NGĀTI KAUWHATA AND NGĀTI WEHI WEHI INTERESTS IN …...Apr 03, 2013 · 10.2.2 The Pukekura Case...

NGĀTI KAUWHATA AND NGĀTI WEHI WEHI

INTERESTS

IN AND ABOUT

TE ROHE PŌTAE DISTRICT

PETER MCBURNEY

AUCKLAND

4 MARCH 2013

A REPORT COMMISSIONED BY

THE CROWN FORESTRY RENTAL TRUST

Ngāti Kauwhata/Ngāti Wehi Wehi in Te Rohe Pōtae

March 2013

2


March 2013

3

Title: Mere pounamu (greenstone hand club) “Kauwhata” and Mere pounamu (greenstone

hand club) “Wehiwehi”, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa; Registration

numbers: ME022721 and ME022722. These two Mere Pounamu, “Kauwhata” (upper) and

“Wehi Wehi” (lower), were gifted to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by a Tainui

delegation including King Te Rata and Tumuaki Tupu Taingakawa Te Waharoa at Rotorua in

1920. Te Papa images used with permission.


March 2013

4

Title: Tapa Te Whata, Ngati Kauwhata; Date: 1863-1866; Photographer: Swan &

Wrigglesworth studio; Reproduction from a black and white photograph, albumen silver

print; Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa; Registration number: O.036920.


March 2013

5

Delegation of Ngāti Wehi Wehi, who visited Ūkaipō Marae, Te Poi, in November 2009.

Members of the delegation are holding a reproduction of the Ngāti Wehi Wehi flag,

originally produced in 1920 by permission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The

flag shows the two mere pounamu, “Kauwhata” and “Wehi Wehi”, along with the legend

“KA KITE ANO TAUA” (We will meet again).

(Image courtesy of Richard Orzecki & Bob Miratana, Ngāti Wehi Wehi).


March 2013

6

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 6

Table of Figures 12

Abbreviations 13

Preface 14

The Author 14

Acknowledgements 15

Project Brief 16

Editorial Note 18

1 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi origins, and descent lines 19

1.1 Ngāti Kauwhata Origins 19

1.1.1 The Early Tainui Traditions 19

1.1.2 Tūrongo and Whatihua 20

1.2 Hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata 30

1.2.1 Ngāti Wehi Wehi 30

1.2.2 Ngāti Hinepare 34

1.2.3 Ngāti Tahuri 37

1.2.4 Werokoukou, Ngāti Pareteuaki and Ngāti Ruru 38

1.2.5 Ngāti Matau 40

2 The Waikato Rohe of Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi 43

2.1 Rohe boundaries 43

2.1.1 Awa 43

2.1.2 Maunga 44

2.2 Localities 45


March 2013

7

2.2.1 Maungatautari 45

2.2.2 Pukekura 46

2.2.3 Puahue 47

2.2.4 Rangiaōwhia 47

2.2.5 Wharepūhunga 48

2.3 Waikato Rohe – conclusions 48

3 Whanaungatanga and utu: Relations with neighbouring hapū and iwi50

3.1 Utu 50

3.2 Whanaungatanga 52

3.2.1 Whanaungatanga of Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa 55

3.2.2 Whanaungatanga of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Hauā 59

4 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi mana whenua in the Waikato

District 63

4.1 Introduction 63

4.2 Conflicts involving Ngāti Kauwhata, c.1600-1790 65

4.2.1 Dispute over an eel weir at Ōhaupō 65

4.2.2 Taowhakāiro and Korokī 68

4.2.3 Pēpepe, Mata-kākaho and Tāhekeāwai 70

4.3 Wars in the Maungatautari district, c.1800 73

4.3.1 Wahineiti, Hape-ki-tua-rangi and Peehi Tūkōrehu 73

4.3.2 The wars of Ngāti Whakatere and Ngāti Maniapoto 76

4.3.3 Hurimoana Pā 80

4.4 Hingakākā 81

4.4.1 Introduction 81

4.4.2 Ngati Kauwhata and the kahawai feasts at Marokopa 82

4.4.3 The raiding continues and the take mount up on all sides 85

4.4.4 The battle of Hingakākā 87

4.5 Inter-tribal conflict in the Waikato post-Hingakākā 89

4.5.1 The aftermath of Hingakākā 89


March 2013

8

4.5.2 Mangatoatoa Pā 91

4.5.3 Tangimania Pā 93

4.5.4 Hangahanga Pā 96

4.5.5 Peace is made between Waikato & Kauwhata-Raukawa 98

4.5.6 Dating the battle of Hangahanga Pā 100

5 Ngāti Toa’s wars with Waikato & the Kapiti Hekenga 106

5.1 Warfare between Waikato and Kāwhia 106

5.1.1 Background to the conflict 106

5.1.2 Escalating conflict in the early nineteenth century 109

5.2 Te Rauparaha takes his people south to Kapiti 110

5.2.1 Te Rauparaha visits Whanganui a Tara & final battles at Kāwhia 110

5.2.2 The Ngāti Toa migrations 113

5.3 Relevance of the Ngāti Toa migration for Ngāti Kauwhata 115

6 The Ngāti Kauwhata migrations and the Hauraki refugees 117

6.1 Introduction 117

6.1.1 The threat of Ngāpuhi, and the need to acquire muskets 117

6.2 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s southern migrations 119


6.2.2 Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s venture into Heretaunga 120

6.2.3 Ngāti Kauwhata lead the migrations from Maungatautari 121

6.2.4 Ngāti Kauwhata maintain ahi kaa at Maungatautari 128

6.3 Marutuāhu at Maungatautari; refugees or conquerors? 130


6.3.2 Tensions rise between the tangata whenua and the refugees 131

6.3.3 The battle of Kaipaka; a dogskin mat, a gun and a broken spear 135

6.3.4 The battle of Taumatawīwī 138

6.4 Waikato call Ngāti Kauwhata home 140

7 Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi and the Land Wars 142


March 2013

9


7.1.1 The establishment of the Kīngitanga 143

7.2 The New Zealand Wars in the central Waikato Valley 148

7.2.1 The slaughter at Rangiaōwhia 148

7.2.2 Ngāti Kauwhata and the battle of Ōrākau 151

7.3 Ngāti Kauwhata & the Waikato War – conclusions 153

8 The Maungatautari blocks in the Native Land Court 154


8.2 The Maungatautari blocks in the Cambridge Court, 1868 157

8.2.1 Pukekura title investigation 159

8.2.2 Maungatautari title investigation 165

8.2.3 Puahue title investigation 166

8.3 Maungatautari in the Native Land Court – Conclusions 171

9 Land alienation, protests and petitions 174


9.2 The Killing of Timothy Sullivan 175

9.2.1 Protests over the frontier leases are ignored 175

9.2.2 The attack on Sullivan’s party and its aftermath 176

9.2.3 Who were Mohi Purukutu and his supporters? 179

9.3 The alienation of Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 180

9.4 Petitions 187

10 The Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, 1881 191

10.1 The setting up of the Commission, and the claims 191

10.2 The Ngāti Kauwhata Case 194

10.2.1 Preliminaries 194


March 2013

10

10.2.2 The Pukekura Case 195

10.2.3 The Crown Case for Pukekura 203

10.2.4 The Puahue Case 209

10.2.5 Winia Pohotiraha’s claim in the Maungatautari Case 216

10.3 The Report of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission 225

10.4 McDonald’s response to the Commission’s Report 232

10.5 The matter comes before the Native Affairs Committee 236

10.6 Analysis of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission’s Report 238

10.6.1 General comments 238

10.6.2 Ngāti Kauwhata: distinct from, or a hapū of Raukawa? 239

11 Further Protests and Hearings, 1880s-1900s 244


11.2 Ngāti Kauwhata continue to press their claims 245

11.3 The Maungatautari and Wharepūhunga Cases, 1884, 1886 252

11.3.1 The Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 1884 252

11.3.2 Te Rohe Pōtae investigation – Wharepūhunga, 1886, 1892 257

11.4 The Maungatautari decision is greeted by further protest 261

11.4.1 Maungatautari awards made as the protests continue 261

11.4.2 The petitions of the 1890s and 1900s 263

11.4.3 The Maungatautari Memorandum 266

12 Ngāti Kauwhata-Wehi Wehi in the Twentieth Century 271


12.2 Te Uawhaki Tupuna Whare 272

12.3 Landlessness 274

12.4 Two Mere Pounamu named ‘Kauwhata’ and ‘Wehi Wehi’ 275


March 2013

11

12.5 The Maungatautari Scenic Reserve 279

12.6 Keeping the fires burning – ‘going to and fro’ 281

13 Report Conclusions 284

Bibliography 295

Primary Sources 295

Archives New Zealand, Wellington (ANZW) 295

Auckland City Libraries, (ACL) 295

Maori Land Court Minute Books 295

Maps and ML Plans (Quickmap, Custom Software Ltd) 295

Raupatu Document Bank 295

Personal Communications (Pers. Comms.) 296

Secondary Sources 296

Books and Articles 296

Government Publications 299

Acts of Parliament 300

Newspapers 300


March 2013

12

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Whakapapa of Kauwhata from Hoturoa ................................................................... 22

Figure 2: Whakapapa of Ngāruahaoa and Ngāparetaihinu ...................................................... 25

Figure 3: Whakapapa of Wehi Wehi and his descendants ....................................................... 30

Figure 4: Whakapapa of Patiharuru ......................................................................................... 32

Figure 5: Whakapapa of Hinetore and her descendants ........................................................... 35

Figure 6: Whakapapa Tarahuia from Hinepare and Taratui .................................................... 36

Figure 7: Whakapapa of Ngāti Tahuri to Te Kooro and Tapa Te Whata ................................ 37

Figure 8: Whakapapa of Ngāti Pareteuaki and Te Werokoukou ............................................. 39

Figure 9: Whakapapa from Kauwhata to Matau to Wīremu Te Whitu ................................... 41

Figure 10: Whakapapa of Te Waharoa & Wī Tamihana Tarapipipi ....................................... 60

Figure 11: Whakapapa of Tikitiki, Urumakawe and Ngutu .................................................... 66

Figure 12: Whakapapa of Taowhakāiro, Korokī, Hape and Hauā ........................................... 70

Figure 13: Whakapapa of Ngatokowaru, Tāwhia and Te Ata-i-rangi-kāhu ............................ 71

Figure 14: Whakapapa of Wahineiti and Hape-ki-tua-rangi .................................................... 73

Figure 15: Whakapapa of Paretekāwā & Peehi Tūkōrehu ....................................................... 75

Figure 16: Whakapapa of Maungatautari and Wahanui .......................................................... 78

Figure 17: Whakapapa of Ngunu ............................................................................................. 79

Figure 18: Whakapapa of Pikauterangi and Te Rauparaha ..................................................... 83

Figure 19: Whakapapa of Ngāti Huia and the leaders of the migrations ............................... 126

Figure 20: Whakapapa of Wharepakaru and Metapere Tapa ................................................ 197

Figure 21: Whakapapa of Winia Pohotiraha .......................................................................... 217

Figure 22: Whakapapa of Hōri Wirihana............................................................................... 254


March 2013

13

Abbreviations

AJHR Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives

ANZA Archives New Zealand, Auckland

ANZW Archives New Zealand, Wellington

ACL Auckland City Libraries

AML Auckland Museum Library

ATL Alexander Turnbull Library

AUP Auckland University Press

BPT Bay of Plenty Times

BWB Bridget Williams Books

CCL Commissioner of Crown Lands

CFRT Crown Forestry Rental Trust

DNZB Dictionary of New Zealand Biography

DOSLI Department of Survey and Land Information

DSC Daily Southern Cross

LINZ Land Information New Zealand

MA Maori Affairs, (Archives New Zealand)

MB Minute Book, facsimile edition

MHR Member of the House of Representatives

MLC Maori land Court

MS Manuscript

ND Native Department

n.d. No date

NLCt Native Land Court

NZG New Zealand Gazette

NZH New Zealand Herald

NZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debates

OUP Oxford University Press

Pers. Comm. Personal communication

WT Waikato Times


March 2013

14

Preface

The Author

Peter McBurney is a Pākehā New Zealander of Irish and English descent. He was born in

Ōtāhuhu and grew up in Māngere Bridge, South Auckland. In 1994, McBurney completed a

BA degree at the University of Auckland, specialising in anthropology, Māori studies and

history. Since December 1994, he has worked as a freelance historian, under contract to the

Crown Forestry Rental Trust and its clients; the Office of Treaty Settlements; as well as Iwi

and various public organisations. The work has mainly involved researching and writing

historical reports to support claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and/or direct negotiations with

the Crown. Clients have included whanau, hapu and iwi of Hauraki, Te Arawa, Whanganui,

Te Tai Rāwhiti, Wairarapa/Tararua, Tauranga Moana, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Urewera/

Kaingaroa, Te Tai Tokerau, Mahurangi, Te Tau Ihu o Te Ika a Māui and Raukawa.

Over the past 17 years, Peter McBurney has completed more than twenty reports and given

evidence to the Waitangi Tribunal on seven occasions. The reports cover a wide range of

claim-related issues spanning all periods of New Zealand/Aotearoa’s colonial history,

including public works takings of Māori land, the operation of the Native Land Court, the

New Zealand Land Wars, legal challenges of the colonial regime undertaken by Māori, and

the development of Māori organisations aimed at promoting Maori autonomy and self-

determination. While they are often supplemented by interviews with kaumātua and other

tribal experts, the reports are primarily based on archival research.


March 2013

15

Acknowledgements

This project has been undertaken within a relatively short timeframe, which has made it all

the more important that a collaborative approach be employed. It has been a team effort;

since our first meeting in Wellington in late September 2012, I have received wholehearted

and knowledgeable support from representatives of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi.

Thank you all for freely sharing your knowledge, which has enabled the final report to better

reflect a Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi perspective on the various issues it covers.

In no particular order, I wish to thank: Edward Penetito, Bobbie Miratana, Rodney Graham,

Caleb Graham, the Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, Richard Orzecki, Nigel Te Hiko,

Jeremiah Jacobs, Patricia (Paddy) Jacobs, Don Tait, Steven Bray, Margaret Morgan-Allen,

Simon Austin, Jaret Taewa and William Papanui. Te Hope, Don, Steve, Nigel, Bobbie and

Margaret warrant special mention for responding promptly, with accuracy and insight, to the

many curly questions I have thrown at you.

Thanks are also due to claimant counsel, Jo-Ella Sarich from Rainey Collins and Rebecca

Sandri and her team from Morrison Kent, for contributing useful feedback to drafts, and in

the case of Jo-Ella, providing a venue for our introductory hui.

Thanks also to Kathryn Rose of Crown Forestry Rental Trust for commissioning the project,

for facilitating hui and communications, for ensuring that the wealth of resources at the

disposal of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust have been made available for this project, and

for her professional support throughout.

I would also like to thank my research assistants, Nat Green in Wellington and Andrew

Austin in Auckland, who made urgent trips to archives during the festive season to obtain

sought-after resources for the project.

Thanks of course to my partner Kate Hill for her support and willingness to listen to lengthy

explanations about obscure aspects of the research.

Notwithstanding the assistance of each of these people, which has made the project a true

team effort, any errors or omissions in the text are entirely my own.

Peter McBurney, February 2013.


March 2013

16

Project Brief

NB: The project brief refers to ‘an extended Brief of Evidence’; however, in the

course of researching and writing up the relevant material, it became apparent that

‘brief’ would not be an accurate description of the resulting document. It is, instead,

more in the nature of a report, and is referred to as such in the text.

The Contractor will prepare an extended Brief of Evidence with respect to Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi interests in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato District. The

brief will research and interpret documentary evidence concerning the history of

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi customary interests within Te Rohe

Pōtae/Waikato.

The brief will address the following themes:

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi origins, key whakapapa and establishment of

mana whenua;

the evolution, maintenance and defence of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

mana whenua in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato in the three to four generations prior to

witnesses giving evidence in the Native Land Court in the mid to late 1800s;

identification of the Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi rohe in Te Rohe

Pōtae/Waikato, including sites of significance;

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi relationships with other iwi and hapū of Te

Rohe Pōtae district (including with each other);

the impact of inter-tribal warfare in the 1820s and 1830s on intra-hapū and iwi

relationships;

the effects of migration to Manawatū on Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

interests in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato;

the impact of the New Zealand wars on Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

interests in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato; and

the Native Land Court’s treatment of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

customary interests in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato.

Additional Research:

Correspondence between Ngati Kauwhata and the Crown / Governor (specifically,

correspondence from Tapa Te Whata, McDonald and McLean, Consideration of

McLean's diaries for mention of Kauwhata, other information about Kauwhata in

Crown records of correspondence.

Numbers and names of all people who were killed or taken prisoner at Rangiohia.

Information regarding the hui at Te Kuiti where Tapa Te Whata was given the

dogskin cloak. The claimants understand this happened near the end or after the

Waikato wars.


March 2013

17

Information about a hui held by the chiefs where they decided which chiefs were

responsible for certain lands.

All information about the peaceful occupation of Pukekura, by Tapa te Whata and

Ngati Kauwhata between 1868 to 1884.

The map produced by Tapa Te Whata during the 1881 Kauwhata Claims Commission

hearings.

A copy of the Petition filed by Te Ara Takana on behalf of Ngati Kauwhata in 1902.

All Government reports and papers pertaining to this petition, also all Government

Reports and papers pertaining to the Landless Natives in the Waikato 1900 who lost

their land through confiscation

Sources

Appendix A is a list of some possible sources for the extended brief of evidence. The

Contractor will also consider other relevant primary archival material and secondary

sources.

Liaison

The Contractor will consult with Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi claimants and

their counsel to enable input from kaumātua and other knowledgeable members of

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi. To this end, the Contractor will make at least

one trip to consult with claimants.

Format and Delivery, Quality Assurance

The Contractor will provide a hard and electronic copy of the draft and final brief to

Crown Forestry Rental Trust. The final brief is to be fully proofed and edited.

The brief will be subject to Crown Forestry Rental Trust’s standard quality assurance

process. The draft brief of evidence will be provided to claimants and their counsel

for feedback prior to being finalised and filed by the Trust.


March 2013

18

Editorial Note

As is always the case when dealing with nineteenth century manuscripts such as the Native

Land Court minutes and other archival materials, variations in the spelling of names are

common and can lead to confusion. The most obvious with respect to the current project

concern two key locations for Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi: Puahue and

Rangiaōwhia, which are often rendered as Puahoe and Rangiaohia in the minutes and

government publications. After noting this where it first appears in the text, I have

standardised the spelling to Puahue and Rangiaōwhia, which I understand to be the currently

accepted norm. When quoting directly from the various sources, I use the spelling as it

appears in the document, but revert to the standard form when commenting on the quote.

It was also common in the nineteenth century to conflate hapū and iwi names, as for example,

Ngatikauwhata, or Ngatiwehiwehi, instead of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi. Once

again, when quoting directly I use the nineteenth century version, but revert to the

contemporary style in the accompanying text. The name of the tupuna Wehi Wehi was also

spelt as one word in nineteenth century and many twentieth century documents. My

understanding is that Wehi Wehi is considered correct usage today, but ‘Wehiwehi’ is used in

quotations.

Macrons have been used throughout to denote long vowels in Te Reo Māori words, including

tūpuna and place names. Once again, these have not been used when quoting directly.

Te Reo Māori words are not italicised; the two exceptions to this rule are the words take and

mere to avoid confusion with the English verb, ‘to take’, and the English adjective, ‘mere’.

P. M. Ryan defines ‘take’ as ‘cause’, ‘base’, ‘topic’, ‘subject matter’, ‘reason’;1 while mere is

defined as a ‘short, flat club’,2 or striking weapon.

1 Ryan, P. M., The Raupō Dictionary of Modern Māori, Auckland, Raupō (Penguin Group), 1995 (reprint

2008), p. 294. The italicisation of take follows the convention adopted by Dr Angela Ballara, for the reason

given above, particularly as take is used extensively in reports such as this to indicate the basis upon which

rights to land are claimed, as in take tūpuna, take raupatu, etc.

2 Ryan, P. M., The Raupō Dictionary of Modern Māori, 1995 (reprint 2008), p. 175.


March 2013

19

1 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi origins, and

descent lines

1.1 Ngāti Kauwhata Origins

1.1.1 The Early Tainui Traditions

1. Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi descend from the crew members of the great

voyaging waka Tainui, which travelled from Hawaiki to Aotearoa under the command

of Hoturoa, some 25-30 generations before the present. After making landfall at

Whangaparāoa near Cape Runaway, Tainui sailed northwards along the Bay of Plenty

Coast, visiting and naming localities along the way, including at Tauranga, Hauraki

and Aotea. The Tainui crew then explored Tīkapa Moana (Hauraki Gulf) and

Waitematā Harbour before crossing the Ōtāhuhu tōwaka (portage) into the Manukau

Harbour. From there the waka sailed down the west coast as far as Taranaki, before

returning to Kāwhia Harbour, where its journey ended.3

2. For the first hundred years or more the Tainui people remained at their Kāwhia

beachhead, where food was abundant and enemies scarce, living an idyllic, peaceful

existence under the Hawaīki patriarchy.4 The early traditions record exploratory

journeys along the coast and inland, with a branch settlement established at

Whāingaroa (Raglan). The important tupuna, Rakataura, by most accounts the tohunga

aboard Tainui and a chiefly rival of Hoturoa, made an extensive journey into the

southern interior, naming many significant landmarks and claiming them under ‘take

whenua kite hou’ and ‘take taunaha’ (discovery and naming of landmarks).

Subsequent generations of Tainui would emulate Raka’s journeys and consolidate his

3 Obviously, this is a heavily abridged account of the voyage of Tainui. It summarises such published accounts

as: Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, 1995, pp. 28-29; Kelly, L. G., Tainui, Christchurch,

Cadsonbury Publications, 1949 (2002 reprint), p. 40; and, Graham, G. S. (as narrated by Maihi Te Kapua Te

Hīnaki of Ngāti Pāoa) “Tainui”, in, JPS, vol. 60, No. 1, 1951, pp 80-92. According to some versions, before

exploring the Hauraki Gulf, Tainui sailed north to Te Rerenga Wairua (North Cape) in an attempt to reach the

West Coast, but was beaten back by adverse winds and high seas. Various members of Tainui’s crew

disembarked at places it stopped along the way, establishing enclaves of Tainui descent in the Bay of Plenty and

Tāmaki districts.

4 Roberton, J. B. W., “The Role of Tribal Tradition in New Zealand Prehistory,” JPS, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1957, p.

254.


March 2013

20

claims.5 Among the places Rakataura discovered and named were: Pirongia (Pirongia-

o-Kahukeke), Kakepuku (Kakepuku-o-Kahukeke), Paewhenua, Te Rongoroa, the

Hurakia Ranges and Pureora (Pureora-o-Kahukeke).6 Rakataura’s journey took him

close by Maungatautari, and on to Te Aroha, where he eventually died.

3. The sources disagree as to whether Rakataura named Maungatautari. According to

John Scott, who quotes the late Te Kaapo Clark, kaumātua of Ngāti Korokī Kahukura,

Rakataura “first saw the mountain apparently hanging over the fog that often lies in the

lower areas of the Waikato Valley. The name therefore can be interpreted as

suspended mountain.”7 On the other hand, in his detailed account of Rakataura’s

journeys, Raukawa kaumātua Wayne Wright states that after naming Kakepuku,

Rakataura headed east, where, to the “north east lay the mountain which today is

known as Maungatautari, but history has not recorded Rakataura as naming this

mountain which gives us some indication as to the path taken by Rakataura.”8 Other

sources simply state: “…Tainui…called their settlement area Maungatautari –

‘maunga’ meaning mountain, and ‘tautari’ meaning upright rock.”9

1.1.2 Tūrongo and Whatihua

4. According to traditional accounts, rivalry between the half-brothers Whatihua and

Tūrongo led to the break-up of the Tainui patriarchy. Their rivalry stemmed from the

fact that their father Tāwhao married two sisters, Punuiatekore, the first wife, and

Marutehiakina, the second. Both became pregnant about the same time, but

5 These traditions are well-described in John Hutton’s “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009

(pp. 37-43), and in Nigel Te Hiko’s “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010 (pp. 49-55). Both authors note

that the Rakataura traditions appear to be conflated with those dealing with a later Tainui tupuna named

Rakamaomao, the son of Ue. Both men were associated with women with ‘Kahu’ forming part of their names.

Rakataura was married to Hoturoa’s daughter Kahukeke, while Rakamaomao’s mother was Rakataura’s great-

great-granddaughter Kahupeka. Two parallel sets of traditions attribute the naming of prominent landmarks

across the broad reach of the Waikato River Valley to the experiences of these two women.

6 Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 41.

7 John Scott, “History of Maungatautari”, n.d. Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (MEIT) website:

http://netlist.co.nz/communities/MaungaTrust/files/6648/History%20of%20Maungatautari.pdf.

8 Wayne Wright “Report by Wayne Wright in Response to Office of Treaty Settlements Request for Information

on Areas in Which Ngati Raukawa Exercised Customary Interests”, Tokoroa, 2007, pp. 2-3; cited in: Te Hiko,

N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 52.

9 John Scott, “History of Maungatautari”, n.d., citing: Dr Laurie Barber’s introduction to Sally K. Parker’s

‘Cambridge’. http://netlist.co.nz/communities/MaungaTrust/files/6648/History%20of%20Maungatautari.pdf.


March 2013

21

Marutehiakina’s son, Whatihua was born first, so that there was a perennial argument

as to which of Tāwhao’s sons was the tuakana. Was it Tūrongo, the son of the senior

wife; or Whatihua, the first born?

5. Their rivalry was well-established when, by a series of ruses, Whatihua took the

Taranaki puhi Ruapūtahanga as his wife after she was initially betrothed to Tūrongo.10

Tūrongo then embarked on a heke to the Heretaunga district (Hawke’s Bay), where he

met and married Māhinaarangi, ‘Moon-Glow of Heaven’, who was a puhi of the Ngāti

Kahungunu people. Their son, Raukawa, became an important Tainui tupuna, with

many descendants who themselves became the eponymous ancestors of prominent

hapū and iwi of Waikato-Tainui.

6. It is a defining theme of this report that, although related to Raukawa through

intermarriages over many generations, because the focal ancestors of Ngāti Kauwhata

and Ngāti Wehi Wehi are not direct descendants of the tūpuna named Raukawa,

therefore, according to tikanga Māori, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi cannot

be considered hapū of Raukawa.

7. The rivalry between Tūrongo and Whatihua led Tāwhao to divide his lands between

his sons in order to maintain peace, although the sources differ as to whether the

division (aukati) occurred before or after Tūrongo’s departure from Kāwhia. Nigel Te

Hiko cites Phillips, who describes the aukati, thus: “The line began south of Aotea at

Raukumara and ran eastwards over the Pirongia range. North of this line was awarded

to Whatihua and south to Turongo.”11

8. Mr Te Hiko continues:

Jones … states that the aukati was set after Tūrongo returned to Kāwhia from

the east coast. In this respect Jones notes:

Taawhao and his son returned and reached Kaawhia. There

Taawhao sent for Whatihua. When he came, Taawhao divided the

land between the two of them. The boundary between is essentially

the northern boundary of the King Country today. To the south of

it was Tuurongo’s portion, to the north Whatihua’s. In accordance

10 These traditions are well-known, and, given the limited scope of this project, need not be rehearsed again

here. See: Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 62-68.

11 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 64; citing: F. L. Phillips, Ngā Tohu a Tainui:

Landmarks of Tainui: A Geographical Record of Tainui Traditional History, Otorohanga, 1989, pp. 17-18.


March 2013

22

with his decision to separate his children, Taawhao sent Tuurongo

inland to build himself a place. Tuurongo went inland and on a hill

named Rangi-aatea on the south bank of the Manga-o-rongo

Stream he settled down to build a home.12

9. Kauwhata and his younger brother Tukorehe are descendants of Whatihua, as depicted

in Figure 1.13

They are therefore associated with the northern Waikato district, whereas

the descendants of Rereahu, including Maniapoto and his seven siblings, are generally

associated with the southern Waikato district, as defined by Tāwhao’s aukati. Te Hiko

notes that even after the division was made, members of both parties continued to

enjoy full access to each other’s territories.14

Figure 1: Whakapapa of Kauwhata from Hoturoa

Hoturoa

Hotuhope

Hotumatapū

Mōtai

Ue

Rakamaomao

Kakati

Punuiatekore (w.1) ======= Tāwhao ============== (w.2) Marutehiakina

Tūrongo Ruapūtahanga = Whatihua = Apakura

Tūrongoihi = Raukawa Uenukuwhāngai = Ngāruahaoa

Marumāhanga

Rangianewa = Rereahu = Hineaupounamu Rangipukea = Kōtare

Pikirangi

Te Ihingārangi Maniapoto Kauwhata Tukorehe

12 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, pp. 64-65; citing: Pei Te Hurinui Jones, &

Biggs, Ngā Iwi o Tainui, p. 72.

13 Adapted from: Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, p. 147; and Roberton, “Māori Settlement of the Waikato District”,

1983, p. 21.

14 For example, Maniapoto returned to Kāwhia to receive instruction from the Ahurei Wānanga at Kāwhia,

while Te Ihingārangi came to be associated with the Maungatautari and Kaokaoroa Patetere districts, as

explained below.


March 2013

23

10. According to Leslie Kelly and Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Whatihua and Ruapūtahanga had

two sons, Uenukutuhatu, and Uenukuterangihōkā;15

however, Roberton adds a third in

Uenukutapu.16

In due course, Whatihua married a second wife named Apakura, a

woman of Takitimu descent.17

Once again, the traditions vary, with some stating that

Apakura was in fact Whatihua’s first wife, whom he initially abandoned for

Ruapūtahanga, and then went back to.18

In any event, Whatihua’s espousing of

Apakura precipitated jealousy in Ruapūtahanga and led to her estrangement from her

husband not long after the birth of their child, Uenukuterangihōkā.

11. Pei Te Hurinui Jones states that matters came to a head when Whatihua caught a large

and much-coveted eel for Apakura using talismans Ruapūtahanga had brought with her

from Taranaki.19

Consumed with anger, Ruapūtahanga resolved to leave Kāwhia and

travel back to Taranaki to live with her own people. She set out at daybreak carrying

the baby Uenukuterangihōkā on her back; but soon afterwards Whatihua noticed her

absence and set off after her. Realising she could not out-run her pursuers when

weighed down by her baby, Ruapūtahanga set him down and covered him with sand

leaving only his head exposed. By the time Whatihua reached his baby son, his wife

was swimming across Kāwhia Harbour towards Te Maika on the southern headland,

and from there she made good her escape.20

12. Uenukuterangihōkā was thereafter fostered by Apakura, which led to him being given

the additional name of ‘Uenuku-the-adopted’ or, ‘Uenukuwhāngai’.21

In due course,

Whatihua took his people to the north side of Aotea Harbour where he built himself ‘a

ritual place’ on a ridge named Manu-aitu, which had a clear view seawards and

15 Kelly, L. G., Tainui: The Story of Hoturoa and his Descendants, Christchurch, Cadsonbury Publications,

1949 [Reprint, 2002], pp. 76-79; Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 76-81. NB: The whakapapa

on page 79 shows Uenukutuhatu as the son of Tongaatea, which is clearly incorrect.

16 Roberton, “Māori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, p. 12.

17 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 66.

18 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, pp. 65-66.

19 Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 80-83.

20 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 [Reprint, 2002], pp. 78-79. Citing the kōrero of the late Haki Thompson, Nigel Te Hiko

notes that Ruapūtahanga appears to have also journeyed to the Kaokaoroa Patetere district, on account of certain

features in the vicinity of Tāpapa being named after her. Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”,

2010, p. 67.



March 2013

24

abundant food resources. Roberton intimates that Whatihua lost mana as a result of

some unrecorded interaction with Mangō, a grandson of Tuhianga and ancestor of

Ngāti Toa.22

However, Jones states that Whatihua lived to a ripe old age, until, when a

very old man, he brought about his own death by leaping from the cliffs near Manu-

aitu.23

13. After Ruapūtahanga’s departure, Apakura bore Whatihua twin sons named

Marumāhanga and Rakamāhanga. The former travelled to Tāmaki where he had a

liaison at Maungakiekie with a Ngāiwi woman named Tuimete, who subsequently

gave birth to a boy she named Pikirangi. When he grew up, Pikirangi went searching

for his father, eventually settling at Ngāroto, near Te Awamutu. His descendants

became known as Ngāti Apakura.

14. Uenukuwhāngai was the father of a number of famous Tainui tūpuna by his three

recorded wives: Te Ketekura, Whaitiri and Ngāruahaoa. Ngāruahaoa was the mother

of Kōtare and Tamapango. Kōtare’s marriage to Rangipukea produced Kauwhata and

his younger brother, Tukorehe.24

According to the genealogies reproduced in Kelly’s

Tainui, on her mother’s side, Ngāruahaoa traced her descent from Ngātoroirangi, the

Te Arawa navigator and explorer; and from Rakaihikuroa and Kahungunu on her

father’s side.25

15. Levin historian, the late Valentine Bevan states that Kauwhata’s grandmother,

Ngāruahaoa was also the wife of Tamapāhore of Ngāti Awa, and their union produced

Ngā Paretaihinu, who became the wife of Tukorehe. Mr Bevan writes:

Nga Paretaihinu was the wife of Tukorehe. She was the daughter of

Tamapahore…a descendant of Toroa – great fighting chief, who was an elder

half-brother of Te Rangihouhiri. Te Rangihouhiri and Tamapahore made an

expedition from the Whakatane are[a] up the coast to Tauranga conquering

everything before them. At Tauranga, Te Rangihouhiri remained and became

[the] other originator of the “Ngaiterangi”, which is now the paramount tribe

of that locality – but Tamapahore continued on to the Waikato. While there he

lived with a woman called Ngāruahaoa.

22 Roberton, J. B. W., “The Significance of New Zealand Tribal Tradition,” JPS, Vol. 67, No. 1, 1958, p. 46.

23 He was said to have come to rest in an inaccessible cave known as ‘Poho-tangi’ (‘Sounding Belly’), located

halfway up the sheer cliff, which became his tomb. The name derives from the sound of waves crashing into an

underwater entrance to the cave. Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 84-85.

24 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), Table 10, p. 449.

25 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), Table 10, p. 449; Table 54, p. 467; & Table 82, p. 478.


March 2013

25

When Tamapahore was told she was hapū, he said “Let the child be called

after his insignia” – which was a sprig of taihinu he wore in his hair. Hence the

name – “NGAPARETAIHINU”. A PARE means to w[e]ar a feather on the

head, or the headpiece (lintel) of a doorway. The significance of the name

therefore is to wear the sprig of taihinu instead of the feather.26

16. This demonstrates the extent to which the peoples from both sides of the Kaimai

Range shared kinship links, creating networks of marriage alliances that could be

appealed to if required. As a descendant of the marriage of Tukorehe and Ngā

Paretaihinu, the great Ngāti Hauā chief Te Waharoa may have called on his kinship

with Ngāi Te Rangi when seeking recruits prior to the battle of Taumatawīwī in

1830.27

Figure 2: Whakapapa of Ngāruahaoa and Ngāparetaihinu

Kahungunu

Kahukuranui

Rakeihikuroa Tōroa

Te Ārai = Te Ataorongo Rongomai-noho-rangi

Uenukuwhāngai ==== Ngāruahaoa =========== Tamapāhore

Kōtare Tamapango

Kauwhata Tukorehe = Ngā Paretaihinu

17. The other marriages of Uenukuwhāngai also produced famous offspring, some of

whom played a part in Tainui settlement of the Maungatautari district.

Uenukuwhāngai’s marriage to Whaitiri produced Te Mangō-hiku-roa (not to be

confused with the aforementioned ‘Mangō’), while Te Ketekura was the mother of

26 Bevan, Valentine, Tatou Tatou, all together the NZ Bevan family and its connections: also a short history of

Ngati Wehiwehi and Ngati Tukorehe, Levin, 1998, p. 77. The whakapapa is reproduced on page 79.

27 Evidence of Harete Tamihana, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari), April-May 1884, Waikato MB

12, p. 386; and, evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 8 February 1881, AJHR, G.-2A, p. 17.


March 2013

26

Tamaaio, a famous fighting chief who led the first Tainui war-party inland from

Kāwhia.28

Tamaaio’s daughter, Rangianewa, was the first wife of Rereahu, the son of

Raukawa. Te Ihingārangi was the son of Rangianewa and Rereahu. The latter’s second

marriage to Hineaupounamu produced Maniapoto and his seven siblings.29

When, on

his death bed, Rereahu chose Maniapoto as his successor in place of Te Ihingārangi,

the rightful tuakana, the latter attempted to win back his lost status, but was defeated in

battle by Maniapoto and his (full) brothers and forced to retreat northwards to the

Maungatautari district.

18. Nigel Te Hiko states that “…in later years Te Ihingarangi and his people were joined

at Maungatautari by his nephews Kauwhata and Tukorehe…”30

However, it may be

that on his arrival at Maungatautari, Te Ihingārangi found his mother’s kin already in

occupation, including the sons of Kōtare, Kauwhata and Tukorehe. The question of

who settled Maungatautari first is worthy of some consideration.

19. Hōri Wirihana identified Hurumutu as the locality where Kauwhata settled on his

arrival in the Maungatautari district.31

Roberton writes that Kauwhata went to

Puahue,32

on the western slopes of Maungatautari soon after Pikirangi arrived at Te

Awamutu. According to Roberton, Kauwhata’s “whole family group moved”, and he

suggests that the move “may have been connected with the Ngāti Kahupungapunga

war.”33

In a later monograph, Roberton is less certain of this connection, stating that it

is unclear whether Kauwhata’s people moved to Puahue as a result of, or previous to,

the war with Kahupungapunga.34

As the latter conflict is generally associated in the

traditions with the descendants of Raukawa (namely Whaita and his cousins, the sons

of Takihiku: Tamatehura, Wairangi, Upokoiti and Pipito), the Kahupungapunga war

28 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 83ff.

29 Hineaupounamu was also a descendant of Whatihua, from Uenukuwhāngai’s brother, Uenukutuhatu. She was

the daughter of the latter’s son, Tuatangiroa. Maniapoto’s siblings were Matakore, Tūwhakahekeao,

Tūrongotapuarau, Te Iowānanga, Kahuariari, Kinohaku and Te Rongorito. Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 450.

30 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 86.

31 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 29 April 1884,

Waikato MB 12, p. 143.

32 In some sources, Puahue is referred to as ‘Puahoe’. For the sake of consistency, I have used ‘Puahue’

throughout, unless quoting directly.


255.

34 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, p. 21.


March 2013

27

probably occurred somewhat later than Pikirangi’s arrival in the Te Awamutu district,

and after the Tainui expansion westwards to Maungatautari.

20. Other sources assert that Tūwhakarara and his brothers were allies of Raukawa’s

grandsons and participated in the expulsion of the Ngāti Kahupungapunga from the

Waikato Valley. Don Tait states:

In Vicki Scherer’s book, Putaruru: Home of the Owl, she cites a korero with

the renowned [kaumātua and tribal expert] Henry Tuwhangai about some of

the chiefs who aided Whaita, he refers to the leaders being, Tuwhakarara,

Turora, Punoke, Ihuwera, Pare Waikato, the sons of Tukorehe. After this battle

they returned to Kokouka Pa at Tirau, my understanding of this is that Tirau of

that time was overlooking the Waikato opposite to Maungatautari.35

21. Ngāti Kauwhata traditions refer to a falling out between Kauwhata and his younger

brother, after which Tukorehe moved away to occupy the lands to the east, between

Tīrau and Tapapa.36

22. The Kahupungapunga war is just one of a number of variables to be considered when

reckoning these timeframes. Pikirangi himself was of the same generational level as

Kōtare, Kauwhata’s father, although he may have been somewhat younger than his

cousin, given that his father, Marumāhanga, was born after Uenukuwhāngai. Hence,

Roberton’s assertion that Kauwhata occupied Maungatautari soon after a mature

Pikirangi arrived in the Waikato fits these genealogical timeframes.

23. In terms of Rereahu’s descendants, there appears to have been a considerable age

difference between Te Ihingārangi and Maniapoto, with the traditions indicating that

the former was already a grandfather when Maniapoto was born.37

If so, Te

Ihingārangi would have been well into his prime by the time he went to live at

Maungatautari. It must also be considered that Te Ihingārangi was Uenukuwhāngai’s

great-grandson from his first wife, while Kauwhata was Uenukuwhāngai’s grandson

35 Don Tait, Pers. Comm., by email, 4 January 2013. The high point named Tīrau is in fact much closer to the

Waikato River than the present-day township of Tīrau.

36 This kōrero about Kauwhata falling out with Tukorehe has been repeated at each hui I have had with Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi. See also, quote from Rev. Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, paragraph 32, below.

37 Kelly, for example, states: “Some time after the death of Rereahu, Te Ihingarangi, thinking the time

opportune, and being desirous of providing some reason for a quarrel, acted in a most provoking manner toward

Tutarawa, a brother to Hine-au-pounamu. Tutarawa, whose son Uetarangore had married Hinewhatihua, the

great-granddaughter of Te Ihingarangi, had come from Kawhia to attend the tangi over Rereahu…” Kelly,

Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 86.


March 2013

28

from his third wife (it may be more accurate, therefore, to refer to them as cousins

rather than Kauwhata being Te Ihingārangi’s nephew). On this basis, there is a distinct

possibility that the descendants of Uenukuwhāngai, including Kauwhata and

Tukorehe, settled the Maungatautari district prior to Te Ihingārangi’s arrival there.

24. Te Ihingārangi’s granddaughter, Hinemapuhia (the daughter of his eldest son, Kurī),

married Tukorehe’s son, Ihuwera, a significant alliance that would produce Korokī and

his sons Hape and Hauā within the next few generations. In due course, Tukorehe’s

people settled the flat lands to the east of the Waikato River, known as Te Kaokaoroa o

Pātetere, where they assisted Kauamo and Kōperu, the sons of Kōtare’s brother

Tamapango, in their wars against the incumbent Ngā Mārama people. Kōperu’s

daughter, Tūwaewae married Tāmure, the son of Hinerangimarino, and the children of

that marriage became the progenitors of the Ngāti Hinerangi people of Ōkauia and the

Kaimai Ranges.

25. The descendants of Ihuwera’s grandson, Korokī, occupied the lands east of the

Waikato River as far as Maungakawa, while those of Korokī’s son Hauā established

themselves further east again, between Matamata and Te Aroha.38

Ngāti Raukawa

occupied the lands from Maungatautari southwards, on both sides of the river,

progressively gaining territory at the expense of the Ngāti Kahupungapunga.

According to traditional accounts, the Ngāti Raukawa hapū of Ngāti Takihiku and

Ngāti Whakatere held rights in the vicinity of Maungatautari, ranging westwards

towards the Waipā River, where they clashed with Ngāti Maniapoto (discussed below).

26. The evidence of many witnesses in the Native Land Court, on behalf of Ngāti

Kauwhata and their opponents, indicates that Kauwhata was widely acknowledged as

the founding ancestor – the take tupuna – for the lands on the western side of

Maungatautari, extending both north and south of the mountain. Therefore, having

established themselves initially at Puahue, Ngāti Kauwhata also occupied Pukekura to

the north of Maungatautari and west of present-day Lake Karapiro; Rangiaōwhia to the

west, near Te Awamutu and Kihikihi; and Te Whānake, the 381 metre hill situated

between Puahue and Maungatautari itself. By this means, the triangle of land between

Rangiaōwhia, Pukekura and Maungatautari became the traditional heartland of Ngāti

38 These relationships are depicted in the whakapapa shown in Figure 12, below, p. 71.


March 2013

29

Kauwhata in the Waikato Valley. They also ranged southwards into the

Wharepūhunga block, where they shared interests with their Raukawa kin.

27. The Tainui expansion and the establishment of discrete tribal territories resulted from

the need to provide sustenance for a burgeoning population, and the initially non-

violent disputes that arose between the various Tainui kin groups. When territorial

expansion at the expense of unrelated neighbouring people like the Ngāti

Kahupungapunga reached its limits, inter-hapū disputes between Tainui kin escalated,

from the fraternal rivalry of Tūrongo and Whatihua and the skirmishing of Maniapoto

and Te Ihingārangi into all-out warfare. A selection of these battles relevant to the

establishment and maintenance of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

rangatiratanga in the Waikato district are examined in chapter 4, below. Prior to that,

the report will examine the origins and traditions of Ngāti Wehi Wehi; the distinction

between Ngāti Kauwhata/Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Raukawa; and, in chapter 2, the

boundaries of and sites of significance within the Waikato rohe of Ngāti

Kauwhata/Ngāti Wehi Wehi.


March 2013

30

1.2 Hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata

1.2.1 Ngāti Wehi Wehi

28. Valentine Bevan writes that the original home of Ngati Wehi Wehi was near

Maungatitou between Cambridge and the Tukorehe Reserve (Fitzgerald Glade).39

The

exact location of Maungatitou is unknown (to this writer), but it would appear to be on

the right bank of the Waikato. Thus, it is probably the place Wehi Wehi moved to after

the falling out between his father Kauwhata and uncle Tukorehe.

29. The descent lines from Kauwhata and Wehi Wehi are represented in the following

whakapapa.40

Figure 3: Whakapapa of Wehi Wehi and his descendants

Kōtare

Kauwhata = Te Uranga Tukorehe

Hinepare Tahuriwakanui Wehi Wehi = Patiharuru Urukaetiketike

Tūtanumia = Tūtete Maniaihu = Arauhanga Hounuku

Haetapunui = Parekārewa Taowhakāiro Toarangatira = Parehounuku Tikitiki

Ngatokowaru Werawera Moarikura = Mōkai Marangaiparoa

Huia


Ngati Wehiwehi and Ngati Tukorehe, Levin, 1998, p. 57.

40 This whakapapa is a composite taken from Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), Table 10, p. 449; and: Waitangi

Tribunal, Memorandum-Directions No. 41, Wai 2200, #2.5.53, pp. 3-4; and: Roberton, J.B.W., “Maori

Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, p. 21. NB: A woman named Moarikura is also recorded as a wife of

Kauwhata. While it has been suggested that she was Kauwhata’s second wife of Te Arawa descent, most

sources portray Te Uranga and Moarikura as one and the same person. It has not been possible in the time

available to investigate this matter further.


March 2013

31

30. Tūtete was the eldest daughter of Wehi Wehi. Her husband, Tūtanumia was the son of

Te Kawairirangi, the son of Maniapoto. The Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia of Ngāti

Wehi Wehi states:

Tutete is the eldest daughter of Wehi Wehi (Maniaihu and Hounuku are her

younger brothers). Tūtete’s marriage to Tutanumia (her first husband) was very

significant as it joined up two tuakana lines from Whatihua and Turongo. Thus

the whakapapa from Turongo to Tutanumia is: Turongo – Raukawa – Rereahu –

Maniapoto – Te Kawairirangi – Tutanumia [who married] Tutete. Thus

the descendants of Tutete and Tutanumia, form the significant Ngati Huia hapu of

Ngati Raukawa – on this matter Ngatokowaru is widely acknowledged as a Ngati

Huia rangatira, rather than a Ngati Wehi Wehi chief (as his direct “male” lineage

is a tuakana Raukawa line). From marriages of this calibre one can see why the

relationships between Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi and Raukawa/Maniapoto and indeed

Ngati Toa, were so close!41

31. Wehi Wehi’s granddaughters, Parekārewa and Parehounuku, married respectively

Haetapunui of Raukawa (also known as Haehaeora), and Toarangatira, the eponymous

ancestor of Ngāti Toa. Although their descendants identified themselves as belonging

to Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Toa, they also acknowledged their descent from

Kauwhata and Wehi Wehi, and these kin connections were important in decisions that

led to the southern migrations of the people of Maungatautari, including Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi in the 1820s (discussed in detail, below).

32. The Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia observes that whereas Kauwhata and Tukorehe

were both fighting chiefs, Wehi Wehi acquired a reputation as a Takawaenga Humarie

or peacemaker/intermediary. He adds:

[Wehi Wehi] could intercede in tribal disputes/battles, as he had earned the

confidence and respect of different iwi and warring parties to have the mana to

be able to broker a peace pact, or other appropriate action. He was also said to

have intervened from time to time as a peacemaker between his father

Kauwhata and Uncle Tukorehe as they apparently did not get on together.42

33. This relationship is depicted in a mural in relief, sited just above the main doors into

the whare kai, ‘Patiharuru’, at the Ngati Wehi Wehi Marae, at Manakau, Horowhenua.

The mural shows the ancestor Kauwhata holding a patu in his hand and looking down

41 Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia. Pers. Comm. Feedback on draft, by email, 2 January 2013.

42 Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, Pers. Comm., by email, 15 October 2012.


March 2013

32

towards his brother Tukorehe, with Wehi Wehi standing in the middle between the

two.43

34. The Bevan family history contains the whakapapa chart shown below (Figure 4)

detailing the lineage of Wehi Wehi’s wife, Patiharuru, which shows that she is a

descendant of Kōperu, an ancestor of Ngāti Hinerangi of the Ōkauia and Kaimai

districts.44

Figure 4: Whakapapa of Patiharuru

Uenukuwhāngai

Kōtare Tamapango

Kauwhata Tukorehe Kōperu = Marowaiwai

Tuakere = Papa

Wehi Wehi ========================== Patiharuru

35. The significance of this marriage is that Kōperu and his elder brother Kauamo were

part of the Tainui alliance that spread out from Kāwhia and colonised the central and

lower Waikato Valley.45

Initially based at Maungatautari along with other descendants

of Uenukuwhāngai, Kōperu’s people ventured eastwards, encountering the Ngā

Mārama people at Te Kaokaoroa o Pātetere (the plains west of the Kaimai Range), on

both sides of the Waihou River. When conflict arose between the tangata whenua and

the newcomers, the Tainui people drove the Ngā Mārama into the Kaimai, where they

encountered similar pressure from the Tauranga side courtesy of Ngāti Ranginui and

Ngāti Awa (the latter being Tamapāhore and his brother Te Rangihouhiri, whose

43 Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia. Pers. Comm. Feedback on draft, by email, 2 January 2013. The mural was

one of a number of murals gifted to the marae in the 1960’s as part of a school project by local colleges and

boarding institutions in the Kapiti/Horowhenua districts.


Ngati Wehiwehi and Ngati Tukorehe, Levin, 1998, p. 53. NB: Wehi Wehi’s eldest daughter, Tūtete, had a child

named Papa. (See: Bevan, V., Tatou Tatou, 1998, p. 51). This was probably a case of naming the child after a

recent forebear.

45 Evidence of Akapita Te Tewe (Ngāti Raukawa), Ōkauia title investigation Waikato MB 3, pp. 317-319.


March 2013

33

descendants would be known as Ngāi Te Rangi). As noted above, Tukorehe (and

indeed, Uenukuwhāngai) became intimately involved with Ngāti Awa through the

marriages of Ngāruahaoa and Ngāparetaihinu.

36. Kōperu had two sons, Pūtangimaru and Tuakere; and a daughter, Tūwaewae.46

Tūwaewae married Tāmure and their sons completed the conquest of the Ngā Mārama,

founding the hapū Ngāti Hinerangi, so named after Tāmure’s mother,

Hinerangimarino.47

The marriage of Tuakere’s daughter Patiharuru to Wehi Wehi

forged a connection between the descendants of Kauwhata and Kōperu.

37. This network of whanaungatanga laid the basis for the establishment of hapū and iwi

rights across the Kaokaoroa o Pātetere districts and across the Kaimai Range, which, in

the case of Ngāti Wehi Wehi, are still recognised today at Ūkaipō Marae at the foot of

the Kaimai, where the Tupuna Whare is named Wehi Wehi. The Reverend Te

Hopehuia Hakaraia states:

Wehi Wehi tupuna whare was opened in 1990. At a whakapapa hui held at Te

Ukaipo marae 22-23 May 2010, the whakapapa relating to the kuia and tupuna

wharekai, Kirihika was discussed, in relationship to Wehi Wehi and his wife

Patiharuru. On balance, I believe that Kirihika is the wife of Urukaetiketike,

the younger brother of Wehi Wehi, which would then make her a

contemporary of Wehi Wehi’s generation, and sister-in-law. Korero tuku iho

would also suggest that Kirihika’s whenua tuturu encompasses the clustered

lands of Ngati Hinerangi, Ngati Motai and the older Te Whaiti Kuranui

lands.48

38. In the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission hearings, Winia Pohotiraha lodged a claim based

on descent from both Wehi Wehi and Tuakere, the son of Kōperu. Though the claim

was dismissed, and some of the evidence was undoubtedly contradictory, even

between co-claimants, the claim was not dismissed out of hand by many of Winia’s

opponents. Indeed, Rihia Te Kauae, in deflecting a question from Winia about his

possible affiliation to Tuakere, stated that the ancestor he had named was Pūtangimaru,

46 Steedman, John Aramete Wairehu, Nga Ohaki o Nga Whanau o Tauranga Moana, Tauranga, 1984, p. 246.

According to John Steedman, Pūtangimaru became a “tohunga of great fame who lived at Hinuera.” He married

Tuwera, the sister of Kotorerua of Ngāi Te Rangi (descendants of Tamapahore), and it was Pūtangimaru’s

advice to Kotorerua that aided Ngāi Te Rangi in taking Mauao. The marriage of Pūtangimaru to a descendant of

Tamapāhore parallels the marriage of Tukorehe to Ngāparetaihinu, the daughter of Tamapāhore.

47 ‘Whakapapa of Ngati Hinerangi’, in Morehu McDonald, ‘Ngati Hinerangi Mana Whenua Report for the

Tauranga Moana District’, CFRT, 2006. Wai 215 #T2, p. 30.

48 Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, Pers. Comm., by email, 2 January 2013.


March 2013

34

Tuakere’s brother. Another Crown witness, Piripi Te Whanatangi, though he

commented that the ancestors spoken of (i.e. – Tuakere and Pūtangimaru) were “very

old indeed”, added: “Were we living according to Māori custom, we should bring

forward those ancestors to prove our title…”49

39. Apart from Ngāti Wehi Wehi, other hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata that remained extant into

the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries include Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti

Tahuri, Ngāti Werokoukou, Ngāti Ruru and Ngāti Pareteuaki.50

These hapū were

associated with the Maungatautari district from ancient times, and continued to assert

their ancestral rights there well into the colonial era.

1.2.2 Ngāti Hinepare

40. Hinepare was the eldest child of Kauwhata and Te Uranga (a.k.a. Moarikura). After

the dispute between Kauwhata and his brother Tukorehe was resolved, the two chiefs

formalised the peace-making by the betrothal of their two eldest children; Hinepare

married Tūwhakarara, the son of Tukorehe. Presumably, this was after Tukorehe had

moved away from Maungatautari, following the rift with his brother. As noted above,

along with his brothers, Tūwhakarara assisted Raukawa’s grandsons in the expulsion

of the Ngāti Kahupungapunga from the Waikato Valley, which may account for the

marriage alliance that followed in the next generation.

41. This was the marriage of Tūwhakarara and Hinepare’s daughter, Hinetore, to Huitao,

the son of Tamatehura. Tamatehura was the son of Takihiku, who was the son of

Raukawa. Tamatehura’s wife and the mother of Huitao was Rongorito, the youngest

sister of Maniapoto. These auspicious kinship connections are depicted in Figure 5,

overleaf.

49 Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae and Piripi Te Whanatangi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 16 February 1881,

AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 31.

50 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, p. 148.


March 2013

35

Figure 5: Whakapapa of Hinetore and her descendants

Raukawa

Takihiku Kauwhata Tukorehe

Tamatehura = Rongorito Hinepare ======= Tūwhakarara

Huitao ===== Hinetore

Haetapunui Kapumanawawhiti

42. Hinepare also had another husband, Taratiu, with whom she had two known children:

Whatumoana and Pakihau. According to Don Tait of Ngāti Hinepare and Ngāti

Kauwhata, this waiata was sung by Hinepare, lamenting the loss of her tāne.51

He Waiata Aroha (A love song)

E to e te ra! rehu ki te rua, O set thou sun! sink into thy cavern,

Ringiringi a wai, te roimata i aku kamo. Thou causest to gush like water the tears from my

eyes.

He mea mahue au te hikoinga wae, I am a deserted one through the stepping out of

the feet,

Nou, e Taratiu, wakangaro atu ana. Of thee, Taratiu, long hidden from my sight.

Nga kurae koe, o Waiohipara, wakaahu

ahi ana te tara ki miti tai.

Thy distant hills, Waiohipara, and the flowing

surface of the water, appear bright like a fire.

Kei raro taku atua e aroha nei au. My idol, whom I love, is below.

Kati te wairua te mahi te haramai; Let thy spirit cease from visiting me;

Ka mutu iaranei te rangikane-tanga. If, perchance, I may forget my sorrowing.

51 Don Tait, Pers. Comm., by email, 14 December 2012. It is not known whether Taratiu or Tūwhakarara was

Hinepare’s first husband.


March 2013

36

43. Descent lines of Ngāti Hinepare are represented in the following whakapapa.52

Figure 6: Whakapapa Tarahuia from Hinepare and Taratui

Tawhio Mōtai

Whatehina Te Aratukutuku

Uetapu Marutehiakino

Uenuku-whāngai Ngārangipukohu

Kōtare Rangimanaaki

Kauwhata Te Kokohu o te Rangi

Hinepare = Taratiu

Te Whatumoana

Tupu ki te rangi

Puke

Te Iwitoroa

Tahungutu

Te Mowhiti

Te Whakaawo

Whakataha Peneti

Tarahuia Ngārangi

52 The whakapapa depicted in Figures 6 & 7 were provided by Mr Don Tait, of Ngāti Hinepare and Ngāti

Kauwhata, based to some extent on the evidence of Tarahuia, Waikato MB 12, pp. 156-157, and other sources.

Mr Tait has edited the whakapapa recorded in Waikato MB 12 by re-ordering the names of the tūpuna who

follow immediately after Hinepare and Taratiu. Tarahuia has Hinepare/Taratiu – Puke – Te Iwitoroa – Te

Whatumoana – Tahungutu. Based on other sources, Mr Tait states that the order shown above in Figure 6 is

correct.


March 2013

37

44. Figure 7, below depicts other descendants of Hinepare and Taratiu, as well as those of

Tahuri Whakanui (Ngāti Tahuri) and Wehi Wehi. Some of these descendants, such as

Tapa Te Whata, his wife Metapere Tapa and Hōri Wirihana were prominent advocates

on behalf of Ngāti Kauwhata in the nineteenth century.

1.2.3 Ngāti Tahuri

45. Ngāti Tahuri are the descendants of Tahuri Whakanui.

Figure 7: Whakapapa of Ngāti Tahuri to Te Kooro and Tapa Te Whata

Kauwhata = Te Uranga

Hinepare = Taratiu Tahuri Wakanui Wehi Wehi

Whatumoana Te Rama Apakura Tūtete Maniaihu

Tupu ki te Rangi Koraki Ngāko Tamatewero

Puke Kinomoerua Pōuri ki te Marangai Waianoho

Te Omanga = Punga Maramataiawha Te Uenga

Kahureina Te Kākā Tahuri II = Taiko Te Nuku Tūranga

Pare Paoro Kaweingariki Koroarahi Te Rangikaitu

Tangimoana Poraki II Whakarongo ki Taua

Wiremu

Pareanuataua Te Whata Te Wharepakuru

Te Waharoa Rangiatepure Rewiti te Kohu

Whakapau Tapa Te Whata === Metapere

Tamihana Tohe Reupena

Hakunui

Te Kooro

Hōri Wirihana


March 2013

38

46. The descendants of Tahuri Wakanui lived in and around the Puahue and Rangiaōwhia

districts. Tahuri’s son, Te Rama Apakura and the latter’s grandson, Kinomoerua were

associated with Tarua Pā on the south side of Te Whānake.53

1.2.4 Werokoukou, Ngāti Pareteuaki and Ngāti Ruru

47. In her discussion of Ngāti Kauwhata’s relationship to Ngāti Raukawa, Angela Ballara

identifies some of the hapū that affiliate to Ngāti Kauwhata, including Ngāti Hinepare,

Ngāti Tahuri, Ngāti Wehiwehi, Werokoukou, and Ngāti Ruru. The first three have

been discussed above. The name Werokoukou (NB: not ‘Ngāti Werokoukou’, but

sometimes ‘Te Werokoukou’) was recorded as a hapū name by various witnesses in

the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission in 1881.54

48. A witness recorded as ‘Ngata (unbaptized)’ told the Commission that he claimed the

block as a Ngāti Kauwhata, adding that he had always lived on the ‘Puahoe’ block, and

that he had not gone to Kapiti. He stated: “I saw Tapa, the leader of Ngatikauwhata

from Kapiti. All those who come from Kapiti have a claim on this land, Puahoe.”55

He

was then asked by Major Mair if he was Ngāti Kauwhata only, to which he replied,

“No; I belong to Werokoukou, to Ngatikoura and Ngatiruru also.” When Mair asked

him if he had a claim to Puahoe from Werokoukou, Ngatikoura, or Ngatiruru, he

replied, “Yes, through all.”56

He said he claimed Puahoe through Ngāti Kauwhata and

Werokoukou by both his parents, although his father’s principal affiliation was to

Ngāti Kauwhata. He added that Werokoukou belonged to both Waikato and Ngāti

Kauwhata. In response to cross-examination by Counsel for Ngāti Kauwhata,

Alexander McDonald, he affirmed that all four hapū he had mentioned had rights in

the land and all claimed through ancestry, but all their rights derived from Kauwhata.

53 Don Tait, Pers. Comm. by email, 7 February 2013.

54 While Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi kaumātua are aware of the name Werokoukou, it does not

appear to be a hapū that is currently active. Mr Bob Miratana of Manakau states that he understands that the

correct spelling should be ‘Werokaukau’. Relayed to the author by Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, Pers.

Comm., by email, 3 January 2013.

55 Evidence of Ngata, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, AHJR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 20.

56 Evidence of Ngata, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, AHJR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 20.


March 2013

39

49. Tana Te Waharoa, the son of Wīremu Tamihana, supported the Ngāti Kauwhata

claims to Puahoe; he told the Commission that Ngāti Kauwhata had left the land in the

care of his grandfather, Te Waharoa, and also Paiwaka (Te Paewaka – see Figure 8).

When asked by Mair who Paiwaka was, he replied that he belonged to Werokoukou.57

Figure 8: Whakapapa of Ngāti Pareteuaki and Te Werokoukou

Kauwhata

Wehi Wehi

Tūtete Maniaihu

Ngāko Pareraumoa

Urumakawe Te Ata

Kuiatu = Paeahi = Paretaheke

Te Wawahanga Pareteuaki* === Pakaruwakanui

Paretewa = Tokohihi

Te Kāhurangi

Te Rauangaanga = Parengaope Te Paewaka

Ahurei Terenuku

Te Wherowhero

Pareteuaki* Mokopehi Ngata

Te Matanui

Te Hu W. Te Ahukaramū 58

Wepiha

Maraea

50. Tana Te Waharoa was later known as Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa Te Waharoa.

Following the deaths of his uncle Te Raihi Toroatai in 1889, and his elder brother

Hotene (Hote) Tamihana Te Waharoa about the same time, Tupu Taingakawa became

57 Evidence of Tana Te Waharoa, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, AHJR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 21.

58 ‘Warana’ Te Ahukaramū produced this whakapapa at the commencement of his evidence to the

Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation on 2 May 1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 151. It has

been abridged slightly and also relies on additions derived from J.B.W. Roberton’s “Maori Settlement of the

Waikato District”, Te Awamutu Historical Society, Bulletin No. 2, Revised Edition, 1983, pp. 26 & 31. NB:

Kuiatu was the daughter of Hikairo of Ngāti Apakura. According to Te Ahukaramū’s whakapapa chart, Te

Matanui was senior to Tokohihi.


March 2013

40

the leader of Ngāti Hauā and took on the role of Tumuaki, effectively the Prime

Minister of the Kīngitanga.59

51. Warena Te Ahukaramū, another witness to the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, said he

claimed through Patukoukou, Ngāti Koura and Ngāti Ruru. He claimed the ‘Puahoe’

block as a Ngāti Kauwhata, adding: “This land belongs to Ngatikauwhata who come

from Kapiti. I have sprung from them.”60

The evidence of other witnesses at later

hearings indicates that Patukoukou is another name for Werokoukou hapū.61

Don Tait

believes that Ngāti Pareteuaki is yet another name for this hapū, which, he says, is

made up of the descendants of a peace-making marriage between Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Apakura.62

This is discussed further in section 4.2.1, below.

52. The hapū Ngāti Ruru is active today and associated with the Parawera Marae. While

this marae is situated within Ngāti Kauwhata’s ancestral rohe, John Hutton shows that

the tūpuna Ruru was in fact the daughter of Korokī. He states:

Ruru was a famous ancestress of the Tainui waka and traces her descent from

both Turongo and Whatihua. Ngati Ruru occupied a number of pa in the Te

Awamutu district including the pa at Otawhao. Ngati Ruru land interests are in

the north towards Ngaruawahia and Kirikiriroa, particularly at Nukuhou and

into the Wharepūhunga around Parawera.63

1.2.5 Ngāti Matau

53. In the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission and Native Land Court hearings into customary

rights at Maungatautari, one of the claimant groups, led by Hōri Wirihana, identified

themselves as ‘Ngāti Kauwhata and Matau’. Matau Marae is located on the north side

59 Angela Ballara. “Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa - Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa”, from

the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30-Oct-2012.

URL: http://www.teAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3t22/te-waharoa-tupu-atanatiu-taingakawa

60 Evidence of Warena Te Ahukaramū, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, AHJR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 20.

61 Evidence of Te Ahukaramū and Ngata, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A,

p. 20. Evidence of Te Hakiriwhi Te Pureroha, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 10

June 1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 289-290. On the other hand, while Rihia Te Kauae equated Te Patukoukou with

Te Werokoukou and a number of other hapū, he claimed that their “great name was Ngāti Haua”. Rihia Te

Kauae, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 10 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 22.

62 Don Tait, Pers. Comm., by telephone, 5 January 2013.

63 Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report,”, 2009, p. 188.


March 2013

41

of Levin and is associated with Ngāti Huia ki Matau, a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa.

Matau’s links to Ngāti Kauwhata are suggested by evidence presented at the Pukekura

hearing in 1868 by Wīremu Te Whitu, who described himself as belonging to Ngāti

Kahukura, and told the Native Land Court that he lived at Maungatautari. He told the

Court that he was related to Ngāti Hauā, Waikato and Ngāti Raukawa, but that the land

belonged to his ancestor, Tūtete. He said that Ngāti Kahukura were left as kaitiaki of

the land and that he himself was their Pūtake.64

He produced a whakapapa as shown in

Figure 9.65

Figure 9: Whakapapa from Kauwhata to Matau to Wīremu Te Whitu

Kauwhata

Wehi Wehi

Tūtete

Haetapunui === Parekārewa

Ngatokowaru

Huia Matau

Pani I

Pani II

Iriwhata

Te Toanga

Te Whitu

Wīremu Te Whitu

54. Thus, Hōri Wirihana’s claim on behalf of ‘Ngāti Kauwhata and Matau’ refers to the

Ngāti Kauwhata (and Ngāti Wehi Wehi) people of Horowhenua/Manawatū, along with

their Raukawa kin, who were claiming land at Maungatautari.

55. It is apparent from the whakapapa presented above, and from the traditions recounted

in the following chapters, that Ngāti Kauwhata and their constituent hapū shared

whanaungatanga with many of the principal iwi of the Waikato River Valley. The

Ngāti Kauwhata oral traditions recall that the mana of these Ngāti Kauwhata descent

64 Evidence of Wīremu Te Whitu, Pukekura hearing, 4 November 1868, Enclosure A, ‘Proceedings of the

Native Land Court’, AJHR, 1873, G.–3, p. 14.

65 Evidence of Wīremu Te Whitu, Pukekura hearing, 4 November 1868, Enclosure A, ‘Proceedings of the

Native Land Court’, AJHR, 1873, G.–3, p. 16.


March 2013

42

lines has been freely acknowledged by Waikato tribal experts, notwithstanding the

primary affiliation of these experts to other Tainui iwi.66

66 Rodney Graham, Pers. Comm., Ngāti Kauwhata-Wehi Wehi consultation Hui, Ngāti Wehi Wehi Marae,

Manakau, 11 December 2012.


March 2013

43

2 The Waikato Rohe of Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi

Wehi

2.1 Rohe boundaries

2.1.1 Awa

56. The boundaries of the Ngāti Kauwhata/Ngāti Wehi Wehi rohe, are defined by key

rivers in the Waikato Valley:

The Waikato River: Sourced from Lake Taupō is the right-hand

boundary;

The Puniu River: Sourced from the Rangitoto ranges and joins with the

Waipa;

The Waipā River: From the mouth of the Puniu to the mouth of the

Mangapiko; and

The Mangapiko Stream: Sourced from Maungatautari, Pukekura and

Whānake.

57. The significance of the Mangapiko Stream for Ngāti Kauwhata (and Raukawa), and

their ancient association with the general area was demonstrated by Te Hakiriwhi, a

witness for Ngāti Koura at the Maungatautari hearing in the Native Land Court in

1884. Te Hakiriwhi told the Court, “The name Mangapiko was probably given to the

stream of that name at the beginning of the world by Ng’ Raukawa and Kauwhata.”67

58. Numerous rivers and waterways within these river boundaries also provided valuable

resources for Ngāti Kauwhata and their hapū. For example, Te Aroaro and Te Turanga

were eel weirs on the Mangaohoi Stream, on the Puahue block.68

59. Apart from these free-flowing rivers, Ngāti Kauwhata’s territorial rights were also

defined by features such as the Moanatūatua and Roto-o-rangi swamps, which

separated their lands at Roto-o-rangi and Mangapiko from those of Ngāti Apakura in

the vicinity of the Ōhaupō lakes, on the western side of this great area of swamp

67 Evidence of Te Hakiriwhi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 29 May 1884, Waikato MB

12, pp. 253-254.

68 Ngāti Kauwhata statement of claim (Wai 972).


March 2013

44

land.69

Pātoa was a pā associated with Ngāti Kauwhata, which was situated in the

middle of a swamp in what became the confiscation block to the north of Te Rohe

Pōtae.70

2.1.2 Maunga

60. At 959 metres, the great massif of Pirongia is the dominating feature of the central

Waikato Valley; it holds deep significance for all Tainui hapū and iwi. Standing guard

over the original Tainui beachheads at Kāwhia and Aotea Harbours, Pirongia

represents Ngāti Kauwhata’s tribal origins; it also marks the north-western extent of

Ngāti Kauwhata territory.

61. Maungatautari is the central pillar of Ngāti Kauwhata, with its three peaks of

Pukeatua, Te Akatarere, and Maungatautari, the latter the highest point at 797 metres.

Maungatautari is the principal maunga of Ngāti Kauwhata and its name is synonymous

with that of the iwi.

62. Pukekura is a smaller maunga on the west bank of the Waikato River immediately

south-west of present-day Lake Karapiro and the Karapiro Dam. Standing 360 metres

high, it was the ancestral home of the Ngāti Hinepare hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata.

63. Te Whānake (381 metres) is the third of the main Ngāti Kauwhata maunga, situated in

the centre of the tribal rohe. Maungatautari lies directly due east, while Pukekura is

situated to the north-north-east. Puahue and Rangiaōwhia lie to the west, with Puahue

slightly to the south and a little closer than Rangiaōwhia.71

Maungatautari, Pukekura

and Whānake all lie within the boundaries defined by the awa as described in the

previous section.

