12
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from
Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand
Janet Davidson
Honorary Research Associate, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand
Janet.Davidson@University-of-Ngakuta.ac.nz
Foss Leach
Honorary Research Associate, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand
Introduction
More than 40 years ago, Atholl Anderson carried out his irst major archaeological ieldwork
in Tasman Bay, in the northwest of the South Island (Anderson 1966). his paper describes an
important cache of ishhooks found recently near Takaka in Mohua (Golden Bay), immediately
to the west of Tasman Bay. We ofer the paper to Atholl in recognition of his pioneering
archaeological work in Te Tau Ihu (the top of the South Island) and his life-long commitment
to the study and practice of ishing. In his MA thesis in geography, Atholl acknowledged the
help of Don Millar, who provided him with unpublished information. We also acknowledge the
generous assistance of Don Millar during our present study.
In July 2002, W. Butler, a resident of Takaka, discovered the ishhooks while he was preparing
a new climbing route on a limestone clif at Pohara (Figure 1). he limestone scarp is in coastal
scrub about 15 m back from the inner edge of the roadway (Figure 2). he formation is part of
the late Oligocene-early Miocene Takaka Limestone, which is usually less than 100 m thick and
regarded as ‘platform facies’; in other words, it formed on a stable platform and includes shallowwater bioclastic limestone with a muddy micaceous component (Rattenbury et al. 1998). he
limestone is relatively pure. An average analysis has 90 percent CaCO3, 2.5 percent SiO2, 0.42
percent Al2O3, and 1.68 percent Fe2O3 (K. Miller pers comm.). Although this rocky headland
extends down to sea level, the marine environment in the vicinity and elsewhere in Golden Bay
is dominated by sandy shorelines and the marine faunas associated with these.
he ishhooks were on a ledge about 400 mm long and 200 mm deep, and were covered by
about 25 mm of lime dust. he limestone in this vicinity is horizontally bedded with numerous
crevices, ledges and blocks, and the ledge where the hooks were found was only 2.5 m above
the ground. Above the ledge is a high overhang, representing a suitable challenge for rock
climbers.
terra australis 29
186
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Figure 1. The Pohara ishhook cache was found on the eastern side of Mohua (Golden Bay) near Takaka.
Figure 2. The limestone bluf where the ishhook cache was found (photo courtesy of Steve Bagley).
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 187
here is no obvious evidence of midden or cooking debris at the base of the limestone clif,
but there is a substantial surface deposit of limestone that has eroded from the face, and there
could be archaeological layers buried deeply below present ground level. he site number is
N25/119.
Fifteen hooks were recovered and taken to the Nelson Provincial Museum. he Maori
community at Takaka, Manawhenua ki Mohua, has taken an active interest in these hooks
and a meeting was held at the museum to discuss their conservation and study. In April 2003,
another meeting was held at the Onetahua marae at Pohara so more members of Manawhenua
ki Mohua could see the hooks and decide what studies were appropriate. It was agreed a small
fragment of the ibre should be taken for identiication and radiocarbon dating.
Description of the hooks
he 15 hooks are beautifully inished and all are in an excellent state of preservation. Several
have fragments of their original snood lashing.1 he ibre is very fragile and powders easily.
he fact that these ibres are still present is no doubt due to the extremely dry limestone dust
covering them on the ledge. he fragments of cordage are shown in Figure 3. Hook 8 has parts
of the original lashing close by in unravelled form. Hook 13 has a considerable quantity of the
original lashing still present at the top of the shank, but again partly unravelled. Hook 14 also
has unravelled cordage at the top of the shank. Finally, Hook 15 has loose loops of the original
lashing around the top of the shank. In addition to these pieces of cordage that were still loosely
attached to the hooks, there are several separate pieces, which can also be seen in Figure 3. One
piece is above Hook 12, another is below Hook 5, and the largest piece is a small coil of line to
the right of Hook 5.
he most notable feature of these fragments of cordage is that almost all are rectangularsectioned pieces of unscutched strips of plant. he species has not been deinitely identiied, but
it is probably not New Zealand lax, Phormium tenax, and could be Muehlenbeckia cf. complexia
(Rod Wallace pers comm.). Goulding (1971) found very few references to ibre plants used for
ishing gear. Strips of unscutched lax were commonly used by pre-European Maori for making
ishing nets (Leach 2006:104f.); a few accounts suggest that actual ishing lines were made
of dressed lax ibres (Colenso 1875:265; Hiroa 1950:216; Best 1977:45). On most museum
specimens of Maori bone and wooden ishhooks from the early European period, the snood
lashing uses very ine ibre cordage, at least on the exterior. It is possible that in at least some
cases, coarser lengths of unscutched strips are hidden inside this outer lashing. he snood lashing
of the Pohara hooks appears rather crude, but this may not be so. hese strips of untreated plant
may have been deliberately chosen for use around the shank of the hook for extra strength,
woven into the main two or three-ply cordage, and then covered with iner ibres.
Hook shape
he shape of the hooks is illustrated in Figure 4. All are close to U-shaped, with the point
leg almost as long as the shank. he points of the hooks all curve downwards, in a form that
appears similar to the barb on a European metal hook. Directly opposite the point in most cases
there is a projection from the shank reminiscent of a shank barb on a European metal hook.
