Volume 94 1985 > Volume 94, No. 2 > Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke: his life and work, by J. Curnow, p 97-148
WIREMU MAIHI TE RANGIKAHEKE: HIS LIFE AND WORK
Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke was the author of the manuscripts which were the source of most of the prose material in the appendices to Sir George Grey's Ko Nga Moteatea me Nga Hakirara o Nga Maori (1853) and of much of the material for his Ko Nga Mahinga a Nga Tupuna Maori (1854), and hence of its translation Polynesian Mythology (1855). He was known as Te Rangikaheke to scholars, as Wiremu or Wii Maihi in tribal concerns, and as William Marsh to Pakehas who shared his official and political life. 1
Grey named none of his informants, and little was written about Te Rangikaheke's writing until after the turn of the century. Since then there have been three kinds of work done on Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts: attribution, cataloguing and tracing publication; transcription and translation; commentary on authenticity and literary quality. Important though this work has been, there were clearly deficiencies in the study of so important an author. I have tried to repair some of them, by providing a brief biography, an overall view of his manuscripts and a close examination of one aspect of his writing, his account of history. 2
Each of these aspects required a different procedure. For the biography, documentary sources, including Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts, were researched. A fuller biography lay beyond the scope of this study. The long career and many-sided character of Te Rangikaheke would have required placing in the wider context of Arawa tribal history, an undertaking that ideally should be done by one with tribal connection. Such a study would, in any case, have moved away from Te Rangikaheke, the writer, and precluded the study of his manuscripts. The biography is presented in chronological order, relaxed where necessary for a coherent account of some aspect of his life.
For the view of his manuscripts, all of these — with the possible exception of any held in the Hocken Library, which I have been unable to visit, or in private hands — had first to be traced. Then a descriptive inventory, containing entries for all of the manuscripts written entirely by him or contributed to by him, could be compiled.
For the examination of his account of history, the three manuscripts in which he gave most of this account were studied. I first transcribed - 98 and translated the whole of Tuupuna, with the exception of the opening chant, as well as the first section of Ngaa Tama a Rangi, and relevant sections of Maori Religious Ideas and Observances. In the latter two manuscripts sections were omitted where previous translations existed, e.g., the Maaui cycle, translated by Biggs (1964:43; 1966:449-50; 1980:66-73); where Te Rangikaheke's account in Tuupuna was substantially the same, e.g., the battles in Hawaiki; or where length was too great, e.g., the karakia of Kuiwai and the story of Hatupatu. 3
I. A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
Descent, Birth, Youth, Marriages and Children.
Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke was descended from illustrious ancestors. He claimed 10 descents of high rank from Tia, who came with Tame-te-kapua on Te Arawa (MAK 3:150). From his father, Te Rangikaheke, he was a descendant of Rangitihi (81:52) and of Rangi-wewehi, the eponymous ancestor of Ngaati Rangi-wewehi through Kereruu, Pupuru, Pake, Manu-wae-rorua and Kahutia:
From his mother, Kaihau, he was descended from Tamahou, Pupu and Hine-poo:
He belonged to the Ngaati Kereruu hapuu of Ngaati Rangi-wewehi.
His father, Te Rangikaheke, was noted as a warrior. It was he who killed Te Mahaki of Ngaati Paaoa, to prevent him from attacking Hikairo, Chief of Ngaati Rangi-wewehi at Puhi-rua “a considerable time” before 1821 (Tarakawa 1899:180-1). It was he also who was taken captive with his wife and children at the siege of Mokoia in 1823 (118:58-63). According to Bleek, he was “a celebrated priest” (1858 Vol.II, pt 4:67, 73). 4 He died before 1835 (87:164).
His mother, Kaihau, was killed when Taipari's party charged Hikairo's paa at Puhi-rua just before the battle of Matai-puku in 1836 (87:175).
Wii Maihi Te Rangikaheke was born between 1800 and 1820, probably about 1815. In giving evidence in 1878 at the Land Court he said, “When peace was made (after the fall of Mokoia), Ngaati Whakaue - 99 went to the Bay of Islands . . . . I was about eight years old then” (MAK 3:151). This would place his birth about 1815. This date is corroborated in “Waiata Haka Oriori”, in which Te Rangikaheke (the father) curses the tribes which caused Ngaapuhi to seek vengeance at Mokoia against the Arawa tribes, during which siege his wife and children, including Wii Maihi, were taken captive (118:58-63). Smith, in referring to Te Rangikaheke as an informant of traditions for Grey, said, “These were written out by Wii Maihi Te Rangikaheke, who was at that time [c.1850] about 35 to 40 years old” (1899:257). Alfred Grinders, Inspector General of Hospitals, Wellington, refers to Te Rangikaheke being aged about 80 in 1890 (AJHR 1890, G-5:2). At a Land Court hearing in 1886 Te Rangikaheke, when addressing the Court, had informed it that he was 86 years old (TAH 1:214). If this were so, he would have been born earlier than other evidence suggests. Possibly, like many old people, he was exaggerating his age to enhance his venerability.
There is little information about Te Rangikaheke's early life and education, and none about his education in Maori lore and tradition. He refers to two early visits to Maketu, the first being when he was “about eight years old”, and the second when another group of Arawa travelled north (in 1828): “I was at their leaving . . . . About that time my aunts and myself went to Te Paeroa” (MAK 3:151-2). He took some part, as a young man, in the battles which started with the attack of Te Haramiti of Ngaapuhi on Tuhua (in 1831): “I was at Maunga-tapu when Ngaati Whakaue and Ngaai-te-rangi were defeated” (MAK 1:284). He claimed to have exhumed the body of Katohau on the beach at Maketu (in 1836), during the battles of the Rotorua tribes against the people of Tauranga and later Waikato (MAK 3:157). Because he knew of these battles “firsthand”, he agreed to write about them for Grey: E moohio ana anoo hoki ahau ki taua whawhaitanga nei; kua kite anoo au, kua tangotango anoo au i aua mahi, i te ritenga Maaori (87:206). It was during these wars that the death of his mother occurred (87:175).
Te Rangikaheke implied that he was converted by Thomas Chapman, who set up the Church of England mission station in Rotorua in 1835 (87:203). 5 William Marsh would have been his baptismal name. According to an anonymous eulogy, “He acquired from the first missionaries the knowledge of reading and writing” (NZH:February 8, 1896). This was probably correct, the missionaries being Chapman or his assistants Henry Pilley and Samuel Knight. His inconsistent use of wh in the manuscripts indicates that he learned to write before this consonant was first printed in 1844. There is no evidence that he ever spoke or wrote English.
Te Rangikaheke was married probably four times. His first wife, Mere Pinepire Maihi, was the mother of his three children. It is she who- 100
FIGURE 1. Genealogy of Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke.
Family Tree. Rangitihi (81:52), Ratorua, Whaka-iri-kawa, Tute-ata, Rangi-kawe-kura, Tarawai, Tarewa, Hine-rangi-whaka-oro-hui, Rangi-wewehi (44:929), Wetenga, Pikiao (44:928), Kereruu, Pare-hou-awhe, Hine-kura, Pupuru, Tehe, Pikiao-wera, Pake (81:28), Pupuru, Tamahou (81:29), Te Ariha, Manu-wae-rorua, Te Mahau, Pupu, Toroa-Apukai, Kahutia, =, Waero (f), Hinepoo, Puu-whakaoho, Te Rangikaheke, =, Kaihau (f), Tamaiharoa, (2) Tiirangi Repora = WIREMU MAIHI = (1) Mere Pinepire = (3) Teranga (?) = (4) Kahau (?), Rangihoro, =, Hiria Haua (f), Hataraka Wiremu, Ngaarongo Pinepire (ROT 36:104-5), Wiremu Whakahau Rangihoro, Eruera Tapui, Ihipera, Miriarangi, Marsh Te Rangikaheke d. 1881, ?d.
is referred to in the genealogies in the manuscripts as a descendant of Pikiao, and mother of Hataraka (81:50; 44:928). 6 She is also referred to in his letters to Grey and to Queen Victoria (GNZMA 691; GNZMA 723, Part 2). In an obituary it was said, “Mere, the mother of his children was put away by him for religious scruples, and she vowed she would never return to him unless to take her place at the head of his coffin, and this she did” (HLC:February 4, 1896). No further satisfactory explanation of this separation has been found.
Te Rangikaheke was also married to Tiirangi Repora, whose death on April 15, 1877 at the age of 30 was noted (TWM:June 5, 1877). It appears that Tiirangi Repora had previously been married to Te Rangikaheke's - 101 only son, Hataraka, who was killed fighting Te Kooti's supporters in 1869 (Raureti, MOK 2:39). His third wife, Teranga, “nursed him until he died” (HLC:February 4, 1896). 7 A fourth wife, Kahau, is mentioned by Retimana Piwiki (MOK 1:67). A descendant, Dan Whata, also understands there were four marriages (personal communication:August 31, 1982).
His three children were a son, Hataraka, and two daughters, Hiria Haua and Ngaarongo Pinepire. In a succession claim Ngaarongo gave the descendants,
Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke is dead. . . . He left two children, Hiria Haua (f.a.), Ngaarongo Maihi (f.a.). I claim for us and our children viz. Wiremu Whakahau Rangihoro (m.a.), Eruera Tapui Rangihoro (f.a.), Ihipira Takura Rangihoro (seven years), Miriarangi Rangihoro (five years). These children belong to Hiria Haua. Wii Maihi had a son who was killed during the war at Oo-marumutu. His name was Wiremu Hataraka. He left two children, but they are both dead. His wife Repora was of Rangi-wewehi. She is dead. The two children of Wiremu Hataraka died at school in Tauranga (ROT 36:104-5).
A notice of the death of Marsh Te Rangikaheke, Hataraka's son, was also published (NZH:October 13, 1881).
Arrival in Auckland and Work with Grey, 1842-53
In 1842, when Te Rangikaheke was about 28 years of age, he made his first visit to Auckland. Lady Martin, recently arrived with her husband, the Chief Justice, on whom he made two calls in 1842-3, described him as “a wild-looking, handsome fellow”. Lady Martin acted on a rule invented by her husband and refused Te Rangikaheke admission to her house because he was dressed only in “a dirty blanket”. A year later he returned and scored off Lady Martin, not only because he was “dressed in such a good suit of clothes”, but because he aptly quoted the New Testament against her earlier inhospitality (Martin 1884:19-20).
He made his first contact with the Government when FitzRoy was Governor (1843-5), writing on June 11, 1845, to tell him he had been deputed by the Maketu chiefs to see him (MA 2/1, 1845:293). 8
Te Rangikaheke became acquainted with Grey and started writing for him well before 1849, possibly as early as 1846. According to a translation of a letter from him, dated March 17, 1847, Te Rangikaheke begged Grey to allow him to return to Rotorua by steamer, having been absent from home for 13 months (MA 7/1, 1847:no page or letter number). In a manuscript to which he contributed there is reference to “two Rotorua proverbs from Wm. Marsh's letter of 10 November, 1847” (75:un - 102 paginated). His reputation as a writer of tradition was well established by 1849. Cooper describes meeting him at Te Awahou on an expedition of the Governor's there in December 1849, to obtain an original manuscript “from a chief of the tribe inhabiting this side of the lake, called Te Rangikaheke or William Marsh, a person of repute in such matters” (1851:128). Probably all his work in the Grey Maori Manuscript Collection was written before 1854 (see Section II below).
His acquaintance with Grey, who was almost an exact contemporary (1812-98), sprang, as Te Rangikaheke explained in a draft of a letter to Queen Victoria written on May 18, 1850, from the Governor's desire to learn the Maori language, in fact all the Maori customs: “Ko te take teenei i hoa ai maaua he hiahia noona kia akona ia ki te reo Maaori, araa ki ngaa ritenga katoa o te Maaori. Aa, akona ana ia e ahau” (GNZMA 723, Part 2:277). And Te Rangikaheke taught him. It was a warm, collaborative relationship. In the same letter Te Rangikaheke listed all the matters he had taught the Governor and explained that on this account the Governor was very kind to him, his wife and children. Grey paid him two shillings and sixpence for a day, 15 shillings for a week, three pounds for a month, 36 pounds for a year for his work, and in addition had provided a house and bags of flour, rice and sugar when they arrived. “I also lived with him and his wife in their house. We ate together every day of the week; we talked together, played together, were happy together. His kindness to me was like his kindness to his own child, his younger brother or relation” (GNZMA 723, Pt.2:279; trans. J.C.).
