Chapter II: The Belief in Immortality Among the Tongans (4)

In more recent years the tombs of the Tooitongas at Mooa have been visited by Sir Basil Thomson, who has described and discussed them.[159] From an anonymous pamphlet called _The Wairarapa Wilderness_, written by the passengers of the s.s. _Wairarapa_ and published in 1884, Sir Basil Thomson quotes a passage containing a description of the tombs, with measurements which, he tells us, are accurate as far as they go. From it I will extract a few particulars. The writers inform us that the tombs are built of blocks of coral which vary in length and thickness; some of the largest they found to be from fifteen to eighteen feet long and from one and a half to two feet thick. The largest measured by them is twenty-two feet long and two feet thick and stands between seven and eight feet above the ground. This great stone, now split in two, is at the middle of the lowest step of one of the pyramidal tombs. The height of the steps varies much in the different pyramids; one step was found to be four feet high. The breadth of each step is three feet or more: it has been carefully levelled and covered with coral gravel. The stones fit very closely and are very regular at top and bottom throughout the tiers. The corners of one pyramid observed by the writers are formed of huge rectangular stones, which seem to have been put in position before they were finally faced. On the upper surface of the largest stone is a deep hollow about the size and shape of a large chestnut mortar. Sir Basil Thomson, who has examined this hollow, believes it to be a natural cavity which has been artificially smoothed by a workman. He suggests that it may have been lined with leaves and used as a bowl for brewing kava at the funeral ceremonies. On one mound the writers of the pamphlet remarked a large flat stone, some five and a half feet square; and in several of the tombs they noticed huge slabs of volcanic stone placed indiscriminately side by side with blocks of coral. The writers measured the bases of three of the tombs and found them to be about two chains (one hundred and thirty-two feet) long by a chain and a half (ninety-nine feet) broad; the base of a fourth was even larger.[160]

[159] (Sir) Basil Thomson, _Diversions of a Prime Minister_, pp.
379 _sq._; _id._ "Notes upon the Antiquities of Tonga," _Journal
of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii. (1902) pp. 86-88.

[160] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) pp. 87 _sq._

Surveying these various accounts of the tombs of the Tooitongas or sacred chiefs, we may perhaps conclude that, while the type of tomb varied in different cases, the most characteristic, and certainly the most remarkable, type was that of a stepped or terraced pyramid built of such large blocks of stone as to merit the name of megalithic monuments. So far as I have observed in the accounts given of them, this type of tomb was reserved exclusively for the sacred chiefs, the Tooitongas, whom the Tongans regarded as divine and as direct descendants of the gods. The civil kings, so far as appears, were not buried in these massive pyramids, but merely in stone vaults sunk in the summits of grassy mounds.

It is natural, with Sir Basil Thomson,[161] to compare the pyramids of the Tooitongas with the similar structures called _morais_ or _marais_ which are found in Tahiti and the Marquesas islands. Indeed, the very name _morai_ was sometimes applied to them by the Tongans themselves, though more usually they called them _fiatookas_, which was simply the common word for burying-ground.[162] In Tahiti and the Marquesas islands these _marais_ were in like manner truncated pyramids, rising in a series of steps or tiers, built of stones, some of which were large, but apparently not so large as in the corresponding Tongan edifices; for in describing one of the largest of the Tahitian _morais_ or _marais_ Cook mentions only one stone measuring as much as four feet seven inches in length by two feet four in breadth, though he found several three and a half feet long by two and a half feet broad. These dimensions can hardly compare with the size of the blocks in the tombs of the Tooitongas, some of which, as we have seen, measure fifteen, eighteen, and even twenty-two or twenty-four feet in length by eight or twelve feet in height. These Tahitian and Marquesan pyramids are commonly described as temples, and justly so, because the gods were worshipped there and human sacrifices were offered on them.[163] But they were also, like the similar structures in Tonga, used in certain cases for the burial of the dead, or at all events for the preservation of their embalmed bodies. Captain Cook seems even to have regarded the Tahitian _morais_ primarily as burying-grounds and only secondarily as places of worship.[164] In the island of Huahine, one of the Society Islands, the sovereign chiefs were buried in a _marai_, where they lay, we are told, in more than Oriental state.[165] William Ellis, one of our best authorities on the religion of the Tahitians, tells us that "the family, district, or royal _maraes_ were the general depositories of the bones of the departed, whose bodies had been embalmed, and whose skulls were sometimes preserved in the dwelling of the survivors. The _marae_ or temple being sacred, and the bodies being under the guardianship of the gods, were in general considered secure when deposited there. This was not, however, always the case; and in times of war, the victors sometimes not only despoiled the temples of the vanquished, and bore away their idol, but robbed the sacred enclosure of the bones of celebrated individuals."[166] Moerenhout, another good authority on the Tahitian religion, informs us that the _marais_ which belonged to individuals often served as cemeteries and were only the more respected on that account; but he says that in the public _marais_ almost the only persons buried were the human victims offered in sacrifice, and sometimes the priests, who were laid face downwards in the grave, for the curious reason that otherwise the gaze of the dead men would blight the trees and cause the fruit to fall to the ground.[167]

[161] (Sir) Basil Thomson, _Diversions of a Prime Minister_, p.
379.

[162] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_, v. 424. Elsewhere (v. 364)
he speaks of "a _morai_ or _fiatooka_"; and shortly afterwards,
referring to the same structure, he mentions it as "this
_morai_, or what I may as well call temple" (p. 365). As to the
equivalence of the words _morai_ and _marai_ (_marae_), see J.
A. Moerenhout, _Voyages aux Iles du Grand Ocean_ (Paris, 1837),
i. 466; and as to the significance of the word in its various
dialectical forms, see E. Tregear, _Maori-Polynesian Comparative
Dictionary_, p. 213, _s.v._ "malae."

