200 THE POLYNESIAN BOW. 



Mr. Coleuso's argunieiit, briefly summarized, refers to the subject as 

 follows. He considers — 



First. That the bows and arrows found in the hands of Maori children 

 were probably imitated from models shown to them by Tupaea, the 

 Tahitian interpreter brought to New Zealand by Capt. Cook, or, per- 

 haps, fiom models shown by foreigners, some of whom — notably a 

 Hindoo, a Manpiesan, and a Tahitian — were resident among the Maoris 

 when the Kev. Mr. M;irsdeu arrived in 1814. 



Se<'ond. That neither Tasmaii, Cook, Parkinson, Forster, Crozet, 

 Polack, Cruise, Nicholas, Marsden, nor any other of the early visitors 

 to New Zealand mention seeing the bow or hearing of its use. That 

 Mr. Colenso himself, m his frequent journeys about the country (in 1834) 

 and continual listenings to stories of war, never heard of the bow 

 being used in combat. 



Tliird. That there is no mention in old legends of the bow being 

 used as a weapon, either in the stories of the destruction of monsters, 

 the deaths of chiefs in battle, or in the lists of arms, although these 

 lists are given with great fidelity and attention to detail. 



Of these three divisions, the first is not scientifically decisive. It is 

 possible, and even probable, that the jMaoris were taught the use of 

 the bow by early visitors, but it can not now be proven. The bow 

 might have been kept as a childish toy, although not used as a 

 weapon; exactly, for examiile, as with the modern English, with whom 

 bows and arrows are playthings, although but a few years ago (ethno- 

 logically speaking) they were the national weapons. 



The second argument is from negative evidence. There may have 

 been bows and arrows in New Zealand, and yet they may not have 

 been produced or si)oken of in the presence of new-comers; but that 

 such a reticence occurred is most imiu'obable, and, although the evi- 

 dence IS negative, it is of great value. Few impartial people will 

 belive that the bow was a weapon of the New Zealander during the last 

 century if no explorer or missionary saAV or heard of it.* 



The third argument is an exceedingly important one. If in the lists 

 of weapons mentioned in New Zealand tradition the bow has no place, 

 the conviction left in the minds of most Maori scholars will be that the 

 omission marks the absence of the bow itself from Maori knowledge.t 



Time, however, has a modifying effect on opinion, and the one thing 

 certain to come to the interested student of anthropology is a wonder- 

 ing faith in the power of Time to dissolve and form and redissolve not 



*In the Aiiclland Weckh/ Is^'eirs of April 16, 1892, is au account of an old Pakclia- 

 Maori named John Harmon, who came to New Zealand a child in 1805, and is now 

 dead. "He told a tale of a battle between the Ngati-whatua and the N»ati-maru in 

 the Thames Valley which was fought out with bows and arrows." It would jier- 

 haps be well if some member of this Society resident among either of these tribes 

 would make inquiries among the old men as to what circumstance gave rise to Har- 

 mon's story. 



+ 0n the other hand, I do not know of any list of weapons or legend of monster- 

 killing which includes the kolaha as a weapon. Yet I am informed by Mr. Percy 

 Smith that not only was lie shown an old ruined pa which Avas couqueicd by spears 

 or darts throAvn more than a quarter of a mile by means of the '• whip," but that he 

 k nows that they wcie in use at least two hundred years ago. 



