Abstract
This chapter pursues the fundamental role of hapū in Tūhoe social and political organization by extracting evidence of the potential or active hapuu affiliations of Tamaikoha’s branch from commission and other records during these years. Examination of their rights in several different blocks serves as examples of the commission’s emerging method and resolution of conflicts. The special problems of Tamaikoha’s mana, ambivalent relation to the commission, and sometimes informal claims rubber-stamped behind the scenes are also discussed. Comparison with Sissons’ information from 1978 regarding Tamaikoha’s hapuu affiliations in the 1870s offers revealing information of changes in actual or assumed affiliations over the preceding century. Along with the following Chap. 6, this chapter attempts to explore subtleties of the array, range, and prioritization of hapū affiliations among Tūhoe during this era.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A ‘Tokotuai Miria’ was apparently among the claimants for Taneatua block, and may have been named after this ancestor. Tupaea Rapaera, Tamaikoha’s eldest daughter’s (Pihitahi’s) husband and found to be the leading shareholder in the block, identified Tokotuai Miria as the same person as Pita Tumoana (UMB 4: 101). The name ‘Pita Tumoana’ appears nowhere else that I know of in the records of the UDNR commission nor those of the subsequent Urewera purchase campaign and consolidation scheme. However, the name of Tupaea and Pihitahis’ eldest child was Miria Tupaea, and her husband was Tumoana Pokai. They are reported to have had three children, Poniu, Mere, and Kunere. The eldest, Poniu Tumoana, was about four years old in 1903, and may have had the nickname ‘Pita’. Poniu died by 1921. Another possibility is that Miria had an older son by a Pākehā who (as a ‘half-caste’) was named Tokotuai Miria. Insofar as this child represented the mātāmua line (first-born child of the first-born child) of the prestigious marriage between Tupaea Rapaera and Pihitahi Tamaikoha, he may have been given the ancestral name Tokotuai by Tupaea and also claimed by him to be, as ‘Pita Tumoana’, the eldest son of Tumoana Pokai and Miria. As Tupaea’s ‘father-in-law’, Tamaikoha’s mana may have presided over all of these arrangements. In any case, as will be seen, the Ngāi Tokotuai hapū appears to have been established by Tamaikoha for special purposes.
- 2.
As he promised, in 1906 Tamaikoha appealed for inclusion in the Ohora section of Paraeroa block, pointing out that he had been awarded it and alleging that the commission had nevertheless ignored his list in favor of Tupara Kaaho’s list. He apparently concealed the fact that he had later withdrawn his claim for Ohora, although the commission had actually been reluctant to accept his withdrawal and instead ready to investigate it. The appeal commission neglected to discover the minute on Tamaikoha’s withdrawal of the claim, instead blaming the confusion on the previous commission. However, apparently because Tamaikoha presented no evidence to support his appeal, the appeals commission decided against it—again reluctantly, and perhaps again faced by Tamaikoha’s petulance or arrogance. Tupara Kaaho was also an influential leader in Ngāi Te Riu hapū, and Tamaikoha’s attitude suggests he saw Tupara’s counter-claim as an affront to his authority.
- 3.
Binney herself may have confused the issue, appearing to identify Te Whenuanui II (Te Haka) as ‘Te Whenuanui Umuariki’ (p. 20) although it was Te Whenuanui I’s father who was Te Umuariki (Fig. 8.1). In addition to this sort of confusion regarding generations, there are many conflicting stories, even from knowledgeable descendants, about Te Whenuanui I and even denials there was a II.
- 4.
My preoccupation here and in Part II with succession to a ‘title’ suggested by the discrimination ‘I’, ‘II’, and so on in successive generations should not be taken to imply that the Tūhoe were preoccupied by ‘chiefly’ status. To the contrary, confrontations between Tūhoe leaders were notoriously resolved or hidden behind a solid consensus when confronted by outsiders. I have also argued that the so-called nobility among Māori was greatly exaggerated by colonial administrators or Māori leaders (e.g., by Apirana Ngata; Webster 1998: 100–102) seeking to emulate the British tradition of sovereigns. The respect sustained for mātāmua or first-born lines of descent, and generally for the discrimination of seniority between tuakana and teina and their descendant lines, discussed in Chap. 4 and vivid in the Tūhoe control of the UDNR block lists, is probably the rationale for pretenses of a Māori ‘nobility’. The relaxation of Tamaikoha and Rakurakus’ initial refusal to cooperate with the UNDR commission that was described in Chap. 2 is one example of the ready compliance of Tūhoe rangatira with a wider consensus among demands of ‘their’ people. Best only tentatively raised the notion of a Tūhoe ‘gentes’ or aristocracy with regard to a four rangatira: Te Whenuanui and Rakuraku, adding that ‘Kereru and Paora Kingi families were also of importance’ (Best 1973 Vol. I: 223–4). As will be described in Part II, Paora Kingi was a close cousin of Te Whenuanui I and stood with Tutakangahau in his attempt to claim part of Waikaremoana. Tamaikoha’s mana may have been too much derived from war leadership to be included. In any case, it should be kept in mind that my preoccupation with the ‘title’ of Te Whenuanui is only to unravel the confrontations between Tūhoe leaders that is traced in Part II.