When viewed together, these two projections, on the point leg and the shank, enclose a near
symmetrical heart shape in the interior open space (see for example Figure 4 item 8). Entrance
to this open space is smooth, rather like the entrance to an eel trap (hinaki), but once through
the gap, there is little chance of escape. Of the four hooks without shank barbs, Hook 2 has
terra australis 29
188
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
a slight bulge and Hook 12 a slight protrusion on the inner side of the shank head, while in
Hooks 3 and 6 the shank is smooth.
At the head or top of the shank leg there are projections that assist the binding of cord to
the hook. hese are rather variable in form.
Seven hooks have a small feature at the base of the U-shape. In Hooks 1, 2, 8 and 9, this
takes the form of a simple notch. In Hooks 5, 12 and 14, there is a slight projection, rather than
a notch. Some ethnographic specimens of Maori bone ishhooks with notches have ine lines
attached. hey are generally thought to have been used to tie bait on to the hook to prevent it
coming of when ish bite it. he features on Hooks, 5, 12 and 14 could also have secured a bait
string, as Hiroa (1957:327) suggested for a similar feature on some Hawaiian hooks. In one case
(Hook 5), there are several notches towards the bottom of the point leg that might have served
the same function. However, they might simply have been decorative features.
he point gap
A striking feature of many of these hooks is the small gap between the point and the shank. his
is documented below (Table 1). Hook 4 has a broken point, so the gap could not be measured.
Figure 3. The hooks shortly after removal from the cleft, showing the remains of cordage (photo courtesy of Nelson Provincial
Museum).
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 189
Figure 4. Details of the Pohara ishhooks (drawing by Rita Larje).
terra australis 29
190
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
he height measurement is the overall height in mm at right angles to the base of each specimen,
and the gap is the distance in mm between the point and the shank.
Materials
Identifying the species of plants or animals used for making artefacts is always very diicult.
Unfortunately, very little research has been done in New Zealand to characterise the most
common organic materials that may have been used by pre-European Maori. his can involve
the use of scanning electron microscope for minute detail, and/or elemental characterisation
with X-ray luorescence analysis, and/or molecular characterisation with techniques such as
infra-red or Raman spectroscopy. In the absence of such background research, hand specimen
identiications are little better than guesswork.
With considerable reservations, therefore, some possible identiications are made here of
the materials used for these hooks (Table 2). hese are based on observations with low power
binocular microscope and comparison with identiied specimens of materials. Sea mammal bone,
for example, has quite diagnostic features, such as a porous trabecular framework, compared
with human lamellar bone, which is very dense.
Radiocarbon dating
A few of the loose threads were submitted for radiocarbon dating. hese were teased apart
and cleaned by washing in warm water, followed by consecutive treatments in hot solutions of
acid, alkali, and acid. his ensured any limestone dust would be removed. he clean threads
were then burnt in a sealed quartz tube at 900C, which
Table 1. Pohara ishhook measurements.
converted all organic material to carbon dioxide gas.
Overall hook height (mm) and point gap (mm).
he gas was then puriied and converted to graphite for
measurement in an accelerator mass spectrometer. A
Hooks with no shank barb
small sample was used for determination of 13C, which
Hook #
Height
Gap
proved to be -27.2 percent, consistent with terrestrial
2
38.0
5.5
plants. he conventional radio-carbon age NZA-19380
3
36.0
8.0
was calculated as 389±35 BP. his conventional
6
30.5
6.7
radiocarbon age was converted to calendrical years using
12
41.0
7.0
the IntCal04 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2004)
and OxCal software (v4.0.3 Bronk Ramsey (2007);
r:5). his gave the following result (Figure 5).
Hooks with shank barb
Hook #
Height
Gap
1
32.0
3.0
4
34.0
—
5
36.0
2.0
7
40.0
2.9
8
40.0
2.0
9
38.0
2.0
10
36.0
2.3
11
50.0
1.9
13
34.7
2.5
14
40.0
2.7
15
37.1
2.6
terra australis 29
68.2% probability
55.7% AD 1447 to 1514
12.5% AD 1600 to 1617
95.4% probability
63.9% AD 1440 to 1525
31.5% AD 1557 to 1632
It is unfortunate that there was a signiicant change
in the level of 14C in the atmosphere between AD 1450
and 1650, which is readily seen in the calibration graph
in Figure 5. his is the cause of ambiguity in converting
the radiocarbon years BP to calendrical years AD. here
are two peaks, centred on AD 1465 and AD 1610. Even
with the excellent standard error of ± 35 years for the
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 191
Table 2. Pohara ishhook material from low-power microscopic observation.
Hook #
Possible identiication
1
Shell. This could be Alcithoe sp. or Cookia sp.
2
Shell. ?sp.
3
Shell. ?sp.
4
Shell. The specimen has nacreous layers interspersed with conchiolin, suggesting a shell such as Hyridella sp.
5
Bone. Very dense, ?sp., possibly Homo sapiens.
6
Bone. Probably either whale or seal.
7
Bone. Probably either whale or seal.
8
Bone. Very dense, ?sp., possibly Homo sapiens. Snooding ibres present.
9
Bone. Probably either whale or seal.
10
Bone. Probably either whale or seal.
11
Bone. Probably either whale or seal.
12
Bone. Very dense, ?sp., possibly Homo sapiens calvarium.
13
Bone. Probably either whale or seal. Snooding ibres present.
14
Bone. Very dense, ?sp., possibly Homo sapiens. Snooding ibres present.