64. According to Ngāti Kauwhata, the 588 metre peak Wharepūhunga marks the southern

boundary of their rohe, while the flat-topped volcanic peak, Kakepuku (449 metres)

69 Roberton, J.B.W., “Māori Settlement Pattern of the Te Awamutu Region: 1800-1850”, Journal of the Te

Awamutu Historical Society, No. 1, June 1975, p. 47, endnote 32. (Ngāti Apakura Doc. Bank, p. 123).

70 Claimant evidence. Statement of Claim of Edward Penetito and others on behalf of Ngā Uri Tangata o Ngāti

Kauwhata, Wai 972, Te Rohe Pōtae Inquiry.

71 The heights of these maunga have been gleaned from digital maps provided by Quickmap ® Custom

Software Limited (see www.quickmap.co.nz).


March 2013

45

was the site of a Ngāti Kauwhata settlement, where they lived ‘under the noses’ of

Ngāti Maniapoto. Kakepuku is also associated with Wehi Wehi’s son Maniaihu.

65. At a consultation hui held in December 2012 at Ngāti Wehi Wehi Marae, Manakau,

Mr Don Tait noted that on the tupuna whare at Kai Iwi a pou of the tupuna Kauwhata

shows him wearing a Crown with five points. There are various explanations for this

five-pointed crown, including: the generations of Kauwhata; Five Kete of Knowledge;

and the Five Peaks of Kauwhata; – i.e. Wharepūhunga, Pirongia, Maungatautari,

Pukekura and Whānake, on the Pukekura Range. The latter is Wai 972’s interpretation

of the five points. These are the rohe pointers for Kauwhata and together they describe

the rohe, which centres on the north-western slopes of Maungatautari, within the river

boundaries described above.72

2.2 Localities

2.2.1 Maungatautari

66. Maungatautari defines the wider district, as well as the actual maunga, and it was in

the district of Maungatautari that the tupuna Kauwhata settled with his extended

whānau, including his father Kōtare, his brother Tukorehe and their respective

children, when they moved out of Kāwhia. In his evidence to the 1884 Maungatautari

re-investigation, Hōri Wirihana identified Hurumutu as the locality where Kauwhata

settled on his arrival.73

Although the precise location of Hurumutu on the slopes of

Maungatautari has not been identified, other evidence that Kauwhata settled on the

Puahue block raises the possibility that that was the site of Hurumutu.

67. Hangahanga Pā, on the northern slopes of Pukewhakaahu (a smaller peak immediately

south-west of Maungatautari), was famously besieged by Peehi Tūkōrehu towards the

end of the warfare between the Waikato Ngāti Maniapoto alliance and the Ngāti

Kauwhata-Raukawa alliance c.1816-1820 (see below).

72 Don Tait, Pers. Comm., Ngāti Kauwhata-Wehi Wehi consultation Hui, Ngāti Wehi Wehi Marae, Manakau,

11 December 2012.




March 2013

46

68. The settlement of Aratitaha, situated south of Maungatautari towards Wharepapa

South (but north of the Pūniu River) was still occupied in the 1870s, and was a centre

of resistance to land sales and European encroachment.74

2.2.2 Pukekura

69. As noted, Pukekura is the ancestral territory of Ngāti Hinepare. The block contains

numerous sites of significance whose names are remembered, even if some of their

locations have since been forgotten. Kōwhatupapa Pā was located on the Pukekura

block, while other localities associated with the Pukekura and Puahue blocks were

identified as Waikaukau, Te Koukou, Mangakopara, Tarua and Para Kotukutuku.

These were mentioned in the Native Land Court minutes, or were familiar settlements

to government officials in the period following the Waikato War, but prior to the

opening of the Aukati. Ngā Hokowhitu and Te Koukou were settlements close to the

source of the Mangapiko Stream, at the junction of the Pukekura and Maungatautari

blocks.75

70. Angela Ballara reports that in about 1820, a hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata later known as

Ngāti Matepākehā were living at Hui-te-Rangiora Pā at Pukekura along with three

hapū of Ngāti Hauā.76

Hui-te-Rangiora Pā has been noted as a site of significance at

Pukekura in the Ngāti Kauwhata statement of claim (Wai 972).

74 “Rough sketch map shewing approximately the position of the Native settlements at and adjacent to

Maungatautari and the tracks leading to them from Cambridge and Orakau”, 2 May 1873. James Mackay,

“Report to the Native Minister”, 10 July 1873, AJHR, 1873, G.-3, p. 31. Mackay’s sketch shows Aratitaha, and

it is also mentioned by Tumuhuia in his evidence to the Maungatautari re-hearing in 1884. (Waikato MB 12, p.

156).

75 “Rough sketch map shewing approximately the position of the Native settlements at and adjacent to

Maungatautari and the tracks leading to them from Cambridge and Orakau”, 2 May 1873. James Mackay,

“Report to the Native Minister”, 10 July 1873, AJHR, 1873, G.-3, p. 31.

76 The name Hui-te-Rangiora has other associations for the Waikato-Tainui confederation. In the 1930s,

according to some reports, Hui-te-Rangiora was the name of the house that the widow of Rewi Maniapoto was

living in near Kihikihi, while 60 years previous to that it was the name of the carved house at Kihikihi in which

Rewi and other Waikato leaders discussed strategies. See: ‘Tohunga’, “The Wisdom of the Maori”, The New

Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 1 (April 1, 1935), New Zealand Government Railways

Department, Wellington. The identity of the correspondent ‘Tohunga’ is unknown.


March 2013

47

2.2.3 Puahue

71. Situated on the northern branch of the Mangaohoi Stream, Puahue is east of Kihikihi

and west of Whānake Maunga; the 1864 battle site of Ōrākau is equidistant between

Puahue and Kihikihi and slightly to the south of both. Puahue lies about halfway

between Kihikihi and the western slopes of Maungatautari. Although Hōri Wirihana

identified Hurumutu as the earliest residence of Ngāti Kauwhata in the district,

Roberton’s sources suggested that they first settled at Puahue (see above, paragraph

19).77

Mangakopara, Tarua, Para Kotukutuku are localities identified by Native Land

Court witnesses on the Puahue block.78

Tarua was associated with the Ngāti Tahuri

tūpuna Te Rama Apakura and Kinomoerua.

2.2.4 Rangiaōwhia

72. Rangiaōwhia lies immediately north-east of Kihikihi, about 18 kilometres due west of

the summit of Maungatautari. It marks the eastern extent of Ngāti Kauwhata’s

traditional rohe, where it intersects with that of Ngāti Apakura. One of the earliest

recorded inter-tribal disputes involving Ngāti Kauwhata occurred when the latter tried

to claim an eel weir named Whauriki-rauponga, built by Ngāti Apakura at the twin

lakes near Ōhaupō (see below, section 3.2.1).79

Elsewhere, Roberton states that Ngāti

Kauwhata’s territory lay to the east of the Moanatuatua Swamp, at Roto-o-rangi and

Mangapiko (whereas the Ōhaupō lakes were situated on the western side of the

swamp).80

73. Rangiaōwhia was the site of a brutal battle in the Waikato Campaign of the New

Zealand Land Wars (described below), and the locality was subsequently included


255.

78 Evidence of Tumuhia and Maraea Epiha to the Maungatautari re-hearing, Waikato MB 12, pp. 156, 158.


Awamutu Historical Society, No. 1, June 1975, p. 44. (Ngāti Apakura Doc. Bank, p. 120).


Awamutu Historical Society, No. 1, June 1975, p. 47, endnote 32. (Ngāti Apakura Doc. Bank, p. 123).


March 2013

48

within the lands proclaimed under the New Zealand Settlements Act and therefore

subject to confiscation. The Puahue title investigation by the Native Land Court was

the closest piece of land to Rangiaōwhia where tribal rights were investigated.

Following the killing of farm worker Timothy Sullivan in April 1873, Crown official

James Mackay was sent to investigate the circumstances, producing a report for the

Native Minister, which rehearsed the Crown’s view of tribal rights in the district based

on the findings of previous Native Land Court cases. These issues are discussed in

greater detail in chapter 9.3, below.

2.2.5 Wharepūhunga

74. Ngāti Kauwhata also had rights in the Wharepūhunga block, which were recognised

by the Native Land Court by the inclusion of Ngāti Kauwhata tūpuna in the lists of

owners for the certificate of title. According to the river boundaries of Ngāti Kauwhata

quoted above, their particular interests included the area north of the Puniu River

(around the Ōwairaka Valley and Wharepapa South). Given the predominance of

Raukawa interests in Wharepūhunga, it is reasonable to assume that Ngāti Kauwhata

rights at Wharepūhunga were shared with Raukawa (or hapū of Raukawa, such as

Ngāti Takihiku and Ngāti Whakatere). The Wharepūhunga title investigation is

discussed in section 11.3.2, below.

2.3 Waikato Rohe – conclusions

75. The ancestral heartland of Ngāti Kauwhata lies within the triangle on the western side

of Maungatautari defined by the localities of Rangiaōwhia, Pukekura and Puahue, and

the river courses described above. This was the rohe associated with the tūpuna

Kauwhata, as stated by numerous witnesses before the Native Land Court and Ngāti

Kauwhata Commission. The Ngāti Kauwhata rohe was part of a mosaic of tūpuna

whenua associations within the Waikato Valley recognised by all of Waikato. It was

repeatedly emphasised in the Native Land Court that the inter-tribal warfare that

bedevilled this region for about a century, between the mid-1700s and c.1835, was not


March 2013

49

about land, and did not generally result in permanent changes in land occupation

patterns (with the possible exception of Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Koata’s expulsion from

Kāwhia).

76. Ngāti Kauwhata and its constituent hapū have always maintained that they never

relinquished their rights to their Maungatautari lands, either as a result of earlier inter-

tribal warfare with their Tainui kin, or through being driven away by the refugees from

Hauraki in the 1820s. Following the migration south to Kapiti, Ngāti Kauwhata

retained a resident population in occupation at Maungatautari, who contributed fifty

warriors to support Ngāti Hauā at the battle of Taumatawīwī. Meanwhile, the southern

migrants made regular return trips to keep their fires at Maungatautari burning. Ngāti

Kauwhata asserted their rights to their ancestral lands at Maungatautari before the

Royal Commission set up in 1881, and again at the Maungatautari re-investigation

before the Native Land Court in 1884.

77. The report examines these issues at length in below. Before doing so, chapter 3 briefly

rehearses aspects of tikanga Maori that influenced how tribal rights were maintained in

the area, such as utu and whanaungatanga, while chapters 4 and 5 provide an account

of the inter-tribal warfare in which Ngāti Kauwhata were either directly, or indirectly

involved, and which eventually led to the greater part of the iwi migrating to the

Horowhenua and Manawatū districts to join their kinsman, Te Rauparaha.


March 2013

50

3 Whanaungatanga and utu: Relations with

neighbouring hapū and iwi

3.1 Utu

78. The whanaungatanga Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi share with other

Waikato iwi is amply demonstrated in the various whakapapa charts that support the

traditions rehearsed in chapters 1, 4 and 5 of the report. Indeed, it is self-evident that

marriage alliances were crucial to building political alliances within Māori society, as

well as a common means of resolving conflicts. Inasmuch as inter-tribal conflict was

the counterpoint to whanaungatanga, neither can be understood without considering

the other. The following discussion examines the nature of Māori conflict and its

resolution in order to provide context to a discussion of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Wehi Wehi’s relationships with neighbouring iwi in the Waikato in the early

nineteenth century.

79. Apart from insults, the killing of chiefs and the abduction of women, conflicts

between close kin could also occur over access to resources (such as the dispute with

Ngāti Apakura over an eel-weir at Ōhaupō described in chapter 4, below). All too

often such disputes escalated when chiefs were killed in the ensuing fighting, leading

to further fighting and the killing of other chiefly persons. Once the cycle of violence

began, it was difficult to stop. As Angela Ballara observes:

[When] people were killed in such confrontations … the cultural mores of the

society required that the deaths of people of chiefly rank be paid for in kind if

the group to which they belonged was to retain its integrity and independence.

Utu was obligatory, not optional. Despite techniques used by chiefs to

moderate warfare so that peace agreements could be made, deaths of chiefly

persons required the shedding of chiefly blood.81

80. But utu was not just about retribution and revenge. In her analysis of Sir Raymond

Firth’s Economics of the New Zealand Maori, anthropologist Dame Joan Metge

endorses Firth’s argument that utu is a general principle of Māori exchange, whether

81 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 205.


March 2013

51

for good, or ill, that has “even wider significance, ‘permeating’ the whole of Maori life

and constituting ‘one of the most fundamental drives to action’ in Maori society.”82

81. Metge notes that two ‘obvious’ insights emerge from Firth’s text. Firstly, although

gift exchanges may pass from one individual to another, “in most cases each was

acting as a representative of his or her group, an iwi or hapū”; and secondly, such

exchanges do not occur in isolation, “but were typically part of a sequence of

exchanges extending over many years, exchanges which might be friendly or hostile or

change from friendship to hostility and back again.”83

Such long term sequences are

evident in the narrative traditions described below, with numerous cases of peace-

making marriages ending periods of inter-hapū warfare. Such marriages, which were

often the culmination of the utu cycle, reinforced existing whanaungatanga and

strengthened bonds between Waikato iwi, including Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi

Wehi, although they did not preclude their involvement in fresh outbreaks of warfare.

82. Another characteristic of cycles of utu, whether friendly or hostile, is that protagonists

were rarely satisfied with gaining equivalence; rather, they sought to reciprocate in

excess of what they received. Metge also draws attention to situations where utu was

delayed, which, together with returning with interest, contributed to the dynamism of

Māori society. She writes:

In my experience and in the examples cited by Firth, the delay in making the

return and the obligation to give more than an equivalent produce a continuing

state of im-balance in relations between the individuals or groups concerned, a

see-sawing of obligation and hence of mana from one to the other which lasts

for many years and many generations. This imbalance keeps the relationship

going, and is maintained in order to keep the relationship going. Whether in

the past or the present, giving too close an equivalent in return, intentionally or

unintentionally, brings exchange to a halt, even more surely than not making a

return at all.84

83. Delays in achieving utu might be of relatively short duration if the original culprit

and/or his people were despatched soon afterwards; or could take years to bring to

82 Metge, Joan, “Returning the Gift—Utu in Intergroup Relations”, JPS, Vol. 111, No. 4, December 2002, p.

315; citing: Firth 1959, p. 413. Firth first published Primitive Economics of the New Zealand Maori in 1929

(London, Routledge); it was reissued in a second edition in 1959 as Economics of the New Zealand Maori,

(Wellington, Government Printer).

83 Metge, Joan, “Returning the Gift—Utu in Intergroup Relations”, JPS, 2002, p. 315.



March 2013

52

fruition, and even then the attempt might fail (as was the case when Pikauterangi took

three years to bring together his enormous army with which to attack Ngāti Maniapoto

and their Waikato allies, only to be defeated at Ngāroto in the Battle of Hingakākā –

see below). Another important point we can take from Metge’s article is that the wider

view of utu as encompassing all forms of gift exchange within Māori society provides

insights into how kin groups differentiated themselves from each other. Metge writes

that: “…as well as forging and reinforcing bonds between social groups, gift exchange

also marked and reinforced their existence as separate entities, and was—and is—

deliberately used for that purpose.”85

3.2 Whanaungatanga

84. As discussed further in section 3.2.1, below, Angela Ballara makes the case that

strictly according to tikanga, Ngāti Kauwhata cannot be seen as a hapū of Ngāti

Raukawa, because there is no direct line of descent between the two eponymous

ancestors. When an individual belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata married someone

belonging to a hapū of Raukawa, their descendants became members of both.

However, land rights accruing from such marriages generally derived from the original

take tūpuna. Clearly, such intermarriage was a recurring feature of the political

landscape, and these ‘rules’ or protocols applied with respect to Ngāti Kauwhata’s

relationships with each of their neighbours. Therefore, the descendants of the marriage

of Pare Paoro of Ngāti Kauwhata to Pūrangataua of Ngāti Hauā held land rights at

Pukekura by virtue of their descent from Pare Paoro, not Pūrangataua (see section

3.2.2, below).

85. It is noted below that the marriage of Haetapunui to Parekārewa forged an enduring

political alliance between Raukawa and Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi. In fact, Hae’s mother,

Hinetore, was the daughter of Kauwhata’s eldest daughter, Hinepare.86

Thus, Hae

belonged to the Ngāti Hinepare hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata as well as to Ngāti Raukawa,

while his son, Ngatokowaru, belonged to Ngāti Hinepare and Ngāti Wehi Wehi of

Ngāti Kauwhata, and various Raukawa hapū. Descendants of Ngatokowaru included


86 See Figure 5, above, p. 35.


March 2013

53

important rangatira such as Wahineiti and his brother Hape, who were leaders of and

represented both Kauwhata and Raukawa lineages. Thus, when Hape was grievously

insulted by the waiata of his cousin Peehi Tūkōrehu, Ngāti Kauwhata mobilised with

Raukawa to obtain utu for their rangatira – ‘utu was obligatory, not optional’.

86. However, although the descent lines of Kauwhata and Raukawa converged in the

person of Hape, it did not mean that Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Hinepare and Ngāti Wehi

Wehi were somehow absorbed or subsumed by Ngāti Raukawa simply because of the

dual affiliations of a particular chief. Other marriage alliances contracted with other

iwi, such as the peace-making marriage that resolved the conflict with Ngāti Apakura

over the Ōhaupō eel-weir, forged bonds in other directions, so that the descendants of

such marriages, who affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Ngāti

Apakura, might later find themselves at odds with descendants of the Kauwhata-

Raukawa alliance over some unrelated take.

87. Thus, as relations between the Ngāti Maniapoto/Waikato alliance on the one side and

the Ngāti Toa/Raukawa/Ngāti Kauwhata alliance on the other deteriorated in the

decades either side of 1800, Te Paeahi and his grandson Tūkōrehu, who affiliated to

Ngāti Kauwhata through Urumakawe, took the side of their Ngāti Apakura and Ngāti

Maniapoto kin. Tūkōrehu underlined his change of allegiance following the killing of

his grandmother by naming his new hapū after her, Ngāti Paretekāwā, and built

Mangatoatoa Pā to obstruct his enemies’ freedom of movement between

Maungatautari and Kāwhia.

88. Military alliances usually relied on whanaungatanga, which was also the political

means by which different descent groups gained access to resources across a given

area in the semi-mobile mode of production that Māori customarily employed. Writing

on the Manukau/Tāmaki/Waitematā region in the twenty years prior to the signing of

the Treaty of Waitangi, Agnes Sullivan cites various Māori authorities who refer to an

‘ideal pattern of peacetime occupation’, which they describe as ‘whenua rangatira’ that

applied to Tāmaki Makaurau and the lands surrounding the Manukau and Waitematā

Harbours and the Hauraki Gulf.87

Under this type of occupation, pā were not the

87 Sullivan, Agnes, “Maaori Gardening in Taamaki before 1840: Part I, Traditional, Ethnographic and other

Historical Documentary Sources” (unpublished and uncorrected Draft), n.d. pp. 73 & 74; citing: Nāhe, Hoāni,

1960, “Account of the Emigration of the Maoris from Hawaiki: also, History of the Paoa.” Auckland Public

Libraries, NZMS 713, p. 65; and: Tūhaere, Pāora, Testimony in Monro, H.A.H., “Judge Monro’s Notes of


March 2013

54

primary residence sites, being only utilised in times of war. Rather, the people moved

about the wider rohe between camps, guided by the seasonal availability of resources

in concert with other hapū and iwi.88

89. Thus, settlements were permanent not because people never left them, but because

they habitually returned to them.89

Settlements were associated with customary

patterns of use in accordance with regular routines; they were visited regularly,

generally annually, but sometimes more often. Authority derived from recognised and

practically implemented manawhenua held by particular hapū, personified by

prominent rangatira, or from tried and tested political relationships, generally

articulated through whanaungatanga that allowed neighbouring hapū and iwi to share

in the abundant resources of the wider region. An example in the Waikato region was

the Marokopa kahawai fishery that all Waikato attended annually, apparently

irrespective of prevailing antagonisms. It is suggested that alternating between Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Apakura as hosts of the Marokopa feasts may have been a way of

diffusing political tensions.

90. Sullivan notes that the Native Land Court witnesses who spoke of the whenua

rangatira occupation mode were referring of a period some forty to fifty years in the

past, which may have caused a degree of nostalgia to creep in to their accounts. The

period prior to the Ngāpuhi incursions that began in 1821 was by no means completely

peaceful, so that the whenua rangatira occupation model probably represents an

idealisation and partial distortion of actual conditions. However, she argues, whenua

rangatira provided an ideal to be aspired to, as a means of facilitating inter-iwi and

hapū co-existence and thus the necessary preconditions for the healthy functioning of

the regional economy.90

Native Land Court Cases”, 1866, Folder 1, Auckland, Ōrākei, pp. 70-84, AML, MS; and: Te Kawau, Āpihai,

Testimony in Monro, H.A.H., “Notes of Native Land Court Cases”, 1866, Ōrākei, pp. 84-95, AML, MS.

88 Sullivan, Agnes, “Maaori Gardening in Taamaki before 1840” n.d., p. 73. Sullivan states: “Absence of

fortifications and open use of land and sea territory were distinguishing features of a whenua rangatira. Fortified

enclosures (paa) had a constricting effect on ordinary occupation. When asked if there had been a fortified paa at

Oraakei around 1820, a witness in the Oraakei case replied that on the contrary it had been an ordinary

(peacetime) occupation of whenua rangatira type (“He noho noa iho, he whenua rangatira”); citing: Tangiteruru,

M., Testimony in Monro, H.A.H., “Notes of Native Land Court Cases”, 1866, Ōrākei, pp. 56-58, AML, MS.

89 Evidence of Wiremu, Reweti, Te Horo investigation, Kaipara MB 2, pp. 176-177.

90 Sullivan, Agnes, “Maaori Gardening in Taamaki before 1840” n.d., p. 74.


March 2013

55

91. Integral to the whenua rangatira occupation mode is the notion that various locations

were associated with particular tūpuna, whose descendants occupied the land/exercised

rangatiratanga in that place under that ancestral authority. With the proliferation of

hapū that had arisen by 1800 (Raukawa alone totalled 90 hapū, according to Ballara),

the landscape was a mosaic of intersecting occupation rights, each allocated to

particular hapū, or clusters of hapū.91

A chiefly individual such as Peehi Tūkōrehu,

who affiliated to numerous major Waikato descent lines, could travel around the

district assuming different hapū/iwi affiliations depending on where he was.

92. Notwithstanding the lengthy period of warfare that had afflicted the Waikato Valley,

in the early nineteenth century Ngāti Kauwhata retained rangatiratanga over the lands

west of Maungatautari. Although population pressures and competition for resources

may have been causative factors in the warfare, the acquisition of territory was not an

aim in itself; rather, as noted above, the disputes were motivated by the pressing need

to obtain utu for past transgressions. When raiding parties came into Kauwhata

territory, they did not seek to occupy the land, irrespective of the outcome of the

battles.

3.2.1 Whanaungatanga of Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa

93. The question of Ngāti Kauwhata’s (and Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s) relationship with

Raukawa (or Ngāti Raukawa) recurs again and again, and should be considered here.

Distinguished ethno-historian Dr Angela Ballara considers the matter in some detail in

her 1998 publication Iwi. After briefly rehearsing the genealogies outlined above, she

writes:

As the genealogy shows, Kauwhata himself was not descended from Raukawa;

they did have a common Tainui ancestor in Tāwhao, the grandfather of

Raukawa and great-grandfather of Kauwhata, but came from the separate lines

of the half-brothers Tūrongo and Whatihua. But one remote common ancestor

could not make the descendants of Kauwhata members of Ngāti Raukawa.

That was only possible if Raukawa was the ancestor of Kauwhata by a direct

91 Ballara, A., Taua, p. 240.


March 2013

56

line of descent…The primary criterion for membership of any Māori iwi or

hapū was and is the direct descent from the founding ancestor.92

94. Ballara adds that “[n]either marriage nor residence were in any way substitutes for

descent… and that “Only the descendants of marriages became members of the hapū

in question.”93

She continues:

By this criterion Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata were separate peoples.

Their separate descent lines and separate but equal status are important to the

subsequent history of the latter. By the 18th century Ngāti Kauwhata and its

several ramified hapū, including Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Tahuri, Ngāti

Wehiwehi, Ngāti Werokoukou and Ngāti Ruru, lived in the Maungatautari

district at … Pukekura, Rangiaohia, Puahoe and others.94

95. Ballara notes the extensive intermarriage with neighbouring iwi, including Ngāti

Raukawa, Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Apakura. She observes: “By the 18th

century many of the ‘Ngāti Kauwhata’ hapū were as equally descended from Korokī or

his son Hauā or other Waikato ancestors as they were from Kauwhata, or as much

from Raukawa and his early descendants as they were from Kauwhata.”95

96. She then quotes evidence presented to the Ngāti Kauwhata Claims Commission by the

Raukawa rangatira Hītiri Te Paerata in support of the contention that: “The various

hapū were so intermixed that their early origins were becoming irrelevant to their

present circumstances or were beginning to blur into a wider category, Tainui.”96

However, whereas Te Paerata stated that Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata were

virtually one people, united by their common Tainui heritage, his statement was

challenged by A. McDonald, the agent for Ngāti Kauwhata at the hearings. He asked

whether Tainui had not divided into separate tribes, to which Te Paerata responded

that they had indeed divided into “Waikato, Ngatiraukawa and Ngatimaniapoto”.

Ballara comments:

92 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, pp. 146-148.

93 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, pp. 147-148. Emphasis in the original. Ballara cites an excerpt from a publication by

Māori anthropologist Mākareti Papakura in support of her argument. See: Papakura, The Old Time Maori, p. 42.

94 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, p. 148.

95 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, p. 148.

96 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, p. 148.


March 2013

57

Clearly he [Te Paerata] was describing the widest possible category of people

rather than a specific corporate group called either Ngāti Raukawa or Ngāti

Kauwhata. Most of the other Māori witnesses, whether for Raukawa or for the

Crown, insisted that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa were separate

peoples.

In spite of intermarriage with Ngāti Hauā and other peoples, throughout the

18th century there remained a Ngāti Kauwhata ‘tūturu’, defined by location (at

Puahoe, Pukekura and Rangiaohia) and by relatively pure descent from

Kauwhata. According to a Ngāti Kauwhata chief, Tapa Te Whata, they were a

great people which could muster 800 to 1000 fighting men.97

97. Ballara’s interpretation of tikanga, which defines Ngāti Kauwhata as separate from

Raukawa, is generally supported by the traditional histories of the two iwi, as outlined

in subsequent chapters of this report. However, it is equally clear that intermarriage

involving certain chiefly descendants of Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi and those of

Raukawa resulted in the descendants of such marriages being affiliated to both iwi.

Marriages such as that of Haetapunui (also known as Haehaeora) to Parekārewa forged

enduring political alliances between Raukawa and Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi; descendants

of this marriage included the warrior chiefs Wahineiti and his brother Hape-ki-

tūārangi, who were leaders of and represented both lineages. Thus, when Hape was

grievously insulted by the waiata composed by his cousin Peehi Tūkōrehu, Raukawa

and Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi mobilised to obtain utu for their rangatira.

98. The whanaungatanga between Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi continues to

be widely recognised today. As already noted, it is acknowledged in the tupuna whare

at Ngatokowaru Marae, Levin. Ngatokowaru was the son of Wehi Wehi’s

granddaughter, Parekārewa, the relationship expressed by a carving of the tupuna

Wehi Wehi within the tupuna whare. But, whanaungatanga does not necessarily imply

that one group is hapū or iwi to the other.

99. Ballara’s point that identity is defined by location sheds light on this debate. She

intimates that within the territory defined by Rangiaōwhia, Pukekura and Puahue,

Ngāti Kauwhata tūturu exercised customary rights as Ngāti Kauwhata, not as

Raukawa, or anyone else. This is because those lands were specifically associated with

Kauwhata, the tupuna, and had been for many generations. Ballara qualifies her

statement by giving a timeframe of “throughout the 18th century”, but she is referring

97 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, pp. 148-149.


March 2013

58

to arguments made on these grounds before the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission in 1881,

which suggests that those making them still considered them relevant.

100. However, when hapū and iwi changed their location, as occurred following the

southern migrations, the potential existed for the relationship to be modified, or

reinterpreted. Thus, it is conceivable that when Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi joined

Raukawa on the journey south from the Waikato seeking new lands during the musket

wars period, they may have been perceived as part of Raukawa by the people they

encountered, and subsequently described as such to inquiring Pākehā missionaries or

traders, or to Crown officials.

101. This sort of disruption to long-established social mores was not uncommon

during the turbulent years of the early-to-mid nineteenth century. Elsewhere in Iwi,

Ballara refers to ‘disappearing hapū’ and explains the phenomenon by referring to the

shrinking land base in the late nineteenth century; to the declining Māori population

that coincided with the erosion of the land base; and to the pressure from Government

agencies for Māori to nominate a single tribal identity for official purposes.98

However, Ballara also makes the point that whereas hapū coalesced into larger

corporate groups (iwi), in order to successfully engage in and manage the great

population movements of the musket wars period; they were equally adept at

reclaiming their autonomy as hapū when the broader incorporation was no longer

necessary.

102. Nevertheless, once formed, such associations are liable to stick. For instance,

the well-known authority on Waikato traditions and whakapapa, Pei Te Hurinui Jones,

has described Ngāti Kauwhata as a ‘sub-tribe of Ngāti Raukawa’.99

This was also a

view put forward by some witnesses in the Land Court, as Nigel Te Hiko notes in his

“Raukawa Traditional History report”. Writing about the first wave of Raukawa

migrations to the Kapiti district, Te Hiko states:

What is of interest in these … accounts is the association of chiefs of Ngāti

Kauwhata amongst what is generally termed as a ‘Raukawa migration’ as

Tupotahi it appears seemed to consider Ngāti Kauwhata to be of Raukawa.

Other evidence provided by members of Ngāti Kauwhata within the native

98 Ballara, A., Iwi, 1998, pp. 250ff.

99 Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, “He Maemae Mō Wahine-iti: A Death Chant for Wahine-iti,” Te Ao Hou, No. 55, June

1966, p. 19.


March 2013

59

land courts to support the claim of Tupotahi are Renau Te Wharepakaru and

Mere Kauwhata. They both state: “I belong to Ngāti Kauwhata a hapū of

Raukawa”. Renau Te Wharepakaru also uses the terminology ‘apa’ of

Raukawa, or part of the fold of Raukawa. Te Mahunga for instance is the son

of Wahineiti (who was the leading chief of both Raukawa and Kauwhata at

Maungatautari already discussed above).100

103. The view that Ngāti Kauwhata (and the various hapū that spring from

Kauwhata) is a hapū of Raukawa continues to have currency today. However,

notwithstanding Jones’s undoubted expertise and the quoted testimony of Renau Te

Wharepakaru and Mere Kauwhata, this report seeks to highlight the claims

consistently made by Ngāti Kauwhata tūpuna to their lands at Maungatautari under the

auspices of their affiliation to Kauwhata. In their evidence to various Pākehā

institutions, successive Ngāti Kauwhata leaders have emphasised that Kauwhata was

not subordinate to Raukawa, nor linked to him directly, except by inter-marriage

between their descendants. Moreover, their rights to the lands at Maungatautari do not

derive from Raukawa, who never lived there, but from Kauwhata, who was among the

first of the Tainui rangatira to establish himself in the district. The rights he

established, it is argued, were never extinguished by raupatu, or any other legitimate

means, until the Pākehā courts decided otherwise.

3.2.2 Whanaungatanga of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Hauā

104. The whanaungatanga Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi share with their

neighbours to the north and north-east, Ngāti Hauā is also relevant to their claims to

Maungatautari, particularly because loyalist members of Ngāti Hauā were awarded

title to the Maungatautari lands by the Native Land Court. In the 1884 re-hearing of

Maungatautari (a.k.a. the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga investigation), the daughter of

Wīremu Tamihana Tarapipipi, Harete Tamihana was cross-examined by Hōri

Wirihana. Wirihana represented Ngāti Kauwhata claimants, while Harete spoke on

100 Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History”, 2010, p. 148; citing: evidence of Renau Te Wharepakaru &

Mere Kauwhata, Pukehou investigation, 1881, Ōtaki MB 5, pp. 217-218. NB: Quotation marks added by this

author to the sentence: “I belong to Ngāti Kauwhata, a hapū of Raukawa.”.


March 2013

60

behalf of Ngāti Hauā.101

Figure 10 is based on a whakapapa Harete Tamihana

produced in response to Wirihana’s inquiries.

Figure 10: Whakapapa of Te Waharoa & Wī Tamihana Tarapipipi

Kauwhata = Moarikura (Te Uranga) Tukorehe

Ihuwera = Hinemapuhia

Hinepare Wehi Wehi Rauiti

Te Whatumoana Tūtete Korokī

Tupu-ki-te-rangi Ngāko Hauā = Tamangārangi

Puke Hikairo Parehīwae = Kāhoki

Kahureina = Te Paoro Te Oro = Mataroa

Pare Paoro = Pūrangataua

= Te Peina Tangimoana = Te Ohinga

Pohepohe = Parewaho Te Waharoa = Rangiwiwini

Wikitoria = Tamihana

Harete Tamihana102

105. Other evidence produced at the Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari)

hearing indicates that Pukekura was given as Pare Paoro’s dowry, on her marrying


12, p. 386. When cross examined by Hōri Wirihana she stated: “After living at Tauranga for three years, we

lived at Peria (Matamata), at Te Pae o Turuwaru. I was married there to Hamiora Kiriheke, long before the

Taranaki Wars. Haua the Ancestor had no land of his own. Te Wiwini used to visit his relations at Te Tautiti (in

the woods) near Nga Hokowhitu – Nga Hokowhitu is a fern patch in the forest.”

102 The above whakapapa (Figure 10) has been compiled from two whakapapa provided to the author by Mr

Don Tait, Pers. Comm. by email, 28 November 2012. NB: The name of Te Paoro’s wife, Kahureina, is also

spelt ‘Kahu reinga’.


March 2013

61

Pūrangataua.103

No reason is provided for the giving of the dowry, but it may be

speculated that this marriage, two generations after Korokī, restored relations between

the descendants of Kauwhata and Tukorehe after Korokī’s adultery with the wife of

Taowhakāiro and the killing of the latter in battle after he objected to this treatment by

cursing Korokī (discussed in section 4.2.2, below). It is evident that Ngāti Kauwhata

did not relinquish their rights to Pukekura by this marriage; rather, it brought the

descendants of Pūrangataua and Pare Paoro into these lands as Kauwhata and

strengthened the ties between Ngāti Kauwhata and the chiefly line of Ngāti Hauā. The

Ngāti Hauā witnesses at the first Native Land Court inquiry into Pukekura in 1868 set

up Kauwhata as their ancestral right to the land (see below, section 8.2.2). In reference

to the whakapapa shown in Figure 10, above, Don Tait states: “Pohepohe had the

mana [at Pukekura] as a Ngati Hinepare, as we know Te Waharoa was bought up by

his mother’s people, but Pohepohe was bought up in and around Pukekura.”104

106. In response to questioning by Wirihana at the 1884 Maungatautari hearing,

Harete admitted that Te Waharoa’s rangatiratanga at Rangiaōwhia derived from his

descent from Kauwhata; it was this that allowed him to gift Rangiaōwhia to Ngāti

Apakura following the battle of Kaipaka when the high-ranking woman Rangianewa

was killed by Ngāti Hauā.105

The battle of Kaipaka is discussed below (section 6.3.3).

107. The traditions suggest that in the warfare that plagued Tainui-affiliated hapū

and iwi in the Waikato in the decades either side of 1800, Ngāti Hauā tended to side

with Ngāti Maniapoto and Waikato, while Ngāti Kauwhata tended to side with

Raukawa and Ngāti Toa. However, the whanaungatanga highlighted above suggests

that hapū affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Hauā could co-exist in close

proximity to one another. As already noted, a hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata lived at Hui-te-

Rangiora Pā on the Pukekura block in about 1820, together with three hapū of Ngāti

Hauā: Ngāti Te Ao, Ngāti Werewere, and Ngāti Pare. In considering this relationship

while discussing the question of the sustainability of hapū and iwi over time, Angela


12, p. 393.

104 Don Tait, Pers. Comm. by email, 28 November 2012.

105 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari), April-

May 1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 386. Harete is recorded as stating: “I admit that it was through his ancestral claim

that Te Waharoa divided a piece of land (Rangiaohia) for Ng’ Apakura; it was through his descent from

Kauwhata, also from Pare Paoro.


March 2013

62

Ballara argues that despite the inevitable inter-marriage that occurred in such

situations, mechanisms such as gender-related definition of hapū membership ensured

that the distinct identities of each hapū were retained.106

This was brought home when,

over the next decade, the community at Hui-te-Rangiora broke up, with those

primarily affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata migrating south to join Te Rauparaha at Kapiti.

108. In due course, Ngāti Hauā’s commitment to the Waikato-Maniapoto alliance

was tested when they fell out with Ngāti Apakura. Meanwhile, the hapū of Ngāti

Kauwhata that remained at Maungatautari at the end of the 1820s joined Ngāti Hauā as

allies to drive Marutuāhu out of the district, fighting alongside Ngāti Hauā at the battle

of Taumatawīwī. These issues are discussed in greater detail in later chapters of the

report.

106 Ballara, Angela, Iwi, Wellington, VUP, 1998, p. 152. Dr Ballara quotes the evidence of Ngāti Hauā and

Raukawa witnesses to argue that Ngāti Kauwhata declined as a sharply defined iwi after the battle of Hingakākā

and other political vicissitudes of the early nineteenth century. On the other hand, the impartiality of those

witnesses must be open to question, given the tensions between ancestral claims and claims based on conquest,

with the Court favouring the latter. Aspects of these issues are discussed further in section 4.5.6, below.


March 2013

63

4 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi mana whenua in

the Waikato District

4.1 Introduction

109. Sometime in the early 1500s, the Tainui people moved out from Kāwhia to

colonise the greater Waikato Valley; new colonies were set up at various locations that

eventually took on their own identities distinct from the rest of their Tainui kin.

Gradually, population pressures and competition for resources, combined with such

issues as rivalry over and abduction of women and the killing and capture of chiefly

persons, led to an escalation of violent conflict between these closely related Tainui

kin groups. This chapter describes the evolution, maintenance and defence of Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi mana whenua in Te Rohe Pōtae/Waikato districts

over the course of the two-to-three centuries prior to 1840. It includes brief accounts of

the various conflicts that culminated in the great battle of Hingakākā, and other battles

of the early nineteenth century.

110. Writing about the early period, Roberton discusses the formation of Tainui

colonies, which proliferated through the conquest of non-Tainui groups to establish

other sub-colonies farther afield. The descendants of Tūrongo and his son Raukawa,

originally established at Rangiātea near Ōtorohanga, expanded southwards where they

encountered the Ngāti Kahupungapunga people, who were themselves moving north to

escape conflict with Tūwharetoa near Taupō in the mid-1500s. Attempts at peaceful

integration through chiefly intermarriage failed when Korokore, the sister of Whāita

was killed by her Ngāti Kahupungapunga husband. A war party raised by Whāita and

his cousins, Tamatehura, Wairangi, Upokoiti and Pipito, attacked the Ngāti

Kahupungapunga to avenge their tuahine’s murder, winning a series of battles that

resulted in the destruction of the Ngāti Kahupungapunga and the occupation of their

former territories by the descendants of Raukawa.107

107 Kelly, L. G., Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 133-136. The various authorities agree that it was following the defeat

of Ngāti Kahupungapunga that Ngāti Raukawa emerged as an iwi in its own right. Whāita, whose heroic deeds

sealed the Tainui victory, was a rangatira of Raukawa and the eponymous ancestor of the Ngāti Whāita hapū.


March 2013

64

111. Roberton describes the distribution of Tainui-affiliated iwi in the late 1600s

and early 1700s, thus:

In the Te Awamutu district at the end of the 16th

century we have at the

southern part the descendants of Raukawa who conquered Ngati

Kahupungapunga; at Tokanui and Korakonui the descendants of Whakatere; at

Kihikihi and Te Mawhai the descendants of Whaita, represented by his son,

Ngutu; and at Maungatautari descendants of Takihiku. On the eastern and

southern slopes of Pirongia, and extending across the flat to the Waipa River at

Kopua, were Ngati Paiariki and Ngati Horotakere, both descended from

various elements of Tainui people and perhaps other elements. At Ngaroto and

Paterangi, and ranging as far as Ohaupo and the Rukuhia and Cambridge

swamps, were descendants of Whatihua and Apakura. On the western and

northern slopes of Maungatautari were the descendants of Uenukuwhangai,

later known as Ngati Kauwhata, who, from the time they arrived, clashed with

the descendants of Apakura over eel fishing in the swamps lying between them

[see section 4.2.1, below]. At this time, all these people probably regarded

themselves as merely family groups of the Tainui people.108

112. During the eighteenth century, these Tainui hapū groups went through a

process of integration, through intermarriage and the identification of common

interests. Increasingly, the latter involved attempts to forcibly acquire resources held

by neighbouring (and often closely related) iwi. Roberton states:

Ngati-Raukawa in the upper Waikato valley above Maungatautari, with whom

Ngati-Kauwhata became more and more closely associated, coveted the fertile

lands of the middle and lower Waikato, and made a number of incursions.

They were resisted by the people living there – the descendants of Koroki,

Ngati-Tama-inupo, the Ngati Koura group, Ngati-Mahuta, and, further north,

Ngaiwi of Tamaki.109

113. As the traditions related in this and later chapters demonstrate, Ngāti

Kauwhata’s close association with Raukawa was based on alliances made between

Ngāti Kauwhata and various hapū of Raukawa, particularly Ngāti Whakatere and

Ngāti Takihiku, their close neighbours on the western side of Maungatautari. Where

Ngāti Kauwhata appear in the traditional accounts, they do so as actors in their own

right, and not under any over-arching Raukawa iwi identity.




March 2013

65

4.2 Conflicts involving Ngāti Kauwhata, c.1600-1790

4.2.1 Dispute over an eel weir at Ōhaupō

114. The traditional accounts do not record any outbreaks of serious conflict

between the various Tainui-affiliated groups in the years immediately following the

exodus from Kāwhia. On the other hand, the fraternal rivalry evident in previous

generations (such as that between Tūrongo and Whatihua) was also a feature of

Kauwhata’s relationship with his younger brother, Tukorehe. It has been noted that

Wehi Wehi acted as a peacemaker, diffusing tensions between his father and his uncle,

forming a close bond with the latter in the process. However, two generations after

Wehi Wehi, in the time of his grandsons, Taowhakāiro and Tikitiki, disputes erupted

that are remembered in the traditions, and which had an impact on inter-tribal

boundaries in the wider region around Maungatautari.

115. These events occurred soon after the defeat of the Ngāti Kahupungapunga,

described above, by which time the chief man in the Te Awamutu district was

Whāita’s son, Ngutu.110

Based on his reckoning of the genealogies, Roberton

concludes that Ngutu must have come from a second wife of Whāita, because he

appears to have flourished many years after Huiao, Whāita’s son by his first marriage

to Tapuaereinga.111

Roberton cites the kōrero of Te Huia Raureti, who told him that

Whāita built a pā called Whakapirimata on the Pūniu River, near present-day St

Leger’s Road, Kihikihi.112

116. In due course, Ngutu and Tikitiki of Ngāti Kauwhata arranged a boundary

between their lands. In doing so, “Tikitiki included in his portion some of the Ngāti

Apakura land near the twin lakes close to Ohaupo, where there was an important eel

weir named Whariki-rauponga.” Roberton continues:

110 According to Roberton, these events took place some 200- 250 years prior to the signing of Te Tiriti o

Waitangi, around the end of the sixteenth century.


112 Kelly gives Te Huia Raureti’s descent from the marriage of Whati and Ngungu at: Tainui, Table 18, p. 453.


March 2013

66

When Tikitiki and some of his men went to identify the boundary to Ngutu’s

people, Tikitiki was challenged by the Apakura people at Whariki-rauponga,

and in the resulting skirmish Tikitiki lost a few men. Tikitiki returned home

determined to avenge the loss, and later led a war-party against the Apakura

people at Taurangatahi Pa on Hairini Hill, but in the battle Tikitiki was killed

and his people were repulsed. The names of the Apakura people concerned

were not given. Te Huia’s version is that Tikitiki was killed by Ngutu. This

may mean that the Apakura people had the support of Ngutu in their quarrel.113

117. Disputes between Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Apakura continued for a number

of generations, until peace was made and sealed by the marriage of Urumakawe of

Ngāti Kauwhata to Māui of Ngāti Apakura, as shown in Figure 11.114

Figure 11: Whakapapa of Tikitiki, Urumakawe and Ngutu

Raukawa Uenukuwhāngai Pikirangi

Kurawari Kōtare Tūtengangana

Whāita Kauwhata Tūāwhio

Ngutu Wehi Wehi Tūheretaniwha

Mahuripounamu * Tūtete Hounuku Tamatātai *

Hineihu Parekārewa Ngāko Tikitiki Taikiterangi

Hikamoeawa * Ngatokowaru Tohitohi = Hinetū

Urumakawe ============ Māui

Paretāheke ======================= Te Paeahi 115


114 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, pp. 25-26. NB: For this key ancestor, Ngāko’s

daughter, Urumakawe, Roberton has an alternative spelling of ‘Urumāwake’. However, in the Native Land

Court minutes (in most cases), the name is rendered as Urumakawe. ‘Uru’ is ‘head’ in Te Reo, while ‘makawe’

is ‘hair’; ‘māwake’ is the southeast breeze. By this analysis, Urumakawe makes more sense than Urumāwake,

and the former spelling is adopted throughout this report. NB: In some NLC minutes, her name is spelt

‘Umumakawe’, but this may be a typographical error.

115 The above whakapapa differs in some important respects from whakapapa produced by Roberton in an

earlier article published in the JPS in 1956 (Roberton, “Genealogies as a basis for Māori chronology”, in JPS

Vol. 65, No. 1, 1956, pp. xiii, xv; Charts VII & VIII). In the 1956 article, whakapapa Charts VII and VIII omit

the generations of Tohitohi and Maui in the Apakura line, so that it appears that Urumakawe was espoused by

Māui’s grandfather, Taikiterangi.


March 2013

67

118. The son of this union was Te Paeahi, who became the leading man of Ngāti

Apakura. Te Paeahi was the great-grandfather to both Te Rauangaanga and

Parengaope, the parents of Te Wherowhero, who, as Potatau I, became the first Māori

King. In the above chart, the tūpuna with asterisks next to them were espoused, so that

Tamatātai’s first wife was Ngutu’s daughter, Mahuripounamu, while the latter’s

granddaughter Hikamoeawa was Tamatātai’s second wife.116

Urumakawe’s father

Ngāko was an ancestor of Te Waharoa, the famous fighting chief of Ngāti Hauā. (See

Section 3.2.2, above).

119. Te Paeahi married at least twice; according to Roberton and Kelly, he had a

son, Te Wāwahanga, and two daughters named Ngungu and Pareteuaki.117

Te

Wāwahanga was subsequently killed by Ngāti Kauwhata; the circumstances

concerning his death are not known, but it was one of the take held against Ngāti

Kauwhata in the lead up to the battle of Hingakākā, according to Angela Ballara

(discussed below). Ngungu was the mother of the famous chief Peehi Tūkōrehu (also

discussed below), while Pareteuaki was an ancestor of the Werokoukou hapū of Ngāti

Kauwhata and Waikato. These were some of the people who remained at

Maungatautari after the migration.118

120. The swampy areas forming the common border between Ngāti Apakura

territory and that of Ngāti Kauwhata were much-prized for their eels, and Ngāti

Kauwhata were not the only ones who found themselves at odds with Ngāti Apakura

over access to this valuable food store. Sometime later, two branches of Ngāti Apakura

also fell out over an eel weir that led to a series of battles beginning with a fight on

Lake Ngāroto known as the Battle of the Canoes.119

The eel weir in question was

located in the Mangaotama Stream that feeds into Lake Ngāroto. The fight was

between Ngāti Apakura led by Hikairo, and their close kin Ngāti Puhiawe, with the

latter having the best of the early exchanges. However, reinforced by Ngāti Maniapoto

led by Hikairo’s cousin and brother-in-law Te Kanawa, Ngāti Apakura dealt Ngāti

Puhiawe a crushing defeat at Kawa, forcing them into exile at Kāwhia. Under Te

116 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, pp. 23, 26.

117 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, pp. 23, 26; Kelly, Tainui, p. 454, Table 21.

118 See: evidence of Te Kamaka, Maungatautari re-hearing, 1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 315, 337; and Warena

Te Ahukaramū, Maungatautari re-hearing, 1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 151-152.



March 2013

68

Kanawa’s brother Te Ingoa, Ngāti Maniapoto assumed occupation of the land about

Kakepuku abandoned by Ngāti Puhiawe.

121. Ngāti Puhiawe sought utu by attacking Ngāti Apakura pā from their base at

Kāwhia, initially without success. Later, by means of a ruse, they defeated Ngāti

Apakura at Tūpāpakurua Pā, where Hikairo was killed. Roberton states:

This was the first Hikairo. He would be chief in this area, probably because the

senior branch of the tribe had taken up residence in the eastern part of the

tribal lands about Rangiaowhia, following the marriage between Maui and

Urumawake, which had been arranged to end the hostilities between Ngati

Apakura and Ngati Kauwhata. Maui’s descendants became Ngati Hinetu.120

122. The victory allowed Ngāti Puhiawe to re-occupy the western side of Ngāti

Apakura territory, towards Pirongia, which arrangement was formalised by a peace-

making marriage in the next generation.

123. This tradition demonstrates how boundary disputes between hapū and iwi

were managed, and shows that they were often multi-lateral, with a number of parties

involved. It also indicates that Ngāti Kauwhata’s peace-making with Ngāti Apakura

became part of the geo-political landscape such that their mana whenua at

Rangiaōwhia was recognised by others, as well as by those immediately involved in

the events.

4.2.2 Taowhakāiro and Korokī

124. The dispute that arose between Wehi Wehi’s grandson Taowhakāiro and

Tukorehe’s descendant Korokī barely features in the published sources, but would

appear to be of crucial importance to the narrative traditions of Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti

Wehi Wehi and Ngāti Tukorehe. As indicated in the whakapapa chart depicted in

Figure 3 (above, p. 30), Taowhakāiro was Tikitiki’s cousin, being the son of Maniaihu,

the brother of Hounuku and Tūtete. Thus, the events related in the following narrative

probably occurred about the same time as Tikitiki was engaged with his altercation

with Ngutu. In this case, the bad feeling arose after Korokī was found to be visiting the



March 2013

69

wife of Taowhakāiro in his absence. Taowhakāiro vowed to cook Korokī and eat him,

a serious insult which Korokī could not allow to pass without losing mana.121

125. Seeking allies, Korokī obtained help from Ngāti Tamainupō, with whom he

shared a common Ngāti Awa ancestry.122

Together, they defeated Taowhakāiro, who

was killed near present-day Cambridge. Despite Korokī’s evident victory, Roberton

indicates that it was Ngāti Tukorehe rather than Ngāti Kauwhata that were compelled

to find new lands in the aftermath of the quarrel. He states:

Ngati Tukorehe, having quarrelled with their kinsmen, were under the

necessity of finding new lands. They spread down the Waikato River towards

Hamilton, and for a generation of two were trying to subdue the people living

on the right bank of the Waikato. It is not at all clear who these people were –

they are generally assumed to be tangata whenua. Finally, with the help of

their nephew, Waenganui, Hape and Haua drove Turangatao and his people

across the Waihou River, and took the Matamata country. Th[i]s was the

second occasion on which Tainui people acquired land by conquest of

aliens.123

126. The conquered lands included Te Poi, across the Waihou to the south of

Matamata, which is closely associated with Ngāti Wehi Wehi. As reported in chapter

1, Kauwhata and his brother Tukorehe were often at odds, a perennial conflict that led

Tukorehe to move eastwards to Tīrau and Tapapa. The migration into the Matamata

country reported by Roberton occurred some three generations later, and although

these people probably identified themselves as Ngāti Tukorehe, they would ultimately

become known as Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Hauā.

127. The whakapapa shown in Figure 12 (overleaf) demonstrates the

whanaungatanga between Tukorehe’s descendants and those of Ihingārangi of

Raukawa, as well as Korokī’s close relationship with the descendants of Tamainupō,

who he called on for assistance in his battle with Taowhakāiro.124


122 Tamainupō’s father was Kaiahi of Ngāti Awa, while Korokī’s great-grandmother (i.e. Tukorehe’s wife) was

Ngāparetaihinu, the daughter of Tamapāhore of Ngāti Awa. Roberton, “Māori Settlement of the Waikato

District”, 1983, p. 25; see also: McBurney, P. “Ngāti Mōtai/Ngāti Mahana Manawhenua Report,” 2006, p. 38.


124 The link to Tamainupō shown in Figure 12 is drawn from Kelly’s Tainui, 1949 (Reprint 2002), Table 62, p.

470.


March 2013

70

Figure 12: Whakapapa of Taowhakāiro, Korokī, Hape and Hauā

Kōtare Ihingārangi

Kauwhata Tukorehe Kuri

Wehi Wehi Ihuwera ==== Hinemapuhia

Tamainupō

Maniaihu Rauiti Wairere

Taowhakāiro Korokī ========= Tumataura

Hape Hauā

4.2.3 Pēpepe, Mata-kākaho and Tāhekeāwai

128. As already noted, the tupuna Ngatokowaru was the great-grandson of Wehi

Wehi through his mother, Parekārewa. Moreover, Ngatokowaru’s paternal

grandmother (i.e.: Haetapunui’s mother) was Hinetore, the daughter of Kauwhata’s

eldest daughter, Hinepare.125

Thus, Ngatokowaru was affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata

through both Ngāti Hinepare and Ngāti Wehi Wehi hapū. He was, of course, also

affiliated to Raukawa, through his descent via the senior male line from Tamatehura

and Takihiku. The traditions involving Ngatokowaru, and the later events described in

Section 4.3, below, all took place in the general vicinity of Maungatautari. Although

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi are not explicitly noted as taking part in these

battles, their outcomes had important repercussions for the tribal landscape of the

entire region, setting up take that demanded avenging, which in turn set up further

take. It appears inevitable that Ngāti Kauwhata were drawn into these battles on the

side of their Raukawa whanaunga.

125 NB: Hinetore’s father was Tūwhakarara, the son of Kauwhata’s brother, Tukorehe.


March 2013

71

129. Sometime after the events described above, Ngatokowaru led an attack on

Kakeha of Ngāti Māhanga at his pā near Pēpepe, on the left bank of the Waikato River

opposite Hopuhopu. Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi of Ngāti Mahuta came to the aid of Ngāti

Māhanga, and their combined force defeated Ngatokowaru’s taua, who lost many men

captured and killed.126

Ngatokowaru was among those captured, and as a last request

he asked to be taken to see the old chief Te Putu, the father of Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi.

Concealed in his cloak, Ngatokowaru carried a dagger made from a sting-ray barb. Pei

Te Hurinui Jones states: “Clutching his dagger he stabbed Te Putu in the throat. As the

blood flowed Nga Tokowaru smeared it on himself as he stabbed, shouting at the same

time, ‘The dagger of Nga Tokowaru! It will be renowned! It will be renowned!’ He

was grabbed and killed, but because he was covered with Te Putu’s blood he was not

eaten.”127

Figure 13: Whakapapa of Ngatokowaru, Tāwhia and Te Ata-i-rangi-kāhu

Raukawa

Rereahu Takihiku Kauwhata

Maniapoto Rongorito = Tamatehura Hinepare Wehi Wehi = Patiharuru

Te Kawairirangi I

Tukemata Huitao = Hinetore Tūtanumia = Tūtete (f)

Mania-uruahu

Hekeiterangi Haetapunui ========= Parekārewa

Mahuta (Haehaeora)

Ue-rātā Ngatokowaru

Tapaue Toreheikura

Te Putu Kuraatiawhakaea

Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi ============ Te Ata-i-rangi-kāhu

126 The heads of the slain chiefs were set up on posts in a long row along the bank of the river, which henceforth

came to be known as ‘Te Rau-angaanga’. This name was subsequently given to the father of Te Wherowhero,

the first Māori King. Kelly, Tainui, p. 249.

127 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, p. 35. Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o

Tainui, pp. 296-297.


March 2013

72

130. Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi avenged the death of his father with the assistance of a

tohunga from Waahi, whose spells rendered his Raukawa enemies helpless. They were

killed with toetoe stalks, an event that was commemorated in the name ‘Mata-kākaho’.

Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi then proceeded to Ngatokowaru’s homeland at Maungatautari,

defeating those people in a battle fought at Tāhekeāwai. Hutton states: “Peace was

later arranged between Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi and Raukawa at Parawera, near the foot of

Maungatautari, with a marriage taking place between Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi and Te Ata-i-

rangi-kāhu, a great granddaughter of Ngatokowaru himself.”128

131. Roberton expresses concerns about the above whakapapa (Figure 13), on

account of the number of generations separating the protagonists.129

Te Putu is ten

generations after Raukawa, while Ngatokowaru comes just five generations after

Raukawa. Ngatokowaru’s great-granddaughter then marries Te Putu’s son. Yet the

tradition records Ngatokowaru as a man in his prime, while Te Putu is an old man.

Roberton’s source, Te Huia Raureti, told him that there were two tūpuna named

Ngatokowaru and that Te Putu was killed by the second one. He gave the second

Ngatokowaru’s descent from Hae’s brother Kapu, who had Taratioa, who married

Parekaioro, and they had Inurangi, who had Ngatokowaru II.

132. Nigel Te Hiko provides an alternative descent from Raukawa for Te Putu:

Raukawa, Kurawari, Whāita, Huiao, Kahutaramoa, Heke-i-te-rangi, Uerātā, Tapaue,

and Te Putu.130

While this makes for just eight generations between Raukawa and Te

Putu, the important tupuna Mahuta appears to have been missed between Heke-i-te-

rangi and Uerātā.131

Notwithstanding Roberton’s reservations, the descent lines of Te

Putu and his son Tāwhia-ki-te-rangi and the latter’s wife Te Ata-i-rangi-kāhu are

integral to the senior lines of the Kīngitanga and are generally accepted as correct.

Tāwhia and Te Ata produced Tuata, who married Kāhurangi, who were the parents of

Te Rauangaanga, the father of Te Wherowhero.

128 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 91.

129 Roberton, “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, 1983, p. 35. It is, nevertheless, the whakapapa

presented by Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 296-297.

130 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 111.

131 The omission of Mahuta is perhaps explained by another whakapapa in Mr Te Hiko’s report which records

Mahuta as the husband of Heke-i-te-rangi. This is contrary to most accounts, which record Heke-i-te-rangi’s

husband (and Mahuta’s father) as Hekemaru, the son of the Te Arawa chief, Pikiao. See: Te Hiko, N.,

“Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 132.


March 2013

73

4.3 Wars in the Maungatautari district, c.1800

4.3.1 Wahineiti, Hape-ki-tua-rangi and Peehi Tūkōrehu

133. In 1966, Pei Te Hurinui Jones published an account of a tradition about

Wahine-iti, who he describes as “a high chief of the Ngāti Kauwhata, a sub-tribe of the

Ngāti Raukawa, of the time when the Ngāti Kauwhata were living in the Maunga-

tautari district, and before the Ngāti Raukawa migrated … to the Kapiti district.”132

The question of Ngāti Kauwhata’s relationship with Raukawa (and this particular

reference to it) is addressed above in Section 3.2.1, above. Jones’s account is well-

summarised by Te Hiko, who adds further kōrero obtained from witness testimony

recorded in the Native Land Court minutes. Figure 14 depicts the affiliation of

Wahineiti and Hape to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi.133

Figure 14: Whakapapa of Wahineiti and Hape-ki-tua-rangi

Raukawa = Tūrongoihi

Kauwhata Takihiku

Wehi Wehi Tamatehura Pipito

Tūtete Huitao Tama-te-whana

Parekārewa ======= Haetapunui Maihi

Ngatokowaru =================== Pareunuora

Huia

Kikopiri

Wahineiti Hape-ki-tūārangi

132 Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, “He Maemae Mō Wahine-iti: A Death Chant for Wahine-iti,” Te Ao Hou, No. 55,

June 1966, p. 19.



March 2013

74

134. Pei Te Hurinui Jones’s text describes the many pā controlled by Wahineiti and

his brother, Hape, including at Pōhaturoa (Upper Waikato), Puketotara (Te Wāotū),

and Maungatautari, as befitting their status as high chiefs of Raukawa and Ngāti

Kauwhata. Later in his life Wahineiti joined a Ngāti Maru (Hauraki) war-party,

seeking plunder from neighbouring iwi to the south in the vicinity of Lake Taupō. He

was determined to die in the manner of a warrior, rather than as an old man in his

house. Although the traditions concerning his death vary, it appears that he did indeed

die during the course of that expedition, and was given a full tangihanga at Ōrākei

Korako, before his bones were taken back to Te Wāotū for burial.134

135. After Wahineiti’s death, Hape assumed the leadership of Raukawa and Ngāti

Kauwhata. By dint of their geographical proximity at Maungatautari, as well as

whanaungatanga, at the end of the eighteenth century the political fate of Ngāti

Kauwhata was closely involved with that of their Raukawa neighbours, Ngāti

Whakatere and Ngāti Takihiku, whose combined strength was now reaching a peak. It

was about this time that a woman of Ngāti Maniapoto named Paretekāwā was killed by

Te Roha of Raukawa. Her death and the manner of it gave rise to a profound enmity

between Hape and his close relative, Peehi Tūkōrehu, the latter being Paretekāwā’s

grandson.

136. Tūkōrehu responded by renouncing his Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata

affiliations, aligning himself instead with his grandmother’s Ngāti Maniapoto people.

Henceforth, he and his people took the name of Ngāti Paretekāwā. Matters came to a

head when Tūkōrehu composed an insulting song about Hape, who responded in turn

by recruiting a taua of 1,000 warriors (augmented by Ngāti Whakaue and Ngāti Maru)

with which to attack Ngāti Maniapoto pā.

137. Peehi Tūkōrehu’s descent lines, as presented in Figure 15 overleaf, include

Ngāti Maniapoto, through his grandmother Paretekāwā;135

the Raukawa hapū of Ngāti

Ngārongo, through his grandfather Te Momo-ira-waru; Ngāti Apakura (and Ngāti

134 Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, “He Maemae Mō Wahine-iti: A Death Chant for Wahine-iti,” Te Ao Hou, No. 55,

June 1966, p. 19; as summarised by Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, pp. 117-119. Te

Hiko notes that only great chiefs were accorded the honour of a tangihanga in those times, less prominent

warriors simply being interred where they fell.

135 The whakapapa depicted in Figure 15 is a composite following Roberton, (1983), pp. 26, 27, & 42; and: Te

Hiko (2010), p. 120.


March 2013

75

Hinetū) through Māui; and Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi through his

mother’s descent from Urumakawe. Furthermore, Ngunu’s mother, Paretāheke is a

descendant of Whāita through the latter’s son Ngutu. The relationship between Hape

and Te Rauparaha is presented below in Figure 18 (p. 85).

Figure 15: Whakapapa of Paretekāwā & Peehi Tūkōrehu

Raukawa

Rereahu Takihiku Kauwhata

Maniapoto Tamatehura

Te Kawa-iri-rangi I Huitao Wehi Wehi

Runga-te-rangi Kapumanawawhiti Tūtete

Uruhina

Te Kawa-iri-rangi II Taratiao Ngāko Parekārewa

Te Kanawa = Whaeapare Ngārongo Māui = Urumakawe Ngatokowaru

Paretekāwā ======= Te Momo-o-ira-waru Te Paeahi = Paretāheke Huia

Hore ======================== Ngunu Kikopiri

Peehi Tūkōrehu Hape

138. Hape’s campaigns are well covered in other reports and do not need to be

rehearsed here.136

It should be noted, however, that towards the end of these conflicts,

Ngāti Maniapoto led by Hikairo attacked the Te Arawa iwi of Ngāti Whakaue at Lake

Rotorua, which Ballara suggests was influential in that tribe involving itself in the

Battle of Hingakākā.137

136 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, pp. 116ff; and: Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa

Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 94-96.

137 Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 288-289.


March 2013

76

4.3.2 The wars of Ngāti Whakatere and Ngāti Maniapoto

139. The timeframes for these battles are difficult to determine. Pei Te Hurinui

Jones, for example, holds that the campaigns of Hape occurred in the 1820s, after

Mātakitaki Pā fell to the muskets of Hongi Hika.138

This does not account for the

strong tradition that Te Rauparaha acquired the mantle of fighting chief of Raukawa

and Ngāti Kauwhata, when he alone came forward following Hape-ki-tūārangi’s

death-bed query, “Who will take my place?”139

Steven Oliver posits that the latter

event occurred between 1810 and 1816. John Hutton follows Jones and Angela Ballara

in assigning a date of 1812 to the battle of Hurimoana,140

but Kelly puts it at the

beginning of the nineteenth century, prior to Hingakākā, and prior to the campaigns of

Hape against Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Matakore, which he dates at 1804-05.141

140. Raukawa (and Ngāti Kauwhata) historian, Nigel Te Hiko argues that

Hurimoana occurred prior to the battle of Hingakākā, stating:

Hurimoana occurred as a result of the death of Paretekawa and that death

remained un-avenged for four or five generations. It formed the basis for the

argument between Hapekituarangi and Peehi Tukorehu…. As a result of this

argument Tukorehu changed his allegiance from Raukawa to Maniapoto (Note

Hape was also the head man for Ngati Kauwhata).142

141. Therefore, on the basis of Mr Te Hiko’s kōrero, which he has from his

kaumātua, the earlier date for the battle of Hurimoana is adopted here (around the

same time as Hape’s campaigns).


139 Oliver, Steven, “Te Rauparaha, ?-1849”, in, Oliver, W.H. (ed.), DNZB, Vol. 1, pp. 504-507. See also: Te

Rangikaheke, Wiremu Maihi, “Hape-ki-tuarangi”, JPS, 1941, Volume 50, No. 199, pp. 114-119.

140 Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary”, 2009, p. 102. As Hutton notes, there is nothing in

Jones’s original manuscript that suggests a date of 1812; rather, Biggs takes it from an 1893 publication by

McGregor. Hutton then rationalises the 1812 date for Hurimoana on the basis of whether Maungatautari had

succeeded to his father or not; but to do so he must raise doubts about the date of Maungatautari’s death, which

Phillips has at 1810.

141 Kelly, L. G., Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 278-283.

142 Nigel Te Hiko, Pers. Comm., by email, 29 October 2012.


March 2013

77

142. Thus, in the early years of the nineteenth century, Ngāti Whakatere ventured

westwards beyond their traditional lands at Maungatautari, to occupy territory beyond

Wharepūhunga and the Pūniu River in the upper Waipā district. The fact that Ngāti

Whakatere were then ‘at the height of their power’, suggests that this expansion may

have been driven by the pressures of an increasing population;143

but it is also apparent

that certain unresolved take existed between Ngāti Maniapoto and themselves, as Mr

Te Hiko explains:

[A]t the height of their power, the Ngāti Whakatere occupied the

Wharepuhunga at three strategically fortified pā situated at Pukerimu (to the

east), Tokanui (to the north) and Whiti te Marama (to the west). Their tribal

boundaries stretched from these three pā west to the Waipa River [and] south,

skirting the western slopes of the Rangitoto Ranges. Ngāti Whakatere lived

under the mana of the giant chief, Kiharoa. Raukawa tradition records that

Kiharoa was a giant of a man that stood in excess of seven feet tall.144

143. He adds:

The relationship between the Ngāti Whakatere and Ngāti Maniapoto-Ngāti

Matakore had been touchy for some time. Twenty-years earlier, the Ngāti

Maniapoto ejected the Ngāti Whakatere from their pā at Totorewa and the

enmity between the two tribes continued to fester.145

144. Totorewa was an ancient pā located about five kilometres north of Otorohanga

at the confluence of the Waipā and Mangaorongo Rivers, firmly within the territory

assigned by Tāwhao to Tūrongo, which Maniapoto had inherited. But Ngāti Maniapoto

were also looking to assert rights in the border territories to the east. Around 1800, two

brothers named Wahanui and Maungatautari moved to Ngāhape, located about fifteen

kilometres north-east of Ōtorohanga, and a similar distance south-west of Puahue.146

143 Angela Ballara argues against population pressure as a motivator for the inter-tribal conflicts of the late 18th

and early 19th centuries, on the basis that Māori population had probably reached its peak immediately prior to

1769, and began to decline thereafter due to the effects of introduced diseases. Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 281.

144 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 111; citing: F. L. Phillips, Nga Tohu a

Tainui/Landmarks of Tainui, Otorohanga, Vol.1, 1989, p. 90.


146 NB: Maungatautari was often referred to as ‘Tautari’; but he was originally known as Te Hurinui, only

changing his name after his father was killed at Maungatautari.


March 2013

78

There, they built a pā originally called Rokurorotui (according to Phillips), but which

later came to be called Hurimoana.147

Kelly represents their descent lines, thus:148

Figure 16: Whakapapa of Maungatautari and Wahanui

Te Kanawa = Waikohika

Tira-manuhiri Parengaope = Te Umukiwhakatane

Hinemātua = Whakamarurangi

Irohanga ====== Ngunu ===== Te Riunui

Te Hurinui (Maungatautari) Wahanui

145. When Maungatautari/Te Hurinui’s father, Irohanga was killed at

Maungatautari prior to the battle of Hingakākā, his son changed his name to

commemorate the event.149

It should be noted that, along with most of the other

protagonists, Maungatautari and Wahanui were closely related to both sides of the

dispute. As descendants of Te Kanawa, they were Ngāti Maniapoto tūturu, while their

mother Ngunu belonged to Ngāti Whakatere and Ngāti Takihiku (i.e., Raukawa). She

should not be confused with ‘Ngunu’ (or, Ngungu),150

who was the mother of Peehi

Tukorehu.

146. Nigel Te Hiko provides whakapapa for the parentage of Ngunu demonstrating

her Raukawa descent from Takihiku (via Wairangi), and Whakatere (via Puroku and

Kārewa).151


148 Kelly, Tainui, Table 13, p. 451.

149 NB: Some sources locate Irohanga’s death as occurring after Hingakākā, not before it (discussed below).

150 Kelly, Tainui, Table 16, p. 453.

151 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, pp. 115-116.


March 2013

79

Figure 17: Whakapapa of Ngunu

Raukawa

Takihiku

Wairangi = Puroku [f]

Tiniorooro = Kārewa

Paratahoata

Parehinga

Kahuwano

Huematamata

Ngunu

Wahanui Maungatautari

147. Prior to their move to Ngāhape, the brothers lived near Pirongia, but according

to Tumuhuia, a Ngāti Naho witness in the Rohe Pōtae investigation, Ngāti

Maniapoto’s push eastwards was in reaction to Ngāti Whakatere’s move westwards.152

Be that as it may, in what was probably an early skirmish, Maungatautari and Wahanui

attacked Ngāti Whakatere in the three pā noted above, during which the Ngāti

Whakatere champion Kiharoa was killed.153

148. On another occasion, Wahanui, with support from Ngāti Matakore and Ngāti

Maniapoto, assaulted a Ngāti Whakatere pā called Piriaka, where a high-ranking Ngāti

Whakatere woman was captured and killed. For their part, Ngāti Whakatere were

responsible for killing the chiefs Te Hārara and Te Kanahi, as well as the woman

Rangipakaru of Ngāti Hauā (the killing of Rangipakaru later became a take for Te

152 Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 238.

153 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 93-94.


March 2013

80

Waharoa). These killings of high-ranking individuals were exacerbated by insults

delivered between the various parties.154

4.3.3 Hurimoana Pā

149. The link between the campaigns of Hape and the battles involving

Maungatautari and Wahanui appears to have been the earlier killing of Paretekāwā.

