.D. These people, though often called Arabs, were probably not Semitic.5 but of the same stock as the ancient Egyptians, between whom and the Maoris there appears to be a similarity of language which is sufficiently curious to those who consider the distance intervening between Egypt and the Pacific. Let us, however, remember that the ancient ethnical name of Mauri can be traced from the Mauri or Moors of Mauritania, to the Mahri of the Red Sea, to the Mori of Luzon, to the Maruts of Amboyna, and then to the Maori and Mori-ori of the Pacific. A very remarkable combination of circumstances favours Mr. Fenton's theory, since he shows that the tribe expelled was the Mahri, that their city was Saba or as the Maori would call it Hawa and last but by no means least he shows that they were essentially a maritime people; traders who had long known the islands to which they were about to migrate.
The wide distribution of the racial name of Mauri, is a matter the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated; the more so when we find it in almost every instance accompanied by the equally ancient territorial name of Saba, under one or other of its many linguistic disguises. For instance we are told that Singapore was formerly known by the name of Zaba, and the same name appears in both Ava and Java. Sumatra was at one time known as little Java. In the great Island of Ceram we find for the first time Sawa-i (Hawa minor), and in the pacific it is hardly possible to find a group of islands without some one of them bearing the old name of Hawa.
Dr. Samuel Morton—“Indigenous Races of the Earth”—is of opinion that the ancient Egyptians were a Caucasian race, and that their modern representatives are Copts, Tuaricks, Kabyles, and Berbers,—that is so far as the last named three tribes are concerned the very people who were once known as the Mauri. For when speaking of the Lybians he says, “From the most ancient times the Berber, or Amazirg, have been known as the Mauri, the unconquerable man of the desert, who from the earliest times have been an independant group of tribes, as distinct from their neighbours as the
Chinese—living among the Negroes, but not of them, and as unlike their nearest neighbours, the Arabs.” Maury is of opinion that the Joktanide Arabs, who are also called Mahiri, are a Semitic race, but all authors do not agree with him on this point, and perhaps we shall be justified in supposing that he is not right, inasmuch as the Berber are not Semitic, and yet they and the Joktanites equally bear the ethnical name of Mauri.
Dr. Carroll, arguing from ethnological and philosophical grounds only, says, “I trace the Maoris back into Pegu, which in former times was called Hawa, and I find them further back still in Ava, or Awa, on the Irrawadi, in what is now Burmah, where the Mauri, or Mauri-ya, formerly resided. Before that they were in Central India, where the Mauri-ya princes and people have a very interesting history. Previous to that some of these people were settled in Burattu, or Burutu, along the central part of the Euphrates river in Mesopotamia. This is the Pulotu or spirit land of Maori tradition.”6 Here we have not only the name of the ancient home of the Maori people preserved but also their racial name of Mauri.
Dr. Carroll's opinion is not at variance with those of Fenton and Fornander, who hold, I think with reason, that although the Polynesians visited, and probably colonised the shores of Indo-China, and most certainly did occupy many of the islands of the Eastern Archipelago, where their descendants may still be found, yet they are but a migration from far distant lands, and not a people indigenous to those shores or islands. We know that the Hovas of Madagascar are akin to the Polynesian, and Dr. Morton tells us “that the languages of the Soudan have surprised philologers by their Polynesian affinities.” Now this is a matter of the utmost importance, for we may presume affinity of race if we find the grammatical construction of two anguages identical. The language of Polynesia is archaic in form and very singular in its construction, therefore if we find that of the Soudan closely resembling it we have found a very singular thing—that is, we have discovered two nations widely separated from each other, who from their very birth down to the present day have thought exactly in the same grove, for what is language if not the expression of our thoughts?
Men learned in the science of language are of opinion that the mere chance resemblance of a few words in two distinct languages is of but little importance, and were this not the case we might be compelled to consider the claims of the Pamir plateau as the birthplace of the Maori people; for in that very clever work, “Where Three Empires Meet,” the author invariably refers to the cliffs of the Hindu
Kush as the “pari.” Now this is beyond all doubt a Maori word; indeed it is the only word I know that would convey to a Maori mind the idea of cliff or precipice. This may of course be somewhat more than a coincidence, but it would not justify us in assuming that the tribes of that region are of Maori stock. While on this subject I may mention that I have seen it stated that certain tribes of the Himalayas used the word “Punalua” to express the condition of having more than one wife or husband. The Maori uses the word Punarua to describe the condition of having more than one wife.7
In concluding this chapter, I may say that wherever the cradle of the Polynesian race may eventually be decided to be, it cannot alter the fact that a well defined connection exists between the languages of African tribes and those of Polynesia. Unfortunately, we can never know the real history of the Maori people. We can never do more than advance theories founded on traditions, which are but imperfectly known even to the most learned Maoris of the present day, and which, not unfrequently, appear to have been made up for the occasion. The old teachings were sacred by reason of the ceremonies of the whare-kura, wherein the instruction was given, and therefore the missionaries during their brief period of authority—extending from the year 1840 to 1860—discouraged all teaching of ancient lore, and hence much of the old time Maori history has been lost.
If, however, we know but little of old Maori history, it is clear that we know still less of that of Polynesia and its many islands, all of which undoubtedly had a history, even before the Maori appeared on the scene, and complicated matters by destroying the original inhabitants, whose handiwork may yet be seen.
