The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead Volume Ii Part 12

[174] Above, pp. 74 _sqq._

Mariner has described for us the wors.h.i.+p 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 partic.i.p.ate in it a.s.sumed 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 princ.i.p.al 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds 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 a.s.similation of dead men to G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds; 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, who had always been G.o.ds, and the new G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 pa.s.sengers 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_, x.x.xv. (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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii. (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 a.s.signs 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 s.p.a.ce 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 sh.e.l.l. 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 pa.s.sengers of s.s.

_Wairarapa_, as reported by Sir Basil Thomson _Journal of the Anthropological Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii. 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 n.o.body 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 G.o.d or hero Maui brought the ma.s.sive 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sa.s.sination.[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 a.s.sa.s.sination 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 wa.s.sails the presiding chief sits at the apex of an oval. To this tradition Sir Basil Thomson adds: "Mr. s.h.i.+rley 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 a.n.a.logy in our own custom of guarding against an a.s.sa.s.sin'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 wa.s.sails. 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_, x.x.xv. 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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii. (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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(1902) p. 81. Maui is the great hero of Polynesia, known in nearly every group of islands, generally regarded as a demiG.o.d or deified man, but sometimes and in some places rising to the dignity of full G.o.dhead. He appears, says Mr. E. Tregear, to unite the cla.s.sical 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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sign 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.signment 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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(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 (Lif.u.ka). 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 cla.s.ses it with the tombs of the chiefs.

See his "Notes upon the Antiquities of Tonga," _Journal of the Anthropological Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii. (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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(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_, x.x.xv. 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 Inst.i.tute_, x.x.xii.

(1902) p. 82, quoting the anonymous pamphlet _The Wairarapa Wilderness_.

As the origin and purpose of Stonehenge are still unknown, its ma.s.sive 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, a.s.signs 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-wors.h.i.+p has been discovered in the Tonga islands. So far as I have observed, the Tongan pantheon is nowhere said to have included a sun-G.o.d, 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-wors.h.i.+p; 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 princ.i.p.al 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.