Nigel Te Hiko states that seeking revenge for her death, “Ngāti Matakore together with

Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Haua, Ngāti Koroki and Ngāti Paremopo attacked the Ngāti

Whakatere pā at Tangimania.”155

The attack was repulsed and Ngāti Matakore

withdrew to the pā built earlier by Wahanui and Maungatautari at Ngāhape. Ngāti

Whakatere pursued them there and proceeded to lay in a siege. Wahanui managed to

elude the besiegers and conceal himself outside the pā, ready to launch a counter-

attack from an unexpected quarter when the battle commenced the following day. He

also sent messages to Ngāti Hauā seeking relief.

150. Mr Te Hiko states:

Soon after dawn, the Ngāti Whakatere attacked the pā and was met with great

resistance. Boulders were thrown from the palisades killing or wounding many

of the would-be attackers. Wahanui then led his contingent into the flanks of

the attacking Ngāti Whakatere. In a pitched battle, Ngāti Haua were seen to be

approaching at which stage a contingent of fighters from the pā led by Te

Hurinui [Maungatautari] charged the other flank. Facing certain defeat, Ngāti

Whakatere broke and made a hasty retreat from the battle. Many died in their

flight.156

151. By all accounts, the battle at Rokurorotui Pā was a very bloody affair, with

many chiefs of Ngāti Whakatere being killed. Hutton states: “Because of the numbers

killed, and the way that the toa of Maungatautari and Wahanui were bathed in the

154 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 93-94; citing: Ballara, Taua, p.

238; also, Biggs cites various statements from Te Ahooterangi to the Otorohanga hearings of the Native Land

Court in 1886, in Pei Te Hurinui Jones and Bruce Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, p. 340, fn. 3.

155 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 114. The timing of the engagement at

Tangimānia Pā seems difficult to nail down. It is various described as taking place prior to the battle of

Hurimoana, or else prior to the battle of Hangahanga. For example, Mr Te Hiko reports that attacks on

Tangimānia occurred prior to Hurimoana (c.1804) (pp. 113-114); and prior to Hangahanga (c.1816) (p. 132).

While it is possible that both are correct, it clearly requires further research.



March 2013

81

blood of men, the battle took the name Huri-moana (Sea-flood), which in turn was

given to Maungatautari’s pa.”157

Te Hiko draws attention to the fact that the close

whanaungatanga of the main protagonists made this something in the nature of a

whānau dispute, notwithstanding the brutality and intensity of the fighting.

4.4 Hingakākā

4.4.1 Introduction

152. The narrative traditions relating to Hingakākā are reasonably consistent, apart

from some disagreement as to the precise dating of the event, and some variation in the

accounts of its direct origins. Aside from the direct causes discussed below, Hingakākā

was also the culmination of generations of internecine feuding between closely related

Tainui-affiliated tribes living in the lower and central Waikato valley and around the

West Coast harbours.158

All sources agree that it was the largest single engagement

fought between Māori forces, and possibly the largest battle by numbers of combatants

ever fought in New Zealand. Projected timeframes range from 1780-1790 to 1807;

Kelly argues for the latter on the basis that Ngāti Whātua returned to their own country

just in time to take part in the battle of Moremonui, which, based on missionary

accounts, took place two years before the taking of the Boyd in 1809.159

The 1807 date

is generally accepted by recent writers (Ballara, Hutton, Te Hiko), based on Kelly’s

reasoning, and is followed here.

153. The battle of Hingakākā had a profound impact on the geo-political landscape

of the Waikato Valley and the Tainui settlements around the West Coast harbours;

indeed, the repercussions would be felt throughout the country for decades to come.

This was as true for Ngāti Kauwhata as for any of the many other tribal groups

involved. In this section, the objective is not to again recount the details of the battle

itself, but to examine the evidence for Ngāti Kauwhata’s involvement, focusing on

157 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 103.

158 Some of these battles are examined in chapter 5, below. Otherwise, for an excellent summary, see Ballara,

Angela, Taua, 2003, pp. 278-288.

159 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 287-288.


March 2013

82

their whanaungatanga with the protagonists, their role in events leading up to the

actual battle, the question as to whether they participated in the battle, and what

happened afterwards.

4.4.2 Ngati Kauwhata and the kahawai feasts at Marokopa

154. The direct precursors of Hingakākā centred on the annual running of the

kahawai at the Marokopa River mouth, which had been under the control of Ngāti Toa

since the time of Tūpāhau, Toarangatira’s grandfather.160

The senior chief of Ngati

Toa in the early nineteenth century was Pikauterangi, who occupied Marokopa at the

pā built on the long hill of Maungaroa by his ancestor Tūpāhau five generations

previously. Kelly states:

As in the time of Tupahau, fishing was still an important occupation in the

lives of the people and, states Te Hurinui, it became the custom during the

fishing season for Ngati Kauwhata and Ngati Apakura to hold periodical

feasts, first one tribe acting as hosts and then the other.161

155. Likewise, citing Phillips, Te Hiko states:

[I]t was the custom of the time for the tribes living in the interior to visit their

relatives along the coast when the kahawai and other school fish were

spawning. It was custom that everyone shared in the catch, consequently tribes

like Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Apakura and Ngāti Kinohaku visited Marokopa

every autumn.162

156. Ballara concludes that the Ngāti Kauwhata tribe involved in the Marokopa

fishing event was a hapū of Ngāti Toa, and “therefore presumably not identical with

the large tribe Ngāti Kauwhata originally based at Maungatautari and later near

Ōtaki.”163

She appears to have taken this from a footnote added by Biggs, but it is

160 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 121-126. Tūpāhau was a descendant of the younger brother of Tāwhao,

Tuhianga, whose progeny occupied the coastal lands south of Kāwhia and were much intermarried with the

Tokomaru people to the south in Taranaki.

161 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 288.

162 Te Hiko, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 124.

163 Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 289.


March 2013

83

almost certainly incorrect;164

that this is indeed Ngāti Kauwhata of Maungatautari is

evident from the whakapapa connections (see Figure 18, below). Toarangatira married

Parehounuku, the great granddaughter of Kauwhata and granddaughter of Wehi Wehi.

Pikauterangi’s father, Te Maunu was the grandson of Parehounuku and Toarangatira.

Moreover, Pikauterangi’s cousin, Werawera married Parekōhatu, a cousin of Hape,

who belonged to both Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata. The whakapapa presented

by Ballara in Taua (page 285) illustrates Ngāti Toa links to other Tainui lines, but

omits the Ngāti Kauwhata connections. As there is no reference to a minor hapū of

Ngāti Toa called Ngāti Kauwhata elsewhere in the traditions, yet the Maungatautari

Ngāti Kauwhata has such clearly defined links to Ngāti Toa, the Biggs annotation

appears to be misleading.

Figure 18: Whakapapa of Pikauterangi and Te Rauparaha

Poutama

Mangō

Kaihamu Kauwhata

Urutira Wehi Wehi

Tūpāhau = Hine-te-ao Tūtete (NB: Tūtete is the eldest sibling)

Korokino = Tūwhareiti Hounuku Parekārewa = Hae

Toarangatira ======== Parehounuku Ngatokowaru

Marangaiparoa Huia

Te Maunu Kimihia Korouaputa165

Kikopiri

Pikauterangi Werawera ====== Parekōhatu Hape

Te Rauparaha

164 Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 348-349, f.n. 4. This reads: ‘A subtribe of Ngaati Toa’.

165 Pei Te Hurinui states that Hape and Parekōhatu were brother and sister (Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, “He Maemae

Mō Wahine-iti: A Death Chant for Wahine-iti,” Te Ao Hou, No. 55, June 1966, p. 19). At page 137 of his report,

Nigel Te Hiko depicts Korouaputa and Kikopiri as siblings. Even so, as cousins Hape and Parekōhatu would

have been equivalent to brother and sister in Māori terms.


March 2013

84

157. Moreover, as Phillips observes, the kahawai run at the Marokopa River was a

time of great abundance in which all Tainui-affiliated hapū and iwi were accustomed

to participate. The alternating of Ngāti Kauwhata with Ngāti Apakura as hosts of the

kahawai feasts at Marokopa may have been a response to the divisions that had

emerged amongst Ngā Iwi o Tainui over the preceding generations; Ngāti Kauwhata

representing the Ngāti Toa/Raukawa/Ngāti Kauwhata tribes, and Ngāti Apakura

representing the Waikato/Maniapoto/Hauā alliance. By the early 1800s, conflict

between these two broad groups had become endemic.

158. However, it is evident from the narrative traditions generally that hapū and iwi

at odds over particular take could put aside their differences and join forces against a

common enemy; or for a common purpose such as the Marokopa kahawai run. But

such gatherings of occasional enemies were always fraught with danger, particularly

when tensions were running high. So it was that Pikauterangi took exception to the

treatment he received; either through being allocated poor quality fish, or following the

retribution of other tribes when he took the best fish for himself.166

159. According to the Tainui traditions, as hosts of the feast, Ngāti Apakura were in

charge of distributing the fish at Marokopa when the Ngāti Toa chief Pikauterangi was

subject to grave insults. As a result, Ngāti Apakura bore the brunt of Pikauterangi’s

anger. A Ngāti Apakura chief named Pōrahu was killed, along with his followers, who

were cooked and eaten, their bodies distributed to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Raukawa, as well as Ngāti Toa.167

By accepting this gift, these tribes were now

implicated in Pikauterangi’s actions and were bound to share his fate. Given that

Pikauterangi took three years assembling his vast army (according to Kelly) and

accepting the later date of 1807 for Hingakākā, the initial dispute probably took place

in the early 1800s. This was in the immediate aftermath of the warfare described

above, between Hape and Ngāti Maniapoto, and Ngāti Whakatere and Ngāti

Maniapoto; indeed, according to Mr Te Hiko’s reckoning, the battle of Hurimoana

took place about the same year as the dispute at Marokopa that eventually led to the

battle of Hingakākā.

166 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 288. The traditions vary as to what caused offence to Pikauterangi. In one

version, his people were offered poor quality fish; in the other, he kept the best fish for himself, which led to

him being dunked in the sea so severely that he almost drowned.

167 Te Hurinui Jones & Biggs, Nga Iwi o Tainui, pp. 348-349, paras 61.3-61.4.


March 2013

85

160. It is difficult to see how Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa might have avoided

participating in Hingakākā (as Roberton suggests), given their active participation in

the events that brought it about. For the next three years, Pikauterangi scoured the

country recruiting support for an attack on his enemies, who were primarily the

members of the Waikato/Maniapoto alliance.

4.4.3 The raiding continues and the take mount up on all sides

161. While Pikauterangi was away gathering his army, numerous other take

emerged from altercations between the various hapū and iwi, with each chiefly death

adding a new vendetta to be avenged. Ngāti Maniapoto launched a campaign to the

south, defeating Whanganui iwi among others, while a large war-party from Taranaki

attacked the Maniapoto country at around the same time. Although the Taranaki party

was defeated, the attacks lead to a number of other deaths of Waikato chiefs, including

Te Paeahi, who, it will be recalled, was the son of Māui of Ngāti Apakura and

Urumakawe of Ngāti Kauwhata.

162. Pei Te Hurinui Jones states that Ngāti Kauwhata suffered from these

depredations, while the attacking Waikato tribes also suffered losses. He writes:

The Waikato party then set out, and at the fort at Wai-paatito they fought with

Ngaati Kauwhata, many of whom died. One of the dead was their chief,

Whata-tuupari. Waikato went from there to Puke-rimu at Maunga-tautari.

There they met with the war parties of Ngaati Raukawa and Ngaati Whakaue

of Te Arawa. In the fighting Waikato was defeated and many chiefs died:

Puku, Te Ika-houngata, Tiari, Hikairo, Hoou, Piri, Kekero, and Te Angaanga.

Irohanga was another. Because of his death there, his son was named Maunga-

tautari.

Many more battles followed this defeat of Waikato, and, at Ootatau they

defeated Ngaati Raukawa and their allies. The Waikato chiefs in this battle

were Te Rauangaanga and Te Kanawa. The Waikato chief who died there was

Te Waawaahanga, son of Te Paeahi.

At this time Ngaati Raukawa and Ngaati Kauwhata sent messengers to their

allies asking them to come and assist them. War parties from Te Arawa,


March 2013

86

Urewera, Ngaati Toa, Taranaki and Whanga-nui, together with some East

Coast tribes, came to assist Ngaati Raukawa and Ngaati Kauwhata. …168

163. It should be noted, however, that Kelly places some of these fights after

Hingakākā (see below). Ballara, quoted below, follows Te Hurinui Jones.

164. Jones goes on to describe the mobilisation of the Ngāti Maniapoto-Waikato

contingent, together with their various allies:

Ngaati Whaatua honoured Te Rau-angaanga’s request [for assistance], since

they knew that they had been helped by Waikato in some of their battles. The

people at the Kaipara Heads were the ones who raised a war party and came to

Waikato. On their way they were joined by Ngaai Tai, Ngaati Te Ata, Ngaati

Tama-oho and Ngaati Tipa, and at Nga Roto they joined up with the rest of

Waikato. Combined, they went on to Tauranga-mirumiru on the coast near Te

Rore. Next day they went on, sixteen hundred in all … At Nga Roto they

joined up with Ngaati Maniapoto under Wahanui and Huahua of Ngaati

Matakore. These parties were combined under Te Rau-angaanga.169

165. Ballara’s summary of the origins of the battle adds to those cited by Jones, and

is cited here in full:

This huge clash developed because of the convergence of a number of

unresolved take between the two sets of allies. On one side at Hingakākā were

Waikato and Maniapoto and their allies, including Murupaenga of Ngāti

Rongo of Kaipara. On the other side were Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Toa and

Ngāti Koata, with their allied kin from Poutama and Taranaki, and non-kin

allies recruited from such places as the east coast. The take derived from

contemporary struggles between Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tama in the

Mōkau area; the struggles at Maungatautari between Waikato-Maniapoto and

Raukawa-Whakatere, … battles between Raukawa-Whakatere and their

neighbours to the west,170

Te Arawa; the struggle between Ngāti Mahanga and

Ngāti Tamainu-Koata-Toa at Aotea and Whāingaroa; and the struggles

between Ngāti Apakura and Maniapoto on the one side and the people of

Kāwhia on the other.

Waikato and Maniapoto were seeking utu for Te Paeahi, an aged chief killed

by a taua from Taranaki and Whanganui, and for Te Wāwahanga, Te Paeahi’s

son, killed by Ngāti Kauwhata, and also for a whole list of chiefs killed at

Pukerimu in the Maungatautari district by Ngāti Raukawa assisted by Ngāti



170 This should be ‘east’, surely?


March 2013

87

Whakaue. Whanganui were responding to recent attacks on them by

Maniapoto. Ngāti Kauwhata were seeking utu for Whatatūpari and others,

killed by Waikato in their pā, Waipātito. Ngāti Whakaue were seeking utu for

those recently killed by Hikairo of Ngāti Maniapoto.171

166. Thus, by Ballara’s reckoning, Ngāti Kauwhata were deeply involved in the

various take that preceded Hingakākā, on the side of Ngāti Toa by virtue of the fact

that Waikato were their mutual enemies.

4.4.4 The battle of Hingakākā

167. Hutton suggests that the best description of the battle of Hingakākā in a

narrative sense is that found in Volume 1 of Phillips’ Landmarks of Tainui.172

The

salient points of Hutton’s summary are as follows:

Hingakākā was fought on a relatively narrow stretch of ground between Lake

Ngāroto and another lake to the south. The Waikato-Maniapoto defenders

(and their allies) occupied a low ridge, while the ‘invading’ force of Ngāti

Toa, Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata and others led by Pikauterangi (with Te

Rakaherea, Maui, Tahuaroa and Te Maunu) set themselves out before it.

Hutton considers Phillips’ argument: i.e., that the attackers suffered on

account of their disparate origins, with great differences of dialect and

custom, and were unfamiliar with each other’s battle techniques, etc., may be

overdrawn. The greater challenge for such an enormous army was the sheer

logistical challenge of deploying a warrior force of 10,000 successfully. It had

simply never been attempted on such a scale before.

The defenders, led by Te Rauangaanga (with Wahanui and Tipi as seconds-in-

command), had chosen the ground carefully, and while waiting for their

enemies had used various techniques, such as false camp-fires and scrub

dressed in cloaks, to exaggerate their strength and create what appeared to be

a substantial reserve to their rear.

171 Ballara, Taua, 2003, pp. 288-289.

172 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 98; citing: F. L. Phillips, Nga Tohu

a Tainui/Landmarks of Tainui, Otorohanga, Vol.1, 1989, pp. 115-122.


March 2013

88

At the morning of the battle, Pikauterangi’s force advanced to within around

100 metres of the defender’s lines. After singing a defiant song to inspire his

troops, Te Rauangaanga instructed his Ngati Maniapoto contingent to attack

from his right into Pikauterangi’s left flank. This force drove the left flank

towards their centre, causing confusion in the overly dense ranks of toa. An

additional attack from Te Rauangaanga’s centre created a general melee in

which the Maniapoto-Waikato gained the upper hand, particularly after Te

Rauangaanga apparently struck Pikauterangi to the ground.

This left the right flank of the attackers’ original force un-committed, which

swung around in an attempt to outflank. However, the collapse of the

attackers’ centre drove it behind their right flank, which in turn was exposed

to Te Rauangaanga’s forces which had previously been committed to the

centre and the right. The net effect of these manoeuvres was to drive the

original attackers back into a broad neck of land next to the southern lake. It

was here, surrounded on all sides and unable to escape, that a great slaughter

took place.173

168. According to Phillips, many of the defeated tribes never recovered and he

draws a direct link between the battle of Hingakākā and the “eventual expulsion of

Ngati Toa and Ngati Raukawa from their Kawhia homeland some fifteen years

later.”174

We examine the credibility of this statement in later chapters of the report.

169. Ballara places a different emphasis on the outcome of the battle, pointing out

that “[T]he important effect was to further polarise the two sides, and to set in

concrete the alliances that had developed.” Rather than talk of expulsion, she states:

“All those groups who lost at Hingakākā were the same groups who eventually chose

to migrate to Kapiti, perhaps thirteen or fourteen years later.” She continues:

Yet this huge battle was not about land: no land changed hands as a result, at

least at this time. It was not about muskets: none of the protagonists had guns

of any sort, and even Murupaenga and Apihai of Kaipara had yet to encounter

any. Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Maniapoto had issues concerning land between

them, but they were fought out in Maungatautari. Kahawai had been an initial

173 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 98-99; following: Phillips, F. L.

Nga Tohu a Tainui/Landmarks of Tainui, Vol.1, 1989, pp. 115-122.

174 Phillips, F. L. Nga Tohu a Tainui/Landmarks of Tainui, Vol.1, 1989, p. 121.


March 2013

89

issue at Marokopa, and it may be that access to fishing resources was an

important catalyst at least for some of the groups involved. These wars were

mostly about the many interrelating disputes over men of rank killed, curses,

insults and slights that happened to coincide in time and space, issues

addressed in one large, many-sided and complex battle.175

170. Kelly states that in the decisive Waikato-Maniapoto victory over

Pikauterangi’s alliance, Ngati Raukawa lost 1,600 men, including the chiefs Iwituha

and Tahaearoa. Ngati Toa also suffered heavy losses, with Pikauterangi himself, his

brother Rakaherea, Māui, Tahuaroa and Te Maunu being killed. The high number of

chiefs killed gave the battle its name, ‘Hingakākā’, ‘Falling Parrots’, a reference to the

parrot feathers chiefs wore in their hair. The victory of the Waikato-Maniapoto

alliance at Hingakākā had long-term repercussions for inter-tribal politics in the

Waikato. Of particular relevance to the current narrative, it left the ranks of Ngāti Toa

chiefs decimated, thus allowing Te Rauparaha to rise to prominence; and it was the

beginning of the process that saw Ngāti Toa leave Kāwhia and migrate south to

Manawatū, Horowhenua and Kapiti. This in turn would have repercussions for Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi.

4.5 Inter-tribal conflict in the Waikato post-Hingakākā

4.5.1 The aftermath of Hingakākā

171. As already noted, the published accounts of Tainui traditions vary

considerably in many important chronological details relating to events in the early

nineteenth century. Te Hurinui Jones’s account of the series of fights that took place

prior to Hingakākā is cited above. These included the affair in which Maungatautari’s

father, Irohanga was killed. Kelly, on the other hand, places these events in the

immediate aftermath of Hingakākā.

172. Kelly refers to the victors of Hingakākā debating whether to extend their

victory by attacking those tribes who had originally attacked them. Presumably, this

meant Ngāti Toa and their Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata allies. However, under

175 Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 291.


March 2013

90

their chief Te Murupaenga the Ngāti Whātua contingent decided to return home. With

respect to the Waikato force under Te Rauangaanga, Kelly states:

Hikairo, of Ngati Apakura, was insistent that the war be continued, especially

against Ngati Raukawa, which tribe, after Hingakaka, had fled to

Maungatautari, and finding that his appeals lacked support, he said, “E

Waikato, ka hua au ma matua iwi, ka kiia koe he tangata!” (Oh, Waikato, I see

one must have the support of the people before one is called a man!)

Waikato, however, had had enough of fighting for the time being, and Hikairo,

who was still determined to carry out his plan, set out for Maungatautari with

only a small war party. Arrived at Pukerimu, near Cambridge, his expedition

suddenly encountered a mixed force of Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Whakaue of

Rotorua, and was badly defeated, Hikairo, Te Riunui and Irohanga all losing

their lives. It was after this incident, states Hurinui, that Maungatautari

assumed his name, it being in commemoration of the fact that his father

Irohanga, had been killed at that place.176

173. Whether these events occurred before or after Hingakākā bears on other

questions also open to debate, such as whether Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata were

present in great numbers at Hingakākā, and if so, what losses did they sustain? If Kelly

is correct, there were enough surviving warriors on the Raukawa/Kauwhata side

following Hingakākā to defeat Hikairo’s small taua (admittedly with Ngāti Whakaue

help). Also, if Kelly’s account about a Raukawa/Kauwhata victory over Waikato foes

after Hingakākā is correct, it casts serious doubt on the notion that Hingakākā was a

significant causal factor in Raukawa and Ngāi Kauwhata migrating to Manawatū and

Horowhenua in the 1820s. Indeed, as will be seen, the Native Land Court did not

consider that the internal battles amongst Waikato were the motivation behind the

migration; rather, it concluded that Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata were driven south

by Ngāti Maru, who occupied the Maungatautari district after the Ngāpuhi raids of

late-1821. The latter view is not supported by the evidence either, as will be

demonstrated in following chapters of the report.

174. If Irohanga was killed after Hingakākā, it would be reasonable to expect that

his son Te Hurinui/Maungatautari would seek utu for his death, but there is no record

that he did so. Instead, the traditions state that in about 1810, a Waikato taua ventured

south of Marokopa into the territory of Ngāti Tama where a fight took place in which

176 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 294-295.


March 2013

91

Waikato were defeated. Among those killed in this engagement was a Ngāti Hauā

chief called Taiporutu, whose body was hung upside down in the gateway of Te

Kawau Pā. In recognition of this event, a young chief of Ngāti Hauā who was a near

relative of the deceased man changed his name to Te Waharoa. Soon afterwards, Te

Waharoa himself led a combined Waikato party in a revenge attack on Te Kawau Pā.

However, Ngāti Tama, led by their famous fighting chief Raparapa, succeeded in

defeating the Waikato force, with Maungatautari being among those killed.

Maungatautari’s son changed his name to Poutama after the place where his father had

been killed.

175. Other important chiefs to die around this time included Wahanui, killed near

Ōtorohanga, and Hape-ki-tūārangi, who passed away at Maungatautari. On his

deathbed Hape famously asked the warriors gathered round, “Who will take my

place?” When none of Hape’s near relatives came forward, Te Rauparaha, whose

mother was Hape’s cousin, took on the old chief’s mantle.177

The significance of Te

Rauparaha assuming the role of the principal fighting chief of Raukawa/Kauwhata is

discussed further in chapter 5.

4.5.2 Mangatoatoa Pā

176. While the involvement of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi in the battle

of Mangatoatoa Pā is not spelt out in the traditions, they were definitely involved in

later events, particularly the siege at Hangahanga Pā, described below. The land

around Kihikihi, Ōrākau and Te Māwhai had been part of Raukawa’s territory since

the time of Ngutu (the son of Whāita). The district was later occupied by Te Momo-

ira-waru of Ngāti Raukawa and his wife Paretekāwā, the daughter of Te Kanawa of

Ngāti Maniapoto.178

In his “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, Nigel Te Hiko

discusses the implications of Peehi Tūkōrehu’s rejection of his Raukawa and Ngāti

Kauwhata whanaunga following the brutal killing of his grandmother, Paretekāwā by

Te Roha of Raukawa. Tūkōrehu’s response was to set up Ngāti Paretekāwā as a hapū

of Ngāti Maniapoto, occupying the lands between Kihikihi and Ōrākau, which placed

177 Te Rangikaheke, Wiremu Maihi, “Hape-ki-tuarangi”, JPS, 1941, Volume 50, No. 199, pp. 114-119.

178 Roberton, J.B.W., Māori Settlement of the Waikato District, 1983, p. 43.


March 2013

92

a physical obstacle between the Maungatautari/Wharepūhunga territory of

Raukawa/Kauwhata and Kāwhia, their ancient homeland still occupied by their Ngāti

Toa and Ngāti Koata allies.179

177. Tūkōrehu reinforced his position by building a pā on the Pūniu River at

Mangatoatoa and garrisoning it with his own people and members of Ngāti Apakura.

At the same time, Te Paewaka, the brother-in-law of Te Rauangaanga, built a pā at

Ōtāwhao (Te Awamutu), manning it with Ngāti Koura, a hapū closely related to Peehi

and Ngāti Apakura.180

Inasmuch as Tūkōrehu’s actions were directed at Hape-ki-

tūārangi, the latter was clearly still active when Mangatoatoa was built.

178. During the construction of Mangatoatoa, a woman of Ngāti Toa called

Ngāparetaihinu,181

accompanied by a young girl, passed by on her way to visit

relations at Ngāti Raukawa. At Peehi Tukorehu’s instigation, the woman was killed

and preserved in her own fat, while the girl was captured and later taken as a wife by

Peehi. This event led to attacks on Mangatoatoa by both Te Rauparaha’s Ngāti Toa

and Ngāti Raukawa, and though its outer defences were breached by both Te

Rauparaha and Hape, the pā itself was never taken. A Ngāti Raukawa tohunga

predicted that Mangatoatoa would be taken after the death of Hape-ki-tūārangi.

However, Tūkōrehu’s tohunga received early information on Hape’s demise,

prompting Tūkōrehu to launch a pre-emptive raid on Ngāti Raukawa at Maungatautari

during Hape’s tangi. This action forestalled any further attacks on Mangatoatoa.182

179. Roberton states:

During the twenty years or so of intermittent war at the beginning of the

century, Mangatoatoa was frequently made the assembly point for war-parties.

After the departure of Ngati-Toa from Kawhia, the pa was abandoned, having

served its purpose. After the abandonment there was a quarrel between Ngati-

Ngawaero and Ngati-Te Kanawa over an eel-weir at Kakepuku, and Peehi

used his influence in support of Ngati-Ngawaero. Out of spite, Ngatapa, a

chief of Ngati-Te Kanawa, destroyed the works of Mangatoatoa by fire. Some

years later, a Waikato man was found by Ngāti Paretekawa diving for eels at



181 Obviously not the same Ngāparetaihinu as Tukorehe’s wife and Tamapāhore’s daughter, referred to above.



March 2013

93

the site of the tuahu in ignorance of the significance of his action. He was

taken before Peehi, who ordered his despatch with a mere.183

180. In due course, perhaps having decided that utu for Paretekāwā was finally

satisfied, Tūkōrehu resolved to make peace with Raukawa and their Ngāti Kauwhata

allies, following the battles of Tangimania and Hangahanga.

4.5.3 Tangimania Pā

181. Tangimania Pā is some distance from Maungatautari, to the west of

Wharepūhunga and therefore well outside the rohe of Ngāti Kauwhata.184

However,

Ngāti Kauwhata were eventually caught up in the aftermath of events that took place at

Tangimania that were part of the endemic warfare between Ngāti Maniapoto and their

Waikato allies and the Ngāti Whakatere hapū of Raukawa. The sequence and

circumstances surrounding these battles reveal the timeframes for such crucial events

as the permanent peace-making between Ngāti Kauwhata (and their Raukawa allies)

and Ngāti Maniapoto and their Waikato allies. It is argued below that the question of

whether this peace-making occurred before or after the arrival of the Marutuāhu

refugees in the Waikato district c.1822 is key to understanding whether Ngāti

Kauwhata and Raukawa freely entered into the various migrations, or they were in fact

forced out (effectively conquered) by Marutuāhu, as the Native Land Court concluded.

182. Te Winitana Tupotahi provides a detailed account of these battles in his

lengthy evidence to the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation in

1884, after first identifying himself as belonging to Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato,

Raukawa and Kauwhata.185

He relates an exchange between a party of Ngāti Kauwhata

and Raukawa, and their close relative Tūkōrehu, in which the latter presented the Ngāti

Kauwhata chiefs Herengutu (or Heremutu) and Te Ikaharaki with a tomahawk. They

subsequently attacked Tūkōrehu in a skirmish called Te Rototi, but were defeated and


184 Citing Phillips, Hutton states that: “Tangimania is not far from Patokatoka (itself about 5 kilometres south-

east of Hurimoana), at a site wrongly labelled ‘Piriaka’ on the NZ Topographical series map for the area, and

thus lies west of the Wharepūhunga block.” See: Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report,

2009, p. 106.

185 See: Evidence of Te Winitana Tupotahi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 6

August 1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 416-417.


March 2013

94

Herengutu and Te Ikaharaki were both killed. This betrayal, along with other killings,

was behind the animosity Tūkōrehu felt towards Ngāti Kauwhata.

183. For some years after their crushing defeat at Hurimoana, Ngāti Whakatere

were content to re-gather their strength, until they decided that it was time to seek utu

for their earlier losses. John Hutton cites Judge Gudgeon’s account in the

Wharepūhunga decision of May 1892, in which the Judge states: “Under this

influence, a message was sent to the Ngatipukeko tribe, of Whakatane, asking

assistance, and they responded to the call, under the leadership of two very great

warriors, Kihi and Mokai.”186

184. According to Hauāuru Poutama, a war party under Kihi and Mōkai joined two

other war parties of Raukawa and Ngāti Whakatere under Hape and Hīhī respectively,

at Tangimania Pā, before proceeding to attack Ngāti Hauā at Horotiu. The attack was

successful, with Ngāti Hauā suffering losses as a result.187

Sometime later, the great

chief Maungatautari (Hauāuru’s grandfather) was killed at Poutama. Hauāuru

continues:

Muriwhenua now sought assistance from Ngapuhis [sic] at Kaipara to avenge

[Maungatautari’s] death, and he was joined by a party who took their position

at Mangatoatoa where the whole of Maniapoto were assembled, also

Ngatihaua and Waikato. A war party of Ngapuhi and Ngatiraukawa under

Pomare-Whetoi attacked Mangatoatoa. Here, Wharara, a chief connected with

Te Wheoro and myself, was killed. The Ngapuhis then withdrew to

Hangahanga. A large party of Maniapoto and Ngatihaua marched from

Mangatoatoa to Tangimania. The Ngapuhis, well-armed with guns, led the

march and before the main body arrived, they stormed and captured the pah

[sic]. My father was born soon after the Hurimoana fight & it was after he had

been tattooed that Tangimoana was fought.188

186 Judgment of the Native Land Court in the Wharepūhunga case, Kihikihi, 9 May 1892, printed in N.Z.

Herald, 18 May 1892.

187 Evidence of Hauāuru Poutama, Te Rohe Pōtae hearing, 14 September 1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, p. 284.

188 Evidence of Hauāuru Poutama, Te Rohe Pōtae hearing, 14 September 1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, p. 284. See:

Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 240. Though she cites Hauāuru’s evidence, Ballara appears conscious of its

inconsistencies, which may after all have been due to inaccurate recording by Court officials, as much as in the

evidence itself. The quote from Hauāuru indicates that both sides were supported by musket-armed ‘Ngāpuhi’

and/or Ngāti Whātua. In her distillation of various strands of evidence, Ballara suggests that Raukawa and Ngāti

Whakatere attacked Mangatoatoa, possibly assisted by unknown Ngāpuhi, during which fight the Ngāti

Maniapoto chief Te Whārara was killed. Muriwhenua then went to Kaipara where he recruited Pōmare-Whētoi

who brought a contingent of musket-wielding Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Whātua to assist in the revenge attack on

Tangimania (Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 240; see endnote 19, p. 497). Ballara comments that these Ngāpuhi


March 2013

95

185. Tupotahi elaborates upon these events, linking them to the former battles

described above and the deaths that resulted:

[After the skirmish called ‘Te Rototi’]… Kiringutu got a Ngapuhi force to

assist them, under Whetoi, a Ngapuhi chief. Ng’ Maru also joined the force,

whose chief was Nekekapa. Whilst this was taking place, Tukorehu assembled

a force, consisting of Ng’ Whatua, Waikato, Ng’ Maniapoto. The chief of Ng’

Whātua was called Te Roro Te Rangi, that of Waikato was Te Kanawa. When

this force was assembled at Mangatoatoa, the army of Kiringutu met them

there – a fight ensued, and some of Tūkōrehu’s party were killed, and three of

Ng’ Whātua. Wharara [of] Waikato was killed there…189

186. Tupotahi states that Kiringutu’s war party was assembled to avenge the deaths

of Te Ikaharaki and others, and that the death of Te Whārara was deemed to be

sufficient utu for them. Significantly, Tupotahi makes no mention of the presence of

muskets in these battles, though in his accounts of later battles (i.e. post-1822), he

clearly recounts who was shot by whom. After the killing of Te Whārara, Kiringutu’s

war party, including a large cohort of Raukawa, went to Moumoukai, which he

described as ‘near Napier’.190

According to Tupotahi, it was after Kiringutu’s party

had left that Tūkōrehu’s army went to Tangimania, still supported by the Ngāti

Whātua and Waikato contingents. They reduced Tangimania, killing the chief Tuni

Matarenga, before moving on to attack Whakarekehono Pā, where they captured the

chief Tuku.191

187. Sometime after the altercation at Tangimania, Ngāti Whakatere retired

eastwards to join their Raukawa kin. The latter were ensconced in the well-defended

Hangahanga pā on the northern slopes of Pukewhakaahu, a smaller peak immediately

south-west of Maungatautari, where Ngāti Kauwhata numbered among the

must have had very few guns, as certainly Ngāti Whātua possessed few if any guns c.1818, which is the date she

ascribes to this conflict.

189 Evidence of Tupotahi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) hearing, 7 August 1884, Waikato MB

13, p. 1.

190 In fact, Moumoukai is the sacred mountain of Ngāti Rakaipaka, a hapū of Ngāti Kahungunu based at

Nūhaka in northern Hawke’s Bay. Evidence of Tupotahi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari)

hearing, 7 August 1884, Waikato MB 13, p. 1. Kiringutu’s expedition to Moumoukai, which continued up to

and beyond the siege of Hangahanga Pā, appears to have led to confusion on the part of some witnesses, who

have equated it with the unsuccessful attack by the combined force of Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa against

Ngāti Kahungunu at Ahuriri in about 1822. This has led in turn to the siege of Hangahanga being dated,

erroneously it is argued below, at 1822.


13, pp. 1-2.


March 2013

96

defenders.192

Citing Tumuhuia of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ballara states, “After Tangimania,

the victorious chiefs, Muriwhenua, Wahanui, Poutama and others, divided the

Maungatautari district.”193

John Hutton takes issue with the notion that these victories

enabled these Ngāti Maniapoto chiefs to exercise rangatiratanga at Maungatautari,

observing that Hurimoana and Tangimania Pā are not within the Maungatautari

district, nor even within Wharepūhunga; they were situated to the west on the

Rangitoto blocks.194

Certainly, Tupotahi’s account makes no mention of Ngāti

Maniapoto dividing up any land anywhere; rather, he states that after their victories at

Tangimania and elsewhere, “The chiefs then assembled to discuss the advisability of

avenging the death of Te Wharara; they accordingly went to Hangahanga.”195

4.5.4 Hangahanga Pā

188. Nigel Te Hiko locates Hangahanga Pā on the slopes of Pukeatua, the southern

peak of the Maungatautari massif.196

He says it was a pā of Raukawa, Ngāti Whakatere

and Ngāti Kauwhata, and these made up the garrison when the army led by Tūkōrehu

and Te Akanui arrived. While this army might be glossed as ‘Ngāti Maniapoto’, it

included Tūkōrehu’s hapū of Ngāti Paretekāwā, Ngāti Matakore, Ngāti Hikairo and

possibly other hapū affiliated to Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Apakura and ‘Waikato’. The

impregnability of Hangahanga necessitated a siege; Ngāti Maniapoto and their allies

encamped about the pā for two months without being able to force an entrance. In due

course, Te Akanui who was related to some of the defenders, decided to offer them a

means of escape; he conspired to leave plaited flax ropes on one side of the pā, while


13, p. 2.

193 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 240; citing evidence of Tumuhuia, Te Rohe Pōtae hearing, 6 August 1886,

Ōtorohanga MB 1, pp. 73-74.

194 Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 107. He states: “none of the fights

just mentioned took place in what Raukawa today would define as ‘Maungatautari’, and none of the Raukawa

communities living on Maungatautari proper appear to have been displaced from their lands during them.

Rather, the fights took place on lands west of the Wharepuhunga block, in the area south of the Puniu River,

west of the Mangatutu Stream and ultimately east of the Waipa River, what later encompassed the Rangitoto A

block and northern parts of the larger Rangitoto-Tūhua block. These lands had been a corridor of contest

between Ngati Whakatere and Ngati Maniapoto for some time…”


13, p. 2.



March 2013

97

he convened a council of war amongst the attackers on the far side, as a distraction.

Only two of the pā’s occupants were left behind, one because he was very old, and the

other because he was ill. When one of the departing defenders sang a valedictory

waiata to the old man, Te Kohe, the besiegers heard it and knew the occupants of the

pā had made their escape. They entered the pā, whereupon Te Kohe was killed, cooked

and eaten. His death was deemed to be sufficient utu for the previous killing of Te

Wharara of Ngāti Maniapoto.197

189. Tupotahi makes a number of interesting points in his kōrero to the Native

Land Court. He states that: “Ng’ Raukawa and Ng’ Kauwhata were in the Pa”;198

which clearly differentiates between the two iwi, while recognising their alliance. He

also reports that the defenders of Hangahanga possessed two firearms, one musket and

one pistol. The musket was put to use by Te Ahukaramū when Manāia, a chief of

Ngāti Whātua supporting Ngāti Maniapoto, built a tower with which to view inside the

pā. On one occasion when Manāia climbed his tower, Te Ahukaramū took aim at his

feather headdress and shot him in the head, killing him.199

Te Ahukaramū would later

lead one of the first waves of Maungatautari migrants south to Ōtaki in the 1820s.

190. In Tupotahi’s account, Peehi Tūkōrehu acted as Te Akanui’s accomplice in

arranging the escape of the occupants of the pā. Tūkōrehu was also instrumental in

arranging a peace-making between Ngāti Maniapoto and Raukawa following the

Hangahanga siege. After all the bloodshed, it appears that the main protagonists were

at last ready to be reconciled.200

197 Evidence of Tupotahi, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari) hearing, 7 August 1884, Waikato MB 13,

pp. 2-3. NB: The notes of the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court hearing the Maungatautari case, published

in AJHR, 1885, G.-3, p. 4, records the old man killed at Hangahanga as Te Koru, not Te Kohe.


p. 2.


pp. 2-3.

200 Presumably, Hape-ki-tūārangi had already died when Hangahanga was besieged, removing one of the main

obstacles preventing Tūkōrehu from making peace.


March 2013

98

4.5.5 Peace is made between Waikato & Kauwhata-Raukawa

191. Tupotahi gives a thorough account of the post-Hangahanga peace-making. He

describes how the various tribes involved in the battle returned to their customary

places, until, a short time later, Tūkōrehu and Te Akanui said to their young men

(about 60 in all): “Let us go and see our Ngāti Raukawa friends”.201

They visited

numerous settlements around the district, having extended hui, and talking about and

singing waiata to those who had died in the recent wars. Mr Te Hiko comments:

“[T]he peace making following Hangahanga at Pawaiti was important between

Raukawa and Waikato-Maniapoto as this seems to have been the catalyst to the

radical improvement of Raukawa’s relationships with their neighbours.”202

192. Te Winiata Tupotahi does not mention Ngāti Kauwhata except by implication

in this part of his narrative, but their involvement in the Hangahanga battle and a

reference to the Ngāti Kauwhata chief Wharepakaru at the later ratification of the

Pawaiti peace-making strongly suggests that they were involved. He states, “The

people who escaped from Hangahanga occupied Motutakupu, Okokore and Hapuaroa

and joined the rest of the people who were living in those pas.”203

They all later

gathered at Pawaiti, where they were told the news of the peace-making. At the

Maungatautari rehearings, the Court agreed that these fights were in the nature of an

extended family quarrel, which had no effect on the disposition of land rights;

essentially, once utu was satisfied, the various hapū and iwi returned to their

customary places of residence.204

193. Tupotahi offers further context when he describes many of the leading chiefs

of Waikato, including Tūkōrehu, Te Akanui, Paiaka, Te Kanawa and many others

joining the ‘very great war-party’ called ‘Ami-o-whenua’, which also included


p. 3.

202 Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010, p. 134. Emphasis in the original.


p. 3.

204 “Judgment in the Maungatautari Case”, 5 September 1884, in: AJHR, 1885, G.–3, p. 6.


March 2013

99

members of Marutuāhu, Ngāti Whātua, Te Arawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa.205

This great

expedition took separate paths to Heretaunga (Hawke’s Bay), meeting Kiringutu’s

party on the way, some of whom joined the force, others returning to the Waikato.

Amiowhenua travelled on through the Wairarapa to Te Whanganui-a-Tara

(Wellington), before journeying back via the west coast. At northern Taranaki they

were attacked by Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Tama, as well as Te Rauparaha’s

Ngāti Toa, who had recently evacuated from Kāwhia and were on their southerly

migration.206

Tūkōrehu sent word to Te Wherowhero and Ngāti Maniapoto seeking

assistance, as they were besieged at Pukerangiora Pā. In due course, the siege was

lifted and the Waikato contingent returned to their homelands only to find themselves

in imminent danger from a massive Ngāpuhi taua, led by Hongi Hika.

194. The ensuing defeat of Waikato at Mātakitaki was a watershed event; from that

point it became imperative that Waikato settle its own troubles and unite against any

further threats from outside the region. Thus, once peace with Ngāpuhi was secured

through the marriage of Te Wherowhero’s cousin Te Kati Takiwā to Rewa’s daughter

Matire Toha, further gestures of reconciliation between Raukawa-Ngāti Kauwhata and

Waikato-Maniapoto took place.

195. Tupotahi states:

… after this Ng’ Raukawa assembled at Pokuru to see Tukorehu and Te

Akanui – the chiefs of the Ng’ Raukawa at that meeting were Te Puke, Te

Manawariki, Te Ruamaioro, Tiharoa, Te Whatanui, Kiringutu, Matangi, and

several others – their object in coming to see Tukorehu, was to confirm the

peace-making already made at Pawaiti with Ng’ Maniapoto, Ng’ Raukawa

then became aware that the peace-making of Maniapoto was a reality, because

on the first occasion, a great many of the people were away at Moumoukai. Te

Puke stood up, and addressing Tukorehu and Te Akanui – said Maungatautari

should belong to you – the chiefs previously mentioned, then stood up, and

spoke to the same effect, but Te Hiwi of Ng’ Raukawa objected. Te Akanui

considered Te Hiwi’s objection and the words of Raukawa, and said, the

boundary of this giving, should be Mangakawa, so as to exclude Te Hiwi’s


p. 4.


pp. 4-5.


March 2013

100

portion. … [boundaries set out] Wharepakaru [of Ngāti Kauwhata] retained his

own piece, namely Pukekura.207

All this took place at Pokuru. After this they went to Rapauru – the same

people for the most part were there only there were more of Maniapoto present

on this occasion. Some of Waikato were there also, including Te Paewaka,

having heard what had taken place. Potatau too was there. Peace was made on

this occasion with Waikato, permanently. Te Puke then handed over the land

again on this occasion coupling the names of Te Paewaka and Potatau with

those of Tukorehu and Te Akanui. Te Kati had not at this time returned from

his mission to Ngapuhi, he was on his way home though.

Ng’ Raukawa and Waikato then returned to their respective homes.208

196. Thus, in the aftermath of Mātakitaki the Waikato-Maniapoto alliance made

permanent peace with their former enemies, Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata, after

which everyone went back to their respective homes. Tupotahi records the chief of

Ngāti Kauwhata, Wharepakaru, as retaining his own piece of land at Pukekura.

197. The question of dating these battles assumes some significance in light of the

Native Land Court’s ruling that the Marutuāhu refugees inflicted a raupatu upon

Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata (one and the same in the view of the Land Court

judges) in the 1820s. In discussing these issues (see next section), it is necessary to

jump forward somewhat and consider issues that are covered in greater detail later in

the report.

4.5.6 Dating the battle of Hangahanga Pā

198. The fortunes of the various parties during and after these battles, and the

resulting disposition of land rights at Maungatautari became the subject of much

debate and vigorous contestation in the Native Land Court and Royal Commission

land title investigations in the Maungatautari district in the 1860s-1880s. The

contradictory nature of the evidence has led to different interpretations in recent

207 Wharepakaru was a chief of the Ngāti Kauwhata hapū of Ngāti Hinepare, at Pukekura.

208 Evidence of Te Winitana Tupotahi, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari) hearing, 7 August 1884,

Waikato MB 13, pp. 7-8.


March 2013

101

historical publications (and non-published reports) concerning the order in which these

events occurred, and their significance in terms of enduring land rights in the district.

199. For example, in complementary reports undertaken for Raukawa, John Hutton

and Nigel Te Hiko nominate a date range of c.1816-1820 for the Hangahanga siege, as

proposed by F. L. Phillips in Landmarks of Tainui. Key primary sources include the

evidence of Te Winitana Tupotahi at the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga

(Maungatautari) hearing in August 1884;209

while Mātene Te Whīwhī and Ngara also

support a date prior to 1820, as they clearly state that the battle took place before the

time of Hongi and the arrival in the Waikato of the Marutuāhu refugees.210

Te Hiko

states that after the Hangahanga peace was concluded, Raukawa (and, presumably,

Ngāti Kauwhata) enjoyed three years of relative peace before the effects of war were

again felt in their territory.211

For his part, John Hutton argues that the Hangahanga

peace-making between Raukawa (and Ngāti Kauwhata) and Maniapoto/Waikato

effectively secured the Waikato flank and rear, allowing them to prosecute their war

with Te Rauparaha at Kāwhia without fear of interference from the latter’s allies in the

interior.212

200. Mātene Te Whīwhī’s evidence at the Puahue investigation of 1868 also offers

clues as to when the battle of Hangahanga Pā took place. He reports that prior to the

battle at Hangahanga, Raukawa had fought a contingent of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Whātua

(presumably, at Tangimania); and that Hangahanga occurred about the time of

Reverend Marsden’s first visit to New Zealand, although he may be referring to

Marsden’s third visit in 1820, when he spent some time visiting various localities

around Tāmaki and Hauraki. Te Whīwhī states that Hongi’s attacks on Mokoia-

Mauinaina and Te Tōtara Pā in Hauraki occurred soon after this.213

201. To this author, the activities of the Ngāti Paretekāwā tupuna Peehi Tūkōrehu

appear to be the key to dating the siege of Hangahanga Pā. All authorities

209 Evidence of Tupotahi, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari) hearing, 7 August 1884, Waikato MB

13, pp. 3-5

210 See: Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 108; citing: evidence of

Mātene Te Whīwhī, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, transcribed in AJHR 1873, G-3, p. 24; and : Ngara cross-

examination, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 27 June 1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 336.


212 Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 119-120.

213 Evidence of Mātene Te Whīwhī, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 76-77.


March 2013

102

acknowledge the prominent role played by Tūkōrehu at Hangahanga, and he is also

recognised as the instigator of the initial peace-making with Raukawa (and Ngāti

Kauwhata) sometime after the siege. According to Tupotahi, Tūkōrehu departed on the

Amiowhenua expedition soon afterwards, and did not return to the Waikato until after

the relief of Pukerangiora Pā in Taranaki, immediately prior to the battle of Mātakitaki

in 1822.214

Meanwhile, in early 1822, Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa were in

Taupō planning an expedition to Hawke’s Bay, the date of which is fixed by Te

Rauparaha’s meeting in early 1822 with the Ngāti Raukawa leaders at Taupō, where

he tried unsuccessfully to persuade them to join the Ngāti Toa heke, then underway.215

At that time, Tūkōrehu was otherwise engaged, somewhere to the south and west, on

the return leg of Amiowhenua.

202. The confusion appears to arise from the fact that Raukawa made two forays

into Hawke’s Bay around this time, the first of which was conducted by Kiringutu

after the battle of Tangimania and therefore overlapped with the siege of Hangahanga

Pā. It will be recalled that Tupotahi states that when Tūkōrehu joined Amiowhenua,

they met Kiringutu’s party who were on their way home from the Bay.

203. However, some witnesses in the Maungatautari Native Land Court hearings

explicitly link the battle of Hangahanga Pā to Raukawa’s ill-fated second expedition to

Hawke’s Bay in 1822. For example, at the 1886 Te Rohe Pōtae hearing, Haimona

Patara, representing Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Hourua, told the Court that Ngāti Maru and

Ngāti Pāoa, having taken refuge from Ngāpuhi at Horotiu in the aftermath of the fall of

Tōtara and Mokoia, dealt Ngāti Raukawa a series of substantial defeats in the Waikato.

Haimona states that Ngāti Maru attacked Raukawa at Te Kōpua Pā and slew the

occupants, before returning to Piraunui where they killed the important Raukawa chief

Whatakaraka. He then states:

Ngatimaru took up their position at Maungatautari & built a pah called

Hauwhenua to commemorate the conquest of the country from Ngatiraukawa.

214 Tūkōrehu’s participation in Amiowhenua is well-documented; he is recorded as engaging in single combat

with the great warrior chief of Tūhoe, Te Pūrewa, which ended in stalemate and the two combatants embracing

and exchanging mere. Hirini Melbourne states: “Peace was made with an embrace and exchange of mere, and a

declaration of undying friendship. This peacemaking had far-reaching effects; it was a major reason for Tuhoe's

assisting the people of Tukorehu and Rewi Maniapoto at Orakau in 1864.” See: Hirini Melbourne. ‘Te Purewa’,

from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30-Oct-

2012. URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t60/te-purewa

215 This is discussed below at section 5.3.


March 2013

103

I wish to state that all the tribes together from the Waikato, Maniapoto and

others besieged Hangahanga. The siege lasted two months…216

204. Patara is clearly associating the Hangahanga siege with Marutuāhu’s

construction of Hauwhenua. He gives an account of Te Akanui intervening to save the

occupants of Hangahanga that approximates Tupotahi’s account from the 1884

Maungatautari hearing. He then states that the former occupants of Hangahanga sought

refuge at Piraunui and Hapuaroa; however:

In making their retreat, Ngatimaru overtook them & slew a great number.

None of the leading chiefs of the besiegers were aware that Te Akanui had

covered the enemy’s retreat. After Ngatiraukawa had been destroyed

Ngatimaru returned to the Ngatihaua district.217

205. Patara was a senior Waikato leader of some standing (he was part of a group

who accompanied King Mahuta to Wellington to meet Crown officials in 1900),218

but

his evidence to the hearing into Te Rohe Pōtae was clearly directed at supporting the

notion that Ngāti Raukawa had been conquered by Ngāti Maru, as this in turn

supported the conclusion that Ngāti Hauā obtained exclusive rights to the district

following their defeat of Marutuāhu at Taumatawīwī.

206. Haimona Patara’s account is significant because Angela Ballara appears to

rely on it for her analysis of the Marutuahu occupation of Maungatautari, and the rapid

deterioration in their relationship with Ngāti Raukawa (and, by extension, Ngāti

Kauwhata).219

Following Patara and others, Ballara reports that Ngāti Maru and the

Hauraki tribes were allies of Ngāti Hauā, Waikato and Ngāti Maniapoto in their wars

with Ngāti Raukawa and their allies, and that Marutuāhu defeated Raukawa at Kōpua

Island shortly after the siege of Hangahanga Pā in 1822. Elaborating on the aftermath

of the battle at Kōpua Island, Ballara states that the Raukawa chief Te Pūkake sought

assistance from the Marutuāhu hapū Ngāti Tamaterā and Ngāti Pūkenga (of Hauraki)

216 Evidence of Haimona Patara, Te Rohe Pōtae investigation, 10 August 1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, pp. 97-98.

Emphasis added.

217 Evidence of Haimona Patara, Te Rohe Pōtae investigation, 10 August 1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, p. 98.

218 Photograph: “Mahuta and leading Maori chiefs who visited Wellington in connection with the passing of

legislation affecting the Native Race – Session 1900”, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/BIM1562Engl-fig-

BIM1562EnglP016a.html.

219 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 242-243.


March 2013

104

in order to launch a campaign against Ngāti Tahu, which she surmises to be the iwi of

that name living at Ōrākeikōrako.220

The Ngāti Tahu defenders were supported by

hapū of Raukawa (probably Ngāti Rahurahu), to whom they were closely related, but

were defeated by Te Pūkake’s party and pursued to the Raukawa pā known as Pāoaiti

(Pawaiti), where they suffered a second defeat and the chief Te Whatakaraka was

killed. Ballara states that he was “the last man of importance to be killed while most

Ngāti Raukawa still clung to the Maungatautari district”.221

She adds that Marutuāhu

were elated at his death because he had earlier “inflicted a defeat on them by escaping

from a trap at Te Tāhuna near the mouth of the Piako River, with the help of Te Haupā

of Ngāti Pāoa”.222

207. Drawing a direct comparison with the eviction of Ngāti Toa from Kāwhia,

Ballara concludes that, “together with the succession of disasters befalling various

hapū of Raukawa within Waikato and their kin on the west coast”, Te Whatakaraka’s

death at Pāoaiti “was the catalyst for migration.” Although “an important peace

agreement was made [at Pāoaiti] and ratified throughout Waikato-Maniapoto”,

according to Ballara this peace-making merely allowed Ngāti Raukawa and

“associated peoples such as Ngāti Whakatere, Ngāti Te Koherā and Ngāti Kauwhata

… to leave (in some cases years later) with mana intact.”223

She continues:

They did not flee, but chose to leave. Many of their kin remained behind and

Ngāti Raukawa maintained a strong presence in their homelands, although it

was usually the descent groups with close kin ties to Ngāti Maniapoto and

Waikato, or with Ngāti Hauā to the north, which felt secure enough to remain,

often initially under the protection of such chiefs as Tūkorehu or Te

Waharoa.224

208. It is not altogether clear from this whether Ballara thinks Raukawa, Ngāti

Kauwhata and their allies really did choose to leave or whether they were forced out.

The problem appears to arise because of the late date attributed to the siege of

220 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 242; citing: evidence of Hauāuru Poutama, Te Rohe Pōtae case, 14 September

1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, p. 287.

221 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 242.

222 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 242.

223 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 242. Emphasis added.

224 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 242.


March 2013

105

Hangahanga Pā, after the arrival of the Hauraki refugees, and the corollary that the

battle of Kōpua Island followed almost immediately after the siege. This gives the

impression of relentless pressure on Raukawa such that the decades of internal warfare

amongst Waikato merged seamlessly into conflict with the refugees.

209. In fact, ‘battle’ is a misnomer for the Kōpua Island dispute, which actually

involved the capture by Marutuāhu of a group of Ngāti Raukawa women, whom they

later released. Ngāti Kauwhata were not involved in this event at all, which took place

after the Hauraki refugees had been resident in the Waikato for a number of years.

Indeed, the sporadic and often random nature of the conflicts and disputes belies the

implied argument that these events initiated a process whereby a united Marutuāhu

defeated various Raukawa (and Ngāti Kauwhata) hapū of the Maungatautari district

and drove them from their ancestral lands.

210. If Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa were still at war with Waikato after the

arrival of the Hauraki people, it begs the question as to why they did not take the

opportunity to join Te Rauparaha’s migration in 1822 when it arose. From evidence

quoted at length below, they did not migrate in 1822 because they did not need to –

they already had a well-established peace agreement with Ngāti Maniapoto and

Waikato, which allowed the people of Maungatautari, including Ngāti Kauwhata, the

respite of a relatively peaceful interval prior to the influx of the Hauraki migrants.

They were free to leave Maungatautari when they chose and were able to stagger the

migrations over several years because they were not under any pressure.


March 2013

106

5 Ngāti Toa’s wars with Waikato & the Kapiti Hekenga

5.1 Warfare between Waikato and Kāwhia

5.1.1 Background to the conflict

211. Previous chapters of the report have described the establishment of Ngāti

Kauwhata’s mana whenua in the Maungatautari district, and how the iwi was able to

maintain their rights in spite of a general escalation in inter-tribal warfare in the

Waikato district in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In this chapter,

the warfare between a Waikato-Maniapoto alliance and a west coast alliance

comprising Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Koata and Ngāti Tama is reviewed, as context for the

later migrations of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi.

212. Although Kāwhia is some distance from Maungatautari, and the set of take

that embroiled the hapū and iwi of the west coast were not identical to those between

Ngāti Kauwhata and their Waikato-Maniapoto neighbours, the broader issues are more

or less comparable. Not only did Ngāti Kauwhata (and Raukawa) have a common

enemy with Ngāti Toa in Waikato-Maniapoto, but the fact that Te Rauparaha chose to

migrate, and that Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa eventually decided to follow him

south is a significant parallel narrative. Te Rauparaha’s descent from major lines of

Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa is another factor that should not be underestimated.

Suffice it to say that the Native Land Court decisions of the 1860s and 1880s cannot be

understood (or properly critiqued) without gaining an appreciation of the motivations

behind the migrations of both Ngāti Toa and Raukawa-Ngāti Kauwhata.

213. Angela Ballara provides the most accessible summary of events leading up to

the abandonment of Kāwhia and the neighbouring West Coast harbours of Aotea and

Whāingaroa (Raglan) at the beginning of the third decade of the nineteenth century.225

She makes the important point that, at first glance, the coastal wars between these

close relatives appear to be about territory; inasmuch as the net result was that a broad

225 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 278ff.


March 2013

107

sweep of territory was abandoned by one set of hapū and iwi, who were replaced in

due course by their victorious adversaries. However, she qualifies this argument,

stating:

But when these wars are recounted in all their detail, it can be seen that they

were something else. They were local disputes gone sour: disputes over

resources, curses, insults and chiefly rivalry – all the usual potential causes of

disputes between independent groups – which, it was intended, would be

settled by war. As people of high rank and many kin connections were killed

or captured, however, allies who were kin to them were brought in on both

sides to assist in the relentless and inevitable search for utu, and the wars

continued and expanded until they had reached intolerable levels. Something

had to give. Te Rauparaha and Te Hiakai were among the leaders who realised

that these disputes had gone too far; healing the breaches by peace-making

was no longer possible. The only solution was a radical physical and

geographical parting of the combatants: the complete removal of those on one

side, not just south into contiguous territory, but leap-frogging a long distance

beyond the territories of any related kin. One effect of this drastic solution was

that land changed hands. If these can be considered land wars, it is not through

their causes but in their results.226

214. Conflict on the coast appears to have had its genesis in the struggles for

supremacy between the sons of Koata, a female descendant of Māhanga and Mahuta.

Her sons, Kāwharu and Te Wehi were half-brothers, the children respectively of

Koata’s husbands, Ngaere and Pakaue, who were both descendants of Tamainupō.227

As the conflicts played themselves out, Ngāti Te Wehi allied themselves with Ngāti

Mahuta, Ngāti Māhanga and Ngāti Tamainu (the latter being the descendants of

Tamainupō), in wars fought against the descendants of Kāwharu, who became known

as Ngāti Koata. Kāwharu married Waikauri, the daughter of Toarangatira forging a

link with those people, then known as Ngāti Mangō. As already noted, since the time

of Toarangatira’s grandfather, Tūpāhau, Ngāti Mangō had occupied the West Coast as

far south as Marokopa.228

Whanaungatanga between Ngāti Mangō and Ngāti

Tūirirangi produced Ngāti Rārua, who occupied the territory south of Marokopa at

Waikawau.229

By the end of the warfare between Kāwharu and his brother Te Wehi,

226 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 280-281.


228 To reiterate: Ngāti Mangō was the earlier name for Ngāti Toa; Mangō was Tūpāhau’s great-grandfather.

229 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 283-284.


March 2013

108

which included the battle of Te Moana-waipū, Ngāti Te Wehi were firmly aligned with

Waikato.

215. Ballara provides brief accounts of numerous other battles between the hapū

residing on the lands about the West Coast harbours, though she acknowledges that her

“truncated account of the hostilities” barely scratches the surface of the “complexity of

descent and inter-relationships by marriage of the contestants”.230

The upshot of these

narratives, however, was that:

[B]efore these wars, Ngāti Koata were the most powerful people of Aotea and

Kāwhia, extending their territory northwards into Whāingaroa. But the

abandonment of Whāingaroa and the fall back on Aotea and Kāwhia greatly

weakened Ngāti Koata as a people and brought them further under the

protection, leadership and mana of Te Rauparaha of Ngāti Toa of southern

Kāwhia.231

216. This process occurred over a number of generations, beginning well before Te

Rauparaha took on the leadership of Ngāti Toa. It is evident from the narrative

traditions that even in the latter stage referred to in the quotation, Ngāti Koata leaders

reserved the right to act under their own authority, rejecting Te Rauparaha’s proposals

if they did not agree with them. This was the case when Te Rauparaha first raised the

prospect of migrating to the southern parts of the North Island; the Ngāti Koata chiefs

Te Wharepuhi and Taiko flatly refused to join the migration.232

This highlights the

independence of close allies, even when that ally is a chief with the mana of Te

Rauparaha. This in turn has implications for Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s

relations with both Raukawa and Ngāti Toa.

230 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 292-295. At pp. 288-291, she covers the battle of Hingakākā, already

summarised in Section 4.4.4 of this report.

231 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 295.

232 In the event, the decision was taken out of their hands, as both were killed on the northern side of Kāwhia

Harbour by Ngāti Māhanga in the battle known as Te Wharu (or Te Waro) before the migration began. Ballara,

A., Taua, 2003, pp. 301-319.


March 2013

109

5.1.2 Escalating conflict in the early nineteenth century

217. In the aftermath of Hingakākā, but before the death of Hape-ki-tūārangi, Te

Rauparaha became the dominant chief of Ngāti Toa, though he was still relatively

unknown beyond Kāwhia and untested in battle. When Ngāti Koata arrived at Kāwhia

seeking shelter, Te Rauparaha sent a message to the Waikato chiefs occupying

Whāingaroa advising them to return to their own lands, but the messenger returned to

say that his advice had been rejected. About the same time, some women related to his

nephew, Te Rangihaeata, were killed by Ngāti Pou when attending an uhunga

ceremony at Te Whakairoiro west of Ōtorohanga. When Te Rauparaha signalled his

intention to seek utu for this crime, his message was treated with scorn. Te Rauparaha

then launched a surprise attack on Waikato at Karioi,233

killing a number of ranking

chiefs, including Uetoka of Ngāti Pou, Te Mata-o-Tūtonga, Te Moanatako,

Tūmoanataiaha and Te Wharenohi.234

218. Waikato then mobilised to crush Ngāti Toa, sending a large taua in at least

five war canoes to attack Kāwhia. After defeating some Kāwhia locals in a battle

fought in the open, the Waikato taua attacked the pā the survivors retreated to.

However, recognising some of the attackers, Te Rauparaha’s sister Waitohi berated

them from the palisades, which induced Waikato to call off the attack and make

peace.235

Subsequently, Te Rauparaha killed the high-ranking Waikato tohunga and

chief Te Uira, who had been responsible for killing a Ngāti Toa tohunga and was

endeavouring to occupy the deserted lands around Aotea Harbour. Te Uira’s seniority

and multiple kin connections precipitated numerous revenge attacks on Kāwhia and

Aotea, which had the effect of driving the remaining tangata whenua away from Aotea

Harbour to seek shelter with Te Rauparaha at Kāwhia.236

219. Ballara describes a sequence of battles, including Putu-karekare, Tūtaerere,

Tāwhitiwhiti, Hikurea (or, Hikuparea) and Kaikakapu, fought by various Waikato iwi

233 Karioi is the high point south of the South Head of Whāingaroa Harbour.

234 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 296.

235 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 296-297.

236 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 297-298.


March 2013

110

and hapū with links to Te Uira against Ngāti Toa/Ngāti Koata. Although losses were

suffered on both sides, creating new take that had to be avenged, the pressure on Ngāti

Toa and their Ngāti Koata allies was becoming ever greater. Eventually, they

concentrated their forces in Te Tōtara Pā, situated on a headland on the south shore of

Kāwhia Harbour, which was duly invested by Waikato. The battle swung to and fro

until nightfall, when the evening truce was called. In an unusual move, Te Hiakai, a

son of Te Uira whose death had precipitated the warfare, visited the occupants of Te

Tōtara with advice on how they might escape what appeared to be certain annihilation

the following day. In fact, Te Hiakai had distinguished himself on other occasions as a

peacemaker; he told them not to light their cooking fires in the morning so Waikato

would think the pā had been abandoned during the night. This they did, and Waikato

accepted the ruse and departed.

220. Although disaster was averted, the take kept mounting, as the fighting and

skirmishing continued and more chiefs on both sides were killed. The climax to this

warfare was delayed somewhat by Te Rauparaha’s excursions to the south (see next

section), but the ‘intolerable levels of warfare’ referred to at the beginning of this

chapter were rapidly being reached, forcing Te Rauparaha towards the radical solution

he eventually arrived at.

5.2 Te Rauparaha takes his people south to Kapiti

5.2.1 Te Rauparaha visits Whanganui a Tara & final battles at Kāwhia

221. From about 1818, interspersed between the Kāwhia campaigns, Te Rauparaha

made two journeys south to Taranaki seeking utu for kin killed in previous battles, and

a third journey beginning in November 1819, accompanying the Ngāpuhi chiefs Nene

and Patuone to Taranaki, Whanganui and the southern part of the North Island.237

The

Ngāpuhi, who also included Tūwhare in their ranks, were armed with muskets, the

effectiveness of which was abundantly demonstrated as the taua gained victories

237 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 301-303.


March 2013

111

against the Taranaki iwi of Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Ruanui.238

Te Rauparaha and Waka

Nene were great friends; when they reached Te Moana-a-Raukawa (Cook Strait), they

saw a European sailing ship, which prompted Nene to say: “E Raha! Take possession

of your home here that you may be near the Europeans. Then you will certainly be a

great chief, for you will be given guns by the Europeans and be able to conquer all the

tribes.”239

222. Tamihana Te Rauparaha (Te Rauparaha’s son) writes that:

Te Rauparaha said nothing as he listened to these words, but he kept them in

his heart. As the war party returned it is said that Te Rauparaha spared some of

the chiefs of those parts. Others were taken away by Waka Nene to be slaves

of the Nga Puhi. (The original tribes who owned these lands were the Ngati

Kahungunu, Ngati Apa, Muaupoko and Rangitane, and the general name for

this end of the island is Wairarapa).240

223. Tamihana states that the attractions of the ‘Wairarapa’ district for Te

Rauparaha were threefold: the Pākehā, the greenstone (the source of which in the

South Island was much closer than to Kāwhia), and the abundance of food in terms of

birds, eels, fish and so on. On his return, he reportedly displayed little interest in the

on-going battles around Kāwhia, finally announcing to his people his intention to

“migrate and take possession of Wairarapa and Te Waipounamu.”241

According to

Tamihana, Ngāti Toa immediately approved of the idea, but Ngāti Koata disagreed and

objected to the idea of migrating. Te Rauparaha told them they could hold their own

opinions. He then went to the Kaipara, where he met with Pōmare (also known as

Whētoi), chief of Ngāti Manu (in the Bay of Islands) and Ngāti Rongo (at Kaipara).

Pōmare refused Te Rauparaha’s invitation to accompany him south, as did his relatives

in Hauraki when he made the same invitation to them.242

Te Rauparaha returned to

Kāwhia, where the relentless pressure being brought to bear by Waikato continued.

238 Te Rauparaha, Tamihana, Life and Times of Te Rauparaha, Peter Butler (ed.), Martinborough, Alister

Taylor, 1980, p. 10.

239 Te Rauparaha, Tamihana, Life and Times of Te Rauparaha, 1980, p. 10.



242 Te Rauparaha, Tamihana, Life and Times of Te Rauparaha, 1980, pp. 13-15.


March 2013

112

224. In the summer following Te Rauparaha’s return from the southern taua,

c.1820-21, a series of events occurred that culminated in the battle of Kākara, which

Ballara describes as a decisive moment in Kāwhia’s history.243

The battle took place

south of Kāwhia not far from the seacoast near Lake Taharoa, following the killing of

a Ngāti Māhanga man by Raparapa of Ngāti Tama. Seeking utu for this death, a large

force of Ngāti Māhanga and Ngāti Mahuta assembled to confront Te Rauparaha,

ensconced in a pā on an island in the lake, and a force of Ngāti Tama and Ngāti

Mutunga that had marched up from Taranaki. Meanwhile, a force of Ngāti Maniapoto

and Ngāti Hikairo under Peehi Tūkōrehu was marching south via an inland route to

invest Ngāti Tama’s Waikawau Pā on the seacoast towards Mōkau.

225. In the first clash of combatants, Te Rauparaha’s ally Raparapa was killed,

fighting a duel with the young Waikato champion, Te Awaitaia.244

The death of

Raparapa demoralised his allies such that the tide of battle turned against them and

many were killed. Te Rauparaha managed to escape by canoe with the Ngāti Toa

survivors. Ngāti Koata arrived too late to help, and turned around and went back to

Kāwhia. When the remnant Ngāti Tama fled south towards Waikawau Pā, their cries

gave warning to the besiegers that the other Waikato taua had been victorious. Led by

Tūkōrehu and Te Huaina, Waikato-Maniapoto attacked Waikawau, which fell with the

loss of many lives.245

226. After Te Kākara, Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Koata attempted to regroup, the former

resorting to their pā at Arawī, on the coast south of Kāwhia Heads; and the latter to

Whenuaāpo, within the Kāwhia catchment on the south side of the harbour. By some

accounts, some on the Waikato side had become weary of the fighting, and resolved to

save their relatives amongst the defenders. Among them was Te Hiakai, who entered

Whenuaāpo Pā and brought his Ngāti Te Rā relatives out through the ranks of hostile

warriors. Te Awaitaia also lent his own Ngāti Māhanga warriors to help prevent Ngāti

Te Rā from being molested by Ngāti Te Wehi.

243 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 304-305.

244 Raparapa was renowned as one of the greatest exponents of traditional warfare of the time. Te Awaitaia was

one of Te Wherowhero’s top generals in his wars against Kāwhia and Taranaki; he later converted to

Christianity, taking the name William Naylor (Wīremu Nera), and became a supporter of the Crown and

opponent of the Kīngitanga.

245 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 305-306.


