T'dV: INM.VNKSIAN P.OW. 201 



only tlie tribos of the cartli, but our Icnowh'd.m' t'onceniiu.u' tlicni. I 

 received lately a lettei' IVoiu u iVieud in IIk^ north of the North Ishmd 

 of New Zealand, who iiilbriued inc th;it in di.Q^uing' a drain upon his 

 property at Manuapai he eanie upon ai bow in a. i)erfect state of [)reser- 

 vation. It was lyin<;- in a bed of sandy clay, the surface of which was 

 apparently undisturbed and vir5j;iu. The tinder proceeded (in the usual 

 fashiou which horrities arclueologists) to clean his treasure trove; but, 

 luckily, before Ik- had tinished his work of scraping' and oiling the bow, 

 a friend interfered, and the original soil adheics to a portion of the 

 weapou, 



I have deposited the bow in the ^Museum for safe-kee]»iug. It is C 

 feet 43 inches in length ; in shape reseuibUng the bows of Fiji, the New 

 Hebrides, and other ^lelanesian islands, it is almost certainly a war- 

 bow, and it would try the strength of an athletic nuin to draw an arrow 

 to the head upon so stiff au arc. It was unaccompanied by any lelics 

 whatever. 



Several methods of accounting for the deposit of the bow in the 

 locality might be suggested. It might have been buried in modern 

 times by a Euroiiean or by a A'isiting native of the South Sea islands. 

 This is improbable, as the weapon must have been of some value to its 

 owner, and is too large to have been easily lost. Again, the bow, if 

 not a Maori we;ipon, might have belonged to some prehistoric; inhabi- 

 tant. There seems to be a concensus of tradition that tlie Polynesian 

 and Malayan islands were once peo])led by races exterminated or 

 driven inland by the present occupiers of the seaward positions. In 

 New Zealand many scholars believe that the I*Iaori immigration dis- 

 possessed a peoi)le then in occupation.* If, on farther testing, the bow 

 should be found to be of Melanesiau pattern, but of New Zealand wood, 

 it would strengthen the theory that a people of Melanesian (u-igin once 

 occui)ied this country. 



The evidence brought forward by Mr. Colenso in his paper nuikes it 

 almost certain that no Maori within historical times has used the bow 

 as a weapon. But did the ancient Maori use the bow ? If we turn to 

 comparative philology the auswc^r is probably in the afSrmative. The 

 evidence stands thus: 



MAr.AVsiA. , Cajeli, j;rtHa/i, a l>ow. 



iMaliiy, panah, a Itow. 

 Java, imnah, a bow. 

 Boutoii, opana, a bow. 

 Salayer, panah, a bow. 



Massaratty, panal, a loow. 

 Ahtiago, h(inah, a bow. 

 IJaJH, pandh, a bow. 

 Magiiulano, j;fl«</, an arrow. 



*Mucli of iuterest ou this .suVt.ject can bo foiuul in Major Giulgooirs articles in tlio 

 Monthly Jierietv (Wellington, New Zealand, Lyon and IJlair), vol. 11, pp. 585 and 

 517. See also the article on iliut arrowheads ibiiiid near Wellington, by Ah-. T. W. 

 Kirk, Transactions of the Nero Zealand Instihilr, \iii, .|!i(i. 



tit is said by Malay scholars that the Malay word panah, "a bow," is connected 

 with the Sanscrit word rann or hana, "arrow.'' This v.ariation as to "bow" and 

 "arrow" may be fonnd in the islands; bnt, il' connectetl with Sanscrit, the word 

 "goes asliore" into Asia. 