[163] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_, i. 157 _sqq._; J. R.
Forster, _Observations made during a Voyage round the World_
(London, 1788), pp. 543 _sqq._; Captain James Wilson,
_Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean_, pp. 207
_sqq._; David Porter, _Journal of a Cruise made to the Pacific
Ocean_ (New York, 1822), ii. 38 _sq._; D. Tyerman and G. Bennet,
_Journal of Voyages and Travels_ (London, 1831), i. 240-248, 265
_sqq._, 271, 274, 529 _sq._, ii. 13 _sq._, 38 _sq._; W. Ellis,
_Polynesian Researches_, Second Edition (London, 1832-1836), i.
340, 405; J. A. Moerenhout, _Voyages aux Iles du Grand Ocean_,
i. 466-470; G. H. von Langsdorff, _Reise um die Welt_ (Frankfurt
am Mayn, 1812), i. 115, 134; H. Melville, _Typee_ (London,
N.D.), pp. 166-169 (_Everyman's Library_); Matthias G----,
_Lettres sur les Iles Marquises_ (Paris, 1843), pp. 54 _sq._;
C. E. Meinicke, _Die Inseln des Stillen Oceans_ (Leipzig,
1875-1876), i. 49, ii. 180, 183 _sq._; G. Gerland, in Th. Waitz,
_Anthropologie_, vi (Leipzig, 1872) pp. 376 _sqq._

[164] Capt. James Cook, _Voyages_, i. 157 _sq._, "Their name for
such burying-grounds, which are also places of worship, is
_Morai_." Compare _id._, i. 217, 219, 220, 224, vi. 37, 41; J.
Turnbull, _Voyage round the World_ (London, 1813), p. 151, "the
_morais_, which serve the double purpose of places of worship
and receptacles for the dead." Compare J. R. Forster,
_Observations_, p. 545, "To ornament the _marais_ and to honour
by it the gods and the decayed buried there, the inhabitants
plant several sorts of trees near them."

[165] D. Tyerman and G. Bennet, _op. cit._ i. 271.

[166] W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 405. Elsewhere (p.
401), speaking of the Tahitian burial customs, Ellis observes
that "the skull was carefully kept in the family, while the
other bones, etc., were buried within the precincts of the
family temple."

[167] J. A. Moerenhout, _op. cit._ i. 470. As to the Tahitian
custom of burying the dead in the _marais_, see also C. E.
Meinicke, _Die Inseln des Stillen Oceans_, ii. 183 _sq._,
according to whom only the bodies of persons of high rank were
interred in these sanctuaries.

In the Marquesas islands the _morais_ appear to have been also used occasionally or even regularly as burial-places. Langsdorff, one of our earliest authorities on these islands, speaks of a _morai_ simply as a place of burial.[168] He tells us that the mummified bodies of the dead were deposited on scaffolds in the _morai_ or family burial-place, and that the people of neighbouring but hostile districts used to try to steal each other's dead from the _morais_, and deemed it a great triumph when they succeeded in the attempt. To defeat such attempts, when the inhabitants of a district expected to be attacked in force by their enemies, they were wont to remove their dead from the _morai_ and bury them in the neighbourhood.[169] Again, in their monograph on the Marquesas islands, the French writers Vincendon-Dumoulin and Desgraz recognise only the mortuary aspect of the _morais_. They say: "The _morais_, funeral monuments where the bodies are deposited, are set up on a platform of stone, which is the base of all Nukahivan constructions. They are to be found scattered in the whole extent of the valleys; no particular condition seems to be required in the choice of the site. Near the shore of Taiohae is the _morai_ which contains the remains of a brother of the _atepeiou Patini_, an uncle of Moana, who died some years ago, as they tell us."[170]

[168] G. H. von Langsdorff, _op. cit._ i. 115.

[169] G. H. von Langsdorff, _op. cit._ i. 134.

[170] Vincendon-Dumoulin et C. Desgraz, _Iles Marquises ou
Nouka-hiva_ (Paris, 1843), p. 253.

Thus to some extent, in function as well as in form, these pyramidical temples of Tahiti and the Marquesas islands corresponded to the megalithic monuments of the Tooitongas or sacred chiefs of Tonga; in fact, they were mausoleums as well as temples. We are not at liberty to assume, with one authority on the Polynesians, that they were mausoleums first and foremost, and that they only developed into temples at a later time.[171] It is possible, on the contrary, that from the outset they were temples dedicated to the worship of the high gods, and that the custom of depositing the dead in them was a later practice adopted for the sake of the protection which these holy places might be expected to afford against the efforts of enemies to carry off and desecrate the remains of the departed. Dr. Rivers propounded a theory that the custom of building these megalithic monuments in the form of pyramids was introduced into the Pacific by a people who brought with them a secret worship of the sun, and he apparently inclined to regard the monuments themselves as at least associated with that worship.[172] The theory can hardly apply to the megalithic monuments of the Tooitongas in Tongataboo; for the evidence which I have adduced seems to render it certain that these monuments were erected primarily as tombs to receive the bodies of the sacred chiefs. It is true that these tombs enjoyed a sacred character and were the scene of worship which justly entitles them to rank as temples; but so far as they were temples, they were devoted to the worship, not of the sun, but of the dead.

[171] C. E. Meinicke, _Die Inseln des Stillen Oceans_, ii. 180.