March 2013

113

227. The Waikato-Maniapoto taua moved on to Te Arawī, where similar efforts

were made to provide safe conduct to certain related groups sheltering within the over-

crowded fort. The accounts vary somewhat as to what happened next. In one version,

Te Rauparaha arranged a peace-making with Te Hiakai, whereby the former agreed to

hand Kāwhia over to Te Hiakai in exchange for safe-conduct away from the area and

the promise that he would not be followed. In another version, Te Rauparaha gifted

Kāwhia to Te Rangituatea of Ngāti Maniapoto. The Ngāti Toa account does not agree

with the Waikato and Maniapoto versions of events; Tamihana Te Rauparaha makes

no mention of an exchange of land for safe conduct. He simply states that Te

Rauparaha resolved to take his people south, as he had already been planning.246

228. The cycle of utu between Waikato and Ngāti Toa continued after the latter

made the decision to leave. Te Rauparaha’s senior wife Marore was killed when

attending a tangi, leading Te Rauparaha to take utu in response. And despite

assurances to the contrary, Waikato continued to harass Ngāti Toa when they

embarked on their journey southwards.247

5.2.2 The Ngāti Toa migrations

229. Te Rauparaha burned his home to the ground and recited a lament for his lost

home lands, before embarking on his difficult journey. As Waikato and Ngāti

Maniapoto war parties continued to stalk the Ngāti Toa hekenga, Te Rauparaha

dressed his people in red cloth and spread a rumour that a Ngāpuhi taua wearing red

was in the area. When they camped at night, they lit many fires and Te Rauparaha

gave addresses to apparently large groups of warriors in order to deter any possible

threats. By means of stages, Te Rauparaha moved his people in discrete groups till

they arrived in Te Ati Awa territory south of the Mōkau River, where they were

comparatively safe.248

230. Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal states that the migration was divided into two

parts: the first, to Taranaki, was called “‘Te Heke Tahutahuahi’, recalling the incident

246 Ballara, Taua, 2003, pp. 307-309.

247 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 307-309.

248 Oliver, Steven, “Te Rauparaha, ?-1849”, in, Oliver, W.H. (ed.), DNZB, Vol. 1, pp. 504-507.


March 2013

114

when many fires were lit to give their enemies the impression they were numerous.”249

The second part was named after the great difficulty of the undertaking, ‘Te Heke

Tātaramoa’.

231. The narrative traditions dealing with Ngāti Toa’s journey south are well-

covered in the published sources and do not need rehearsing here. However, the

engagement at Ōkoki deserves a mention because in many ways it provides the

denouement to the preceding narrative. In northern Taranaki, the heke met the great

Amiowhenua expedition, made up of Ngāti Whātua, Waikato and Hauraki, returning

from its circumnavigation of the North Island. Te Rauparaha’s Taranaki allies had the

400-strong taua bailed up in Ngāpuketūrua Pā and Te Rauparaha joined in the assault.

With help from their own Taranaki allies, the northerners managed to move to the

nearby, much stronger Pukerangiora Pā on the Waitara River. However, their situation

remained desperate, as they were in danger of starving.

232. Tūkōrehu, who had joined Amiowhenua and was present at Pukerangiora, sent

a message to Waikato requesting relief. Waikato duly came to lift the siege, which

brought them once again into close proximity with Te Rauparaha and his beleaguered

people. The Waikato taua was headed by Te Wherowhero, and included Te Hiakai and

the great Ngāti Maniapoto warrior Mama. The latter two led a pre-emptive strike on

the Ngāti Toa pā against the wishes of Te Wherowhero, who was busy arranging

shelter for the Waikato taua. Their rashness proved fatal, and both were killed or

captured along with many of their fellows, the survivors being harried in their retreat

back to where Te Wherowhero was working.

233. Taken by surprise by the sudden appearance of enemy warriors, Te

Wherowhero had no time to grab his weapon, instead seizing a kō, or digging stick,

which he brandished, killing a number of enemies before his own people realised he

was in danger.250

Te Rauparaha’s forces were in the pā called Ōkoki, from which the

battle took its name. According to Kelly, Te Hiakai had been captured in the initial

impetuous assault and after the battle he was brought before Te Rauparaha, who

reminded him that he had been instructed not to follow the heke but had promised it

safe passage south. As Te Rauparaha moved forward to embrace and hongi his enemy

249 Royal, Te Ahukaramū Charles, (compiler), Kāti au i konei: He Kohikohinga i ngā Waiata a Ngāti

Toarangatira, a Ngāti Raukawa, Wellington, Huia, 1994, p. 17.

250 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), pp. 341-344.


March 2013

115

(and his relative), a Ngāti Mutunga toa leapt forward and Te Hiakai was cut down,

stabbed (like Ngatokowaru) with a stingray barb.251

234. Thus, the relentless killings followed Te Rauparaha south; indeed, a large part

of his reason for going was to gain access to firearms, the better to prosecute these

wars. After the battle, the Waikato taua joined their kin in Pukerangiora Pā and from

there embarked on the return journey to the Waikato, arriving at Mātakitaki Pā in time

to meet the threat of Hongi Hika and his 3,000 Ngāpuhi, perhaps half of whom were

armed with muskets.

5.3 Relevance of the Ngāti Toa migration for Ngāti Kauwhata

235. The foregoing, rather lengthy, though heavily abridged account of Te

Rauparaha and Ngāti Toa’s warfare with Waikato demonstrates that Ngāti Toa and

their Ngāti Koata allies took the best and possibly the only option available to them

when they embarked on the long journey south. It was a painful decision and an

arduous journey. A key question to be answered here is whether Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Wehi Wehi were also forced to leave their lands about Maungatautari by

external pressures, exerted by on-going strife with Waikato, or by the sudden influx of

the Marutuāhu tribes seeking shelter from Ngāpuhi muskets following the destruction

of Mokoia-Mauinaina and Te Tōtara Pā.

236. In terms of the internal warfare in the Waikato, the evidence suggests that

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi did not face the same predicament as Ngāti

Toa, because unlike the latter, they were able to conclude a lasting peace with their

Waikato-Ngāti Maniapoto adversaries. As close allies of Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata

benefited from the peace-making endorsed by Peehi Tūkōrehu after the battle of

Hangahanga Pā. Tūkōrehu’s kinship with the people he had been fighting at

Maungatautari meant that, once both sides agreed that the demands of utu had been

met, they were able to renew the bonds of kinship and return to peaceful co-existence.

The significance of this peace-making is that neither Ngāti Raukawa nor Ngāti

Kauwhata/Ngāti Wehi Wehi felt compelled to accompany Ngāti Toa south in 1822.

251 Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 347.


March 2013

116

Although they subsequently followed Te Rauparaha south, they did so for their own

reasons that had nothing to do with the warfare of the previous decades.

237. For his part, Te Rauparaha realised he needed allies for the difficult and risky

venture he had taken on. Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal states that Te Rauparaha left

his people in Taranaki while he went on a recruiting drive, during which he made

overtures to the people of Taupō, Rotorua, Tauranga, and even Tūkōrehu of Ngāti

Maniapoto, but to no avail.252

Although Te Rauparaha had inherited the mantle of

warrior chief from Hape, and was in that sense a rangatira of Ngāti Kauwhata and

Raukawa, he was outranked by other leaders who were senior to him by virtue of their

descent. He could not order them to follow him. When he visited Taupō shortly after

Ōkoki, Te Rauparaha tried to persuade Te Heuheu of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Ngāti

Raukawa who were there at the time to join the heke south. He took with him the head

of Te Hiakai for the benefit of Raukawa, so they might see for themselves that utu

against their enemy had been successfully achieved.

238. But Te Heuheu and the Raukawa chiefs had plans of their own, which

involved an ambitious plan to conquer and occupy the Heretaunga (Hawke’s Bay)

district. Ballara states:

Te Rauparaha attempted to persuade them to come with him to Kapiti,

stressing its riches. He was answered by a Ngāti Raukawa chief called Te Au,

and by Horehau, another son of Te Ākau by Hape, who both reproved him for

attempting to dictate to his elders and seniors in rank. They suggested that he

obey their behest to come with them to Ahuriri (Napier), to help them take this

place as a new home. Saddened by their anger, Te Rauparaha returned to

Ōkoki, there to begin the journey to Kapiti.253

239. This tends to confirm the view that Te Rauparaha was in no position to dictate

to his Waikato relatives; he put his request and had to accept their decision. Although

the documentary sources do not specify that Ngāti Kauwhata were included in Te

Rauparaha’s invitation to Raukawa at that time, they must have received word of it at

some point, and probably relatively early, because it was rangatira of Ngāti Kauwhata

who led the first band of migrants south from the Maungatautari district. These events

are considered in the next chapter of the report.

252 Royal, Te Ahukaramū Charles, (compiler), Kāti au i konei, 1994, p. 17.

253 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 326.


March 2013

117

6 The Ngāti Kauwhata migrations and the Hauraki

refugees

6.1 Introduction

240. Chapter 6 seeks to describe the circumstances and motivations behind Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s migrations south to Horowhenua and Manawatū, as

well as ascertaining the degree to which these events may have been driven by the

presence in the Maungatautari district of a large influx (at least 4,000 persons) of

Hauraki refugees.254

241. Firstly, the chapter looks at the impact of the new weaponry, the muzzle-

loading musket, on inter-tribal relations, and in particular on the political landscape of

the Waikato in general and the Maungatautari district in particular in the early 1820s.

6.1.1 The threat of Ngāpuhi, and the need to acquire muskets

242. The threat of Ngāpuhi to the people of the Waikato in the early 1820s

probably cannot be over-estimated. Whole regions were abandoned, with the refugees

pressing upon neighbouring populations with whom they had taken shelter in

uncomfortable and unfamiliar proximity. Ngāti Kauwhata were directly affected by

this phenomenon from early 1822. Among other things, the threat and evident strength

of Ngāpuhi precipitated a keen desire for muskets in tribes throughout the rest of the

Motu.

243. The Ngāpuhi taua that attacked Tāmaki and Hauraki in December 1821 is

estimated to have numbered 2000 warriors, at least half of whom were armed with

muskets, travelling in a fleet of more than 50 large waka taua. They were seeking utu

for a number of take, among them the killing by Ngāti Pāoa of the Ngāpuhi chief

254 This section draws on evidence presented in various Native Land Court investigations and the Ngāti

Kauwhata Commission, as well as a number of secondary sources, including Angela Ballara’s Taua, Paul

Monin’s Hauraki Contested, Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal’s Kāti au i konei and L. G. Kelly’s Tainui. Also

cited are Nigel Te Hiko’s “Raukawa Traditional History Report” (2010), and John Hutton’s “Raukawa

Traditional History Summary Report (2009), along with numerous other sources.


March 2013

118

Kōperu, whose body had been cut up and distributed to many iwi in the wider area,

including as far south as Waikato.255

Hongi Hika had carefully measured the utu debt

owed his people by enemies near and far, and Waikato were liable on a number of

counts.256

Nearly two years previously, in early 1820, Ngāti Maru had been exposed to

musket-wielding enemies, when their Ngāti Pāoa neighbours obtained assistance from

Korokoro and Te Tūhi of Te Ngāre Raumati over a local dispute. According to

Marsden, who visited the area soon afterwards, the muskets induced terror and

helplessness in the Ngāti Maru defenders that was disproportionate to the musket’s

effectiveness as a weapon.257

This “psychological” effect of the musket was again

apparent when Hongi attacked Mātakitaki pā in 1822, when the discharge of the

Ngāpuhi muskets panicked the Waikato defenders causing a stampede, with large

numbers crushed to death in the great defensive ditch.

244. In later years, Waikato Māori tended to be dismissive of Ngāpuhi dominance;

Mātene Te Whīwhī saying that “Hongi’s mana was powder and guns”.258

But at the

time, the shock effect of muskets on populations that did not possess them was

profound. Following Hongi’s sacking of the twin pā of Mokoia-Mauinaina at Tāmaki,

and Te Tōtara Pā at the mouth of the Waihou, the survivors fled south away from the

reach of Ngāpuhi, leaving Tāmaki and Hauraki largely depopulated. According to

various sources, Raukawa were living in the Taupō district when the Ngāpuhi attacks

occurred;259

it may be that Ngāti Kauwhata joined their Raukawa kin in seeking shelter

in the Taupō district – Mātene Te Whīwhī’s evidence cited below suggests as much.260

245. In any event, the lands around Horotiu (present-day Cambridge) and

Maungatautari were soon filled with refugees, not only from Hauraki, but also from

255 Ballara, A, Taua, 2003, p. 214. Ballara notes that Ngati Te Ata of the southern Manukau were the only local

tribe to refuse to take a share.

256 It appears that people affiliated to Waikato who were present at Te Tōtara had killed the Ngāpuhi chiefs Tete

and Pū when defending the Ngāti Maru pā. Kelly also notes that a young Ngāpuhi warrior named Te Aranui,

who was closely related to Hongi, had travelled to the Waikato in the recent past where he had become involved

in the war between Ngāti Māhanga and Ngāti Toa. He was subsequently killed in a battle on the beach at

Kāwhia and Hongi held Waikato responsible for his death. Kelly, Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 356.

257 Monin, Paul, This is My Place: Hauraki Contested, 1769-1875, Wellington, BWB, 2001, pp. 44 & 54;

citing: Marsden, Journals, p. 255.

258 Puahue case (Maungatautari), 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 76-77.

259 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, p. 326; Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report, 2009, p. 121.

260 Evidence of Mātene Te Whīwhī, Puahue case (Maungatautari), 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 76-78.


March 2013

119

Tāmaki, the Takapuna coast and the Hauraki Gulf Islands. As noted, it was after the

events at Pukerangiora and the battle of Ōkoki Pā described above that Hongi attacked

Mātakitaki, while Te Rauparaha and Ngāti Toa were still on their journey south. Te

Wherowhero returned to the Waikato in time to take command of the Waikato forces

at Mātakitaki (there was ample warning of Ngāpuhi’s impending arrival, as the

northerners spent a number of weeks clearing trees and cutting new channels to make

the Awaroa River navigable for their long waka taua).261

During the course of the

battle, Ngāpuhi captured certain chiefly women, including Te Rāhuruake and

Parekohu, the wife and sister respectively of Te Kanawa. In a gesture designed to

facilitate a peace-making agreement, these women were set free at Mangatāwhiri near

Pokeno, and the following year peace was concluded through the marriage of Rewa’s

daughter Matire Toha to Kati Takiwā, the cousin of Te Wherowhero.262

6.2 Ngāti Kauwhata & Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s southern migrations

6.2.1 Introduction

246. When the Maungatautari blocks were investigated by the Native Land Court

and Ngāti Kauwhata Commission from 1868-1880s, the decision of the Court turned

on whether the influx of Hauraki refugees had precipitated the migration of the people

of the district, and whether this constituted a raupatu. In deciding in the affirmative on

both points, the Courts and the Commission rejected the claims of Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Raukawa to Maungatautari, which they conflated into one claim. These matters

are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters dealing with these inquiries. It is

sufficient to point out here that based on the available evidence, the Marutuāhu people,

who were later joined in exile by cohorts of Ngāti Whātua (after the Battle of Te Ika-a-

Ranganui in 1825), lived peacefully with their Waikato hosts for a number of years

after their arrival.

261 The Awaroa River is a tributary of the Lower Waikato, running southwards from the direction of Waiuku on

the Manukau Harbour. A short portage between the Awaroa and Waiuku Rivers allowed relatively easy access

between the Manukau and Waikato River. Kelly, L.G., Tainui, 1949 (2002), p. 357.

262 McBurney, P., “Traditional History Overview of the Mahurangi and Gulf Islands Districts”, MAGIC/CFRT,

2010, (Wai 1040, doc. #A36), pp. 297-303.


March 2013

120

247. The disputes that were later alleged as being of significance in forcing the

migrants to leave only began to occur around the time, or a little before, the final

migration in 1828. Most of the major disputes between Marutuāhu and Waikato did

not involve the migrating tribes at all, but were fought between Marutuāhu and Ngāti

Hauā and took place after the 1828 migration. Therefore, rather than beginning with a

discussion of the conflicts that developed between the Marutuāhu refugees and the

tangata whenua of the Maungatautari district, the chapter looks firstly at the migrations

themselves, including what motivated them and the chronological sequence in which

they occurred. An important question that requires investigation is to what extent did

Ngāti Kauwhata participate in the migrations led by Ngāti Raukawa rangatira, and vice

versa.

6.2.2 Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s venture into Heretaunga

248. After Mātakitaki, the all-consuming desire of the tribes that had fallen victim

to Hongi’s muskets was to acquire significant quantities of these weapons for

themselves. In later years, the cutting and processing of flax became the main means

of accomplishing this, initially trading with visiting ships, and later (after 1830) with

the first European traders to set up in districts remote from European centres like the

Bay of Islands.263

However, in the early 1820s, the Waikato flax trade was not yet

established, and Māori from the interior needed to travel to centres of European

occupation in order to engage in trade for firearms. As already noted, this was a major

reason behind Te Rauparaha’s decision to take his people south.

249. It will be recalled that when Te Rauparaha met with Ngāti Raukawa at Taupō

in 1822, with the head of Te Hiakai as a tohu supporting his request that they join the

heke to Te Ūpoko o Te Ika, Raukawa were hatching plans of their own with Te

Heuheu of Tūwharetoa to investigate prospects in Heretaunga/Ahuriri (Hawke’s Bay).

This venture began promisingly, with a warm welcome from Ngāti Kahungunu.

263 Monin, P., This is My Place: Hauraki Contested, 1769-1875, Wellington, BWB, 2001, pp. 72-73. Phillip

Tapsell set up at Maketu in 1830, while Monin states that the earliest Pākehā flax traders in the Waikato

appeared c.1832-33. In the Waikato, the most abundant sources of flax were the upper Waihou and Piako

Rivers. This vast swampland fell within the ancestral territories of Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Tamaterā in the north;

Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Hinerangi in the central area, and Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Ngāti Tukorehe in the southern

reaches.


March 2013

121

However, while they were there, a Ngāi Te Rangi taua led by Te Waru arrived, which

attacked Ngāti Kahungunu. Perhaps revealing their true intentions, Raukawa joined the

fight on Te Waru’s side, deploying their few muskets against their Ngāti Kahungunu

hosts. This proved to be a mistake, as Raukawa and the Ngāi Te Rangi were defeated

and, although Raukawa attempted to regroup, they were again defeated in two further

battles, losing a number of important chiefs in the process.264

250. According to Ballara, it was about this time that Te Whatanui and Taratoa

went on to Kapiti seeking to obtain guns from Te Rauparaha. She states:

The allied groups including Ngāti Raukawa and Waikato went back to

Hawke’s Bay to seek utu, and eventually captured Te Pakake pā in Ahuriri

harbour. Many important Ngāti Kahungunu chiefs were taken prisoner. Te

Momo of Ngāti Te Koherā, allied to Ngāti Raukawa, then attempted to settle

in the nearly deserted Heretaunga near Te Roto-a-Tara, most of the Hawke’s

Bay tangata whenua having in the meantime taken refuge at Nukutaurua on Te

Māhia peninsula. Rallied by Pareihe of Ngāti Te Whatuiāpiti and his ally from

the Bay of Islands, Te Wera Hauraki, who had settled with his musket-armed

Te Uritaniwha hapū at Nukutaurua by 1824, the Heretaunga tribes killed Te

Momo, took back Heretaunga, and the invaders and their Ngāi Te Ūpokoiri

allies withdrew once again to Taupō.265

251. Thus, Raukawa’s Heretaunga adventure was not a success, but Te Whatanui

and Taratoa took the opportunity to visit Te Rauparaha and see for themselves the

advantages of the southern lands. Apparently, this visit provided sufficient incentive

for them to plan a more comprehensive move south by a broad cohort of hapū who

identified as or were allied to Raukawa. Ngāti Kauwhata were among the latter and

were also among the first to make the journey south.

6.2.3 Ngāti Kauwhata lead the migrations from Maungatautari

252. It is thought that the first of the southern migrations involving Ngāti Kauwhata

took place c.1824-1825, with some accounts placing it about the time Te Rauparaha

was attacked at Kapiti in the battle known as Waiorua, in which a combined army of

local tangata whenua, Ngāti Muaūpoko, Ngāti Apa and Rangitāne attacked Ngāti Toa

264 Ballara, Taua, 2003, p. 341.

265 Ballara, Taua, 2003, pp. 341-342.


March 2013

122

at their Kapiti stronghold.266

Others suggest it occurred around the time that Ngāpuhi

defeated Ngāti Whātua in the Kaipara district at the great battle of Te Ika-a-

Ranganui.267

253. S. Percy Smith states that the first ‘Raukawa’ migration involved, among

others, the chiefs Te Puke ki Mahauariki, Ruamaioro and Te Māhunga, the son of Te

Wahineiti (the elder brother of Hape ki Tūārangi). Citing Smith, Hutton states:

Led by Te Puke ki Mahauariki, Ruamaioro, and several others, the first

Raukawa heke was not initially successful. According to an informant of S.

Percy Smith, the party laid siege to a pa called Makokoti on the banks of the

Whanganui River so as to extract utu for the earlier death of two Raukawa

persons, Hikitangi and Hekeawai. Makokoti belonged to Topine te Mamaku of

Ngati Haua (of Whanganui, not Waikato). While one local group came to

support them, under the chiefs Ngarupiki and Parata, the heke was attacked in

turn by what Smith states were a taua of eight hundred Whanganui. Badly

outnumbered the Raukawa party retreated from Makokoti to Te Wharariki,

where they were attacked again losing various people, including Ruamaioro,

and having others taken captive. According to Smith, the balance of the party

eventually reached Kapiti and settled there “permanently” with Te

Rauparaha.268

Smith describes the end of the first heke thus:

The chiefs of this Ngati-Rau-kawa migration were Te Rua-maioro,

Te Mahunga, Te Paheka (all killed), Mahoro, Te Whare, Te Puke,

Te Ao, Rourou-ao, and Tupaea. The hapus engaged in it were

Ngati-Waiu-rehea and Ngati-Rangi. On the arrival of these people

in the south, they first lived at Kapiti with Ngati-Toa, but

sometime after and when vessels began to frequent that island,

they removed to the mainland in order to be near the flax swamps,

266 The battle of Waiorua is described in a number of sources. Waretini Tuainuku, a rangatira of Ngāti Raukawa

in the late nineteenth century related an account of this and other battles to Sir Walter Buller, who translated the

text and published it in the Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand. See: Buller, W.

L., “Article LXIX – “The Story of Papaitonga; or, A Page of Maori History”, (Read before the Wellington

Philosophical Society, 21 February 1894), TPRSNZ, Vol. 26, 1893, pp. 572-584.

267 Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 124; citing: S. Percy Smith, History

and Traditions of the Maoris on the west coast, North Island of New Zealand prior to 1840, Polynesian Society

Memoir, No. 1., 1910, (Christchurch: Capper Press, 1984), pp. 402-404. Nigel Te Hiko suggests the earlier date

of ‘c.1821’ (Te Hiko, N., “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2009, p. 147), but if this is correct, then

Raukawa/Kauwhata cannot have travelled south at Te Rauparaha’s invitation, as he was yet to arrive at Kapiti.

Te Rauparaha does not appear to have left Kāwhia until late-1821 at the earliest, and was still in northern

Taranaki in 1822, based on the estimated dates for the battles of Ōkoki and Mātakitaki.

268 Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, pp. 125-126; citing: S. Percy Smith,

History and Traditions of the Maoris on the west coast, 1910, pp. 402-404.


March 2013

123

where they engaged in dressing that material to exchange for

muskets.269

254. Nigel Te Hiko observes that the leaders of this hekenga belonged to Ngāti

Kauwhata. He states: “What is of interest in these two accounts is the association of

chiefs of Ngāti Kauwhata amongst what is generally termed as a ‘Raukawa migration’

as Tupotahi it appears seemed to consider Ngāti Kauwhata to be of Raukawa.”270

The

survivors of the battles with Whanganui joined up with another hekenga of Taranaki

iwi, including many Te Ati Awa, who were also on their way south to join Te

Rauparaha.

255. Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal’s 1994 compilation of waiata and whakapapa

short-titled Kāti au i konei, contains waiata and narrative traditions describing the

Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Raukawa hekenga to the Kapiti coast. Mr Royal’s account does

not refer to the migration of Ruamaioro, Te Puke ki Mahauariki and the others, stating

instead that the first Raukawa migration was that involving his ancestor and namesake,

Te Ahukaramū. He writes:

Some time after the Ngāti Toa migration to the south, word arrived at

Maungatautari that they had been defeated and had perished. Subsequently, a

Ngāti Raukawa travelling party was despatched and found Ngāti Toa at Ōtaki,

fit and well. The leaders of this group included Mātenga Te Mātia, Te

Horohau, Te Ahukaramū and Ngārangiorēhua.

After some feasting and resting, the Ngāti Raukawa party was preparing to

return home when Te Rauparaha invited Ngāti Raukawa to come south. This

invitation was set aside politely by Ngāti Raukawa, until Waitohi, a sister of

Te Rauparaha, rose and challenged them:

Ngāti Raukawa! Return to Maungatautari! Who of you will lead

my barnacles to this land that we have cleared?

Te Ahukaramū replied:

I will by the strong back of Pakake.

269 S. Percy Smith, History and Traditions of the Maoris on the west coast, 1910, p. 403.

270 Te Hiko, N., ““Raukawa Traditional History Report, 2009, p. 148.


March 2013

124

Ngāti Raukawa returned to Maungatautari, where Te Ahukaramū presented the

proposal to migrate to the south. He became incensed when the people of

Maungatautari did not listen to him, and ordered that their houses be burnt

down. This induced them to leave and the first of many Ngāti Raukawa

migrations took place, the three most important being:

Te Heke Whirinui

Te Heke Kariritahi

Te Heke Mairaro

Te Ahukaramū led the first migration, Nēpia Taratoa the second, and Te

Whatanui the third, each assisted by many others.271

256. Teremoana Sparks and W. H. Oliver also describe the pivotal role played by

Waitohi, Te Rauparaha’s tuahine, in persuading Te Ahukaramū to return with

reinforcements. They record Waitohi as stating:

‘If you return to Waikato bring my kinsfolk back with you – Ngati Kauwhata,

Ngati Wehiwehi, Ngati Werawera, Ngati Parewahawaha and Ngati Huia’ – so

Waitohi is said to have exhorted Te Whatanui of Ngati Raukawa, who had

come south with Ngati Toa. Another Ngati Raukawa leader, Te Ahu-karamu,

replied with the proverb: ‘My back is strong enough to carry them!’ This story

was told by his son Roera Hukiki.

Waitohi’s invitation carried great weight. Te Manahi of Ngati Huia, one of

those who had migrated to the Kapiti coast, was emphatic on this point: ‘We

came at the desire of Waitohi. Had Te Rauparaha called, the people would not

have assented. It was at the word of Waitohi.’ Te Manahi also testified that

Waitohi was responsible for allocating land to the hapu who came south

during these years. It is also said that she proposed that the Kukutauaki

Stream, between Waikanae and Otaki, should be the boundary between Te Ati

Awa to the south and Ngati Raukawa to the north.272

257. Just as Ngāti Kauwhata made up a significant proportion of the leadership of

the first, ill-fated migration in about 1824, the last migration from Maungatautari to the

south, which departed c.1828, also appears to have involved Ngāti Kauwhata,

following closely on the heels of the final Ngāti Raukawa hekenga. It is said that while


Toarangatira, a Ngāti Raukawa, Wellington, Huia, 1994, pp. 19-20.

272 Teremoana Sparks and W. H. Oliver. ‘Waitohi – Biography’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand

Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10. URL:

http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1w3/1


March 2013

125

Ngāti Raukawa travelled down the coast, Ngāti Kauwhata, led by Te Wharepakaru and

Te Whata, took an inland route.273

Te Winiata Tupotahi told the Maungatautari

investigation in 1884 that:

The migration of Kauwhata took place (last one) under Te Whata and Te

Wharepaka [i.e., Te Wharepakaru], after the last migration of Raukawa, which

took place shortly after Te Whatakaraka was killed at Piraunui. They went

from [blank …] – Kowhatupapa on the Pukekura block – the greater part of

the Kauwhata had already joined the Ng’Raukawa migrations.274

258. Thus, members of Ngāti Kauwhata also joined the hekenga that are generally

known as Raukawa migrations, fulfilling the request by Waitohi in which she

specifically indicated that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi should be amongst

those to make the journey south. Charles Royal reports that Te Rauparaha’s affiliation

to Hape-ki-tūārangi’s hapū of Ngāti Huia was one reason the descendants of both

Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata followed Ngāti Toa south. 275

259. The links back to Kauwhata (and Raukawa) and the whanaungatanga shared

by the leaders of the migrations, including Te Māhunga, Te Ahukaramū and Te

Whatanui are revealed in the whakapapa shown in Figure 19, overleaf.276

273 Pers. Comm. Don Tait, by email.

274 Evidence of Te Winiata Tupotahi, Maungatautari Case, 11 August 1884, Waikato MB 13, p. 21; cited in:

Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 142.


Toarangatira, a Ngāti Raukawa, Wellington, Huia, 1994, pp. 19-20.

276 Figure 19 follows the chart already illustrated in Figure 14, above, with additional material taken from:

Royal, Te Ahukaramū Charles, (compiler), Kāti au i konei: He Kohikohinga i ngā Waiata a Ngāti Toarangatira,

a Ngāti Raukawa, Wellington, Huia, 1994, p. 19. NB: Pareraukawa (marked with an asterisk*) is shown twice;

as the daughter of Kikopiri and the sister of Wahineiti and Hape; and as the wife of Tīhao and mother of Te

Whatanui. Te Ahukaramū’s seniority is evident in this chart.


March 2013

126

Figure 19: Whakapapa of Ngāti Huia and the leaders of the migrations

Raukawa = Tūrongoihi

Kauwhata Takihiku

Wehi Wehi Tamatehura Pipito

Tūtete Huitao Tama-te-whana

Parekārewa ======= Haetapunui Maihi

(Haehaeora)

Ngatokowaru ==================== Pareunuora

Huia

Korouaputa Kikopiri

Parewahawaha Te Mania Parekōwhatu Wahineiti Pareraukawa* Hape

Pakake Ngārangiorēhua Te Māhunga Te Horohau

Tīhao = Pareraukawa* Te Rauparaha

Te Tāuhu

Te Ahukaramū Te Whatanui

260. Many years after the migrations, Chief Judge Fenton of the Native Land Court

gave judgment in the Rangitikei-Manawatū case. Perhaps mindful of earlier Crown

purchases from Ngāti Apa (the 1849 Rangitikei purchase), the Court was careful to

state that:

There is no evidence at all to show that Rauparaha, in granting or allotting

lands to the different sections of the Ngatiraukawa tribe, did ever give or grant

to them any lands within the boundaries of the Ngatiapa possessions, between

the rivers Rangitikei and Manawatu, or elsewhere; to have done which would

have been clearly inconsistent with the relations then subsisting between


March 2013

127

himself and the Ngatiapa tribe, over whose lands he had never claimed or

exercised the rights of a conqueror…277

261. However, although Ngāti Apa retained their rights, the Court was prepared to

admit certain rights accruing to three ‘hapu of Raukawa’. Ngāti Kauwhata’s rights in

the block came under particular scrutiny, the Court stating:

The third hapu, the Ngatikauwhata, appears to have come in under slightly

different circumstances. The lands allotted to them by Rauparaha were on the

south side of the Manawatu river, the lands of the Ngatiapa were on the north,

and, to quote the very apt expression of one of the witnesses, “they stretched

the grant of Rauparaha and came over the river;” the facts appearing in reality

to have been that they made a quiet intrusion on to the lands of the Ngatiapa,

but offering no violence, lest by so doing they should offend Rauparaha, as,

under the then existing established relations between the tribes, to do so would

have been a very different affair from the killing of the stragglers they met

with several years before on the occasion of their first coming into the

country.278

262. Fenton concluded that Ngāti Apa did not oppose the incursion of Ngāti

Kauwhata onto their side of the river for much the same reasons – they did not wish to

offend Te Rauparaha; they made a virtue of necessity and welcomed Ngāti Kauwhata

as friends and allies. The Chief Judge viewed this negotiated arrangement between

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Apa towards peaceful cohabitation as exceptional in “those

times of rapine, violence and war, when men could only preserve their lives … by a

constant exhibition of military strength…”279

He explained it in terms of Ngāti Apa’s

relatively weak position, such that they were willing to barter territorial rights with

Ngāti Kauwhata for the latter’s military support. Over time, joint occupation of the

land and a demonstrated willingness to defend it bestowed on the newcomers

recognised rights to the soil. In Fenton’s words:

Those who, living on the soil, have assisted in defending it, — who, making a

settlement, either invited or unopposed by the original owners, have afterwards

277 Native Land Court Judgment, Rangitikei-Manawatū Decision (1869), Fenton, F. D. Important Judgments

delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court, Auckland, 1879, p. 106.


delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court, Auckland, 1879, pp. 107-108.




March 2013

128

entered into alliance with them and performed the duties of allies, — acquire

the status and rights of ownership, more or less precise or extensive, according

to the circumstances of the first settlement, and to what the subsequent events

may have been.

But be the motives of the Ngatiapa whatever they were, for inviting or not

opposing the settlement of these three Raukawa hapu, the fact remains that we

find them in a position, and doing acts, giving them or proving that they had

acquired, according to Maori usage and custom, rights which the Court

recognises by this judgment: that is to say, firstly, that the three Ngatiraukawa

hapu — called respectively Ngatikahoro, Ngatiparewahawaha, and

Ngatikauwhata, have acquired rights which constitute them owners, according

to Māori usage and custom, along with the Ngatiapa tribe in the block of land,

the right to which has been the subject of this investigation.280

263. As was always the case with Native Land Court decisions, title was awarded

to ‘individuals’ belonging to the above-named hapū, providing they had not previously

alienated their rights by sale, lease or mortgage (although such prior dealings were not

permissible under the Act). As for Raukawa, ‘as a tribe’, the Court found that it had

not “acquired any right, title, interest or authority in or over the block of land which

has been the subject of this investigation.”281

264. Much more could be said about Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

establishing themselves in the Horowhenua and Manawatū districts, but it is beyond

the scope of this report, which remains their ancestral lands at Maungatautari.

6.2.4 Ngāti Kauwhata maintain ahi kaa at Maungatautari

265. Ngāti Kauwhata witnesses in the various Courts and Commissions inquiring

into the titles and history of the Maungatautari district were adamant that Ngāti

Kauwhata did not relinquish their rights to their ancestral Waikato lands when they

migrated south. It was understood at the time that while some of the migrants might

remain in the Horowhenua-Manawatū districts, others would eventually return. To

ensure that their rights remained alive and to keep their fires burning at Maungatautari,

some Ngāti Kauwhata whānau remained behind after most of their kin had migrated




delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court, Auckland, 1879, p. 108.


March 2013

129

south. One of the leaders who stayed behind was a chief named Murupara.282

In the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, Metapere Tapa (the wife of Tapa Te Whata) told the

Commissioners that her father was Te Wharepakaru, the principal man of Ngāti

Kauwhata and that he had left the Waikato lands in the care of a chief named

Murupara.283

266. Similarly, at the 1884 investigation of the Maungatautari block, Tupotahi told

the Court:

When [Ngāti Kauwhata] left, Wharepaka said to Whetuwhetu hold on to our

land, Pukekura. Te Whata said to Paewaka to the same effect, as regards

Mangapiko, Rotoorangi, it was then this side of Pukekura was made over to

Paewaka and Potatau, this included the land between Pukekura and Waikato,

given to Te Wiwini, otherwise known as Whetuwhetu. Mangapiko was made

over by Te Uata to Paewaka, Rotoorangi and Mangahuka also, this includes

Puahue block. When Ng’Kauwhata migrated, some of them remained behind –

Te Waaka, Ngae and Ng’Kauwhata remained, Rangiwehea also, Eruera Huia,

Hawia also, & Te Akanui, Te Paewaka, Potatau, Tukorehu, and a great many

others.284

267. Thus, according to Tupotahi, Te Wharepakaru and Whata led the final Ngāti

Kauwhata migration, which took place after the last Raukawa migration following the

killing of Whatakaraka. Te Wharepakaru left Pukekura in the care of Te Wiwini (a.k.a.

Te Whetowheto, or Murupara), while Te Whata and Te Uata (Pāora Te Uata, who

went to live at Rotorua in the 1830s) ‘made over’ the Mangapiko lands, including

Rotorangi and Mangahuka, to Te Paewaka and Pōtatau, who were enjoined to ‘hold on

to our land’.

268. Some witnesses in Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry argued that placing the land in the

care of chiefs such as Te Akanui, Te Paewaka, Pōtatau and Tūkōrehu was the

equivalent of an outright gifting of the land, and in itself an abdication of rights.285

282 Murupara was also known as Te Wiwini, and also as Te Whetowheto. See: “Memorandum by Mr A.

McDonald for the Hon. the Native Minister, re Report of Commissioners on Ngatikauwhata Claims”, 8 July

1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2. NB: McDonald calls him ‘Murapara’, rather than ‘Murupara’, but in

Metapere’s evidence it is spelt ‘Murupara’.

283 Evidence of Metapere Tapa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, G.–2A, p. 9.

284 Evidence of Te Winiata Tupotahi, Maungatautari Case, 11 August 1884, Waikato MB 13, p. 21; cited in:

Hutton, J.L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 142.

285 These arguments were made when these issues were again raised before Te Rohe Pōtae investigation in

1886.


March 2013

130

From the perspective of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi, however, such kōrero

was simply a Native Land Court strategy. The role of kaitiaki and the reliance on the

Ngāti Kauwhata whakapapa lines of the chiefs who undertook the kaitiakitanga was a

well-established customary practice, which was sufficient to preserve the ancestral

rights of the Ngāti Kauwhata hapū in the lands about Maungatautari, provided ahi kaa

was maintained by frequent return visits.

269. Just as Ngāti Kauwhata acquired rights in the Manawatū district by virtue of

an extended period of undisturbed occupation, so too were the Hauraki refugees

putting down roots in the Maungatautari district during the 1820s, although this was

not without increasing opposition from the tangata whenua. The next section considers

the important question of the alleged Marutuāhu ‘conquest’ of Ngāti Kauwhata and

Raukawa in the Maungatautari district.

6.3 Marutuāhu at Maungatautari; refugees or conquerors?

6.3.1 Introduction

270. The circumstances that led Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi to migrate

south to join Te Rauparaha and some of the likely motives for migrating have been

discussed above. While those motives have focussed on the agency of the Ngāti

Kauwhata leadership, another factor that has not yet been examined is the progressive

impact of the massive influx of refugees from Hauraki, who descended on the

Maungatautari district in the aftermath of the Ngāpuhi raids of November-December

1821.286

286 This account draws on evidence presented at the 1868 and 1884 Native Land Court hearings, the 1881 Royal

Commission into the Ngāti Kauwhata claims, and the Native Land Court’s judgment following its rehearing of

the Maungatautari case in 1884. In terms of the latter, it is clear that the Court was required to distil a great deal

of contradictory information into something resembling a coherent narrative upon which it could base its

decision. From a Ngāti Kauwhata perspective, there are problems with using the Court judgment as a source, not

the least of which is the manner in which the Court lumps Ngāti Kauwhata in with Raukawa to the extent that

Ngāti Kauwhata barely rate a mention at all. However, despite the fact that the Court ruled against Ngāti

Kauwhata, and the conviction that the Court’s interpretation of these events and their significance varies a great

deal from that of Ngāti Kauwhata, the summary of evidence contained in the judgment provides a good starting

point for understanding events in the Maungatautari district in the 1820s and early 1830s. See: “Judgment in the

Maungatautari Case”, 5 September 1884, in: AJHR, 1885, G.–3, pp. 1-7.


March 2013

131

271. In the Native Land Court, the successful Ngāti Hauā claimants in the various

Maungatautari block title investigations stated that Raukawa suffered a series of

defeats at the hands of Marutuahu, which drove them away, effectively forcing their

migration from the Maungatautari district to Manawatū and the Kapiti Coast. The

Ngāti Hauā witnesses took a different approach with Ngāti Kauwhata, initially

claiming that their rights to the district derived from their Ngāti Kauwhata ancestry,

while in later hearings denying any knowledge of distinctive Ngāti Kauwhata rights at

all. In general, Ngāti Kauwhata rights at Maungatautari were conflated with those of

Raukawa, which were supplanted by Marutuāhu by means of conquest, resulting in

land rights in the district permanently changing hands. The Court accepted this

argument, and it became the cornerstone of all subsequent Land Court decisions. The

1881 Royal Commission and subsequent Maungatautari rehearing in 1884 upheld the

Court’s original decision that the Marutuāhu refugees obtained rights to Maungatautari

by conquest at the expense of Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa, only to be conquered in

their turn by Ngāti Hauā.

272. Ngāti Kauwhata have consistently and repeatedly protested against the Court’s

ruling based on this interpretation of events, which effectively extinguished Ngāti

Kauwhata’s ancestral rights in the lands at Maungatautari. The following re-

examination of the evidence pertaining to the Marutuāhu occupation of the

Maungatautari district is therefore crucial in ascertaining whether the Court was

justified in its decision, or if in fact Ngāti Kauwhata have suffered an injustice.

6.3.2 Tensions rise between the tangata whenua and the refugees

273. The consensus amongst Native Land Court witnesses was that for the first few

years of their occupation, the Hauraki refugees lived peacefully with their hosts.287

Since the Hangahanga peace-making of c.1819, Ngāti Kauwhata had been at peace

with their Waikato neighbours. The Court minutes are silent on Ngāti Kauwhata’s

activities at this time, which probably indicates that the first half of the 1820s was

relatively uneventful. In the most reliable accounts, there were no outstanding battles

287 See, for example, the evidence of Parakaia, Pukekura hearing, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 27.

Parakaia claimed Pukekura on the basis of his descent from Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Harua.


March 2013

132

or events that precipitated the first Ngāti Kauwhata heke, which left in about 1825.288

Shortly after the heke of Ruamaioro and others, Te Ahukaramū led the Raukawa heke,

Te Heke Karere to Kapiti. He then returned to Maungatautari the following year to

organise a more substantial migration named Te Heke Whirinui; although, as noted, he

had to burn the houses of his hapū to persuade them to leave.289

Hutton makes the

point that:

…it seems significant that Te Ahukaramu needed to set fire to his own village

to persuade his people to follow him southwards – their reluctance speaks to

their perception of their position in the Waikato itself, that is, presumably, one

of relative security despite the threat of Ngapuhi and other local tensions. They

did not feel an overwhelming pressure to depart from their ancestral

homes…290

274. Hutton notes that the most pressing threat at this time was not Marutuāhu, but

Ngāpuhi, owing to the recent killing of Pōmare I at Te Rore by Taraia Ngākuti and his

Hauraki kin. Citing the 1884 Maungatautari decision, which for the most part appears

to follow the chronology of Tupotahi’s evidence, he reports that the central Waikato

hapū and iwi gathered together for strength at various locations around Kihikihi and

Ōtāwhao (Te Awamutu), at Kaipaka and Ngāmoko Pā. The hapū taking shelter there

included “Patukoko, Ng’ Naenae and Ng’ Parehaehaeora…”291

‘Patukoko’ is another

name for Te Werokoukou, the hapū affiliated to both Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Apakura; it was with members of Te Werokoukou amongst others that Te

Wharepakaru of Ngāti Kauwhata entrusted the kaitiakitanga of the Maungatautari

lands when he finally migrated in 1828.

275. This tends to indicate that the first few migrations, including the Ngāti

Kauwhata-led migration that preceded Te Ahukaramū’s first journey, were not driven

by pressure from Marutuahu. However, not long after the departure of Te Heke

288 For example, Tupotahi’s evidence to the 1884 Maungatautari hearing is detailed and coherent, describing

clear sequences of events, which can be checked by triangulation with data from other sources. As outlined here,

his account of the skirmishes that led to the death of the Raukawa chief Te Whatakaraka is plausible and

demonstrates a gradual escalation of relatively petty incidents that culminated in the killing of the chief.

289 See: Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report, 2009, p. 127.

290 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report, 2009, p. 129.

291 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report, 2009, p. 128; citing: Judgment of the Court on

the Maungatautari Case, delivered at Kihikihi on 5 September, 1884, by Chief Judge MacDonald and Judge

Puckey, AJHR 1885, G-3, p. 5.


March 2013

133

Whirinui, a Raukawa chief named Te Hiwi was killed at Tauranga, which set off a

chain of events that led Raukawa into a series of disputes with the Marutuahu refugees.

Raukawa responded to the death of their chief by sending a taua to exact revenge,

which they accomplished by sacking Te Papa Pā. While the taua was away on this

mission, Ngāti Maru took the opportunity to attack Te Kōpua Pā, occupied at the time

by the women and children of Raukawa. These were taken away and briefly enslaved,

until the Raukawa taua went and fetched them back to Te Kōpua again.292

276. This cavalier treatment of their women was the forerunner of a series of

incidents that, although linked through circumstances, appear almost random; they

hardly represent a concerted attempt on the part of Marutuāhu to conquer Raukawa, or

Ngāti Kauwhata for that matter (in fact, Ngāti Kauwhata appear not to have been

involved at all). Tupotahi describes an expedition mounted by Ngāti Mahuta out of Te

Kōpua Pā on the Waipā seeking retribution for a case of adultery by a man named Te

Ahoaho living at Te Wāotū.293

The taua were joined by a man named Te Waha, who

was affiliated to Ngāti Maru, Waikato and Raukawa. The taua plundered the slaves of

Te Ahoaho, who was also dispossessed of his gun and had the indignity of having his

nose bitten. Seeking utu, Te Whatakaraka of Raukawa led a taua in pursuit of the

raiders who had camped at Aratitaha south of Maungatautari. Te Whatakaraka’s force

camped nearby and at daybreak next day the two sides confronted one another.

277. Te Whatakaraka’s chiefly status was noticed by one of his opponents, who

called out: “Ko te whakaariki ra, Ko te whakaariki ra!” Tupotahi states: “Te Waha

stood up with his gun, and fired at Te Whatakaraka – he missed him. Whatakaraka

then returned the compliment, being more successful, for he killed his man.”294

Te

Whatakaraka’s party succeeded in reclaiming both the slaves and the gun taken by the

raiders the previous day. The death of Te Waha prompted Ngāti Maru to send a war

party to attack Piraunui, Te Whatakaraka’s pā, which they fired at indiscriminately,

killing one of the occupants. A Hauraki man inside Piraunui negotiated a truce and

Ngāti Maru returned to their abode (at Horotiu), apparently satisfied. These events

292 Evidence of Tupotahi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 8 August 1884, Waikato MB 13,

pp. 10-11.


p. 11.


p. 11. Tupotahi states that Ngākopera of Raukawa killed one of the raiders named Te Tae.


March 2013

134

took place while Te Whatanui was in Taupō, returning from Te Heke Whirinui;

according to Tupotahi’s account, Te Whatanui’s purpose in returning was to gather

another contingent of his Raukawa kin to further bolster the ranks of the southern

migrants. The ensuing migration was called Te Heke Kariritahi.

278. Ngāti Maru then became involved in a dispute involving the appropriation of

kokowai (red ochre) and the deaths of children, allegedly by mākutu. A party of

Marutuāhu was recruited to obtain utu on behalf of the aggrieved chief; a pā in the

southern part of Waikato named Parekawau was attacked, as a result of which two

Raukawa men inside it named Pouraki and Kuhupo were killed. These two were

friends of Te Whatakaraka, who was very distressed when he heard of their deaths. It

happened that the Marutuāhu war party that had perpetrated the deed passed Piraunui

Pā on their return journey. Te Whatakaraka came out of the pā and met them, firing his

gun, apparently as a way of expressing his grief rather than in an attempt to kill

anyone. His intentions were mistaken; he was fired upon in return and killed. Some of

the Ngāti Tamaterā amongst the Marutuāhu party entered Piraunui Pā with Te

Whatakaraka’s body to tangi over it.

279. The fact that his death appeared to coincide with the last of the Raukawa

migrations was used by some witnesses in the Native Land Court to argue that it was a

significant causal factor behind that migration, Te Heke Mai-i-raro, which occurred

c.1828-29. Hutton argues that Te Whatanui had already planned to take the remaining

Raukawa hapū from the central Waikato district south, and that, if anything, Te

Whatakaraka’s death merely brought these plans forward.295

In his evidence to the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, Hitiri Te Paerata stated that Raukawa grieved for the

man who was killed, but did not leave from fear. Ngāti Kauwhata also left at this time,

joining the last great hekenga to the south with their Raukawa kin.296

280. The remaining disputes leading up to the battle of Taumatawīwī occurred

between hapū and iwi of Waikato (i.e., they were internal fights), or between the

Waikato tangata whenua and the Marutuāhu squatters (as they were now being

perceived). The Ngāti Kauwhata hapū that remained behind, Te Werokoukou and

295 Hutton, J. L. “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report, 2009, p. 133.

296 Evidence of Hitiri Te Paerata, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 23.


March 2013

135

Ngāti Pareteuaki were involved in these disputes, mainly because they concerned their

Ngāti Apakura kin.

6.3.3 The battle of Kaipaka; a dogskin mat, a gun and a broken spear

281. The fractious relations between the Marutuāhu refugees and the Waikato

tangata whenua continued after the southern migrations of Ngāti Kauwhata and

Raukawa; though they were now predominantly between Ngāti Hauā and Hauraki.

Rihia Te Kauae, a witness for Ngāti Hauā at the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, who

spoke against the Ngāti Kauwhata claim, stated that Ngāti Hauā:

…turned in defence and began to kill [the Ngāti Maru]. I [i.e. Ngāti Hauā]

killed Te Hou and Tuanui. This was after the emigration to Kapiti. After this I

went to Mangakawa. They followed me there. We had a battle there. They

killed one of our men named Pou Rangatira. We fought again and killed one of

theirs. I do not know his name. We killed Takurua, the chief man of Ngatimaru

(Marutuahu).297

282. Thus, after matters came to a head at Horotiu, Ngāti Hauā removed themselves

to Kaweheitiki (at Mangakawa), while their relations, Ngāti Kahukura accepted an

invitation from Ngāti Apakura to live at Kaipaka, their pā near Ōtāwhao which they

shared with Ngāti Hinetū. This latter arrangement held for some time (possibly years),

until tensions between Ngāti Kahukura and Ngāti Hinetū boiled over. A skirmish

occurred in which several Ngāti Kahukura were killed, some of the dead being

mutilated with adzes.298

The Maungatautari judgment states:

When news reached Ngatihaua, they came and attacked the Ngatiapakura pa,

Kaipaka, whilst many of the warriors were at Ngaroto eel-fishing. Amongst

the slain was Rangianewa, a woman of very high rank. Ngatihaua did not

attack the Taurangatahi, the pa of Ngatihinetu. We are told Te Paewaka

interceded in its behalf. Immediately on the fall of Kaipaka, those of

297 Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 13.



March 2013

136

Ngatiapakura, who had been at Ngaroto, and the Ngatihinetu from

Taurangatahi, went to Kawhia.299

283. Although the attack on Kaipaka Pā did not involve Ngāti Kauwhata directly,

the pā was located on the western boundary of their territory and the dispute involved

close relations on both sides of the argument. Ōtāwhao (present-day Te Awamutu) is

on the Mangapiko Stream, a boundary marker of the Ngāti Kauwhata rohe; since time

immemorial, Rangiaōwhia had been part of the ancestral lands of Ngāti Kauwhata.300

The killing of Rangianewa assumed greater significance for Ngāti Kauwhata because,

according to Ngāti Hauā witnesses, Te Waharoa gifted to Ngāti Apakura the fertile

lands at Rangiaōwhia as utu for her death and as a means of making peace. The Court

accepted that this peace-making had indeed occurred and that Te Waharoa had

authority to make such a gift, chiefly because Ngāti Apakura and Ngāti Hinetū were

later able to occupy Rangiaōwhia without being attacked.

284. At the 1884 Maungatautari investigation, Wīremu Tamihana’s daughter

Harete Tamihana Te Waharoa spoke about her grandfather’s role in making over this

gift. In response to questioning by Hōri Wirihana, Harete stated that Te Waharoa’s

rangatiratanga at Rangiaōwhia derived from his descent from Kauwhata; it was this

that allowed him to gift Rangiaōwhia to Ngāti Apakura, as utu for Rangianewa who

was killed by Ngāti Hauā.301

When cross-examined on the issue by William Swanson,

the agent for Ngāti Apakura and Ngāti Hinetū, she stated:

Te Waharoa in giving Rangiaōwhia to Ng’ Apakura gave what he had an

Ancestral Claim to – he handed it to Wikitoria and Piripi at Kawehitiki – they

brought the semblance of it to Pehikorehu [sic – Peehi Tūkōrehu] – a gun –

cartridge box, a dog-skin mat, and a spear with the point broken off – the part


300 See, for example, the testimony of Te Hakiriwhi, the representative of Ngāti Koura, who stated, “The name

Mangapiko was probably given to the stream of that name at the beginning of the world by Ng’ Raukawa and

Kauwhata.” Evidence of Te Hakiriwhi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 29 May 1884,


301 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari), April-

May 1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 386. Harete is recorded as stating: “I admit that it was through his ancestral claim

that Te Waharoa divided a piece of land (Rangiaohia) for Ng’ Apakura; it was through his descent from

Kauwhata, also from Pare Paoro.


March 2013

137

broken off represented [the] other portion of the same land retained by the

donor.302

285. It was in this context that Harete added her comments about the marriage of

Pare Paoro to Pūrangataua; that when Pare Paoro was given in marriage, “some land,

her marriage portion, was given with her … the land given comprised Pukekura and

Rangiaohia.”303

In the view of Ngāti Kauwhata, Te Waharoa’s ancestral right to the

land derived from his descent from Pare Paoro, who was a descendant of Kauwhata

through both Hinepare and Wehi Wehi.304

While Harete sought to emphasise Te

Waharoa’s stand-alone rights, according to Ngāti Kauwhata’s understanding of

tikanga, the ancestral rights to the land did not change with the marriage – they

remained with Kauwhata.305

286. The ‘semblance’ of the gift in the forms of the dog-skin mat, the gun and

cartridge box and the broken spear are explained by Mr Don Tait as follows:

The Dog-skin cloak clearly honoured Tūkōrehu and the death of his

grandmother, Paretekāwā;

The Gun and cartridge box were a prized possession at that time, as few guns

would have been available;

The significance of the broken taiaha lies in which portion is given, the point

or the tail? Each has its own meaning; the point means that the land is given

for ever and a day; the tail means the recipients can share the land with the

donors.306

287. Thus, if the point of the taiaha was missing, as Harete’s evidence appears to

indicate, the land was not given unconditionally in its entirety; rather, Ngāti Apakura

302 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by William Swanson, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari),

April-May 1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 391.

303 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by William Swanson, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari),


304 As described in section 3.2.2 and Figure 9, above.

305 Pers. Comms. Don Tait and Jaret Taewa, by email, 12 & 13 January 2013.

306 Pers. Comm. Don Tait, by email, 12 January 2013.


March 2013

138

and Ngāti Hinetū were free to use the valuable land at Rangiaōwhia in concert with

other rights-holders without fear of interference.

288. Te Waharoa’s ancestral rights were clouded somewhat by the fact that he had

never exercised ahi kaa at Pukekura or Rangiaōwhia. Under cross-examination, Harete

Tamihana admitted that Te Waharoa and her father, Wīremu Tamihana had never lived

on the land, but also stated, “I think Taumatawīwī and the act of keeping out our

enemies from the district conferred a better title than mere occupation of the land.”307

She added, “Te Waharoa remained at Matamata as a fence to keep out the foes of my

people, on which act he was not supported by Waikato or Ngati Koroki.”308

Thus, Te

Waharoa exercised mana tangata through his prowess as a military leader across a

wide area that, in Harete’s view, included the lands on the western side of

Maungatautari.

6.3.4 The battle of Taumatawīwī

289. In his evidence to the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, Hōri Wirihana provides a

detailed account of the background to Taumatawīwī, stating:

Te Matepakeha was a sub-hapu of Ngatikauwhata. Ngatiteao, Ngatiwerewere

and Ngatipare also lived there (Pukekura). These are hapus of Ngatihaua, and

occupied the pa of Huiterangiora on this land. After Kaipaka battle they all left

this land and went to Maungakawa and Kaweheitiki. This Kaipaka battle was

that in connection with Ngatiapakura. Disturbances had arisen on account of

Ngatimaru at this time. They ended in a battle. I have heard that Te Whakaete

was the first man killed. I do not know this of my own personal knowledge.

Whakaete was a Waikato and grandfather of Te Wheoro. Ngatikoura went to

avenge his death. Ngatikoura was defeated at Putoetoe and at Mangapiko.

After this all Ngatihaua went to avenge their death. There were many hapus of

Ngatihaua. Ngatihaua were also defeated at Kariaruhe. After this Te Waharoa

is said to have made peace. I cannot say whether it was peace or a cessation of

hostilities. After that Ngatimaru behaved very arrogantly towards Ngatihaua.

Many small battles occurred. After that Ironui and Te Tiwha arranged a great

fight at Maungakawa against Marutuahu. Here Takarua was killed. He was of

Marutuahu. One hundred others of Marutuahu were killed. After the fighting

Te Waharoa said he was dissatisfied with that kind of fight, and called it

307 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by Karaka Tarawhiti, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari),


308 Harete Tamihana – cross-examined by Karaka Tarawhiti, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari),



March 2013

139

murder. Waharoa and Pohepohe agreed to go to Tauranga for assistance from

Ngaiterangi.

It was at this time the final separation between Ngatihaua and Ngatimaru took

place. A very heavy rain occurred in Waikato in that summer. The rivers were

flooded. Ngatimaru said some of Ngatihaua will go for eels. It fell out so, and

thus Ngatihanui of Ngatihaua were slaughtered by Marutuahu. Revenge was

taken and Te Manatu was killed at Hamilton (where it now stands). Intercourse

ceased between Ngatihaua and Ngatimaru after this. Te Waharoa then brought

Ngaiterangi from Tauranga, and Taumatawiwi was fought. Marutuahu were

defeated and Ngatihaua victory was complete. The land came back to its

former position or owners. Each hapu went back to the lands of its

ancestors.309

290. The battle of Taumatawīwī has been well-described in other reports and

publications. What is important here are the implications of its outcome; the eviction

of Marutuāhu from the Waikato district and the restoration of those lands to the

original rights-holders. According to Hōri Wirihana, the people returned to their

ancient lands of their own free will and not by order or assent of Te Waharoa (though

he qualifies his statement by saying he cannot be certain as he was a child at the time).

He added that Te Waharoa’s assent may have been obtained, and according to

“…Maori custom the chiefs would consult and assign to the several hapus the

localities they should occupy.”310

But, he believed the various hapū, including Ngāti

Werewere, Ngāti Korokī, Ngāti Kahukura, Ngāti Pare and others, all went and located

themselves without direction. When cross-examined by the Ngāti Kauwhata agent,

Alexander McDonald, Wirihana agreed that Ngāti Kauwhata also returned to Pukekura

after Taumatawīwī.311

291. Hōri Wirihana’s account of the various hapū returning to their ancestral lands

after Taumatawīwī was not accepted by other witnesses in the Ngāti Kauwhata

Commission, nor by the Commission itself, which reached the conclusion that Te

Waharoa’s victory gave him the undisputed mana over the wider district, which he

held as rangatira of his iwi, Ngāti Hauā. The Ngāti Kauwhata Commission is discussed

at length in chapter 10, below.

309 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 8 February 1881, AJHR, G.-2A, p. 17.




March 2013

140

6.4 Waikato call Ngāti Kauwhata home

292. Following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the leading chiefs of Waikato

made at least three attempts to persuade the Kapiti migrants to return to occupy their

ancestral lands. Takana Te Kawa also told the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission that his

father Te Kawa and a number of others returned to Pukekura to plant food. His father

died at Rangiaōwhia. When Te Wherowhero visited Kapiti in the 1840s, he invited all

of Ngāti Kauwhata to return.312

Mātene Te Whīwhī also spoke of Potatau visiting

Ōtaki along with other Waikato chiefs, and asking the migrants to return. In response

to a question by the 1868 Native Land Court, he stated: “Natives can return to their

land after being absent 30 or 4[0] years, but the whakaaro [decision] is with the

chiefs.”313

293. In evidence to the Commission and the Courts, reference was also made to

Wīremu Tamihana making the same invitation when he visited Wellington in 1866. It

was said that Tamihana had a coastal vessel constructed, which he named Kauwhata,

that he intended to use to bring back the bones of his relatives who had died in exile.

However, the ship had foundered before it could be deployed for that purpose.314

294. Some six years later, representatives of King Tāwhiao and Rewi Maniapoto

invited Whiti Patato (Wī Hapi) and Ihakara Tukumaru “and all the hapus of the

Ngatiraukawa Tribe to return to their lands at Maungatautari and to leave this

district.”315

Whiti was a King supporter and favoured acceding to the King’s invitation,

but Ihakara, who was a Government supporter, demurred, blaming the King party for

all the troubles that had befallen the land. As Whiti’s senior chief, he forbade him from

returning to join the King, saying he could only go back to visit. Booth’s report refers

to these two as chiefs of Raukawa; however, Ihakara Tukumaru belonged to both

312 Evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.-2A, pp. 9-10.

313 Evidence of Mātene Te Whīwhī, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 79.

314 Evidence of Te Raihi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 10. Te Raihi

told the Commission: “I wish to explain. The name of the vessel of Wi Tamihana and Murupara was called

“Kauwhata”. She was bought for the purpose of bringing the bones of the people (my fathers) who had died at

Kapiti to Pukekura. The vessel was wrecked before that object was effected.” His cousin, Hakiriwhi provided

similar testimony at the same hearing.

315 Booth to Assistant Secretary, Native Department, 12 September 1872. AJHR, 1872, F. – 3A, p. 33.


March 2013

141

Ngāti Ngārongo (a hapū of Raukawa) and Ngāti Wehi Wehi. He was the youngest

brother of the Ngāti Wehi Wehi chiefs Pāora Pohotiraha and Horopāpera Te Umu.316

295. We might ask why it was that Ngāti Kauwhata did not take up these

invitations by the most prominent chiefs of Waikato to return ‘home’. Of course, there

may have been many reasons, and it is difficult to ‘second guess’ what they may have

been 150-odd years later. By all accounts Te Whatanui, the Raukawa chief was

determined not to return, singing a memorable waiata that gave vent to his feelings. On

the other hand, it is equally clear that members of Ngāti Kauwhata did return, some to

stay, while others went ‘to and fro’. As has been repeatedly asserted, they considered

that their customary rights at Maungatautari remained secure, and would remain so, as

long as they kept their fires warm.

296. Another factor that may have stymied a return ‘en masse’ was the political

situation that developed as a result of the Crown’s aggression in the Waikato and the

factionalisation of Waikato Māori, including Ngāti Kauwhata into Kingites and

Queenites. This is exemplified by the exchange recorded by Booth between Ihakara

Tukumaru and Whiti Patato. The Courts viewed Ngāti Kauwhata’s failure to accede to

the Waikato invitations as indicative that they had suffered a reduction in status, or that

by returning they would be forced to live in a vassal capacity in relation to their

Waikato kin. As in other matters, the Courts were blind to the effects of the Crown’s

own policies and practices on Māori actions and responses in relation to their land and

to each other.

316 Pers. Comm. Rev. Te Hopehuia Hakaraia. Feedback on the draft, by email, 2 January 2013.


March 2013

142

7 Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi and the Land Wars

7.1 Introduction

297. This chapter provides a very brief sketch of some of the issues arising from the

Waikato War of 1863-64 that remain relevant to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi

Wehi. The war itself is clearly a complex and multi-faceted subject, such that even a

cursory study of it is beyond the scope of the current project. Nevertheless, the war and

the confiscations that followed are relevant here, because they provided the Crown

with the justification and the means by which hapū and iwi of the northern Waikato

district lost much of their land. Furthermore, the war set the tone for political

relationships between Waikato Māori and the Crown that endured for decades

following the war, which was highlighted by the way in which the Crown

subsequently prosecuted its agenda of tenurial reform. Obviously, the other significant

feature of the post-war period was the imposition of the King’s aukati, which defined

the lands under the jurisdiction of the King as Te Rohe Pōtae. Richard Boast argues

that the Crown’s confiscation policy and the tenurial reform introduced through the

Native Land Court that followed were part and parcel of the same process, which was

essentially about land acquisition.317

298. Many of the key events of this period occurred in and around Ngāti

Kauwhata’s tūpuna rohe in the Waikato, bracketed by the confirmation of Pōtatau Te

Wherowhero as King at Rangiaōwhia in 1858, and the final battle of the war in the

Waikato at Ōrākau in April 1864. The social divisiveness that the war produced among

Waikato also affected Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi. Although many

remained in the south and took no part in the war, this did not preclude them from

joining the Kīngitanga, not least because the southern leadership of Mātene Te Whīwhī

317 Boast, Richard, “An Expensive Mistake: Law, Courts and Confiscation on the New Zealand Colonial

Frontier”, in Richard Boast and Richard S. Hill (eds), Raupatu: The Confiscation of Maori Land, Victoria

University Press, Wellington, 2009, pp. 145-168.


March 2013

143

and Tamihana Te Rauparaha of Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi (as

well as Ngāti Toa) were early proponents of the need for a Māori King.318

7.1.1 The establishment of the Kīngitanga

299. The Crown’s immediate rationale for the invasion of the Waikato in 1863 was

to forestall an imminent attack on the city of Auckland by tribes of the southern

hinterland that was widely rumoured at the time (though with little justification).319

Behind that smokescreen, the setting up of the Māori King some five years earlier was

the real catalyst, the British interpreting the establishment of a separate Māori

jurisdiction as an act of rebellion. If the subject of the Waikato War is ‘complex and

multi-faceted’, these are also appropriate descriptors for the King movement, which

can be analysed in terms of economic, constitutional, political or religious

imperatives.320

Ultimately, while all of these are relevant, the refrain repeated at

successive hui convened to discuss the setting up of a Māori King concerned the threat

of land sales, the lack of political representation and the perception that Pākehā justice

was not serving Māori interests.321

300. An auspicious event in the early history of the King movement occurred when,

in December 1850, Tamihana Te Rauparaha boarded the John Wesley for a voyage to

England where he remained for two years, being presented to Queen Victoria on 30

318 Mātene Te Whīwhī and Tamihana Te Rauparaha later repudiated the Kīngitanga, choosing instead to remain

loyal to the Crown during the turbulent 1860s; but it is clear that these issues divided Māori communities

throughout the Motu.

319 Various correspondence, in AJHR, 1863, No. 72, E.-3, pp. 54-62.

320 Monin for example, notes that the collapse of the Māori economy in Hauraki and the indebtedness that

followed were important factors in the tribes’ growing commitment to the King Movement. However, he

acknowledges that a far more compelling explanation was the fear of being swamped by Europeans. Monin,

Paul, Hauraki Contested, 2001, p. 169. Professor Lyndsay Head, on the other hand, sees the Kīngitanga as a

creative response to the imposition of Pākehā hegemony, mobilizing a syncretic mix of the traditional and the

introduced, with a strong emphasis on Christian teachings, particularly those of the Old Testament. See: Head,

Lyndsay, with Lindsey Te Ata o Tu McDonald, “Māori Land Tenure and Chiefly Authority in Whanganui,

1840-1865”, A Report for the Crown Law Office, 2007, (Wai 903 Doc#A113), pp. 148-149. Head and

McDonald focus on the role of Wīremu Tamihana as the constitutional theorist for the movement, who drew on

Old Testament traditions in which the various tribes of Israel defined themselves as separate, ethnically-based

nations as against the neighbouring super power of Pharaonic Egypt.

321 See: Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice, 1973, pp. 98-99; O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement,

1840-1863”, 2010, pp. 173-215.


March 2013

144

June 1852.322

So impressed was he with the British monarchy that he decided that

Māori should have a monarchy of their own. On his return to New Zealand, he

discussed the matter with his cousin Mātene, and the two set about promoting the idea

around the North Island. Although both Tamihana and Mātene had been involved in

land selling, a key precept of the new movement was the ending of land sales to the

government.

301. Of Mātene Te Whīwhī, Professor W. H. Oliver states:

At the heart of Te Whiwhi’s advocacy was the protection of the land. He had

observed, and in fact had taken part in, the alienation of land in the Cook Strait

region. He advocated the building of the great house Taiporohenui, at

Manawapou in Ngati Ruanui territory, as a place for the discussion of land

issues. A meeting there in 1854 resolved to end all further land sales, on pain

(some reports said) of death.323

302. Between 1856 and 1858, at least eight hui were held between Taupō, the

Waikato and South Auckland regarding the proposed Māori King, with a number of

candidates put forward. After the great hui held at Pūkawa on Lake Taupō in 1856, Te

Wherowhero of Ngāti Mahuta emerged as the preferred candidate, despite not being

present in person.324

Even so, the Waikato Ariki was very reluctant to accept the

mantle of Kingship and had to be asked again and again at subsequent gatherings

before he consented.325

Upon his death two years after his inauguration, Pōtatau Te

Wherowhero was succeeded by his son Matutaera, who later took the name Tāwhiao.

303. According to Oliver, the objectives of Te Whīwhī (and Tamihana) for the

King movement were essentially defensive and pacific, with a view towards keeping

322 Tamihana Te Rauparaha (a.k.a. Katu) was the great chief’s son by his fifth wife, Te Akau (the widow of

Hape-ki-tūārangi). His cousin, Mātene Te Whīwhī was Te Rangihaeata’s nephew. These two, along with

Wīremu Parata of Ngāti Toa, became prominent leaders of the southern migrants after Te Rauparaha’s death in

1849. They were both committed Christians and strict adherents to the Anglican Church, having been

instrumental in bringing Octavius Hadfield to the Kapiti district in November 1839. Oliver, Steven, “Te

Rauparaha, Tamihana”, DNZB, Vol. I, pp. 507-8.

323 Oliver, W. H., “Te Whiwhi, Henare Matene”, DNZB, Vol. 1, pp. 528-9.

324 Te Wherowhero reportedly fell from his horse whilst en route to the Pūkawa hui, which prevented his

attendance. O’Malley, Vincent, “Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840-1863”, Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 898

#A23), 2010, p. 185.

325 See: O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840-1863”, 2010, pp. 173-215. In his report for

Te Rohe Pōtae Inquiry, Dr O’Malley describes in some detail the series of meetings that led eventually to

Pōtatau’s formal investiture in June 1858.


March 2013

145

Pākehā out of the central North Island. Ultimately, Te Whīwhī was disappointed by the

outcome, as “mounting pressure from government and settlers resulted in a growing

readiness among many Maori to resist the encroachment by force”.326

Indeed, when

war broke out in Taranaki in 1860, Te Whīwhī’s “main concern was to keep it away

from his own district, even at the cost of working with the government”. Oliver

continues: “By 1860, he was firmly opposed to the movement he had helped to found;

at an Otaki meeting in that year he and Tamihana strenuously opposed the raising of

the King’s flag.”327

304. Such ambivalence also manifested itself in the Waikato district, where some of

the younger chiefs, who had come under the sway of the local resident magistrate (and

later Chief Judge of the Native Land Court) Francis Dart Fenton, chose to distance

themselves from the Kīngitanga, arguing strenuously against its precepts at the various

foundation hui, and later siding with the Crown when war broke out in July 1863.

