It is within my own experience that a group of names is sometimes misplaced on a genealogy, though the total number may be correct, and this is what I think has occurred on the Iro line.
If we count the generations between Te Nga-taito-ariki and Tangiia by these three lines we get the following result:—
| By the | Tangiia | line | 66 | generations. |
| {{{1}}}„ | Iro | {{{1}}}„ | 69 | {{{1}}}„ |
| {{{1}}}„ | Tangiia | {{{1}}}„ | 71 | {{{1}}}„(By Matatia) |
Giving double weight to the first Tangiia line above, we may take the mean as 68 generations back from Tangiia, or 92 from the present time to that of Te Nga-taito-ariki. By converting this into years, we arrive at a date very far back in history, or to the year 450 B.C.
The only other line of Rarotonga which may be compared with this, is that of the Tamarua family, but it contains three groups of names on it which causes me to doubt whether it is not a cosmogony, or the three groups of names are different ones for three different persons rather than a genealogy. It originates from Tu-te-rangi-marama, the nephew of Te Nga-taito-ariki, and between him and Tangiia are 119 names instead of the mean of 68 of the other lines. By taking out the three doubtful groups, there are 72 left, which does not differ so much from the mean. The full line will be found in the Tamarua history, so that Polynesian scholars may then judge of its value.[1]
There is not much chance of checking these lines from outside sources, but it may be well to see if any correspondence exists. Fornander quotes the line from the first man named in Hawaiian genealogies, Kumuhonua
- ↑ This history has not yet been published, but it will appear later on in the "Journal of the Polynesian Society."