15
Shell. With thick periostracum, ?sp. Snooding ibres present.
CRA, this ambiguity is unable to be resolved and reveals a fundamental weakness in using
radiocarbon dating for an important portion of the pre-European period of Maori history. It is
hoped that in the future alternative methods, such as electron spin resonance dating, which do
not have this inherent problem will ind greater application in New Zealand. ESR spectra from
minute samples of human bone and teeth have been successfully used to date events within
the past 1000 years (Dennison et al. 1985, 1993; Whitehead et al. 1986; Dennison and Peake
1992).
Comparison with hooks elsewhere
Two forms of hook were recognised above: four hooks with in-turned points but no shank barb,
and the remaining eleven hooks with shank barbs (all the complete ones also have in-turned
points). Hook 1, which we have grouped with the shank-barbed hooks, has a less pronounced
protrusion from the shank than the other hooks and might not be classed as shank-barbed by
some archaeologists.
Plain unbarbed U-shaped hooks with in-turned points are an old Polynesian form, found
in early archaeological sites in the Society and Marquesas Islands and throughout New Zealand,
although they seem to have been particularly popular in Northland and Coromandel (Davidson
1984:66–68). here is considerable variation in the exact shape and in the way the head of the
shank is modiied to facilitate line attachment, but forms not unlike Hooks 3, 6 and 12 at Pohara
can be seen among ishhooks in early sites from Northland to Otago (e.g. Hjarno 1967:59, 61;
Furey 2002:59). Hook 2, with its rather clumsy-looking in-turned point, is less easily matched
elsewhere. However, it is noteworthy that in all four of these Pohara hooks, the point turns
downwards far more markedly than in most examples from New Zealand. Downward-turned
points do not seem to be present in early archaeological sites, but are occasionally found in later
terra australis 29
192
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Figure 5. Calibration of the radiocarbon date for the Pohara ishhooks.
sites as far aield as Kaikoura and the Bay of Plenty (Davidson 1984:Fig. 49n, 50l). Such sharply
down-turned points are also seen in some tropical Paciic examples.
Shank-barbed hooks have long been recognised as a distinct form in New Zealand. Skinner
pointed to comparable examples from Hawai’i and Easter Island and suggested that shankbarbed hooks were an ‘old Polynesian feature’ (Skinner 1942:218). He made a distinction
between hooks with a projection on the inner bend of the shank leg immediately below the
snood lashing knob (similar to that seen in Pohara hooks 1 and 12), which he thought might
have been intended to protect the snood lashing from friction, and ‘small one-piece hooks made
from human bone and common on the east coast of the North Island’, in which this projection
did seem designed ‘to assist in hooking the ish’ (ibid).
Trotter discussed shank-barbed hooks as a ‘well marked variety of one-piece hooks’ (Trotter
1956:245), describing examples from mainland New Zealand and comparing them with hooks
from the Chatham Islands, Hawai’i, Easter Island and Japan. Crosby (1966:200, 221, Fig. 66)
classiied shank-barbed hooks as a ‘Portland Type’, which she described as mostly small, wellknown ethnographically, and characterised by a gap of only 2 to 3 mm between barbs. Trotter
and Crosby both reported occasional examples from Northland, Coromandel, Otago and
Southland, but found that the main distribution was between Mahia Peninsula and Wellington,
down the lower east coast of the North Island. Trotter (1956:251) correlated this distribution
with Skinner’s (1921) East Coast culture area.
he importance of shank-barbed hooks on the east coast of the North Island has been
reinforced in several studies by Millar (nd, 1992, 1999) of well-localised private collections.
Twenty-three complete examples from Portland Island (Millar 1992) are small (ranging from
24 mm to 30.5 mm long) and have gaps of no more than 2.75 mm between the barbs. Seventyeight percent have bait notches, and 41 percent of a larger sample, including broken hooks, have
serrations on the outer edge. his is the form of shank-barbed hook that is sometimes found in
museum collections with snoods and lines still attached (Te Papa 2004:1, 300#10).
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 193
Shank-barbed hooks similar to those from Portland Island, described by Trotter, Crosby
and Millar, were collected during James Cook’s visits to New Zealand between 1769 and 1777.
Several attributed to Cook’s voyages are in Te Papa. Two shank-barbed hooks (Figure 6) are
among 17 hooks now in the Georg August University of Göttingen (Hauser-Schäublin and
Krüger 1998:300–302); they are serrated like many protohistoric hooks from New Zealand.
he other 15 Göttingen hooks include an unbarbed one-piece shell hook with in-turned point,
an unbarbed serrated bone hook with a small barb-like protrusion at the base of both point and
shank, two diferent forms of trolling lure, and a variety of composite bait hooks with wooden
shanks and bone points. hese hooks were purchased from a London dealer, George Humphrey,
in 1782 and derive from Cook’s second and third voyages. he main locality for collecting Maori
objects on these two voyages was Queen Charlotte Sound. Hooks were certainly collected there
on June 1 and November 22 1773 (Forster 2000:125, 276) and probably on other occasions
as well. Hooks were also acquired of the entrance to Wellington Harbour on November 2
(Forster 2000:268), near an area where elaborately notched shank-barbed hooks have been
found (Beckett 1953). here were also opportunities for hooks to be acquired during trading
just south of Cape Kidnappers on October 22 1773 (Forster 2000:265) and at Tolaga Bay in
November (Beaglehole 1969:742).
