Tonga Chiefs wish to be as gods to their people and not only to govern their bodies but their consciences. . .
John Thomas1 2
If th ere were individual chiefs who doubted th e com petency of F m au ‘U lukälala (M oengangongo) to assum e his fa th e r’s position of a u th o rity , their fears were eith er laid to rest or disregarded by oth ers after M oengangongo’s abolition of th e ‘in a si and the T u ‘i T o n g a title. These actio n s, as well as his d eterm in atio n to isolate V av a‘u from the tro u b le s of the rest of th e T ongan islands, legitim ized his rule of the northern arch ip elag o . This d em o n stratio n of M oengangongo’s m a n a quickly dissipated when, a fte r only a year or two of rule, the young T u ‘i V ava‘u suddenly died. T he cause appears to have been an epidem ic of an introd uced E uropean disease known in T ongan as ‘n g a n g a u’ (‘pain in th e h e a d ’) which may have been influenza3. Many of the people of T o n g a , however, a ttrib u te d his dem ise, ju s t as they had his fath e r’s, to the irreverance he displayed to the T u ‘i T onga (“ io pe kia m ala‘ia ’ -- ‘he m et w ith m isfortune as a result of his own evil a c tio n s’)4 5 6. Not surprisingly, public regard for Laufilitonga, the son of T u ‘i T o n g a F u an u n u iav a and Tupouveiongo, rose considerably and he was eventually called T u ‘i T o ng a0.
A fter the death of M oengangongo V ava‘u experienced a period of political unrest w ith a rapid succession of rulers: Fm au Fisi, H ala‘a p i‘api, P au ng a, Ulakai and T u p o u to ‘a, some of whom were assassinated . E ventually, a strong V ava‘uan ruler
1. Thomas, Papers:123
2. Interview, 5 September 1985
3. Crosby, Papers:19,52; see also Blanc 1934:32; Lätükefu 1974:20-21; McArthur 1967:71-72 4. Interview, 10 September 1985; Anonymous, History:14
5. The evidence for his change in status is problematic in that, theoretically, there was no installation ceremony for a T u‘i Tonga, nor was his name called during the taumafa kava. It appears, however, that it was the resumption of the ‘inasi which marked restoration of the title. Anonymous, History:15; Lyth, Reminiscences:46-47; Young 1858:129-130. But see also Thomas (Papers:80) who claims that Laufilitonga was never officially T u‘i Tonga.
6. Thomas, History (1879):n.p., Guitta, Histoire (2):67-69; Blanc 1934:32-33; Lätükefu 1974:21; Herda 1986
em erged in T u ap asi (Ffnau ‘U lukälala-‘i-P ouono), the son of Ffnau ‘U lukälala -‘i-Feletoa. S im ilarly, in H a‘a p a i, a d om in ant a u th o rity appeared w ith T ä u fa ‘äh au , the son of T u ‘i K anokupolu T u p o u to ‘a. A lthough th eir fath e rs were uho ta k a , there appears to have been an underlying a n tag o n ism between T u ‘i V av a‘u T uapasi and T u ‘i H a‘apai T a u fa ‘ahau . In 1833, T a u fa ‘ah au assum ed the rule of V ava‘u claim ing th a t on his death b ed T u ap asi had passed his a u th o rity to his u h o taha until his own son was of a ruling age. Interestin g ly , T u a p a s i’s last te sta m e n t was n o t recorded by any of the E uropean m issionaries present a t his d e a th , but did a p p e a r in th e papers of T hom as who was a stau n ch su p p o rte r of T a u fa ‘ah a u °. Significantly, T u a p a si’s son was never nam ed as T u ‘i V av a‘u nor as F m au ‘U lu k älala.