Te Rangikaheke's appreciation of this relationship with Grey was repeated in A Letter to the Inhabitants of Hawaiki of August 27, 1850, in which he marvelled at the generosity of the Governor in giving him so many possessions while he was in his writing place: four shillings, three figs of tobacco, a jew's harp and a pipe,
Some of Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts exhibit the extent of the collaboration with Grey. Grey's comments — interlinear or on alternate pages — suggest he was writing notes during or after discussion with Te Rangikaheke. In one such note Grey wrote above a line, “‘Otiraa he take pai’ said by the writer of this they thought this a just cause” (81:56). There are copious notes by Grey on other pages of this manuscript, and GNZMMSS 36, in dealing with reduplication, has passages alternately written by Grey and Te Rangikaheke. The one-line correction by Te - 103 Rangikaheke on Grey's transcript of the Hinemoa legend reveals the extent of their work together (60:233). If, as seems probable, Te Rangikaheke made the ink additions to the copy of Nga Mahinga a Nga Tupuna referred to by Williams, we have further evidence of their collaboration (Williams 1906:177). 9
Another glimpse of the closeness of their work together is given when Te Rangikaheke describes how he went to the Governor's house, so that he and the Governor could write together. An officer appeared with a manuscript giving Waikato's account of the murder of Te Hunga, a brother-in-law of Te Waharoa (the chief of the Waikato tribe, Ngaati Hauaa), which led to wars between the tribes of Rotorua and Waikato for some seven years after 1835. Grey was pleased with the manuscript, but told Te Rangikaheke that if he was willing, and knew of the events, he could write Rotorua's version: “Ka mea mai a Kaawana ki ahau, ‘E tama, e nui ana tooku pai ki teenei pukapuka. Mehemea e pai ana koe, e moohio ana raanei ki ngaa whawhaitanga i teenei koohuru, maau e tuhituhi teetahi pukapuka, whakaatu o aa Rotorua waahi’” (87:206).
Te Rangikaheke's letters to Grey show warm familiarity, although there were some signs of tension when he wrote on May 13, 1851 (GNZMA 691), and again on June 13, 1851, saddened that Grey had not authorised his journey to Wellington to join him and complete their books. He was worried about work for a living for himself and his family in Auckland, and reminded Grey of his promise of a ship in which he could carry wheat to Sydney, Auckland and Wellington:
He had expressed similar fear for future employment the previous year in part of a draft letter to Queen Victoria, telling her that though he was a chief he would become her servant. There would be no work for him if and when his work teaching the Governor was finished. He begged her to give him trade goods to sell, undertaking to send the price of the goods to her every year, and she could arrange the commission for his work:
The two letters to Grey referred to above were written from “Te Whare Tuhituhi o Te Kaawanatanga” as were letters to the Governor from Hone Ropiha, another of Grey's informants, and Te Rangi Matanuku (GNZMA 391, 605, 606, 684) in the period 1851-4. This address, along with Te Rangikaheke's reference to tooku whare tuhituhi ‘my office, my writing place’ (45:939), suggest special quarters provided by Grey for his informants, rather than their being members of Grey's office staff. In a speech he made later, in 1875, he stated that he had been employed by Grey, and had not then had a Government position (BPT:December 26, 1875).
Te Rangikaheke wrote for Grey until 1853. Ancient Poems, Legends and Services, the last manuscript, is dated October 25, 1853.
As he explained in two long draft letters to Queen Victoria (GNZMA 323 and 724) and in Various Writings (98), he saw his work with Grey as having a political purpose, a purpose similarly expressed by Grey (1971:xii-xiv). On July 17, 1850, he wrote to the Queen explaining that the Governor had the double task of looking after Maori and Pakeha; matters within the Maori realm had been neglected under the Queen's rule, perhaps because the Governor did not yet know the language and customs of the Maori; he was therefore living with the Governor to teach him:
Te Rangikaheke maintained the political importance of his work with Grey, referring in his last letter to Grey, written on April 13, 1893, to their lasting friendship; the two of them had agreed to the laws for the land, when Grey had been in charge of its welfare: “Ko ahau hoki toou hoa tuuturu. Maaua i whakaae i ngaa tikanga mo teenei motu, aa, naau anoo hoki i whakahaere he oranga mo teenei motu” (GNZMA 766). It is a pity that Grey's Diary (GNZMS 3), which covers the years 1845-83, is a very sketchy document and makes no mention of Te Rangikaheke. But a description by Colonel Wynyard of a Maori feast in Auckland on the Queen's Birthday in 1851, gives the dimension of liveliness and charm to Te Rangikaheke in his prime, - 105
The people of Rotorua, headed by their chief, Marsh, were evidently very desirous of complimenting the fair sex. Throwing down their knives and forks, they sprang upon the forms, and danced and sang in honour of Mrs Wynyard and the ladies of Auckland (Davis 1855:158).
Te Rangikaheke was chosen as speaker on the occasion of Ngaati Whakaue's farewell address to Grey on December 15, 1853, although he was not one of the signatories to the address (Davis 1855:1). A description of this speech was published:
While reading a certain clause in the address, Rangikaheke broke off abruptly, took the mat that was thrown over his shoulder, and laid it at the Governor's feet . . . a deep silence pervaded the sorrowful throng, which was broken by the speaker resuming his oratory. The address itself is a good specimen of Maori composition and much time and labour are absolutely necessary to do it justice (TKM:January 12, 1854).
Government Employment, Tribal and Political Concerns
After Grey's departure, Te Rangikaheke remained in Auckland, giving the address to Governor Gore Browne on September 9, 1855, on behalf of the Rotorua chiefs living in Auckland, in which he deplored the system of recalling governors, and advised the Governor to make Maori ideas law (White MS. Papers 75, Folder A 119C).
Te Rangikaheke became a frequent writer to the Native Office, and at this time letters from different addresses (including Mangawhai, Whaangaa-rei, and Waipapa) indicate much movement and a lack of settled occupation. There were also requests for money and goods (e.g., MA 2/37, 1857:69, 129).
By 1857 he had also become interested in a land claim at Mangawhai (south of Whaangaa-rei) in order to dig gum (MA 2/37, 1857:379). In a letter to the editor of Te Karere Maori, Te Rangikaheke elaborated the reasons why Mangawhai should be given to the descendants of Rangitihi, who made two journeys to Kaipara to help Paikea, the descendant of Hau-moe-warangi (White MS. Papers 75, Folder 84). This claim was satisfactorily settled when a Crown Grant of two 50-acre blocks at Mangawhai was made to him in 1859 (AJHR 1861, E-6:1).
This period also saw the beginning of Te Rangikaheke's opposition to the King Movement, an opposition he maintained throughout his life. Lady Martin records that in 1858 he had “spoken very strongly against the setting up of a King, saying that the name was an ill-chosen one and might lead to trouble, but he was very quaint and clever in his talk with us” (1884:49). In 1860-1 he wrote to the Native Office, saying he planned - 106 to go and talk to the Waikato chiefs to correct their attitude (MA 2/39, 1860:855, 1861:801), and T. H. Smith 10 replied giving Government agreement to these talks (MA 4/72, 1861:408). Although there are records that Te Rangikaheke gave accounts of these talks to the Government (MA 2/39, 1861:995, 1010), Smith's brief reply of approval indicates that not much importance was attached to them (MA 4/73, 1861:754).
Te Rangikaheke left Auckland towards the end of 1860 and returned to Maketu and Rotorua (MA 2/39, 1860:904). He was officially appointed to the Native Department as Clerk of Works on December 4, 1862, although he had taken up the position earlier that year (AJHR 1866 D-3:64). There are records of his requests for proper clothes to see the Governor, for a house for his wife and children, to be made an Assessor, for a watch, and for an advance of £30 (MA 2/39, 1861:1054, 1080, 1056, 782, 1231). A letter from Smith, dated December 15, 1861, informed Te Rangikaheke that he had been appointed kaitirotiro and kaituhituhi, under Te Karaka, for the roadworks from Maketu to Rotorua. He was to receive £100 per annum, £50 for the overseeing and £50 for the writing, and an advance of £30 was authorised for a house. He was to decide if any of his children were to remain at school in Auckland, so that deductions could be made for their upkeep (MA 4/73, 1861:768). Presents from Smith and £30 on account of salary were shown as given to Wii Maihi Te Rangikaheke (AJHR 1862, E-12:8, 16).
Other official appointments followed. He continued as Clerk of Works in 1866 (AJHR 1866, D-3:64); was listed as Clerk at Maketu in 1871 (AJHR 1871, G-10:19); became Clerk of the Circuit Court and Land Purchase Agent in Rotorua and Maketu in 1875, at an annual salary of £120 (AJHR 1875, H-11:37), having been appointed Assessor under the Native Land Act in 1874 (NZGG 1874:665). His salary was reduced by one half in 1876, because land purchase had slackened (MA 4/82, 1876:542), and to £30 per annum in 1879, not through any fault of his, but because of a deliberate reduction in Government funds (MA 4/84, 1879:62). He became Assessor at Oo-hine-mutu in 1880 (NZGG 1880:1546). He was thus more than 18 years in Government employ.
Smith worked with, and to an extent depended on, Te Rangikaheke in the early years of the latter's appointment. But there was antagonism between the two, dating from an earlier disclosure by Smith: “[Marsh] has never forgiven me for acquainting the government with his treachery in connection with the Rotorua woman murdered by Marsden in 1855” (Smith “A”, 1:67). Smith did not elaborate, but according to a Rotorua chief, Te Ao-te-aru Pauna, Te Rangikaheke and others living in - 107 Auckland had advised fighting the Pakeha in revenge for the murder of Kerara Tangiawhi, an Arawa woman, by a Pakeha, Marsden (GNZMMSS 102:48-54). Te Rangikaheke retaliated, as Smith told his mother on May 30, 1862, “When I was here in February a letter was written by Marsh and signed by Hori Karaka . . . protesting against my being sent here” (Smith “A”, 1:65).
Te Rangikaheke's advocacy and promotion of road development brought him antipathy. His belief in roads was long-standing. In Various Writings, written in FitzRoy's period as Governor, he gave “good roads for Maori and Pakeha” as one of the main reasons for continued Maori acceptance of the Government (98:448). But road development was a fundamental issue of division in Maori society, many believing that roads were ultimately a means of Pakeha control. Te Rangikaheke was cautioned in 1861 in letters from Hori Karaka, Taamati Hapimana and 10 others against altering the boundaries around Arawa land for road development, when he was about to start supervising work on the Maketu-Rotorua road (Karaka in McDonnell MS Papers 151, Folder 8).
In 1862 H. T. Clarke (Resident Magistrate, Tauranga) wrote to Smith concerning the road supervision, “Our very amiable and humble friends, the Tuutaanekai, will not have Wii Maihi over them. . . . The government was aware that Maihi was a dangerous character, and cordially hated by a portion of Te Arawa” (Smith “C”, 1:81). No doubt, as Hikairo suggested, other tribal disputes and jealousy lay behind some of this antipathy (MAK 3:149). Colonel W. K. Nesbitt, writing to Smith on May 28, 1865, also saw evidence of this jealousy: “Poor Marsh is to be starved out of the society of the whakawaa. . . . I believe they are jealous of him” (Smith “C”, 2:69).
Te Rangikaheke's confidence in roads did not lessen, as evidenced by his speeches in 1873 at Oohiwa (AJHR 1873, G-1:10) and to McLean at Te Awahou (AJHR 1874, G-1:11). In 1877 he wrote a long letter giving support to the Cambridge-Rotorua road (TWM May 2, 1877).
As a tribal leader and an important Government official, Te Rangikaheke played a significant part in the Maori-Pakeha wars of the 1860s. Most Arawa tribes supported the Government; Ngaati Rangiwewehi were Kingites (AJHR 1868, A-4:12), with the exception of Te Rangikaheke's section, Ngaati Kereruu (AJHR 1864, E-8:6). Te Rangikaheke's opposition to the King Movement had been apparent from its beginning. Letters from him gave information to the Native Secretary about the movement of the Pai Maarire 11 adherents at Maketu and Rotorua (MA 2/40, 1864:1049, 1179; 1865:12, 498) and to the Resident Magistrate at Tauranga about Te Kooti's movements at Oo-pootiki - 108 (AJHR 1869, A-10:65). He asked Major Greer for guns in 1865 (Smith “C”, 2:12), and advised the capture of Kereopa for the Volkner murder (AJHR 1865, E-5:11; GLNZ S33).
Two letters written in this period indicate the reasons for his stance. The first, to Bishop Selwyn on October 30, 1863, expressed fear of attack from Waikato, and a wish for the trouble to end: “Me inoi ki a Te Runga Rawa kia whakamutua teenei raruraru” (GNZMA 70). The second, to Grey written on July 11, 1864, is a letter from him and four other Arawa chiefs. In his portion of the letter he stated that the Arawa chiefs would maintain their allegiance to the Queen; the days of power having gone with the passing of the older chiefs, they would ally with the Pakeha (GNZMA 75). This stance is not inconsistent with the views he had expressed in his earlier political writings, and to Lady Martin.
An anonymous eulogy written after his death opens, “I saw a great deal of Marsh in the Tauranga and Rotorua campaigns of 1866-7, when he fought on our side with his tribe” (NZH:February 8, 1896). Te Rangikaheke had fought against Te Kooti's supporters in the Urewera, having moved to Oohiwa with a pro-Government contingent of Ngaati Kereruu: “It was in 1869. That was the year I went to Oohiwa to live. I was asked by the government to go there” (TAH 1:80). For his military services he was granted land at Oohiwa which he was later permitted to sell (AJHR 1885, G-7:2).