he two shank-barbed hooks in Göttingen are 30 mm long and have narrow gaps of 1.5
mm and 2.3 mm. Both are serrated. Both the snoods and the lines are noticeably thick for
such small hooks. he thin line near the top of the snood lashing in Figure 6A might at irst
glance be mistaken for a bait line coming from the snood lashing, but it is actually the terminal
strands of the main line, twisted downwards. A similar example of untwisted loose strands is
more clearly seen in the second hook (Figure 6B). A shank-barbed hook illustrated by Beasley
(1928:Fig. XIIA) and Trotter (1956:Fig. 5) has a thin twisted cord attached to the snood lashing
in addition to the main line. his appears to be a bait line. his arrangement is puzzling since
the hook also has a bait notch in the bend. We know of no other ethnographic example with a
similar ancillary line.
Figure 6. Two shank-barbed ishhooks collected during the visits of James Cook
to New Zealand in AD 1773–1777, and now in the Institute of Cultural and Social
Anthropology, Georg August University of Göttingen, catalogue numbers A: Oz
328, and B: Oz 329 (Photo courtesy of Gundolf Krüger).
terra australis 29
194
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
he Pohara shank-barbed hooks are somewhat larger than and difer in an important
respect from the Göttingen and Te Papa examples and most of those illustrated by Trotter and
Crosby. In all of the latter, the feature on the point leg is more like an inner barb, while in the
Pohara hooks it is a distinctive down-turned point. he space in the centre of the hook is heartshaped in the Pohara hooks, but not in the others. However, the Pohara hooks ind a striking
parallel in a recently described collection from Ocean Beach, just south of Hawkes Bay. he
Hamish Gordon collection now in Lindisfarne College (Millar 1999) includes bone and shell
shank-barbed hooks remarkably similar to those from Pohara, difering only in the presence of
serrations on most of the bone ones (Figure 7). he collection also includes unbarbed hooks
with in-turned points, although these are not as sharply down-turned as the Pohara ones. In this
Ocean Beach collection, the feature on the point leg of the shank-barbed hooks is an in-turned
point, not an inner barb. he Ocean Beach hooks are smaller than most of the Pohara hooks,
ranging in length from about 28 mm to 34 mm.
Shank-barbed ishhooks from reliable archaeological contexts are extremely rare and none
are well dated. here are single broken examples from Hot Water Beach and Opito on the
Coromandel Peninsula, Pariwhakatau in Marlborough (Davidson 1984:ig. 50e–g) and Panau
on Banks Peninsula (Jacomb 2000:67–68). Complete examples are reported from Oruarangi
in the Hauraki Plains (Furey 1996:igs 339–340), Paremata near Wellington, and Murdering
Beach in Otago (Davidson 1984:ig. 50h–j). he last two are thought to be of early 19th century
age. he broken examples are plain; the others have serrations on the outer edges. Together, they
probably date from middle pre-European to early post-contact times.
In summary, our review suggests the Pohara hooks represent a relatively early form of the
shank-barbed hook in New Zealand, with down-turned point rather than inner-barbed point,
lacking the serrations more common on later hooks, and being somewhat larger than the known
Portland Island hooks and ethnographic examples. he similarities to some hooks from Ocean
Beach are very striking and raise questions about connections between the two areas.
Figure 7. A selection of ishhooks from the Hamish Gordon Memorial Collection at Lindisfarne College (courtesy of Don Millar). Top
row shell, bottom row bone.
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 195
Form and function
Classiications of ishhooks in New Zealand and the Paciic have tended to focus on form, with
less attention to function. Discussions of hanging baited hooks often distinguish between jabbing
hooks and rotating hooks, which are thought to function diferently. Nordhof (1930:156) irst
described the action of rotating hooks used in still-ishing (rather than trolling) for albacore
in the Society Islands. Reinman (1970:56) suggested particular types of hooks were intended
to exploit particular environments and the ish that inhabit them. He emphasised the interrelationship between structural variables (primarily the efect of material on form), functional
variables (particularly how the hook is presented to the ish to maximise penetration and prevent
escape) and ecological variables (such as ish size, behaviour and habitat). More recently, Allen
(1996) endeavoured to distinguish stylistic and functional variables in East Polynesian hooks,
and found that functional aspects of hook morphology are still poorly understood. Most studies,
however, have concentrated on form without considering what kinds of ish were targeted and
how the hooks actually captured and held them. he Pohara hooks, with their tiny gaps between
point and shank, highlight these issues.
Previous writers have commented on the narrow gap between point and shank in Maori
ishhooks in general, and in the shank-barbed hooks in particular (Trotter 1956:245; Crosby
1966:221). Anell (1955:107–108), in a wide-ranging review of ishing in Oceania, suggested
Maori hooks with double inner barb (his term for shank-barbed hooks) might have been
ornamental rather than functional, whereas Trotter (1956:246) considered they were mostly
functional. It is possible the single known example in pounamu, or greenstone, (Oldman
2004:Plate 20 no. 97) was ornamental or ceremonial, because of the value of the raw material and
its frequent use in ornaments, although in form it is identical to the many small bone examples
attributed to the Portland Island area. Unfortunately, it is part of the Oldman Collection,
repatriated to New Zealand in 1948, and its original provenance is unknown.