- 5.
Although by 1907 ‘Kahuwī’ was being spelled ‘Kahui’, Best was spelling it correctly in its early occurrences (i.e., to mean ‘cloak of rushes’). On the other hand, it is significant that Best’s Māori orthography (unlike his oral fluency) was not sophisticated enough to distinguish the important (phonemic) difference in meaning between long and short vowels with a macron or other diacritic.
References
AJHR 1907. G. Mair, D.F.G. Barclay, Paratene Ngata. “The Urewera District Native Reserve: reports of the commissioners appointed ….” Report and orders. Undated. Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives 1907 G-4: 1–190. Wellington, N.Z.
Ballara, Angela. 1998. Iwi: The dynamics of Māori tribal organisation from c.1769 to c.1945. Wellington, N.Z.: Victoria University Press.
Bassett, Heather and R. Kay. 2002. “Ruatāhuna: land ownership and administration c. 1896–1990.” With Supporting Papers (S.P.) Vols 1–3. WAI 894 #A20. Wellington, N.Z.: Waitangi Tribunal.
Best, Elsdon. 1898. “Tuhoe genealogies 1898” (spine title); “Genealogies of the Tuhoe tribe. Also includes all living members of the tribe in 1898, as given before the Urewera Commission set up under the act of 1896.” Manuscript qMS [172]. Wellington, N.Z.: Alexander Turnbull Library.
Best, Elsdon. 1973. Tuhoe, Children of the Mist. Vols. I and II (genealogies). Second edition. Wellington, N.Z.: A.H. and A.W. Reed Ltd. (first published 1925 as Vol VI of the Memoirs of the Polynesian Society).
Binney, Judith. 2002. Encircled Lands; Part Two: A History of the Urewera 1878–1912. An Overview Report on the Urewera for the Waitangi Tribunal. WAI 894, A15. Wellington, N.Z.: Waitangi Tribunal.
Kruger, Tamati. 2004. “Ngā Hapū ō Ngā Pōtiki.” Appendix to Final Report Ruātoki; Ngā Rauru ō Ngā Pōtiki. Anamata College, Taneātua, N.Z. 10 January 2004. Urewera Enquiry WAI 894. Wellington, N.Z.: Waitangi Tribunal.
Sissons, Jeffrey. 1991. Te Waimana, The Spring of Mana: Tuhoe History and the Colonial Encounter. Dunedin, N.Z.: Otago University Press.
Sissons, Jeffrey. 2002. “Waimana Kaaku: A History of the Waimana Block.” A report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, June 2002. Wellington, N.Z.: Waitangi Tribunal.
UMB 1. Urewera District Native Reserve Commission minute book 1 (identified as Urewera Commission minute book ‘3’), Smith, Butler, et al, (1Feb1899–8Mar1900), in Māori, Index 22pp., 382pp. NA Wgtn: Urewera MB 3, MLC 13, W3518, CD2, Vol 3, 397 pp.; NA Ak: AREPRO 4711/1445. Acronym: UMB 1.
UMB 2. Urewera District Native Reserve Commission minute book 2, Smith, Butler, et al., (8Mar1900–20Feb1901), in Māori, Index, 350 pp. NA Wgtn: Urewera MB 2, MLC 13,W3518, CD2, Vol.2, 358 pp.; NA Ak: AREPRO 4711/1442. Acronym: UMB 2.
UMB 3. Urewera District Native Reserve Commission minute book 3 (identified as ‘3A’; English translation of last part of UMB 1), Smith, Butler, et al, (9Feb1900–8Mar1900). 189 pp., index, NA Wgtn: Urewera MB 3A, MLC 13, W3518, CD 2, Vol 3A, 191 pp.; NA Ak: AREPRO 4711/1444. Acronym: UMB 3.
UMB 4. Urewera District Native Reserve Commission minute book 4 (English translation of UMB 2), Butler, Scannell, et al, (9Mar1900–May1900), index 12 pp., 344pp.; NA Wgtn: Urewera MB 4, MLC 13, W3518, CD 2, Vol. 4, 357 pp.; NA Ak: AREPRO 4711/1446. Acronym: UMB 4.
UMB 6. Urewera District Native Reserve Commission minute book 6, Butler, Scannell, et al. (16May1901–26Apr02) in English, index 9 pp., 382 pp.; NA Wgtn: Waiariki, Urewera MB 6, CD W3518/2, 398 pp.; NA Ak: AREPRO 4711/1448. Acronym: UMB 6.
Webster, Steven. 1998. Patrons of Maori Culture: Power, Theory, and Ideology in the Maori Renaissance. Dunedin, N.Z.: Otago University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Webster, S. (2020). The Tamaikoha Hapū Branch: Hapū Affiliations. In: A Separate Authority (He Mana Motuhake), Volume I. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41042-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41042-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41041-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41042-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)