Te Rangikaheke attended meetings in 1871 at Whakataane (AJHR 1871, F-6A:9), in 1873 at Maunga-tautari (AJHR 1873, G-1B:7-11) and at Oohiwa (AJHR 1873, G-1:10), and in 1879 at Te Koopua (AJHR 1879, G-2:3-14), at all of which he spoke against the King party. His speech at the Maunga-tautari meeting, convened to discuss land sales and leases, and roads, as well as peace between the King and the Government, was praised by William Gilbert Mair, 12 who telegraphed the minister, “Wii Maihi spoke very forcefully and gave the other side something to take home and think over” (Mair 1873). The same speech earned for him the comment from Te Ngaakau of Ngaati Hauaa, “We only know you as belonging to our race by your tattoo; in everything else you are Pakeha” (AJHR 1873, G-1B:11).
Te Rangikaheke was probably the first Maori to stand for election in a European constituency. He was a candidate for East Coast (later to become Tauranga) in the election of 1875-6, opening his campaign in Tauranga at the Masonic Hotel on December 7, 1875. In his speech, interpreted by Messrs Asher and Stewart, he drew attention to the loyalty of his tribe to the Queen and the Government and to his services to the Government under seven Governors; he promised a policy of land cultivation, and road and railway development. He gave further ad - 109 dresses at Oo-hine-mutu, Maketu, Oo-pootiki and other settlements en route (BPT:December 11, 1875).
In the election, the result of which was made official on January 6, 1876, he polled 10 votes: 13
(AJHR 1876, 1-2:30).
He was also involved as a witness or claimant in some 16 cases in the Land Court in Rotorua, Maketu and Taaheke in the period 1867-9. In the hearings on Te Pukeroa (ROT 1), Pukaingataru (MAK 1), Paengaroa (MAK 3) and Taaheke (TAH 1), the evidence of genealogies and history which he gave was extensive, showing, as Stafford noted, “his genuine, or at least superior knowledge of things Maori” (1967:362). R. J. Gill, advocate for the Crown, commented in the rehearing of the Mangorewa block in 1897, “I must refer to the investigation of 1882. The conductors (Mita Hikairo and Wii Maihi Te Rangikaheke) were experienced men” (ROT 23:333).
He claimed shares successfully in Maraeroa-Oturoa (ROT 2:199), Mangorewa-Kaharoa (ROT 4:120), Tumu-Kaituna (MAK 5:259), and Paenga-roa (MAK 3:213). After his death, his grandson successfully claimed shares through him in the Mokoia block in 1916 (MOK 3:37). Undoubtedly his activity in the Land Court also brought enmity. A number of claims were highly contentious, including Uta-hina, a part of Rotorua-Paa-te-tere (ROT 6:239), and Wai-te-huia (MAK 2:163-280). Outbreaks of violence against him occurred at the hearing of the Paengaroa block (MAK 3:163) and concerning Te Pukeroa (ROT 2:163).
Old Age and Death
Te Rangikaheke moved to Oo-hine-mutu from Maketu about 1880, having been appointed Assessor there (NZGG 1880:1546), and he referred to his residence in Oo-hine-mutu in 1881 (ROT 1:49) and in 1884 (ROT 7:210). He was a claimant in the hearing on the Taaheke block in 1886, being absent, through illness, when his case opened: “He has gone to Oo-hine-mutu to consult the doctor” (TAH 1:103). By 1890 he was living at Te Awahou, where he was described, “Wii Maihi, aged 80, a chief of Ngaati Rangi-wewehi . . .” (AJHR 1890, G-5:2).
He had a number of cultivations on Mokoia Island, and lived there from about 1890 to 1895. His grandson, Wii Ereatara Rangihoro, explained, “I returned in 1890 and lived with my parents at Awahou. My grandfather was still at Mokoia then” (MOK 2:26). Moko-nui-a-rangi - 110 bears this out, “In 1890 we came back to Mokoia. It was then I saw Maihi Te Rangikaheke staying at Paratomeo's [his father's brother's] kaainga” (MOK 2:28). “He also had a large house at Tititai, called Te Rangikaheke” (Te Naera, MOK 1:158). “There is a small piece at Hakono. Wii Maihi Te Rangikaheke had his last kaainga there” (Wii Ereatara, MOK 2:20). It was from Mokoia, on April 13, 1893, that he wrote to Grey asking for his intercession with the Government to get him a house at Oo-hine-mutu. He recalled their earlier collaboration, and complained that he had now been forgotten by the Government. He asked Grey to act speedily as winter, a bad time for his rheumatism, was approaching (GNZMA 766). His kaainga on Mokoia cannot have been proof against the severity of the Lake's winters. Apparently Grey, who was himself now aged, did not help.
According to his grandson, “Wii Maihi became insane while there (Hakono on Mokoia). In 1895 he was taken to Awahou where he died” (MOK 2:20). Mita Tuu-huruhuru also said, “He took ill there (insane)” (MOK 3:4). Wii Matene confirmed his illness and move: “Oomarumutu 14 took ill at Mokoia, and was taken to Te Awahou where he died” (MOK 1:109). He was ill for some time, since, according to his daughter, his death occurred during the night of February 2, 1896 (Ngaarongo Maihi, ROT 36:104).
His tangi at Te Awahou was described as being “on an unusually large-scale” (HLC:February 4, 1896).
The body of the dead chief lay coffined in front of the house, Whakaokorau, surrounded by the kirimate. . . . The Archdeacon (Williams) gave an address in Maori . . . . At its conclusion the body was placed in a boat for conveyance to the place of sepulchre on the Oorangi-kaahui height, about three miles distant (HLC:February 10, 1896).
As well as notices of his death and obituaries in a number of papers (NZH:February 4, 1896; BPT:February 7, 1896; HLC:February 10, 1896), anonymous eulogies appeared in both the New Zealand Herald and the Auckland Weekly News. The first described him as,
One of the most remarkable men of his time . . . (who) witnessed the whole period of colonisation . . . (and was) the most intellectual of his race . . . a power in the political, social and literary worlds . . . engaged by Grey to assist in the compilation of Maori traditions.
The second drew greater attention to his oratory,
He shone most . . . (when) he came out with a cloth around his loins and a spear in his hand and showed what Maori oratory was . . . a stream of eloquence — metaphors, similes, tropes which would have - 111 made the fortunes of a dozen poet laureates. . . . Marsh knew all our Governors and our principal politicians and civil servants. . . . And Marsh, like all men who are truly great was a “many-sided man” (NZH Supplement, February 8, 1896; AWN:February 15, 1896).
His daughter, Hiria Haua, wrote to Grey in March 1896, advising him of her father's death, recalling their collaboration, and sending Grey her father's words of farewell:
II. THE MANUSCRIPTS
Location, Quantity, Dating, Physical Description, Attribution
Nearly all of Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts are held in the Grey Collection in the Auckland Public Library. 15 The holographs are in the Grey Maori Manuscripts (designated GNZMMSS), and in the Grey Maori Letters (designated GNZMA). There are 21 entire manuscripts, with a total of some 670 pages, attributed to him. There are a further 17 manuscripts to which he contributed some 100 pages, and there are also 10 letters and addresses, totalling some 68 pages. In all there are over 800 pages.
In the John White Papers held in the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington, there is one address and one letter. The address is two and a half pages in length, and the letter 10 pages. Neither indicates that Te Rangikaheke was acting as an informant to White. 16
All of Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts in the Grey Maori Manuscripts, except perhaps GNZMMSS 118, were certainly written before 1854. Only seven of the manuscripts are dated. There are dated by Te Rangikaheke himself: GNZMMSS 51, dated October 25, 1853; GNZMMSS 81, dated October 18, 1849; and GNZMMSS 93, dated August 27, 1850. Bleek dated both GNZMMSS 43 and 44 to 1849 (1858 Vol.II, pt.4:73). 17 GNZMMSS 98 can be dated before 1845 and GNZMMSS 102 can be dated December 1853 from internal evidence. As the remainder of the Grey Maori Manuscripts (with the exception cited above) are catalogued in Bleek (1858 Vol.II, pt.4:64-76), they must have been written before Grey's departure for South Africa in 1854. This dating indicates the great volume of writing done by Te Rangikaheke in the period 1849 to 1853.
It seems probable that his long (234 pages) Commentary on “Nga Moteatea” (GNZMMSS 118) was written before 1854 also, Grey's Ko Nga Moteatea me Nga Hakirara o Nga Maori being published in 1853. The letters and addresses were written over a longer period, 1850-93.- 112
Three of the entire manuscripts attributed to Te Rangikaheke are individually bound, the long and important GNZMSS 81, 51, and 118. The first mentioned has reverse leaves blank, and on many Grey has written notes.
Another 15 of the entire manuscripts attributed to Te Rangikaheke are written on foolscap paper, probably from exercise books, the pages numbered by Grey. They have since been separated by Grey or Bleek, and stapled or sewn by either Cape Town Public Library or Auckland Public Library. Manuscripts in this category are GNZMMSS 43, 44, 45, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 106, 114 and 115.
Two manuscripts to which Te Rangikaheke contributed are bound, one containing waiata (GNZMMSS 24), and the other containing proverbs (GNZMMSS 75).
Three of the entire manuscripts attributed to Te Rangikaheke (GNZMMSS 36, 93 and 98) are on quarto paper, as are four to which he contributed. Five manuscripts to which he among others contributed poems have various page sizes. Six of the manuscripts to which he contributed are on foolscap. Some of these are stapled, some sewn, some loose.
The letters in the Grey Maori Letters and the John White Papers are also written on pages of various sizes. However, the long political addresses in the Grey Maori Letters are written on foolscap similar to that of most of the entire manuscripts.
All manuscripts are written in ink.
Of the 21 manuscripts written entirely by Te Rangikaheke, 10 were attributed by Bleek (1858 Vol.II, pt.4:64-76). These are GNZMMSS 36, 43, 44, 45, 51, 79, 81, 83, 93 and 98.
In attributing the other 11 manuscripts to Te Rangikaheke, writing has clearly played an important part in determining their author. There have been additional clues in a number of cases.
George Graham, Maori scholar and acquaintance of Grey, translated Te Rangikaheke's preface and probably identified the author of GNZMMSS 118. Biggs attributed GNZMMSS 92 (1970b:22). This manuscript is, in fact, signed “Wiremu Maihi”. Simmons attributed both GNZMMSS 85 and 89 to Te Rangikaheke (1976:417). Again the latter is signed “Na Wiremu”. McRae attributed GNZMMSS 82, 84, 86, 87, 114, 115, and tentatively 106 (1981:unpaginated).
I am in agreement with all these attributions. In the case of GNZMMSS 106 it can be added that there are references to himself, Maihi, and his wife, Mere (p.221).
Three other manuscripts have been tentatively attributed to Te Rangikaheke. Simmons has attributed GNZMMSS 116 (1976:418); - 113 McRae also attributes GNZMMSS 116, and, in addition, GNZMMSS 109 and 111 (1981). The calligraphy and orthography 18 of these do not, in my opinion, warrant the attribution, and I have not included them in the Descriptive Inventory of his work.
All of Te Rangikaheke's contributions to the 17 manuscripts partially written by him are newly attributed by the author. Sections of six manuscripts have been attributed on the basis of handwriting alone (handwriting will be discussed below). These are GNZMMSS 24, 60, 69, 73, 90 and 101. Handwriting in addition to other evidence — signature, genealogies, printing style and content — has guided the attribution in the other 11 cases: GNZMMSS 66, 75, 95, 119, 13, 38, 42, 71, 12, 70 and 102. 19
All but two of the letters in the Grey Maori Letters are signed. These two, GNZMA 724 and 323, addresses to Queen Victoria, are catalogued by Bleek, GNZMA 724 “from a native” and GNZMA 323“from the Chiefs of Rotorua” (1858 Vol.II, pt.4:68). The similarity of the opinions expressed here to those in GNZMMSS 98 and 86, as well as the calligraphy of the author, confirm the attribution.
Both the letter and the address in the John White Papers are signed.
The manuscript given to Cooper (1851:128) is not in the Grey Collection, although Cooper's version was reprinted in Grey (1853:1xxxviiixcvi and 1971:126-36).
Calligraphy, Orthography, Punctuation
Williams (1906:179) and Biggs (1952:179) both correctly draw attention to Te Rangikaheke's clear, neat writing. Williams comments here also on the admirable punctuation, his writing being “singularly free from that erratic joining and breaking of words which characterise most Maori writing”.
Te Rangikaheke's hand is clear, neat and consistent; the words are usually separated. His capital letters, all of which are clear, are in large printed script. His small letters similarly are well formed, there being an occasional difficulty in distinguishing p, h, n on unlined paper, and in distinguishing a and o where these are part of a base. All other small letters are easily distinguished. His printing is distinctive — simulated Roman lettering, including serifs, larger letters being used for consonants or (?) alternate letters. Joining of words occurs but rarely, and usually with the joining of particle and base, e.g., imua (81:53). 20 Only two examples of coalescence of two vowels were found in the four manuscripts studied closely, other than that referred to by Williams (1906:179).
Names are inconsistently hyphenated. Tamatekapua is found (81:56), so are Tama-tekapua (81:64) and Tama to kapua (44:917).
