Interview, 13 August 1985; see also Gifford 1929:87,2 78 Interview, 14 August

M a ta e le h a ‘a m e a ’s eider full b ro th ers, were, rep o rted ly , so enraged th a t they left for v ario u s o u tlying areas to establish their own in d ep en d en t rule. H afoka w ent to cen tral T o n g a ta p u w here the H a‘a H avea was established and V una w ent to V ava‘u w here he w as th e founder of th e H a‘a H avea Si‘i. In reality, they were probably sent by th eir very cap able and very am bitious younger b ro th er, as fo to te h in a would norm ally have been sen t. T his is especially clear in the case of Hafoka because it was, reportedly, M a ta e le h a ‘a m ea who had conquered H a‘am ea, unless Hafoka did this on behalf of his younger b ro th e r. In ad d ition , there is no evidence t h a t eith er Hafoka or V una a tte m p te d to ov erth ro w or underm ine M a ta e le h a ‘a m e a ’s rule, even after they were established in th e ir respective areas.

Not c o n te n t w ith the lim ited rule of the T u ‘i K anokupolu, M ataeleha^am ea began a cam p aign to increase his sphere of influence over th e land and people of T onga. T ra d itio n tells th e story of a devolution of power several generations before, sim ilar to th a t of th e estab lish m en t of the T u ‘i H a‘a ta k a la u a '9. It is said th a t T u ‘i H a‘a ta k a la u a M o‘u n g ä-‘o -tong a, w earying of the burdens of rule, established th e T u ‘i K anokupolu title for N g a ta w ith the aim of retiring to a m ore sed ate and peaceful life. T his story , even m ore th a n its H a‘a ta k a la u a precedent, reads like an e z post fa c to ju stificatio n of a m ajor p o litical upheaval because, as already suggested, th e title of T u ‘i K anokupolu was p ro bab ly n o t used until the tim e of M a ta e le tu ‘apiko (N g a ta ’s grandson); N gata and A ta m a ta ‘ila were probably known as T u ‘i Hihifo. In a d d itio n , the proposed scenario has M olu n g ä -‘o -to n g a handing over th e future rule of his son, not his own reign. This seems highly unlikely. If M o‘unga-‘o -tonga was simply tired of th e responsibilities of rule, he w ould p robably have abdicated in favour of his heir, ra th e r th an pre-em pting his a u th o rity w ith the creation of a new ruling title . Instead, this devolution of power seem s to have been a seizure of power, not in th e tim e of T u ‘i Hihifo N gata, b u t a t the tim e of M a ta e le h a ^ m e a , in a m anner which has been classified as the challenging of the hau an d defying executive a u th o rity 01. By this tim e, ‘U lu a k im a ta II was an old m an and he and T u ‘i H ala ta k a la u a Vaea seemed unable or unw illing to contain the am bitio u s M a ta e le h a ‘am ea.

T he ev en tual eclipse of the T u ‘i H aca ta k a la u a by th e T u ‘i K anokupolu was not, how ever, as clear-cu t as the estab lishm ent of secular rule under the T u ‘i H ala ta k a la u a had been several generations before. It was a gradual change which occurred over several g en eratio n s. Its beginning was m arked in the genealogies by several significant points. T h e first was the m arriage of T u ‘i K anokupolu M a ta e le tu ;apiko to T a m a h ä T u ‘im ala.

79. See, for example, Wood 1932:11-12; Latukefu 1974:3; Bott 1982:63-64 80. Cf. Campbell 1982:178-181

She was the highest ranking woman in T onga at t h a t tim e and M a ta e le tu ‘apiko m ust have had a powerful käinga and large land base to have arranged such a marriage. The second significant indicator in the genealogies of the eventual shift of power and a u th o rity is the succession dispute which followed the d eath of T u ‘i Ha‘a ta k a la u a

on

Vaea . V a e a ’s eldest son, Kafoa, was passed over as the successor to his fa th e r ’s title in favour of a younger half-brother named Moeakiola. Kafoa’s m o ther weis Palulä, the d a u g h te r of T u ‘i Kanokupolu ‘A t a m a t a ‘ila and Tokilupe; she was, therefore, t u o f e f i n e (‘s iste r’) to M a ta e le tu ‘apiko and m eh e ki ta nga (‘fa th e r ’s sister’) to M a ta e le h a ‘am ea (see Figure 4.4). Moeakiola’s m other, on the other hand, was Simuoko abo ut whom little is known. Some genealogies claim t h a t she was the d a ughter of a T u ‘ih a ‘ateiho and a T u ‘i T on ga Fefine (in other words a T a m a h ä , although not one of the three women designated as such by Queen Sälote), while others say t h a t her father was a T u ‘i

Q O

T o ng a . It does, however, seem certain t h a t she was K a u h a la ‘u ta. While it is surmised t h a t M oeakiola succeeded because he was of higher rank, owing to his m o th e r’s birth, it seems t h a t the decision was also a political one put into effect by the T u ‘i H a‘a ta k a la u a (or, perhaps, the T u ‘i Tonga), in order to prevent the Kanokupolu line becoming en trenched in the T u ‘i H a‘a ta k a la u a title®“*. The th ird indication of the growing influence of the T u ‘i Kanokupolu can be seen in the m arriage m ade between Halaevalu Moheofo, the dau gh ter of T u ‘i Kanokupolu M a ta e le h a ‘am ea, and T u ‘i T onga T u ‘ip u lo tu -‘i-Langitu‘ofefafa who succeeded his father, ‘U lu a k im a ta II, as T u ‘i Tonga. Halaevalu Moheofo was regarded as T u ‘ip u lo tu ’s principal wife, even though she had no children. T h is reportedly was because she was M a ta e le h a ‘a m e a ’s d a u g h te r 85. Im m ediately after the death of T u ‘ipulotu, Halaevalu Moheofo was said to have adopted the son of M an unä, a s i n i f u f o n u a from Mo‘u n g a ‘one in Ha‘apai. It seems clear t h a t H alaevalu Moheofo was acting on behalf of her own käinga in doing this for M a n u n ä ’s son, who was known as T u ‘i T o n ga F a k a n a ‘a n a ‘a and u ndoubtedly advocated the T u ‘i K a n o k u p o lu ’s cause .

F ro m the time of the m arriage of Halaevalu Moheofo and T u ‘i T onga T u ‘ip u lo tu - ‘i-lang itu ‘ofefafa, the principal wife of the T u ‘i T o n g a was known as the mo h e o fo . T he term replaced m a ' i t a k i which was, then, reserved for the principal wife of any chief. T he only other perceptible difference, a significant one, was t h a t the m o he o f o always cam e from the Kanokupolu line, rather th a n from Sam oa or the Ha‘a ta k a la u a line. T h e T u ‘i Kanokupolu had, thus, adopted this position from the T u ‘i Ha‘a ta k a lu a

82. Koe Tohi Hohoko ‘a Losaline Fatafehi:n.p.; Thomas, History (1879):16,I58; see also Gifford 1929:84

83. Gifford, Genealogical Lists:24; Gunson, personal communication; Bott 1982:13 84. Interview, 12 September 1985