[172] W. H. R. Rivers, "Sun-cult and Megaliths in Oceania,"
_American Anthropologist_, N.S. xvii. (1915) pp. 431 _sqq._

Thus our enquiry into the meaning and origin of these interesting monuments entirely confirms the view of the shrewd and observant Captain Cook that the _fiatookas_, as the Tongans called them, were both places of burial and places of worship.

Finally, the evidence which I have cited appears to render it highly probable that these imposing monuments were built, not by a prehistoric people, predecessors of the Tongans in the islands, but by the Tongans themselves; for not only do the people affirm that the tombs were erected by their ancestors, but they have definite traditions of some of the chiefs who built them, and are buried in them; and they still profess to remember some of the islands from which the huge stones were brought to Tongataboo in great double canoes.

That the graves of the great chiefs were, like temples, regarded by the people with religious reverence appears plainly from a statement of Mariner. He tells us that a place called Mafanga, in the western part of Tongataboo, being a piece of land about half a mile square, was consecrated ground. "In this spot," he says, "are the graves where the greatest chiefs from time immemorial have been buried, and the place is therefore considered sacred; it would be a sacrilege to fight here, and nobody can be prevented from landing: if the most inveterate enemies meet upon this ground, they must look upon each other as friends, under penalty of the displeasure of the gods, and consequently an untimely death, or some great misfortune. There are several of these consecrated places on different islands."[173] Thus the reverence paid to the tombs of the chiefs was like the reverence paid to the consecrated houses and enclosures of the gods; we have already seen what a sacrilege it was deemed to fight or to pursue an enemy within the consecrated enclosure of a god,[174] and we now learn that it was equally a sacrilege to fight within the ground that was hallowed by the graves of the chiefs.

[173] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, i. 88.

[174] Above, pp. 74 _sqq._

Mariner has described for us the worship paid by the king and his chiefs to one of the sacred graves at Mafanga. One morning Finow the king, accompanied by several of his chiefs and their ministers (the _matabooles_), landed at Mafanga and immediately proceeded to his father's grave to perform a ceremony called _toogi_. Mariner attended the party and witnessed the ceremony. All who went to participate in it assumed the attire of mourners or suppliants, that is, they wore mats instead of their usual dress and they had wreaths, made of the leaves of the _ifi_ tree, round their necks. They sat down before the grave, and the king and all of them beat their cheeks with their fists for about half a minute without speaking a word. One of the principal ministers (_matabooles_) then addressed the spirit of the king's father to the following effect: "Behold the man (meaning Finow, the king) who has come to Tonga to fight his enemies. Be pleased with him, and grant him thy protection. He comes to battle, hoping he is not doing wrong. He has always held Tooitonga in the highest respect, and has attended to all religious ceremonies with exactness." One of the attendants then went to the king and received from him a piece of kava root, which he laid down on the raised mount before the burial-place (_fytoka_). Several others, who had pieces of kava root in their bosoms, went up to the grave in like manner and deposited them there.[175]

[175] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, i. 88 _sq._

Thus the king prayed to the spirit of his dead father at his grave and made an offering at the tomb. What more could he do to a god at his temple? And in general we are told that when a great blessing was desired, or a serious evil deprecated, if the people wished to enjoy health or beget children, to be successful at sea, or victorious in war, they would go to the burial grounds of their great chiefs, clean them up thoroughly, sprinkle the floor with sand, and lay down their offerings.[176] When Finow the king was dying, his friends carried him on a bier, not only to the temples of the great gods Tali-y-Toobo and Tooi-fooa-Bolotoo, where prayers for his recovery were offered; they bore him also to the grave of a chieftainess and invoked her spirit in like manner to pity and spare the expiring monarch.[177] Apparently they thought that the ghost of the chieftainess was quite as able as the great gods to heal the sick and restore the dying.

[176] Sarah S. Farmer, _Tonga and the Friendly Islands_, p. 127.

[177] W. Mariner, _op. cit._ i. 367.

But on no occasion, perhaps, was the assimilation of dead men to gods so conspicuous as at the annual offering of first-fruits, which seems to have been the most impressive of all the yearly rites observed by the Tongans. The ceremony was observed once a year just before the yams in general had arrived at a state of maturity; the yams offered at it were of a kind which admitted of being planted sooner than the others, and which consequently, ripening earlier, were the first-fruits of the yam season. The object of the offering was to ensure the protection of the gods, that their favour might be extended to the welfare of the nation generally, and in particular to the productions of the earth, of which in Tonga yams are the most important. At this solemn ceremony the new yams, slung on poles, were brought from distant islands, carried in procession to the grave of the late Tooitonga, and deposited in front of it, their bearers sitting down beside them. Thereupon one of the ministers (_matabooles_) of the living Tooitonga arose, advanced, and sat down before the grave, a little in front of the men who had brought the yams. Next he addressed the gods generally, and afterwards particularly, mentioning the late Tooitonga and the names of several others. In doing so he returned thanks for their divine bounty in favouring the land with the prospect of a good harvest, and prayed that their beneficence might be continued in future. In this harvest thanksgiving the spirit of the dead Tooitonga seems to have ranked on an equality with the original or superhuman gods; indeed, in a sense he took precedence of them, since the offerings were presented at his grave. The first-fruits, we are told, were offered to the gods in the person of the divine chief Tooitonga.[178]

[178] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, ii. 196-202, compare p. 78.
The ceremony was also witnessed, though not understood, by
Captain Cook (_Voyages_, v. 363 _sqq._) and by the first English
missionaries (Captain James Wilson, _Missionary Voyage to the
Southern Pacific Ocean_, pp. 264 _sq._).