Paragraphs are not usually indented, but indicated by a new line. - 114 Karakia, cosmogonic genealogies, and genealogies are not set out; they are written straight along a line, although in all genealogies a new line indicates the start of a new line of descent. The paragraphs are usually short (81 being an exception), and separate the stages of an explanation or narrative adequately. There are rare occasions when there is an idiosyncratic use of a new paragraph for emphasis, which opens the way for ambiguity (e.g., 81:53, lines 1-5), when the introducing sentence is separated from the quotation.
A paragraph is usually without sentence breaks, although breaks are generally marked within it, usually by a comma, but sometimes by a colon or semi-colon. A colon can also indicate a list to follow. A paragraph end is sometimes marked by a period, sometimes by a semicolon, and occasionally by a comma.
In some manuscripts, the convention of repeating the first word of a page at the bottom of the page preceding it is followed (51:84-126).
One serious difficulty is the inconsistent use of w and wh. In GNZMMSS 81 wh is rare, being found only in the causative prefix whaka, and in one use of the name Whakaturia (81:56), Wawai is found (81:54), whawhai (44:922), and whawhai and whanaunga (87:165).
Confusion is apparent when the same base is spelled differently on the same page wahine and whahine (44:922). In what are probably the later manuscripts, there is a greater use of wh, indicating Te Rangikaheke's effort to learn this new element of orthography, having learned to write before wh was first printed in 1844. 21
The second serious difficulty concerns direct speech. There are no speech marks anywhere, and there is no separation of speakers by paragraphs in a number of manuscripts, including GNZMMSS 81 and 44, where there is much dialogue. In GNZMMSS 87, however, paragraphs are used to indicate a change of speaker. Exclamation marks are used frequently in dialogue, question marks seldom. There is an idiosyncratic use of capitals to indicate emphasis, found in a number of instances, e.g., Ki nga tangata Maori Na Rangi raua ko Papa nga take o mua (43:893), the capital N being used for emphasis and not indicating the start of a new sentence.
Errors in spelling and writing are very few, there being, for example, in the 21 pages of GNZMMSS 44 only eight minor errors. Te Rangikaheke's corrections can either be a cross-out or an underlining of the error, in the latter case the correction being written above. Because of the small number of errors, few guesses need to be made in transcribing and translating.
There are very few omissions in GNZMMSS 43, 44 and 81. There are a number of omissions and additions in GNZMMSS 87 which led to the - 115 insertion of paragraphs at the top, bottom and sides of pages, often causing some difficulty to the reader.
Content and Publication
The manuscripts encompass most aspects of Maori culture. The prose matter includes Language Usage, Genealogies, Legends, Contemporary History, Political Commentary, Customs, Annotation of Mooteatea and Autobiographical material. In addition, Te Rangikaheke contributed to all Grey's major folios of waiata, and to some folios of proverbs.
Language Usage: Some 30 pages in eight manuscripts (GNZMMSS 12, 36, 71, 83, 84, 85, 114 and 115) are concerned with language usage. Three of these (GNZMMSS 12, 36 and 83) contain examples of partial and full reduplication, passive agreement, and the use of the causative prefix; one (GNZMMSS 71) refers to the position of postposed particles; five (GNZMMSS 12, 71, 83, 84 and 85) contain synonyms, terms and forms of address; and two (GNZMMSS 114 and 115) compare Ngaapuhi and Rotorua dialects. Grey's writing in GNZMMSS 12 and 36 beside and below Te Rangikaheke's indicates collaboration between the two to supply Grey's translation requirements. For example, in GNZMMSS 12 (unpaginated) usage of wehe, wehewehe, tauwehe and mawehe indicates discussion of Ngaa Tama a Rangi (43:893). The coverage of language usage is limited; it is no doubt what Te Rangikaheke referred to as the separation, joining, extension and contraction of words, when he listed for Queen Victoria the matters he had taught the Governor: “Ko te wehenga o ngaa kupu, me te huinga, me te whakanuinga, me te whakaitinga” (GNZMA 723:278). None of this material has been published.
Genealogies: Three manuscripts give genealogies. GNZMMSS 81 and 44 give lines of descent from those who came on Te Arawa. The former has more than 30 pages (81:15-52), chiefly of Arawa genealogies from Hou-mai-tawhiti and Tama-te-kapua to Te Rangikaheke, his contemporaries and their children. The latter is less exhaustive. Its contents will be discussed in Section III below. The page contributed by Te Rangikaheke to GNZMMSS 13 is confined to descents from Tia and Tore.
The genealogies in GNZMMSS 44 appear in Grey (1853:xlix-lxxi). The sections in GNZMMSS 81 and 13 remain unpublished.
Legends: Eight manuscripts, covering more than 130 pages (GNZMMSS 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 79, 81 and 118), deal wholly or partly with myths and tribal history. The content of these will be the subject of Section III.
This is the category most used in publication, 22 yet, of the eight manuscripts dealing wholly or partly with myths and tribal history, only three have been published with complete transcriptions and translations: - 116 GNZMMSS 79 (Biggs 1952:183-7), GNZMMSS 45 (Orbell 1968:8-12), and the section of GNZMMSS 118 relating the story of Hinemoa has been transcribed (Biggs, Hohepa and Mead 1967:62-73) and translated (Biggs, Lane and Cullen 1980:43-46). A transcription and translation of combined sections GNZMMSS 43 and 81 relating the origin of the universe and of man has been published (Biggs 1970a:1-4), as has most of the Maaui cycle from GNZMMSS 43 (Biggs 1964:43; 1966:449-50; 1980:66-73).
GNZMMSS 43, 44 and the legends from GNZMMSS 81 appear with little alteration, except distortion by added punctuation, in Grey (1853:iii-lxxi), as does the section from GNZMMSS 42 relating two episodes of the Hinemoa story (1853:Ixxii-lxxiv).
Contemporary History: The intertribal wars in the Rotorua and Bay of Plenty areas are described in two long manuscripts, each over 40 pages (GNZMMSS 86 and 87). The first, entitled A Description of the Battle of Te Haramiti at Moo-tiitii; the history of the Wars formerly carried on between the tribes of Tauranga and Rotorua, describes the warfare following the attack by Te Haramiti of Ngaapuhi (Northland) on Mayor Island in 1831, and later on Moo-tiitii Island where he was defeated and killed. Ngaapuhi then allied with Ngaati Whakaue (Rotorua) against Ngaai-te-rangi (Tauranga) and Ngaati Rangi-wewehi (North Rotorua). When the latter defeated the former, the other Northern tribes, Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri, joined Ngaapuhi to defeat Ngaai-te-rangi. Ngaai-te-rangi continued to hold Te Tumu while Te Arawa tribes held Maketu. Increasing rivalry for possession of Maketu (the important flax-growing area), brought more warfare between Ngaai-te-rangi and Te Arawa. Te Rangikaheke here also reflects on the chain of events leading to these battles, and blames the introduction of firearms and the failure of Rotorua, Tauranga and Waikato to unite against Ngaapuhi.
GNZMMSS 87 is entitled A book describing the murder of Te Hunga; the history of the wars formerly carried on between the tribes of Rotorua and Waikato. It is a sequel to GNZMMSS 86. Fighting broke out again after the murder of Te Hunga, a brother-in-law of Te Waharoa, the chief of the Waikato tribe, Ngaati Hauaa, on Christmas Day, 1835. Revenge for this murder, and continuing rivalry for possession of Maketu, caused Ngaai-te-rangi to join the Waikato tribes against the Rotorua tribes led by Hikairo. Warfare continued on the coast for some seven years, Rotorua finally retaining possession of Maketu.
These two manuscripts, which complete Te Rangikaheke's account of history, were written to correct Waikato's version of these battles. Neither of the two long manuscripts in this category has yet been published.- 117
Political Commentary: Two manuscripts, GNZMMSS 93 and 98, and five letters (GNZMA 724, 323; White MS Papers 75, Folder A 119C; GNZMA 70 and 75) contain political commentary. All are concerned with Maori-Pakeha relations, the first five listed being written before 1855, and the latter two in the course of the Maori-Pakeha wars of the 1860s.
GNZMMSS 93, A Dream of Te Rangikaheke, written on August 27, 1850, tells of a dream which Te Rangikaheke claims is a vision of the future, when Maori and Pakeha will fight, each considering the other to be the aggressor. 23
GNZMMSS 98, Various Writings, and the draft letters to Queen Victoria (GNZMA 724 and 323) deal with events from the arrival of traders and land buyers, the introduction of firearms, the coming of Christianity, and the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Rangikaheke sees the advantages of accepting the Pakeha Government — the end of the sale of arms and alcohol, the return of land acquired wrongly by Pakeha buyers, the building of roads, mills, shops and banks, and the institution of judges for disputes. He regards the Government as a protection against the former customs of war and cannibalism. However, particularly in the letters to the Queen, he points out the loss of Maori land, the double standard of missionaries and other Pakehas, the confusion of the Maori people and their difficulty in approaching the Governor. In GNZMA 323, he objects to Governors being recalled. There are over 50 pages in these three manuscripts. The letters were written in 1850, and Various Writings probably before 1845, as FitzRoy is referred to as the Governor.
Te Rangikaheke's Address on behalf of Rotorua chiefs living in Auckland to Governor Gore Browne (White MS Papers 75, Folder A 119C) surveys the work of previous Governors, and again regrets the practice of recall, and asks Gore Browne to stay permanently. It suggests Gore Browne should make Maori ideas law, so Maori and Pakeha could rule together.
GNZMA 70 is a brief letter to Bishop Selwyn written on October 3, 1863, expressing fear of attack in the Maori-Pakeha wars. GNZMA 75 is a letter from Te Rangikaheke and other Arawa chiefs written to Governor Grey on July 11, 1864, promising allegiance to the Queen.
Only GNZMMSS 93,A Dream of Te Rangikaheke has been transcribed, translated and published (Orbell 1968:8-12).
Customs: Six manuscripts (GNZMMSS 51, 81, 85, 89, 92 and 118) are concerned wholly or partly with customs and observances. In GNZMMSS 51 there are 54 quarto pages devoted to an exposition of Maori knowledge, its retention and transmission, and to karakia for all aspects of life. GNZMMSS 81 has two sections in this category, one describing - 118 observances and karakia for many purposes, the second listing good and bad omens, Maori gods, and the source of man's tapu. A section of GNZMMSS 85 describes the attributes of a chief, and GNZMMSS 89 gives a minute description of the processes and instruments for tattooing, with illustrations. GNZMMSS 92 is concerned with marriage — courtship, parental recognition of marriage, signs of pregnancy, the rites for pregnancy and for birth. A section of GNZMMSS 118 describes the facial tattooing of girls; another describes the Maori kite.
Customs are also discussed in the course of other manuscripts. For example, chieftainship is discussed in GNZMMSS 86, and warfare and death customs in GNZMMSS 87.
A transcription and translation of GNZMMSS 92, Mode of Obtaining a wife, has been published (Biggs 1970b:85-97). The section on tattooing from GNZMMSS 118 has been transcribed (Biggs, Hohepa and Mead 1967:101-2) and translated (Biggs, Lane and Cullen 1980:71) and another section of this manuscript, the Maori kite, has been quoted (Walsh 1912:379).
Sections of GNZMMSS 81, Good and Bad Omens, Maori gods, and the source of man's tapu appear as appendices 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Grey (1853 :Ixxvii-lxxxii).
All of the material relating to Maori knowledge (GNZMMSS 51), to religious observances (GNZMMSS 81), to chieftainship (GNZMMSS 85) and to tattooing (GNZMMSS 89) remains unpublished.
Annotation of Mooteatea: GNZMMSS 188, A Commentary on “Ko Nga Moteatea me Nga Hakirara o Nga Maori”, annotates the first 143 items of the contents of Grey's work (1853). Lines of mooteatea, explanation and commentary are intermingled.
Only Waiata Haka Oriori (118:58-63) has been transcribed and published (Biggs 1953:56-7).
Autobiographical Material: GNZMMSS 44, 45, 81, 87 and 118 contain autobiographical references, as do the letters not discussed under political commentary above (GNZMA 680, 406, 691, 682, 723; White MS Papers 75, Folder 84). These have been discussed in Section I.
Only the genealogies in GNZMMSS 44 have been published (Grey 1853 : xlix-lxxi).
Waiata: Te Rangikaheke's writing includes some 165 waiata, the greatest number of these being in GNZMMSS 81, 70 and 51, the remainder being scattered through 11 other manuscripts. He contributed to all Grey's major folios of waiata (GNZMMSS 24, 38, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 90, 95 and 101). Fifty-seven of these waiata appeared in two of Grey's publications (1853 and 1857b). Table 1 correlates the published waiata, - 119 by page number, with their manuscript source.
In addition, slightly different versions of many waiata transcribed by Te Rangikaheke have been published in Grey's two volumes.
Proverbs: Many whakataukii and pepeha are found throughout the manuscripts. Four manuscripts have proverbs separate from text (GNZMMSS 82:61-2; 106:213-7; 75:unpaginated; 95:113-8).
Two of the proverbs in GNZMMSS 106 appear in Grey (1857a:31, 57) and four of those in GNZMMSS 95 in Grey also (1853:120, 199, 58; 1857a:92).