305. Although Tamihana Te Rauparaha and Te Whīwhī withdrew their support for

a Māori King, the project was taken up by Wīremu Tamihana Tarapipipi of Ngāti

Hauā, who was also strongly influenced by his Christian faith. Wiremu Tamihana’s

first exposure to the new religion occurred when the Anglican priest Alfred Nesbitt-

Brown set up a mission at Matamata in 1834, before abandoning Matamata in favour

of Tauranga when war broke out between Ngāti Hauā and Te Arawa the following

year. The Catholic Church tried to establish a mission at Matamata in 1841, but the

locals’ adherence to Anglicanism led to their relocating to Rangiaōwhia soon

afterwards.328

306. Another member of the Church Missionary Society, John Morgan, founded a

CMS mission at Te Awamutu; he was responsible for introducing European farming

practices, which, along with the region’s natural fertility, made the Maungatautari-

Rangiaōwhia district an important producer during the Māori agricultural boom of the

late-1840s and early-1850s.329

326 Oliver, W. H., “Te Whiwhi, Henare Matene”, DNZB, Vol. 1, p. 529.

327 Oliver, W. H., “Te Whiwhi, Henare Matene”, DNZB, Vol. 1, p. 529.

328 Vennell, C.W. Brown and The Elms Tauranga. Tauranga, The Elms Trust, 1984.

329 Petrie, Hazel, Chiefs of Industry, Auckland, AUP, 2006, pp. 151-152, 166, 169. The export market collapsed

in the mid-1850s. Even so, in the early 1860s, with war looming, the Rangiaōwhia district continued to serve as

the breadbasket of the Waikato. Its importance was underlined when, after the fall of Rangiriri, Rangiaōwhia


March 2013

146

307. It is evident from the accounts of the meetings published in newspapers, or

written by attendees such as Wesleyan missionary Thomas Buddle, that even amongst

Waikato the meetings were far from unanimous in their support for the setting up of a

King. While some of the most staunch King supporters wished to see all Pākehā

expelled from the country, the majority appeared to favour a more cooperative

approach, where the King and the British Crown could coexist, each having dominion

over their respective realms.330

308. The lower Waikato tribes were led by Wīremu Nēra (William Naylor),

formerly known as Te Awaitaia, of Ngāti Māhanga. From around 1820 to the early

1830s, he had excelled as a warrior of great renown, leading the Waikato tribes who

drove Ngāti Koata out of Whaingaroa (Raglan), and south to Kāwhia (as described in

chapter 5 above). Following his conversion to Christianity and baptism in January

1836, Nēra later became a leading supporter of the Crown and at both Paetai and

Ihumatao argued strongly against the setting up of a King.331

By contrast, Te Heuheu,

paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, was among those who advocated for the

expulsion of all Europeans from the Motu.332

When he spoke in these terms at Paetai,

he was interrupted by Nēra and Waata Kukutai, who ordered him to sit down, an

extraordinary occurrence for a chief of such high standing.

309. Divided loyalties were also evident amongst Ngāti Kauwhata and their close

kin in the Maungatautari district. The successful claimants in the Native Land Court

hearings of the Maungatautari blocks comprised the Queenite faction of Ngāti Hauā

was protected by a series of fortifications, referred to by Belich as the Pāterangi Line, after its largest pā (see

next section). Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian interpretation of racial conflict,

Auckland, AUP, 1986, pp. 158-165.

330 See: Buddle, Reverend Thomas, The Maori King Movement in New Zealand, (Pamphlett), Auckland, The

New Zealander Office, 1860, pp. 7-10.

331 Buddle describes Nēra as: “A man of keen intellect, great sagacity, and indomitable courage. Wise in

counsel, eloquent in debate, and famous in battle, [his] name is held in great respect among the Waikato tribes,

and his influence is widely extended. He became connected with the Wesleyan Mission upwards of twenty years

ago, and still maintains his Christian profession. He signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and has never meddled with

those given to change, but has opposed the King Movement from the beginning. When the present war broke

out and the Waingaroa settlers feared invasion, he engaged to protect them against all invaders, and is at this

moment one of the Governor's firmest friends.” Buddle, Reverend Thomas, The Maori King Movement in New

Zealand, 1860, pp. 8-9.

332 Of Te Heuheu’s Paetai speech, Buddle states: “Te Heuheu was more violent, and expressed himself as

decidedly opposed to British rule. He spoke of insults to which the Maories were constantly subjected from

white men. Referred to the prostitution of their women, the spread of drunkenness among the men, of indignities

frequently offered to chiefs, and declared his determination to throw off the yoke, and to seek the ultimate

expulsion of the pakehas from the country.” Buddle, Reverend Thomas, The Maori King Movement in New

Zealand, 1860, p. 9.


March 2013

147

(the Kingite faction boycotting the Land Court); but for the most part they told the

Court that their ancestral rights to Pukekura, Puahue and Maungatautari were through

Kauwhata – which indicates that some young chiefs with Ngāti Kauwhata affiliations

sided with the Crown in the New Zealand Wars. On the other hand, one of Te

Wherowhero (and Tawhiao’s) strongest supporters was Te Paea, of Ngāti Kauwhata.

In February 1863, Te Paea debated with Governor Grey about whether Wīremu Nēra

had the authority to sell land to the Government. Te Paea told Grey: “Do not you agree

to that – do not give any money – the tribe will not give up the land. The boundary is

at Waitetuna between you and me.”333

310. Te Paea had earlier confronted Nēra when the latter attempted to have a road

surveyed from Whaingaroa (Raglan) to the interior; despite warnings from Wīremu

Tamihana that he would consider any shots fired at his father’s old ally (Nēra) a

declaration of war against Ngāti Hauā, Te Paea personally pulled out the survey pegs

for the road, effectively putting a stop to the enterprise.334

311. After the war, when the aukati was thrown up between the confiscation blocks,

the unsold lands, and the King’s territory south of Kihikihi, the Ngāti Kauwhata who

had survived the war and remained loyal to the Kīngitanga did their best to assert

continuing rights to the Maungatautari lands. They did not participate in the Native

Land Court, but they protested the awarding of the Maungatautari blocks by

continuing to occupy various settlements including Aratitaha, which according to a

sketch map produced by James Mackay was on the Mangaohoi Stream, south of

Maungatautari.335

333 “Conversation between Governor Grey and Te Paea in Auckland, 7 February 1863”. Excerpt from Te

Hokioi, Ngāruawāhia 26 April 1863, in: MA 1 (Box 834) 1863/163, ANZ – W. Made available to the author by

Mrs Margaret Morgan-Allen, a direct descendant of Te Paea.

334 Gary Scott, “Te Awa-i-taia, Wiremu Nera, ? – 1866”, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Vol. 1, pp.

441-442.

335 James Mackay to Native Minister, (Report on Sullivan murder), AJHR, 1873, G.–3, p. 31.


March 2013

148

7.2 The New Zealand Wars in the central Waikato Valley

7.2.1 The slaughter at Rangiaōwhia

312. The events at Rangiaōwhia took place within the core territory of Ngāti

Kauwhata, and constitute arguably the gravest atrocity committed by government

forces in the entire Waikato campaign.336

While it has not been possible to identify any

Ngāti Kauwhata individuals among the defenders of Rangiaōwhia or Ōrākau, the Ngāti

Kauwhata hapū Te Werokoukou were present at the latter engagement, so it is

reasonable to assume that their tāne formed part of the garrison of the Pāterangi fort

complex, and that their women sought refuge with the other Kīngitanga non-

combatants at Rangiaōwhia.

313. The following is a summary of James Belich’s account, which is then

augmented by Dr Vincent O’Malley’s more detailed analysis.337

Following the fall of Rangiriri in November 1863, a series of forts twenty-

five miles south of Ngāruawāhia was constructed (the Pāterangi Line)

Wīremu Tamihana also built a stronghold at Maungatautari, informing

Wīremu Nera, the Queenite chief that he would remain there unless the

Governor attacked him, or his Ngāti Maniapoto allies in the Waipā valley.

The British advance was slow, necessitated by the great quantity of arms and

men they were bringing to bear against the Kingite defences. On arrival at

Pāterangi, they were faced with the formidable obstacle of “at least four large

pa within five or six miles of each other, covering all the main routes to

Rangiaowhia and sited to provide mutual support.”338

336 The fact that the victims were primarily women, children and old men leads to this conclusion, although the

actions of the British Troops pursuing the escapees from Ōrākau (and the way in which surrendered prisoners,

many of whom were women, were treated), as described by O’Malley, suggests that Ōrākau rivalled

Rangiaōwhia for brutality. O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, Waitangi Tribunal, (Wai 898

#A22), December 2010, pp, 144-169.

337 Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian interpretation of racial conflict, Auckland, AUP,

1986, pp. 158-165.

338 Belich, J., The New Zealand Wars, 1986, p. 160.


March 2013

149

The evident strength of the defences was such that when General Cameron

surveyed his options in early February 1864, he quickly rejected a frontal

attack as altogether too risky. The alternative was to launch an outflanking

manoeuvre, to be carried out at night, whilst leaving half his force in position

in front of Pāterangi to create the impression that everything was as normal.

The night march proceeded successfully without detection and by day break

Cameron’s force of 1230 soldiers had reached Te Awamutu. They

immediately pressed on to Rangiaōwhia, where they found the town almost

deserted. Belich states:

The few people in the place were mainly women and children, but

a dozen warriors put up a gallant fight – in which Colonel Nixon

was mortally wounded – before being overwhelmed. Having made

his presence felt, Cameron withdrew to Te Awamutu to await the

Maori reaction.339

The attack drew the expected response and a strong Kingite force left

Pāterangi to reoccupy Rangiaōwhia. With the pā empty, Cameron was free to

call up reinforcements from those confronting the pā to join him at Te

Awamutu. It then transpired that the Maori had begun fortifying a ridge at

Hairini, blocking Cameron’s access to Rangiaōwhia. Cameron immediately

attacked Hairini Ridge, whose defenders put up cursory resistance before

making a tactical withdrawal. Cameron’s aim of inducing the Waikato army

to fight a pitched battle was once again thwarted.340

314. In his ‘War and Raupatu’ report for Te Rohe Pōtae Inquiry, Dr Vincent

O’Malley examines the historical record relating to the attacks on Rangiaōwhia,

Hairini and the sacking of Kihikihi that followed.341

The picture of Rangiaōwhia that

emerges from O’Malley’s account is of a prosperous town, boasting fields of wheat,

maize and potatoes, peach groves, thatched houses, two churches, flour mills, stores,

schools, and even a race course. In February 1864, its location behind the Pāterangi

339 Belich, J., The New Zealand Wars, 1986, p. 163.

340 Belich, J., The New Zealand Wars, 1986, pp. 163-164.

341 O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, 2010, pp. 107-144.


March 2013

150

Line saw it used as a safe haven for Kīngitanga non-combatants. Following criticism

of the presence of women at Rangiriri, the Kīngitanga leadership resolved to follow

what were perceived to be the British rules of war, and keep women, children and non-

combatants away from fortified pā and likely areas of combat. Rangiaōwhia was

designated as a safe area for this purpose, and Wīremu Tamihana and the Kīngitanga

leaders believed they had conveyed this intelligence to General Cameron via Bishop

Selwyn, who had visited the Kīngitanga forces to conduct a funeral for casualties of a

recent battle. However, the British forces did not see themselves as being restricted in

this manner, and they soon made this clear by their actions in their attack on

Rangiaōwhia.342

315. All reports state that the attack took the residents by surprise, with many of

them retreating into their poorly reinforced houses and huts seeking to return fire. One

of the raupō whare had an excavated floor which offered Māori a good position from

which to fire. Although pinned down, they managed to kill several British soldiers

including Colonel Nixon. Many of the whare were set alight, including the one in

which a number of men and a youth had taken shelter and from which a steady

fusillade of musket fire was emanating. From this whare, a kaumātua emerged with his

empty hands above his head holding only a white blanket; he was shot forthwith by a

number of British troopers, despite officers calling out for him to be spared. None of

the other occupants of the whare came out before it had burned to the ground. In total

about a dozen houses were burnt and a similar number of defenders killed. The

wooden church was another refuge, and it too was attacked, but this appears to have

been called off before a similar fate befell the occupants.343

316. After the Rangiaōwhia and Hairini engagements, the British occupied Te

Awamutu, before proceeding the four miles across undulating country to the south to

the Ngāti Paretekāwā village of Kihikihi, the home of Rewi Maniapoto. The village

was plundered of its considerable stores of potatoes and other cultivars, its fruit trees

342 O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, 2010, pp. 113-120. O’Malley devotes several pages to

this question and concludes that, while the Kīngitanga leaders clearly thought they had an understanding

regarding safe havens for non-combatants, this was not shared by the Government, and certainly not by the

British troops in the field.



March 2013

151

were stripped and Rewi’s great house Te Hui-te-Rangiora was destroyed, burnt to the

ground along with its flagstaff.344

7.2.2 Ngāti Kauwhata and the battle of Ōrākau

317. The Battle of Ōrākau Pā took place on 31 March and 1-2 April 1864, five

kilometres east of Kihikihi, which had been recently occupied by the British. The site

chosen had serious drawbacks in that it contained no water supply and could be easily

surrounded. Nevertheless, by working day and night the defenders managed to throw

up an oblong redoubt built of sods, with internal bunkers, traversed trenches and a post

and rail fence acting as a pekerangi. A large outer earthwork remained unfinished

when the British attacked.345

The course of the battle has been well described

elsewhere and there is no need to rehearse it again here.

318. Of the Māori contingent at the battle of Ōrākau, Angela Ballara writes:

When the Waikato war began people from all around Taupō went down the

Waikato to defend the King. After the battle at Rangiriri Ngāti Te Koherā and

probably Ngāti Pare[te]kāwā built the pā called Mangapukatea, one of those

meant to defend the Rangiaōwhia area where most of the Waikato non-

combatants were concentrated. Te Retimana from Ngāti Wairangi of northern

Taupō was the principle gunner at Meremere and Pāterangi. Elements of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa played an important role in the battles at Rangiaōwhia and

Hairini. In the latter battle, Kereopa Te Rau of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, some Ngāi

Te Rangi and a large contingent of Tūhoe also took part.

A separate taua of Ngāti Te Koherā and some other Ngāti Raukawa left

northern Taupō, Tītīraupenga and Arowhena, led by Te Paerata of Ngāti Te

Koherā, his sons Hōne Teri Paerata, Hītiri Te Paerata and his daughter,

Ahumai, and other chiefs known as Matawaia, Wēreta and Hoeana. Cowan

said Wī Kōhika was also there, perhaps a son or namesake of the chief killed

at Tītīraupenga in the 1830s by Ngāti Kahungunu. This group seems to have

been collectively termed Te Matekiwaho (or perhaps Ngā Matekiwaho),

probably a name coined for the occasion. They were joined by a party of

Tūhoe under Piripi Te Heuheu (not a member of the Taupō dynasty), Te

Whenuanui and others, and some Ngāti Kahungunu from Te Wairoa, northern

Hawke’s Bay, led by Te Waru. There was also a party of Ngāti Hau from

upper Whanganui under Tōpine Te Mamaku and a section of Ngāti Porou,


345 Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars, Auckland, AUP/OUP, 1986, pp. 166-169.


March 2013

152

who all joined Rewi Manga Maniapoto and Ngāti Maniapoto at Hangatiki, and

then moved to Rangataua pā at Ōrākau.

All of these people took part in the last major battle of the Waikato war at

Ōrākau. The Waikato contingent included groups from Ngāti Māhanga, Ngāti

Hinetū, Ngāti Mahuta (the King’s hapū), Te Werokoko (a hapū of both

Waikato and Ngāti Kauwhata) and Te Patupō.346

319. According to Don Tait of Ngāti Kauwhata, Te Werokoukou represented Ngāti

Kauwhata at Ōrākau;347

the descendants of the peace-making marriage between

Urumakawe and Māui of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Apakura following the dispute

over the eel weir many generations in the past. As already noted, Te Werokoukou hapū

comprised those members who chose to remain in the Waikato. The whanaungatanga

with Ngāti Apakura was illustrated by Te Werokoukou’s close association with

Rangiaōwhia and other locations south west of Maungatautari.

320. At the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation in 1884, Te

Hakiriwhi Te Pureroha (a.k.a. ‘Purewa’) told the Court:

The hapus that occupied the S. W. part of Maungatautari were Te Werakoko

[sic – Werokoukou] (Ng’ Pareteuaki), Ng’ Ruru, Ng’ Koura, Ng’

Parehaehaeora, & Ng’ Naenae. The chief men of Te Patukoko (Werakoko)

were Paewaka, Mokotutai, [and] Haunui. They owned land about Te Whanake

(lived there). Parakiri was the chief man of Ng’ Naenae; Ng’ Naenae lived at

Whakarongopu; I don’t know what part of the block belonged to them. The

chief man of Ng’ Te Aweroa was Whakatau; I saw them living at Aratitaha.

The chief man of Ng’ Koura was Porokoru; he lived at Aratitaha,

Whakarongopu and Ōrākau. Poraka was the chief man of Ng’ Parehaehaeora.

They also lived at Aratitaha and Whakarongopu. These were their permanent

places of abode. These hapus were all one people or were closely allied

together, living together at the same kaingas.348

321. From Te Hakiriwhi’s evidence we can see that Werokoukou is synonymous

with Te Patukoukou and Ngāti Pareteuaki, all of whom represent the descendants of

the marriage of Māui and Urumakawe. Ngāti Hinetū is another hapū that is associated

with Ngāti Apakura, and the descendants of Māui in particular. These hapū whose

346 Ballara, Angela, “Tribal Landscape Overview, c. 1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and

National Park Inquiry Districts”, CFRT, 2004, pp. 451-452.

347 Pers. Comm., by telephone, 5 January 2013.

348 Evidence of Te Hakiriwhi Te Pureroha, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 10

June 1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 289-290.


March 2013

153

chiefly leaders and residences are described by Hakiriwhi, were the tangata whenua of

the Waikato district ravaged by war in late summer 1864.

322. The struggle to defend their lands did not end with the defeat at Ōrākau; after the

setting up of the King’s Aukati (as described at length by Cathy Marr,349

and also by

Dr O’Malley) the King supporters endeavoured to protect its borders from

encroachment by Pākehā settlers. O’Malley observes that policing the Aukati border

was managed almost on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether those wishing to

enter from outside were seen as posing a threat.350

The occupation by members of

Ngāti Kauwhata of the lands beyond the confiscation line and outside the aukati is

described below in section 9.

7.3 Ngāti Kauwhata & the Waikato War – conclusions

323. According to Native Land Court evidence cited above, the hapū of Ngāti

Pareteuaki and Te Werokoukou represented Ngāti Kauwhata at Ōrākau and possibly at

Rangiaōwhia and Hairini as well. Ngāti Kauwhata’s ancestral lands were affected by

the confiscations that followed the war. This is illustrated by a plan of the confiscated

lands produced by Charles Heaphy in 1864.351

An annotation on the plan by Lt.

General Duncan Cameron defines the southern boundary of the ‘conquered lands, as

“more correctly represented by a straight line from Pukekura to Orakau, and thence to

the nearest point of the Puniu River.”352

Though this may have been altered slightly on

survey, to all intents and purposes the confiscation line runs directly through Ngāti

Kauwhata’s rohe cutting off its western side.

349 Marr, C., “Te Rohe Pōtae Political Engagement 1864-1886”, DRAFT 2011, vols 1 & 2.

350 O’Malley, Vincent, “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, 2010, pp. 218-219.

351 C. Heaphy, “Copy of Plan of Confiscated Lands set forth in Proclamation of 17 December 1864”, Roll Map

A22, F2 & F3. F2 provides the title of the map, while F3 contains the annotation of General Cameron.

352 C. Heaphy, “Copy of Plan of Confiscated Lands”, Roll Map A22, F3.


March 2013

154

8 The Maungatautari blocks in the Native Land Court

8.1 Introduction

324. The traditional histories rehearsed above demonstrate how complex, nuanced

and layered customary land rights in the Maungatautari district had become by the

early nineteenth century. However, despite regular conflict often leading to outbreaks

of warfare between Ngāti Kauwhata and their Waikato-Maniapoto neighbours up to

c.1820, the evidence from the traditions indicates that longstanding land rights were

not materially affected by these disputes. Most accounts agree that after the battle of

Hangahanga Pā a lasting peace was concluded and the protagonists returned to their

respective lands. In the 1820s, the occupation of the Maungatautari and Horotiu

districts by Marutuāhu refugees and their gradual assertion of ownership rights added

another layer of complexity to patterns of land tenure in the region. Against this

background, the migration to Manawatū/Horowhenua by Ngāti Kauwhata and most of

the tribe’s constituent hapū raised questions as to whether ancient customary rights

could be maintained from a considerable distance, even with a residual population left

to keep the tribal fires burning, and regular return visits by the migrants.

325. These were the questions faced by the Native Land Court and later Royal

Commission charged with investigating customary rights in and around Maungatautari

as part of the Crown’s reformation of land tenure. But there was another layer of

complexity again, brought about by major events post-1840, which clearly affected

land rights in the district. These included: the emergence of the King movement; the

effects of the Waikato War; the ensuing confiscations; and the polarisation that these

events had engendered amongst local Māori communities, epitomised from the mid-

1860s by the presence of an embattled but unbowed King movement behind the aukati

of Te Rohe Pōtae. Whether these events had an effect on customary tenure was a

question that the Native Land Court might well have addressed when it investigated

titles to the Maungatautari blocks in 1867 and 1868. However, directed by its

constituting legislation to focus on Māori customs and usages prior to and at 1840, the

Court was not obliged to consider more recent, colonial era events.


March 2013

155

326. Boast’s argument, that the Crown’s confiscation policy and the tenurial reform

introduced through the Native Land Court were part and parcel of the same process,

which was essentially about land acquisition, is pertinent here.353

The focus of the New

Zealand Settlements Act 1863 on colonisation is set out in its Preamble, part of which

reads:

…Whereas it is necessary that some adequate provision should be made for

the permanent protection and security of the well-disposed Inhabitants of both

races for the prevention of future insurrection or rebellion and for the

establishment and maintenance of Her Majesty’s authority and of Law and

Order throughout the Colony And Whereas the best and most effectual means

of attaining those ends would be by the introduction of a sufficient number of

settlers able to protect themselves and to preserve the peace of the

Country…354

327. Under the initial legislation authorising the confiscation of Waikato lands, any

‘loyal’ Māori with legitimate claims to the confiscated lands could not expect to have

any land returned to them, even after they proved their rights to the satisfaction of the

Compensation Court. In general, such compensation the Court saw fit to award would

be monetary only, although this was later modified to allow the return of sufficient

land to provide for the subsistence of individual claimants.355

Similarly, if any awards

made by the Native Land Court were subsequently found to be defective, or if any new

claimants appeared and made successful claims at rehearings, the Court was not

empowered to annul the original awards, but would only pay compensation to the

successful applicants. Neither the Compensation Court nor the Native Land Court had

353 Boast, Richard, “An Expensive Mistake: Law, Courts and Confiscation on the New Zealand Colonial

Frontier”, in Richard Boast and Richard S. Hill (eds), Raupatu: The Confiscation of Maori Land, Victoria

University Press, Wellington, 2009, pp. 145-168.

354 Preamble, New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863, V. No. 8. The Act does not mention the word ‘confiscation’,

preferring instead such terms as ‘set apart’ and ‘reserve and take’.

355 For example, an Order in Council dated 16 May 1865 notified a change to the form of compensation that

might be made to claimants – sufficient land could be set aside for compensation instead of money (see; New

Zealand Gazette, No. 19, 7 June 1865, p. 170, Raupatu Document Bank, Vol. 11, p. 4020).

Similarly, in the southern Manukau district, loyal chiefs like Waata Kukutai and Aihepene Kaihau had their land

returned to them under the terms of the “Friendly Natives’ Contracts Confirmation Act 1866,” which validated

negotiations carried out by Crown official H. H. Turton with loyal chiefs for the return of lands occupied by

them, but confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The chiefs held the returned land under

Crown grants as individual owners, not as trustees for their hapū and iwi, and in due course, they too came

under pressure to sell the returned land to the Crown.


March 2013

156

any patience with Māori who initially refused to take part in the proceedings of the

Court, and later asserted their rights and sought inclusion in the awards.

328. Although Maungatautari was not subject to confiscation directly, it bordered

on the vast confiscation area (in the Waikato and to the east at Tauranga). Ngāti

Kauwhata’s lands affected by the confiscations were those along the western

boundaries of the Pukekura, Puahue and Maungatautari blocks, including Roto-o-

rangi, Rangiaōwhia and Kihikihi. Having endured the Crown’s invasion and summary

confiscation of their ancestral lands, the Kīngitanga had adopted a policy of active

disengagement with Crown processes, particularly those designed to facilitate land

alienation. Any investigation of titles into such strategically situated blocks as those at

Maungatautari in the period following the war would have to be carried out without

the participation of any King supporters, many of whom constituted the principal

owners of the land.

329. One of the Crown’s strongest supporters in the Waikato, Wīremu Te Wheoro

was strongly of the opinion that proceeding with the introduction of the Native Land

Court in the Waikato in the immediate aftermath of the war was a mistake. His own

hapū of Ngāti Naho having lost around 100,000 acres to confiscation, he told the

Native Affairs Committee in 1881:

In 1868 I was present at the sitting of the Native Land Court referred to. I said

to the Court at that time, concerning all the lands outside of the Government

boundary: “Do not investigate them now, let them be.” I said further: “All the

chiefs of the people that are present at this Court, all their principal chiefs, are

away”; they were away on the Hau Hau side. The Court agreed to leave

uninvestigated the Ngati Maniapoto land at Puniu; it consented not to

investigate it. My idea in asking the Court to reserve these lands from

investigation was that I thought it was not a good time. I thought the best time

to have the claims to these lands looked into would be when we had become

friendly with those who had separated from us, and when they could have an

opportunity of coming in at being present at the investigation of that land. It

was on account of this same land about which these people had not come into

Court, that disturbances took place, and in these one Sullivan lost his life. Of

course we are all aware why those natives could not be present at that Court,

because they were divided off from us; they were living in the locality but

separated from us; I do not think that we could say these men purposely kept


March 2013

157

away in defiance of the law – they kept away because there was no intercourse

between us and them.356

330. As Te Wheoro observed, the question of ownership of the Maungatautari

blocks was hardly likely to be settled if half the people interested either would not or

could not attend the hearings.

8.2 The Maungatautari blocks in the Cambridge Court, 1868

331. The Maungatautari, Pukekura and Puahue blocks were heard by the Native

Land Court, sitting at Cambridge, in 1867-68. The three blocks lie to the east and

partly adjacent to the Waikato confiscated lands, and to the north-east and partly

adjacent to the lands that lay behind the Kīngitanga aukati, known as Te Rohe Pōtae.

332. Evidence produced before the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission in 1881 indicates

that Ngāti Kauwhata based at Horowhenua and Manawatū were aware of the

vulnerability of their Waikato Lands at the onset of the Waikato War in 1863, and sent

Alexander McDonald to Auckland as their agent to meet with the Government.

McDonald reported on his conversation with Native Minister William Fox:

“Should this be a great war, and confiscation follow, what will become of the

land of Ngatikauwhata and other persons living in Kapiti?” Mr Fox said, “Go

and say to Kauwhata, “Sit still; should confiscation be [blank] in Waikato their

lands will be carefully sought out [Court: ascertained and protected]”… We

left for Wellington on Mr Fox’s promise of protection for our lands in

Waikato. We returned to Kapiti.357

333. Following the war and the confiscations that followed, which affected the

western part of the Ngāti Kauwhata rohe around Rangiaōwhia, McDonald approached

the Government again on Ngāti Kauwhata’s behalf. He asked J. C. Richmond, the

Native Minister in the Stafford Government, “What should be done relative to the

promise made by Mr Fox?” Richmond replied that the lands had been allotted (by the

356 Native Affairs Committee, Minutes of Evidence, 29 July 1881, Le 1/1881/5, Archives NZ, RDB, vol.3,

pp.917-918; cited in O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, Waitangi Tribunal, 2010, Wai 898,

#A22, p. 726.

357 Statement of A. McDonald, “Ngatikauwhata Commission”, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 7.


March 2013

158

Compensation Court) to those entitled to compensation. McDonald protested that

Ngāti Kauwhata had not heard of the investigation, which had been conducted in the

Waikato, to which Richmond replied, “Petition Parliament.”358

334. McDonald’s account continues:

We then commenced our appeals for our lands which had gone by

confiscation. We afterwards heard that, in 1868, a Court would sit here, and on

the following day a Court would sit at Rangitikei. I asked Mr Richmond to

direct Ngāti Kauwhata. He said: “Remain at Rangitikei and I will have

Waikato Court postponed.” We afterwards heard the Court here at Waikato

had not been postponed. We were then told to petition Parliament again.359

335. Accordingly, the original title investigations of the Maungatautari blocks were

conducted in Ngāti Kauwhata’s absence, although it is apparent that members of Ngāti

Kauwhata were living in the Waikato district at the time, but were aligned with the

Kīngitanga and consequently refused to engage in the Native Land Court process.

336. It is also clear that prior to the blocks passing the Court, land speculators had

already acquired interests in them, and that in cases where these were initially lease

agreements, they subsequently became mechanisms for acquiring the freehold over the

next decade.360

Dr Terry Hearn states:

The first application for an investigation of the title to Pukekura was lodged by

Wiremu Hunia Parakaia and three others on 17th

September 1866 and appears

to have followed negotiations conducted by John Wilson for a lease of both

Pukekura and Puahue. Certainly, in April 1867 John Wilson, acting as an

agent, forwarded to the Chief Judge of the Native Land an application from

Ngati Haua, Ngati Kahukura, and Ngati Koroki with an amended description

of the boundaries to which the hapu had agreed. The survey of the blocks was

conducted without incident apart from Pukekura where Hori Te Tumu and

Mohi Purukutu objected on the grounds that the block was outside the

confiscation line.361



360 Young, G. and M. Belgrave, “Raukawa and the Native Land Court, CFRT, 2010, p. 16.

361 Hearn, T. J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa

rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, Wai 898, #A12, p. 187.


March 2013

159

337. Mohi Purukutu was a local man who belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Hauā; he would later be implicated in the killing of farm worker Timothy Sullivan on

Pukekura. His objection to the survey was the limit of his involvement in the Land

Court.

8.2.1 Pukekura title investigation

338. The Pukekura case was brought before Judge Henry Munro in 1867, but was

adjourned because the claimants were unprepared. Before the adjournment was

granted, however, there was just time for the Ngāti Hauā claimant, Te Raihi, to

endorse the claims of Ngāti Kauwhata. He stated: “I claim this land; there are many

other claimants—the whole of Ngatikauwhata.”362

339. Beginning with Pukekura, the Maungatautari blocks came before the

Cambridge Court again in November 1868. This time the presiding Judge was John

Rogan, with Assessor Hēmi Tautari. A plan was produced by the surveyor, Campbell,

which indicated the block comprised 8,395 acres.363

340. The claimants belonged to the section of Ngāti Hauā who had remained loyal

to the Crown during the Land Wars; Crown official James Mackay explaining:

Prior to the Taranaki war in 1860 the Ngati Haua Tribe numbered from six to

seven hundred fighting men; of these only about seventy under the Chiefs Te

Raihi and Hakiriwhi Purewa remained loyal after the commencement of

hostilities in 1863. Wiremu Tamihana and other influential Chiefs joined in the

rebellion.364

341. Te Raihi of Ngāti Hauā claimed the Pukekura block, telling the Court that it

was formerly held by Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa, but was subsequently

acquired by Ngāti Hauā who occupied it with those Ngāti Kauwhata who did not go to

Kapiti. He listed names of Ngāti Hauā that he considered entitled, before providing a

362 “Enclosure A, Extract from proceedings of the Native Land Court”, in AJHR, 1873, G.–3, p. 12. NB: In the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commission hearings, Te Raihi identified himself as belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Hauā, but that his ancestral right to Pukekura was through Kauwhata.

363 Evidence of Campbell (surveyor), Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 22.

Campbell’s plan appears to be ML 763, with the adjoining plan of ‘Puahoe’ designated ML 764.

364 Report by James Mackay to Native Minister, AJHR, 1873, G.-3, p. 1.


March 2013

160

separate list of Ngāti Kauwhata who remained resident on the land and were not

among those who had migrated to Kapiti. The members of Ngāti Kauwhata named by

Te Raihi were: Huka, Te Waka Ngāi, Meretana, Hōri Pūao and ‘Harata’ [sic – Harete]

Tamihana Te Waharoa. Te Raihi added: “Ngatikauwhata went to Kapiti and the land

became mine. I am also related to Ngatikauwhata being descended from Kauwhata.”365

Thus, from his opening statement to the 1867 hearing, in which he intimated that ‘the

whole of Ngāti Kauwhata’ had claims to the Pukekura block, one year on Te Raihi had

refined this to exclude the southern migrants.

342. Te Raihi’s first witness was Hōri Pūao, who said he claimed the land through

his descent from Kauwhata. He told the Court that Te Wharepakaru was the person

who gave the land, which took place at Pukekura when he was a boy. He had lived on

the land ever since and was now an old man. He added:

The reason the land was given was on account of our relationship – after they

did this they left the land and went south. The reason of their going was they

were afraid of Ngatimaru, Ngatipaoa, Ngatitamatera and Waikato tribes. We

have cultivated here from that time to the present day. Ngatikoroki cultivated

on the other end of the hill. I have lived on this land from my childhood and

have now grandchildren living there. We claim this land through gift and

relationship.366

343. The next witness, Te Hakiriwhi told a similar story, though he put forward

conquest as his main take, saying that he had destroyed the persons who had lived on

Pukekura, or he and Ngāti Maru had done so. The survivors had gone away to Kapiti

for fear of being killed. He too was a child when the migration (and the conquest) took

place.367

Both Hakiriwhi and Hōri Pūao would change their evidence concerning the

Ngāti Kauwhata migrants in the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission some 12 years later (see

below).

344. Rihia Te Kauae said he belonged to Ngāti Hauā and to Ngāti Kauwhata, and it

was through the latter affiliation that he made his claim. He also claimed through the

365 Evidence of Te Raihi, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 23.

366 Evidence of Hōri Pūao, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 24.

367 Evidence of Hakiriwhi, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 24-25.


March 2013

161

gift of Te Wharepakaru, after which Ngāti Raukawa went south, while “one portion of

Ngatikauwhata went south, the other portion remained, that is ourselves…”368

345. The next witness, Reone, identified himself as Ngāti Hauā but said he claimed

through Kauwhata, stating:

Kauwhata is the ancestor from whom we all have a claim to Pukekura – also

by conquest…our only claim to the land is that which I have stated –

Kauwhata was the ancestor – Ngatikauwhata are his descendants – I am

related to them. We were told that Te Wharepakaru gave the land to our elders

– I have not heard that the land has been returned to Ngatiraukawa.369

346. ‘Harata’ (Harete) Tamihana Te Waharoa made the same claim through take

tūpuna, though with qualifications, stating: “We claim the land through Kauwhata –

also from conquest…” She added: “When Ngatikauwhata left my elders occupied the

land unto the present time. We are now in possession of the land. The reason the land

being given up to us was that we might look after the land but the conquest did away

with that.”370

347. Parakaia appeared and claimed “for three hapus – Ngatiraukawa,

Ngatikauwhata and Ngatiharua.”371

He claimed to represent the hapū that had gone

south (though this claim was later denied by witnesses in the Ngāti Kauwhata

Commission);372

and he gave the Court a brief chronology of events in the 1820s. He

insisted that they left people on the land to look after it and were not driven away.

They had gone to Kapiti to obtain guns and it was known at the time that once guns

were obtained, some of the migrants would return to Maungatautari. He then said:

In [18]41, Ngatika[h]ukura came to look after Ngatihuia and they came to us.

Their word was that they would look after (tiaki) this land. They took a woman

of Ngatihuia to wife and returned to this land; her name was Toia – I have

heard that she has a child who has grown up – it is perhaps alive at the present

368 Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 25.

369 Evidence of Reone, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 26.

370 Evidence of Harata (Harete) Tamihana Te Waharoa, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato

MB 2, p. 26.

371 Evidence of Parakaia, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 27.

372 See, for example: evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, AJHR, G.-2A, pp. 9-10.


March 2013

162

time. This land belonged to this woman – her eldest child is Te Rauangaanga

who is present in Court – his mother died here. …373

348. Parakaia said that Ngāti Korokī invited Raukawa to return to live on their

lands; then he named the individuals who returned. He added:

The word of the chiefs on the other [Ngāti Korokī] side was this: “We do not

intend to keep the land but if Ngati Raukawa return we will give the land up

and go to the other side (of the country).” They invited us to return to

Maungatautari and the persons I have mentioned returned.374

349. When asked where all these owners were (i.e., why were they not in Court?),

Parakaia stated that they were ‘kept back by the Hauhau’; he himself was able to

attend the Court because he had been given a pass to do so.375

350. The next witness, Te Wātene Te Whena, told the Court he belonged to Ngāti

Kauwhata and claimed the land through Wehi Wehi, stating:

Wehiwehi owned this land in former times. I am from Wehiwehi. He is an

offspring of Kauwhata. I have a claim to the whole of the land in the map

conjointly with those mentioned by Parakaia. This land was not taken by

conquest – the fighting was finished when I was a child and there has been no

fighting since. I was not present at any of the fights mentioned. Peace had been

made a long time previous. Ngatiraukawa and Waikato have lived in peace

during our lifetime.376

351. He insisted that relationships in the region had become normalised before

Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi left for Kapiti, leaving the land ‘in

possession of Haka’. Te Whena said if Te Raihi had claimed solely through Kauwhata,

then it would have been correct, but he insisted that the land was not taken by

conquest.

373 Evidence of Parakaia, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 27-28. Presumably,

this child was named after Te Rauangaanga, the great Ngāti Mahuta fighting chief and father of Te

Wherowhero.



376 Evidence of Te Whena, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 30.


March 2013

163

352. Karanama identified himself as Raukawa, but claimed through his descent

from Kauwhata and Wehi Wehi, providing a whakapapa to illustrate this.377

He told

the Court that the only person entitled on the Ngāti Hauā side was Hareta (Harete

Tamihana Te Waharoa), and that his elders had fought with those of Ngāti Hauā “on

account of the murder of Huia, but they were not able to conquer us – this was the

cause of our quarrel.” He continued:

The reason of our going to Kapiti was Te Rauparaha invited us to go, saying

that there was a great number of white people living there. We left from this

cause and stayed at Taupo. Ngatimaru came as an armed body to fight with Te

Urewera. When the[y] came to Taupo they fought with Ngatitau and some of

us were killed in payment for Te Waha of Ngatimaru – he was killed by

Ngatiraukawa. The cause of our fighting with Ngatimaru was not land.378

353. When cross-examined by Hakiriwhi, Karanama stated that his lands were at

‘Whaotu’ (sic – ‘Wāotū), and that he had left his family there when he first migrated,

but had returned to take them south with him. Nevertheless, he said they had left

people behind at Maungatautari to look after (tiaki) the land; and that the person they

had left behind was Wīremu Tamihana’s daughter (presumably, Harete Tamihana Te

Waharoa). He had now placed himself back on the land at Te Whaotu in order to put

his claim forward.379

354. When the court resumed the next day Te Rau, a member Ngāti Raukawa based

at Ōtaki made his claim, before a succession of Ngāti Kahukura, Ngāti Korokī and

Ngāti Hauā claimants appeared. Te Rau told the Court that he had made a number of

return visits to the district, including attending the tangi of his mother, who had died at

Maungatautari.380

The Ngāti Kahukura and Ngāti Korokī witnesses stressed their

continuous occupation of the land, and denied the claims of others on that basis.

Nonetheless, Ngāti Kauwhata ancestry still figured in their claims. For example,

Wīremu Te Whitu, who identified himself as belonging to ‘Ngatikaukura’ (Ngāti

377 Evidence of Karanama, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 31.

378 Evidence of Karanama, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 31-32. Emphasis

added by this author.

379 Evidence of Karanama, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 32.

380 Evidence of Te Rau, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 33.


March 2013

164

Kahukura), produced a whakapapa in support of his claim that was headed by ‘Tu

Tete’, the daughter of Wehi Wehi, and granddaughter of Kauwhata.381

355. Īhāia Tioriori of Ngāti Korokī then gave a concise rendition of events that

closely resembled that which the Court would subsequently adopt as its definitive

history of the region. He spoke of initial conflict with Marutuāhu that caused ‘us’

(Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Hauā) to occupy pā at Rangiaōwhia and Maungakawa, and

Raukawa to occupy pā at Wharepūhunga and Te Wāotū, before Marutuāhu again

attacked Raukawa, killing the chiefs Te Whatakaraka and Te Hereara. This led

Raukawa to migrate to Kapiti, whereupon Marutuāhu took possession of

Maungatautari. Ngāti Hauā and Marutuāhu fought a series of battles without a decisive

outcome, until the final battle at Taumatawīwī, which led to the expulsion of the

Hauraki tribes from the Waikato.382

356. In essence, this ‘two conquest’ narrative states: Marutuāhu conquered or drove

away Raukawa (and by implication, Ngāti Kauwhata), only to be conquered in their

turn by Ngāti Hauā and their allies, Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Kahukura. Ngāti

Kauwhata’s ancestral rights were therefore extinguished; Ngāti Hauā and their allies

now held the rights, having gained them at Taumatawīwī.

357. After a number of Ngāti Hauā reiterated the claims based on conquest, Te

Whitu appeared again to repeat his claim through ancestry on the basis of his descent

from Kauwhata. He also produced a new version of the whakapapa he had presented

previously, this time including Wehi Wehi and Kauwhata.383

358. Huka was then recalled at the request of Parakaia to state again that the land

had been gifted to him by Te Wharepakaru, Te Whatu, Te Whena and Matauruaho. It

was given to himself and Harete Te Waharoa to look after, and they had remained in

occupation since. They had joined with Ngāti Hauā at Taumatawīwī to drive out the

Hauraki tribes.384

The people to whom the land was gifted generally had dual, or

multiple tribal affiliations, with ties to Kauwhata, Raukawa and Hauā, or to Ngāti

Apakura, Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Maniapoto through such hapū as Ngāti Ruru, Ngāti

381 Evidence of Wīremu Te Whitu, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 34.

382 Evidence of Īhāia Tioriori, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 35-36.

383 Evidence of Wīremu Te Whitu, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 41.

384 Evidence of Huka, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 41-42.


March 2013

165

Koura and Werokoukou. The gifting narrative formed the basis of the claims by those

Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa who remained in the Maungatautari district and kept the

fires burning for those who migrated. When the Court ruled against the migrants, this

became an important take for those seeking to preserve some Ngāti Kauwhata rights in

the district.

359. At the conclusion of the evidence the Court announced that it would issue a

decision, but it urged the claimants to “settle the matter if possible amongst

themselves”.385

If no agreement could be reached, the Court would decide. In the

meantime, it would hear claims to Maungatautari.

8.2.2 Maungatautari title investigation

360. The Maungatautari block was claimed by Waata Parakaia of Ngāti Hauā and

Ngāti Kahukura. He identified ‘the chief men’ of Ngāti Hauā as the people he claimed

with and told the Court that the block had been surveyed.386

The case followed directly

on from the Pukekura case and Parakaia based his claim on the same premise: the

conquest of Marutuāhu by Ngāti Hauā; though he also referred to the earlier conflict

between Korokī and Taowhakāiro, which he also described as a conquest. He said that

his elders had invited Ngāti Raukawa to return to Pātetere, Te Wāotū and

Wharepūhunga “from a kind feeling towards them and they were living [in those

places] at the present time.”387

His evidence was supported by Te Raihi and others of

Ngati Haua.

361. The Ngāti Hauā claim was challenged by Parakaia Te Pouepa, who lived at

Ōtaki and claimed Maungatautari on behalf of his tribe, Raukawa. He said that in

former times Raukawa, led by Kōperu and Hape had taken the land from ‘Ngatikare

and Ngatiamaru,’ “which left them in possession of the land which was occupied by

the descendants of Hape [who] remained at Maungatautari until the fighting with

385 The Court, Pukekura investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 42.

386 Evidence of Waata Parakaia, Maungatautari investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 42-44.

387 Evidence of Waata Parakaia, Maungatautari investigation, 4 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 43-44.


March 2013

166

Marutuāhu…”388

None of the witnesses who claimed with Parakaia presented any

evidence in support of a Ngāti Kauwhata claim.389

Thus, whereas Kauwhata was set up

as the take tupuna in Pukekura by virtually all of the claimants, despite most having

other affiliations (such as Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Raukawa), this was not the case in the

Maungatautari 1 and 2 blocks. Also of note is the fact that a Raukawa witness from

Ōtaki, Te Rei Te Paehua, “insisted that he left Maungatautari after peace had been

arranged and returned at the request of several rangatira including Te Auwahia, Te

Wherowhero, Kiwi and Te Roto to resume occupation of all of Maungatautari.”390

Most of the Ōtaki Raukawa claimants laid claim to lands their parents had once lived

on, though they themselves had little memory of the region. Once again, the Court

reserved its decision.

8.2.3 Puahue title investigation

362. When the Court moved on to hear evidence on the Puahue block, Parakaia

opposed the hearing ‘on the ground that some of the owners were away amongst the

Hauhau’ but he was overruled. Te Reweti Waikato claimed the block, telling the Court

that he belonged to Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Ruru, Ngāti Koura and Te Werokoukou. As

noted above, the latter two hapū derive from the marriage of Urumakawe to Maui

which sealed the peace between Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Apakura. Te Reweti

named a list of claimants, who, he said, belonged to Ngāti Kahukura and Ngāti

Apakura. He also noted that some who were with the King had an interest in the block.

He acknowledged that Raukawa formerly held the land, but he said, “We fought in

former times and [we] took this land. We are related but still we fought and took this

land. We took land from Rangiawhia [sic] including this place.”391

388 Evidence of Parakaia Te Pouepa, Maungatautari case, 5 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 48-49. This is

probably a different person from Hape-ki-tūārangi, the son of Huia.

389 Indeed, in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Ngāti Kauwhata claims in 1881, the large Ngāti

Kauwhata contingent led by Tapa Te Whata did not contest the Maungatautari 1 & 2 blocks, focusing instead on

Puahue, Pukekura and Ngāmoko No. 2. On the other hand, Winia Pohotiraha, who led the claims to

Maungatautari 1 & 2 before the Commission, identified herself as Ngāti Wehi Wehi, although she claimed by

virtue of her descent from Wehi Wehi’s wife’s father, Tuakere.

390 Evidence of Te Rei Te Paehua, Maungatautari case, 5 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 53.

391 Evidence of Te Reweti Waikato, Puahue case, 5 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 56-57.


March 2013

167

363. The second take on which he based his claim was the conquest of Marutuāhu

by Ngāti Hauā; the same evidence the Court had heard over the previous two days with

respect to Pukekura and Maungatautari. He added: “My claim is from conquest

entirely.”392

The block had been surveyed. Other witnesses affiliated to Ngāti Haua,

Ngāti Kahukura and Ngāti Apakura supported Te Reweti’s claim; they also noted the

absence of some King supporters with legitimate claims, though Te Waata argued that

the absentees had passed their interests in the land to those attending the Court.

364. Hōri Pūao, who had identified himself as belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata in the

Pukekura case, now claimed under his Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Kahukura ancestry. He

claimed the land from conquest in the same manner as stated by Te Reweti; indeed, he

told the Court that he was living at Whānake and ‘Puahoe’ with Te Reweti. He

affirmed that Te Reweti had received word from the owners living behind the Aukati

giving their approval with respect to his making the claim.393

365. Parakaia Te Pouepa claimed Puahue on behalf of Raukawa on the basis of

ancestry. He spoke of conflicts involving the claimants’ recent forebears:

As regards the conquest they state, the pa of Ngatirauka[wa?] which was taken

was Te Tarua but Ngapuhi & Ngatiwhatua took this pa. It was taken in 1819.

Hangahanga was afterwards taken by Rewi’s and Matutaera’s party394

– the

tribes which have been mentioned as conquerors were not engaged – they were

related to and did not fight with me. In ’24 the fighting was finished.

Ngatihaua and Ngatikoroki used to visit both my own and Mātutaera’s party.

The battles were fought in 1822. In 1824 the war was ended. In 1825 Ngati

Raukawa lived at Pukekura, Puahue and Orakei [Korako] and Te Wera o Te

Atua and Ngati Maniapoto together with them. In 1826 Ngati Apakura fought

with Ngati Koroki and the latter were beaten. I was in this district at the time.

Te Tu of Ngati Koroki and others who were killed were matuas to all of us.

Ngati Haua, Ngati Koroki and Ngati Raukawa went to get payment for their

dead and took the pa belonging to Ngati Apakura called Kaipaka. The persons

who were killed were eaten. Mangapiko was taken by Te Waharoa and he

returned the land of Ngati Apakura back to them and they lived there and

Ngati Raukawa lived at Orakei. All the tribes lived peaceably together. Ngati

392 Evidence of Te Reweti Waikato, Puahue case, 5 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 57.

393 Evidence of Hōri Pūao, Puahue case, 5 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 62-63.

394 That is: Rewi Maniapoto’s grandfather Te Akanui, and Matutaera’s (King Tawhiao’s) father Te

Wherowhero and the latter’s uncle, Te Paewaka.


March 2013

168

Raukawa’s principal places of residence were Haowhenua and

Maungatautari.395

366. Parakaia stated that it was after these events that Marutuāhu arrived at

Maungatautari and that once Marutuāhu arrived, any fighting that occurred was

between Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Kahukura and the visitors. Raukawa did not figure as

protagonists in this part of his account. Nor did Parakaia refer to the migration to

Kapiti, simply noting that Ngāti Hauā based their claim on the conquest of Marutuahu.

He added that when Te Ngongo, Tū Te Rangipuri and Tamihana Te Waharoa invited

Raukawa to return to Maungatautari in 1848, their invitation ‘did away with the

conquest’.396

367. Letters were sent to those living in the south, but Parakaia was unable to

produce them as they had been mislaid. He spoke of other trips to Ōtaki by senior

Waikato chiefs in 1842 and 1857, when the southern migrants were invited to return:

In ’42 … Potatau went to Otaki and invited Ngatiraukawa & Te Rauparaha to

return to their lands. Ngatiraukawa agreed to this: the word was spoken that

the lands should not be sold. Ngatiraukawa have not sold land unto the present

time.

In ’57 Porokoru & Haunui went to Otaki – these persons were chiefs of Ngati

Koura – they went… into the house where Ngatiraukawa were assembled and

asked them to return to their lands at Puahoe, Whanake, Pukekura, Te Tarua,

Hangahanga, Aratitaha & Pukewhakaahu. Porokoru said that he would not

retain those lands – his word had no reference to the lands at Maungatautari on

the Horahora side but the Waharoa’s word had. Porokoru returned with 11 of

Ngatiraukawa. The chief men were Te Ngahioharaki, Ratiera, Hoera, Kawa, &

Hukarahi went afterwards, just before the commencement of the Waikato War.

These men all died natural deaths during the war. They died on the land; their

children returned to Otaki.397

368. Parakaia named several individuals who had returned from Ōtaki to live at

Aratitaha, who were interested in the land but who were not present in Court because

they had ‘joined the Hauhau party’. He concluded his evidence by stating that ‘he

wished judgement to be suspended until he could go to the King’s party and get a

395 Evidence of Parakaia Te Pouepa, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 67-68.




March 2013

169

meeting of all the old chiefs to consider the question of conquest raised by the opposite

side’.398

Under cross-examination by Kerehama, Parakaia stated emphatically “When I

went to Otaki I went there with the knowledge that I should continue to hold

Maungatautari.”399

369. The next witness, George Gage (noted as a ‘half-caste’), spoke of leasing land

at Mangakopara to a Pākehā called Perry, and how the rental monies were arranged

between the chiefs. It seems Perry paid £40 a year, the money being paid to Rewi

Maniapoto. Rewi then gave the money to Porokoru, who gave it to Pohepohe, who

then returned it to Rewi. Porokoru then leased land at Aratitaha and kept the rental

money, angering Rewi who impounded the cattle and would not release them until the

Pākehā had paid him the amount he asked for.400

The inclusion of Pohepohe in the

circuit of the rental monies appears to be an acknowledgement of his rights to the land,

which, in the view of Ngāti Kauwhata, derive from his Ngāti Kauwhata ancestor, Pare

Paoro.401

370. Ropata Te Ao, of Ngāti Raukawa and Te Werokoukou, told the Court that the

migrants who returned with Porokoru belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata; they came back

and cultivated with Porokoru at Kihikihi. When Te Ao returned, Porokoru gave him

£20 as his share of the lease money.402

As in Pukekura, several other witnesses gave

evidence in support of the Raukawa claim and a number stated that they lived at Ōtaki

or Kapiti.403

371. The following day, 7 November 1868, the hearing for Puahue, Pukekura and

Maungatautari concluded after representatives of each of the claimants addressed the

Court. According to the Court minutes, Parakaia said that his side ‘renounced their


399 Evidence of Parakaia Te Pouepa, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 70.

400 Evidence of George Gage, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 71-72.

401 Pers. Comm. Don Tait, by email, 28 November 2012.

402 Evidence of Ropata Te Ao, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 72-73.

403 An interesting exception was Wīremu Pōmare, the son of Whiria Pōmare (Pōmare II) and great-nephew of

Pōmare Whētoi, who was killed at Te Rore in 1826. Wīremu said he lived in Mahurangi and belonged to

Raukawa and Ngāpuhi; he claimed through ‘the ancestors mentioned by Parakaia – Huia and Kauwhata…’

though he did not know how to trace his descent from them. Evidence of Wīremu Pōmare, Puahue case, 6

November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 74. It later emerged that Pōmare’s mother (or grandmother) was a daughter

of Peehi Tūkōrehu. Pōmare’s whakapapa links to the Kaipara and Ngāpuhi are described in “Traditional History

Overview: Mahurangi and the Gulf Islands Districts”, CFRT, 2010, by the present author, pp. 96 & 315.


March 2013

170

claim to Pukekura and Maungatautari in favour of the resident claimants but not so on

Puahue’ and ‘that he wished the investigation of Puahue should be closed as some of

the owners were King natives and he wished to ascertain their opinion towards Ngati

Raukawa’. The Court announced it would consider the evidence and give a decision

later.404

372. In its decision in the Puahue, Pukekura and Maungatautari cases, given on 9

November, the Court ruled that Parakaia had ‘formally abandoned’ his claim to the

Pukekura and Maungatautari blocks the previous Saturday, awarding them to Te Raihi

and those he represented (Ngāti Hauā).405

The decision noted that Parakaia had applied

for Puahue to be adjourned but rejected this for the following reasons:

With regard to Parakaia’s application for an adjournment of the hearing of

Puahue after all the claimants and counter claimants had been heard, it may be

stated that an offer was made to Parakaia to adjourn the Maungatautari cases if

he and his people would return to Rangitikei but this he declined to accept.

This application therefore cannot now after hearing be admitted. The reason

now assigned by him is not in the opinion of the Court sufficient reason for

granting the application.406

373. In its decision on Puahue, the Court weighed the Ngāti Hauā conquest claim

against the Raukawa (and Ngāti Kauwhata) ancestral claim, concluding:

It is undisputed that the Ngati Raukawa tribe left the district; that Ngati Maru

took possession and were expelled by Ngati Haua and Waikato tribes. It is also

clear that the Ngati Raukawa as a tribe did not avail themselves of the alleged

invitation of Te Wherowhero as they still remain in occupation of the land to

which they have migrated. They now request the Native Land Court to give

them repossession but the Court considers that a tribe having conquered and

having undisputed possession of a district for many years previous to the

foundation of the colony and up to the present time are according to native

custom and in justice entitled to be recognised as the proprietors of the land.

The decision of the Court is therefore in favour of the claimants.407

404 Puahue case, 7 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 81, 83.

405 Court decision re the Maungatautari blocks, 9 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 93.

406 Court decision re the Puahue block, 9 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 94.

407 Court decision re the Puahue block, 9 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 95.


March 2013

171

374. The block was therefore vested in Te Reweti Waikato and those he

represented. As the successful claimants were unable to agree on the names to be

included in the title, the Court adjourned the hearing to a future occasion for the title to

be finalised. The 1868 Court sitting at Cambridge adjourned on 16 November.408

375. Twenty-six individuals initially recognised as entitled in Pukekura were

reduced to ten names to be inserted in the Crown grant. Hearn reports:

The Deed of Grant for Pukekura dated 4 August 1870 recorded the names of

the grantees as Te Mata Tahi, Harete Tamihana, Rewiti Waikato, Hakiriwhi,

Hori Puao, Piripi Whanatangi, Hemi Kokako, Wiremu te Whitu, Pirihi, and

Hori Wirihana. That for Puahue recorded the names as Rewiti Waikato, Hori

Pohi Pohi, Hoani Pakura, Matakaoroa, Hori Wirihana, Tarika Te Hura, Wiri

Herei Winiata, Aramete Te Maharoa, and Ropata Te Ao.409

376. Although identified by the Court as belonging to Ngāti Hauā, a number of the

successful claimants in the Pukekura and Puahue blocks had set up Kauwhata as their

take tūpuna in the land. They belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Hauā, or Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa, but in their understanding, Kauwhata was the tūpuna

from whom they derived their rights. When Ngāti Kauwhata were able to bring their

claim before the Royal Commission set up in 1881, many of these grantees supported

the Ngāti Kauwhata claims, in apparent contradiction of their earlier evidence.

8.3 Maungatautari in the Native Land Court – Conclusions

377. The striking thing about the evidence given at the 1868 Maungatautari

hearings is that a significant majority of claimants set up Kauwhata as their ancestral

right to the land, irrespective of whether their primary affiliations were to other local

hapū and iwi. The exceptions were those who denied the significance of ancestral

claims and preferred instead claims based on conquest, whether these were ancient

conquests many generations in the past, or more recent ‘conquests’ ensuing from the

Marutuāhu occupation and their subsequent eviction following Taumatawīwī. Through

408 Court rulings re the Maungatautari blocks, 16 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, pp. 203, 205.

409 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa

rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 189, fn. 4.


March 2013

172

the course of the hearing, it is possible to discern a progression from predominantly

ancestral claims made at the beginning of the hearing, to a much greater emphasis on

conquest as the hearing continued. Whether this was a result of a calculated policy

shift by the various witnesses, a response to the tenor of questions put by counsel or

the Court, or simply coincidence, is impossible to say.

378. The Court also elicited evidence on its own behalf, calling as a witness

Wīremu Te Wheoro, the Waikato Kūpapa leader who was highly respected by Crown

officials. Te Wheoro’s message was simple:

The only thing I know about is this; I do not know of any claim from

ancestors, only by conquest; I have been told that perhaps about 100 years ago

Ngatiraukawa owned this land; they held the land afterwards; Ngatipaoa and

Ngatimaru took the land, and Ngatiraukawa were driven away; they again

were driven away by Ngatihaua and Waikato; the land now belongs to the

whole of the Ngatihaua tribe.410

379. Ironically, and indeed tragically, Ngāti Kauwhata were unable to present their

claims having been told by none other than the Native Minister that the Maungatautari

cases would be adjourned so as not to clash with Ngāti Kauwhata’s obligation to

attend a contemporaneous sitting of the Court at Rangitikei. Neither did the Ngāti

Kauwhata people who had remained in the Waikato, or who had since returned from

Kapiti, attend the Court. They were with the King, across the aukati and determined to

take no part in the Native Land Court process. O’Malley observes that even the usually

partisan Daily Southern Cross exhibited some sympathy for the Kīngitanga’s

exclusion from the Native Land Court, declaring that:

The Native Lands Court is doubtless a great blessing to the country, but we

have often felt that its action in Waikato tended to widen the breach between

the Europeans and the Maori Kingites. For instance, certain lands beyond the

confiscated boundary are put before the Court to adjudicate to whom the title

should be issued. It is well known in many cases that the owners of these lands

are living amongst the Kingites, and that the others, who put the lands in

Court, have only comparatively slight claims. But the Kingites will not

compromise themselves by coming before the Native Lands Court, and state,

besides, that they are afraid of their personal safety if they come to our towns.

In the absence of the great owners, the land is granted to others, who sell it,

and the next thing the real proprietors hear is that some pakeha is fencing it in.

410 Evidence of Wīremu Te Wheoro, Puahue case, 6 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 66.


March 2013

173

Reasoning even from our own feelings, we can easily believe that the Maori

does not feel particularly amiable at the tidings.411

380. Expecting to hear that a new date had been set for the Maungatautari cases,

Ngāti Kauwhata at Manawatū and Horowhenua belatedly heard that the blocks had

already passed the Court and been awarded to Ngāti Hauā; indeed to those chiefs who

had entered into prior dealings with Pākehā land agents. Thus, not only was their

ancestral land awarded to others, it was also well on the way to being permanently

alienated out of Māori ownership.

381. The double conquest theory came to define the history of Maungatautari,

proving impossible to overturn or even modify, not least because it was used by the

Court as the rationale for other title decisions in the district.412

For Ngāti Kauwhata in

the Horowhenua/Manawatū districts the Maungatautari decisions meant the beginning

of decades of protest seeking to have their rights recognised. For some Ngāti

Kauwhata supporters of the King living behind the aukati, the presence of European

settlers working their ancestral lands virtually on the aukati boundary itself would

prove intolerable, provoking them to take the ultimate sanction.

411 Daily Southern Cross, 17 November 1868; cited in: O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, 2010,

pp. 725-726.

412 This is highlighted in notes by the Chief Judge in 1885 regarding the decision in the Maungatautari

rehearing, in which he states: “The decision so aspersed was not only amply supported by the evidence in the

case itself, but is upheld by uniform and unquestioned previous decisions of the Court (instance, Waipa,

Hinuera, Horahora, Maungatautari 1 and 2, Pukekuru [sic], Puahoe, and Te Aroha…” See: “The Maungatautari

Case (notes on, by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court)”, AJHR, 1885, G.–3, pp. 1-2.


March 2013

174

9 Land alienation, protests and petitions

9.1 Introduction

382. The fact that Ngāti Kauwhata were unable to attend the Cambridge Court and

claim their ancestral lands at Maungatautari led them to lodge petitions every year for

several years thereafter seeking an opportunity to have their claims considered.

Meanwhile, events on the ground moved on apace as the Native Land Court

partitioned the Maungatautari block, and the grantees entered into lease agreements

with settlers, and in some cases began negotiations towards the sale of the land. These

actions provoked strong reactions from those owners whose rights were not recognised

by the Court, whether they were loyal supporters of the Crown, or of the Māori King.

383. This section examines the escalation of protests by those with claims to the

land against the leasing of the Pukekura block that led to the killing of Timothy

Sullivan in April 1873.413

It then rehearses the partition, lease and attempted sale of the

Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 blocks;414

concluding with an account of the petitions lodged

resolutely by Ngāti Kauwhata seeking a hearing into the Court’s findings with respect

to their ancestral lands at Maungatautari.

413 See: Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the

Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, pp. 55-62; O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”,

2010, pp. 219, 222, 670, 726, 765-767. NB: Dr Terry Hearn and Dr Vincent O’Malley, have addressed the issue

of the death of Timothy Sullivan in greater detail (or wider context) than is possible here, and the reader is

directed to those reports for a fuller account.

414 See: Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the

Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, pp. 211-217.


March 2013

175

9.2 The Killing of Timothy Sullivan

9.2.1 Protests over the frontier leases are ignored

384. In his History of New Zealand, G.W. Rusden reports that despite finding that

“a large number of natives living with Tawhiao had claims on the land,” the Native

Land Court “issued a certificate in favour of 26 named Ngatihaua claimants; and

subsequently a Crown grant was issued to 10 Maoris recommended by the claimants as

the persons who were to hold the land in trust for the owners in terms of the Act.”415

Soon after the Crown grant for the Pukekura block was issued in August 1870,

‘Captain’ Wilson obtained a lease, which he then transferred to Messrs Walker and

Douglas, who began farming the land.

385. The following month, three cattle were shot, the first protest against the

leasing of the land that would gradually escalate. Rusden states:

In July 1871, a hut was burnt on the land, and sheep and cattle were driven

away. In 1872 Mohi Purukutu harassed the cattle on the land. A meeting of

Tawhiao's friends was held (Jan., 1873) at Maungatautari, and a king's

messenger said that the cattle ought to be removed. Mohi Purukutu was the

keeper of the march (the king's aukati in the neighbourhood), and after the

Maungatautari meeting associated nine others as his “comites,” with Maori

titles. Unfortunately, McLean's wariness was not brought to bear on these

dangerous symptoms. In Feb., 1873, two of the border [scou]ts saw Europeans

digging near Rotorangi on land which had been purchased, and Paora Tuhua

struck one of them. The assailant was seized, but was released immediately.

386. As Rusden observes, these warning signs went unheeded, even after Mohi

Purukutu gave notice of more extreme actions to follow, not only against the Pākehā

involved, but also against those Māori who had participated in the leasing

arrangements.

415 Rusden, G.W., History of New Zealand Vol. III, Melbourne, Melville, Mullen and Slade, 1883, p. 43.


March 2013

176

9.2.2 The attack on Sullivan’s party and its aftermath

387. On 23 April 1873, Purukutu and others apprehended Parakaia, who had

(unsuccessfully) contested the Pukekura and Puahue claims in the 1868 Court on

behalf of Ngāti Raukawa. He was taken to Purukutu’s settlement, where he was

detained and questioned; in the event, the fact that his name was not on the Crown

grant and was not therefore a party to the lease probably saved his life. While he was

so detained, a taua departed, returning at daybreak on the 25th

with the news that

“slaying had taken place”. Parakaia was then released.416

388. Rusden continues:

The man slain was Timothy Sullivan. With two other men he had been

engaged (24th April) making a fascine road outside the confiscated boundary.

They knew that they were beyond that boundary. While gathering firewood

one of them looked up and saw natives. It must have been felt that

transgression was dangerous, for the man cried out, “We are dead men, the

natives are upon us.” All three ran. After a few minutes Sullivan called out, “I

am done, I shall stand. Good-bye; take care of yourselves.” He endeavoured to

hide in some underwood. The others held on their course for two miles, but

they heard a shot fired near Sullivan's hiding-place. When they reached the

confiscated boundary the leading Maori fired a parting shot, and called off the

pursuers. Sullivan's body was found mutilated. The head had been taken

away.417

389. The Daily Southern Cross reported that an inquest held on 26 April concluded

that Sullivan had been “wilfully and brutally murdered by Poutorou [sic], otherwise

named Bell, and three other natives …” The following day, local settlers held a “large

and influential meeting” at Cambridge, where the prospect of “a settlers’ war” was

raised, on account of their feelings of “utmost horror and detestation of the brutal

murder of Timothy Sullivan…”418

Terry Hearn describes the mix of outrage and panic

that gripped the local settler community; in the words of the local newspaper, women

were ‘flocking’ into the redoubt at Cambridge, as mounted night patrols “were

416 Rusden, History of New Zealand Vol. III, 1883, p. 44.

417 Rusden, History of New Zealand Vol. III, 1883, p. 44.

418 Daily Southern Cross, 28 April 1873.


March 2013

177

organised to deter Purukutu and his estimated 60 followers from venturing out of the

Maungatautari ranges”.419

390. As Dr Hearn notes, rumours abounded of Maori gathering at Te Kuiti ‘ready

for mischief’. Government Agent James Mackay Jun. demanded the surrender of the

alleged offenders, while the government offered rewards for their capture: £1,000 for

Purukutu, £1,000 for Hori Te Tumu, £500 for Herewau (Herewini Ngamuka), and

£500 for Whera (Whina).420

The first two named were responsible for committing the

murder – they were the same two who had objected to the survey of the Pukekura

block in 1868. Hearn states:

According to the Waikato Times, Sullivan was killed ‘for the purpose of

creating a breach in that peace which Maoris and Europeans have enjoyed for

a considerable time past.’ It went on to suggest that:

We believe that the men who have been guilty of the last act of

barbarity feel that they are justified in their actions. We passed a

‘Native Lands Act’ with all the adjuncts of a Supreme Court. The

Judges themselves must, or should have been perfectly aware, that

they were often inflicting an injustice when they vested tracts of

country in individuals who had, if any, a very meagre claim to the

property. The proper owners of the land in dispute we believe to be

the instigators of the latest murder. It was well-known in the

realms of officialdom that certain portions of the natives would not

condescend to establish their claim, consequently a number of

unprincipled vagabonds are enjoying the rents that should belong

to men more noble and possessed of a principle, whether right or

wrong.421

391. Vincent O’Malley observes that for some time there had been a degree of

flexibility in the Kīngitanga’s enforcement of the aukati boundary; however:

Incidents such as the 1873 killing of a labourer named Timothy Sullivan, who

was working on land on the Kingitanga side of the boundary, were…timely

reminders that the aukati could not be taken lightly. Purukutu, who was

believed responsible for the act, was also reportedly ‘one of the principal

419 Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa

rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 56.


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 56.


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, pp. 56-57.


March 2013

178

keepers of the aukati established by Tawhiao and Manuwhiri’s party’.

Increasing interaction and movement across the boundary line was said to have

been a source of annoyance to some, including Tawhiao, who was rumoured to

have indirectly and somewhat cryptically authorised intruders who were

working on the land to be killed, but added that mere travellers should be sent

back across to the nearest European settlement.422

392. Dr O’Malley’s comment that Sullivan and his fellow workers were cultivating

on the Kīngitanga side of the aukati boundary is noted; the maps produced at the end

of James Mackay’s report appear to show two boundary lines between Pukekura and

Ōrākau, one as defined by the Kīngitanga and a second as defined by Walker.

According to the Kīngitanga boundary, Walker’s men were ploughing on the King’s

side of the aukati.423

It was nothing if not a provocative act.

393. Although the killing of Sullivan did not precipitate a renewed outbreak of

hostilities, tensions continued to simmer. Dr Terry Hearn reports that in 1874:

…it was reported that Manuhiri had instructed 40 armed men to proceed to

Maungatautari and drive off Walker’s cattle from Pukekura and Puahue,

although Tawhiao had sent Te Ngakau to try to settle matters. For the Waikato

Times, that particular incident was another indication of the necessity for the

Crown to resume the pre-emptive right of purchase. On the one hand, it

suggested, ‘it seems … very hard that settlers who have leased land and duly

paid rent on it should be debarred from its beneficial occupation;’ on the other,

it acknowledged, some might raise the question ‘“Why should our property be

depreciated in value, and our lives placed in jeopardy by the acts of private

speculators?”’ In September 1875 another incident took place near Rotorangi

(where at that time the government maintained a redoubt), although it seemed

that some ‘new chums’ employed by Walker were merely unacquainted with

what was termed ‘the bouncible character of the natives …’ Finally, in 1880

Tawhiao was reported as having ‘ordered’ all Maori living on the

Maungatautari and Pukekura blocks to go to Hikurangi in order, it was said,

‘to remove people from localities where there is any risk of a collision with the

pakeha …’ although the Waikato Times claimed that the move originated in

the determination of Maclean, Jackson and Co to occupy Horahora.424

422 O’Malley, Vincent, “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, 2010, p. 219; citing: Daily Southern Cross, 20 May

1873.

423 James Mackay, “Report to the Native Minister”, 10 July 1873, AJHR, 1873, G.-3, pp. 30-33.

424 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 198-199.


March 2013

179

9.2.3 Who were Mohi Purukutu and his supporters?

394. According to Mr Don Tait of Ngāti Kauwhata, Mohi Purukutu was part of a

group affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata, who were based at Aratitaha and strongly objected

to the awarding of their ancestral lands to others and who were intent on doing their

utmost to defend their interests. Mr Tait advises:

The story that needs to be told [concerns] the Ngati Kauwhata who

reoccupied portions of their ancestral lands at Pukekura, and to do justice to

this story there needs to be an in depth look at these individuals, with Mohi

Purukutu a man hunted and pursued by the crown [sic] for the murder of

Sullivan. I believe he started the occupation of these lands again. All the Ngati

Kauwhata who reoccupied the land were from the Waikato, there were also

individuals from Manawatu who travelled north: Tapa Te Whata, his wife

Metapere, and several others accompanied them. My tipuna Te Iti and his

sister Te Wani also went back; Te Wani was the wife of Winiata a grantee on

Pukekura. He was the brother to Mere Whakatutu who was also the sister of

Mohi. Other notable occupants were Hori Puao another grantee; Ani Waata the

daughter of Waata Tahi another grantee. In all there were over 30-odd

occupants and they lived there for a number of years up to and after the 1881

Kauwhata Claims Commission and all claimed to be Ngati Kauwhata.425

395. This kōrero indicates just how closely related Purukutu was to the grantees;

his brother Winiata was a grantee in Puahue, though their sister, Mere Whakatutu

supported Purukutu’s opposition to the leases. Winiata married Te Wani Turanga, the

eldest sister of Te Iti, who was the direct ancestor of Don Tait.