On the whole we may conclude that, however sharp a distinction was drawn in theory between the old gods, who had always been gods, and the new gods, who had once been men, the line which divided them in practice was wavering and blurred. The dead men and women were fast rising, if they had not already risen, to an equality with the ancient deities. We may even surmise that some of these old gods themselves were human beings, whose original humanity was forgotten.

The tombs of the kings and sacred chiefs may be described as megalithic monuments in so far as immense stones were often employed in the construction either of the enclosing walls or of the high steps which led up to the summit of the mound where the grave was dug. It is possible, and indeed probable, that great stones were similarly employed as ornaments or accessories of the consecrated houses or temples of the primary gods, but of such an employment I have met with no express notice among our authorities. So far as their descriptions allow us to judge, these megalithic monuments of the Tongans were purely sepulchral in character; they were dedicated only to the worship of the dead. But there exists at least one other remarkable megalithic monument in these islands of which the original meaning is quite uncertain, and of which consequently we cannot confidently say that it was erected for the sake of honouring or propitiating the spirits of the departed. The monument in question is situated near the eastern extremity of Tongataboo, at a distance of three or four hundred yards from the beach and facing towards the island of Eua. The land on which it stands was the private property of the Tooitongas, whose megalithic tombs are situated some eight or nine miles away to the west. In the intervening country, which is perfectly flat and partly covered with forest, partly under cultivation, there are said to be no other monuments or ruins. It is remarkable that this imposing monument, which naturally impresses the observer by its resemblance to the trilithons or gate-like structures of Stonehenge, should have apparently escaped the observation of Europeans down to the middle of the nineteenth century. It is not mentioned by Cook and Mariner, nor even by those who, like the first missionaries and Dumont d'Urville, described in some detail the tombs of the Tooitongas not many miles off. Perhaps the solitariness of the surrounding country may partly account for their ignorance and silence; for there are said to be few inhabitants in this part of the island and none at all in the immediate neighbourhood of the monument. It seems to have been first discovered by Mr. Philip Hervey of Sydney in 1850 or 1851, but his description of it was not published for some ten years. In August 1852 it was seen by Dr. Charles Forbes, Surgeon of H.M.S. _Calliope_, and his description of it was published by the Society of Antiquaries of London in the following year. In 1865 it was seen and briefly described by Mr. Foljambe of H.M.S. _Curacoa_. Some twenty years later the passengers of the s.s. _Wairarapa_, on a yachting cruise from New Zealand, visited the spot and published an account of the structure. Still later Sir Basil Thomson examined the monument and discussed its history.[179]

[179] See the letter of Dr. Charles Forbes, in _Archaeologia, or
Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity_, xxxv. (London,
1853) p. 496 (with a woodcut); _Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of London_ [First Series], iii. 19; _id._ Second
Series, i. 287; letter of Philip Hervey, quoted by Kenneth R. H.
Mackenzie, in _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
London_, Second Series, ii. 75-77; Julius L. Brenchley,
_Jottings during the Cruise of H.M.S. "Curacoa" among the South
Sea Islands in 1865_ (London, 1873), p. 132 (with a woodcut);
(Sir) Basil Thomson, _Diversions of a Prime Minister_ (Edinburgh
and London, 1894), pp. 380-382 (with a woodcut on p. 393); _id._
"Notes upon the Antiquities of Tonga," _Journal of the
Anthropological Institute_, xxxii. (1902) pp. 81-84 (with a
photograph). Views of the monument, taken apparently from
photographs, have also been published by Dr. F. H. H. Guillemard
(_Australasia_, vol. ii. London, 1894, p. 501), Dr. George Brown
(_Melanesians and Polynesians_, London, 1910, plate facing p.
410), and by Mr. S. Percy Smith (_Hawaiki_, Third Edition,
Christchurch, N.Z., 1910, pp. 157 _sq._). Dr. W. H. R. Rivers
spoke as if there were several trilithons in Tongataboo
(_History of Melanesian Society_, ii. 430 _sq._; _id._ "Sun-cult
and Megaliths in Oceania," _American Anthropologist_, N.S.
xvii., 1915, p. 444); but in this he seems to have been
mistaken. So far as I can gather, there is only one of these
remarkable monuments in Tongataboo or indeed in the whole of the
Pacific.

The monument in question is a structure of the type known as a trilithon; that is, it is composed of three large stones, of which two stand upright, while the third rests horizontally on their tops. All three stones are monoliths of hardened coral, rough and much weathered on the surface, and precisely similar to the coral of the neighbouring reefs. Indeed, about halfway between the monument and the beach the coral rock is exposed in a hollow, from which it seems probable that the great blocks were hewn and brought to their present situation. The statement of Mr. Brenchley, that the stone of which the monument consists is not to be found elsewhere on the island, is erroneous. The uprights are quadrangular monoliths neatly squared. No measurements of the stones appear to be on record, but the two uprights are variously estimated to measure from fourteen to sixteen feet in height; their breadth or depth from front to back is variously given as from eight to ten or even twelve feet; but they seem to taper somewhat upwards, for the estimate which assigns twelve feet for the depth of the uprights at their base, mentions seven feet or probably more as their breadth at the top. The thickness of the uprights seems to be four feet. The space between them is variously stated at ten and twelve feet. The cross-stone, which rests on the two uprights, is reported to measure twenty-four feet in length, by four or five feet in depth, and two feet in thickness. Each of the uprights is estimated by Sir Basil Thomson to weigh not less than fifty tons. The tops of both are deeply mortised to receive the cross-stone, the ends of which are sunk into them instead of being laid flat on the top. The cross-stone lies east and west, so that the opening between the uprights faces north and south. On the upper surface of the cross-stone, and at about the middle of it, is a cup-like hollow, very carefully cut, about the size of a coco-nut shell. A large bowl of the same material is said to have formerly stood on the cross-stone, but the statement is not made by an eyewitness and is probably mistaken.[180]