T ä u fa ‘ä h a u , recognized as both T u ‘i H a‘apai and T u ‘i V ava‘u, m ade prep aratio n s to secure his succession to th e T u ‘i K anokupolu title . A fter th e d eath of T u ‘i K anokupolu T u p o u to ‘a (T ä u fa ‘ä h a u ’s fath e r), th e title passed to ‘A leam o tu ‘a, th e younger b ro th e r of T u k u ‘aho and hence ta m a i (‘f a th e r ’) to T u p o u to ‘a 7 8 9. T ä u fa ‘ä h au , acting as h a u , effectively governed T onga on ‘A le a m o tu ‘a ’s behalf. He also a tte m p te d to consolidate th e unity of the governm ent by rem oving or dim inishing the opposition of th e K a u h a la ‘u ta and the H a‘a H avea to K anokupolu rule. T ä u fa ‘ähau was p a tie n t in his am b itio n s for both T o ng a and himself. His w arrio rs had defeated T u ‘i T o nga L aufilitonga and his su p p o rte rs a t V elata in H a‘ap ai in 1826 and they did not win th eir final b a ttle a g a in st th e H a‘a H avea un til 1852. In ad d itio n to arm ed conflict, the old factions fought on o th er fro n ts, including the a rra n g e m e n t of strateg ic m arriages and conversion to C h ristian den o m in atio ns (the K anokupolu people favoured W esleyanism , the T u ‘i T o n g a and his su p p o rte rs followed th e Rom an C atholic faith ). So while T ä u fa ‘ähau assum ed th e T u ‘i K anokupolu title in 1845, to which he also added the foreign-inspired m onarchical d esignation of King Sioasi (George) Tupou I, his am bitio ns for unequivocal political consolidation were not realized as quickly.
T u ‘i T o n g a L aufilitonga died in 1865. T ä u fa ‘ähau assum ed the title for himself, b u t, under m o u ntin g resentm en t, he abandoned it in 1875 and declared the title defunct. T he co n stitu tio n a l m onarchy of T onga was declared in 1875, thereby guaranteeing, at least in E uropean eyes, the continued rule of his descendants. T hus, through a deft com bination of indigenous and foreign stra te g ies applied in a solely Tongan fashion, T ä u fa ‘ähau m anaged a feat which had eluded his ancestors: the abolition of the sacred T ongan chieftainship. It would rem ain for his g re a t, g rea t gran d d au g h ter, Queen Sälote M ailefihi Pilolevu T upou III, to re-establish th e sacred chieftainship around the T u ‘i K anokupolu title .
7. See, for example, Thomas, History (n.d.):54; Lyth, Reminiscences:10-15; Lätükefu 1974:94 8. Peter Turner, Journal:159,165-169; Watkin, Journal:99, Thomas, Papers:March 1833; Thomas, History (1879):97
TH E A C C E P T E D S T R U C T U R E S of th e longue duree in Tongan history have, by and large, been p o rtray ed as abso lute and unchanging. T he ideological and historical hegemony of such a situ a tio n is not su rprising considering the m arkedly hierarchical and encom passing n a tu re of T ongan notions of chieftainship. However, even w ithin the hegemony of the T ongan elite th ere is dissension on how th e p ast should be con structed and how th a t co n stru ctio n is to be in te rp re te d . D escendants of old rivals and ancient factions will still tell different versions of th e same p ast event. T ongans recognize the dialectic n atu re of th eir history and express it beautifully in the Tongan proverb “O ku hange ‘a e tangata ha fa l loku la la nga’ (‘M ankind is like a m a t being w oven’)*0. In o th er words, hum an beings and th eir propensity to recount the p a st, may move first in one direction, then a n o th e r, or m ay double or fold back, b u t, like a m at being woven, the end pro duct, while con tain in g any num ber of inconsistencies, appears whole. U n fo rtun ately , scholars have n ot alw ays probed the encom passing ‘heroic’ n a tu re of T ongan history for com peting and often con trad icto ry versions. Instead, a tim eless tra d itio n a l p a st, which reflected th e in te rests of the ruling ideology, has been, by and large, accepted as the only con stru ctio n of T o n g a’s history. Because this history of hegem onic ideology was also involved in th e m aintenance of the achieved power balance involving a series of dispu tes by rival claim an ts, as well as a su p p la n ta tio n of the divine chieftainship, it is em bedded w ith in the genealogical m aterial.