here is no reason to doubt that the Pohara hooks were functional. One of us (Leach 2006:
117–130) has considered the question of the function of Maori one-piece hooks in detail,
drawing on studies of hook function in relation to ish behaviour in other parts of the world. It
has been proposed that Maori hooks with narrow gaps were rotating hooks, which functioned
in the following way (Figure 8):
According to this theory the ish does the catching, not the isherman. ... at A, the ish approaches the
hook (bait not shown). Many ish are accustomed to eating extraneous matter, such as fragments of shell,
with their food and a hook with no projection could easily be swallowed without discomfort (shown at
B). If the line is tugged at this point, the hook would come out of the ish’s mouth, but if left alone, the
ish will swim away, carrying the line along its side (shown at C). he line will eventually become taut,
and begin to pull the hook out of the ish’s mouth. At irst, the force on the hook is towards the front of
the ish, but the instant the shank becomes clear of the mouth the direction of the force changes towards
the rear of the ish, causing it to rotate rapidly. It will come to rest with the shank of the hook lying outside
the jaw, and the point lying inside the jaw (shown at D). From this stage on the ish cannot escape. If
the line is now tugged or the ish tries to change direction, the hook will rotate in the mouth, acting as a
lever, and the point will penetrate behind the jawbone. In theory, to a certain extent, the narrower the gap
between the shank and the point, the better. In addition, the hook rotates more efectively if the shank is
the same length as the leg on which the point occurs. (Leach 2006:118–119)
It was stressed that this is a theory, which needs to be tested by observations of real ish,
using replica hooks. But would this theory apply to shank-barbed hooks with tiny gaps, such as
terra australis 29
196
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Figure 8. A theory of how the rotating hook might work (from Leach 2006:118).
the Pohara hooks? Elsewhere in Polynesia, shank-barbed ishhooks are best documented from
Hawai’i. Emory et al. (1959:42) found shank-barbed hooks in both early and late contexts
in archaeological sites at South Point on the island of Hawai’i and classiied them (without
discussing the issue) as jabbing hooks. In Sinoto’s revised classiication of Hawaiian hooks, shankbarbed hooks are variously considered to be jabbing or rotating hooks, depending on whether
or not the point is in-turned (Sinoto 1991:100). Although this is a functional classiication, it
is not based on any experimental or ethnographic evidence. In this respect, it is worth quoting
comments on this subject by Elsdon Best as follows:
he shape of native-made ish-hooks often surprises observers, in that the point is so close to the shank,
but old natives have assured me that such hooks were the most efective, and decidedly superior to the
wide-mouthed ones for taking certain ish (Best 1977:43). … he somewhat slender hooks employed in
taking albatross were much more open than most ish-hooks, and the shanks thereof were often adorned
with inely executed carved designs (ibid:45).
Clearly, the size of the point gap was of considerable functional importance. he point gaps
of the two hooks illustrated in Figure 6 are especially small, at only 1.5 mm and 2.3 mm, and
the 10 Pohara specimens with shank-barb average a mere 2.39 mm, causing one to wonder what
part of the ish anatomy could possibly pass through such a tiny entrance? One possibility is one
of the bones in the gill arch of ish. he bones that make up the branchial arch, while lexible,
are strongly held together and thin enough to pass through a narrow gap in a ishhook, such as
those illustrated in Figures 4, 6 and 7. When ish identify non-food debris during feeding, they
can spit this out either through the mouth or through the gill arch. Ejection of debris through
the gill arch has been observed with snapper (Pagrus auratus) in aquaria (Larry Paul pers comm.
2007), and this species is one of the most common in Golden Bay. he particular elements
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 197
in the branchial arch most likely to have been caught by such a hook passing out through the
gill arch would be one of the long thin bones known as the epibranchial and ceratobranchial
elements. European ishermen are used to baiting their hooks with the bait attached to the point
leg. However, bait could be attached to the bait line at some distance below the hook, so that
when the ish swallowed the bait, the small hook would remain unswallowed in the back of the
throat. If the main line was slack, the hook could be ejected through the gill arch, and if the ish
pulled against the line, the epibranchial or ceratobranchial could easily pass through the tiny
gap in the hook and be inextricably captured. An interesting feature of a hook functioning in
the manner described is that a very small hook could catch a very large ish, and in fact it would
be an advantage for such a hook to be as small as possible. We might now look at the two hooks
illustrated in Figure 6 with a somewhat diferent perspective. It will be observed that the snood
lashing is very large and strong and seems out of character with the small size of the hook itself.
he line attached to the hook is also very thick and strong, when we might have expected a
delicate line for these small hooks. On the other hand, if these small hooks were really designed
for capturing large, strong ish, these features would make a lot more sense.
he idea that these Pohaha shank-barbed hooks with such a narrow gap were designed
for capturing large ish in the bones of the gill arch is only a hypothesis at the moment, but it
certainly deserves testing. his would require making replicas, baiting them in various ways, and
observing the behaviour of diferent species of ish using scuba equipment or in an aquarium.
One inal point – all of these hooks with such a narrow gap, forged by the in-curved point
and the shank barb and displaying this heart-shaped interior mentioned earlier, display a feature
reminiscent of the ‘non-return’ principle present in numerous types of ishing equipment (Brandt
1984:166f.). his occurs when there is a barrier with an in-curved entrance that permits ish to
enter a trap but not exit. he principle is well known in many forms of Maori and Polynesian
ishing technology, from eel traps (hinaki) to ish weirs. hus characterised, the pre-European
Maori isherman might see these hooks as symbolically similar to other forms of ish trap.