[180] For the authorities, see the preceding note. The
measurements, to some extent discrepant, are given by Dr.
Charles Forbes, Mr. Philip Hervey, and the passengers of s.s.
_Wairarapa_, as reported by Sir Basil Thomson _Journal of the
Anthropological Institute_, xxxii. 82 _sq._), who had
unfortunately mislaid his own notes containing the measurements.
The statement that the monument was surmounted by a large bowl
is made by Mr. Brenchley, in whose sketch of the structure the
bowl figures. But Mr. Brenchley did not himself see the
monument, and nobody else appears to have seen the bowl. I
suspect that the report of the bowl may have originated in a
hasty reading of Mr. Hervey's statement that "on the centre of
it [the cross-stone] a small cava bowl is scooped out," though
in Mr. Brenchley's account the bowl has seemingly increased in
size. Similarly in his report the height of the uprights has
grown to about thirty feet, which appears to be just double of
their real size. Perhaps Mr. Brenchley's erroneous allegation as
to the material of the monument similarly originated in a
misunderstanding of Mr. Hervey's statement that "the material is
the coral rock, or coral rag which are formed of stone brought
from Wallis's Island."

The name which the natives give to this megalithic monument is _Haamonga_ or _Ho ha Mo-nga Maui_, which is said to mean "Maui's burden." The name is explained by a story that the god or hero Maui brought the massive stones in a gigantic canoe from Uea (Wallis Island), where the great holes in the rock from which he quarried them may still be seen. From the canoe he bore them on his back to the spot where they now stand.[181] This story can hardly be thought to throw much light on the origin of the monument; for the natives are in the habit of referring the marvels which they do not understand to the action of the god or hero Maui, just as the ancient Greeks fathered many natural wonders on the deified hero Hercules.[182] But from Mateialona, Governor of Haapai and cousin of the King of Tonga, Sir Basil Thomson obtained a tradition of the origin of the stones which is at least free from the miraculous element and connects the monument with Tongan history. The account runs thus: "Concerning the Haamonga of Maui, they say forsooth that a Tui Tonga (the sacred line of chiefs), named Tui-ta-tui, erected it, and that he was so named because it was a time of assassination.[183] And they say that he had it built for him to sit upon during the Faikava (ceremony of brewing kava), when the people sat round him in a circle, and that the king so dreaded assassination that he had this lordly seat built for himself that he might sit out of the reach of his people. And this, they say, is the origin of the present custom of the Faikava, it being now forbidden for any one to sit behind the king." At such wassails the presiding chief sits at the apex of an oval. To this tradition Sir Basil Thomson adds: "Mr. Shirley Baker told me that he believed the Haamonga to have been erected as a _fakamanatu_ (memorial) to the son of some Tui Tonga, a view that finds support in the fondness of Tongan chiefs for originality in the burial ceremonies of their near relations--witness Mariner's account of the funeral of Finau's daughter--but on the other hand native traditions generally have a kernel of truth, and the legend of Tui-ta-tui and its consequences finds an analogy in our own custom of guarding against an assassin's dagger at the drinking of the loving cup."[184] The tradition receives some confirmation from the bowl-like hollow on the upper surface of the cross-stone; for the hollow might have served as the king's drinking-cup to hold his kava at the customary wassails. Indeed, Mr. Philip Hervey, the first to examine the monument, describes the hollow in question as "a small cava bowl";[185] and after giving an account of the monument Mr. Brenchley adds: "Its history seems to be entirely unknown, but it is very natural to suppose from its form that it was connected with some ancient kava ceremonies."[186]

[181] Charles Forbes, in _Archaeologia_, xxxv. 496 (who gives
_Ho ha Mo-nga Maui_ as the name of the stones); (Sir) Basil
Thomson, _Diversions of a Prime Minister_, p. 382; _id._, "Notes
upon the Antiquities of Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological
Institute_, xxxii. (1902) p. 81 (who gives _Haamonga_ as the
native name of the stones).

[182] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) p. 81. Maui is the great hero of Polynesia, known in
nearly every group of islands, generally regarded as a demigod
or deified man, but sometimes and in some places rising to the
dignity of full godhead. He appears, says Mr. E. Tregear, to
unite the classical attributes of Hercules and Prometheus. See
E. Tregear, _Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary_, p. 233,
_s.v._ "Maui."

[183] "_Tui-ta-tui, lit._ 'King-strike-King.'"

[184] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) p. 82.

[185] _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London_,
Second Series, ii. 77.

[186] Julius L. Brenchley, _Jottings during the Cruise of H.M.S.
"Curacoa" among the South Sea Islands in 1865_ (London, 1873),
p. 132.

The tradition which connects the erection of the monument with the reign of a Tooitonga named Tui-ta-tui is further countenanced, if not confirmed, by a list of the Tooitongas, in which the name of Tui-ta-tui occurs as the eleventh in descent from the great god Tangaloa.[187] This Tui-ta-tui is believed to have reigned in the thirteenth or fourteenth century of our era.[188] From the size and style of the masonry Sir Basil Thomson is disposed to assign the monument to a later date. He points out that for the quarrying and mortising of stones that weigh some fifty tons apiece the craft of stone-cutting must have been fully developed; and from a comparison of the megalithic tombs of the Tooitongas which can be approximately dated, he infers that the craft of stone-cutting in Tonga reached its culmination at the end of the seventeenth century, though it was still practised down to the beginning of the nineteenth century; for Mariner tells us that in his time a professional class of masons was set apart for building the stone sepulchral vaults of chiefs.[189] Yet on the whole Sir Basil Thomson concludes that "when one is left to choose between a definite native tradition on the one hand and probability on the other for the assignment of a date, I would prefer the tradition. If the Tongans had invented the story as a mere expression for antiquity they would not have pitched upon Tui-ta-tui, about whom nothing else is recorded, in preference to Takalaua, Kau-ulu-fonua-fekai, or any of the kings who loom large in traditionary history. Whether the Haamonga was built for a throne or for a memorial, doubtless it is connected with the reign of Tui-ta-tui, who lived in the fourteenth century."[190]

[187] (Sir) Basil Thomson, _Diversions of a Prime Minister_, p.
395. In this work the author prints a list of the Tooitongas "as
given by Mr. E. Tregear on the authority of the Rev. J. E.
Moulton."