Te Rangikaheke himself best sums up the contents of his manuscripts in a signed draft letter to Queen Victoria (GNZMA 723, pt 2.), dated May 18, 1850. He lists the matters he taught his good friend the Governor: the beginning of the world; the separation of Rangi and Papa; the sons of Rangi and Papa and the karakia for each of them; the karakia for many purposes; the story of Tiki; the deeds of Maaui; good and bad omens; whakataukii, karakia, maakutu, genealogies, waiata, haka, whakaaraara, tau; the battles in Hawaiki, the migration of the ancestors, the happenings on the journey, the battles here, the generation of the ancestors when they arrived here; the spread of the ancestors to different regions of this land; the priest's function; the chief's function; word formation: “Ko eenei eetahi e akona ana e ahau ki tooku hoa pai atawhai” (723:278).
III TE RANGIKAHEKE'S ACCOUNT OF HISTORY
Three of Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts contain most of his account - 120 of the history of the universe from its origins to times contemporary with his writing. These are Ngaa Tama a Rangi (GNZMMSS 43), Tuupuna (GNZMMSS 44), and Maori Religious Ideas and Observances (GNZMMSS 81). 24 All three manuscripts were written in 1849. From internal evidence to be established below, it appears that both Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna were written after Maori Religious Ideas, and that Tuupuna was written last.
Maori Religious Ideas contains accounts of the origin of man, the separation of Rangi and Papa, the quarrels of their sons, the increase of men to Toi-te-huatahi, the battles in Hawaiki, Ngahue's voyage, the building of canoes, the voyage of Te Arawa, landfall at Whanga-Paraoa, arrival in Maketu, Arawa dispersal, and the narratives of Ruaaeo, Ihenga, Ngatoro-i-rangi, Manahua, and Hatupatu.
Ngaa tama a Rangi contains accounts of the origin of men, the separation of Rangi and Papa, the quarrels of their sons, and the Maaui cycle of myths.
Tuupuna contains accounts of the origin of the universe from Te Poo to Tuu-matauenga to Toi-te-huatahi, the battles in Hawaiki, the building of canoes, the voyage of Te Arawa, landfall at Whanga-Paraoa, arrival at Maketu, Arawa genealogies and connections with other tribes, the origin of the ancestors in Hawaiki, the theft of the gods from Hawaiki, the defeat of Manahua, and the spread of the Arawa people.
All these three manuscripts were published by Grey (1853) with relatively few alterations and omissions. However, his punctuation and paragraphing distort meaning considerably. Maori Religious Ideas appears in the first appendix (Grey 1853:iii-xxx), Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna in the second (Grey 1853:xxxi-1xxi).
The important question remains: why did Te Rangikaheke write accounts of the same subject twice? I propose to show that Te Rangikaheke intended Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna to be one manuscript, which was to be sent to the descendants of the ancestors in Hawaiki, and that he intended Maori Religious Ideas to be for Grey's information.
First, if we take it that there are two manuscripts rather than three, and that Maori Religious Ideas is one account and Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna together are a second, we shall see that in content, each gives a full account of history. We shall also see that in the “combined” manuscript there is, in fact, no duplication.
Next, Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna are written on identical paper. The pages of Ngaa Tama a Rangi are numbered 893 to 913; the pages of Tuupuna are numbered 915 to 935. Neither manuscript is bound. It would seem probable that Bleek (1858 Vol.II, pt 4:73) found them separated, or separated them himself; the Auckland Public Library - 121 has simply catalogued them similarly. Maori Religious Ideas is bound and differently paginated.
Two passages in Tuupuna support the proposal:
Te Rangikaheke clearly considered he was writing two accounts.
In both passages he refers to the “first account written for the governor”, this account containing the “many customs of the Maori”. From its contents this account must be Maori Religious Ideas, which, in addition to the legends under discussion, contains religious ideas and observances, incantations, poems, proverbs and genealogies.
He distinguishes the other account in the first passage as “the deeds of the sons of Makea-tuutara and Taranga”. He wrote this sentence in the manuscript we know as Tuupuna, yet the deeds of the sons of Makeatuutara and Taranga are in the manuscript we know as Ngaa Tama a Rangi. He must have considered Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna to be one account. He makes a further distinction of this other account. In the first passage he writes that he is explaining “only the ancestors to the people of Hawaiki” in the second passage he says he is writing “only of the people who came on Te Arawa to whom these descendants belong.”
We find corroboration in another of Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts, An Address to the Inhabitants of Hawaiki (GNZMMSS 45). Here we find reference to two accounts, one of these being for the Governor, the other to be taken back to Hawaiki. Te Rangikaheke here tells of his “meeting” with Maaui Tione, a humble man from Hawaiki, in the Governor's office in Auckland. As a consequence, he is writing to the inhabitants of Hawaiki from where his ancestors came. Maaui Tione is to take this account back, so that the people of Hawaiki can write to him - 122 and correct any mistakes in his account of the origin of the universe, the separation of Rangi and Papa, the increase of men, the deeds of Maaui, Tuu-huruhuru, Tawhaki, Whakatauihu, and of Toi, Manaia, Uenuku, and the migration to this land: “Whakaaturia anaketia mai e koutou te heenga, te tikanga o aaku koorero” (45:938). Te Rangikaheke claims to have written one account for the Governor and another for Maaui Tione to take back: “Aa, tuhituhia ana e au ngaa pukapuka ma te Kaawana, me te mea ki a ia [Maaui Tione]” (45:939).
The contents Te Rangikaheke lists in his letter coincide with the combined contents of Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna. It is notable also that the combined contents of these two manuscripts do not include narratives which could not be checked for accuracy by the people of Hawaiki.
GNZMMSS 45 is written on paper identical to that of Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna; its pages, 937 to 939 follow those of Tuupuna.
There are many examples, in what I shall now refer to as the two accounts, to show that Te Rangikaheke selected his material according to the needs and interests of its intended recipient.
In the account intended for Hawaiki, he refers to the places in Hawaiki from which the ancestors came, to the waahi tapu in Rarotonga (this place being in Hawaiki) and to the theft of the gods from there (44:932). Also in Tuupuna, there is considerable comment on Arawa supremacy (44:927, 932-5). By contrast, in Ngaa Tama a Rangi there is much comparison of Maori and Pakeha belief (43:893, 895, 912-3) — matters Te Rangikaheke thought of interest to the people of Hawaiki.
Conversely, in Maori Religious Ideas there is no comparison of Maori and Pakeha belief, no emphasis on tribal pride, no personal observation. There is greater explanation here. For example, he comments on the reluctance of tohunga to disclose information: “Kiihai i aata whaakina mai, he tuupato no ngaa tohunga, kei aapitia ki te kai; he aroha hoki ko ngaa karakia o mua, o ngaa maatua, o ngaa tuupuna onamata” (81:69). Grey would need to be told that incantations could have no place near food, that some incantations were withheld out of respect for the ancestors. Even the account Te Rangikaheke is giving to Grey may be incomplete: “Heoi anoo, ka mutu. Kiihai i aata koorerotia mai e ngaa tohunga” (81:80).
Other examples, showing this selection of material, will be noted in the commentary below.
There is a final point. Grey appears to have understood that there were two accounts. Maori Religious Ideas appears in his first appendix (1853:iii-xxx) and Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna together in the second (1853:xxxi-1xxi).
The aim of my commentary is to show the comprehensiveness of Te - 123 Rangikaheke's account of history: his understanding of the evolution of the universe and the vastness of time in this evolutionary period, and his sense of chronology. His exposition of an Arawa point of view will also be discussed. Some comparison of the two accounts will be made. It has not been my aim to compare Te Rangikaheke's account with other Maori or Polynesian sources, nor to compare the manuscript with Grey's published version (1853:iii-1xxi) or with his combined material in Nga Mahinga a Nga Tupuna (1854, and subsequent editions), although some of his alterations and omissions will be referred to in notes.
Te Rangikaheke's account of history will be examined from the manuscripts themselves. We have seen from his Address to the Inhabitants of Hawaiki, that accuracy was one of his aims. Comprehensiveness was another. He wrote some prefatory remarks to Grey in GNZMMSS 51, written in October 1853. Here he explained that the manuscript to follow was written to include matters that were left out of the other books (i.e., those written in 1849). People who knew had pointed out the omissions, which perhaps could be repaired later. The real Maori tohunga still possessed the correct account of matters from the beginning of the world to this time.
The Evolution of the Universe, the Origin of Man, the Sons of Rangi and Papa
Te Rangikaheke gives his full description of the evolution of the universe in Tuupuna. It is expressed in genealogical form, a form which establishes time depth by recitation of generations. By using this cryptic device, he is able both to describe the sequences which were passed through before the evolution of man, and to show the vastness of time within each. He begins,
Tuarima, tuaono, tuawhitu, tuawaru, tuaiwa, Tuangahuru, tuarau, tuamano, tuatini (44:915).
The first sequence was one of Night or Darkness. It was followed by sequences of Nothingness, of Searching, of Seeking, of Looking, until the first Heaven was arrived at.
Koia Rangi-tuatahi (44:915).
Each sequence is numbered, and yet beyond number; its length can be counted to a thousand, but beyond that the period of time is so great it is myriad (tuatini).
A similarly infinite sequence of Heavens follows the first, and in turn is followed by a sequence of Heavens marked in descriptive terms — great, long and dark. Then follows a sequence of Earths, again numbered and beyond number. Next clouds appear in different forms — dark, gleaming and floating — until there is an emergence into the World of Light: “Aa, ko te putanga ki te whai-ao, ki te Ao-Maarama!” (44:916).
This is Surfacing, Fulfilment. It is followed by Movements and Waters, spreading above and below, intense and numerous. Then there are tribes of people, moving, adzing at random in the darkness, and then emerging from it, reaching Tuu-matauenga the god of man and his brother, whose descendants are then named.
There is no reference to evolutionary periods in Ngaa Tama a Rangi. Being part of the same account, it is complementary to Tuupuna. Te Rangikaheke does, however, refer to the period of darkness, and to the many people in it: “Ina hoki i poouri hoki te rangi me te whenua ... kua maha ngaa tangata, kua tini, aa, kaaore anoo i maarama noa, e poouri tonu, tonu, ana” (43:893).
In Maori Religious Ideas there are briefer references to the evolution of the universe: “Ia poo, i te poo tuatahi tae noa ki te ngahuru, ki te rau, ki te mano. Koia teenei ... e poouri ana tonu ki te Maaori” (81:53). Te Rangikaheke begins by describing the numbered sequence of Nights, stressing that all was still dark. He continues by referring to the evolution from Night to Light, and to the search and seeking in Nothingness: “Te poo, te poo, te ao, te ao, te kimihanga, te haahaunga i te kore, i te kore” (81:53). He explains that Rangi (Heaven) and Papa (Earth) were still clinging together: “Ko te Rangi anoo me Papa e piri tonu ana” (81:53).
So a chronology of the period before the evolution of man has been established.
Te Rangikaheke then moves on to the next stage. He writes of the origin of man, through the separation of Rangi and Papa, in Ngaa Tama a Rangi and in Maori Religious Ideas. There is no specific reference to - 125 the separation of Rangi and Papa in Tuupuna, except to announce, in the cosmogonic genealogy, the emergence of Tuu-matauenga and his brothers from the darkness:
In Ngaa Tama a Rangi he begins by calling attention to the fact that there is but one ancestor of the Maori people, Rangi, the sky-who-stands-above, and Papa, the earth-who-lies-below: “E hoa maa, whakarongo mai! Kotahi anoo te tupuna o te tangata Maaori, ko Ranginui e tuu nei, ko Papa-tuu-a-nuku e takoto nei” (43:893). He continues to explain that, to the Maori, Heaven and Earth were the source of man: “Na Rangi raaua ko Papa ngaa take o mua” (43:893), and emphasises his point by comparing Maori beliefs with the Pakeha belief that god alone created man, heaven and earth: “Ki taa te Paakehaa, ki taana tikanga, na te A tua anake te tangata me Rangi, me Papa, me ngaa mea katoa i hanga” (43:893). 25
Because the sky and earth were still in darkness, and there were many people in this darkness, the sons of Rangi and Papa conceived their plan to separate their parents. The sons, Rongo-maa-taane, Tangaroa, Haumia, and Tuu-matauenga tried unsuccessfully to separate them. Then Taane succeeded by putting his head down and his feet up. Then Rangi and Papa were completely separated, and the hordes of men hidden in the hollow between their bellies were seen: “Kaatahi ka kitea te tini tangata e huna nei ki roto i te arearenga o ngaa koopuu o Rangi raaua ko Papa; mawehe kau anoo” (43:893).
In Maori Religious Ideas there is no inconsistency in the account of the separation; there are different emphases.
Here the opening words also describe the writer's purpose: to give the origin of the generation of man, “Na, teenei anoo te take o te whakatupuranga o te tangata” (81:53), but he omits mention of the single ancestor of mankind. He tells us in addition, however, that the account was given exactly by the ancestors when they described the numbered sequence of Nights, and the long period of darkness: “Kaatahi ka aata koorerotia i mua i teenaa kupu e mea na, i te tuhituhinga tuatahi o ngaa tuupuna, is poo, i te poo tuatahi, tae noa ki te ngahuru, ki te rau, ki te mano” (81:53).