396. Mr Tait explains that Purukutu was a descendant of Kauwhata’s daughter

Hinepare through Peneti, who married Wharārangi of Ngāti Hauā. He was therefore

affiliated to both Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Kauwhata. However, given the spontaneous

testimony offered by a number of Ngāti Hauā witnesses at the 1868 Pukekura and

Puahue hearings, their ancestral rights on those blocks derived from Kauwhata. Mr

Tait asserts that Purukutu was upholding his Ngāti Kauwhata rights when he protested

against the Pukekura leases, which eventually resulted in the killing of Sullivan.426

425 Don Tait, Pers. Comm. by email, 4 January 2013.

426 Don Tait, Pers. Comm. by email, 14 February 2013.


March 2013

180

9.3 The alienation of Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2

397. Two years before Sullivan was killed, in 1871, the Maungatautari block

investigated in 1868 came before the Court for partitioning.427

The northern boundary

of the area in question was defined by the westward bend of the Waikato River,

between Horahora and Karapiro; to the west by the boundary of the Pukekura block, as

defined by the Hauoira Stream; to the south by papatupu Māori land that later became

the greater Maungatautari block, and to the east by the Horahora block, the boundary

there formed by the Wairakau Stream.428

The block was divided into Maungatautari

Nos 1 and 2 blocks and certificates of title issued.

398. The Court was asked to impose restrictions on alienation, except by lease for a

period not exceeding 21 years; however it was not empowered to do so under the

prevailing Native Lands Acts.429

The Governor was so empowered, and the Court

could make application to the Governor on behalf of the owners for restrictions to be

imposed. Terry Hearn notes that the Court orders, while noting that restrictions on

alienation should be placed on the Crown grants, omitted the usual condition ‘except

by and with the consent of the Governor’. He also notes that it is unclear whether by

this direction, restrictions were in fact imposed.430

399. Hearn reports:

In 1873 the Maclean brothers purchased the 8,000-acre Maungatautari

property (which included the Maori settlement at the foot of the mountain),

427 The summary of events and communications relating to the alienation of the Maungatautari 1 & 2 blocks has

been taken from the Native Affairs Committee Report on the Petition of Sir James Ferguson, AJHR Session II

1887, I.–3B.

428 See: ML Plans 2279 & 2280. Quickmap, Custom Software Ltd. The boundaries given are taken from these

plans, which defined the Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 blocks on their investigation by the Court in 1871. According

to these plans, the blocks form a corridor linking Maungatautari Maunga to the Waikato River to the north,

whereas the maps produced for Young and Belgrave’s report for Raukawa, for example, show Horahora and

Pukekura sharing a common boundary. Further research is required to explain this apparent anomaly.

429 Native Affairs Committee Report on the Petition of Sir James Ferguson, AJHR Session II 1887, I.–3B, p. 2.


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, pp. 211-212. The Native Affairs Committee of 1887 learned that as

Crown grants had not been issued, and the Judge’s recommendation for restrictions on the certificates of title

had no force in law, no restrictions were in force; the ten owners in each block were free to alienate their

interests at any time.


March 2013

181

but, according to the Waikato Times, found it impossible to occupy the land. In

September 1873, the Macleans’ land purchase agent (John Wilson) noted that

all ten grantees of Maungatautari 1 had signed a petition to the Governor

requesting removal of the restrictions and that in the case of Maungatautari 2

seven of the ten had signed a similar petition. The remaining three would have

signed, he claimed, had they been located ‘as they all consider it a hardship to

be bound by the clause mentioned.’ Wilson also noted that ‘The tenure upon

which these Natives held the land was by right of conquest and not by

descent.’ Wilson asked for the lifting of the restrictions on alienability.431

400. H.T. Clarke, Under-Secretary to the Native Department, advised the Minister

that there were a number of owners who had not been included in the titles (which

were limited to 10 names under the legislation), and that those left out were likely to

be opposed to the sale. Clarke advised caution, on the grounds that the blocks were

two of the cases mentioned by James Mackay in his report, which dealt with the recent

killing of Timothy Sullivan in April 1873 (discussed in previous section).432

Clarke

consulted with Mackay, who told him he saw no objection to alienation of the land the

Macleans were attempting to purchase. At the end of 1873, the Macleans were advised

that inquiry having been made, there were no objections to the Maungatautari Nos 1 &

2 blocks being alienated.433

401. When news of the sale trickled down to the people with claims to the land, but

who had been excluded from the title through the vagaries of the Native Land Court

system, a protest was mounted by Hōri Kukutai on behalf of himself and 39 others.

Their stirring letter alleges that the application to remove restrictions was done:

…not at the instigation of the tribe, but at their own – the said grantees – in

order to secure the money for themselves; for some of those who are included

in the grant do not live on the land, and that is why they are so anxious that

trouble should come upon those who are living permanently on the land, and

all those also who have a claim to it. It is not as though the land belonged to

one hapu, or ten persons, but to the tribe in general, according to the claims of

each respective hapu. Now trouble has fallen on those whose names do not

appear in the grant. We have no land anywhere else, and that was why the


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 212. The significance of the tenure being based on raupatu rather

than descent was that each of the owners held equal shares.

432 Under Secretary, Native Department to Native Minister 13 September 1873, in AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B,

p. 3.


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, pp. 212-213.


March 2013

182

Court made it inalienable, for the maintenance of the tribe. Now that this

trouble has befallen us in consequence of the said land being sold, we request

you not to grant the removal of the said restrictions placed on that land by the

Court. Do not let the sale of this land be the cause for having the restrictions

removed from the lands. If lands under restriction are treated in this way, then

it will be said that the law has no authority, and it will remain as a cause of

trouble with the tribe, and it will also be said that all dealings with respect to

Native lands would be like this, and that restrictions can be removed by sale. It

would be right enough if all the people outside the grant agreed to it.434

402. A few days later Wīremu Te Wheoro sent a telegram to the Government

concerning complaints he had received from ‘the Maungatautari people’ who were

“angry on account of the European’s cattle running there”;435

Te Wheoro took the

opportunity to chastise the Government for the haste at which these blocks were put

through the Court, when it was sure to cause trouble. Chief Judge Fenton, who was

required to sign off on the certificates of title, indicated that he had so far refrained

from doing so because of the volatile political climate in the district. Mackay was

again asked his opinion, whereupon he observed that neither Kukutai nor Te Wheoro

had anything to do with the matter, and that Crown grants could issue without any

difficulty arising; though he was careful to exclude Pukekura and Puahue.436

403. On 3 August 1874, Hōri Wirihana of Maungatautari wrote to Chief Judge

Fenton, complaining about the intention to have the restrictions lifted. Wirihana would

later lead the Ngāti Kauwhata claims in the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga

(Maungatautari) block, though he also identified himself as belonging to Ngāti Hauā.

On the subject of the Maungatautari 1 & 2 blocks, he wrote:

Friend, the land and the dead persons belong to us conjointly with those

guardians of Maungatautari Nos 1 and 2. The guardians of the land have acted

wrongly, and the tribe (400 in number) are in difficulty, caused by those

twenty persons who are now applying to have the restrictions removed ….

Friend, do not consider the guardians alone, but the tribe.437

434 Hōri Kukutai and others to Native Minister, 5 January 1874, in AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, pp. 3-4.

435 ‘Telegram from Major Te Wheoro’, 15 January 1874, in: AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, p. 3.

436 F. D. Fenton, Acting Chief Judge, to Native Minister, 24 February 1874; and James Mackay to Under-

Secretary Native Department, 12 March 1874; in AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, p. 4.

437 Hōri Wirihana to Chief Judge Fenton, in AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, p. 4.


March 2013

183

404. The conviction that the ten persons whose names were placed on the

certificate of title were to act as trustees for numerous other owners was not confined

to Māori; influential Pākehā also weighed in on the subject, such as Major William

Mair who sent a telegram on 13 August 1875 to the effect that the restrictions on the

Maungatautari blocks should not be removed as the grantees named on the orders did

not represent half the owners.438

405. By this time, however, the Maclean brothers had sold their interests in the

Maungatautari blocks to R.H.D. Fergusson, the brother of the recent Governor Sir

James Fergusson, for £7,000. The transaction took place on 21 June 1875. Earlier, on 1

June 1875, Whitaker and Russell wrote to the Chief Judge seeking to have copies of

the certificates of title released to them; suggesting that the government had “deemed it

advisable to withhold the certificate referred to on political grounds” (i.e., on account

of the murder of Timothy Sullivan). They continued:

[W]e venture to submit that those grounds do not now exist, and respectfully

request, on behalf of our client, Mr. R.H.D. Fergusson, who holds leases from

all the Native owners, and conveyances from nearly all of them, that copies of

the orders of Court referred to for Maungatautari Nos. 1 and 2 be forwarded to

us to enable us to register the purchaser’s title.439

406. The ‘interests’ formerly held by the Macleans and now by Robert Fergusson

comprised the interests of the various grantees they had been able to purchase. When

Fergusson succeeded in obtaining the interests of two more grantees, there remained

just two more to be acquired for each block. These, however, could not be obtained

because the grantees would not sell. Perhaps uncertainty over the title delayed these

transactions, as the conveyance between Messrs Maclean and Fergusson was not

finalised until 1 March 1879, and then only with considerable financial assistance from

Sir James Fergusson.440

But having persuaded all but one or two of the grantees to sell

438 Mair to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 13 August 1875, in AJHR Sess. II, 1887, I.–3B, p. 9.

439 Whitaker and Russell, Auckland, to Chief Judge, Native Land Court, 1 June 1875, in AJHR Sess. II, 1887,

I.–3B, p. 4; cited in: Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in

the Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 214.

440 Hearn notes: “[T]he refusal of the remaining grantee to sell brought the purchase negotiations to a halt as a

purchaser had (under section 59 of the Native Land Act 1873) to acquire the assent of all grantees.” Hearn, T. J.

“Raukawa, Land and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”,

CFRT, August 2008, p. 214.


March 2013

184

their shares did not eliminate the opposition of the owners who failed to get their

names on the title. Hearn states:

Fergusson found it difficult to take possession of the property. In December

1881 the Waikato Times reported that ‘although the new proprietors have paid

over all the purchase money, and have secured the good offices of Tawhiao

and Rewi and the principal chiefs, they have, like Messrs Grice and Walker,

been compelled to resort to force to take possession of their own lands.’

Fergusson thus took a party of some 30 men (which included W.H. Grace) to

take possession: a large number of people left Cambridge for Maungatautari

‘in expectation of witnessing an affray between the natives and Mr

Fergusson’s party …’ Fergusson in fact denied trying to ‘turn off’ the Maori

residents, claiming rather that he and his party had simply gone to take

possession ‘of the property which for many years I have paid rent for.’ The

men returned to their homes, King Tawhiao having advised those residing on

the land that the Pakeha should be allowed to take possession. Negotiations

were subsequently arranged between Te Ngakau and Fergusson, but with what

result is not clear.441

407. In March 1882, Fergusson’s appeal to the Native Minister drew a blank

because, as the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court had not yet signed the

certificates of title, the Government was powerless to advance the matter further.

When the Chief Judge did finally issue the certificates later that year, he recommended

that the blocks remain inalienable. The following year, his debts having spiralled out

of control, Robert Fergusson assigned the land to his brother in liquidation of the debt.

In 1887 the Native Affairs Committee considered an application by Sir James

Fergusson to have Crown grants issued, without restrictions, so he could cut out the

interests of the non-sellers and assume ownership of the greater part of the property.442

408. Hearn reports that the Native Affairs Committee considered the matter at some

length. Julius Vogel, appearing on behalf of Sir James Fergusson, cited a promise

made to the Maclean brothers by the Government in 1873-74 that Crown grants would

issue without restrictions. Also at issue was whether the grantees comprised all of the

owners. Vogel read out a memorandum, purportedly written regarding the

Maungatautari 1 and 2 blocks, although the date suggested by Vogel of late 1866


rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, August 2008, p. 215; citing: Waikato Times, 13, 15 December 1881.

442 Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 215-216.


March 2013

185

appears incongruous.443

A portion of the memorandum dealing with the question of

other possible owners is quoted here:

Although there were frequent … allegations that the grantees did not comprise

all the Natives interested, no action was taken thereon nor rehearing given.

Probably, concerning most of the Native Land Court adjudications there are

similar complaints… It appears to me the power of removal or retention of

restriction was not meant, nor should it be used, to further a Minister’s idea of

the justice of a Native Land Court’s decision of title. Presumably, no decision

is ever given – or very rarely – by a Native Land Court to which there are not

dissentients, as is the case with most other legal judgments.444

409. In other words, Vogel questioned the appropriateness of the Minister using

restrictions to protect the rights of Māori who may have had legitimate claims to the

land, but were excluded from the title, if that title was issued as a result of a legally

constituted investigation. In his view, those not in the title had no rights; it was as

simple as that. Instead, he proposed the Committee would be better served assessing

whether the entitled owners had sufficient other lands for their continued maintenance.

The Committee made inquiries on this question with the Registrar of the Cambridge

Native Land Court, who observed:

I could not say with any degree of certainty whether the grantees of

Maungatautari Nos. 1 and 2 have sufficient other lands. Some of them are

dead; some of them have interests in the Tauwhare and Maungakawa

Reserves; and I think some of them still have interests in the large

Maungatautari Block, heard in 1884.445

410. Subsequently, while the Committee was deliberating on the matter, a telegram

was received from Judge E. W. Puckey, who voiced his opinion that the ‘owners’ of

Maungatautari 1 and 2 had sufficient other lands. Committee member Hutchison

considered this assurance wholly inadequate, observing that “there might be fifty or

443 It is probably a typographical error, as Vogel’s client, Sir James Fergusson first acquired an interest in the

blocks in 1886.

444 Memorandum (n.d.) read by Sir Julius Vogel, agent for Sir James Fergusson, Native Affairs Committee,

Tuesday 13 December 1887, AJHR, Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, pp. 10-11.

445 E. Hammond, Court Registrar to Native Affairs Committee, Friday 16 December 1887, AJHR, Sess. II 1887,

I.–3B, p. 15.


March 2013

186

sixty other owners.”446

It was agreed that this was a question for consideration by the

Trust Commissioner, the office established under the Native Lands Frauds Prevention

Act 1870 to inquire into land sales and certify that no irregularities had occurred.447

In

the event, the Native Affairs Committee recommended that Crown grants should issue

in accordance with the recommendation of the Court.

411. The submission of Hōri Wirihana in 1874 indicates that Ngāti Kauwhata

considered themselves to be legitimate owners in Maungatautari Nos 1 and 2 blocks,

which lay immediately adjacent and to the east of the Pukekura block, core territory of

Ngāti Kauwhata.448

It must also be assumed that the Court’s judgment in the Pukekura

case of 1868, which had yet to be challenged (aside from Ngāti Kauwhata’s regular

petitions appealing the decision), was still considered to define customary title in the

district; Marutuāhu ‘conquered’ Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata, and Ngāti Hauā

conquered Marutuāhu by virtue of the battle of Taumatawīwī and therefore held

exclusive rights under take raupatu.

412. The trusteeship implicit in the awarding of title to ten owners was ignored by

Crown officials (such as James Mackay Junior), who were able to do so because

legally, the 10 persons on the certificate of title were absolute owners with full powers

of alienation. It appears the Native Affairs Committee, while aware that many other

owners may have had valid claims, was satisfied to delegate responsibility for

investigating the question of trusteeship to the office of the Trust Commissioner.

However, as Dr David Williams observes, the Trust Commissioners appointed were

part time positions, and were insufficiently resourced to adequately investigate every

transaction.449

413. The question of restrictions was unsatisfactorily dealt with. As Terry Hearn

observes, it is unclear whether in fact any restrictions were imposed. At the request of

the owners, the Court recommended to the Governor that restrictions should apply,

which was all that it was empowered to do, but omitted to include the words, ‘except

446 Native Affairs Committee, Friday 16 December 1887, AJHR, Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, p. 15.

447 Native Lands Frauds Preventions Act 1870, section 5, (33 & 34 V. No. 75). See: Ward, Alan, A show of

justice, AUP, Canberra, 1973, p. 252.

448 Hearn, T. J. “Raukawa, Land and the Crown”, 2008, p. 214; citing: Hōri Wirihana to Chief Judge Fenton, in

AJHR Sess. II 1887, I.–3B, p. 4.

449 Bassett, Steel & Williams, “The Māori Land Legislation Manual”, CFRT, 1994, Vol. 1, p. 62.


March 2013

187

with the consent of the Governor’. This appears to have complicated the situation,

although Sir Fredrick Whitaker was undaunted, explaining the situation succinctly, as

follows: “Under the Act of 1865, the Court had only power to recommend any

restriction it pleased, but not to put any on; the Governor was left to put it on or not as

he pleased. The distinction is that the restrictions under the Act of 1873 could be put

on by the Court. In this case, there is a mere recommendation.”450

414. It was the expressed wish of the owners that restrictions should apply; one

they may well have felt compelled to make in open Court with many other owners

present. By the system in place, they were unable to communicate directly with the

Governor, the only person able to give effect to their request. It has not been possible

in the limited time available for this project to enquire further into this matter.

Presumably, with the issuance of the Crown grants Sir James Fergusson was able to

apply to the Native Land Court for the interests of the non-sellers to be partitioned out,

giving him clear title to the major portion of the blocks.

9.4 Petitions

415. When Alexander McDonald presented his opening statement to the Ngāti

Kauwhata Commission, he reported that Ngāti Kauwhata were unaware that the

Maungatautari blocks had passed the Court in 1868 until well after the event, so much

so that it was too late for them to lodge an appeal. Their only recourse was to petition

Parliament for an inquiry or re-hearing that would consider the extent of their rights to

the Maungatautari blocks. McDonald states:

This is our second petition. The first was relative to confiscated land; the

second was relative to the lands through non-attendance here [Kihikihi]. From

1869 to 1877 we regularly sent our petition year after year to the Parliament.

In the last year, 1877, we obtained the admission that we were entitled to a

hearing of our claims re confiscated land and the lands we had lost. We were

told to take the answer of Parliament to Waikato. That Government went out.

450 Evidence of Sir Fredrick Whitaker to Native Affairs Committee, Friday 16 December 1887, AJHR, Sess. II

1887, I.–3B, p. 12.


March 2013

188

Mr Sheehan was the next Minister. He said, “Go you to Waikato with the word

of Parliament, I will give effect to it.” He did not do so.451

416. After John Bryce replaced John Sheehan as Native Minister, McDonald

launched another appeal on behalf of Ngāti Kauwhata. As a result, an inquiry was

granted, though limited to investigating Ngāti Kauwhata’s claims to the lands lost

through absence only; their claims to the confiscated lands would not be heard.

417. Two petitions were lodged in 1877, the first (labelled No. 1) was for the

confiscated lands and was signed by Tapa Te Whata and others; according to the

summary of the Native Affairs Committee that reported on it, it reads:

Petitioners state that, although they reside on the West Coast of this Island,

they nevertheless had claims to land in the Waikato, which was confiscated by

reason of the rebellion of the Waikato Natives. They allege that they were not

concerned in fighting against the Queen, but that they have had no opportunity

of proving their claims, inasmuch as they knew nothing of the sitting of the

Compensation Court until after it was over. 452

418. The Committee reported that:

The Committee is of [the] opinion that the allegation in the petition, that the

petitioners had no notice of the sitting of the Compensation Court, is correct.

The Committee is not in a position to offer any opinion as to whether the

petitioners have any real claims to the lands to which their petition refers, but

considers that petitioners are entitled to have an opportunity afforded them of

bringing forward their claims.

It will most likely be found that a great deal of the lands affected by the

petition have been alienated to other persons, and that it would be impossible

to give petitioners possession of such portions as should be found to belong to

them. The Committee would recommend, however, that inquiry should be

made through the Native Land Court, or other competent tribunal, to ascertain

the nature and extent of the claims of the petitioners, and that it should be left

to the Government to determine in what manner such claims as they may be

able to establish shall be satisfied.453

451 Statement of Alexander McDonald, 2 February 1881, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp.

7-8.

452 John Bryce, Chairman, “Report on petition of Tapa te Whata and others (1)”, AJHR, 1877, I.–3, p. 6.



March 2013

189

419. In terms of the second petition of ‘Tapa te Whata and Others (No. 2)’, it was

stated:

The petitioners allege that in August, 1868, they received copies of Gazettes,

in which it was notified that a sitting of the Native Land Court would be held

in the Waikato District on the 3rd November, and also in Rangitikei on the 4th

of the same mouth. That, not being able to be present at both, they consulted

the Government as to which they should attend, and were advised to attend the

sitting to be held at Rangitikei, on the assurance that the Waikato sitting would

be adjourned. But the petitioners allege that the Court was not adjourned

according to the promise made by the Government, and that the application for

a rehearing was made too late. The petitioners therefore pray for an

opportunity of proving their claims.454

420. The Committee reported as follows:

That it is clear that the petitioners did not attend the Court held at Cambridge

in consequence of a request from the Government that they should remain at

the Rangitikei Court, a distinct assurance that the claims before the Cambridge

Court to blocks of land in which they were concerned would be adjourned,

being made by the Government at the same time.

That the Committee are of opinion that the petition discloses a real grievance

arising out of circumstances which do not attach any blame to petitioners.

That the Committee is not in a position to say whether or not the petitioners

have any real claim to the lands which were dealt with, as they allege, to their

prejudice at the Court at Cambridge.

That it appears that most of the land claimed by the petitioners has been

alienated to Europeans by the persons in whose favour the judgment of the

Cambridge Court was given, and therefore it will be impossible to reinstate

them in possession. But the Committee would recommend such legislation this

session as will enable the Native Land Court, or other competent tribunal, to

determine whether the petitioners did own any portions of the lands referred

to, and, if so, to what extent, and that it should be left to the Government to

determine in what way any claims which they may be found to have had shall

be satisfied.455

421. The Native Affairs Committee found that “the petitions disclosed a real

grievance arising out of circumstances which attached no blame to the petitioners.”




March 2013

190

The Committee recommended that Parliament pass legislation to enable the Native

Land Court or some similar body to investigate the petitioners’ claims, bearing in mind

that the land had in many cases already been alienated to Europeans by the people

awarded title by the 1868 Court, and it would not be possible therefore to reinstate the

claimants to possession should their claims be successful. The Committee left it to the

Government to determine in what way any claims they might be found to have had

shall be satisfied. The Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, signed the proclamation

authorising the ‘Ngatikauwhata’ Commission on 6 January 1881.456

456 “No. 1 & Enclosure in No. 1”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 1-2.


March 2013

191

10 The Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, 1881

10.1 The setting up of the Commission, and the claims

422. The Ngāti Kauwhata Commission was constituted in January 1881, with the

appointment of two Commissioners, F.M.P. Brookfield and H.T. Kemp, the former a

lawyer from Auckland, and the latter a one-time Land Purchasing Officer under

Donald McLean.457

Hearings began in Cambridge on 1 February 1881 and were well-

attended, the hearing having to be moved from the Courthouse to the public hall down

the street in order to accommodate everyone.

423. The Pānuitanga (Notice), dated ‘12 o Hanueri 1881’, begins:

Ki a Tapa Te Whata, me ona hoa, nga Tangata o te Hapu o Ngatikauwhata, na

ratou nei te Pitihana i tuku ki te aroaro o te Paremete, i te 19 o nga ra o Hurae,

1877, mo etahi whenua i roto o Waikato, a ki era atu tangata katoa hoki e pa

ana ki taua mea:

To Tapa Te Whata, and his companions, the people of the hapū of Ngāti

Kauwhata, from whom this Petition was given to the representative of

Parliament, on the 19th

day of July, 1877, regarding some land within Waikato,

and to all other persons concerned with that matter:458

May you all know, we two have concluded that the judgment made by the

Governor shall be subject to an investigation, i.e. your shares to those lands,

which were adjudicated upon by the Māori Land Court in Cambridge, on the

3rd

day of November 1868, and all subsequent judgments of the Court

concerning that land: This is another notice, so that you may be informed, the

Court shall “stand” at Cambridge, on the first day of February, 1881, and you

had better all come along and talk to them on that day.

424. The pānui went on to inform the petitioners that the Commissioners were

authorised by the Governor to inquire into their rights in the lands adjudicated upon by

the Māori Land Court at Cambridge on 3 November 1868; that the hearings would

begin at Cambridge on 1 February 1881 and that the petitioners should attend on that

457 “No. 1” and “Enclosure in No. 1”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 1-2.

458 “Enclosure 2 in No. 2”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 6. Translation by Nat Green.


March 2013

192

day to present their case. Under its terms of reference, the Commission was charged

with investigating whether the titles of the Pukekura, Puahue, Ngāmoko No. 2 and

Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 blocks were correctly awarded by the Native Land Court in

1868. The Commissioners noted what they considered an anomaly in that the petitions

were lodged by members of Ngāti Raukawa, but the claimants appeared under Ngāti

Kauwhata and denied any connection to Raukawa. They flagged that this would be

explained in the course of their Report.

425. The Commission divided the claimants into three ‘classes’, the first of which

was the Ngāti Kauwhata claim, described in the Commissioner’s report as ‘a tribal

claim to Pukekura, Puahue, and Ngamoko No. 2 by 142 individuals’, who were named

as:459

Tapa te Whata, Hoeta Kahuhui, Rena o te Whakapakaru, Kare Tauranga,

Henare Poaki Mereti, Takana te Kawa, Kereama Paoe, Tamihana Whareakaka,

Kauwhata Tapa, Himiona te Oha, Matapere te Whata, Kooro Renao, Rahera

Kahuhui, Nere Otu, Mokena Manako, Heni Peti Rangiotu, Merehira Tauranga,

Ruiha Kinomoerua, Hanatia Heipora Manako, Rehara Kauwhata, Maka

Renao, Emiri Manako, Pere Kinomoerua, Tino Tangata, Harata Te Oha, Erana

te Rangitiora, Hori te Mataku, Ani Patene Hori, Ihaka Renao, Pere Himiona,

Heni Himiona, Maraea Himiona, Haimona Renao, Hori te Hoeta, Kaumatua

Hoet[a], Hanita Renao, Epiha te Moanakino, Wetini Tangata, Ramari

Kahuhui, Hepi Moihi, Metapere Hareini, Marara Hoeta, Ngataraka Hoeta,

Tura Hoeta, Wairoa Hoeta, Rangitou Hoeta, Ani Hareini, Areta Hemokanga,

Weti Pekamu, Pape te Rama Apakura, Miriama te Rama Apakura, Makereti

Weti, Wiremu Pekamu, Ratima Pekamu, Turuhira Pekamu, Whati Pekamu,

Ema te Awe, Manaroa, te Aweawe, Te Aweawe, Arapera te Umutiritiri,

Rangimarie Aweawe, Ngaruinga Aweawe, Raimapapa Hemokanga, Pareauha

Ahitana, Hepi Te Wheoro, Mekeruki te Whakaaewa, Mokena Pahurahi,

Hakaraia Whakaneke, Tapa Ahitana, Teo Ahitana, Rangitapuke Ahitana, Hara

Tame, Rangirea Mekeruki, Penehira Rangitiora, Penehira te Apa, Himiona

Penehira, Ruera te Nuku, Arapera te Nuku, Teieti Turanga, Moringa Turanga,

Wiremu Tereputuputu, Te Retimana te Hapoki, Hore te Hapoki, Te Wani

Turanga, Hinetini te Kingi, Moihi Winiata, Tatiana te Kawa, Pekamu Aterea,

Te Ara Takana, Te Raika Kereama, Mereaiua Kereama, Herewini Kereama,

Rongokaneke Kereama, Te Otene Kereama, Te Hapoki Teretiu, Rangihuia

Takahia, Ko te Ngoro Takahia, Taimona Pikauroa, Raiha Paoe, Rangiwhuia te

Paea, Moutere te Koroheke, Ruruhira Ngatahuna, Wereta Rarua, Tepehara

Rarua, Wiriharai te Angiangi, Wiremu te Kohu, Hapurona Ngawaero, Pini

Whareakaka, Riperata Pini, Hone Pini, Parakipane te Kohu, Wiremu

Parakipane, Te Muera te Naku, Peia Poriki, Pohutu Turiwhati, Hohepina

Parakipane, Petera te Au, Ruiha te Naera, Te Uawhaki, Tata Pini, Tuangahuru,

459 “Report of the Commissioner”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 4.


March 2013

193

Tepora nga Roha, Anahira, Turanga, Raita Manewha, Wikitora Turanga, Ihaia

Turanga, Hemara Turanga, Pohe Turanga, Arama Karaka te Umutiritiri,

Meihana Henare, Poihipi, Reihana te Piki, Mata Karaka te Umutiritiri, Arama

Karaka Tamaiti, Hineikakea, Warihi Mokowhiti, Mata Ranginui, Karepa,

Reweti te Kohu, Henare te Hatete, and Tamatatai Haruru.

426. A second claim, also said to be ‘tribal’, was brought by 56 individuals for the

Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 blocks. This claim was subsequently withdrawn before any

evidence was adduced.460

A third claim, said to be ‘personal’, was made to

Maungatautari by seven individuals, viz: Ihakara Ngatahuna, Miriana, Rititia te

Kipihana, Amiria te Hiakai, Mihipeka Pehara, Manahi Paora, and Watene te Punga.461

It later emerged that these seven identified as Ngāti Wehi Wehi, though they claimed

Maungatautari on the basis of their descent from Tuakere, Wehi Wehi’s father-in-

law.462

427. The proceedings of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission resembled in many

respects those of the Native Land Court, in that various witnesses and tribal experts

gave evidence in support of their claims and against those of their opponents. There

were two important differences from the Land Court, however. Firstly, in the latter, the

Pākehā judge was supported by a Māori Assessor, which was not the case in the Ngāti

Kauwhata Commission hearings. Secondly, in the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission the

Crown was represented by Major William Mair, though what the Crown had to

contribute to an investigation of customary interests was not made clear.

428. Presumably, the Crown was present in order to defend the Crown grants it had

issued based on the titles awarded by the Native Land Court in 1868. In the

460 The fifty six persons named were: Matiu te Wheoro, Akapita te Tewe, Eru Tahitangata, Hema te Ao,

Paramena te Tewe, Perenara te Tewe, Ngarati te Tewe, Akata te Tewe, Te Raita Tonihi, Meropa Tametima,

Moihi te Kotu, Romana Kotu, Tonihi Tuaia, Rapaera Tuaia, Rawiri Tuaia, Makarita Tuaia, No Teraiti, Te Whiu

Meropa, Ruhia Haramene, Rangipikitia Akapita, Merehira Akapita, Te Ngaere Perenara, Teoti Haramene,

Erenora Ruhia, Te Harinui Ruhia, Teraiti Perenara, Hohepa te Tihi, Witariona te Tihi, Haramona Raweiho,

Himiona Pouhaere, Mohi Heremia, Perenara Mohi, Rawiri Heremia, Tame Rawiri, Makarita Paramena, Mere

Mohi, Irihapeti te Hotene, Netahio Hipirini, Karauti Heremia, Marana Tamihana, Ruta Roha, Wiremu te

Manewha, Rota te Hiakai, Manahi te Hiakai, Piripi te Au, Wiremu Rikihana, Enereta Rikihana, Pairoroku

Rikihana, Rikihana te Wairoa, Tioriori Rikihana, Raita Rikihana, Hineikakea te Hiakai, Mohi te Tawharu,

Waiata te Wharu, Hapeta te Rangikatukua, and Hona Taupo. Some of these claimants appear to be affiliated to

Raukawa and Ngāti Tukorehe. See for example, the Mangawhero title investigation, in which Akapita te Tewe

was recognised as entitled when claiming under his Raukawa affiliation – Waikato MB 3, pp. 237-238. That

said, whether the ‘tribal’ aspect of the Maungatautari claim was under the auspices of Raukawa, one of its

affiliates, or some other hapū or iwi is not clear from the evidence.

461 “Report of the Commissioner”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 4.

462 Statement of A. McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 12 February, 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 25.


March 2013

194

intervening years, the blocks in question had been subject to leases and occupation of

the still-contested lands by European settlers. As noted above, attempts to complete

land sales with respect to the Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 blocks were stymied by the

fact that Crown grants were yet to issue, apparently due to on-going Māori protests at

the original awards, and/or the fact that the blocks had been awarded to ten owners

only.

10.2 The Ngāti Kauwhata Case

10.2.1 Preliminaries

429. Before beginning proceedings, the Commission (which referred to itself as

‘the Court’, and was addressed as such) invited opening statements from the claimants,

“not in the way of evidence, but explanatory.”463

These reveal the respect in which the

claimants held the Court, as well as their strong desire that the question of the

confiscated lands be heard, and their expectation that it would be.

430. Tapa Te Whata said that his first thought was ‘of confiscated land, and the

second of the lands wrongfully taken away by adjudication during my absence’.

Takana Te Kawa saluted the Court and rejoiced that it had come to ‘look into our

matters’. He added: “The people of Waikato shall know why we are here before them,

and the reason for the claims of Ngāti Kauwhata.”464

Hoeta told the Court that his

reasons for attending were: “1. For the confiscated lands; 2, for the lands adjudicated

upon in my absence.”465

Kereama Paoe and Te Raihi also spoke of the confiscations,

while Rihia Te Kauae rejected the Ngāti Kauwhata claims and wished the Court to

focus solely on the confiscations. A number of Ngāti Hauā who were not included in

the title awards (because of the 10 owner rule) took the opportunity to protest against

the Court’s 1868 decisions. Some of those who were entitled in the blocks, such as

463 Enclosure 2 in No. 2, “Minutes of Evidence”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 6. NB:

The Commission referred to itself as “The Court”, which usage is continued here.

464 Enclosure 2 in No. 2, “Minutes of Evidence”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 6.

465 Enclosure 2 in No. 2, “Minutes of Evidence”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 6.


March 2013

195

Hakiriwhi, welcomed Ngāti Kauwhata and told the Commission that it was right that

they should be allowed to present their case.466

431. While it appears that many of the speakers were as concerned about the

confiscated lands as they were about the Native Land Court excluding them from the

Maungatautari land titles, the Commission was authorised to examine only the latter

and had no jurisdiction to inquire into the confiscations.

10.2.2 The Pukekura Case

432. Tapa Te Whata led the evidence for the claimants, giving his own whakapapa

from Kauwhata and Tahuri, as well as indicating Wīremu Tamihana’s connection to

Kauwhata through Hinepare. He also noted Wīremu Reweti’s connections to

Kauwhata from Wehi Wehi.467

He told the Court he was born at Maungatautari and

was very young when his father Te Whata migrated south. He remembered his father

telling him that Pukekura belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata. He denied that Ngāti

Kauwhata was a section or hapū of Raukawa, and said his father told him that Ngāti

Kauwhata had possessions here distinct from Raukawa. His father did not give up his

possessions when he went south, but returned regularly (‘He went backward and

forward’).

433. He then spoke of an invitation to his father from the chiefs of Waikato to

return to his ancestral lands:

I heard – we all heard – the invitation to my father from the chiefs of Waikato

to return. Te Wherowhero was one of those chiefs. Potatau went to Kapiti. I

cannot say the year – before the death of my father. He died in 1861. Te

Wherowhero, Kiwitahi, Porokoru and Haunui – these people went to Kapiti. I

did not see Tamihana Tarapipipi in Wellington. I heard he went there. I heard

of his words to Kauwhata. They were an invitation to Kauwhata to return to

Waikato. Since then I have seen the Waikato chiefs.

I saw them once in Te Kuiti in 1872; that was the second time. I don’t know

the year Tamihana went to Wellington. Had we seen Tamihana in Wellington

he would have come overland and marched or marshalled us back here, instead

466 Enclosure 2 in No. 2, “Minutes of Evidence”, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 6-7.

467 Evidence of Tapa Te Whata, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 8. A

more detailed version of the whakapapa presented by Tapa Te Whata is reproduced as Figure 7, above, p. 31.


March 2013

196

of going as he did by sea. I have never heard Waikato chiefs express any

desire to disconnect us from the land here. It is on their consent that we fought

our claim.

In 1872 the Waikato chiefs gave me the mat I now wear in token of my

ownership and right.468

Tawhiao and Manga gave me this mat. All the chiefs

were at Te Kuiti when they acknowledged my claim to Rangiaohia. I have

never heard any opposition to our claim.469

434. Under cross-examination by Major William Mair, Te Whata reiterated that

Ngāti Kauwhata were “a distinct people from ancient time”; they were “a great tribe

[who] counted 800 or 1,000 fighting men in former times.” He pointed out the lands of

Ngatikauwhata which he had marked on the map.470

Re-examined by McDonald, Te

Whata stated:

Tamihana was a Ngatikauwhata. Kauwhata had three children. Tamihana was

connected to Kauwhata through Hinepare – Kauwhata’s eldest child. Tawhiao

is descended from Wehiwehi. Manga [Rewi Maniapoto] is descended from

Tahuri.471

435. Reweti Te Kohu appeared next, but only to confirm Te Whata’s evidence. The

next witness was Te Whata’s wife, Metapere Tapa, who stated: “My father descended

from Hinepare, the eldest child of Kauwhata. He was from Wehiwehi also.” She

produced the whakapapa shown overleaf at Figure 19, adding:

My brother is alive and present. My father told me of his going to Kapiti. He

went with all the other chiefs of Ngatikauwhata. They left here and went to

Taupo; about twenty of Ngatikauwhata went on to Kapiti, leaving the rest

behind. Wharepakaru was one of the twenty. There was no Government in

New Zealand then. Rauparaha called us. I am speaking of the first expedition

(about 1828-29). I have heard my father say that he enjoined those of

Ngatikauwhata (Murupara alias Te Wiwini), who remained here in Waikato,

468 According to Ngāti Kauwhata, Tapa is referring to a dog skin cloak, presented to him by the Waikato chiefs

symbolising his rights to the lands at Pukekura, Rangiaōwhia and Maungatautari. Pers. Comm.

469 Evidence of Tapa Te Whata, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 8.


According to an annotation to Tapa Te Whata’s evidence regarding the Ngāmoko No. 2 block, the map appears

to have been Chapman’s 1866 “Map of the Waikato – with Raglan, Kawhia and Tauranga Districts” (see:

AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 24). However, the archival copy (A144, F2) does not show any markings aside from the

confiscation boundaries, reserves, and the Rohe Pōtae boundary as it was in 1866.



March 2013

197

“I leave my land with you and the Ngatikauwhata who remain behind.” These

words implied placing the lands in trust. “My land is in your hands to be taken

care of.” He intended to return.472

Figure 20: Whakapapa of Wharepakaru and Metapere Tapa

Wehiwehi

Tutete Hounuku Maniaihu

Ngako

Pouri ki Te Marangai

Maramataiawha

Te Nuku

Koroarahi

Te Wharepakaru

Metapere (witness)473

436. Metapere was asked to elaborate on her evidence by the Commissioners; she

said Wharepakaru “lived all over the country, Rangiaohia, Pukekura, and all around.”

She added:

In the speech he made to the people when leaving, Te Wiwini and others, he

said, “I am going, I leave the land (with you) in your care.” My father left no

commands with any of the Waikatos all along the River. He pointed out to

whom the Waikato lands belonged.474

437. The next witness, Takana Te Kawa, endorsed Metapere’s kōrero, stating:

I am of Ngati Kauwhata. I am from Hinepare. My father is dead. I was born at

Rangiaohia. Te Kawa, my father, was with the emigrants to Kapiti. I did not

hear him say that he gave up his interests in Waikato Land. I was then young,

and had to be carried, except on good roads. My father said he would come

472 Evidence of Metapere Tapa, Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 9.

473 Evidence of Metapere Tapa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 9.

474 Evidence of Metapere Tapa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 9.


March 2013

198

back here. I heard him say so. My father lived at Kapiti, but he returned and

died at Rangiaohia. Visits were interchanged between this [place] and Kapiti,

some even returned and died here. I have heard of Ngatihinepare tribe. I am of

that tribe. We were called Ngatikauwhata at Kapiti. Here we were called by

the several children of Kauwhata – namely Ngatiwehiwehi, etc.

Ngatiwehiwehi were called Ngatikauwhata’s because of their father Kauwhata,

so also Ngatihinepare. I have never heard the Waikato Chiefs forbid the return

of Ngatikauwhata, but on the contrary, they called us to return. I have heard of

Parakaia Te Pouepa. He was not sent by Ngatikauwhata to represent their

claims in Cambridge Court in 1868. He had no authority from any of us to

appear as our agent. I heard from Parakaia he was coming to that Court. I saw

Potatau at Kapiti. I heard what he said to Ngatikauwhata” He said “Each of

your hapus here, return to his own place or possessions” (or “I have no

objection to your coming to your ancient land”) I know the Ngatihaua. I have

never heard of fighting between Ngatihaua and Ngatikauwhata. We did not go

away to escape any evil, or flee as refugees. Up to our arrival at Kapiti none

pursued us. My father died about the time of the Waikato wars against the

Europeans. He might have died at Rangiaohia. I left him there. Three brothers

of mine returned here with Potatau. They remained here until they died.

Haunui and Porokoru went to Kapiti; Potatau went first; Porokoru and Haunui

went afterwards. When Porokoru and Haunui returned, my parents and friends

returned with them, and lived and died at Rangiaohia. I returned to Kapiti.475

438. Cross-examined by Mair, he confirmed that Ngāti Kauwhata went to Kapiti

seeking provisions and guns on the invitation and promise of Te Rauparaha. While

Pukekura produced a certain kind of food, the “lands at Kapiti gave rare foods, such as

sharks, guns and white men.”476

He said that none of the Raukawa went with Ngāti

Kauwhata (they were separate migrations), and Ngāpuhi were the only people he knew

of at that time with guns. Some Ngāti Kauwhata, including his father Te Kawa,

returned to Pukekura and planted. Te Wherowhero’s invitation was given with the

intent that all Ngāti Kauwhata should return.477

439. McDonald then called witnesses from amongst those living in the Waikato,

beginning with Te Raihi, one of the lead claimants at the 1868 hearings. Te Raihi told

the Court that he was a ‘younger brother’ to Tamihana.

We were cousins, sons of brother and sister. We always lived together. I never

heard him forbid Ngatikauwhata to return. Tamihana went to Wellington

475 Evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 9-10.

476 Evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 10.

477 Evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 10.


March 2013

199

without me. All those who went with him are dead. Te Waharoa and Tamihana

had such affection for Ngatikauwhata that they invited them to return.

I wish to explain. The name of the vessel of Wi Tamihana and Murupara was

called “Kauwhata”. She was bought for the purpose of bringing the bones of

the people (my fathers) who had died at Kapiti to Pukekura. The vessel was

wrecked before that object was effected.478

440. In response to Mair, Te Raihi said that he was present at the earlier

investigation of Pukekura and he knew to whom the land belonged, “That land

belonged to Ngatikauwhata.” In response to the Court, he said he appeared in

Pukekura in 1868 on behalf of the resident Ngatikauwhata, not those who had

migrated; he did not remember having said anything about the people who had

migrated, and indeed could not recall what he had told the Court on that occasion. The

Court arranged for the minutes of Te Raihi’s evidence from 1868 to be read to him; he

then explained that the names he put forward to the earlier Court omitted the Kapiti

people because they had not appeared as claimants. He added:

Ngatimaru were our enemies at Maungatautari. Ngatimaru took Horotiu. I do

not know that they took Pukekura. They were afterwards driven away by us.

(Further statement read, and admitted by witness) Ngatikauwhata were living

at Pukekura then, and took part in the fight against Ngatimaru, and returned to

it afterwards. We looked on Maungatautari as ours by conquest after that

battle. I then lived at Pukekura and Maungatautari – sometimes at one place

and sometimes at the other. I never lived at Pukekura by right of conquest,

only Maungatautari. I do not know the term conquest can be applied to

Pukekura. I claim my interest from ancestry – from Kauwhata.479

441. The following day, the Court resumed with the evidence of Rawiri Te

Hutukawa, who said he was “of Ngatikauwhata, from Wehiwehi.”480

He stated that he

was born ‘here’ (in the Waikato) and went to Kapiti at the time of (the battle of)

Kuititanga, which occurred about 1839. His evidence broadly supported that which

had been given the previous day.

478 Evidence of Te Raihi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 10.


480 Evidence of Rawiri Te Hutukawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p.

10.


March 2013

200

442. Hakiriwhi, who was one of the grantees in Pukekura from the 1868 hearing,

also gave evidence in support of the Ngāti Kauwhata claim. He said he was “of

Ngatihaua and half-caste of Ngatikauwhata”, and he was a chief of Ngāti Hauā. He

also said, “According to our custom Pukekura belongs to Ngatikauwhata.”481

Hakiriwhi said that Wīremu Tamihana had inherited the mana of his father Te

Waharoa, who was of equal status with Te Wherowhero. Hakiriwhi added that

Wīremu Tamihana was also ‘half-caste Ngatikauwhata’. He said he had heard what

Tamihana said of those who went to Kapiti, and he reiterated Te Raihi’s evidence

concerning the vessel called “Kauwhata”, which Tamihana intended to use to bring the

bones of his deceased relatives back to the Waikato. He never heard Tamihana say that

Ngāti Kauwhata were not to return; instead, his word was: “According to Māori

custom, Tapa and his companions have a right to Pukekura.”482

443. Cross-examined by Major Mair, Hakiriwhi stated that Wharepakaru had

handed the land over to Wiwini, who was also half Ngāti Hauā and half Ngāti

Kauwhata. He explained: “Wiwini belonged to Ngatihaua half-castes of

Ngatikauwhata. Wiwini according to Maori custom was a real Ngatihaua, and we are

also Ngatihauas. In olden times we were half-castes, now we are called really

Ngatihauas.”483

In general, Hakiriwhi endorsed the evidence given previously by Te

Raihi. When discrepancies with his evidence from 1868 were pointed out to him, he

explained that although he then said the land was given to Te Whetowheto Murupara,

in fact, Wiwini was another name for the same man. Other witnesses, including

Metapere Tapa, had corroborated this in their evidence.

444. Examined by the Court, Hakiriwhi stated:

Tamihana’s invitation was because of their natural right. The sanction of

Tamihana and Te Waharoa was not necessary. Wata Tahi was a half-caste

Hinepare and Haua; so also were Reweti Waikato, Hori Puao, Piripi

Whanatangi, Hemi and Wi Te Whitu. [Grantees in Pukekura from 1868] It

would be said that the Kauwhatas who remained from Kapiti migrations were

Ngatihauas. Te Waharoa would not be an owner of Pukekura as a Ngatihaua,

but as a Kauwhata. Title would not be lost by occupation (by consent) of

strangers. Had Waharoa been alive at the first hearing, Ngatikauwhata would

481 Evidence of Hakiriwhi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 11.




March 2013

201

have received a share of the proceeds of the land. Tamihana and Waharoa

always exhibited their affection for any member of Kauwhata who returned,

though he were ever so humble.484

445. Harete Tamihana, Wīremu Tamihana’s daughter and eldest child, told the

Court her claim to Pukekura rested on her descent from Kauwhata. When challenged

that this contradicted her evidence from 1868, she reiterated her ancestral claim,

adding that she did not understand the Court procedure in 1868, which affected the

quality of her evidence; also, she said she had advanced a claim of conquest to oppose

the claims of Parakaia for Raukawa.485

Another grantee, Hōri Pūao also identified

himself as ‘of Ngatikauwhata from Hinepare’, and confirmed that Pukekura belonged

to Ngāti Kauwhata. He also referred to the influence of Parakaia, the Raukawa

claimant from Horowhenua, at the 1868 hearings, stating: “I did not hear Parakaia on

behalf of the absentees. Parakaia’s intention was to drive us off the land, and he did

not appear on behalf of the absent Ngatikauwhata.”486

446. Pūao too was challenged by Major Mair on the contradictions between his

evidence in 1868 and his latest statements. Pūao’s response is interesting:

I cannot alter those statements [made in 1868]. They were not quite true,

because a person sitting here interfered. I was sworn to speak the truth on that

occasion. I was not aware that the decision of that Court was wrong. I learn

this now. I do not say that what I said before was wrong, but now I find these

people petitioning Parliament I think I was wrong. I knew some of the

Ngatikauwhata living at Kapiti; that they had a claim to this land. Tamihana

Whareakaka is one. When I said Ngatikauwhata, who migrated to Kapiti had

no claim, it was to rebut Parakaia’s statement. It is true that Parakaia had made

no statement before the Court, but we knew quite well that his object was to

dispossess us of the land. I ask the Court to receive my statement to-day in

preference to that made by me in 1868.487

447. The Court then recalled a succession of witnesses to clarify certain points.

Tapa Te Whata stated that he knew Parakaia; that he (Parakaia) belonged to Ngāti

Raukawa, not Ngāti Kauwhata and that he was not authorised to represent the Ngāti


485 Evidence of Harete Tamihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 11.

486 Evidence of Hōri Pūao, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 12.

487 Evidence of Hōri Pūao, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 12. Pūao

does not say who it was that ‘interfered’ with the way he gave his evidence in 1868.


March 2013

202

Kauwhata claims at the 1868 hearings. Te Raihi said that he was not a grantee in

Pukekura, but thought he should ‘come onto the land now’. He had sold his interests in

Maungatautari and Ngāmoko No. 2, the blocks in which he was awarded title in 1868.

Hakiriwhi also said he had sold his interests in Puahue, Maungatautari, Ngāmoko and

Pukekura.488

448. Alexander McDonald was then sworn to provide evidence as to the promise

made by Native Minister Richmond to adjourn the Cambridge cases in 1868 so Ngāti

Kauwhata could attend the Rangitikei Court without jeopardising their claims in the

Waikato. He took the opportunity to emphasise that Parakaia was not authorised to

speak for Ngāti Kauwhata; he believed that in 1868 Parakaia had put the case for Ngāti

Raukawa which had been ‘signally defeated’, but that this had no effect on the claims

of Ngāti Kauwhata.489

449. Before the Crown presented its case, Kīngitanga leader and expert Te Ngākau

was asked to comment on the statements made about Te Wherowhero inviting Ngāti

Kauwhata to return. He said he was unclear whether it was alleged that the invitation

applied to Pukekura, or Maungatautari, and if the former, how far did that extend? In

reply, Tapa Te Whata stated that Te Wherowhero’s invitation applied to Pukekura and

Rangiaōwhia. Te Ngākau agreed with that, explaining that Porokoru had invited them

back to Maungatautari, but Te Wherowhero had said, “No, Te Waaka will be

disturbed; rather let them go to Pukekura.”490

450. Nevertheless, in Te Ngākau’s estimate the word of Pōtatau would avail Ngāti

Kauwhata nothing if they had been driven from the district by conquest. But,

Potatau invited them back because they left Pukekura in a peaceable manner.

Had they left the land because of any disturbance they could not have returned;

488 Various witnesses examined by Court, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A,

p. 12.

489 Evidence of Alexander McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p.

12.

490 Evidence of Te Ngākau, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 12.


March 2013

203

but, on the other hand, had they left in peace they could have returned in the

face of Potatau, or against Potatau’s will, or if Potatau had forbidden them.491

451. This concluded the day’s evidence. Major Mair indicated that the Crown would argue

that Ngāti Kauwhata were forced to leave the district; that Ngāti Maru’s conquest of

the district destroyed the trust imposed on the Ngāti Kauwhata who remained behind;

and that Ngāti Hauā now held mana by virtue of their victory over Ngāti Maru.

10.2.3 The Crown Case for Pukekura

452. The first witness for the Crown was Rihia Te Kauae, who was not one of the

grantees from 1868, though he had appeared at the hearings and based his claim on his

Ngāti Kauwhata affiliation and the ‘gift’ of Te Wharepakaru.492

Before the

Commission, Rihia spoke of the disputes that developed between the Hauraki refugees

and Waikato tangata whenua. However, whereas Hōri Pūao and Hakiriwhi had altered

their evidence from 1868 in favour of the Ngāti Kauwhata migrants, Te Kauae

emphasised the conquest of Ngāti Maru, who had driven Ngāti Raukawa away, and Te

Waharoa’s subsequent victory at Taumatawīwī. From that time on, according to Te

Kauae, Te Waharoa and his descendants (i.e., Ngāti Hauā) had exercised

rangatiratanga at Maungatautari, Pukekura and Rangiaōwhia. To highlight Te

Waharoa’s authority, Te Kauae reported that the Ngāti Hauā chief had given land at

Rangiaōwhia to Ngāti Apakura to settle an outstanding grievance between them.493

453. In contrast to his evidence 12 years previously, Te Kauae now denied that

Ngāti Kauwhata had retained any rights to Pukekura, claiming those who remained

behind were “entirely intermingled with us, that is, were absorbed into Ngatihaua”. For

good measure, he added: “The name of Ngatikauwhata had been entirely lost in

Ngatihaua until the white men came, and it suddenly reappears under European

491 Evidence of Te Ngākau, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 3 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 12.

Emphasis added.

492 See: Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae, Pukekura investigation, 3 November 1868, Waikato MB 2, p. 25; and

Section 8.2.2, above, pp. 160-161.

493 Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 13.


March 2013

204

influences. The name had been quite lost before that.”494

Also in contrast to his 1868

evidence, Te Kauae omitted to mention Te Wharepakaru’s gift, stating instead that Te

Wiwini was allotted Pukekura by Ngāti Hauā, and the patronage of Te Waharoa (in

other words, he was not placed there as a tohu and kaitiaki for Ngāti Kauwhata’s

enduring rights). Under cross-examination by McDonald, Te Kauae spoke of the

strength of the Marutuāhu pā at Hauwhenua, which “commanded Pukekura and all the

surrounding country”.495

When Ngāti Hauā conquered Marutuahu, they inherited that

dominance.

454. The next witness, Reone Te Kui, stated that he belonged to Ngāti Hauā. Like

Rihia Te Kauae, he too had given evidence in 1868, but was not one of the Pukekura

grantees. Once again, his evidence to the Commission was different and certainly more

substantial from that given 12 years previously, when he simply stated that his rights

derived from his Ngāti Kauwhata ancestry and the gift of Te Wharepakaru. In fact,

Reone’s evidence to the Commission is full of inconsistencies, not only with his

previous statements, but in itself and as against the statements of other witnesses.496

455. On balance, his evidence tended to support the Ngāti Kauwhata claimants,

inasmuch as he stated that: “Ngatikauwhata was a distinct tribe from Ngatiraukawa,

and equal with them”. He had also heard that Ngāti Kauwhata “had left the land

peaceably”, and, apparently in agreement with Te Ngākau’s statement, that they

should therefore be entitled to return and the battles that had happened in the interim

had no bearing on Ngāti Kauwhata’s enduring rights to Pukekura. On the other hand,

in contradiction of his evidence of 1868, he told the Commission: “I am a Ngatihaua

and one of the principal men amongst them. I have a relationship with Ngatikauwhata,

but so far off that I am disposed to question whether there is any.”497


That was the attack on Kaipaka Pā and the killing of Rangianewa, c.1828.


Examined by Mair, he elaborated upon the pā built by the Marutuāhu and the disputes between them and the

Ngāti Raukawa.

496 Evidence of Reone Te Kui, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 14. At

one point, Reone refers to Murupara and Te Wiwini as two different people, whereas the Ngāti Kauwhata

witnesses insisted that they were the same person.

497 Evidence of Reone Te Kui, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 14.


March 2013

205

456. Pirihi Tomonui stated that he was a Ngāti Hauā and a grantee in the Pukekura

block.498

Tomonui emphasised the conquest by Ngāti Hauā at Taumatawīwī. His

evidence too is ambivalent about Ngāti Kauwhata’s rights at Pukekura. For example,

he states:

When Wi Tamihana got a ship to bring back Ngatikauwhata was the first I

heard of that name Kauwhata. That is the only word I heard of Ngatikauwhata.

Of the Ngatikauwhatas who remained here, Murupara was the chief man.

Pukekura belonged to the Ngatikauwhatas who remained behind. Wiwini

would have the discretion of restoring the claim of those who left and went to

Kapiti. Ngatihaua could not have interfered with the return of those emigrants.

The word of Waharoa [Wīremu Tamihana?] would be the occasion of the

return of Ngatikauwhata. Had Wi Tamihana not been a Ngatikauwhata they

could not have come back. Had all the Ngatikauwhata here been killed, then

Ngatikauwhata of Kapiti could not have come back.499

457. In reply to McDonald, Pirihi Tomonui said the word of Wīremu Tamihana

meant they could not have objected to the claims of the Kapiti Ngāti Kauwhata if they

had appeared in the Court of 1868. Without Tamihana’s word, he would have objected

to them. He concluded by stating: “My sole claim to Pukekura is by conquest. Had I

been killed it would have been lost.”500

458. Īhāia Tioriori gave an account of the disputes involving Marutuāhu, before

referring to the word of Tamihana and the latter’s efforts to bring them back by

providing a vessel. He said the answer from Ngāti Kauwhata to Tamihana’s invitation

was that “they would return by-and-bye”.501

The Court convened briefly the following

day (Saturday 5 February), but only to adjourn until the Monday.

459. On Monday 7 February, Piripi Te Whanatangi of Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti

Hauā gave evidence. He was one of the original Pukekura grantees. He based his claim

on conquest, though he admitted that Te Wiwini and those Ngāti Kauwhata who

remained from the exodus had also resided on Pukekura up to the present day. He said

that Wīremu Tamihana succeeded to Te Wiwini’s authority in Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti

498 For a list of the Pukekura grantees, see: Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and

assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa rohe, 1865-1971”, 2008, p. 189, f.n. 4.

499 Evidence of Pirihi Tomonui, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 14.

500 Evidence of Pirihi Tomonui, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 14-15.

Pirihi also commented that: “I think Grey was the Governor when Tamihana got the vessel to go for Kauwhata.”

501 Evidence of Īhāia Tioriori, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 4 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 15.


March 2013

206

Kauwhata. He said that the invitation of Wī Tamihana was never rescinded, as it was

not Māori custom for children to fail to carry out the promises of their fathers.502

460. When questioned by the Court, Te Whanatangi intimated that the Ngāti

Kauwhata who remained had been absorbed by Ngāti Hauā and other Waikato tribes.

He stated: “Ngatiteao, Ngatikahukura and Ngatihinepare, and other subsections of

Ngatihaua were living here at the time of the first Governor. These with

Ngatikauwhata were recognised as Ngatihaua. They had all been engaged in retaking

the land.”503

He added:

Ngatikauwhata made themselves distinct from Ngatihaua by their going away.

I heard the names Ngatiraukawa and Ngatikauwhata; they were then one. They

were generally considered one people. Te Waharoa being the great authority

here, and Wi Tamihana invited those people to return. Kauwhata could not

have returned without the invitation of Waharoa and Tamihana, because it was

through my side and our bravery that the land was retaken. Ngatikauwhata

emigrants could have no claim to this land but for the invitation of Wi

Tamihana and Te Waharoa. Our bravery got it back.504

461. Mair interjected here, stating: “Attention of Court should be directed to the

fact that the Kauwhata going were known as Ngatiraukawa, while Kauwhata who

remained were known as Ngatihaua.”505

Te Whanatangi took the cue, stating: “I did

not know until I went there that Ngatikauwhata lived at and owned Rangiaohia. After

they left they were known as Ngatiraukawa, while those who were left were known as

Waikatos.” He then undid the thrust of Mair’s argument somewhat by stating:

“Ngatiraukawa and Ngatikauwhata are two distinct peoples.”506

502 Evidence of Piripi Te Whanatangi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p.

15.


15.


15.

505 Major Mair, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, G.–2A, p. 15.


16.


March 2013

207

462. The next Crown witness was Major John Wilson,507

who said he had “been in

the district since 1864 of 1865 and had been in communication with the resident

Natives since that time”, such that he “knew something of their customs and manners

relating to land.”508

When attempting to negotiate leases in the mid-1860s, he was told

that Tamihana had the mana of the land and he should go to him first, which he did in

1866. Tamihana told him that he had sent to Ōtaki for Ngāti Kauwhata, though

according to Wilson, Tamihana referred to them as Ngāti Raukawa. He added that if

the migrants did not return to Rangiaōwhia by Christmas of that year, he could have

the land. When they did not return he arranged the lease of Pukekura with Hōri Pūao.

In his view, Parakaia represented all of the southern, or Kapiti tribes – he had not

heard of Ngāti Kauwhata as a separate people. Indeed, he believed that no ‘true’ Ngāti

Kauwhata would have remained in the Waikato, only those with strong affiliations to

Waikato, because the ‘true’ Ngāti Kauwhata would have migrated to Waikato with

their kin.509

463. William Searancke, former Land Purchase Commissioner in Wellington

Province, was the next witness. He claimed to know the applicants from his dealings

with them in the south, where he knew them as members of Ngāti Raukawa. He had

never heard of any iwi other than Raukawa claiming absentee lands in the Waikato;

and he fully concurred with the views expressed by Major Wilson on Native customs

relative to the transaction under discussion. He also cast doubt on the testimony

regarding the ‘word of Tamihana’, arguing: “It would not be according to Maori

custom for the survivors [?] to disregard the expressed wish of such a chief as

Tamihana. The titles to lands to a very great extent depend on the word of some

chief…I have never heard of a claim set up upon an invitation which has not been

accepted.”510

507 John Alexander Wilson was the son of the CMS missionary of the same name, who held a number of

government positions, including land purchase officer, sometime judge of the Native Land Court and, in 1866-

1868, special commissioner for settlement of Bay of Plenty confiscated land. During the Waikato War he fought

at Pāterangi, Hairini and Rangiaōwhia. According to his biographer, Jinty Rourke, he was made a Captain of the

3rd Battalion of the Auckland Militia in 1865, though she records no further promotion until his retirement in

1907. See: Jinty Rourke, “Wilson, John Alexander, 1829-1909”, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara

- the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10.

URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2w29/1.

508 Evidence of Major John Wilson, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 16.

509 Evidence of Major John Wilson, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 16.

510 Evidence of William Searancke, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 17.


March 2013

208

464. Searancke told the Court, “I think a great change had…taken place in [the]

complexion of the title to land here between the first migration and the present time.”

His next statement in response to Alexander McDonald appears to have been closely

noted by the Commissioners, because it figured largely in the judgment they

subsequently arrived at; he said:

Ngatihaua lost, I believe, about sixty men at Taumatawiwi, which released the

lands from Marutuahu. Ngatihaua acquired the land. Emigrants would, in my

opinion, lose their interests in land by the loss of it, and their claim would only

revive by consent of the reconquerors, in whom the mana would vest. If the

Ngatikauwhata had reconquered them (the lands), the mana would vest in

them. In Taumatawiwi there were several tribes assisting Ngatihaua –

Ngaiterangi and others. Pukekura was, before Taumatawiwi, partly in

possession of Ngatikauwhata. Those of Ngatikauwhata who assisted Te

Waharoa would, in all probability, return to the ancient tribal settlements by

consent of [the] conquering chief. I think the principal parties in a battle would

take all the land conquered, notwithstanding the former occupation of that

conquered land by some of the allies.511

465. On 8 February 1881, Hōri Wirihana appeared, describing himself as Ngāti

Hauā and Ngāti Kahukura, though he gave his descent from Kauwhata and Hinepare.

He explained that a Ngāti Kauwhata woman, Pareanutaua, had married a Ngāti

Kahukura man named Marekapunui, Wirihana’s great-great-grandfather. Thus he

could say, “This is my claim in the male line and my ancestral claim on this land.”512

He said his parents lived on Pukekura prior to the battle of Taumatawīwī on the basis

of their own ancestral rights. Wirihana then gave an account of the battles leading up

to Taumatawīwī (already cited in section 6.3.4, above). From Taumatawīwī up till the

present time, he and his wife Hēni, who was a Ngāti Kauwhata, had lived on the land.

466. He had only heard about the word of Te Wharepakaru to Te Wiwini in about

1857, when his parents had a disagreement with Te Wiwini’s men over an eel weir.

Hēni claimed the land for Ngāti Kauwhata, but “she did not agree to the disposition of

the land, and that is why her name was not in [the Crown grant]”. Wirihana opined that

Parakaia could not have represented the interests of Ngāti Kauwhata; that if he had

done so, he would have failed. If Tapa Te Whata had appeared in the Cambridge Court

in 1868, Wirihana believed he would have been successful in claiming the land.

511 Evidence of William Searancke, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 7 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 17.

512 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 8 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 17.


March 2013

209

467. The evidence for Pukekura concluded with a number of small vignettes, as

witnesses appeared for a second time to elaborate on aspects of their earlier evidence.

Wīremu Tamihana’s eldest son, Hote Tamihana appeared and spoke frankly of the

complex situation that all parties – claimants and counter-claimants to the land alike –

found themselves in during the 1860s. He had received purchase monies from the

blocks and now regretted that he had none left to give to Ngāti Kauwhata.513

His

brother, Taingakawa, alias Tana Te Waharoa also spoke; he acknowledged the rights

of Tapa Te Whata’s people in Pukekura, but not elsewhere in the district. McDonald

then closed the Ngāti Kauwhata case.

10.2.4 The Puahue Case

468. On Wednesday 9 February 1881, Alexander McDonald addressed the Court

regarding the Puahue (Puahoe) block. He said the boundaries given by Ngāti

Kauwhata were ‘the great boundaries of a tribe’; the boundaries of the several blocks

were not those recognised by Māori, but by the Court. He would present the same

evidence in Puahue as he did in Pukekura. He nominated Porokoru, Haunui and

Pōtatau as the ‘witnesses’ (authorities) in Puahue, adding that if these were now

deceased he would call their children; he would accept their evidence, whether it went

for or against him.514

469. He called Hoeta Te Kahuhui, who said he belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata. His

evidence confirmed that given by Ngāti Kauwhata witnesses in the Pukekura case,

with the addition of some new information about Pōtatau’s invitation to return to

Waikato. He stated:

Potatau was the first person who invited us back; he went to Kapiti. His word

was, let Ngāti Kauwhata return to Maungatautari and Rangiaohia – their own

lands. This was long before the Native Land Court (about 1840). Rauparaha

was alive then. After Potatau, Porokoru and Haunui came to my settlement and

said the same words (in our house called Te Rere-o-Waikato) to all our people.

Rauparaha was then dead (1852). Ngatikauwhata replied and consented. My

513 See: evidence of Hote Tamihana to the Ngatikauwhata Commission, 8 February 1881, AJHR 1881, G.–2A,

p. 18; cited in Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, 2009, p. 145.

514 Opening statement of Alexander McDonald in Puahue case, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881,

AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 19.


March 2013

210

brothers came here after that. I have forgotten the year; it was sometime before

the Waikato War with the Pakeha. I heard from them after their arrival here. I

heard of the Whakawa (Court) here in 1868. I did not come to it because of the

Rangitikei Manawatu Court. A notice from Ngatikauwhata was received by

the presiding Judge of that Court. The land was heard notwithstanding our

remonstrance. I was very angry, and sent a petition to the Government. The

Commission is the result of that petition, and I stand here and say I have a

right to Puahoe, and the right extends to all Ngatikauwhata was well as me.515

470. William Mair questioned Hoeta about the people left behind in the Waikato

and their hapū affiliations, which included Te Werokoukou, Ngāti Ruru and Ngāti

Hinetū, which were all connected to Ngāti Kauwhata. Mair asked if anyone returned

following Pōtatau’s invitation, to which Hoeta replied, “We assented but no one

returned.” When asked who accepted Porokoru’s invitation, Hoeta stated: “Hoera did.

He came and then returned to Kapiti, and told us that the whole of the land had been

given to us, and twenty of us came back.”516

He said the land between Rangiaōwhia

and Whānake had been given to him, with Whānake located within Puahue.

471. Mair asked who were the twenty who returned, to which Hoeta replied: “They

were Ngatikauwhata. Their names are Teretiu, Pukarahi, my uncle, and their wives,

children and grandchildren.” Mair asked if they were not Ngāti Raukawa, but Hoeta

affirmed they were ‘full Ngatikauwhata’, who were ‘a distinct people’.517

They settled

first at Rangiaōwhia and then at Te Whānake, prior to the Waikato War. When the

troops came, they fled to Taupō. Asked if they returned following the cessation of

hostilities, Hoeta stated that they all died at Taupō, save three who were now living at

Kapiti. Mair continued to push the point about Kauwhata being synonymous with

Raukawa, but Hoeta denied it, saying they came from different ancestors who were not

related.518

472. Wīremu Te Whitu, who was a grantee in the Pukekura block, but not in

Puahue made a brief statement to the following effect:

515 Evidence of Hoeta Te Kahuhui, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 19.

516 Hoeta Te Kahuhui cross-examined by Major Mair, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR,

1881, G.–2A, p. 19.


1881, G.–2A, p. 19.


1881, G.–2A, p. 20.


March 2013

211

I am a Ngatikauwhata and Ngatihaua. I should be called now a Ngatihaua.

Some parts of this land, Puahoe, belonged to Ngatikauwhata half-castes of

Ngatihaua; and Ngatikauwhata have a claim on Puahoe – the half-castes on

both sides, and the Ngatikauwhata proper, have claims on it, but not the

Ngatihaua proper. I have said these words lest the half-castes should be

excluded from the land – especially the children of Wi Tamihana.519

473. This appears to endorse the ancestral claim of Ngāti Kauwhata, but not an

exclusive ancestral claim by Ngāti Hauā; those claimants with some degree of

connection to Kauwhata should be entitled, according to Te Whitu, but Ngāti Hauā

without such links to Kauwhata should not. It is interesting that he felt the need to

make such a statement at this stage of the hearing; perhaps it suggests that he was

persuaded by the weight of evidence in favour of Ngāti Kauwhata’s ancestral claim,

over Ngāti Hauā’s claim based on conquest.

474. Warena Te Ahukaramū endorsed the Ngāti Kauwhata claim, stating that he

belonged to Patukoukou, Ngāti Koura and Ngāti Ruru. He was followed by Ngata,

who identified with the same hapū, except he referred to Patukoukou as ‘Werokoukou’

(see section 1.3.3, above). Both witnesses were amongst those who had remained

behind and not joined the migration.520

475. Tana Te Waharoa (Taingakawa) appeared and supported the claims of Ngāti

Kauwhata, though the next witness, his uncle Te Raihi, corrected his statement that

Raukawa had once lived on Puahue. Te Raihi denied that, telling the Court the whole

of Puahue belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata.521

Questioned by the Court, Te Raihi stated:

If Ngatikauwhata get anything through this Commission of inquiry I want to

share with them. [Names of grantees read over] At the present time it is not

right that Puahoe should go to those persons. Some of these names are

wrongly in. I do not know anything about the selection of these people. I was

at the Court, but I took no interest in this land in 1868. I am not sure of the

hapus of them all. If they all belong to Werokoukou and Ngatihaua they are

right. We took no interest on behalf of those at Kapiti. We thought notices of

the Court re Pukekura, also Puahoe, has reached them three [sic – there], and,

as they did not appear, I did not consider we had any more to do in the matter.

519 Statement of Wīremu Te Whitu, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 20.

520 Evidence of Te Ahukaramū and Ngata, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A,

p. 20.

521 Evidence of Taingakawa and Te Raihi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 9 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A,

p. 21.