[188] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) p. 83; S. Percy Smith, _Hawaiki_, p. 158.

[189] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, ii. 266. As to the size of
the stones, Mariner says, "The stones used for this purpose are
about a foot in thickness, and are cut of the requisite
dimensions, out of the stratum found on the beaches of some of
the islands."

[190] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) pp. 83 _sq._

As an alternative to the view that the hollow on the cross-stone was a kava bowl Dr. Rivers suggests that it "may have been destined to receive the skull and other bones of the dead, so often preserved in Polynesia."[191] The suggestion accords well with the opinion that the monument is a memorial of the dead, and it might be supported by the Samoan practice of severing a dead chief's head from his body and burying it separately, to save it from being dug up and desecrated by enemies in time of war.[192] However, Dr. Rivers is careful to add that such a practice is not recorded in Tonga and appears to be incompatible with the mode of sepulture which prevails there.

[191] W. H. R. Rivers, _History of Melanesian Society_, ii. 431.

[192] See below, p. 212.

In this connexion another megalithic monument of the Tonga islands deserves to be considered, though it appears to have been commonly overlooked. It was observed by Captain Cook in the island of Lefooga (Lifuka). He says: "Near the south end of the island, and on the west side, we met with an artificial mount. From the size of some trees that were growing upon it, and from other appearances, I guessed that it had been raised in remote times. I judged it to be about forty feet high; and the diameter of its summit measured fifty feet. At the bottom of this mount stood a stone, which must have been hewn out of coral rock. It was four feet broad, two and a half thick, and fourteen high; and we were told by the natives present, that not above half its length appeared above ground. They called it _Tangata Arekee_;[193] and said, that it had been set up, and the mount raised, by some of their forefathers, in memory of one of their kings; but how long since, they could not tell."[194]

[193] "_Tangata_, in their language, is man; _Arekee_, king."

[194] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_, v. 298 _sq._ To this
description of the monument Sir Basil Thomson has called
attention; he rightly classes it with the tombs of the chiefs.
See his "Notes upon the Antiquities of Tonga," _Journal of the
Anthropological Institute_, xxxii. (1902) p. 85.

When we remember that Tongan kings were commonly buried in such mounds as Captain Cook here describes, and further that these mounds were commonly enclosed or faced with great blocks of hewn stone, we may be disposed to accept as reasonable and probable the explanation which the natives gave of this great monolith, which, if the reported measurements of it are correct, must have been no less than twenty-eight feet high. If it was indeed a memorial of a dead king, it might be thought to strengthen the view that the great trilithon was also set up as a monument to a deceased monarch or Tooitonga.

Another possible explanation of the trilithon is, as Sir Basil Thomson points out, that it served as a gateway to some sacred spot inland. But against this view he observes that he examined the bush for some distance in the neighbourhood without finding any trace of ruins or stones of any kind. He adds that the memory of sacred spots dies very hard in Tonga, and that the natives do not believe the trilithon to have been a gateway.[195]

[195] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) pp. 81 _sq._

It is natural to compare the trilithon of Tongataboo with the famous trilithons of Stonehenge, which it resembles in plan and to which it is comparable in size. The resemblance struck Dr. Charles Forbes, the first to publish a description of the monument based on personal observation. He says: "The route we pursued led us over a country perfectly level, with the exception of occasional mounds of earth, apparently artificial, and reminding one very much of the barrows of Wilts and Dorset, which idea is still more strongly impressed upon the mind on coming in sight of the monument, which bears a most striking resemblance to the larger gateway-looking stones at Stonehenge."[196] But at the same time, as Dr. Forbes did not fail to note, the Tongan trilithon differs in some respects from those of Stonehenge. In the first place the interval (ten or twelve feet) between the uprights of the Tongan trilithon appears to be much greater than the interval between the uprights of the trilithons at Stonehenge.[197] In the second place, the cross-stone of the Tongan trilithon is mortised much more deeply into the uprights than are the cross-stones at Stonehenge. For whereas at Stonehenge these cross-stones present the appearance of being laid flat on the top of the uprights, the cross-stone of the Tongan trilithon is sunk deeply into the uprights by means of mortises or grooves about two feet wide which are cut into the uprights, so that the top of the cross-stone is nearly flush with their tops, while its ends also are nearly flush with their outside surfaces.[198]

[196] Dr. Charles Forbes, in _Archaeologia_, xxxv. p. 496.

[197] I have no measurements of these intervals, but write from
the impression of a recent visit to Stonehenge.

[198] (Sir) Basil Thomson, "Notes upon the Antiquities of
Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii.
(1902) p. 82, quoting the anonymous pamphlet _The Wairarapa
Wilderness_.