Next he tells of the immense and difficult decision to separate Rangi and Papa, and quotes a saying to describe it: “Na, ko teenei kupu, ‘Ko te nuinga, ko te roanga’” (81:53).
Only the names of Taane and Tuu-matauenga are mentioned at this - 126 stage. Taane opposed Tuu's plan to kill their parents and proposed to separate them. Taane's reason is explained — so the sons should have one apart from them and the other as a parent for them: “Engari, me wehewehe raaua, ki runga teetahi, ki raro teetahi — kia kotahi hei tangata kee ki a taatou, kia kotahi hei matua ki a taatou” (81:53). Five sons agreed to the plan, one pitied the parents. Again, the purpose of the separation is explained — that man might live: “Kia ora ai te tangata” (81:53). Four brothers (not mentioned by name) tried to separate them without success. Taane succeeded, and then night and day were distinguished: “Ka mawehe Rangi raaua ko Papa. . . . ka heuea te poo, ka heuea te ao” (81:53).
The quarrels among the brothers after the separation of their parents establish the elements and natural phenomena. In Ngaa Tama a Rangi Te Rangikaheke tells how Taawhiri decided to fight his brothers for separating their parents when he had not agreed to it: “Ka tupu te whakaaro i a Taawhiri-maatea kia tahuri mai is ki te whawhai ki oona tuaakana mo te wehewehenga i oo raatou maatua; kaaore is i whakaae kia wehea raaua” (43:893).
Taawhiri rose to consult his father, Rangi; and his many offspring, the winds, were begotten, and Storm and Hurricane were sent forth. He attacked Taane and the forest trees were broken in two; Tangaroa fled to the sea, where one of his offspring Ika-tere fled on, and the other Tuu-tewehiwehi went inland; Papa snatched up Rongo and Haumia. Only Tuu remained unassailable on the bosom of his mother Papa-tuu-a-nuku: “Whatiwhati rawa a Taane, poro puu. Ko Tangaroa i oma ki te wai. Ko Rongo, ko Haumia-tiketike i oma ki te whenua. Ko Tuu-matauenga i tuu tonu i te ateatenga o toona whaea, o Papa-tuu-a-nuku” (43:894).
Rangi and Taawhiri were appeased, but Tuu turned on his brothers for their cowardice against the vengeance of Taawhiri. He, in turn, defeated all his brothers. He destroyed the offspring of Taane, the birds, by making snares; he hauled up Tangaroa's offspring, the fish, in nets; he dug up the offspring of Rongo and Haumia, the kuumara and fernroot. So he ate all his brothers and made them noa: “No reira, i kainga katoatia ai e Tuu-matauenga oona tuaakana . . . . Na reira, i whakanoatia ai oona tuaakana” (43:895).
The incantations of the brothers were sorted out. Tuu did this so that his brothers might be returned to him as food.
Te Rangikaheke also explains how the area of the earth had been reduced by Taawhiri's attack: “Na reira anoo, i ngaro ai teetahi waahi o te whenua no te putanga mai o te riri o Taawhiri-maatea i whawhai ra” (43:896).
There is another interesting comparison of Maori and Pakeha belief - 127 concerning the origin of death, which is elaborated at the end of the manuscript (43:912-3). Te Rangikaheke tells how death came to man through Maaui-tikitiki-o-Taranga, when he took liberties with Hine-nui-te-poo: “Ko te tangata teeraa, naana i tinihanga a Hine-nui-te-poo. Na reira, i mate ai te tangata” (43:895), whereas, according to Pakeha belief death came from the thoughtlessness of Adam and Eve: “No te whakaaro-kore o Iwi raaua ko Arama i mate ai” (43:895). 26
Again, the account given in Maori Religious Ideas is substantially the same, and again there are some important differences.
First, Taawhiri's reasons for turning on his brothers are elaborated: he conceived a plan for his parents, lest peace should reign, and then turned on his brothers: “Ka tupu te whakaaro i a Taawhiri-maatea mo oona maatua kei tupu te pai. Toona whakatikanga ki te whai anoo i toona matua, kia tahuri mai ki te whawhai ki oona tuaakana” (81:54).
The second difference concerns the order in which Tuu attacked his brothers. Here it is Tangaroa who was attacked first, then Rongo and Haumia, and last Taane-mahuta: “Ka rapua nei e Tuu he ritenga maana kia whawhai; ka rapu is i a Tangaroa . . . Ka rapua a Haumia raaua ko Rongo. . . . Ka rapu anoo i te whakaaro mo Taane-mahuta” (81:55).
Third, the meaning of the brothers' names is explained explicitly: Tangaroa, the fish; Rongo-maa-taane, the kuumara; Haumia-tiketike, the edible fern-root; Taane-mahuta, trees and birds; Taawhiri-maatea, the wind; Tuu-matauenga, man. This shows again a greater degree of explanation in this manuscript, and illustrates Te Rangikaheke's selection of material for the needs of its intended recipient, Grey.
In Tuupuna the only reference to the sons of Rangi and Papa is to place them focally in the cosmogonic genealogy.
What is perhaps the most significant aspect of Te Rangikaheke's account of the sons of Rangi and Papa, is demonstrated in each manuscript: he links the sons of Rangi and Papa backward and forward in time.
In Tuupuna the genealogy places Tuu-matauenga and his brothers after the period of moving in darkness, and then shows descent from them through Whanake, Whiro, Tiki, Uru, Nangana, Wai-o-nuku, Wai-o-rangi and Wai-o-te-aataahua to Toi:
In Ngaa Tama a Rangi this section ends with the names of the - 128 ancestral beings who destroyed the land, Big Rain, Long Rain, Hailstone-Rain and Hail, and links them with the descendants of Tuu-matauenga who increased until the generation of Maaui-taha and his younger brothers:
In Maori Religious Ideas, Te Rangikaheke explains that from the time of Tuu's defeat of his brothers, light increased, the people previously hidden by Rangi and Papa increased, and he explains that Tuu and his brothers' descent was from Night, Day, Nothingness, the Search, and Movement, continuing to tribes of people, Whiro and others, Tiki and others:
Furthermore, the deeds of the Maori, good, evil, warfare and settlement originate from this time, until we reach the birth of Tawhaki, Tuu-huruhuru, Maaui-tikitiki-o-Taranga, Whakatauihu, and then come to the generation of Uenuku, Hou-mai-tawhiti and Toi:
Thus, Te Rangikaheke has linked the sons of Rangi and Papa back to the earlier stages of evolution, Night, Day, Nothingness, and the ancestral beings, Rain and Hail. He has joined his account to the past. He then joins these mythical figures to the great figures of tradition about whom he is going to tell.
Reference must first be made to the Maaui stories both to indicate the comprehensiveness of Te Rangikaheke's account, and to show his awareness of chronology.- 129
Only in Ngaa Tama a Rangi does Te Rangikaheke tell the full story of Maaui, although there are references to the hero as cited above (81:56), and elsewhere (51:134; 45:937). The reasons for its omission from Maori Religious Ideas are open to speculation. Perhaps he considered it less significant than the accounts of the evolution of the universe and the origin of man, and less closely connected with the tribal history which follows.
Te Rangikaheke uses a “flash-back” technique to describe Maaui's deeds, which he recounts in the following order: 27
Although the story of Maaui's birth is told after some of his exploits, Te Rangikaheke has not lost sight of the order in which these events occurred. When Maaui recites a number of his achievements to his brothers to persuade them to come with him to pull up the sun, for example, Te Rangikaheke explains that this event occurred after Maaui's birth; the pulling up of the sun happened later: “I muri tonu mai teenei i toona whaanautanga. I muri iho ko te herenga o te raa” (43:896).
Origin and Discovery Traditions, Migration and Settlement
Te Rangikaheke's accounts of the origin of the ancestors who came to New Zealand, of the decision to migrate, and the building of canoes follow from the descent to Toi outlined above, in both Tuupuna and Maori Religious Ideas.
In Tuupuna he explains that Toi's sons separated at this stage, some remaining in Hawaiki, and others coming here to New Zealand: “Ka wehea hoki i konei; ki Hawaiki eetahi; i haere mai nei eetahi i runga i ngaa waka i hoe mai nei ki Aotea nei” (44:916).
The reason for the separation was the increase in fighting in Hou-mai-tawhiti's time. Te Rangikaheke enumerates the set of events — fighting which began before Whakatauihu, in Tawhaki and Tuu-huruhuru's time, which continued until Manaia's 28 flock of sea birds was destroyed — which culminated in the dog belonging to Hou and his sons, Tama-te-kapua and Whakatuuria, eating the pus of Uenuku's boil: “Aa, muri mai ko ngaa pirau o te tapoa o Uenuku i kainga e te kurii a Hou-mai- - 130 tawhiti raatou ko aana tama” (44:916). The escalation of the fighting through this act of Tama's dog leads to a brilliant narrative, in which Te Rangikaheke's skill in the use of dialogue is particularly displayed.
Toi killed and ate the dog in revenge, whereupon Tama and Whakatuuria retaliated by eating the fruit of Uenuku's breadfruit tree. Whakatuuria was caught in the act but rescued by Tama, who told him how to escape by a ruse in which he offered to outdo his captors in performing the haka. Tama and Whakatuuria fled, leaving Toi, Uenuku and their people locked in their house, later to be released by a stranger.
Toi and Uenuku then regretted the escape of Tama and Whakatuuria, and wished they had killed them. They knew revenge would follow for their having hung Whakatuuria up in their house: “Mei patua, e kore e ora atu. Aapoopoo atu, ka tahuri mai ki te ngaki mate mo toona whakairinga ki te whare” (44:920).
Indeed revenge followed, and eventually Toi and Uenuku entered Hou's paa. Although Hou defeated the war-party, in which 10,000 fell, and killed and ate those left inside the paa, Hou and his sons were seriously at fault because they had eaten their relations. As a consequence, they declined; Hou and Whakatuuria died, although Tama and his sons and relations survived: “A a, ngaro ana ki te kore a Hou raatou ko taana iwi, aa, ka mate a Hou raaua ko Whakatuuria; ora ake a Tama raatou ko aana tama, ko aana tuaakana, teeina” (44:921).
Then we come to an interesting amplification of the reason for migration. Tama decided that peace should be made and that the remnant of his tribe should be taken off to survive; then peace was kept: “Kaatahi ka mahara is kia houhia te rongo; kia kaawhakina teetahi rerenga hei moorehu; anaa ka mau te rongo” (44:921). Perhaps peace could only be kept, if they migrated. The depth of the enmity might well perpetuate revenge, if overcrowding did not already necessitate the migration of some. Te Rangikaheke does not explain here.
There are two important differences in this episode in Maori Religious Ideas. One concerns the escalation of the fighting. The pus from Uenuku's boil is referred to as sacred food in Grey's note on the manuscript (81:56). Tama and Whakatuuria considered eating the fruit of Uenuku's breadfruit tree a suitable retaliation since eating Uenuku's pus was the cause of the trouble.
The decision to migrate is also put somewhat differently. Te Rangikaheke simply states that, after their great victory, Hou died. Then Tama and Maka and Tia and Hei conceived the idea of migrating to look for a land for themselves.
Te Rangikaheke continues in Maori Religious Ideas to explain that this migration was in order. This land had already been discovered by one of them, Ngahue, while they were fighting: “Otiraa, i tika ai. Kua kitea anoo teenei motu e teetahi o raatou i mua atu. Whawhai rawa ake, kua kitea ake. Ko te ingoa o te tangata ko Ngahue” (81:58).
Then follows the fabulous tale of Ngahue's discovery. Contention between Ngahue's “fish” Greenstone, and Hine-tua-hoanga's “fish” Obsidian led to Ngahue being driven away from Hawaiki. He came as far as Mayor Island, where Hine drove him off again. Ngahue then saw the mainland and, fearing his pursuer, he went as far as Ara-hura in the South Island. Later he returned to Hawaiki, having plucked off some parts of the greenstone from the big piece he left behind in the South Island. The pieces he took back were made into adzes.
The same discovery tale is recounted in Tuupuna, although here it is introduced after the account of the building of the canoes for which the adzes, Hauhau-te-rangi and Tutaru, were used. However, here too, the order of events is plain. Again, we are told the migration was in order because this land had already been discovered.
Both accounts contain descriptions of the felling of the tootara for the building of Te Arawa and of the names of the experts who built the canoes. There is a slight discrepancy. In Tupuuna, Rata, Wahie-roa, Ngahue, Parata and others are named. In Maori Religious Ideas Rata is omitted.
Similarly, in Tuupuna, the names of the canoes are given — Te Arawa, Tainui, Mata-atua, Taakitimu, Kurahaupo, Tokomaru, Mata-whaorua: “Ngaa ingoa o ngaa waka ko Te Arawa, ko Tainui, ko Mata-atua, ko Taakitimu, ko Kurahaupo, ko Tokomaru, ko Mata-whaorua” (44:921). In Maori Religious Ideas Taakitimu is omitted (81:59). These could both be slips, rare though these are in the manuscripts.