Whatever the reality, the owner of the Pohara cache obviously believed that his ishhooks,
made of various materials and with subtle variations in form, would catch ish.
he question of what species of ish these hooks might have been designed to catch, or
been most efective in catching, is not easy to answer. At best, only very broad guidelines can
be given. For example, one-piece baited hooks are quite efective in catching pelagic predators,
such as kahawai (Arripus trutta) and barracouta (hyrsites atun), which are instantly attracted to
lures, although lashing red-coloured lures are more efective. Conversely, lure hooks are known
to catch groper (Polyprion oxygeneios) and even stargazers (Kathetostoma giganteum) hugging the
bottom. One possible clue to species caught by these hooks might be the common species in the
vicinity of Pohara, such as snapper (Pagrus auratus) and seasonally abundant kahawai. However,
this is a weak interpretation because the owner of the hooks may have used them primarily at a
more distant rocky-shore location where blue cod (Parapercis colias) are abundant. Finally, the
composition of nearby midden might be used to help interpret the species caught with such
hooks. Unfortunately, this is also highly questionable, as detailed research on this matter with
middens and large collections of hooks on small Paciic islands has shown (Leach and Davidson
1988; Davidson and Leach 1996). All these forms of indirect argument, from cause to efect
and then back again, to help identify species from form are prone to such diiculties. It is more
sensible simply to accept this problem and pay greater attention to interpretations that are on
safer ground.
terra australis 29
198
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Discussion
A ind such as the Pohara cache ofers a unique glimpse into the past. It is almost certainly
the collection of a single isherman, who hid his hooks in a safe place, expecting to return and
reclaim them, but failed to do so, for reasons we can never know.
he cache represents ishing gear last used by one person at one time and place. Wherever
the isherman lived, he probably last used his hooks in the eastern part of Mohua and expected
to do so again. his goes some way towards meeting Reinman’s ecological variable. We have
already discussed the possible way these hooks functioned. Experiments with replicas may in
future conirm how they functioned, and assist in understanding the ish targeted. In this case,
the inluence of material on form appears to be slight. Very similar forms could be rendered
in more than one kind of shell and at least two diferent kinds of bone. his use of diferent
materials may relect the isherman’s beliefs about what was appropriate for diferent kinds of
ish or diferent ishing conditions, or even the need to conform to ritual observance.
Archaeologists try to describe and classify ishhooks using assemblages consisting mostly
of broken fragments of hooks that had probably been used by a variety of diferent ishermen
over a period of uncertain duration. In the very large collection of 1016 hooks from Houhora
in Northland, only 31 were intact (Furey 2002:56). Ethnographic collections are more likely to
include complete hooks belonging to one person, or deriving from one time or place, but the
contextual information is seldom good enough to be sure of this.
he Pohara hooks encompass variations in detail which could be mistaken by archaeologists
for regional or chronological markers. here is a range in shape, from an almost V (Hook 3)
to several perfect U-shapes. Most hooks are symmetrical, but Hook 5 is not. here are several
diferent head types. he head is a favourite feature in archaeological classiications because it is
variable (Sinoto 1962; Hjarno 1967; Allen 1996; Furey 2002). Allen (1996:113) suggests these
variations are stylistic rather than functional and some variants, at least, may relect ancestral
relationships and patterns of interaction. he Pohara hooks provide a warning about attempting
to interpret variations in head form. Any suggestion that such variations may be functional or
stylistic features with regional or chronological meaning is fraught with problems.
Some of the Pohara hooks have ‘bait notches’ and others do not; on several, the bait notch is
like a tiny non-functional barb. Only one has a small series of notches that could be a precursor
to the more extensive notching seen on many shank-barbed hooks elsewhere. he single most
deining feature of these hooks is the sharply down-turned point, which is present on all of
them, although it is least pronounced on Hooks and 3 and 6. Unfortunately, points are very
often missing from the hooks archaeologists usually have to deal with.
Nothing is known ethnographically about the making of ishhooks. Were there specialist
makers or did most ishermen make their own? Are the Pohara hooks the work of one maker
(either their owner, or a specialist from whom he obtained them), or are they the work of several
diferent makers? In the latter case, the makers obviously would have shared a conviction that
sharply down-turned points were efective.
he Pohara cache can be compared with another isherman’s kit found at Jackson Bay in
Westland (Leach 2007). his consists of 38 bone points from composite hooks – 26 lure points
and 12 points for composite bait hooks that would have had wooden shanks. hese items are
completely diferent in form from the Pohara hooks, and most of them are parts of trolling
hooks, rather than hanging baited hooks. he Jackson Bay cache is also surprising in that it
contains nine points of a form unknown in the South Island, and previously described from
the site of Oruarangi in the Hauraki Plains of the North Island. Both of these caches, found on
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 199
or towards the South Island west coast, seem to point to North Island connections. Maori oral
histories give some insights into the web of interconnections between the islands.
he complex sequence of tribal occupation in Te Tau Ihu (the top of the South Island),
including Mohua, has been reviewed in detail by Mitchell and Mitchell (2004:43–98), who
describe movements into the area from both the east and west coasts of the North Island. At
the time of Tasman’s brief and unhappy visit to Mohua in AD 1642, Mohua was part of the
region occupied by Ngati Tumatakokiri, a tribe said to have moved there from the central North
Island via Whanganui (Mitchell and Mitchell 2004:74). Ngati Tumatakokiri was, however,
a Kurahaupo tribe, a tribal ancestor Tumatakokiri being a son of Whatonga (Mitchell and
Mitchell 2004:59). Kurahaupo tribes occupied much of the southern North Island, including
Skinner’s (1921) East Coast culture area, as well as moving progressively into the South Island.