March 2013

212

It was not for us to protect the interests of absentees. I now hear for the first

time the reasons for their absence, and appear on their behalf. At that Court the

object of every one was to have his name in the grant. I could not get in

myself, how could I then get absent people in?522

476. The case for Ngāti Kauwhata wound up the following day with the evidence

of Hape Te Pahere, before Mair began the case for the Crown by calling Reweti

Waikato, who led the claims in 1868 and was one of the Puahue grantees. Reweti, who

said he belonged to Ngāti Ruru and Ngāti Hauā, based his claim on conquest, first over

Ngāti Raukawa and then over Ngāti Maru. McDonald then asked what his ancestral

right to the land was and he replied, “Ngatikauwhata”.523

477. Rihia Te Kauae’s evidence supported the notion of a Marutuāhu conquest of

Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata, followed by the latter’s defeat at the hands of Ngāti

Hauā. He said, after Marutuāhu ‘gave in’:

We then lived on the land from Maungatautari, [to] Pukekura, Aratitaha and

Whanake. Those who lived at Puahoe, Aratitaha, and Whanake, were

Ngatiruru, Werokoukou, Ngatikoura, and Ngatiparehaehaeora; they occupied

the land, and are still living there. These hapū were then known as

Patukoukou, but their great name was Ngatihaua.524

478. Te Kauae’s claim that Ngāti Hauā held the mana at Puahue and across the

district challenged the statement made the previous day by Te Whitu, who intimated

that the principal ancestral claim to Puahue was through Kauwhata. It also contradicted

other evidence that the hapū mentioned shared kinship links with Ngāti Kauwhata and

Waikato predominantly, rather than with Ngāti Hauā. Hōri Wirihana appeared next,

generally affirming his previous evidence, before making way for Hitiri Te Paerata,

the chief of Ngāti Raukawa and many of its constituent hapū. Te Paerata stated that in

his view Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa were one people and that they did not flee

when they migrated to Kapiti; they did not leave from fear. McDonald asked him how


523 Evidence of Reweti Waikato, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 10 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 22.



March 2013

213

Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa were the same tribe, to which Te Paerata replied that it

was through their common affiliation to Tainui.525

479. Noting Te Paerata’s reply to McDonald that, ‘Canoe and tribe are synonymous

terms’, Angela Ballara states that he was clearly referring to the widest category of

people, perhaps suggesting this was increasingly the case in the 1880s when the case

was heard.526

She also suggests that, as a Crown witness, Te Paerata had no interest in

the result of the case (and therefore was not motivated to prevaricate, or manipulate his

evidence). While it is true that Te Paerata was not seeking an interest in the Puahue

block, he was hardly disinterested; the whole hearing was intensely political and

Raukawa’s interests in the district were on trial by default. The question of whether

Ngāti Kauwhata belonged to Raukawa (the Crown’s position) went to the heart of that

matter. The political nature of the hearings was demonstrated by the Crown’s presence

as an interested party, and would be further emphasised by the unheralded appearance

of Rewi Maniapoto on the final day.

480. Te Paerata concluded his evidence with a reference to the battle at

Hangahanga Pā, implying by association that the migration followed directly after that

battle. The next witness, Hone Te One also referred to the battles between Waikato,

including his iwi, Ngāti Apakura, and Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Whakatere, which, he alleged, resulted in the latter leaving for Kapiti. He too

mentioned Hangahanga Pā in this context.527

Tapa Te Whata asked leave to reply to Te

One’s evidence, but was refused. The association of Hangahanga with the migration

would re-emerge as a contested narrative in the Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga

(Maungatautari) hearing in 1884.

481. On Friday 11 February 1881, evidence relating to Ngāmoko No. 2 block was

heard. McDonald reiterated that his clients claimed the entire region and he was not

aware that he had anything to add to what had already been said. After some

preliminaries, the Crown called Charles Marshall, who claimed to have lived in the

Waikato district since 1830. In his evidence, he said Maungatautari belonged to Ngāti

Raukawa until they were driven away to Kapiti; he was living at Pirongia at the time

525 Evidence of Hitiri Te Paerata, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 10 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 23.

526 See; Ballara, Iwi 1998, p. 148.

527 Evidence of Hitiri Te Paerata and Hone Te One, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 10 February 1881, AJHR,

1881, G.– 2A, pp. 23-24.


March 2013

214

of Taumatawīwī. He said he did not travel much around the district, but he saw

evidence of conflict at Maungakawa and Kaueriki during one such journey in about

1833. He heard the pā had been attacked by Marutuāhu assisted by Ngāpuhi. He

stated:

I believe the whole of Ngatiraukawa had already gone to Kapiti and

abandoned all claim to the land. I heard, of late years, prior to the death of W

Thompson, that he had invited or sanctioned the return of some of them to

Waotu, not to Maungatautari. I had nothing to do with the Native Land Courts

in 1866 and 1868 did not attend them. In my opinion, the Ngatiraukawa, of

Kapiti, would have no claim on the land after the conquest by Marutuahu and

the reconquest by Ngatihaua; and should the Government have been desirous

of buying the land, the resident Ngatiraukawas – or “take” in a state of

serfdom – would have had no voice in the sale; that is, the Ngatihaua could

have sold without permission of Ngatiraukawa, but Ngatiraukawa remnant

could not have sold without permission of Ngatihaua. The absentees would not

have been acknowledged in any way. I never heard of the name

Ngatikauwhata until quite lately – just a few days back. The people were

always known as Ngatiraukawa.528

482. Marshall was then examined by McDonald, who asked him to what tribe he

first attached himself when he came to the Waikato. He answered: “To Ngatipou, a

large tribe.”

Did you know Te Waharoa? – Yes, very well; have lived with him.

Did you ever hear of the ship “Kauwhata”? – No.

Did you ever hear of the ancestor Kauwhata? – No.

Have you heard of Maniapoto? – Yes. I would not deem them Ngatiraukawa.

Have you heard of Ngatiwhakatere? – No.

Have you heard of Ngatitukorehu? No.

Have you heard of Ngatihinepare? Yes. They are a hapu of Ngatihaua…

Can you tell us who Haua was? He descends from Hekenui.

You never heard of the ancestor Kauwhata? – Never.529

528 Evidence of Charles Marshall, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 11 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 25.

529 Charles Marshall examined by Alexander McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 11 February 1881,

AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 25.


March 2013

215

483. Marshall’s evidence would contribute heavily to the Commission’s findings,

along with that of the other Pākehā witnesses; to the astonishment and chagrin of

McDonald and the Ngāti Kauwhata claimants.

484. The Court adjourned, reconvening the following day to hear the

Maungatautari case. It is noted in the “Minutes of Evidence” that Charles Marshall, the

last Crown witness of the preceding day, was now representing the Crown in the

absence of William Mair. It appears that Ngāti Hauā did not want their titles in

Maungatautari disturbed and there had been discussion on the matter outside the Court

between the various parties. At this point, the Court explained that it had nothing to do

with the Crown grants and the claimants must not expect that the Crown grants would

be interfered with in any way. In other words, irrespective of the success of the claims,

the existing titles would not be disturbed. Some claimants asked for more time to

discuss matters, while Tana Te Waharoa said that as Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Kauwhata

were present, the case should proceed.530

485. McDonald told the Court that the seven individual claimants claiming

Maungatautari belonged to Ngāti Wehi Wehi. He said the fifty-six claiming

Maungatautari under a tribal claim called ‘Mateawa’ now withdrew their claim. The

Court then adjourned until the following Monday. When it resumed, McDonald asked

for another adjournment so his clients could attend the Native Land Court. He also

lodged a protest about the Commissioners’ comments respecting the Crown grants

already issued for the blocks under investigation. His protest was placed on the record,

as follows:

Sirs, You have been pleased this day to state, as by authority, that however

favourable to the petitioners your report may be, it cannot have the effect of

disturbing existing Crown grants, and can only result in a money

compensation.

In making this statement you have taken away the only motive which has

induced the petitioners to persevere and have rendered them and their

witnesses careless in the prosecution of their claims. You have thus seriously

damaged the petitioners’ case while it is yet under investigation. For it is

certain the petitioners would not have taken the pains and trouble they have

530 Preliminaries to Maungatautari case, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 12 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A,

p. 25.


March 2013

216

done if they had not the hope to retain an interest in the original home of their

people.

Moreover, I respectfully submit that, in making the statement in question, you

have altogether exceeded your authority under your commission, which is

limited to the inquiry whether or no the petitioners had any interest in the land

on 3 November 1868, and, if so, to what extent.

I submit that, in making this inquiry, it is not necessary nor right to take into

consideration any interests which may have grown up since that date.531

486. The thrust of McDonald’s final remark appears to have been the leases and

subsequent or prospective sales to Europeans that had taken place since the blocks

were first investigated. He was warning the Commissioners to confine their inquiry to

the question of customary rights as they existed in 1868, when they were first

investigated by the Court. Any remedy that might be applied following the release of

their report was for Parliament to determine. For their part, the Commissioners later

expressed their disappointment at McDonald’s protest, noting they had signalled at the

commencement that titles would not be disturbed irrespective of their decision.

Whether the Commissioners’ announcement regarding the inviolability of the Crown

grants was instrumental in the non-appearance of the fifty-six claimants in the

Maungatautari case can only be surmised.

10.2.5 Winia Pohotiraha’s claim in the Maungatautari Case

487. The Court sat again on Tuesday 15 February to hear a statement from Akapita

Te Tewe, representing the 56 claimants in Maungatautari. As his friends had not come

to assist him, he said he would lay the claim aside; “I withdraw our claim as a separate

hapu.”532

Winia Pohotiraha represented the claim of Ihakara Ngatahuna and others, but

she had asked McDonald to prosecute the claim on her behalf, until she had concluded

other business at the nearby Native Land Court. McDonald told the Court that Ihakara

did not wish to disturb the title of the grantees in Maungatautari; rather, he wished to

531 A. McDonald, Agent for some of the Petitioners, “Protest re Ngatikauwhata Claims, Waikato”, (dated 12

February 1881), Ngatikauwhata Commission, 14 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 26.

532 Statement of Akapita Te Tewe, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 26.


March 2013

217

have his name (and, presumably, those of his fellow claimants) inserted in the title,

“because of his relationship and because of the words of the fathers.”533

488. At this point Winia Pohotiraha arrived and took up her claim. She said that

after some discussion on Saturday, they had decided to go ahead with it. She claimed

from the ancestor Tuakere, giving her descent from him as shown in Figure 21:

Figure 21: Whakapapa of Winia Pohotiraha

Tuakere

Hore

Waimahoe

Te Rama

Waianoho

Te Umu ki Katikati

Pohotiraha

Winia Pohotiraha

489. Winia told the Court she belonged to Ngāti Wehi Wehi, “a distinct tribe in

itself, but descended from Kauwhata.”534

She first lived at Kapiti, was married there

and moved to Rotorua with her husband. She now lived at Mangawhara, near Hinuera.

The minutes here are somewhat confusing: she states that her parents lived at Kapiti,

but also said that they did not join the exodus and remained at Maungatautari and

Pātetere at the time of Taumatawīwī and beyond, down to the present time. Her

relatives took part in Taumatawīwī, assisting Ngāti Hauā. She adds:

After that battle they lived at Maungatautari. After the battle they returned to

their several plantations, and they have lived there permanently until the

present day. We have intermarried with Ngatikoroki. The six who claim with

me are all near relatives, sisters and brothers. We are all full-blooded

Ngatiwehiwehi. My claim is not for Ngatiwehiwehi, but a personal one

through Tuakere.535

533 Statement of A. McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 26.

534 Evidence of Winia Pohotiraha, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 26.



March 2013

218

490. Under cross-examination Winia’s evidence appeared mired in contradictions;

there were questions as to whether she and her fellow claimants had lived continually

at Maungatautari or had spent a lengthy period at ‘Kapiti’. There was also some

confusion over her ancestral claim, or at least in the way she presented it (she said her

father was Ngāti Korokī and her mother Ngāti ‘Tukorehu’ – presumably, Ngāti

Tukorehe). McDonald tried to clarify her connection to Wehi Wehi, but the minutes do

not record a satisfactory reply.536

491. Ihakara Ngatahuna, a chief from ‘Kapiti’ (Horowhenua) was the next witness.

He stated:

I live at Kapiti. I belong to Ngatikauwhata. Winia is my daughter (niece). I

have lived at Kapiti since Ngatikauwhata went there. I signed the petition to

Parliament. I claimed an interest in Maungatautari in 1868 and still. My claim

is through my ancestor Tuakere. The statement by Winia is mine. I heard of

the Court here in 1868. I did not come to it because we had a Court at

Rangitikei at the same time. The portion of Ngatikauwhata who were living

here supported our claims to this land then. I knew Parakaia. I knew of

Parakaia coming here then. I would not come with him. I was waiting for

Ngatikauwhata. Parakaia came here to appear on behalf of Ngatiraukawa.

There is only a very distant connection between Ngatikauwhata and

Ngatiraukawa. They were divided in Tawhiao’s [sic – Tāwhao’s] time.

Ngatiraukawa came from Turou [sic – Turongo]. Ngatikauwhata came from

Whatihua; this was previous to the time of Kauwhata.

I have never lived at Maungatautari. I do not know who were living at

Maungatautari. When we went to Kapiti, Ngatikahukura and Ngatihinepare

were living there. Ngatimaru were there when I left. I do not know by my own

knowledge who were the residents then at [the time of] Taumatawiwi. I heard

that Wiwini (or Murupara, or Te Whetowheto) was living there. He was a

Ngatikauwhata. I heard that Ngatimaru were living at Maungatautari just

before Taumatawiwi. All that I state is hearsay. I do not know how many of us

descendants of Tuakere have lived at Maungatautari.

Those who remained intermarried with Ngatihaua. My two sisters married into

Ngatikoroki; one married Tioriori; that is all I know about it. It was some time

after Taumatawiwi that I came here with my sisters. I did not bring them, they

came here for husbands. I came here and cried with them, and returned home

in about a month. I came twice in that way. There were no Ngatimaru here

then. Ngatikoroki, Ngatikahukura, and Ngatihaua were here then. They cried

to me to come back to Manukatutahi. I was living at Piraunui before



March 2013

219

Taumatawiwi. I was told to come by Manukatutahi because it was a safer

route. Had Te Waharoa and Tamihana been alive now I should have appeared

here as I do this day.537

492. Examined by Alexander McDonald, Ihakara said that Ngāti Hinepare and

Ngāti Kahukura were living peaceably together on the land at the time he left for

Kapiti. There had been some fighting between Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Maru before

Ngāti Kauwhata went to Kapiti, but when Takurua died (in a major battle prior to

Taumatawīwī) Ngāti Kauwhata were at Taupō. Pohotiraha, Winia’s father, was

Ihakara’s elder brother, who did not go to Kapiti, but went to live at Rotorua. Marae

Ariki, another chief, was Ihakara’s uncle (his mother’s brother).538

493. When his examination of Ihakara concluded (and presumably after some

discussion with his clients) McDonald announced that he could not represent Winia

Pohotiraha’s claim any further, because ‘his people’ disapproved of it, because it

disturbed their general claim to this part of the country.539

494. The next witness, Wīremu Haumu, told the Court he was also known as Marae

Ariki, adding that he belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata and that he lived at Mangawhara

near Hinuera, just across the river from Maungatautari. Although he was for a time

with the King party, Wī Haumu was a regular witness at Native Land Court hearings,

particularly for blocks north east of Maungatautari in the Pātetere district, where he

identified himself as belonging to Ngāti Tukorehe.540

In his Maungatautari evidence,

Haumu stated:

I did not come from Kapiti. This is my place of residence. I did not sign the

Ngatikauwhata petition. I have a claim on Maungatautari. I did not see that

Court in 1868. I was then with the Hauhaus. My claim is both through ancestry

and conquest. Tuakere is my ancestor. Winia has a claim to Maungatautari.

537 Evidence of Ihakara Ngatahuna, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 27.

538 Ihakara Ngatahuna examined by McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881,

G.–2A, p. 27. In answer to a subsequent question by McDonald, “Had Marae Ariki a child?”, Ihakara’s answer

is recorded as: “Yes, she called it Kapiti.” (page 28); but in his previous answer Ihakara clearly states that Marae

Ariki was the ‘brother of my mother.’

539 Statement by A. McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 28.

540 See, for example, Wīremu Haumu, Okauia case, May 1879, Waikato MB 3, pp. 313-315.


March 2013

220

She is my niece. Her claim is the same as mine, through ancestry and

conquest.541

495. Haumu said the claim through conquest was through the assistance given to

Ngāti Hauā at the battle of Taumatawīwī. He saw the battle of Taumatawīwī and

attested:

About fifty of Ngatikauwhata were engaged. These Ngatikauwhata were full-

blooded and were not half-castes. Marriages had taken place. The

Ngatikauwhata who were engaged there were those who remained behind

when the others went to Kapiti. After the battle, Ngatikoroki, Ngatikauwhata

and Ngatihaua lived on the conquered land. Ngatikauwhata lived on Pukekura.

I lived at Maungatautari. I, with Ngatikoroki, Ngatiwehiwehi and Ngatihaua,

lived at Maungatautari. I returned to my own plantation and Ngatikauwhata

returned to Pukekura. Our chiefs did not allot us any special places. Had we

desired to sell our land to the Pakeha we could have done so, whether Te

Waharoa had been agreeable or not.542

496. The cross-examination focused on whether Haumu’s people were vassals of

Ngāti Hauā: would they obey Te Waharoa if he ordered them to fight, or cultivate

food? Haumu was emphatic that his people would heed Te Waharoa’s dictates, not

because they were subjugated to Ngāti Hauā, but because they were close kin, “they

[i.e. – Te Waharoa et al.] were themselves of Ngatikauwhata”.

497. Hōri Wirihana then appeared in support of Winia’s claim, stating that the

name ‘Tuakere’ had been given to a certain stone on Maungatautari, near Hautapu. He

confirmed that Tuakere was a child of ‘Kopere’ (i.e. – Kōperu). The stone was so

named “seven, nine or ten generations ago.”543

498. It will be recalled that the Figure 4 whakapapa (above, section 1.2.1) shows

the tupuna Tuakere as the son of Kōperu and the father of Patiharuru, the wife of Wehi

Wehi. Kauwhata’s father, Kōtare was the elder brother of Kōperu’s father,

Tamapango, so Kōperu was Kauwhata’s cousin. None of the witnesses provided this

information to the Commission. Presumably, Hore, the ancestor of Winia and the other

541 Evidence of Wīremu Haumu, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 28.

542 Evidence of Wīremu Haumu, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 28.

543 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 28.


March 2013

221

claimants, was the sibling of Patiharuru, which suggests that these claimants

descended from Wehi Wehi’s brother-in-law.

499. The next witness was Tūwhenua, who supported the claims of Winia’s party

through Tuakere, stating: “Claims through ancestry still hold good over

Maungatautari.”544

He endorsed Wīremu Haumu’s claim on the basis that Ngāti

Tukorehe had lent their support to Ngāti Hauā at Taumatawīwī, and Haumu had

cultivated on Maungatautari since then. He added that Te Waharoa: “…restored the

land to us – to the chief Marutietie. They were both Ngatikauwhata. Waharoa was the

supreme authority over the land, and could give that land to us. The land belonged to

Waharoa and his ancestor Kauwhata.”545

Although Tūwhenua was related to Kauwhata

himself, he said he had no claim to the land. He had joined with Ngāti Hauā in 1868 to

defeat Parakaia’s claim on behalf of Ngāti Raukawa. He had not heard of Te Waharoa

dividing up the land, but if he had done so, he dared not oppose his wishes. He stated

plainly:

[Te Waharoa] was a chief of Ngatikauwhata, of Haua and all the half-castes. I

heard from Wi Tamihana Tarapipipi, son of Waharoa, that his claim on

Maungatautari was from ancestry. At that time the land was not subdivided.

Pukekura and all these lands were one estate. His [Tamihana’s] words re

ancestry had particular reference to Pukekura.546

500. The following day, various Ngāti Hauā witnesses appeared whose evidence

did little to support Winia’s claims. Wīremu Te Whitu agreed that she descended from

Tuakere, but said the stone of that name was located on the opposite bank of the

Waikato River from Maungatautari, while Hohaia Ngāhiwi denied Winia and her party

had any claim at all. Ngāhiwi was prepared to endorse Wī Haumu and Pāora

Pohotiraha because they had lived on Maungatautari. When asked by Mair, to whom

544 Evidence of Tūwhenua, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 15 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 28.

Tūwhenua identified as Ngāti Hauā in other contexts, but his hapū affiliations relating to Maungatautari were

not recorded in the minutes of the Commission. (See, Okauia case, Waikato MB 3, pp. 364-365).




March 2013

222

did Haumu and Pohotiraha belong, he answered, “Ngatimokai of Ngatiraukawa; they

were related to Ngatikoroki”.547

501. Alexander McDonald then brought before the Court the Tamihana whānau, in

order to rebut certain aspects of Major Wilson’s evidence regarding Pukekura. Tana Te

Waharoa stated that he had gone to see his mother at Korakonui to tell her that Ngāti

Kauwhata had come to Pukekura (for the Commission hearing, presumably). His

mother told him, “Return and restore Pukekura to Ngatikauwhata. If I were not so old,

I would myself attend that Court.”548

McDonald asked the family whether Tamihana’s

invitation to Ngāti Kauwhata to return ceased at the times stated by Major Wilson.549

Te Raihi opined that as Tamihana’s younger brother, he had never heard such a thing,

and he considered it more likely that Tamihana would have spoken to his family about

it, rather than to a stranger.

502. Mair asked Te Raihi why he did not say as much in 1868, to which Te Raihi

replied that he did say then that “the Crown grant should be made to Ngatikauwhata,

so that they might remember their friends at Kapiti.”550

He admitted that he had made

this statement outside the Court. He was reminded that he had previously dismissed

the claims of the Ngāti Kauwhata of Kapiti, but said he did not then know the reason

for their absence. Apparently not quite satisfied with her uncle’s explanation, Harete

Tamihana stated: “The words of Wi Tamihana to Major Wilson respecting Pukekura

were not limited to the Christmas time stated by Major Wilson.”551

503. The Crown case for Maungatautari then commenced, with Rihia Te Kauae

appearing as the first witness. He was a grantee and based his claim on the Ngāti Hauā

conquest of Marutuāhu. He denied that Winia, Haumu or Pohotiraha had any rights.

He had never heard of Winia or Pohotiraha, but said Haumu was of the ‘Ngatitehihi’

547 Evidence of Wī Te Whitu and Hohaia Ngāhiwi, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 16 February 1881, AJHR,

1881, G.–2A, p. 29.

548 Evidence of Tana Te Waharoa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 16 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 30.

549 It will be recalled that Wilson stated that Tamihana had said that if Ngāti Kauwhata did not return by

Christmas of 1866, he (Wilson) could have the land.


551 Statement of Harete Tamihana, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 16 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 30.


March 2013

223

hapū of Ngāti Raukawa and lived at Pātetere.552

Piripi Te Whanatangi also appeared

for the Crown and denied any knowledge of Winia’s party and their rights to

Maungatautari. Te Whanatangi said that Winia’s take of Tuakere was a very old one,

adding: “Were we living according to Māori custom, we should bring forward those

ancestors to prove our title, as well as our conquest.”553

Major Mair said he could call

twenty or thirty witnesses “to speak to the same purpose”, but did not think it

necessary to occupy more time.

504. The Court convened briefly the next day, before adjourning until the following

week, apparently in the hope of hearing from Rewi Maniapoto. On Monday 21

February 1881, McDonald told the Commissioners that Rewi had been called away on

urgent business; and also, that Tamihana’s mother, Wikitoria was too ill to attend the

Court. Wikitoria had, however, sent a written statement to be presented to the

Commissioners by her children. However, the Commissioners declined to receive the

statement from Tamihana’s widow. Winia Pohotiraha had told McDonald that if she

was not present in Court it could be taken as indicating she had abandoned her claim –

she was indeed absent. McDonald said he had been hampered by the unavailability of

witnesses who lived “in the King Country, where the Queen’s writ does not run”. But

he was now inclined to leave the decision of the Commissioners to rest on the evidence

they had before them.554

505. The Court adjourned sine die, but, after giving notice that it would do so,

reconvened on 2 March 1881, when Rewi Maniapoto appeared. He said he would only

speak about Tapa Te Whata coming to receive money for Rangiaōwhia; he told Tapa,

“I do not consent to your having (receiving) money for Rangiaohia, Puahoe, and

Pukekura; no, should the day come when we become united, then we will investigate

552 Evidence of Rihia Te Kauae, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 16 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, pp. 30-

31. There was some discussion about the origin of the name ‘Te Hihi’, or, Te ‘Ihihi’, and whether it was indeed

a hapū of Raukawa. Te Kauae admitted that he did not know. It was also queried whether Haumu belonged to

Ngāti Wehi Wehi, which raises the possibility that Ngāti Te Hihi or Ngāti Te Ihihi may be another form of the

name Ngāti Wehi Wehi. On the other hand, it will also be remembered that Te Hihi was a Raukawa man who

was killed at Tauranga. When Raukawa sent a taua to avenge his death, Ngāti Maru attacked Te Kōpua Pā,

occupied at the time mainly by women and children. Ngāti Te Hihi may be descendants of Te Hihi of Ngāti

Raukawa, which would fit with Haumu’s stated affiliations elsewhere.


31.

554 Statement of Alexander McDonald, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 21 February 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p.

32.


March 2013

224

it.”555

He added that he gave Tapa those lands, but the decision rested with the people

living on the land (and not those in the Crown grants).

506. He added that those who made the arrangements for Pukekura were Te

Waharoa and Te Whetowheto (Murupara), while those who arranged things for

Puahue were Haunui and Porokoru. For Rangiaōwhia the arrangements were made by

Hōri Te Waru and Hone Papita. “These were the old men of the day”. Rewi said that

Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata were invited to return but did not do so; he believed the

land now belonged to the residents.556

Under cross-examination it emerged that Rewi’s

main concern was the land should not be sold. He also agreed that a small number of

migrants had returned from Kapiti on Haunui’s invitation to re-occupy their Waikato

lands.

507. Rewi’s evidence regarding Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa was of mixed value

for Tapa Te Whata’s claim; he said that Ngāti Kauwhata were a distinct people from

Ngāti Raukawa, but he also said the Ngāti Kauwhata who remained in the Waikato

were indistinguishable from Ngāti Hauā (“They lived with Ngatihaua. They had no

distinct estate”).557

He was himself a Ngāti Kauwhata, but he could not say if they had

any land separate from Ngāti Hauā at Puahue, Pukekura, Maungatautari and Ngāmoko.

In general, Rewi’s view was that Ngāti Kauwhata had forfeited their rights by leaving

and not returned when invited to. Because of their refusal, they could now only return

under his (Rewi’s) mana; he concluded: “My consent is necessary. Mine is the

mana.”558

508. McDonald concluded by reiterating that if Ngāti Kauwhata had appeared in

1868, they would have been admitted.

555 Evidence of Rewi Maniapoto, Ngatikauwhata Commission, 2 March 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2A, p. 32.





March 2013

225

10.3 The Report of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission

509. The Commissioners, Messrs Brookfield and Kemp delivered their report (the

Report) to the Minister of Native Affairs, on 16 March 1881, asking him to place it

before the Governor. They began by noting certain statements by the agent for the

petitioners, Alexander McDonald, that in their view were misleading. Specifically,

they stated that McDonald had:

…led, not only the petitioners, but also the Natives who were declared by the

Court sitting in 1868 to be owners of the … [Puahue, Pukekura, Ngāmoko No.

2 and Maungatautari] blocks … to believe that, should our report be

favourable, all Crown grants which have been issued respecting these blocks,

and all subsequent dealings with the land, will thereby become void and that

the land will revert to them as joint owners.559

510. The Commissioners considered that this notion had become so influential over

the successful claimants of 1868 that the latter were now prepared to support the

claims of the petitioners, which they had rejected outright at the initial hearing.

Convinced that this could potentially skew the evidence, the Commissioners resolved

to let the parties know in advance that whatever the result of the hearing, the existing

titles (Crown grants) would not be disturbed, and all the petitioners could obtain from

the process (if anything), was either money or (other) land from the Government. They

note that McDonald handed in a written protest to that statement, asking that it be

attached to the Report, which was duly done. Having made this preliminary statement,

the Commissioners proceeded with the Report.

511. This was solely concerned with four blocks of land dealt with by the Native

Land Court in November 1868: Pukekura, Puahue, Ngāmoko No. 2 and Maungatautari

Nos 1 & 2. The Report considered that the applications identified the petitioners as

members of the Ngāti Raukawa tribe, whereas the claimants strongly identified as

Ngāti Kauwhata, a distinct tribe and denied they were part of Ngāti Raukawa. The

Report noted that this was “strongly denied by other tribes, who assert that until a few

years ago they never heard of such a tribe as Ngatikauwhata, and that the claimants

559 “Enclosure 1 in No. 2, ‘Report of the Commissioner’,” Ngatikauwhata Commission, 14 March 1881, AJHR,

1881, G.–2A, p. 3.


March 2013

226

are, in fact, only a hapu of Ngatiraukawa.”560

The Commissioners clearly adopted the

latter view, and throughout the remainder of the Report referred only to

‘Ngatiraukawa’, eschewing any mention of ‘Ngatikauwhata’, except where they

addressed the question of whether Ngāti Kauwhata is a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa. It

seems a radical step for the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission to effectively reject its own

title; should it have been called instead, the Ngāti Raukawa Commission? This

position stated so early in the Report affects its tone and substance to the extent that

the actual petitioners become invisible in their own report. Nevertheless, the

fundamental logic of the Commissioners’ findings depended on Ngāti Kauwhata being

a hapū of Raukawa; it is a theme they developed further later in the report.

512. The Commission’s Report then categorised the claims and lists the names of

each of the claimants. It deduced from the evidence that the (Ngāti Kauwhata)

petitioners’ claim (designated ‘Class a’) rested upon two grounds:

1) “The fact that in about the year 1828 they or their ancestors left Pukekura

or Rangiaohia, as the whole district appears to have been then called, in a

quiet and peaceable manner, and went to reside in Kapiti, where they could

obtain better food and also obtain guns and ammunition. They further

allege that they left with the intention to return and left some of their

friends on the land with the injunction, “Occupy till I come,” and that their

friends did so occupy up to the sitting of the Court in 1868. And:

2) The fact that in or about 1866 Wi Tamihana, whose authority over this

land appears to have been supreme at that time, invited them to return and

occupy.561

513. In terms of the first ground, the fact of their leaving was undisputed, and also

their leaving some of their friends on the land; however, the Crown and ‘opposing

Natives’ asserted that after they left they lost all right and interest in the land, through

a) ceasing to occupy; and b) on account of the land becoming the possession of Ngāti

Hauā by right of conquest. The Commissioners determined:


1881, G.–2A, p. 3.


1881, G.–2A, p. 4.


March 2013

227

As to point (a), it is proved to our satisfaction that [the] petitioners did

abandon possession in or about 1828; that neither they nor any person or

persons on their behalf have ever returned to the district with the view of

permanent occupancy, though one or two have made casual visits for a few

months at a time and then returned to Kapiti; and those who were left behind at

the time of the exodus were only those who had married with other tribes, and

by that means had, so to speak, become absorbed and ceased to have separate

existence as a distinct tribe.562

514. In terms of point (b), the volume and complexity of the evidence was noted. It

was found that for some years before the exodus, the Ngāti Maru tribe had come to

live in the Rangiaōwhia district for fear of Ngāpuhi, and had done so in a friendly and

peaceable manner for a number of years. Gradually, quarrels began to occur, which

resulted in skirmishes between Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Hauā, which “saw sometimes

one side have the advantage and sometimes the other.” It was during the time of these

skirmishes that:

…the whole of Ngatiraukawa, with the exceptions previously mentioned, left

and went to reside at Kapiti; and in our opinion, they left not only in order to

obtain better food and ammunition, but principally because, being few in

number, they feared they would be attacked by Ngāti Maru and altogether

exterminated.

About this time Ngatimaru, through their victories over Ngatihaua, became the

owners of the whole district by right of conquest, and erected several pas in

different localities, thus asserting their rights as conquerors. And even

supposing that Ngatiraukawa had at that time any rights, such rights would

cease upon that conquest.563

515. The battle of Taumatawīwī, in which Ngāti Hauā assisted by Ngāi Te Rangi

defeated the Hauraki tribes, left the district in the hands of Ngāti Hauā, who continued

to occupy the land and had it surveyed for the Court hearings in 1868. The

Commissioners observed: “…it is distinctly stated that none of the Ngatiraukawa,

except for the few who were left behind, took any part in that battle. The district thus


1881, G.–2A, p. 4.


1881, G.–2A, p. 4. Emphasis added.


March 2013

228

came into the hands of Ngatihaua and, by right of conquest, became their property,

Ngaiterangi not laying claim to it.”564

516. The Report noted that the petitioners had attempted to argue that the rights of

the ‘Ngatiraukawa’ who were left behind were restored by virtue of their participation

in the battle of Taumatawīwī; and further, that inasmuch as they were acting as ‘quasi-

trustees’ (as the Commissioners put it) for those who migrated, the latter’s rights were

also thereby restored. The converse argument, put by the Crown, was that because

those who remained behind were few in number and had allegedly been absorbed into

Ngāti Hauā, they had lost all tribal right, notwithstanding any personal interests they

might retain. According to this view, Ngāti Hauā, “…being the more powerful tribe,

became the owners according to Maori custom.”565

517. The Commissioners then turned to the question of the various invitations by a

succession of Waikato rangatira for the migrants to return, and how these invitations

affected the latters’ rights in the Waikato. They preface their discussion with an

assessment of McDonald’s tactics in arguing the case for his clients. According to the

Commissioners, McDonald found that he could not substantiate the contention that

simply leaving some Ngāti Kauwhata in occupation of their ancestral lands was

sufficient to preserve the rights of those who had migrated. He therefore modified his

position to argue that the participation of the remaining Ngāti Kauwhata in

Taumatawīwī gave them such rights as to enable them to consent to the return of their

Kapiti-based relatives. Their subsequent invitation for them to return, though it was

not accepted, had the effect of restoring the rights that the Kapiti-based Ngāti

Kauwhata had at Maungatautari before the battle.

518. Stress was laid, said the Commissioners, on the fact that the principal chief of

Ngāti Hauā, Te Waharoa and ‘his successor in power’ Wīremu Tamihana had from

time to time urged them to return, that Tamihana had even gone to Kapiti in person,

though these overtures were made in vain and the migrants “have never occupied this


1881, G.–2A, p. 4.


1881, G.–2A, pp. 4-5.


March 2013

229

district in any portion of it since their exodus in 1828.”566

This state of affairs

continued until 1840, and must have done so until 1868 when the hearings occurred,

unless some arrangements were come to in the meantime between those who remained

and those who migrated. The possibility that such arrangements may have occurred led

the Commission to consider the implications of the invitations to return and whether

they affected the rights of the petitioners, notwithstanding their having been declined

and no occupation having taken place.

519. The Report stated:

It is distinctly stated and admitted to be true that between the years 1860 and

1868 various invitations to return and occupy the land were given to the Kapiti

Natives by Te Waharoa, and afterwards, and up to the date of his death, by Wi

Tamihana, and that the latter, even on his death-bed, expressed a desire that

they should return; but we learn that, according to Maori custom, the bare

acceptance of such an invitation, unaccompanied by actual occupation and

cultivation, would not confer any right or title, and that even if they had

returned and occupied they would have been mere serfs, and have been

obliged to go and do where and what they might have been required by those

two powerful chiefs. Moreover, Major Wilson states that Wi Tamehana, in

1866, stated to him when negotiating for this land that he had offered to let

those living at Kapiti return and occupy Pukekura, provided they returned

before Christmas of that year; that they did not so return, and therefore he

entered into negotiations respecting it.567

520. In fact, Te Waharoa had died in 1838, and while he was noted as a kaitiaki of

the lands, there are no specific references in the minutes of him inviting the migrants

to return;568

it may be that the Commissioners were confusing him with Te

Wherowhero (Pōtatau), who did invite the Waikato migrants, including Ngāti Toa,

Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata to return when he went to Kapiti to see Te

Rauparaha in the 1840s.

521. The Commissioners now turn to what they see as a key question: why did the

petitioners change the tribal identity under which they lodged their claims, from Ngāti


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.

568 See: Evelyn Stokes, Wiremu Tamihana: Rangatira, Wellington, Huia, 2002, p. 49. A number of witnesses,

particularly members of Te Waharoa’s whānau, speculated that Te Waharoa would have welcomed Ngāti

Kauwhata’s return when questioned on this point during the hearing.


March 2013

230

Raukawa in early petitions, to Ngāti Kauwhata in later petitions and in the

Commission of Inquiry itself? They state:

We now come to the question whether or not the petitioners had the

opportunity of attending the Court held in November, 1868; and here will be

found the reason why they are so anxious to be put forward as a distinct and

separate tribe, and not to be considered as a hapu of Ngatiraukawa. They

allege they never authorized any one to appear on their behalf at the Native

Land Court held at Cambridge in November, 1868, and that the application to

Mr Richmond in 1868 was made by Ngatiraukawa, and not by them. It will be

found on reference to the papers relating to this matter, and also in the petition

relating to the House of Representatives, that everything has been done in the

name of Ngatiraukawa, and a reference to the evidence taken by us will show

that several of the parties who now repudiate all connection with

Ngatiraukawa are those that signed that petition, and are therein described as

being members of that tribe.569

522. The question of whether Ngāti Kauwhata had earlier petitioned as Ngāti

Raukawa is addressed by Alexander McDonald in his rebuttal of the Commission’s

findings (see below); suffice it to say, McDonald consistently argued that Ngāti

Kauwhata and Raukawa were distinct tribes, as did many disinterested witnesses in

their evidence to the Commission. A number of Ngāti Hauā witnesses stated that if

Ngāti Kauwhata had come forward in 1868, they would have admitted them as owners,

but if Ngāti Raukawa had come they would have opposed their claims. But the

Commissioners had an explanation for the apparent complicity of Ngāti Hauā, grantees

and non-grantees alike (apart from the Crown witnesses) in the setting up of Kauwhata

as take tupuna for the four blocks.

523. They argued that this was on account of Parakaia having brought claims

before the Court in 1868 under the take of Raukawa, “…on behalf of those Natives

living in Kapiti, called evidence in support of them, and finally, finding them

untenable, abandoned them.”570

Therefore, the precedent of the abandoned Raukawa

claims necessitated a new take; hence, the Commissioners reasoned, Kauwhata was

put forward. Presumably, they thought Ngāti Hauā had resolved to support the Ngāti


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.


March 2013

231

Kauwhata claim in the hope that if the claim was successful, they too would share in

whatever compensation might be forthcoming.

524. The Commissioners were dismissive of Winia Pohotiraha’s claims to

Maungatautari, stating that she had “utterly failed to support her assertions”, with most

of the witnesses she called in support of her case being ignorant of Tuakere, the tupuna

she set up. They concluded that her parents were among those who went to Kapiti in

1828, and lost their rights in the same way as the others.

525. The Commissioners delivered the summary of their report in five statements:

a) That, in our opinion, prior to the year 1840, the petitioners, whether known

as Ngatikauwhata or Ngatiraukawa, had lost all their right, title, and interest

to the district known as Rangiaohia, which included Maungatautari Nos 1 &

2, Pukekura, Puahoe, and Ngamoko No. 2.

b) That up to the year 1868 those rights had not been in any manner restored.

c) That at the sitting of the Native Land Court in 1868, the petitioners had no

interest whatever in the above-mentioned lands.

d) That they were properly represented by an authorized agent in that Court.

e) That they are not entitled to any compensation whatever.571

526. The Commissioners closed with a comment about McDonald’s conduct they

had alluded to earlier, relating to an alleged statement he made to a meeting held at

Maungatautari a few days before the hearing commenced, that the Crown grants in the

four blocks would be cancelled if his clients were successful. The Commissioners were

“…in no doubt that it caused many of the Natives to give statements before us directly

contrary to those which, on reference to the records of the Native Land Court, we find

were made before that Court in 1868.”572

527. Perhaps this was the most galling part of the Commissioner’s report for

McDonald, the accusation that he had induced witnesses to give false evidence; but it


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.


1881, G.–2A, p. 5.


March 2013

232

was only part of the Commission’s decision that he found unacceptable, as the

following section explains.

10.4 McDonald’s response to the Commission’s Report

528. When Alexander McDonald received an ‘extract’ of the Commissioners’

report, he immediately wrote to T.W. Lewis, the Under-Secretary at the Native

Department, telling him that from what he could gather from the extract, the report

appeared to be based on “anything rather than upon the evidence given before the

Commission.”573

It appears the ‘extract’ McDonald was furnished with was simply the

five bare statements representing the findings of the Commission. McDonald said his

own notes of the evidence appeared to him to be conclusive that the petitioners were,

“according to Maori custom”, entitled to an interest in the land in question. He

requested a copy of the full report in order to grasp the argument by which the

Commissioners connected their opinion with the evidence, and until then he would not

feel justified in saying that he “regarded the opinion itself as worthless”.

529. He continued:

I feel sure I may say that, if upon a perusal of the report the opinion expressed

therein seems to be based upon the evidence, and not merely upon

preconceived ideas, my clients will frankly accept the decision, and say no

more about it. But now, I must observe that the extract supplied to me, besides

expressing an opinion, makes what purports to be a statement of fact – viz.,

that Ngatikauwhata “were properly represented by an authorized agent in that

Court” (of 1868). I say, and I desire to be distinctly understood to say, that the

Royal Commissioners have here made a statement that is not true – which is

emphatically untrue…I do not wish to be offensive; I suppose the

Commissioners believed they were stating the truth; but they have not done so,

they have stated as a fact that which is not a fact, and I am bound to inform the

Government that such is the case.574

530. McDonald said he thought the Native Office ought to know that the

Commissioners’ statement was in error, as “from 1867 to the present time,

573 “Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission” (Correspondence relating to the), McDonald to Under-Secretary, 21

May 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 1.


May 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 1.


March 2013

233

Ngatikauwhata have done no act great or small, in reference to their land, except

through me as their agent…” At the time the Cambridge Court was sitting, McDonald

was representing Ngāti Kauwhata in the Native Land Court at Rangitikei and Ngāti

Kauwhata were “…engaged through me in a voluminous correspondence with the

Government of that time.” He reasoned that ‘the hapu’ could not have been properly

represented elsewhere by an authorised agent “unless I have deliberately and

habitually misrepresented facts to the Government during all these years.”575

531. Observing that both he and the chiefs of Ngāti Kauwhata had made direct

oaths before the Commission to the effect that no one represented them before the

Court in 1868, he suggested that the Commissioners were effectively charging them

with perjury. For his part, he thought the Commissioners “two very foolish men”. The

issue before the Government was whether the petitioners were entitled in 1868,

according to Māori custom, to an interest in these lands.

To this question the Royal Commissioners have answered “No;” all the chiefs

and tribes in Waikato have answered “Yes;” and I say that any public meeting

of Maoris, in any part of New Zealand, would unhesitatingly answer “Yes:”

and I hope the Government will distinctly answer “Yes,” or “No.”576

532. McDonald’s indignation on behalf of himself and his clients would only be

exacerbated when he perused the complete Report of the Ngatikauwhata Claims

Commission. Having digested its contents, he addressed the following response to the

Native Minister on 8 July 1881:

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the report and

evidence in the claims of Ngatikauwhata in Waikato.

The report intimates, 1st. That the witnesses gave false evidence in

consequence of a statement made by me.

2nd. That Ngatikauwhata is really a section or hapu of Ngatiraukawa.

3rd. That they (the petitioners) were represented in the Court of 1868 by an

authorized agent.


May 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 1.


May 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 1.


March 2013

234

And the opinion of the Commissioners is clearly influenced adversely to the

petitioners by these premises which seem to have been on their minds.

But I assert that these premises are absolutely false, and are quite capable of

being shown to be false from the printed evidence; and I assert that, generally,

the opinion expressed by the Commissioners is contrary to the plain tenor and

weight of the evidence, as well as to common sense and reason.

I appeal to you, Sir, as the proper and responsible head of the Maori people, to

protect them against such an outrageously unjust decision as given by these

Commissioners in this case.

And I ask you to take any steps which may appear to you necessary, either to

verify the charge I make against the Commissioners, of having decided

contrary to the evidence, or of punishing me for having made so serious a

charge against persons entrusted with so important and grave a duty as the

investigation of title to land.577

533. Accompanying this letter, McDonald sent a detailed memorandum arguing

against each of the above points, as well as other crucial aspects of the case where he

considered the Commissioners had written against the evidence. He denied having led

the petitioners and others to believe that the Crown grants would be void if their claim

was successful, and that this caused certain witnesses to admit the claims of the

petitioners, when they had ignored them in 1868. Rather, he had told the meeting at

Maungatautari: “If the decision of the Native land Court in 1868 was bad, all

proceedings based upon it must necessarily be bad, and would be remedied by the

Government.” He did not prescribe how the wrong was to be remedied, and he still

believed the Commissioners exceeded their authority by stating that “in no case could

the Crown grants be void or invalid.”578

534. The question of whether Ngāti Kauwhata was a distinct tribe from Ngāti

Raukawa was, in McDonald’s view, “clearly settled by the evidence. Even the

witnesses called by the Crown admit it.”579

577 “Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission” (Correspondence relating to the), McDonald to Native Minister, 8

July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, pp. 1-2.

578 “Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission” (Correspondence relating to the), Memorandum by McDonald for

Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2. The passage following this statement appears

ambiguous, at least to the present author.


Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2. McDonald cites the evidence of: Rewi (Manga) pp. 32-

33; Hakiriwhi, p. 11; Tapa Te Whata, p. 12, Pirihi, Crown witness, p. 14; Reone Te Kui, Crown witness, p. 14;


March 2013

235

535. Having shown, therefore, that Ngāti Kauwhata were in possession of a distinct

estate, the question arises as to whether they ever lost their right to it. McDonald

stated: “The evidence that they did not do so abounds, not only in the statements of the

petitioners, but in the statements of the witnesses called by the Crown.”580

536. McDonald continued:

The Commissioners lay some stress on the evidence of Major Wilson, as

limiting the invitation of Tamihana. I called the family of Tamihana in a group

on this point. And their evidence is conclusive against the inference of the

Commissioners. [See page 30 of the Report].

It is admitted on all hands that the mana of Te Waharoa, and after him of his

son Tamihana, was paramount on the Waikato side of the country; and the

families of these chiefs unhesitatingly admit the claims of the petitioners to

that side, viz., Pukekura and Puahoe; while the mana of Potatau and his son

Tawhiao, and of Rewi, on the Puniu and Waipa side, is equally unchallenged.

These chiefs have not yet declared themselves quite clearly; but I, on behalf of

Ngatikauwhata, am quite content to accept their dictum, when it suits them to

speak, or when they can be made to do so.581

537. McDonald pointed out to the Native Minister, that Te Wiwini, Murupara, and

Te Whetowheto, were “all names of the same person, being the chief to whom the

Ngatikauwhata migration handed over the land in trust.”582

He also remarked on the

evidence of Charles Marshall and his idea of tribal distinctions, which he labelled

‘peculiar’. Marshall’s identification of Ngāti Hinepare as a hapū of Ngāti Hauā was

incorrect, as Hinepare was the eldest daughter and child of Kauwhata; while Hauā, the

ancestor of Ngāti Hauā was not born till several generations later. His final point

concerned the evidence of Hitiri Te Paerata and Hone Te One, which seemed to him

designed to “purposely … mystify the Commission as to tribal distinctions. They make

Īhāia, Crown witness, p. 15; Piripi, Crown witness, p. 16; Hōri Wirihana, Crown witness; and Tana Te Waharoa,

p. 19; Te Raihi, p. 21.”


Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2. McDonald cites the evidence of: “Rihia, p. 13; Reone,

p. 14; Pirihi, p. 14; Īhāia, p. 15; Te Ngakau, an expert, p. 12; Hote Tamihana, p. 18; Warena Ahukaramū, p. 20;

Te Raihi, p. 21, &c.”


Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2.


Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2. Regarding Te Wiwini/Murupara/Te Whetowheto,

McDonald cited the evidence of: “Metapere, p. 9; Te Raihi, p. 10; Te Muera te Amorangi, p. 11; Hakiriwhi, p.

11; Reone, p. 14; Rewi, p. 32; and passim.”


March 2013

236

the original canoe and “tribe” synonymous terms. On this plan we may all be said to be

one tribe.583

10.5 The matter comes before the Native Affairs Committee

538. On receiving Alexander McDonald’s submission rejecting the findings of the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commissioners, the Native Minister referred the matter back to the

Native Affairs Committee; McDonald and Wīremu Te Wheoro were subsequently

called to present evidence. The former repeated his conviction that the Commission’s

findings were “directly contrary to the tenor of the evidence” put before it. In essence,

he was able to verbally put before the Select Committee that which he had already

addressed to the Native Minister in writing.

539. He acknowledged that the Pukekura and Puahue blocks were currently leased

to E.B. Walker, but that the lessee was unable to take active possession of the land

because of the opposition of persons other than those that he represented. He thought

that if Ngāti Kauwhata were restored to their rights, they would be glad to come to

some arrangement with Walker.584

He was adamant that Ngāti Kauwhata was distinct

from Ngāti Raukawa, and that what they sought was the return of the land to

customary tenure and a reinvestigation of the titles.

540. But the Committee was concerned about other matters; it questioned

McDonald about whether Ngāti Kauwhata were represented at the original hearing, the

reasons for the non-appearance of Tawhiao, Rewi and the sons of Tamihana and

McDonald’s alleged attacks on the Crown grants. Dr Terry Hearn states:

Indeed, the Committee seem[ed] more transfixed by the possibility that

McDonald was presenting hearsay evidence and that he was intent on

subverting legal titles or having the existing titles to Pukekura and Puahue

revoked than it was upon the circumstances surrounding the original title

hearing. It was also more concerned about the fate of the lessees should the

Crown grants be revoked than in that of the Ngati Kauwhata claimants. By

way of response, McDonald insisted that it was not ‘quite right to say they did


Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B, p. 2.

584 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa

rohe, 1865-1871”, 2008, p. 196; citing: Archives New Zealand, Wellington Le 1 1881/5.


March 2013

237

not recognise the Court,’ although he conceded that they did regard the Court

as ‘simply another method of confiscating their land.’ He refuted any

suggestion that he had attacked the Crown grants, and claimed that the 1877

Native Affairs Committee had been in error when it reported that, since the

land had been alienated to Pakeha, the original owners could not expect to

have the land restored to them. The land may have been leased, he

acknowledged, but not an acre had been sold. He denied all knowledge of what

the Committee asserted had been the decision of the Native Land Court that all

members of Ngati Kauwhata and cognate iwi who left the Waikato prior to

1840 had ceased to have any rights in the lands: in his view the Court had

decided that the claims of those based on residency overruled any based [o]n

ancestry and that where a resident did not deny the claim of an absent relative

the Court would not then exclude that relative. While there had been no major

or sustained return of Ngati Kauwhata from Kapiti following the 1828 heke,

McDonald insisted that that Ngati Kauwhata had never completely left the

Waikato.585

541. In his evidence, Wīremu Te Wheoro told the Committee that many members

of Ngāti Hauā had purposely stayed away from Court in 1868, an issue he had raised

in Court at the time, and again in the aftermath of Sullivan’s murder. He was unsure

about Ngāti Kauwhata’s ancestral rights, but said that “…if they went away without

having been forced to do so, if they went away of their own accord, their claim still

exists in consequence of the invitation.”586

He also changed his earlier evidence about

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa; whereas he had previously seen no distinction

between them, he now acknowledged that the conquest he had referred to over Ngāti

Raukawa did not involve Ngāti Kauwhata.587

542. Having heard the evidence of McDonald and Te Wheoro, the Native Affairs

Committee released its decision on 2 August 1881:

1) That the Committee has heard the statement and evidence of Mr

Alexander McDonald, who appeared for the Native claimants before

the [Ngatikauwhata] Commission, and has also considered the papers

referred to it.

585 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the Raukawa

rohe, 1865-1871”, 2008, p. 197; citing: Archives New Zealand, Wellington Le 1 1881/5.

586 See: Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in the

Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”, 2008, p. 197-198; citing: Archives New Zealand, Wellington Le 1 1881/5.

587 Presumably, Te Wheoro is referring to the series of battles that culminated in the siege of Hangahanga Pā.

According to the traditions, Ngāti Kauwhata were present at Hangahanga, escaping with Raukawa through the

ruse of Te Akanui, and afterwards were party to the peace-making arranged by Tūkōrehu. The alteration of Te

Wheoro’s evidence may be an acknowledgement that the conflict was primarily between his forebears and

Raukawa (Ngāti Whakatere), rather than with Ngāti Kauwhata.


March 2013

238

2) That there is no necessity for disturbing the decision set forth in the

Commissioners’ report; and Mr McDonald himself readily admits the

accuracy of the printed evidence attached to the Commissioners’

report.

3) The question is not one affecting the public interest, and from Mr

McDonald’s own evidence it appears that any question which may be

in existence as amongst the Natives themselves is capable of being

finally and satisfactorily settled by them. Mr McDonald states

confidently that there would be no difficulty in obtaining the consent of

the grantees to recognising any equitable or other claim which the

petitioners may have against the grantees.

There is, therefore, no reason why the public should be put at the expense

of a further and unnecessary inquiry.588

543. While this disposed of the matter as far as the Government was concerned, it

set of another round of protests by those who had lost their lands as a result of these

processes.

10.6 Analysis of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission’s Report

10.6.1 General comments

544. The timing of the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission and the circumstances in

which it was held were politically volatile, on account of the location of the lands

under review and the year the inquiry was held. In 1881, the year of Parihaka, there

was little appetite amongst colonial officials for allowing Māori any concessions.589

The land under investigation was just beyond the confiscation line and the King’s

aukati, the same locality where Sullivan was killed; it had been repeatedly subject to

Māori occupations and protests. Both Crown officials and the Commissioners may

588 Native Affairs Committee, “Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission”, 2 August, 1881, AJHR, 1881, I.–2, p. 11.

589 For example, Cathy Marr, writing on the development of the Crown’s Public Works policies, contends that

public works legislation became more Draconian in the late-1870s and especially in the 1880s, as the

Government assumed that Māori resistance was no longer a serious threat. When John Bryce became Native

Minister, she argues, the Government introduced much more aggressive policies aimed at forcing Māori

submission. See Marr, Cathy, “Public Works Takings of Māori Land, 1840-1981”, Rangahaua Whanui Series

National Theme G, Waitangi Tribunal, First Release, 1997, pp. 105-106.


March 2013

239

have seen acknowledging Ngāti Kauwhata entitlement as simply amplifying an already

charged situation, quite apart from throwing a raft of land titles into chaos.

545. It was not acknowledged by the Commissioners or the Native Affairs

Committee, but allowing the Ngāti Kauwhata claims had the potential of triggering an

avalanche of similar appeals, if displaced hapū and iwi throughout the country also

sought to have their former estates returned to them. Whatever the merit of the Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi claims, the forces lined up against them suggest it

was always unlikely they would succeed. The momentum of the Native Land Court

process was towards simplifying customary rights and pushing claimants towards

identifying under single hapū or iwi, abandoning the multiple affiliations that

characterised the old system.

546. Even from the distance of more than 130 years, the evidence in favour of the

Ngāti Kauwhata claims is compelling. McDonald’s arguments are convincing and

substantially supported by the evidence; as he said, not just from the petitioners, but

from other witnesses as well, whether appearing as neutrals or for the Crown. It is

important to note that the Commissioners addressed the petitioners as ‘Ngatikauwhata’

in the pānui at the commencement of proceedings. They would later conclude that

Ngāti Kauwhata was a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa, that their histories were virtually

interchangeable and that the name change was calculated to avoid charges that the

petitioners had indeed been represented at the Native Land Court hearings of 1868

(where a section of Raukawa was represented by Parakaia Te Pouepa, who withdrew

claims to Pukekura and Maungatautari). This important issue is discussed further

below.

10.6.2 Ngāti Kauwhata: distinct from, or a hapū of Raukawa?

547. It is signalled early in this report (section 3.2.1) that Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Raukawa are distinct iwi and assertions that the former is a hapū of the latter are

not supported by the evidence, notwithstanding their frequent airing. However, the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commission’s conviction to the contrary has been so influential that

the Commissioners’ arguments must be addressed in detail. The Commission was

clearly swayed by the evidence of Pākehā witnesses, John Wilson (a former Land

Court Judge) and Charles Marshall (an early settler and District Officer at Kāwhia),


March 2013

240

who both said they had never heard of Ngāti Kauwhata prior to the Commission being

set up. A small minority of tangata whenua witnesses made similar comments;

however, the majority of claimants, irrespective of their tribal affiliation, cited

Kauwhata as their ancestral association with the Maungatautari district, and the

Pukekura and Puahue blocks in particular.

548. In support of its argument, the Commissioners contended that the original

petitions from the ‘Kapiti’ migrants and their descendants were sent in by the same

petitioners who, in those petitions, signed themselves as Raukawa. It must be said that

in conducting research for this report, the original petitions have not been sighted. It is

entirely possible therefore that not all petitions relating to Maungatautari lodged prior

to 1881 have been investigated. Presumably, leaders of Raukawa petitioned Parliament

on their own account regarding their ancestral rights to the Maungatautari lands

between 1868 and 1881, although few such petitions have come to light.

549. Given those disclaimers, evidence that Ngāti Kauwhata was dealt with by the

Crown as a separate iwi from Raukawa prior to the passing of the Maungatautari

blocks through the Native Land Court is presented in the following examples:

In April 1864, Tapa Te Whata, Aterea Te Toko, Haratura Turanga, Retemana

Te Hopoki and Nepia Maukiungutu are listed as members of Ngāti Kauwhata

from Manawatū and Rangitikei who have surrendered arms to the Crown.

Others from Ngāti Raukawa who have done the same are listed as a distinct

tribe.590

On 23 September 1865, Tapa Te Whata wrote to Superintendent Featherston

to say that he has heard an earlier letter to Featherston from Ihakara

concerning disputed Rangitikei lands, and that he agrees with Ihakara’s letter.

The original Māori text is not given in the AJHR, but in the translation Te

Whata signs his letter: “From your friend Tapa Te Whata, Chief of

Ngatikauwhata, Oroua”.591

On 13 June 1866, Te Kooro Te One and ten other signatories wrote to

Governor Grey saying that they objected to Tapa Te Whata and Hoani

590 “Return of Arms Surrendered by Natives”, AJHR 1864, E-No. 6, p. 13.

591 Tapa Te Whata to Dr Featherston, 23 September 1865, contained in “Papers Relative to the Rangitikei Land

Dispute”, Enclosure 1 No. 1, AJHR 1865, E-No. 2, p. 4.


March 2013

241

Meihana selling land between Rangitikei and Ōroua. They signed their letter

“Na matou na nga tangata o Ngatikauwhata, o Ngatiwehiwehi” (“From us,

from the people of Ngāti Kauwhata [and] of Ngāti Wehiwehi”) and, following

the list of signatories, added “Na te iwi katoa”.592

One month later Te Kooro and 12 others again wrote to Grey, reiterating their

unwillingness to part with the land in question, and signing their letter “Na

Matau, Na Ngatikauwhata, Na Ngatiwehiwehi”.593

On 29 July 1867, 73 members of Ngāti Kauwhata writing from Ōroua,

Manawatū, petitioned parliament asking that obstructions excluding the

country lying between Ōroua and Rangitikei from the operations of the Native

Lands Act be removed and the Native Land Court be given jurisdiction over

their lands.594

While the AJHR does not identify the 73 signatories, the

petition is headed: “Ko nga ingoa o nga tangata Ko nga ingoa o nga tangata o

to matou hapu o Ngatikauwhata, ka tuhia ki raro iho nei” (The names of the

persons of our hapu of Ngāti Kauwhata are signed here below). The AJHR

has interpreted this as identifying Ngāti Kauwhata as a hapū; the item is

headed in the AJHR schedule as “Petition of the Ngatikauwhata Hapu”, and

the above is translated as saying: “We here subscribe the names of the

members of our hapu, the Ngatikauwhata”.595

However, this translation may

be misleading, as Nat Green comments:

While the discrepancy is a subtle one, the AJHR translation is

incorrect. “Ko nga ingoa o nga tangata o to matou hapu o

Ngatikauwhata” literally indicates that the signatories are

identifying themselves as belonging to hapū from within the larger

collective of Ngāti Kauwhata, rather than suggesting that the latter

is a “subset” of any other group.596

592 Te Kooro Te One et al to Governor Grey, 13 June 1866, in “Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu

Block”, AJHR 1866, A-No. 4, pp. 30-31.

593 Te Kooro Te One et al to Governor Grey, 13 July 1866, in “Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu

Block”, AJHR 1866, A-No. 4, pp. 31-32.

594 Petition No. 14, “Ki te Runanga Nui o Niu Tirani”, 29 July 1867, in AJHR 1867, G-No. 1, p. 13.

595 Petition No. 14, “Ki te Runanga Nui o Niu Tirani”, 29 July 1867, in AJHR 1867, G-No. 1, p. 13.

596 Nat Green, Pers. Comm., by email, 30 January 2013.


March 2013

242

Following an Order of the House of the Representatives dated 4 August 1869,

Native Department officers compiled a “Return giving the Names, Etc., of the

Tribes of the North Island”. For the Rangitikei and Manawatū area, the

“Native Census” indicated 210 members of Ngāti Kauwhata living on the

Ōroua River, led by Tapa Te Whata, Reupena, and Te Kooro Te One.597

On 21 December 1870, Tapa Te Whata and four others wrote to the Native

and Defence Minister, Donald McLean concerning matters at Pirongia in the

Waikato, indicating they were representing all of Ngāti Kauwhata.598

550. Against this, in August 1874, Hōri Pūao wrote to McLean concerning a

proposal to remove restrictions on alienation from the Pukekura block, stating: “I and

the tribe do not consent, if it is removed we and the tribe will suffer we wish it to

remain as permanent land for us.”599

According the Terry Hearn, Hōri Pūao indicated

that he was representing Raukawa, contrary to his statements to the 1868 Court

hearing, when he claimed Pukekura on the basis of his descent from Kauwhata. On the

other hand, in the Puahue case, Pūao claimed on the basis of his affiliation to Ngāti

Hauā and Ngāti Kahukura. If, some six years later, Pūao identified himself as

representing Raukawa it could be construed that Ngāti Kauwhata was part of

Raukawa, as the Commissioners appear to have done.600

551. However, there is ample evidence that Ngāti Kauwhata acted independently of

Raukawa in most political matters and particularly in their interactions with the

Government over the Maungatautari lands. This was accentuated by the voluminous

evidence presented by numerous witnesses in the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission,

including Rewi Maniapoto, the descendants of Wīremu Tamihana, and various others

who were adamant that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa were distinct tribes.

597 “Return giving the Names, Etc., of the Tribes of the North Island”, AJHR 1870, A-No. 11, p. 9.

598 Tapa Te Whata and others to McLean, 21 Tihema 1870, Inward letters in Maori, MS-Papers-0032-0694G,

McLean Papers, MS-Group-1551, ATL.

599 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 190; citing: Hori Puao and others, Maungatautari, to

Defence Minister, 4 August 1874, in MA 13, 67, ANZW.

600 I have not personally sighted the original document quoted by Dr Hearn.


March 2013

243

552. The petition sent in 1877, which finally won the petitioners an inquiry, makes

no mention of either Ngāti Kauwhata or Ngāti Raukawa; the report in the AJHR

simply refers to “Tapa Te Whata and others”.601

553. Finally, the Commission describes the Tapa Te Whata claim as both ‘tribal’

and brought by 142 individuals, which, while it may simply reflect the Crown’s

determination to individualise Māori customary title, it also implicitly rejects what a

tribal title stands for in terms of tino rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga and the self-

determination of the collective, rather than of a collection of individuals. Given that

the Native Land Court and the Commission were set up to extinguish customary title

(that is tribal title), it is a tragic irony that the decisions made by these bodies in the

nineteenth century have been so influential in determining Māori tribal identities into

the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

601 John Bryce, Chairman, “Report on Petition of Tapa Te Whata and Others (No. 2)”, 17 August 1877, AJHR

1877, I-3, p. 7


March 2013

244

11 Further Protests and Hearings, 1880s-1900s

11.1 Introduction

554. This chapter briefly reviews Dr Terry Hearn’s coverage of the various

responses by unsuccessful claimants in the aftermath of the Ngāti Kauwhata

Commission. Though the Commission had summarily dismissed their claims, some

members of Ngāti Kauwhata who resided in the district took matters into their own

hands and occupied their ancestral lands in defiance of the Commission’s findings, a

situation that led to a series of Supreme Court cases. Meanwhile, Ngāti Kauwhata

continued to assert their rights to their Waikato lands through lobbying by Alexander

McDonald.

555. By this time, other forces were at work, with the opening up of Te Rohe Pōtae

looming, and the emergence of a raft of new claimants who had previously excluded

themselves. Although not represented in Te Rohe Pōtae hearings, the take advanced in

the earlier proceedings by Ngāti Kauwhata were still ‘on the table’, and received yet

another airing in the context of the lands farther south.

556. The chapter closes with an account of the series of petitions seeking a review

of the Maungatautari decision that Ngāti Raukawa (primarily) embarked upon through

the 1880-1890s and into the early twentieth century.


March 2013

245

11.2 Ngāti Kauwhata continue to press their claims

557. In October 1881, with the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission wrapped up and all

avenues of appeal for the unsuccessful claimants apparently exhausted, the Waikato

Times reported negotiations between the lessees (Maclean, Fergusson and Walker and

Grice) and the leaders of the Kīngitanga, including Tawhiao, had concluded

satisfactorily.602

The following month it was reported that Pukekura and Puahue “had

been formally occupied by the rightful owners” (Messrs Walker and Grice).603

However, Pākehā optimism proved premature, as the newspaper also reported that

some 12 Māori under Tapa Te Whata had occupied the blocks. Major William Mair,

who had represented the Crown in the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission, was keeping an

eye on the situation and reporting back to the Native Department. On 21 November

1881, he informed the Native Minister that “Walker, Grace and Parker, accompanied

by some 30 men, had entered into possession of Puahue. What he termed ‘a good deal

of hand to hand scuffling’ ensued.” Hearn observes that similar altercations had

occurred regularly since 1874, the year after Sullivan was killed.604

558. Following these fracas, Alexander McDonald wrote to the Native Minister

suggesting that accommodating the claims of his clients might very easily and

satisfactorily settle the disputes. He added:

… I will be quite willing to withdraw the special Ngatikauwhata claim

provided the 10 grantees in each case (Pukekura and Puahoe) are declared

trustees only, and not absolute owners in fee simple to the exclusion of their

tribes and families … it is contrary to common sense and reason that these sets

of 10 obscure men and women should be the sole and absolute owners of these

historical lands – and therefore that there can be no injustice in declaring them

trustees only.605

602 Waikato Times, 22 October 1881; cited in Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 198.

603 Waikato Times, 15 November 1881; cited in Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 198.

604 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 198; citing: W. Mair to Native Minister, 21

November 1881, MA 13, 7, ANZW. NB: There may be some confusion about the two Pākehā named ‘Grice’

and ‘Grace’. They are two different people. James Grice was a speculator/land owner, who along with his

partner E.B. Walker was the lessee in the Pukekura block. W.H. Grace was an agent who worked for Grice.

605 A. McDonald to W. Rolleston, 20 November 1881, in MA 13, 67, ANZW.


March 2013

246

559. Rolleston had been recently replaced as Native Minister by Bryce, who

strongly objected to the thrust of McDonald’s proposals – that the existing Crown

grants should be cancelled by Act of Parliament. In his minute to the under-secretary

he alluded to proposed legislation that would enable the Court to reinvestigate those

blocks originally awarded under the 10 owner rule and allow more owners to be

included, which would address the issues McDonald was complaining of.606

560. In February 1882, this very issue was again raised with respect to Pukekura,

when Hori Ohomairangi and 328 others petitioned Parliament complaining that:

…[our] land and homes … [had] been taken from us by its being awarded to

no more than ten persons in each case. Most of us were not aware that our land

gone to such individuals, nor did we know that we had been deprived of our

lands and homes.607

561. The Native Affairs Committee subsequently recommended against any lifting

of restrictions against alienation and that the government “…should seriously consider

the possibility of bringing forward a measure to deal with cases in which a limited

number of grantees are now able to sell lands in which the tribes to which they belong

have an equitable interest.”608

Such legislation was eventually passed as the “Native

Equitable Owners Act, 1886”, some four and a half years after Bryce proposed it as a

solution to the disputes embroiling Pukekura, Puahue and Maungatautari.609

562. Also in February 1882, Native Minister Bryce met Rewi Maniapoto at

Kihikihi, along with local Pākehā lessees Walker, Grice, Fergusson and others. Rewi

told them:

He had advised the European buyers of the Horahora, Maungatautari,

Pukekura, and Puahue blocks to occupy their lands and advised Tawhiao not to

heed those natives who opposed occupation. Had he had his own way the

difficulty would have been settled long ago. These natives alienated their land,

606 Native Minister to Under Secretary, Native Department 30 December 1881, in MA 13, 67, ANZW.

607 Petition of Hōri Ohomairangi and 328 others, in MA 13, 67, ANZW; cited in: Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land,

and the Crown”, 2008, p. 200.

608 Native Affairs Committee Report on “Petition of Hōri Ohomairangi and 328 others”, June 1882, AJHR

1882, I.–2, p. 3.

609 50 V. No. 16.


March 2013

247

and now wanted to sell his. He complained of the conduct of a man named

Alexander McDonald, who had aided these natives.610

563. For his part, McDonald was keeping up the pressure on the Government. In

July 1882, when it emerged that Grice was about to sue the Māori occupying Pukekura

for trespass, McDonald suggested to the Native Minister that, as the origins of its

difficulties lay in the Crown’s actions in 1868, the Crown should provide financial

assistance to Ngāti Kauwhata. Predictably, this was rejected.

564. Apart from pursuing legal avenues, the settlers were not above employing

some highly dubious practices, as the stand-off at Pukekura and Puahue became even

more bitter. Hearn explains:

In August 1882, Tapa Te Whata informed McDonald that in July Walker laid

poison close to dwellings and a few weeks later, on 23rd August, had set fire to

five whare at Mangapiko, but, he insisted, ‘if all my houses are burnt I will not

move from this place, because he acted on his own responsibility and not

legally.’ On the other hand, in September 1882, Grice insisted that he and his

colleagues were still in possession and cultivating Puahue, that all the grantees

had signed the lease, and that those squatting on the land were not and never

had been owners. Dr Buller agreed to defend any action for trespass: his view

was that Tapa Te Whata had a good case, that is, that the land was never in the

possession of the European claimants and that Tapa Te Whata was in

possession together with and by the direct invitation and authority of the

grantees whom he found in sole possession.’ The Waikato Times reported that

the Maori ‘squatters’ were acting on the advice of Alexander Macdonald,

‘otherwise known as the white chief of Ngatikauwhata …’ Their argument was

that the land had not been leased from them the proper grantees, and for that

reason had ignored successive requests by Walker to decamp from Mangapiko

on the Pukekura block.

Grice and Benn then took matters into their own hands: on 17th November

1882, with a group of men, they demolished fences around the cultivations,

turned cattle on to the crops, and burned some 12 whare (leaving one for the

shelter of women, children, and old men on what was described as an

‘inclement’ day). A summons was promptly issued against E.B. Walker, John

Grice, W.H. Grace, and A.B. Stubbing for assault on the person of Mere

Whakatutu, and they were ordered to appear in the Cambridge Magistrate’s

Court. In all 25 summonses were issued. It is of interest to note that R.D.H.