The building of the canoes and the naming of the ancestors who came from Hawaiki make the link between the place of origin and the voyage and arrival in this new land. Similar accounts of the voyage and arrival in New Zealand are given in both Tuupuna and Maori Religious Ideas.- 132
Te Rangikaheke shows that Tama-te-kapua knew the importance of having a tohunga on Te Arawa, and of the correct performance of ritual. When the canoes were ready, Tama realised he did not have a priest for his canoe, so he deceived Ngatoro-i-rangi (from Tainui) into coming aboard to perform the canoe ceremonies, along with his wife, Kearoa, who was to perform the women's rite with seaweed over the canoe, to remove the tapu.
When they were both on board, Tama gave orders for the sails to be raised in spite of Ngatoro's protests, and the canoe sped out to sea. Soon Ngatoro decided to go up on the booms of the canoe to see how far they had come. As he suspected Tama might seduce Kearoa, he first tied a rope to her hair and took the other end of the rope with him. Tama untied the hair, and tied the rope to the boom of the canoe, and proceeded to have intercourse with Kearoa. Ngatoro returned just as they had finished, but although Tama sprang up into his bed on the far side to sleep, he had not re-tied the rope to Kearoa's hair.
When Ngatoro's suspicions were confirmed by Kearoa, he forgave her, but took revenge on Tama, who had not only deceitfully carried them off, but had also seduced his wife. Ngatoro transposed the stars of evening and morning, and set the wind to drive the canoe astern. The crew became confused, and the canoe went straight into the whirlpool called Te Korokoro o Te Parata. It went down and down. Eventually Ngatoro's pity was aroused when not only his wife's pillow, but also some of the men and most of their goods fell overboard.
Then Ngatoro changed the aspect of the heavens and pronounced a charm to pull the canoe out of the whirlpool. It was a chant for - 133 Tangaroa, the ocean god, calling on him to disengage the canoe from the whirlpool:
Eke, eke, eke Tangaroa, eke, panuku, ui-e, taiki-e (44:926).
It ended with a charm for Rongo, the god of the kuumara. Soon the canoe floated up out of the whirlpool and sped along: “Ehara, tere ana a Te Arawa, i runga maanu ai” (44:926).
Tama-te-kapua had performed a second act of deceit before the canoe left Hawaiki. He had stolen Ruaaeo's wife by trickery, and when Rua found out, he performed incantations. Even though Tama realised the importance of tohunga and correct ritual, his two acts of deceit were against Ngatoro, a tohunga, and Ruaaeo, who possessed religious powers. Retribution for the first deceit had almost led to the loss of the canoe; retribution for the second was to come after arrival in Maketu.
The canoe's first place of arrival was Whanga-Paraoa (where Whaanau-a-Apanui were already living and where the crew planted some kuumara): “Ka hoe mai nei, aa, kau mai ki Whanga-Paraoa, araa ki Aotea nei” (44:926). It was mid-summer — the poohutukawa were glowing all along the coast. One of the crew, Tauninihi, threw away his red-feather head-dress, thinking the plentiful red bloom of the trees would make head-dresses of the sacred colour. The blooms fell to pieces but the red-feather-head-dress of Tauninihi was seized by Mahina and remained with the Whaanau-a-Apanui. The kuumara continued to grow there.
Although dispersal and land settlement follow in both accounts, it is at this point that they diverge. Tuupuna is concerned with the genealogies of the descendants of the men who came on Te Arawa, about whom there will be some discussion below. It also tells of the origin of the gods, which were stolen from Hawaiki by Kuiwai and Haunga-roa, the sisters of Ngatoro-i-rangi and Tama-te-kapua.
The most important waahi tapu of the settlements in Hawaiki was Rarotonga. It was the dwelling place of the gods: “Ko te tino waahi tapu o aua kaainga ko Rarotonga; . . . kei reira hoki te nohoanga atua” (44:932).
Te Arawa and the other canoes had sailed here without gods; they had brought only some supernatural essences of kuumara and fish, and the incantations they knew by heart: Kaaore, i hoe A tua-kore noa mai aua waka; he atua kuumara anake, ika, i riro mai; ko te atua i mahue atu, aa, - 134 ko ngaa karakia anake i riro mai ki roto i oo raatou puku takoto ai, he mea moohio a ngaakau (44:933).
Kuiwai and Haunga-roa stole the gods Rongomai, Itu-pawa and others. They had come from Hawaiki because Manahua 30 had cursed their brothers: “Ko te take i whaanakotia mai ai aua atua nei e aua kuia nei koia teenei, he kanganga” (44:933). They prompted a war-party to return to Hawaiki where they defeated Manahua at Ihu-motomotokia and Taarai-whenua-kura. Then Manahua pursued them to this land. But Ngatoro performed incantations; a storm arose which destroyed Manahua and all his party.
Maori Religious Ideas, on the other hand, tells of the deeds of the men from Te Arawa after their arrival. These are not only narratives: they tell of the origin of springs and volcanoes, and of land claims established during these journeys and adventures. They are recounted in a systematic and chronological sequence.
The narrative of Ruaaeo's revenge for the theft of his wife by Tama-te-kapua is the first. Rua had sailed to Maketu independently and arrived before Te Arawa. When Te Arawa was dragged ashore at Maketu, Rua was waiting. Having slept with his wife without Tama knowing, he performed a rotu over the canoe to put the crew to sleep. They awoke in broad daylight to find Rua and his party sitting under the canoe. Rua then challenged Tama to come up so that the two of them could fight. Rua beat Tama, and rubbed lice in his ears where they clung. Then Rua and his party went off, leaving Rua's wife as payment for Tama.
After this, Tama and his party stayed at Maketu with their children. Before very long they scattered. Ngatoro went into the undulating country to stamp springs, and into the mountains to place gods and fairies.
Land was named and occupied as far north-west as Moehau on the Hauraki when Tama and Ngatoro next journeyed, although after Tama died in Moehau, his sons returned to Maketu.
An important discovery and land claim was made by Ihenga. When he was hunting kiwi he saw the lakes, Roto-iti-and Rotorua. Although there were people living there already, he decided to take the valuable area by guile. He fooled the occupants, the descendants of Tuu-a-Rotorua, into believing he had paa, and fishing nets and tuuaahu; they vacated the area, and one portion of them retreated to Mokoia Island.- 135
As Ngatoro wandered about the land, bringing forth springs, he saw the summit of Tongariro. He wanted to climb up, and told his companions to refrain from eating until he returned and they could eat together. When they disobeyed his injunction, his journey to the summit became even more difficult, until fire was sent to him underground from Hawaiki, and he was saved. Thus volcanoes and hot springs are found at the places the fire came through, from White Island, Mau-tohoroa, Ookakaru, Roto-ehu, Roto-iti, Rotorua, Tara-wera, Paeroa, Ooraakeikoorako, Taupo, and Tongariro:
When Ngatoro returned to Maketu his and Tama-te-kapua's sisters, Kuiwai and Haunga-roa, had arrived from Hawaiki on taniwha. The story in Maori Religious Ideas has three aspects in which it differs from that in Tuupuna. First, it tells of Kuiwai and Haunga-roa naming and claiming land. The sisters came to Kainga-roa, so called for their long meal there. They went on to Piopio (the Insult) called so from Haungaroa's breaking wind there. They squatted and urinated at the entrance of the side of the spring under a mountain. The urine made a trickling sound; this was left as a name.
Secondly, it has a much fuller version of the narrative. It includes the incantations of the sisters, the building of the new canoe (Te Arawa having been burnt), and a lively description of the battle of Ihumotomotokia, where the war-party on arrival in Hawaiki to fight Manahua, climbed alive into the haangi and were presumed dead, because they had beaten their noses and faces about. So they were able to surprise and defeat Manahua's crowd.
Thirdly, Te Rangikaheke concludes that if Te Arawa had not been burnt by Raumati, there would have been two canoes to return to Hawaiki; then the people there would have been completely wiped out: "Mei kore te tahuna ki te ahi e Raumati, peenei e rua ngaa waka hei hoe ki Hawaiki; kua ngaro noa atu taua iwi" (81:71). It is not surprising that - 136 this was omitted from the account intended for Hawaiki. He implies a depth of enmity between those who stayed in Hawaiki and those who migrated, which strengthense the reasons for migration.
Maori Religious Ideas ends with Hatupatu's revenge for the burning of Te Arawa, and some account of Rangitihi's descendants.
An Arawa Point of View
Te Rangikaheke's view of history from the time of the decision to migrate is clearly an Arawa one. This view is seen particularly in his use of genealogies to demonstrate descent and connections with other tribes, in his assertion of Arawa leadership and bravery, and in his description of land occupation. Both accounts illustrate the point of view, although Tuupuna contains the greater part of the genealogical argument.
The genealogies given in Tuupuna show Arawa lines of descent from Tama-te-kapua, Rangitihi, Pikiao, Whakaue-Kaipapa, Tuu-hourangi and Rangi-wewehi. Te Rangikaheke includes his own genealogy from Rangi-wewehi. through Kereruu, Pupuru, Pake, Manu-wae-rorua, Kahutia, Te Rangikaheke (his father) to Wiremu Maihi (himself) and Hataraka Wiremu (his son): “ Ko Rangi-wewehi taana Ko Kereruu; taa Kereruu ko Pupuru, taana ko Pake; taa Pake, ko Manu-wae-rorua; taa Manu ko Kahutia, taana ko Te Rangikaheke; taa Te Rangikaheke ko Wiremu Maihi; taa Wiremu ko Hataraka Wiremu" (44:929).
With this genealogy he links himself as narrator to historical characters, and shows his authority to write tribal history. He also gives his wife's descent from Pikiao: “Ko Pikiao anoo: taana ko Hine-kura; taa Hine ko Pikiao-wera, taana ko Te Ariha; taa Te Ariha ko Toroa-Apukai, taana ko Puu-whakaoho; taa Puu-whakaoho ko Tamaiharoa, taana ko Mere Pinepire Maihi; taa Mere ko Hataraka Wiremu”(44:928).
He again links with the ancestors and shows the growth of the descendants when he lists 29 Arawa chiefs who are his contemporaries and compares them to the 13 chiefs of the ancestral generation: “Ko ngaa rangatira i nui ake te mana, koia teenei oo raatou ingoa 29. Teenaa, i ngaa tupuranga o ngaa tuupuna kotahi tekau, 13" (44:935).
In Maori Religious Ideas he gives an account of Rangitihi's descendants; how they took and held Rotorua, and spread to all other parts of the land; and he tells us that some of Ngatoro-i-rangi's descendants still live in Rotorua:
More significant, however, is Te Rangikaheke's claim that the descendants of those who came on Te Arawa were the source from which all other tribes sprang.
He proceeds to demonstrate the connections between Arawa ancestors (chiefly through Rangitihi, but also through Hei) and other tribes. In one such connection he shows descent from Tama-te-kapua's son, Kahumata-momoe, to Te Wherowhero.
In another he shows descent from Rangitihi, through Rangi-wewehi's Waikato marriage, to Ngaati Whaatua chiefs.
He claims that part of Ngaati Maru, Ngaati Paaoa, Ngaati Tuuwharetoa, Te Urewera, Ngaai-te-rangi, Ngaati Awa South, Whakatoohea, and Ngaai-tai are descended by one line from Rangitihi: “Otiraa, i roto anoo i a Rangitihi teetahi waahi o Ngaati Maru, o Ngaati Paaoa, o Ngaati Tuu-wharetoa, o Te Urewera, o Ngaai-te-rangi, o Ngaati Awa puta atu ki runga, o Te Whakatoohea me Ngaai-tai” (44:932).
He concludes that only those on board Te Arawa were the seeds scattered over the land, whose runners and branches stretched forth north and south: “Otiraa, ko ngaa taangata anake o runga i a Te Arawa ngaa kaakano i ruia ai ki te whenua, aa, toro ana ngaa kiiwei me ngaa pekenga o taua kaawai ki runga, ki raro, puta noa ki Te Wai-pounamu, ki Ngaapuhi hoki” (44:932).
According to Arawa thinking, other tribes did not intermarry to pro - 138 duce descendants in Rotorua and Maketu, as Arawa men had intermarried into all tribes to produce descendants throughout the land:
Te Rangikaheke asserts Arawa leadership when he tells us that Te Arawa was the first canoe to be built. When it was finished Hotu-roa went to Tama-te-kapua to ask him to let him have his experts to build his own canoe. In Tuupuna, he writes, “Kaatahi ka tuaina a Te Arawa. Ka rongo a Hotu-roa, Ka oti a Te Arawa, ka tae mai ki a Tama-te-kapua kia tukua atu ana tohunga kia taarai i toona waka”(44:921).
The same account of Arawa leadership is given in Maori Religious Ideas, “Kaatahi ka tuaina a Te Arawa . . . ka oti, ka rongo mai eetahi ka haere mai ki te tiki mai i ana tohunga hanga waka. Ka tae atu, ka tuaina, ka oti ko Tainui, ko Mata-atua” (81:59).
The men of Te Arawa were paramount in bravery, as was showen by their return to Hawaiki to fight Manahua after he had cursed Tama-te-kapua and Ngatoro-i-rangi. No other tribe was brave enough to return. “Ko Te Arawa anake te waka i whaikaha ki te hoki atu ki Hawaiki whawhai ai. . . Teenaa ko te mano waka nei. Nohea i whaikaha ki te hoki atu ki te rapu utu mo te pananga mai?” (44:934).