As the origin and purpose of Stonehenge are still unknown, its massive trilithons can hardly be cited to explain the similar monument of Tongataboo. The rival theories which see in Stonehenge a memorial of the dead and a temple of the sun[199] are equally applicable or inapplicable to the Tongan monument. In favour of the mortuary character of this solitary trilithon it might be urged that the Tongans were long accustomed to erect megalithic monuments, though of a different type, at the tombs of their sacred kings, which are situated not many miles away; but against this view it may be argued that there are no traces of burial or graves in the immediate neighbourhood, and that native tradition, not lightly to be set aside, assigns a different origin to the monument. Against the solar interpretation of the trilithon it may be alleged, first, that the monument faces north and south, not east and west, as it might be expected to do if it were a temple of the sun or a gateway leading into such a temple; second, that, while a circle of trilithons, as at Stonehenge, with an opening towards the sunrise may be plausibly interpreted as a temple of the sun, such an interpretation cannot so readily be applied to a solitary trilithon facing north and south; and, third, that no trace of sun-worship has been discovered in the Tonga islands. So far as I have observed, the Tongan pantheon is nowhere said to have included a sun-god, and the Tongans are nowhere reported to have paid any special respect to the sun. Savages in general, it may be added, appear to be very little addicted to sun-worship; it is for the most part among peoples at a much higher level of culture, such as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Peruvians, that solar worship becomes an important, or even the predominant, feature of the national faith.[200] Perhaps the impulse to it came rather from the meditations of priestly astronomers than from the random fancies of common men. Some depth of thought was needed to detect in the sun the source of all life on earth; the immutable regularity of the great luminary's movements failed to rouse the interest or to excite the fear of the savage, to whom the elements of the unusual, the uncertain, and the terrible are the principal incentives to wonder and awe, and hence to reflexion. We are all naturally more impressed by extraordinary than by ordinary events; the fine edge of the mind is dulled by familiarity in the one case and whetted by curiosity in the other.

[199] Lord Avebury, _Prehistoric Times_, Seventh Edition
(London, 1913), pp. 132 _sqq._; Sir Norman Lockyer, _Stonehenge
and other British Stone Monuments astronomically considered_
(London, 1906); C. Schuchhardt, "Stonehenge," _Zeitschrift fuer
Ethnologie_, xlii. (1910), pp. 963-968; _id._ in _Zeitschrift
fuer Ethnologie_, xliii. (1911) pp. 169-171; _id_., in
_Sitzungsberichte der koenigl. preuss. Akademie der
Wissenschaften_, 1913, pp. 759 _sqq._ (for the sepulchral
interpretation); W. Pastor, "Stonehenge," _Zeitschrift fuer
Ethnologie_, xliii. (1911) pp. 163-(for the solar
interpretation).

[200] Adolph Bastian observed that "sun-worship, which people
used to go sniffing about to discover everywhere, is found on
the contrary only in very exceptional regions or on lofty
table-lands of equatorial latitude." See his book, _Die Voelker
des Oestlichen Asien_, iv. (Jena, 1868) p. 175. Nobody,
probably, has ever been better qualified than Bastian to
pronounce an opinion on such a subject; for his knowledge of the
varieties of human thought and religion, acquired both by
reading and travel, was immense. It is only to be regretted that
through haste or negligence he too often gave out the fruits of
his learning in a form which rendered it difficult to sift and
almost impossible to digest them. Yet from his storehouse he
brought forth a treasure, of which we may say what Macaulay said
of the scholarship of Parr, that it was "too often buried in the
earth, too often paraded with injudicious and inelegant
ostentation, but still precious, massive, and splendid."

Bearing in mind the numerous other stone monuments scattered widely over the islands of the Pacific, from the Carolines to Easter Island, Dr. Guillemard concludes that some race, with a different, if not a higher civilisation preceded the Polynesian race in its present homes, and to this earlier race he would apparently refer the erection of the trilithon in Tongataboo.[201] He may be right. Yet when we consider, first, the native tradition of the setting up of the trilithon by one of the sacred kings of Tonga; second, the practice of the Tongans of building megalithic tombs for these same sacred kings; and, third, the former existence in Tonga of a professional class of masons whose business it was to construct stone vaults for the burial of chiefs,[202] we may hesitate to resort to the hypothesis of an unknown people in order to explain the origin of a monument which the Tongans, as we know them, appear to have been quite capable of building for themselves.

[201] F. H. H. Guillemard, _Australasia_, ii. 500.

[202] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, i. 266.

Sec. 11. _Rites of Burial and Mourning_

The only mode of disposing of the dead which was practised in the Tonga islands seems to have been burial in the earth. So far as appears, the corpse was not doubled up, but laid at full length in the grave; at all events I have met with no mention of burying a corpse in a contracted posture; and Captain Cook says that "when a person dies, he is buried, after being wrapped up in mats and cloth, much after our manner." He adds that, while chiefs had the special burial-places called _fiatookas_ appropriated to their use, common people were interred in no particular spot.[203] So far as I have observed, none of our authorities speak of a practice of embalming the dead or of giving the bodies any particular direction in the grave.

[203] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_, v. 421.