We may well ask, Who were the Anuts, who are known to the Lele islanders, by tradition, as the builders of those Cyclopean enclosures with walls twelve feet in thickness; who are also credited with having made the stone-faced canals of Ualan, Ponape, and other islands in the Western Pacific, and who are said to have been sea rovers, owning immense canoes in which they made voyages of many months duration? Who built the Druidical circle called Fale-o-le-Fe'e on the head waters of the Vai-Singano in Upolu; the cromlech on Ponape, or that of Tongatapu, which differs from all other cromlechs? Who were the builders of the truncated pyramids (Marae) of the Society Islands, or the Heiau, of Hawai'i, such as the Pohaku a Kane? Above all, who
were the Menehune or Manahune people who are said to have built the fish ponds of Molokai? Is it possible that the Manahune were like the Amata of the Chatham Islands, aboriginal inhabitants?; but this is mere surmise. The tendency at the present day is to suppose that all of these questions can be solved, and I quite expect to be informed shortly as to the date on which these things were done, as also the names of the chiefs who did the work, and if I do receive this intelligence I shall not be surprised; but none the less I shall not alter my opinion that the Polynesian did not know all of these things only a short ten years ago. But his education has reached this point, that he is now capable of noting the extreme value we place on minute information, and is inclined to be ashamed that he does not know more of his history. The result of this dual feeling is, that when he really comprehends what you want to know he draws upon his imagination for your benefit.
[Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; and Colonel Gudgeon, who is one of our ablest Maori scholars and historians, seems to think that there was a prior race or races in the Pacific, before the time of the Polynesians. On the other hand we hold the opinion that the Polynesians were the first to occupy the islands where they are now found—with the one exception, perhaps, of Easter Island. The few references to a previous race to be found in Polynesian traditions, are capable of another explanation, which to us is far more reasonable.—Ed.]
(To be continued.)
OBITUARY. We regret to have to announce the death of four of our members since the last publication of the Journal. The Rt. Rev. Dr. W. G. Cowie, Primate of New Zealand, died at Auckland, New Zealand, 26th June, 1902. The late Bishop was one of our original members and founders, and always took an interest in the affairs of the Society, though his numerous and onerous duties prevented his contributing to the Journal. We take the following from the “Taranaki Herald”—The Rev. W. G. Cowie was ordained by Bishop Turton, of Ely, deacon in 1854, priest in 1855. After holding curacies at St. Clements, Cambridge, and Moulton, Suffolk, he was appointed to an army chaplaincy in India, and went to Lucknow with Sir Colin Campbell's army in 1858, being one of the chaplains of the division commanded by Sir Robert Walpole, and was present throughout the operations which ended in the capture of that city. After five years of army chaplain's work in India, he was chaplain to the Viceroy's camp (Lord Elgin) in 1863. After Lord Elgin's death, he was appointed chaplain to Sir Neville Chamberlain's column in the expedition against the Afghan tribes in the end of 1863, and was present at the capture of Laloo, receiving the medals for the two campaigns. In 1864 he became chaplain to the Bishop of Calcutta (Dr. Cotton), and accompanied him on his travels in the north of India. In 1865 he was chaplain on duty in Cashmere, and in 1867 was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the Rectory of St. Mary's, Stafford. Dr. Cowie was selected Bishop of Auckland by Bishop Selwyn in England, the Diocesan Synod of Auckland having delegated to him its rights of nomination, on the understanding that he should appoint a clergyman in England. It also requested him to take the necessary steps for the consecration of his nominee, and Bishop Cowie was accordingly consecrated, under royal mandate, by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Tait) on St. Peter's Day, 1869, in Westminster Abbey.
Mr. N. J. Tone, another of our founders, died at Wellington on the 18th June, 1902. His name is well known to the Society, as he acted more than once as one of its joint secretaries. Mr. Tone was for many years a surveyor attached to the New Zealand Survey Department, in which capacity he rendered excellent service in opening up the country for settlement. At one time he acted for some years as Chief Surveyor to the North Borneo Chartered Company, and on his return to New Zealand became Secretary to the School Commissioners of Wellington, an office he held at the time of his death. Mr. Tone is a great loss, not only to the Society, but to all who knew him; his genial manners and upright character having endeared him to all who came in contact with him.
Mr. F. Arthur Jackson, of Jackson's Dale, Fiji, was also one of the founders of the Society, and has frequently contributed to the pages of the Journal, especially on the subject of the “Fire-walking” ceremony in Fiji. Mr. Jackson was a lieutenant in the New Zealand militia at one time, and served in the Maori war. He died in Fiji, where he had resided for many years, in the early months of this year.
Mr. F. F. Watt, of Rotorua, another of our members who took considerable interest in the objects of the Society, passed away since our last issue.
1 One of the very early migrations to New Zealand claim that they came from Mata-ora, not to be confounded with Hawaiki.
2 Besides several places named Hawaiki.—Ed.
3 We should be inclined to put it the other way: three per cent of the Polynesian words have been adopted into the Malay dialect.—Ed.
4 It is probable that Wallace, in referring to the Alfuros, speaks of a different race to that alluded to by Earl in his “The Native Races of the Indian Archipelago-Papuans” for he certainly classes them amongst the Papuans. Alfuro is a Portugese word, meaning “freedmen” i.e. “independent tribes who dwell beyond the influence of the coast settlements.”—p. 62, Ed.
5 That the language of the Mahri may now be Semitic in character will not affect the question, since it is probable that even the tribe may now be Semitic by race as well as by language, though it does not prove that they were always so,
6 This is not a Maori name, strictly speaking, but Samoan and Tongan.—Ed.
7 If Colonel Gudgeon had extended his comparison to the customs of races inhabiting some parts of the Himalaya ranges not far from “where three empires meet” he would have found many of them identical with those of the Polynesians. Indeed in our opinion he is here, much nearer the source of the Polynesian race than elsewhere.—Ed.