The boundaries of Arawa land are defined in Tuupuna — from Moehau to Whanga-paraoa: “Ka mate iho a Tama-te-kapua i reira (Moehau). Ko te rohe atu teeraa o te waahi whenua i nohia e ngaa taangata o runga i a Te Arawa. Kei Whanga-Paraoa te mutunga mai ki runga” (44:935).
The latter boundary was established on the first arrival of Te Arawa at Whanga-Paraoa, where two marks were left, the kuumara and Tauninihi's red feather head-dress: “Teena, ko ngaa taangata o runga i a Te Arawa i tae tuatahi mai anoo ki Whanga-Paraoa, waiho atu ngaa tohu i reira mo teenaa waahi.. . . ko ngaa kuumara, ko te kura a Tauninihi i whiua ki reira”(44:934).
There were also two marks at Moehau: the stone hung up there by Ngatoro-i-rangi, and Tama-te-kapua's burial there: “Aa, e rua hoki tohu ki Moehau: ko te koowhatu whakairi, ko Tama-te-kapua kei reira e tanu ana” (44:934).
In Maori Religious Ideas the narratives of Tama-te-kapua, Ngatoro-i-rangi, Ihenga, Taikehu, Kuiwai and Haunga-roa tell us of their naming and claiming land: Ngatoro in the area from Taupo to Tongariro, Ihenga in the Rotorua lakes district, Taikehu on the coast of the Bay of Plenty, - 139 Kuiwai and Haunga-roa in the hinterland between Rotorua and Waikato.
Te Rangikaheke here describes Tama and Ngatoro's journey naming and claiming land from Tauranga in a north-westerly direction as far as Moehau in Hauraki.
Retaining land depended on occupation. Some, such as this north-westerly area in Hauraki, was lost when Tama's sons left to return to Maketu: “Engari, mei noho tonu iho i konei, kua riro anoo a Hauraki i ngaa uri o Tama” (81:64). Other settlements were lost because descendants from other canoes took them; Maketu was the exception: “Murirawaiho, ka riro katoa i ngaa uri o Tainui, o Mata-atua, o Mata-whaorua aua kaainga katoa nei, aa, ko Maketu anake i mau” (44:935).
Te Rangikaheke's account of the wars between Rotorua and Tauranga (GNZMMSS 86) and between Rotorua and Waikato (GNZMMSS 87) gives the later phases of these land losses.
There are legends which we might expect to find in these three manuscripts but which are omitted. They fall into three categories:
Having done this, Te Rangikaheke proceeds with another version of the story of the curse of Manahua and its consequences. There are two accounts of Whakatauihu in this manuscript (51:35-7, 82-4). Both lack detail, but assert the bravery of Whakatauihu and his ability to avenge wrongs. Although Hatupatu's revenge for the burning of Te Arawa is described in full in Maori Religious Ideas (81:71-9), the account of the burning of the canoe is omitted. It is to be found here also (51:63-8). Te Rangikaheke's full account of the story of Hinemoa is found in GNZMMSS 118:74-85. GNZMMSS 42 also contains part of the story by him (871-9). There is a one-line correction by him on a transcript of the story in Grey's writing (60:233). 32 The story of Tiki-Tawhito-Ariki is found in GNZMMSS 79.
A few important conclusions have emerged from this study. The chronological outline of Te Rangikaheke's personal history, as also of his career as Government official, parliamentary candidate and Land Court witness and claimant, shows that his period as a writer lasted at most eight years, 1846(?)-53. Political considerations, the need for the Governor to understand Maori language and customs in order to properly carry out his double task of looking after Maori and Pakeha, motivated the writing he did for Grey.
His 800 pages of writing encompass most aspects of Maori culture. He wrote two consistent accounts of history. He intended Ngaa Tama a Rangi and Tuupuna to be one manuscript to be sent to the ancestors in Hawaiki, and he intended Maori Religious Ideas to be for Grey's information. The chief contents of Te Rangikaheke's account of history, which covers all time from the origin of the universe to his own, are:
Te Rangikaheke's purpose was to give a comprehensive and chronological account of the past, to connect this past to the present, and to claim mana and land for his tribe. He explicitly aimed to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of his account of history.
Genealogical recital and narrative are the two techniques used to recount the events. Genealogies have a two-fold purpose for Te Rangikaheke: they are the dates of his history, marking time-spans through generations; they are also the connections between epochs, being the links between the cosmogonic ancestral beings and man, and between man and the figures of tribal history. Narrative is used to tell of the establishment of natural phenomena, the reasons for migration, the origin of gods, springs and volcanoes, and the occupation of Arawa land.
An incidental result of the study of Te Rangikaheke's life and manuscripts has been to establish the authorship of the manuscripts beyond reasonable doubt.
This study is a revised and abridged version of my Maori Studies M.A. thesis. I am grateful to Bruce Biggs, my supervisor, for his invaluable advice and encouragement, to Pat Hohepa and Merimeri Penfold for skilful and patient teaching, to Judith Binney for helpful criticism, and to my husband, to Margaret Mutu-Grigg, Jane McRae, Rewa Fletcher-Cole and Michael Shirres for unfailing helpfulness and constructive listening. I should like to mention, too, my debt to the scholars, Maori and Pakeha, whose names appear in the text, footnotes and references. Any errors of fact or judgment are, of course, mine alone. I should also like to thank the librarians in the Auckland Institute and Museum Library, the Auckland Public Library, the Alexander Turnbull Library, the National Archives, the Rotorua Museum and the University of Auckland Library, and to acknowledge permissions kindly given by them to quote from their manuscript collections and records.- 142
- 143 Page of endnotes
- 144 Page of endnotes- 145
- 148 Page is blank
1 A word of explanation is necessary concerning my Maori orthography and, in particular, my rendering of proper names. Conventional orthography, which does not mark vowel length and runs words together in complex names, cannot indicate correct pronunciation. Apart from certain Maori words that are now part of New Zealand English (e.g., Maori, Pakeha), I have doubled all vowels known to be long, and shown word division within a name by a hyphen, to enable the correct stress placement in accordance with the somewhat complicated, but quite systematic, rules of Maori. Such hyphenation does not aim at revealing the derivation of morphemically complex names, though it may often do so. In some cases where the quantity of a vowel or the correct word division is unknown, I have used single vowels and no hyphens. Te Rangikaheke's own name is a case in point; although it seems likely that he pronounced it Rangi-kaaheke, with a stressed long A, there are other possibilities, that the A was short (Rangi-kaheke), or that the stress was on the first e (Rangi-ka-heke), for example. As his own pronunciation is lost, I have written Rangikaheke, a form that he commonly used himself.
2 Some features of the text also need explanation. With one exception, the passages of Maori are not translated in the body of the text, which in all cases incorporates a brief English version of the cited passage. Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts are treated as published works, the titles being italicised. Quatations from Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts are acknowledged by reference to the number of the manuscript and to the page within it, e.g., (87:203).
3 A survey of the previous work on Te Rangikaheke, a descriptive inventory of his manuscripts, and my transcription and translation of the manuscripts referred to in Section III can be found in my thesis, held at the University of Auckland. (A later paper, Schrempp 1985, deals with Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts in relation to cosmogonic theory.)
4 I have been unable to find corroboration of this in Te Rangikaheke's manuscripts or elsewhere. Dan Whata, a descendant of Te Rangikaheke, gave the opinion that it would not be customary for Te Rangikaheke to mention that his father was a tohunga in his writing (personal communication:August 31, 1982). Iri-rangi Tahuri-o-rangi of Ati Awa suggested it was kahutia, the grandfather, who was the tohunga (personal communication:August 30, 1982). Bleek must have obtained the information from Grey, who either knew it as fact or fabricated the description knowing the importance of his informants' high status to a European readership, even though he considered the names of the informants superfluous.
5 There is no mention of Te Rangikaheke in the Letters and Journals of Thomas Chapman (AIM), in the Journal of the Rev. A. N. Brown (AIM), or in the Letters and Journals of the Rev. John Morgan (AIM). Nor, from a search kindly carried out for me by Mr Alistair Matheson, is there mention of him in the baptismal records of the Rev. Brown in Tauranga.
6 The genealogy quoted by Simmons (1976:281), derived from 44:928, contains some inaccuracies. A generation has been missed between Pikiao and Pikiao-wera, that of Hine-kura. There is a transcript error where Tamaitoroa should read Tamaiharoa (see also 81:32, 50; Grey 1853:lxv). A further transcript error gives the name of Hataraka's mother incorrectly. More important, the addition of the name Maihi after Hataraka Wiremu puts in a non-existent generation, as well as giving a false descent to Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke, who has no place in this genealogy.
7 Teranga is also referred to by Wii Matene (MOK 2:113) and by Mita Tuu-huruhuru (MOK 3:4).
8 References to Inwards Letters to the Native Department, Series MA 2, are to register entries only; the letters referred to have not been retained.
9 See Curnow 1983:8.
10 Thomas Henry Smith, Resident Magistrate in Rotorua, 1852-7; Assistant Native Secretary, 1857-62; Civil Commissioner for the district of Maketu, 1862-5.
11 An anti-Pakeha religious cult founded by Te Ua Haumene in 1862 in Taranaki, which spread to the East Coast.
12 William Gilbert Mair (1832-1912): Resident Magistrate in Taupo, 1865; Major-in-charge of the Arawa Contingent in the East Coast campaign; Government negatiator with Taawhiao following the Maori-Pakeha wars; Judge of the Native Land Court.
13 Only Maori owning lands on European title could vote in European constituencies.
14 Te Rangikaheke took the name of the place where his son died.
15 These were returned in 1922-3, with all the New Zealand matter Grey's library, from South Africa, where Grey had taken them in 1854, and where, with the assistance of Dr. W. H. I. Bleek, a Catalogue of his library had been compiled.
16 For a fuller explanation of Te Rangikaheke's Connection with White, see Curnow 1983:56.
17 The manuscript referred to by Simmons (1976:164, 280) as dated Maehe 17 1853 is not GNZMMSS 44. It is Probably GNZMMSS 33, which has the Maori title “He Pukapuka no ngaa tuupuna” and has the date, Maehe 17 1853, on its first page; it refers to ancestors of Ngaati Kahungunu. No such date appears on GNZMMSS 44, which is entitled “Tuupuna, a genealogical account of some of the ancestors” and is dated 1849 by Bleek (1858:Vol.II, Pt 4:73), and is also dated 1849 by Simmons elsewhere (1976:111, 415).
18 The writing in GNZMMSS 111 and 116 is similar. However, both exhibit joining words (e.g., “meireire”), and breaking of words (e.g., “e rangi”) not found elsewhere in Te Rangikaheke. The capital “K” is different from his and there is in these manuscripts an idiosyncratic habit of double writing the letter “u” (e.g., “raua”). The writing in both these resembles more that of the transcript manuscript GNZMMSS 28 (written out by Grey? Lady Grey?). GNZMMSS 109 is a sketch of a taniwha, on which there is insufficient evidence (for instance there is none of his characteristic printing) to establish it as Te Rangikaheke's work.
19 See Curnow 1983:42.
20 The orthography used in examples in this section is that of Te Rangikaheke.
21 Williams, W. 1844.
22 Simmons (1966:179-80) showed that at least a quarter of the material for Grey's Ko Nga Mahina a Nga Tupuna Maori (1928 ed.) was derived from GMZMMSS 43, 44 and 81, although Grey often combined more than one narrative and made omissions. See also Williams (1906:179).
23 This manuscript and GNZMMSS 45 could be considered imaginative writing. Orbell (1968:8) in her introduction to the transcription and translation of the these two manuscripts sees the dream as Te Rangikaheke's fear for the future. It can also be seen as a commentary on racial tension which is amplified in the other manuscripts being discussed here. In Section III a case will be put for accepting GNZMMSS 45 as factual.
24 This title will henceforward be shortened to Maori Religious Ideas.
25 In these passages Grey (1971:1-) excluded the references to Pakeha belief, doubtless to disguise the fact that his informant was converted to Christianity, and to enhance the “uncivilised aspect” of the beliefs he was recording.
26 See note 25.
27 Grey (1971:6-23) altered the account to an approximate chronology.
28 Te Rangikaheke distinguishes Manaia and Manahua as two different chiefs (51:69). He refers to Manaia (44:916; 81:56) as an ancestor whose flock of seabirds was destroyed by a party of visitors. He tells the story of Manahua whose curse of Tama-te-kapua and Ngatoro-i-rangi brought revenge (81:66-71; 44:933-4). Grey (1971:71-80; 182-5) converts the name Manahua to Manaia; he also reverses the lines of the proverb he quotes from Te Rangikaheke. Neither of Grey's versions exactly corresponds to Te Rangikaheke's account of Manahua.
29 The reference to intercourse was omitted by Grey (1853:1x; 1971:61).
30 See note 28.
31 Grey omitted all the reference to bodily functions(1853:xvi 1971:72
32 It is GNZMSS 70 which the version Grey obtained on Mokoia Island, refreed to by copper (1851:233). Here Grey has written, “ory of Hinemoa and Tutanekai, written at the bath where Hinemoa hid herself, December 26, 1849” (70:669).