Connections and movements between the east coast of the North Island and the top of the
South Island are well documented (e.g. O’Regan 1987). he similarity in ishhooks as far as
apart as Mohua and Ocean Beach may not, therefore, be so surprising.
Conclusions
he Pohara cache is a unique collection of ishhooks, representing one man’s kit at one point in
time, and used at one particular place. Although the hooks show some variability in form, they
are characterised by the sharply down-turned point of all examples and the narrow gap between
point and shank, which is most marked in the 11 shank-barbed examples. How these hooks
actually functioned remains unknown. Hypotheses on this issue can only be tested by direct
observations using replicas.
he radiocarbon date places the hooks in the early to middle part of the pre-European
sequence in New Zealand, earlier than the extensively serrated examples of shank-barbed hooks
from Portland Island and other places, some of which are known to date to the 18th and early
19th centuries. here are striking similarities to one undated collection of hooks from Ocean
Beach, just south of Hawkes Bay, although many of these carry the serrations which are present
on the later examples from Portland Island and elsewhere, but not on the Pohara hooks.
he Pohara cache has probably doubled the number of known examples of shank-barbed
hooks from secure contexts outside the previously known main distribution from Mahia
to Wellington. his suggests how much remains to be learned about pre-European Maori
ishhooks.
Endnote
1.
he term ‘snood’ refers to the short line connecting the hook to the main line; ‘snood lashing’
refers to the attachment of the snood to the hook. Snood lashings on some Polynesian hooks were
very complex (Hiroa 1957:339–341).
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful to Chris Hill and Manawhenua ki Mohua for the opportunity to study
this important collection and for their interest and encouragement. We would also like to
thank the Nelson Provincial Museum for access to the collection. Steve Bagley (Department
of Conservation, Nelson) took the photographs of the site, and Rita Larje drew the hooks.
terra australis 29
200
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Hamish Campbell (GNS Science) and Keith Miller (Holcim [New Zealand] Ltd) provided
information on the limestone, and Larry Paul (formerly of NIWA) provided useful comments
on ish behaviour in aquaria. he radiocarbon date was run free of charge for Mana Whenua ki
Mohua by the Rafter Laboratory, GNS, through the good oices of Rodger Sparks. Rod Wallace
(Auckland University) and Catherine Smith (Otago University) examined the ibres. Gundolf
Krüger (Georg August University of Göttingen) sent us measurements and photographs of
the hooks in Göttingen. Last but not least, Don Millar (Honorary Curator of New Zealand
Archaeology, Hawke’s Bay Cultural Trust) shared his knowledge of Hawke’s Bay collections of
ishhooks, and was as helpful to us now as he was to Atholl Anderson more than 40 years ago.
References
Allen, M.S. 1996. Style and function in East Polynesian ish-hooks. Antiquity 70:97–116.
Anderson, A.J. 1966. Maori Occupation Sites in Back Beach Deposits around Tasman Bay.
Unpublished MA thesis (Geography), University of Canterbury.
Anell, B. 1955. Contribution to the History of Fishing in the Southern Seas. Studia Ethnographica
Upsaliensia IX.
Beaglehole, J.C. (ed) 1969. he Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure 1772-1775. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society.
Beasley, H.G. 1928. Paciic Island Records: Fishhooks. London: Seeley and Service.
Beckett, P. 1953. Two ish hook parts from a midden in Wellington. Journal of the Polynesian Society
62(2):196.
Best, E. 1977. Fishing Methods and Devices of the Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin 12. Wellington:
Government Printer [Repaginated reprint of 1929 edition].
Brandt, A. von. 1984. Fish catching methods of the world. Farnham: Fishing News Books.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2007. Deposition models for chronological records. Quaternary Science Reviews
(INTIMATE special issue). In press.
Colenso, W. 1875. On the geographic and economic botany of the North Island of New Zealand.
Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 1868, Vol. 1:233–283.
Crosby. E.B.V. 1966. Maori Fishing Gear: A study of the development of Maori ishing gear,
particularly in the North Island. Unpublished MA thesis, Anthropology, University of Auckland.
Davidson, J.M. 1984 he Prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.
Davidson, J.M. and B.F. Leach 1996. Fishing on Nukuoro Atoll: Ethnographic and archaeological
viewpoints. In M. Julien, M. Orliac, and C. Orliac (eds), Mémoire de Pierre, Mémoire D’Homme:
Tradition et Archéologie en Océanie. Hommage à José Garanger, pp.184–202. Paris: Publication de la
Sorbonne.
Dennison, K.J. and B.M. Peake 1992. ESR bone dating in New Zealand. Proceedings of the 6th
International Specialist Seminar on hermoluminescence and Electron Spin Resonance Dating.
Clermond-Ferrand, France. 2–6 July, 1990. Quaternary Science Reviews 11:251–255.