After a death the mourners testified their sorrow by dressing in old ragged mats and wearing green leaves of the _ifi_ tree round their necks. Thus attired they would repair to the tomb, where, on entering the enclosure, they would pull off the green twigs from their necks and throw them away; then sitting down they would solemnly drink kava.[204] Further, they accompanied their cries and ejaculations of grief and despair by inflicting on their own bodies many grievous wounds and injuries. They burned circles and scars on their bodies, beat their teeth with stones, struck shark's teeth into their heads till the blood flowed in streams, and thrust spears into the inner part of the thigh, into their sides below the arm-pits, and through the cheeks into the mouth.[205] Women in wailing would cut off their fingers, and slit their noses, their ears, and their cheeks.[206] At the funerals of the kings especially the mourners indulged in frantic excesses of self-torture and mutilation. Of two such funerals we have the detailed descriptions of eye-witnesses who resided in the islands at a time when the natives were as yet practically unaffected by European influence. King Moom[=o]oe died in April 1797, and the first missionaries to Tonga witnessed and described his funeral. They have told how, when the corpse was being carried in procession to a temporary house near the royal burial-ground (_fiatooka_), it was preceded by relatives of the deceased in the usual mourning garb, who cut their heads with shark's teeth till the blood streamed down their faces. A few days later, when the burial was to take place, the missionaries found about four thousand people assembled at the mound where the body was to be interred. In a few minutes they heard a great shouting and blowing of conch-shells, and soon after there appeared about a hundred men, armed with clubs and spears, who, rushing into the area, began to cut and mangle themselves in a most dreadful manner. Many struck their heads such violent blows with their clubs that the sound could be heard thirty or forty yards off, and they repeated them till the blood ran down in streams. Others, who had spears, thrust them through their thighs, arms, and cheeks, all the while calling on the deceased in a most affecting manner. A native of Fiji, who had been a servant of the late king, appeared quite frantic; he entered the area with fire in his hand, and having previously oiled his hair, he set it ablaze, and ran about with it all on flame. When they had satisfied or exhausted themselves with this manner of torment, they sat down, beat their faces with their fists, and then retired. A second party then inflicted on themselves the same cruelties. A third party next entered, shouting and blowing shells; four of the foremost held stones, which they used to knock out their teeth, while those who blew the shells employed them as knives with which they hacked their heads in a shocking manner. A man who had a spear pierced his arm with it just above the elbow, and with it sticking fast in his flesh ran about the area for some time. Another, who seemed to be a principal chief, acted as if quite bereft of his senses; he ran to every corner of the area, and at each station beat his head with a club till the blood flowed down on his shoulders. At this point the missionary, unable to bear the sight of these self-inflicted tortures, quitted the scene. When his colleagues visited the place some hours later in the afternoon, they found the natives of both sexes still at the dreadful work of cutting and mangling themselves. In the course of these proceedings a party of mourners entered the area, sixteen of whom had recently cut off their little fingers. They were followed by another party with clubs and spears, who battered and wounded themselves in the usual fashion, and also disfigured their faces with coco-nut husks, which they had fastened to the knuckles of both hands. The missionaries noticed that the mourners who were either related to the dead king or had held office under him, were the most cruel to themselves; some of them thrust two, three, and even four spears into their arms, and so danced round the area, while others broke off the spear-heads in their flesh.[207]

[204] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_, v. 345 _sq._ As to the
mourning costume of mats and leaves, see also Captain James
Wilson, _Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean_, p.
240; W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, i. 380, 392, 431, ii. 214
_sq._

[205] Captain James Cook, _Voyages_ v. 420.

[206] Jerome Grange, in _Annales de la Propagation de la Foi_,
xvii. (1845) p. 13.

[207] Captain James Wilson, _Missionary Voyage to the Southern
Pacific Ocean_, pp. 242-244.

Similar scenes were witnessed some years later by Mariner at the death and burial of Finow, another king of Tonga; and the Englishman has described from personal observation how on this occasion the mourners cut and wounded their heads and bodies with clubs, stones, knives, or sharp shells. This they did on one or other of the _malais_[208] or ceremonial grounds in the presence of many spectators, vying apparently with each other in the effort to surpass the rest in this public manifestation of their sorrow for the death of the king and their respect for his memory. As one ran out into the middle of the ground he would cry, "Finow! I know well your mind; you have departed to Bolotoo, and left your people under suspicion that I, or some of those about you, were unfaithful; but where is the proof of infidelity? where is a single instance of disrespect?" Then, inflicting violent blows and deep cuts on his head with a club, stone, or knife, he would again exclaim at intervals, "Is this not a proof of my fidelity? does this not evince loyalty and attachment to the memory of the departed warrior?" Some more violent than others cut their heads to the skull with such heavy and repeated blows that they reeled and lost their reason for a time.[209] The king's successor, Finow the Second, not content with the usual instruments of torture, employed a saw for the purpose, striking his skull with the teeth so violently that he staggered for loss of blood; but this he did, not at the time of the burial and in presence of the multitude, but some weeks later at a more private ceremony of mourning before the grave.[210] At the public ceremony the late king's fishermen varied the usual breaking of heads and slashing of bodies by a peculiar form of self-torment. Instead of clubs they appropriately carried the paddles of canoes, with which they battered their heads in the orthodox style; but besides every man of them had three arrows stuck through each cheek in a slanting direction, so that, while the points pierced through the cheeks into the mouth, the other ends went over the shoulder and were kept in position by another arrow, the point of which was tied to the ends of the arrows passing over one shoulder, while the other end was tied to the ends of the other arrows which passed over the other shoulder. Thus each fisherman was decorated with a triangle of arrows, of which the apex consisted of six arrow-heads in his mouth, while the base dangled on his back. With this remarkable equipment they walked round the grave, beating their faces and heads with their paddles, or pinching up the skin of the breast and sticking a spear right through it.[211]

[208] Mariner defines a _malai_ as "a piece of ground, generally
before a large house, or chief's grave, where public ceremonies
are principally held" (_Tonga Islands_, vol. ii., "Vocabulary"
_s.v._). It is the same word as _malae_ or _marae_, noticed
above, p. 116, note^3.

[209] W. Mariner, _Tonga Islands_, i. 379-384.

[210] W. Mariner, _op. cit._ i. 440-442.