Ideally, a u th o rity in T o n ga should follow hereditary ranking principles which rested on the notions of fem ale o u tran k in g male and older ou tran k in g younger. The im plication for th e ka ing a is th a t a sister and her children ou tran k a brother and his children and an eldest sister and her children o u tran k them all. On a wider scale these im plications were applied to lineages w ith the divine ruler, th e T u ‘i Tonga, and his sister, the T u ‘i T on g a Fefine, and her child, the T a m ah ä , positioned a t the apex of society. T heir divinity was explained and enshrined in the T ongan creation m yth cycle. A lthough nom inally contin u ed , these genealogically and m ythologically constructed notions of rank and a u th o rity were transform ed w ith the rise of K auhalalalo influence and th e proliferation of titles which accom panied and justified their rule. By erecting a new m eans of establishing secular a u th o rity and by identifying them selves as different from th e K a u h a la ‘u ta , th e K auhalalalo were able to confine the au th o rity of the divine ruler, while enlarging th eir own power base. Despite a t least two a tte m p ts a t o u trig h t ab o litio n , the appearance of K auhalalalo deference to the T u ‘i T on g a continued until the religious stru c tu re was replaced by a foreign su b stitu tio n . T his ideological and d eferential fiction disguised th e changed reality of a u th o rity and possession of power which occurred following the assassination of T u ‘i T onga T a k a la u a . The genealogies and
succession lists, however, record it firstly, in the absence of the T u ‘i T o n g a in Samoa; secondly in th e in stitu tio n of the indigenous m o heo fo as opposed to th e principal wife com ing from a chiefly Sam oan lineage; and thirdly in the increase of genealogical detail which accom panied th e establish m en t of both th e T u ‘i H a‘a ta k a la u a and T u ‘i K anokupolu title s 11.
Even before th e appearance of th e K auhalalalo, it was a p p a re n t th a t ‘e ld est’ m ean t ‘sen ior’, ra th e r th a n ‘first b o rn ’, in the Tongan cu ltu ral idiom . T his notion is shown clearly in th e to h i hohoko when a m a n ’s son by a high-ranking w om an was not his genealogically eldest male child. N orm ally, unless the eldest son was o u tsta n d in g in some o th er cap ac ity , th e younger, higher-ranking son was deemed ‘eld er’ and succeeded to his fa th e r’s title . A powerful m ate rn a l käinga could also increase th e relative ‘age’ of an individual in th e genealogies. In ad d itio n , o u tstan d in g a b ility , often expressed as in term s of m a n a , could be recognized for title succession in younger siblings of equal rank w ith some genealogies listing the successful candidate as th e eldest c a n d id ate. However, such genealogical fictions are usually a p p a re n t in th e T ongan genealogical m aterial, if it is read as a corpus and not as d istin c t individual records; th e differing versions displaying th e intricacies of the situ a tio n . Genealogical am biguities in succession custom led to intense sibling riv alry , especially betw een individuals who shared th e sam e father, b u t had different m oth ers. As p re-C hristian chiefly T ongan females were serially polyandrous and chiefly Tongan m ales were polygam ous, the occurrences of such rivalries were frequent an d , once in itia te d , were often sustained over several generations.
T he im p ortan ce of incorporating gender as a category for the legitim ation of power in a historical analysis of Tonga is a p p a re n t. In their n atal tu k u i käinga Tongan women occupied cen tral and powerful roles as ‘ila m u tu (‘s is te r’) and m e h ekita n g a (‘fa th e r’s s is te r’) where their preem inent rank also allowed them considerable a u th o rity . While th eir high s ta tu s has been acknowledged in the lite ra tu re , little a tte n tio n has been paid to th eir influence and a u th o rity . Sim ilarly, the significance of one’s m o th e r’s people in relation to the realization of political power has largely been ignored. Both of these om issions seem to rest on the problem of the hegemony in Tongan history. The new secular a u th o rity fu rth e r eroded th e influence of the divine sibling pair, th e T u ‘i T onga and T u ‘i T o n ga Fefine, and so tran sform ed the perceived potency of th e divine realm , the m ystical pow er base of the T ongan sister. This tra n sfo rm atio n is m ost clearly seen in the controversy over th e gender of H ikule‘o and in th e anach ron istic denigration of the actions of female chiefs such as F usipala, Tupoum oheofo and T oe‘um u. The genealogies d e m o n stra te th e c e n tra lity and im p o rtan ce of the power bases of these chiefly women as well as th eir spheres of influence.
11. This is hardly surprising in a system where it was a political necessity to be related to at least one of the param ount lineages.
T o n g an genealogies, like genealogical m aterial elsewhere in p re-C hristian and pre-colonial Polynesia, represent a d istillatio n of cultured con structio ns of rank, power and th e conception of society in both divine and hum an term s. Because they en c ap su late d and often legitim ized political rule, as well as ascribed and achieved s ta tu s e s , th e genealogies reflect m ost, if n ot all, political ascendancies and contentions. W hen analyzed in conjunction w ith oral n arrativ es ab o u t th e p a st, they fram e a history of only n o t individuals and events, b u t also a history of c u ltu ral process and tra n s fo rm a tio n . To p a ra p h ra se Queen Sälote, genealogies unlock the door of T o n g a ’s p ast.