Dennison, K.J., P. Houghton, B.F. Leach and B.M. Peake 1985. Sample preparation and instrumental
aspects of EPR dating of New Zealand human bone. In M. Ikeya and T. Miki (eds), ESR dating
and dosimetery, pp. 341–352. Tokyo: Ionics.
Dennison, K.J., A.D. Oduwole and K.D. Sales 1993. Some ESR observations on bone, tooth
enamel and eggshell. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on ESR Dosimetry and
Applications. Gaithersburg, Maryland, 14–18 October, 1991. Applied Radiation and Isotopes
44:261–266.
Emory, K.P., W.J. Bonk, and Y.H. Sinoto 1959. Hawaiian Archaeology: Fishhooks. Bernice P. Bishop
Museum Special Publication 1959, Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.
terra australis 29
A cache of one-piece ishhooks from Pohara, Takaka, New Zealand 201
Forster, G. 2004. A Voyage Round the World. 2 Vols. Edited by N. homas and O. Berghof. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press.
Furey, L. 1996. Oruarangi: he Archaeology and Material Culture of a Hauraki Pa. Auckland Institute
and Museum Bulletin 17.
Furey, L. 2002. Houhora: A Fourteenth Century Maori Village in Northland. Auckland Museum Bulletin
19.
Goulding, J.H. 1971. Identiication of archaeological and ethnological specimens of ibre-plant
material used by the Maori. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 8:57–101.
Hauser-Schäublin, B. and G. Krüger (eds) 1998. James Cook: Gifts and Treasures from the South Seas.
Munich and New York: Prestel.
Hiroa, Te Rangi (P.H. Buck) 1950. he Coming of the Maori. Wellington: Maori Purposes Fund Board.
Hiroa, Te Rangi (P.H. Buck) 1957. Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special
Publication 45. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Hjarno, J. 1967. Maori ish-hooks in southern New Zealand. Records of the Otago Museum Anthropology
3:1–63.
Jacomb, C. 2000. Panau: he Archaeology of a Banks Peninsula Maori Village. Canterbury Museum
Bulletin 9.
Leach, F. 2006. Fishing in Pre-European New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special
Publication, Wellington.
Leach, F. 2007. A cache of ishhooks from Serendipity Cave, Jackson Bay, New Zealand. In A.
Anderson, K. Green and F. Leach (eds), Vastly Ingenious: he Archaeology of Paciic Material
Culture, pp. 79–95. Dunedin: Otago University Press.
Leach, B.F. and J.M. Davidson 1988. he quest for the rainbow runner: prehistoric ishing on
Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro atolls, Micronesia. Micronesica 21 (1, 2):1–22.
Millar, D. 1992. Maori Artifacts from Waikawa Hawke’s Bay. Unpublished report to the Hawke’s Bay
Museum.
Millar, D. 1999. Hamish Gordon Memorial Collection of Maori Artefacts – Lindisfarne College.
Unpublished report, Hawke’s Bay Cultural Trust.
Millar, D. nd. Taonga Waipuka. A Collection of Artefacts Mainly from Ocean Beach, Hawke’s Bay.
Unpublished report to Hawke’s Bay Museum.
Mitchell, H. and Mitchell, J. 2004. Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka. A History of Maori of Nelson and
Marlborough. Volume 1. Te Tangata me Te Whenua - he People and the Land. Wellington : Huia in
association with Wakatu Incorporation.
Nordhof, C. 1930. Notes on the of-shore ishing of the Society Islands. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 39:137–173, 221–262, 380.
Oldman, W.O. 2004. he Oldman Collection of Maori Artifacts. Polynesian Society Memoir 14,
Auckland.
O’Regan, S. 1987. Queen Charlotte Sound: Aspects of Maori traditional history. In G. Barrett (ed),
Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand: the Traditional and European Records, 1820, pp. 139–158.
Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Rattenbury, M.S., R.A. Cooper and M.R. Johnston 1998. Geology of the Nelson area. Institute of
Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 Geological Map 9.
Reimer, P.J., et al. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon
46(3):1029–1058.
Reinman, F.M. 1970. Fishhook variability: Implications for the history and distribution of ishing
gear in Oceania. In R.C. Green and M. Kelly (eds), Studies in Oceanic Culture History Volume 1,
pp. 47–59. Paciic Anthropological Records 11. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop
Museum.
Sinoto, Y.H. 1962. Chronology of Hawaiian ishhooks. Journal of the Polynesian Society 71(2):162–166.
Sinoto, Y.H. 1991. A revised system for the classiication and coding of Hawaiian ishhooks. Bishop
Museum Occasional Papers 31:85–105.
terra australis 29
202
Islands of Inquiry / Janet Davidson and Foss Leach
Skinner, H.D. 1921. Culture areas in New Zealand. Journal of the Polynesian Society 30:70–78.
Skinner, H.D. 1942. A classiication of the ish-hooks of Murihiku with notes on allied forms from
other parts of Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian Society 51(3):208–221, (4):256–286.
Te Papa 2004. Icons Nga Taonga from the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Wellington: Te
Papa Press.
Trotter, M.M. 1956. Maori shank barbed ish-hooks. Journal of the Polynesian Society 65(3):245–252.
Whitehead, N.E., S.D. Devine and B.F. Leach 1986. Electron spin resonance dating of human teeth
from the Namu burial ground, Taumako, Solomon Islands. New Zealand Journal of Geology and
Geophysics 29:359–361.
terra australis 29