Fergusson and two other Justices of the Peace appeared on the bench along

with the Resident Magistrate H.W. Northcroft, although it also appears that

Maclean was present: the suggestion was made that Fergusson and Maclean

should retire from the bench given that they had been ‘engaged with natives on

610 Waikato Times, 25 February 1882; cited in Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 200.


March 2013

248

an adjoining block’ and had employed force to eject Maori. The suggestion

was rejected.611

565. The personnel of the Court appeared to give the Pākehā defendants a

considerable advantage; nevertheless, the Magistrate decided there was a case to

answer, as the Māori occupants had been in occupation for so long that they had

acquired rights thereby, and the settlers were not entitled to physically eject them. He

ordered that they be sent for trial in the Supreme Court; however, it emerged that one

of the plaintiffs was shown to have presented false testimony leading to a charge of

perjury being brought. Deals were struck and charges on both sides were withdrawn,

apart from a lesser charge against the settlers of forcible entry.

566. Despite the destruction of their whare, the Māori claiming enduring rights in

Pukekura and Puahue were not to be deterred and within a short while re-occupied the

blocks. The contemporary accounts do not dwell on their tribal identity, but the

involvement of Tapa Te Whata and McDonald, as well as other individuals who were

noted as belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata in the various hearings, makes it clear that it

was indeed Ngāti Kauwhata who were leading this very confrontational protest against

the usurpation of their ancestral rights.

567. Terry Hearn presents a detailed account of the series of legal actions in the

Supreme Court where these rights were tested. The first of these took place in April

1883, when E.B. Walker and 18 others defended a charge of forcible entry, the

indictment for which read:

That they did, on the 17th November 1882, in company with divers other

persons, with force, being armed with guns, axes, hatchets, spades, shovels,

and other offensive weapons, enter the plantation of the prosecutor, Hori Pano

[sic – Pūao], with appurtenances thereon forming part of the block of land

known as Pukekura unlawfully, violently, injuriously … and did dispossess the

prosecutor, and do still keep the prosecutor out of possession.612

611 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 201-202. NB: Dr Hearn miss-spells Tapa Te Whata

as ‘Tapa Te Whatea’, which I have corrected in this section of direct quotations – it is not in dispute that this is

indeed, Tapa Te Whata, the chief of Ngāti Kauwhata.

612 Report in New Zealand Herald, 10 April 1883; cited in Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008,

p. 203.


March 2013

249

568. After consultation with counsel, Walker agreed to plead guilty provided all

other defendants were discharged, on the grounds that they were acting as his servants.

The Supreme Court, apparently in an attempt to get the parties to settle, bound Walker

over on a £500 bond until the next sitting of the Court, when, if it could be shown that

“the natives have been settled with, the fine will be nominal or such was will vindicate

public justice.”613

569. Also in April 1883, applications for the partitioning of Pukekura, Puahue and

Maungatautari came before the Court; Hearn suggests this was a ploy to have the

restrictions against alienation removed, as was now possible under the Native Land

Division Act 1882. Hearn continues:

In July 1883 E.B. Walker issued a writ of ejectment on those Maori still

occupying Pukekura and Puahue. The case was Grice, Benn and others v

Annie Waata and others, and was brought in an effort to recover possession of

two sections of land (of one and two acres respectively) forming part of the

Pukekura block upon which the defendants had ‘unlawfully entered.’ The case

was heard in the Supreme Court in October 1883: the plaintiffs claimed £25

for mesne profits on account of the occupation of one section, and £75 on

account of the occupation of the other. The defendants claimed that original

deed had not been signed by a majority of the natives in value; that the deed of

confirmation had not been executed by the nine who signed the original deed;

that the lease provided that the lessors should not sell without notice to the

other grantees; that the ten grantees were trustees for others; that conveyances

had been made which were never under the control of the defendants; that the

plaintiffs had refused and neglected to pay rent; and that that the defendants

did not re-enter the land as alleged.

With respect to both unlawful occupation and trespass the Court ruled in

favour of the plaintiffs, and, with respect to the latter, awarded damages of

£250. In the action for trespass on Puahue, the same parties were awarded

damages of £150. Thus ended, it was hoped, what the Waikato Times called

‘the celebrated Pukekura ejectment case, Grice and Benn having defeated their

Ngati Kauwhata opponents.’ Nevertheless, the journal acknowledged that

‘Obstinate as the Maoris proverbially are, it was evident that there was

something behind their own wrongheadedness which urged them on to resist

the clearly defined rights of Messrs Grice and Benn.’ What that might have

613 Report in New Zealand Herald (Auckland) 10 April 1883; cited in Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the

Crown”, 2008, p. 203.


March 2013

250

been, the journal did not venture to suggest. An appeal in the case of Pukekura

failed.614

570. In February 1884, the Sheriff of Auckland, one Major Green, took a surveyor

and two mounted constables to Pukekura to put into effect the judgment of the

Supreme Court, as Hearn reports:

Some 76 horses belonging to Maori were seized, together with other property,

all to be sold in satisfaction of the damages awarded by the Supreme Court to

Walker. Green informed those Maori still on the land that he would destroy

their whare. In April 1884 the Waikato Times reported that an effort was being

made to resolve the dispute without further recourse to the courts, the Native

owners meeting McDonald and Walker and Grice at Maungatautari. The

journal expressed doubt that any satisfactory arrangement would be reached

although, it suggested, Walker’s offer was ‘a very favourable one.’615

571. A few weeks later it was reported that Major Green had attempted to seize a

horse belonging to Kauwhata (i.e. an individual of that name who also happened to

belong to Ngāti Kauwhata), on account of the Pukekura and Puahoe land dispute.616

At

the time, the horse was in the possession of a boy named Renau Kerewai, who was

assisted in the ensuing altercation by Ranginuia and Onepu Tairi; these two women

apparently devoted themselves with considerable zeal ‘to the annihilation of Her

Majesty’s representative …’ Kauwhata’s legal counsel, Major Hay, also became

involved, with Green describing Hay as ‘the representative of the devil …’ For his

part, Hay ‘repudiated the connection, and thought Major Green knew more about that

popular enemy than he did.’ Hearn notes that while a sergeant of the Armed

Constabulary was called upon to render Green assistance, he claimed that he was

forbidden to do so by ‘direct instructions from Wellington’.617

572. A subsequent article in the Waikato Times provides further context; it states:

The natives, whose whares on the Pukekura block were destroyed by Mr E. B.

Walker, still continue to squat on the land, and are now quartered in tents.


615 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 205; citing: New Zealand Times, 15 February 1884;

Waikato Times, 17 April 1884.

616 “A New Maori War”, Auckland Star, 31 May 1884, p. 5; & Waikato Times, 31 May 1884, p. 2.

617 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 205; citing: Waikato Times, 31 May 1884, p. 2.


March 2013

251

While engaged carting off some potatoes the property of the natives, they were

interrupted by some of the women, who pulled the bags and kits off the

sledges, and ripping them open, scattered the potatoes all over the ground. The

natives had previously had them covered in in pits [sic]. In order to further

impede the operations of Messrs Walker and Grice, the natives broke down the

bridge over the Mangapiko near Rotorangi. Proceedings have been instituted

against three natives, named respectively, Kauwhata, Hanita, and Maka, who

are believed to have committed the offence. The lessees will yet, it appears,

have a little more difficulty than they have already experienced in clearing the

natives off the disputed property.618

573. The sheriff subsequently brought a case against the women and the boy,

alleging they had interfered in the execution of his duty, and the case was set down to

be heard in the Supreme Court. On 17 June, the case was adjourned for eight days,

with the two women obliged to post bail of £25.619

Newspaper coverage also continued

about the destruction of the Mangapiko Bridge between the Pukekura and Puahue

blocks.620

In the course of the hearing it emerged that the bridge was originally built by

the Māori owners; Walker claimed it as the new owner of the land, though in fact he

was merely leasing the block from the actual owners, Messrs Grice and Benn. Counsel

for Kauwhata, Hanita and Maki argued that as they were acting “in the bona fide

assertion of their right”, they could not be seen as committing a crime. The Court was

convinced by this argument and discharged the three men.621

574. About this time, it emerged that Grice and Benn had succeeded in having new

titles created for Pukekura and Puahue by the Native Land Court with a reduced cohort

of owners, with whom they had entered into new leases that would convert to sales

once the restrictions against alienation were lifted. It is a complex matter that is well-

covered by Dr Hearn;622

as Grice and Benn’s attempts to obtain new titles for

Pukekura and Puahue were subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court, no further

mention is made of them here. Suffice it to note Dr Hearn’s conclusions to the chapter,

in which he comments on the difficulty the owners had in sustaining claims to these

blocks; the difficulties that the application of the 10-owner rule posed for the rightful

618 Waikato Times, 5 June 1884, p. 2.

619 Waikato Times, 10 June 1884, p. 2; & 17 June 1884, p. 3.

620 New Zealand Herald, 12 July 1884, p. 5; Waikato Times, 12 July 1884, p. 2; 15 July 1884, p. 3.

621 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 205-206; citing: Waikato Times, 15 July 1884.



March 2013

252

owners; the manner in which the 10-owner rule could be manipulated to include or

exclude particular claimants, the heavy costs Māori bore in defending their claims to

land, and the extraordinary persistence with which they pursued those claims.

11.3 The Maungatautari and Wharepūhunga Cases, 1884, 1886

11.3.1 The Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 1884

575. There may be some confusion as to whether this block is the same as that

investigated in 1868 (as Maungatautari), and again by the Ngāti Kauwhata

Commission in 1881. However, this does not appear to be the case; the Maungatautari

block investigated by the Native Land Court in 1868 and by the Ngāti Kauwhata

Commission in 1881 comprised Maungatautari Nos 1 & 2 (ML Plans 2279 & 2280).

They constituted but a fraction of the greater Maungatautari block, occupying a

corridor on the northern side of the mountain between the Pukekura block to the west

and the Horahora block to the east, the Waikato River forming their northern

boundary.

576. Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (or Manukatutahi Otautahanga) was the name of

the claim lodged by Rewi Maniapoto to the uninvestigated lands lying between Puahue

and Pukekura, eastwards to the Waikato River. As the land included Maungatautari

Maunga, the latter became the de facto name for the block. Hearn notes that the

hearings were held at Kihikihi, which suited Rewi, despite Te Ngakau, the King’s

representative expressing a preference for them to be held at Cambridge.623

577. The case commenced in April 1884 before Judge Puckey, assisted by Assessor

Waata Tipa, with Chief Judge J.E. MacDonald playing a secondary part. The block

comprised 49,450 acres, as described on Plan ML 5469.624

The claim of Rewi

Maniapoto and others was conducted by Hare Teimana (Harry Simmonds), with Ngata

623 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 218-219; citing: Waikato Times, 10 & 22 March

1883. See: Waikato MB 12, pp. 134-136. The Court opened at Cambridge on 9 April before removing to

Kihikihi, where after a series of adjournments, it finally got underway on 28 April 1884.

624 A digital copy of this plan is available on “Quickmap”, but it is in very poor condition, unfortunately.

Nonetheless, it does record the names of settlements referred to in the Court minutes and remains a very

valuable document.


March 2013

253

‘Paiwaka’ (or, Paewaka) setting out the claim, which, he said was based on ancestry

from Raukawa and occupation down to the present time.625

He added that part of the

block belonged to Ngāti Kapu, Ngāti Korokī and Ngāti Kauwhata. He also admitted as

counter-claimants: “Ngati Paretekawa, Te Wherokoko, Pare Te Uaki, Ngati Ngaingi,

Ngati Koura, Ngati Parehaihaihora of Ngati Kauwhata, Ngati Ruru, Ngati Takihiku,

Ngati Apakura and Ngati Rangimahora, and the various hapus of Raukawa.”626

578. Tumanako was called to provide a whakapapa showing the descent lines from

Raukawa to the claimant, Rewi Maniapoto. The resulting chart showed that Rewi

descended through the prominent tūpuna Hae and Kapu, the sons of the union of

Huitao and Hinetore. While Huitao was of the Ngāti Takihiku hapū of Raukawa, being

the son of Tamatehura, his wife, Hinetore, was Kauwhata’s granddaughter through

Hinepare. It will be recalled that Hae too married a descendant of Kauwhata and Wehi

Wehi in Tūtete’s daughter Parekārewa. Thus, Rewi belonged to both the Ngāti

Hinepare and Ngāti Wehi Wehi hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata. Tumanako’s whakapapa did

not show these Ngāti Kauwhata connections, but Paiwaka acknowledged Ngāti

Kauwhata rights on their own, as well as numerous hapū with Ngāti Kauwhata

connections as counter-claimants. The ‘unspoken’ part of Tumanako’s whakapapa

indicates that despite previous rulings of the Courts and Commission, claimants in the

Maungatautari lands continued to cite Kauwhata as an ancestral right.

579. Summing up the claims, Hearn writes:

Rewi claimed the block primarily on the grounds of conquest and occupation.

He also cited the conclusion of peace with and a formal handing over of the

block after Hangahanga to Waikato, and the return of the land to ‘the whole of

the Ngati Raukawa Tribe.’ The Chief Judge of the Native Land Court later

noted that it was ‘also alleged in support of this theory that Ngatiraukawa went

in peace to Kapiti and other places, after formally handing over their land to

the guardianship of … [Te Wherowhero, Te Paewaka, Haunui, and Porokuru]

…’ With the encouragement of the Court, the thirty counter-claims were

‘coalesced’ into seven, namely, Ngati Kauwhata and Matau who claimed their

ancestral title had never been destroyed, while also acknowledging that

Raukawa had a claim; Ngati Koroki who claimed to have expelled Raukawa

and to have defeated Marutuahu (Ngati Maru) at Taumatawiwi; Ngati Koura

who claimed on the same grounds as Ngati Koroki; Ngati Koura, Ngati

625 Evidence of Ngata Paiwaka, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 28 April 1884,


626 Evidence of Ngata Paiwaka, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 28 April 1884,



March 2013

254

Parehaehaeroa, and Raukawa who claimed on the basis of continuous

occupation from before Taumatawiwi; Ngati Apakura and Ngati Hinetu on the

basis of the conquest of Raukawa in a series of battles which began with

Waipatato and concluded with Arukoata and having forced Raukawa to flee to

Kapiti; Ngati Hauā and Ngati Hourua who claimed to have expelled

Marutuahu as a consequence of the Battle of Taumatawiwi.627

580. Hōri Wirihana presented the Ngāti Kauwhata case, which was joined with that

of Ngāti Matau, commencing his evidence on the morning of 29 April 1884. He traced

his descent from Kauwhata, as follows in Figure 22:

Figure 22: Whakapapa of Hōri Wirihana

Kauwhata

Hinepare

Whatumoana

Tupukiterangi

Puke

Kawe Ingariki

Te Kaka

Manikakunui (Ngāti Kahukura) = Pareanutaua

Kurunui (Matau) = Whakapau

Tohepakanga

Hakunui

Hori Wirihana628

581. Wirihana, who in 1868 claimed under Ngāti Hauā, told the Court that

Kauwhata owned the land before Ngāti Maru came; that Kauwhata was of the Tainui

waka; that he came to Maungatautari with his father and his brother and they settled

down at Hurumutu. He added that Raukawa’s father lived at Rangitoto “about 12 miles

from Maungatautari”, and he produced a whakapapa showing the relationship between

627 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 219; citing: Waikato MB 12, pp. 137-141.




March 2013

255

Kauwhata and Raukawa, demonstrating the fact they came from different lines from

the ancestor Tāwhao.629

582. Under cross-examination, by Ngāti Hauā, Wirihana acknowledged that

fighting had occurred between the descendants of Hauā and Kauwhata, though he did

not elaborate on it; he denied the rights of those Ngāti Raukawa who were not allied to

Kauwhata. Cross-examined by Swanson for Ngāti Apakura, Wirihana denied that

Ngāti Apakura had any rights to the land; he had heard from his father that “the

Wherokoko were descended from Kauwhata.”630

He added that Hangahanga was a pā

occupied by the descendants of Kauwhata; that Raukawa were attacked there by

Waikato about three generations back when his tipuna Whakapau was living at

Maungatautari. He said: “Ngāti Kauwhata did not leave this land on account of the

Waikatos having attacked the Raukawas, but they did so at the invitation of

Rauparaha.”631

583. In reply to Hakiriwhi, Hōri Wirihana stated:

I belong to Ng’ Matau, Ng’ Kauwhata and Ng’ Kahukura. The latter does not

belong to Ng’ Haua. These hapus lived at Huiterangiora and other places.

These tribes are not serfs. The chiefs are Pakeha of Ng’ Matau, Paora Te Paora

of Ng’ Matau, Toonga, chief of these three tribes, Tohepakanga also Te

Matanui of Ng’ Kauwhata. These chiefs were men of renown and famous in

battle.

At Taumatawiwi they especially distinguished themselves – also at

Huiterangiora. It is simply untrue that Te Waharoa was their principal chief.632

584. Examined by Wīremu Te Whitu, he admitted that Ngāti Hauā had some dead

buried on the land in question, and that both he and Wīremu had houses and

cultivations on the block. To Rangitutia, he stated that he could not give the

boundaries between the lands of Ngāti Matau, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Kahukura,



630 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 30 April, 1884,


631 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 30 April, 1884,


632 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 1 May 1884,



March 2013

256

though he said that Kauwhata had left “evidence of occupation on Maungatautari, a

post on which the head of Kotare was hung.”633

585. The next witness was ‘Warana’ (elsewhere, ‘Warena’) Te Ahukaramū, who

identified himself as belonging to ‘Werakoko’, Ngāti Pareteuaki, Ngāti Nainai, Ngāti

Paretekāwā, Ngāti Parehaehaeora, Ngāti Koura and Ngāti Ruru. Werakoko was the

hapū he belonged to as a descendant of Kauwhata. He then produced the whakapapa

showing his descent from Kauwhata, Wehi Wehi and the latter’s children, Tūtete and

Maniaihu.634

He states:

The descendants of Kauwhata lived at Maungatautari. They lived there from

previous to the Waikato War and up to this time. I know their dwelling places,

viz: Te Whānake, Herewhenua, Wekanui, Hurukahu, Mangaone,

Parakotukutuku, Aratitaha. All these places are on the plan before the Court. I

never heard any complaint from Ng’ Haua on account of their occupation. Ng’

Koroki made no objection either; neither did Ng’ Ka[h]ukura, nor the Ng’

Koura.635

586. Te Ahukaramū’s evidence detailed the whakapapa links between various hapū

affiliated to Kauwhata, from whom rights in the greater Maungatautari area derived.

He showed how all the principal chiefs of Waikato traced their descent from

Kauwhata, including Te Wherowhero, Peehi Tūkōrehu (his grandparent), and Te

Paewaka.636

587. Numerous other witnesses gave evidence citing Kauwhata as the take tūpuna

on the land under investigation. Some of these have been cited and quoted in earlier

chapters of this report. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, to review all of this

evidence, as it tells substantially the same story. When pressed, even the opponents of

Ngāti Kauwhata nominated Kauwhata as their ancestral right, though most of these

633 Evidence of Hōri Wirihana, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 2 May 1884,

Waikato MB 12, pp. 148-149. This is the second time Wirihana had mentioned Kōtare being ‘hung up’ at

Maungatautari (see Waikato MB 12, p. 143).

634 Evidence of Warana Te Ahukaramū, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) investigation, 2 May

1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 151. NB: This whakapapa is reproduced as Figure 8, above, with additions derived

from J.B.W. Roberton’s “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, Te Awamutu Historical Society, Bulletin

No. 2, Revised Edition, 1983, pp. 26 & 31.


1884, Waikato MB 12, p. 151.


1884, Waikato MB 12, pp. 152-155.


March 2013

257

witnesses argued that ancestral rights were trumped by claims made under take raupatu

following Taumatawīwī.

588. Terry Hearn sums up the Court’s approach to the case, once it had heard the

voluminous evidence:

The Court decided that it needed to answer three questions. First, did the

battles between Waikato and Raukawa and Kauwhata have any bearing on the

ownership of Maungatautari? The Court decided that they had not. The second

question was whether Marutuahu gained mana over the block? The Court ruled

that they had forced Raukawa to vacate the land and had themselves occupied

it. The third question was whether Ngati Haua gained mana over the land

following the Battle of Taumatawiwi: the Court found that Ngati Haua, Ngati

Koroki, and Ngati Hourua and their hapu had expelled Marutuahu and

occupied the land ever since. The Court thus found that all of the claims based

on ancestry had been extinguished by take raupatu. The Court thus proceeded

to uphold earlier decisions of the Court which held that Raukawa had forfeited

its rights by leaving the land and awarded the block to Ngāti Haua and Ngati

Koroki.637

589. The Court’s decision was virtually identical to those of the 1868 Court and the

Ngāti Kauwhata Commission; the two conquest theory was upheld as the definitive

pre-Treaty history of the Maungatautari district, though in this case it was Raukawa

who were conquered by Marutuāhu, with Marutuāhu conquered in turn by Ngāti Hauā.

Despite Kauwhata being nominated as the take tūpuna for Maungatautari by most

claimants, Ngāti Kauwhata did not figure in the Court’s assessment of customary

rights in the district; they were subsumed within Raukawa and judged to have suffered

their fate. By this decision, the Court once again avoided grappling with the

multiplicity of hapū rights that existed (judging by the claims lodged) prior to the

arrival in the district of the Marutuāhu refugees.

11.3.2 Te Rohe Pōtae investigation – Wharepūhunga, 1886, 1892

590. The Native Land Court investigation of Te Rohe Pōtae began in July 1886,

with Judge W.G. Mair presiding and Paratene Ngata as the assessor. The ‘Great Block’

included the large Wharepūhunga block, located directly south of the Maungatautari

block investigated two years earlier. The claimants consisted of ‘five tribes’: Ngāti

637 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 220; citing: Waikato Times, 6 September 1884.


March 2013

258

Hikairo, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Whanganui.638

They

were opposed by ‘Waikato’ represented by Te Ngakau and Te Wheoro, and by Ngāti

Hauā, who claimed a substantial part of the block from the Pūniu River, south to Lake

Taupō on the basis of conquest.639

Ngāti Kauwhata did not appear as claimants in Te

Rohe Pōtae investigation, although they were referred to in the testimony of various

witnesses, particularly in the context of the Court’s review of the Pukekura, Puahue

and Maungatautari titles.

591. It is beyond the scope of the present project to present anything but a glance at

the work of other authors on this broad and complex subject. Moreover, while Ngāti

Kauwhata do claim an ancestral interest in the north-eastern portion of the

Wharepūhunga block, it appears likely that it was not an exclusive interest, but shared

with neighbouring hapū and iwi (including hapū of Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti

Maniapoto). Ngāti Kauwhata rights in Wharepūhunga are asserted on the basis of their

rohe boundaries, which are defined at the south-western edge by the Pūniu River.

Thus, the north-eastern portion of Wharepūhunga, including the Ōwairaka Valley and

the settlements of Wharepapa (South) and Rotongata, lie north of the Pūniu River and

within the ancestral rohe of Ngāti Kauwhata.

592. According to Dr Hearn, Judge Mair summed up the case of the various parties,

as follows:

Judge Mair noted that essentially the counter-claimants argued that Marutuāhu

had established themselves at Maungatautari and taken possession of and

exercised mana over all the lands of Raukawa; that f[ol]lowing the Battle of

Taumatawiwi and the defeat of Marutuahu, Waikato took and occupied the

lands; that Ngati Whakatere were defeated at Huirimona, Tangimania,

Whakarekehoni, and Hangahanga and, like Raukawa, were forced to leave

their country which again was taken over by Waikato. In response the

claimants testified:

That the wars between Waikato and Marutuahu did not in any way

affect the country south of Maungatautari and of the Puniu River

as it never passed into the possession of Marutuahu; that

Ngatiraukawa were not driven out of the country; that those of

them that went to Kapiti did so at the urgent and repeated request

of Te Rauparaha to assist him in consolidating his conquests there,

638 Young and Belgrave, “Raukawa and the Native Land Court”, 2010, p. 272.

639 Young and Belgrave, “Raukawa and the Native Land Court”, 2010, p. 274.


March 2013

259

and that they did not go until after a permanent peace had been

established with Waikato as well as Ngatimaniapoto; that those

members of Ngatiraukawa who remained have not been disturbed

in their occupation and have exercised rights of ownership, such as

canoe building &c; that Waikato never lived at Wharepuhunga, the

principal kainga on the land, and that they have never had the

mana of it. With reference to the alleged conquest by Waikato of

Ngatihakahere [sic – Ngāti Whakatere], the claimants set forth that

the war in which that tribe were defeated at Hurimoana, and

sometime afterwards at Tangimania, was waged against them by

Tukorehu, Tautari, and Wahanui, their own relatives, assisted, they

admit, by Ngatihaua as allies, in punishment for the murder of

Paretekawa; that it was quite a family affair, having no bearing on

the land; that peace followed, and that several years elapsed before

Ngatiwhakatere migrated to the South; that some of them remained

and are still in occupation, and that the fires kept burning by

Hauauru and Irahapeti represent the occupation of Ngatiwhakatere,

Ngatimatakore, and Ngatimaniapoto, but not Ngatihaua; and,

lastly, the claimants state that there had been no general occupation

of any part of this block by Waikato until they sought refuge on it

during the Waikato War in 1864, excepting short sojourns of some

of the chiefs with connections of Ngatimaniapoto and

Ngatimatakore, on which occasions those who died were always

removed by their friends to their own burial places in Waikato.640

593. Although the Wharepūhunga block is separated from Maungatautari by

nothing more than a survey line, the Court produced an altogether different finding.

Terry Hearn writes:

On the basis of both the evidence and its own inquiries; the Court decided that:

The bulk of Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiwhakatere did at different

times, on the invitation of their relative, Te Rauparaha, go to

Kapiti and acquire land there, but some remained and kept the fire

burning, while those who at various times returned were permitted

to re-enter and enjoy full possession without hindrance or

interference, consequently there was no conquest of the land.

Further, that there was no gift of any portion of it, and that the

Waikato tribes never exercised mana over this land, but merely

resided on it temporarily as refugees, and that such occupation

does not confer any rights.641

640 Terry Hearn, “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 252; citing: Waikato Times, 23 October 1886.

641 Terry Hearn, “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 253; citing: Waikato Times, 23 October 1886.

Emphasis added by this author.


March 2013

260

594. Clearly, this was a significant departure from the findings of the Native Land

Court in the Pukekura, Puahue and Maungatautari cases of 1868, the greater

Maungatautari case of 1884 and the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission of 1881. What made

it all the more extraordinary was the fact that the presiding Judge, William Mair, acted

as Agent for the Crown before the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission and had actively and

successfully promoted the two conquest narrative, which resulted in the interests of

Ngāti Kauwhata being extinguished. The Court’s decision in Te Rohe Pōtae would be

cited in subsequent petitions praying for a reinvestigation of customary rights in the

Maungatautari blocks.

595. Of the 3,230-plus names submitted as having interests in Te Rohe Pōtae

following the first round of hearings, some 990-odd were recorded as interested in

Wharepūhunga, although this was subsequently reduced somewhat when it was found

that some names were duplicates. Notwithstanding the fact that Ngāti Kauwhata did

not officially appear at the investigation of Te Rohe Pōtae, certain chiefs of Ngāti

Kauwhata were nevertheless included in the list of owners. These were Te Kooro

Renao, Iwi Ngaro Te Kooro and Te Arai Te Kooro.642

The same individuals were

listed as owners in Wharepūhunga No. 2, when that block came before the Court in

1894. Nigel Te Hiko states: “Renao Te Kooro was my great grandfather, his father was

Te Kooro Renao and his father was Te Wharepakaru the Ngati Kauwhata chief that

resided at Pukekura north of Maungatautari.”643

While three names out of nearly 1,000

are but a drop in the bucket, it is entirely possible that many others of those listed

belonged to Ngāti Kauwhata and claimed rights in Wharepūhunga on that basis. It is

also significant that the descendants of Te Wharepakaru should be singled out, as it

was he who was acknowledged as the chief of Ngāti Kauwhata who gave the care of

the Waikato lands over to Murupara (also known as Te Wiwini or Te Whetowheto).

642 Te Rohe Pōtae (Wharepūhunga) Lists of Owners, Otorohanga MB 4, p. 331.

643 Pers. Comm. Nigel Te Hiko, by email, 28 October 2012.


March 2013

261

11.4 The Maungatautari decision is greeted by further protest

11.4.1 Maungatautari awards made as the protests continue

596. The unsuccessful claimants found the Maungatautari decision most

unsatisfactory; on behalf of Ngāti Maniapoto, Te Wahanui asked for a rehearing on

account of the Court’s judgment being ‘bad’. This was not easily achieved for two

reasons: firstly, the Chief Judge had made the judgement, and by law only the Chief

Judge could order a rehearing; and secondly, the titles had not yet been issued, so there

was nothing to actually object to. Te Whiti and sixty others, identifying themselves as

“The Committee of all Raukawa”, wrote to Native Minister John Ballance listing five

blocks including Maungatautari in which they queried the decision of the Courts. They

blamed the Chief Judge and asked for him to be replaced, and to rehear the cases

assisted by an Assessor from either Ngāti Kahungunu, or Ngāi Tahu. It is not known

whether Ngāti Kauwhata made a written protest at this time on their own account.644

Kauwhata, Hanita and Maki were engaged in litigation throughout 1884 with Grice,

Benn and Walker over their claims to the Pukekura and Puahue blocks, while defiantly

occupying their lands in the face of determined and calculated bullying by settlers.

597. Meanwhile, the Court had yet to issue a decision on the question of the

claimants who were not affiliated to Ngāti Hauā, had not taken part in Taumatawīwī,

had not migrated, or had returned to live on their ancestral lands, with or without

permission from Te Waharoa and the other Ngāti Hauā leaders. In October 1884, the

Court issued a supplementary judgment with respect to these claimants. Hearn states:

The Court held that such occupation had not been sufficient to admit those

concerned to the ownership of Maungatautari. Rather, it ruled that ‘they

merely occupied by sufferance such places as they did occupy after the land

had changed owners, and that occupation having terminated no right now

exists.’ The Court subsequently awarded 25,000 acres to Ngati Koroki (420

owners), 2,000 acres to Ngati Koura (150 owners), 1,450 acres to Te Puke

644 A quick examination of the list of signatories of the Raukawa petition indicates that Kauwhata the person

was a signatory, and two individuals identified as ‘Ng’ Kauhata’ were signatories to a later one by Hare

Teimana and 277 others in 1902. There has not been time to closely analyse these lists in order to ascertain

whether there was in fact a greater Ngāti Kauwhata representation.


March 2013

262

Huirama (17 owners), and the estimated balance of 21,000 acres to Ngati Haua

(536 owners).645

598. The following year, in February 1885, the Chief Judge sat at Cambridge to

hear submissions on a rehearing application for Maungatautari. His subsequent ruling

effectively rubber-stamped the Court’s original decision. The Chief Judge’s main

concern appeared to be accusations of bribery levelled at the Assessor, Waata Tipa of

Ngāti Pāoa.646

A subsequent inquiry by H.G. Seth-Smith concluded on the one hand

that the charges of bribery were without foundation, but on the other that the fact that

Tipa had accepted loans from Cambridge farmer and land speculator William Moon

“cannot be seen as anything but improper.”647

599. Most of the protest and petitioning activity regarding Maungatautari in the last

decade and a half of the nineteenth century appears to have been carried out under the

auspices of Raukawa. Further research is required to ascertain whether the petitions

sent in post-1886 were also lodged on behalf of Ngāti Kauwhata claimants. What we

can say, is that the take had not changed; those petitions that elaborated on the issues

identified the disparity between the petitioners’ claims on the basis of ancestry, which,

they argued, was stronger than the rights allegedly obtained by raupatu, as determined

by the Court.

600. In October 1886, two hapū of Raukawa, Ngāti Huri and Ngāti Maihi, finding

the pursuit of their claims through proper channels fruitless, built a pā on

Manukatutahi and occupied it in defiance of Ngāti Hauā; they also stopped traffic on

the Kāwhia-Kihikihi Road. For their part, Ngāti Hauā also protested the distribution of

survey charges, and the awards on the basis they paid no regard to their cultivations,

kāinga and urupā.648

Successive petitions sent to the Native Affairs Committee were

rejected on the grounds that complaints about the rulings of the Native Land Court

were so ubiquitous that any interference by the Government would only make a bad

645 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 221; citing: Waikato Times, 7 & 21 October 1884.

646 “The Maungatautari Case (notes on, by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court)”, AJHR, 1885, G.–3, pp.

1-2.

647 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 224.



March 2013

263

situation worse, and any ad hoc intervention would undermine all existing titles.649

Subsequent petitions by Raukawa were similarly rejected.

11.4.2 The petitions of the 1890s and 1900s

601. In 1890, Ngāti Raukawa met with Native Minister Mitchelson at Te Wāotū,

where the latter promised to look into their claims, though warning his hosts that

“pulling down fences and destroying property of Europeans was not the way to get

redress for any of their grievances.”650

The matter was referred to Seth-Smith (now

Chief Judge) who advised that the title should not be disturbed. As Hearn notes, Seth-

Smith also maintained that:

…no bribery as alleged had occurred and that a claim that Tipa had received a

total of £290 was not one that he had heard before. The Under-Secretary thus

advised his Minister that he ‘did not think it will be possible satisfactorily to

re-open the inquiry at this date.’ In September 1890, from Te Waotu,

Arekatera Rongowhitiao pressed the Native Minister for some response: the

letter included a list of the names of 303 members of Raukawa who were

‘entitled to be included as owners of the Maungatautari lands.’ Again

Mitchelson was advised that the letter was sufficiently ‘indefinite’ that it could

be filed until such time as the iwi had written again setting out their wishes.

The Native Minister agreed. It apparently did not occur to the Minister to ask

Raukawa to set out their concerns and wishes in full.651

602. The Native Department was a veritable road block to Māori petitions seeking

redress for a host of grievances during the 1880s and 1890s. It was the abiding concern

of the Under-Secretary for much of that time, T.W. Lewis, that titles should not be

disturbed. This was combined with a fear that the Government would be subject to a

deluge of claims should the validity of the Crown’s confiscation policies, Native Land

Court decisions, or aggressive Crown purchasing policies ever be made the subject of

649 Young and Belgrave, “Raukawa and the Native Land Court”, 2010, pp. 213-214. The Native Committee

reported: “If the discontent of the Natives left out is to be weighed [without a rehearing] there is no title in the

country worth the paper it is written on. That there has been a great deal of injustice and a miscarriage of justice

with regard to Court titles seems to be beyond dispute but the evil would be multiplied many fold if the

Government set itself to override the law and to indirectly or directly [sic] review titles (LE 1 1887/8, ANZW).

650 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 228; citing: Notes of interview, ‘Certain chiefs of

Ngatiraukawa’ with Native Minister 13 February 1902, in MA 13 48[b], pt 2. ANZW.

651 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 228-229.


March 2013

264

impartial inquiry. For example, in 1882, he advised Native Minister Bryce on petitions

regarding claims to confiscated land at East Wairoa, as follows:

Any inquiry that opens up claims to compensation that [illegible] have been

brought before the Tribunal legally appointed for the purpose & which sat

when the claims could have been properly investigated will I fear be

productive of widespread discontent & open the door for numerous & larger

claims that would have the same grounds for hearing as the present one.652

603. Don Tait’s research reveals that even at the turn of the century (1900) Ngāti

Kauwhata were still saving for their day in Court.653

In 1902, Te Ara Takana of Ngāti

Kauwhata petitioned Parliament asking for an investigation into her lands within the

confiscated area in the Waikato district. The Native Affairs Committee responded in

what was by now a predictable manner, stating:

…it would be unwise and improper to open grave questions of State which

have been firmly settled and decided publicly for many years… [It added that]

…any claims founded on mistake or injustice might be dealt with by the

Government on the merits of each individual case when considering the

question of making provision for landless Natives.654

604. It is not known whether Te Ara Takana took the matter any further. The

remaining petitions relating to Maungatautari discussed here were lodged under the

take of Raukawa, although the kaupapa was broadly the same as those previously

lodged by Ngāti Kauwhata. There is some evidence that these petitions combined the

claims of Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata. In any event, the results were all too familiar.

605. For example, the following year Hare Teimana launched his petition on behalf

of Raukawa, with its 277 signatories, including at least two individuals who identified

themselves as “Ngati Kauhata”. Faced with the very situation Lewis had predicted – a

raft of similar claims – the Government responded to Raukawa’s persistence by

652 T.W. Lewis, Note on Native Office Memo 81/3156, 4 January 1882, MA 1 852 1892/1220, ANZW.

653 Don Tait, “Land Bank Application for Maungatautari School” n.d.; citing: Kai Iwi Pa Minute Book p. 2.

654 “Reports of The Native Affairs Committee”, Petition of Te Ara Takana & Another, AJHR 1902, I.–3, p. 5.


March 2013

265

including Teimana’s petition in a Commission of Inquiry to be presided over by

George Boutflower Davy, David Scannell and Apirana Turupa Ngata.655

606. Terry Hearn reports:

The inclusion of Maungatautari was justified on the grounds that since Chief

Judge MacDonald had presided over the original title hearing and had refused

the applications for a re-hearing, in effect Raukawa had had no chance to

appeal the original judgement. The Royal Commission subsequently reported,

with respect to the original Native Land Court proceedings of 1884, that:

… we think that no-one who dispassionately considers the

evidence before that Court, the reasons given by that Court for its

decision, and the reasons given by the Chief Judge for refusing a

rehearing, can doubt that both the Court and the Chief Judge were

fully justified in their decisions. The Royal Commission which sat

in 1881, to inquire as to certain claims of a branch of Ngati

Raukawa calling itself Ngati Kauwhata, had previously – in

respect of a portion of Maungatautari which had been severed from

the original block as Maungatautari Nos. 1 and 2 - come to the

same conclusions.656

607. The Teimana petition cited the same evidence as that presented to the 1881

Royal Commission, while also relying on the finding of the Native Land Court in the

case of Te Aroha that the battle of Taumatawīwī had not been over land. However, the

Commission concluded that finding was true only in respect of Te Aroha.

Maungatautari was different because prior to the battle of Taumatawīwī it had been

occupied by Ngati Maru and subsequent to the battle by Ngati Haua. In fact, as the

evidence clearly stated in successive hearings, Ngāti Hauā did not occupy

Maungatautari after Taumatawīwī, but took up residence at Matamata. Hearn notes

that the Commissioners did not specify how Maungatautari was different from the

Wharepūhunga and Rangitoto-Tūhua blocks, which were awarded to Raukawa, simply

stating that “Any one going into the history of those blocks can see the essential

differences existing between them and Maungatautari.” The Commission considered

that the series of migrations had “greatly diminished” the fighting strength of

Raukawa, who left its (Maungatautari) lands “to be occupied by the common enemy.”

Again, the Commission did not explain how, given these circumstances, the

655 Any recommendations they made would be given effect to by “The Maori Land Claims Adjustment and

Laws Amendment Act, 1904”. AJHR, 1905, G.–1, pp. 8-9.

656 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 230; citing: AJHR, 1905, G.–1, pp. 8-9.


March 2013

266

Wharepuhunga, Te Wāotū, and Rangitoto A (in part) were awarded to Raukawa. It

simply recommended that no further action should be taken.657

608. Another petition lodged in 1905 by Hema Te Ao and two others went to some

trouble to explain perceived errors in the earlier Courts’ decisions from a tikanga

perspective. It stressed that Raukawa’s ancestral rights had never been extinguished

and certainly not by the raupatu favoured by the Courts. The petitioners asked for a

chance to argue their claim based on the take of ancestry before a legally constituted

tribunal. The petition was referred to the Government for inquiry, and Hone Heke

Ngapua tabled a motion in the House that a clause be included in the Maori Land

Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Bill that would allow all of the

Maungatautari lands still in Māori ownership to be re-investigated by the Native

Appellate Court. The clause was subsequently added to the 1906 legislation (s 27) and

the Native Appellate Court considered the case in March 1907; however, the Court

affirmed the previous decision of the Court in respect of Maungatautari.

11.4.3 The Maungatautari Memorandum

609. The Native Affairs file on Maungatautari contains a document headed:

‘Memorandum in re Maungatautari.’ As Terry Hearn notes, “It is not clear who

prepared the document or to whom it is directed, although it does carry the file number

of J1905/1540, indicating that it originated within the Justice Department.”658

The

memorandum began by briefly describing the history of the Maungatautari block,

beginning with the 1884 investigation contested by Ngāti Raukawa against Ngāti Hauā

and Ngāti Korokī, and the Court’s decision that Raukawa were a defeated people

whose rights to the land were extinguished. It noted that numerous petitions had been

presented to Parliament seeking relief from the injustice the Native Land Court

decision had imposed on the petitioners. Moreover, “Promises have been made by

successive Native Ministers that land or compensation in money should be given to the

657 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 231; citing: AJHR, 1905, G.–1, p. 9.

658 Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, p. 234; citing: “Memorandum re Maungatautari”, n.d.,

MA 1 852 1892/1220, ANZW. NB: In 1905, the Justice Department was administering Native Affairs.


March 2013

267

representatives of Ngatiraukawa …”659

In an apparent reference to the Hare Teimana

petition, the memorandum observed that the matter had been heard by the Royal

Commission that sat in Cambridge earlier in the year (1905), which had found against

Ngāti Raukawa. Because of this finding, the author considered it desirable that “a few

particulars should be submitted for the consideration of the authorities.”660

610. The author offered some context, noting that the term Maungatautari

originally applied to a much larger area than the present block bearing that name,

including Horahora, Ngamoko, and Puahue, all of which included members of

Raukawa in their lists of grantees. Subsequently, Te Wāotū had been awarded to

Raukawa, while Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hikairo, and Whanganui

had recognised Raukawa’s claims to those parts of the Rohe Pōtae known as

Wharepūhunga and Rangitoto.661

611. On the question of conquest, the author stated:

The decisions of the Native Land Court and the Native Appellate Court were

briefly:

1) That the lands of Ngatiraukawa and Ngatiwhakatere did not fall into

the hands of Ngatihaua and its hapus owing to the fights of Hurimoana,

Tangimania, Hangahanga or Taumatawiwi and therefore that the

original title to the lands was not disturbed by these engagements.

2) That there was no conquest of land, and that the ancestral rights still

held good.

We therefore find that with the exception of the Maungatautari investigation in

1884, no Court has found that those so-called conquests were conquests of

land. The question then is, whether there was a conquest or not. The weight of

decisions must certainly be in favour of there being no conquest. As the

original Court of investigation of title of Maungatautari simply inquired into

the question of conquest or no conquest, and held in favour of the former, that

Ngatiraukawa have had no opportunity to prove by evidence their unbroken

chain of occupation since the days of their ancestor from whom they take their

659 “Memorandum re Maungatautari”, n.d., MA 1 852 1892/1220, ANZW, p. 1.




March 2013

268

name, and it is patent that either the Maungatautari decision was wrong, or the

numerous other decisions quoted and referred to were given in error.662

612. The memorandum then commented on the Te Aroha decision, where the same

battles: Hurimoana, Tangimania, Hangahanga and Taumatawīwī, were cited by Ngāti

Hauā as evidence that Raukawa had been defeated; hence their claim on the basis of

conquest. However, the Te Aroha Court “…specifically held that those conquests were

not conquests of land but ordinary or extraordinary engagements and victories and that

they did not affect in any way the ownership to the Te Aroha block, which was

therefore awarded to Ngatimaru.”663

It further noted that “The learned Judges in that

case drew a marked distinction between ‘conquest’ and ‘victory’.”

613. Referring to the three Raukawa migrations, the writer stated that this did not

constitute an abandonment of their lands, because large numbers remained living on

the land, and “many who migrated subsequently returned, and their right to do so was

never questioned.”664

He cited a rehearing of the Rangitoto block in 1900, in which the

Court found that those who migrated and only returned recently had lesser rights than

those who remained or returned early after the heke. In the writer’s view:

This clearly demonstrates that our highest Courts have practically found that

the basis of the Maungatautari judgment was wrong in that it held that the

ancestral title – Raukawa – was extinguished by conquest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the above memorandum in its material

facts is epitomised from the evidence given both by friends and foes in the

various enquiries before the Native Land Court into the ownership of the

Maungatautari and adjoining blocks.665

614. It would be fair to say that this memorandum is precisely the response that

Ngāti Kauwhata and their Ngāti Raukawa kin were looking for from the Crown ever

since the 1868 investigations first elevated the two conquest theory to prominence in

defining the history of Maungatautari. It is equally apparent that the memorandum was

not acted upon. Given its date (indicated by the annotation ‘J1905’) and the reference


663 “Memorandum re Maungatautari”, n.d., MA 1 852 1892/1220, ANZW, pp. 3-4.




March 2013

269

to the decision of the Commission of Inquiry earlier in the year, the memorandum was

written before the Native Appellate Court held its re-hearing of the Maungatautari case

in response the petition of Hema Te Ao, which occurred in early 1907. That hearing

simply affirmed all previous Court rulings with regard to the Maungatautari titles. The

memorandum is on file, but whether the Native Appellate Court had access to it is

unknown.

615. According to Professor Richard Boast, following legislation passed in 1895,

the Native Appellate Court was the only Court with jurisdiction to hear cases relating

to Māori land matters. He writes:

Section 59 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 provided that the

Appellate Court was to have ‘supreme jurisdiction in all questions as between

Natives and Natives affecting the title to any Native land’ and ‘shall exercise

or decline to exercise such jurisdiction free from the interference or control of

any other Court whatsoever’. The objective was to insulate the Land Court and

the Appellate Court from supervision by the ordinary courts by way of the

remedies of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.666

616. In 1907, the President of the Native Appellate Court was H. G. Seth-Smith, he

who had conducted the inquiry into accusations of bribery involving the Assessor of

the 1884 Maungatautari case.667

On that occasion he decided that what had occurred

had not affected the outcome of the case, but that the Assessor’s acceptance of several

‘loans’ from a local land speculator could not be seen as anything but improper.

Having already had an involvement in the Maungatautari case, albeit a peripheral one,

his suitability to sit on the re-hearing should, perhaps, have been open to question.

617. The Maungatautari Memorandum demonstrates that the capacity existed

within government ranks c.1905 to carry out an in-depth and dispassionate analysis of

the Maungatautari titles. Focussing his analysis on Ngāti Raukawa’s rights, the author

of the memorandum concluded that the grounds upon which customary title had been

adjudicated in the Maungatautari blocks were at odds with Native Land Court

decisions for the surrounding blocks. In those cases, claims made under conquest or

666 Boast, R. P., Buying the Land, Selling the Land, Wellington, VUP, 2008, p. 195; citing: Native Land Laws

Amendment Act 1895, s. 59. NB: ‘certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition’ are legal terms referring to writs that

one court may impose upon another.

667 Boast, R. P., Buying the Land, Selling the Land, Wellington, 2008, p. 306. The Native Appellate Court was

set up in 1894 by authority of the Native Land Court Act 1894 (ss 79-100). Under section 88, the Appellate

Court was to consist of no less than two Native Land Court judges.


March 2013

270

raupatu had not succeeded, while claims made on the basis of ancestry had been

upheld. This challenged the prevailing orthodoxy with respect to the Maungatautari

blocks, established over the previous 30-40 years by successive Courts and

Commissions of inquiry.

618. Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi acknowledge shared interests across

the greater Maungatautari district with hapū of Ngāti Raukawa. While the

Maungatautari Memorandum focused on the rights of the latter, its finding that

ancestral rights in the district were still valid and should have been the criteria for

adjudicating the Maungatautari blocks may have offered some hope to the descendants

of Tapa Te Whata and his fellow petitioners. In 1907, however, the Native Appellate

Court’s decision to uphold the rulings of previous Courts and inquiries left the Privy

Council as the only option left for the petitioners. According to Ngāti Wehi Wehi, that

option was indeed considered; however, it was a meeting with the Prince of Wales,

who was visiting New Zealand in 1920, that offered the next opportunity of bringing

the Maungatautari grievance before the Crown. This is discussed in chapter 12.


March 2013

271

12 Ngāti Kauwhata-Wehi Wehi in the Twentieth Century

12.1 Introduction

619. As the main focus of this report is the traditions underpinning Ngāti Kauwhata

and Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s claims to the Maungatautari lands, this final chapter covering

twentieth century issues is necessarily brief. Nevertheless, the evidence from the first

half of the twentieth century demonstrates quite clearly that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Wehi Wehi continued to press their claims to have their rights recognised to the

highest level of the British Crown, and with the support of the Kīngitanga and the

leadership of Waikato.

620. Meanwhile, at the flax roots level, the descendants of Kauwhata and Wehi

Wehi have continued to maintain links with their ancestral lands, going ‘to and fro’

between Horowhenua/Manawatū and Maungatautari/Te Poi (Matamata), and engaging

in whāngai arrangements, sending their children to stay with close kin. This chapter

begins with an account of a meeting house built over 100 years ago that became so

controversial on account of one of the carvings it contained, it was abandoned and

never used. While strictly speaking this meeting house belonged to Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s

neighbours, it was situated directly adjacent to the present-day site of Ngāti Wehi

Wehi Marae, and the controversy is directly related to the descendants of the Kapiti

migrants being cut off from their ancestral lands.

621. We note from government-published schedules that Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Wehi Wehi were recorded as suffering landlessness by the turn of the twentieth

century; and we also note Ngāti Kauwhata’s disassociation from the kaitiakitanga of

Maungatautari, the iconic maunga of their tūpuna.


March 2013

272

12.2 Te Uawhaki Tupuna Whare

622. In his book Tatou Tatou – All Together, the late Valentine Bevan reports that

the Ngāti Te Rangi hapū built a tupuna whare named Te Uawhaki at Whakahoro Road,

Manakau.668

Though Bevan does not record a date for its construction, it was probably

built around the turn of the twentieth century. The name of the meeting house

commemorates the tupuna Te Uawhaki, who was the father of Te Rangitawhia (the

eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Te Rangitawhia – or Ngāti Te Rangi). Te Uawhaki’s

father was Maru Te Whena, a descendant of Tukorehe’s son Punoke.

623. Bevan relates the story of Te Rangitawhia journeying through the Waikato

district with his dog named Potaka.669

They were travelling through a barren area, until

Te Rangitawhia sat down to rest, whereupon the dog wandered off. When he returned,

his whiskers were wet, signifying the presence of water nearby, so Rangitawhia

followed the dog who led him to a drinking hole. This event was commemorated by a

carving on the central poupou of Te Uawhaki whare tupuna of a man standing on a

dog’s head, with the dog sitting upright and holding a bowl between its paws.

Reverend Te Hopehuia states that the dog Potaka is a kaitiaki of Ngāti Wehi Wehi and

related hapū.670

624. But it was another carving in Te Uawhaki that caused great controversy, and

ultimately led to the abandonment of the house altogether. Professor Dame Anne

Salmond refers to this in her publication, Hui: A study of Maori ceremonial

gatherings, where she states:

A carver can pay with his life for an error or innovation, and a lasting curse

may also fall upon a house for this reason. There are houses which have a

history of death and misfortune for all who have worked on them.

Phillips tells the story of the house Uawhaki in Manakau, where the carver

made an error so serious that he had to make a special visit to the Waikato to

consult a tohunga and have the offence mitigated. “Mr D. Gardiner tells us that

668 Bevan, Valentine, Tatou Tatou All Together, Val Bevan, Manakau, 1998, p. 55.

669 Annotation by Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, in his copy of: Bevan, Tatou Tatou, 1998, p. 55.

670 Annotation by Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, in his copy of: Bevan, Tatou Tatou, 1998, p. 55.


March 2013

273

all who have had much to do with Uawhaki house have had trouble, so the

house has always been more or less tapu and is now generally shunned.”671

625. Professor Salmond does not elaborate any further concerning the carver’s

‘hara’ (mistake). Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia takes up the narrative:

[T]here is another korero relating to the complete abandonment in the early

1900’s of the Ngati Rangitawhia tupuna whare, Te Uawhaki (the site of which

is just to the north of Wehi Wehi marae, Waikawa). New carvings had been

commissioned for the ancestral house; however one of the poupou depicted an

ancestor jumping up in the air holding a patu and striking the blade just below

his navel, cutting his legs off. A visiting delegation from the Taapapa, Waikato

visited the house and was told about the new poupou - however on asking

what the significance of the carving was they were told that it signified the

cutting of whakapapa ties back to the original whenua in the Waikato, to

which the visiting delegation expressed insult and became very angry,

questioning the right of the people to cut-off their whakapapa ties to the

Waikato. Subsequently a rahui was put on the house which was left to

decay.672

626. Given the anger of the visiting delegation, the fate of the meeting house and

the penance he was required to do, the carver clearly transgressed cultural boundaries

by creating this particular carving representing the cutting of whakapapa ties to the

Waikato whenua. One might venture the thought that the reaction of the Taapapa

delegation was due to their conviction that whakapapa ties can never be erased and are

in fact the very essence of what it is to be Māori. Leaving aside the question of the

appropriateness of using traditional art forms as a means of protest, it must be said that

the carver was addressing a subject that was all too real for the descendants of the

Waikato migrants to the Horowhenua and Manawatū districts.

627. But it was not they or their immediate forebears who deliberately cut

whakapapa ties to their tūpuna whenua; on the contrary, Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti

Wehi Wehi made every effort to keep their fires burning in the Waikato. It was the

Crown or the tenure reform system it had created (specifically, the Native Land Court

and the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission), which had refused to recognise those ancestral

ties, and had shut Ngāti Kauwhata out of the Maungatautari land titles. In giving

671 Salmond, Anne, Hui: A study of Maori ceremonial gatherings, Auckland, Heinemann Reed, 1975 (Reprint

1990), p. 67.

672 Pers. Comm. Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, by email, 4 February 2013.


March 2013

274

expression to that reality, the carver breached cultural protocols, with the result that the

house stood abandoned for decades.

.

12.3 Landlessness

628. In the late 1890s, the New Zealand Government began publishing lists of

“Landless Natives”, whose condition was brought about by the wholesale alienation of

their land base through one Crown policy or another over the previous sixty-odd years.

Many of these lists applied to Māori populations based in the South Island, but in the

year 1900 a series of lists entitled “Landless Maoris in the Waikato, Thames Valley

and Tauranga Districts who lost their land by confiscation” was laid on the Table of

the House of Representatives.673

Those hapū referred to in Native Land Court

hearings for the Maungatautari blocks as belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata are listed

below.

Ngāti Pareteuaki

148 Paewaka Toetoe 149 Hōri Kaora 150 Henare Purukutu

151 Hoeta Kaora 152 Hoera Purukutu 153 Tiwha Pāora

154 Manuera te Wani 155 Teitei Turanga 156 Takana Teitei

157 Te Hika Waaka 158 Hēni te Hika 159 Mihaka Titaha

160 Kotimana Teitei 161 Ruru Purukutu 162 Te Wani Turanga

Ngāti Wehi Wehi

1992 Haumu Te Hiwi 1993 Te Wai Kawhe 1994 Rangituhiata

1995 Marua Te Whena 1996 Numunumu 1997 Pareahotea

1998 Kahureinga 1999 Tauaiti 2000 Kaitereo

2001 Ngawaina 2002 Iere Te Hiwi 2003 Ti Iere

2004 Te Waitauhi 2005 Te Hiwi 2006 Raniera

2007 Harua 2008 Mate Kohi 2009 Tuaohu

2010 Matengaro Te Haate 2011 Te Waaru Te Haate 2012 Te Tapuke Kawhena

673 “Landless Maoris in the Waikato, Thames Valley and Tauranga Districts who lost their land by

confiscation”, AJHR, 1900, G.–1, pp. 1-10.


March 2013

275

Ngāti Wehi Wehi – continued

2013 Ngawi Te Puku 2014 Te Rāhui Waratu 2015 Whiti Kawhena

2016 Hine Paretieki 2017 Moengarau Warutu 2018 Te Aranui Te Ruruku

2019 Te Toe Te Whiti 2020 Wī Paea Te Haati 2021 Rangiauraki

2022 Horouta Rohuta 2023 Weherua Horouta 2024 Te Aramoana Hepi

2025 Einaka Tūkōrehu

Ngāti Hinepare

2609 Paea Te Iri 2610 Tukau Paea 2611 Te Poutea Paea

2612 Tupouri Paea 2613 Raniera Paea 2614 Wiki Paea

2615 Rutu Paea 2616 Raupurukuku Paea 2617 Hikotau Paea

2618 Te Pongo Paea 2619 Winiata Purukutu 2620 Ngarangi Tukau

2621 Te Tuhi Onetapu 2622 Tarahuia Whakawe 2623 Paretukere

2624 Hinewai Tarahuia 2625 Te Wani Hika

629. The lists show 15 Ngāti Pareteuaki; 34 Ngāti Wehi Wehi and 17 Ngāti

Hinepare as ‘landless’ in 1900. The numbers next to the names run consecutively; in

all, 3,520 Waikato, Hauraki and Tauranga Māori were listed as landless at that time.

630. Ngāti Kauwhata believe that the petition of their tupuna Te Ara Takana, heard

by the Native Affairs Committee in 1902, was a response to the publishing of these

‘landless Natives’ statistics.

631. There has not been time to analyse these lists further, or, for example, attempt

to trace connections between the individuals named and the protagonists from the

1860s, 1870s and 1880s, or to Ngāti Kauwhata whānau flourishing today. It is

apparent that the name Purukutu occurs in both the Ngāti Pareteuaki and Ngāti

Hinepare lists.

12.4 Two Mere Pounamu named ‘Kauwhata’ and ‘Wehi Wehi’

632. This section derives from kōrero with Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi

kaumātua at Ngati Wehi Wehi Marae, Manakau on 11 December 2012, and through


March 2013

276

correspondence and feedback provided by the Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia and Mr

Bob Miratana of Ngāti Wehi Wehi. Reverend Te Hopehuia acknowledges the late Mr

Ike Miratana, “who was a respected whakapapa kaumātua for Ngati Wehi Wehi and

with whom we shared much korero and information regarding the flag and mere

pounamu.”674

Bob Miratana, who is Ike Miratana’s younger brother, acknowledges

receiving this kōrero from his kuia, Maude Te Hokinga Miratana, who was a young

girl in 1920, when these events took place.

633. Rev. Te Hope observes that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi have

displayed extraordinary persistence in pursuing justice for their claims, which included

giving consideration to an appeal to the Privy Council. While this was possibly the

only option available following the 1907 ruling by the Native Appellate Court, the

Kīngitanga leadership headed by Tumuaki Tupu Taingakawa Te Waharoa mounted a

campaign prior to the First World War seeking to petition King George V directly.

Accompanied by a young and newly installed King Te Rata, Taingakawa intended to

deliver the petition personally, which he accomplished in 1914. However, this

initiative was no more successful than the emissary of 1884, when Taingakawa had

accompanied Te Rata’s grandfather, King Tawhiao, when they were refused an

audience with Queen Victoria.675

634. In 1920, another opportunity presented itself when HRH the Prince of Wales

visited New Zealand as part of a world tour. The royal visit included a railway

excursion to Rotorua, where it was arranged for the Prince to meet with Māori leaders.

Bob Miratana states that the two mere pounamu, named after their ancestors, were

taken to Rotorua by kaumātua of Ngāti Wehi Wehi to present to the Prince, as a tohu

symbolising their claims to Maungatautari. However, the Government declined their

application to meet the Prince, allegedly on account of their former involvement in the

Hauhau movement, and strong support for the Kīngitanga. Mr Miratana recalls that his

kuia, Maude Te Hokinga Miratana, “who as a young girl remembers a group of old

674 Pers. Comms. Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, by email, 2 January 2013; Bob Miratana, by email, 11

February 2013. This section relies heavily on feedback sent to this author by Rev. Te Hopehuia, and Bob

Miratana. References provided include: 1) Rev. T H Hakaraia (Ngati Wehi Wehi) from personal research notes

and oral discussions with Ike Miratana (Ngati Wehi Wehi – deceased) and Bobby Miratana (Ngati Wehi Wehi);

2) Rev Te Hopehuia Hakaraia personal discussions with Michael Ross (Ngati Haua), Te Taahuhu/Masters

student; Te Wananga o Raukawa, Otaki. October 2002 re: assignment “Ngati Haua Perspectives on the Two

Mere Pounamu”.

675 Angela Ballara, ‘Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa - Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa’, from

the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30-Oct-2012.


March 2013

277

people at her father’s house at the time of the visit of the Prince of Wales and how

disappointed they were when their request for an audience with HRH [Prince] Edward

was refused.”676

635. An image of the two mere pounamu is presented at page 3 of this report. Mr

Miratana states:

As for the names of the two pounamu, the darker one on the left with the

brownish tassel is Kauwhata made from the variety of pounamu known as

Kawakawa and the other lighter coloured one with the reddish tinge is Wehi

Wehi from the variety known as Kahurangi. It is common in Wehi Wehi to

find other taonga named after our ancestors Wehi Wehi and Kauwhata. The

Wehi Wehi flag has two patu embroidered on it which also carries these two

names and there are also two wooden patu in the possession of other whanau

which also carry these tupuna names.677

636. In the event, Ngāti Wehi Wehi managed to have the two mere presented to the

Prince, with the assistance of the delegation of the Māori King, Te Rata, and the

Tumuaki, Tupu Taingakawa, who agreed to present the mere on behalf of Ngāti Wehi

Wehi and Ngāti Kauwhata. Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia observes that these

Waikato ariki all had close whakapapa ties to Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi

Wehi.678

King Te Rata handed over the mere named Wehi Wehi to the Prince and

Tupu Taingakawa handed over the mere named Kauwhata. On receipt of the taonga,

the Prince in return promised to look into the situation with the Government.

637. The Prince of Wales also assented to a request by Ngāti Wehi Wehi that a new

flag be made to commemorate the occasion. The Prince agreed that the Union Jack

could be included in the design of the flag, but politely declined a request for the Royal

Coat of Arms to be included also. Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi representatives later

travelled to Parliament to meet with Sir Māui Pōmare to obtain the necessary legal

approvals for the flag. Rev. Te Hope writes:

676 Pers. Comm. Bob Miratana, by email, 11 February 2013.

677 Pers. Comm. Bob Miratana, by email, 11 February 2013.

678 Pers. Comm. Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, by email, 2 January 2013. Reverend Te Hopehuia states:

“The Māori delegation comprised Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi and Ngāti Haua descendants including: King Te

Rata Mahutu (Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Kauwhata), Rewiti Te Whena (Ngāti Wehi Wehi chief and spokesman for

Te Rata) Pokaitara Manahi Te Hiakai (Ngāti Wehi Wehi chief and spokesman for the Kīngitanga) and Tupu

Taingakawa (Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Hinepare and Kīngitanga leading spokesman and descendant of King Maker,

Tarapipipi).”


March 2013

278

It was agreed that the final flag design would depict the two mere pounamu,

the Union Jack in the top right-hand corner, the Matariki emblem of the

Kīngitanga (for which Kīngitanga permission had been granted), and two

hands clasped in friendship, symbolizing an intention for peaceful

relationships between Māori and Pākehā; 1) the Crown, represented by the

Prince and the Government, and 2) the Kīngitanga (who were strongly

opposed to sales of Māori land). The words “Ka Kite Ano Taua” (We will

meet again) were also added to the flag signifying the desire for the parties to

meet again one day in peace and friendship.679

638. Since 1920, the two mere pounamu, ‘Kauwhata’ and ‘Wehi Wehi’ have

undertaken a convoluted journey, eventually leading to their return to Aotearoa/New

Zealand. They remained part of the Prince’s collection on his elevation to the throne,

and afterwards, following his abdication to marry divorcee, Wallis Simpson in 1936.

He was then given the title, Duke of Windsor. The two mere were part of the

household contents of the Duke’s Paris apartment, and remained so following his death

in 1972. The Duchess of Windsor died in 1986, and ten years later the Paris apartment,

including its contents, was sold to multi-millionaire Mohammed El Fayed. Following

the death of the latter’s son, Dodi El Fayed along with Princess Diana, Mohammed

was moved to set up a charitable foundation in memory of his son. In order to raise

funds, he sold a number of artefacts, including the two mere pounamu, at a Southeby’s

auction in New York, in February 1998.680

639. An anonymous New Zealand collector purchased the two mere in 2001 and

eventually offered them to Te Papa for the same price, where they are now part of Te

Papa’s collection, to which Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Wehi Wehi and Ngāti Haua enjoy

rights of reasonable access. Rev. Te Hope states:

Ngati Wehi Wehi became involved after the office of Te Arikinui Dame Te

Atairangikaahu contacted me (as Wehi Wehi chair at that time) to advise [us]

of the proposed auction - but alas we had no funds to consider submitting a

bid. We were also later contacted by Te Papa who advised that an anonymous

New Zealand bidder had successfully bid for the mere pounamu at the

Southeby’s auction. The successful bidder contacted Te Papa to advise that

they were prepared to sell the two mere pounamu back to Te Papa for the same

price, which thankfully Te Papa was able to purchase in 2002, [with help]

from a NZ Lottery Board grant, on behalf of the country – since then Ngati

679 Pers. Comm. Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, by email, 2 January 2013.

680 The Evening Post, 20 February 1998.


March 2013

279

Wehi Wehi and Ngati Kauwhata have had many cordial meetings with Te

Papa about the two mere.681

640. The Tainui delegation to meet with the Prince of Wales at Rotorua in 1920

was of the highest level, and the kaupapa of that hui would have been broader than the

grievances of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi alone. The vexing issue of the

Crown’s raupatu had yet to be inquired into, a take for which Tainui had been seeking

justice for many years. In the intervening years, some confusion has arisen as to the

Kīngitanga associations with the two mere, with suggestions that they were somehow

linked to earlier protests by the King Movement. Ngāti Wehi Wehi preserve their

memories of these events and they are quite clear that the two mere were taken to

Rotorua by their kaumātua with the intention of gifting them to the Prince. When that

opportunity was denied them, they prevailed upon their relatives, who were scheduled

to hui with Prince Edward, to make the gift on their behalf.

641. The two mere, named ‘Kauwhata’ and ‘Wehi Wehi’, and the Ngāti Kauwhata-

Wehi Wehi Flag are powerful symbols of the determination of Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Wehi Wehi to a) have their legitimate claims recognised by the Crown; and b)

their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on these matters with a view to

reaching a mutually acceptable resolution.682

12.5 The Maungatautari Scenic Reserve

642. Soon after it was set up in 1903, the Scenery Preservation Commission

identified the bush-clad peaks of Maungatautari as suitable for reservation for scenic

purposes. At the time, approximately 4000 acres around the summit remained in Māori

(but not Ngāti Kauwhata) ownership. To begin with, nothing was done beyond adding

Maungatautari to the list of ‘suitable’ reserves, but in 1912 the Lands Department

became aware that Māori land at the summit was about to be acquired by ‘a private

681 Pers. Comm. Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, by email, 3 January 2013.

682 NB: Images of the two mere pounamu and the Ngāti Wehi Wehi Flag are depicted in the frontispiece of the

report.


March 2013

280

syndicate’.683

The Commissioner of Crown Lands informed Wellington Head Office

that the summit was all covered with forest and had a material climatic effect on that

part of the Waikato. Because of this, and the mountain’s “fine appearance for scenic

purposes”, he recommended that the summit area of 3,100 acres be “secured under the

Scenery Preservation Act 1908.”684

643. The Raukawa Public Works Report (by this author) states:

It appears that the Commissioner’s intelligence was correct; a substantial area

of land, comprising part of the summit of Maungatautari, was purchased by a

syndicate headed by Auckland lawyer Fred Earl in about 1915-16. In later

correspondence, the syndicate was referred to as the Maungatautari Land

Syndicate. In April 1916, Earl wrote to the Prime Minister, offering to sell the

land to the government “at a very reasonable price.”685

After much haggling

over value, the government informed Messrs Earl & Kent that the price they

were asking was too high and it would not proceed with the purchase.686

644. The acquisition of the Maungatautari summit by the Auckland syndicate

appears to have been an attempt to ‘cash in’ on the Government’s Scenery

Preservation policy. If that was indeed its intention, it was remarkably unsuccessful.

For the next eight years, Earl made numerous attempts to interest the government in

the purchase of Maungatautari, but without success. Despite the support of Prime

Minister Massey and local MP, F. Hockly, the cost was the stumbling block. The

syndicate had paid the Maori owners 30/- per acre, which was twice what the

government was prepared to pay for the land, with the Ministry of Lands in particular

insisting on assessing value according the land’s suitability for settlement.687

683 McBurney, P. J., “Public Works and Related Takings of Maori Land in the Raukawa Rohe”, CFRT, June

2010, p. 349; citing: Commissioner Crown Lands to Under-Secretary Lands, 19 July 1912. AANS 6095 W5491

308 4/412, ANZ-W. NB: The McBurney report on public works takings affecting Māori land in the Raukawa

rohe is used here with the kind permission of Mr Nigel Te Hiko, Research Manager at Raukawa Settlement

Trust. Pers. Comm. by email, 30 January 2013.

684 Commissioner Crown Lands to Under-Secretary Lands, 19 July 1912. AANS 6095 W5491 308 4/412,

ANZW; cited in McBurney, P. J., “Public Works Takings in the Raukawa Rohe”, 2010, p. 349.

685 Prime Minister Massey to Under-Secretary Lands & Survey, 25 April 1916. AANS 6095 W5491 308 4/412,

ANZW.

686 Under-Secretary Lands & Survey to Messrs Earl & Kent, 30 January 1917. AANS 6095 W5491 308 4/412,

ANZW.

687 Various correspondence, 1916-1925. AANS 6095 W5491 308 4/412, ANZW.


March 2013

281

645. The Raukawa Public Works Report traces the gradual acquisition of the bush-

clad tops of Maungatautari, which, after the re-designation of a Crown-owned portion,

was gazetted as scenic reserve in 1927. More areas were added after the Second World

War, and negotiations continued with respect to the Maungatautari 4G blocks into the

1960s and 1970s.

646. Today, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust administers an area of 3,400

hectares, enclosed by 47 kilometres of predator-proof fencing, which has created the

largest ecological island on mainland New Zealand. The eradication of mammalian

predators is almost complete, and native bird species are gradually being reintroduced.

It is a laudable project, created in partnership with local hapū and iwi. The great

sadness for Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi is they have not been involved at

any stage of this process, and are unable to carry out their ancestral roles of

kaitiakitanga and manākitanga as befits their status as tangata whenua in the district.

The “History of Maungatautari”, written by John Scott, though scholarly and well-

written, omits any mention of Ngāti Kauwhata or the iwi’s constituent hapū.688

12.6 Keeping the fires burning – ‘going to and fro’

647. Various witnesses in the Native Land Court and Ngāti Kauwhata Commission

reported that their forebears had moved back and forth between their new homes in the

south and the Waikato as a matter of course; for example, Takana Te Kawa told the

Commission that his father Te Kawa and a number of others returned to Pukekura to

plant food. His father died at Rangiaōwhia.689

This practice has been kept alive up to

the present time, and the significance of the ancestral connections are commemorated

by important cultural symbols in the Horowhenua-Manawatu districts as well as in the

Waikato. They are also commemorated by the maintenance of close physical family

ties through whāngai arrangements.

648. In terms of the latter, Patricia (Paddy) Jacobs relates that her mother, Doreen

Hinera Gardiner Ramsbotham (Gardiner), lived at Te Poi for the first eight years of her

688 John Scott, “History of Maungatautari”, n.d. MEIT website:

http://netlist.co.nz/communities/MaungaTrust/files/6648/History%20of%20Maungatautari.pdf

689 Evidence of Takana Te Kawa, Ngatikauwhata Commission, AJHR, G.-2A, pp. 9-10.


March 2013

282

life, as a whāngai to Manahi Te Hiakai, also known as Kōruaputa, of Ngāti Wehi Wehi

and Ngāti Kirihika.690

The latter are the tangata whenua at Ūkaipō Marae east of Te

Poi, at the foot of Te Arapōhatu, the old track across the Kaimai, which is now the

Matamata-Tauranga Road (SHW 29). The interaction works both ways, as Reverend

Hakaraia states:

The tupuna whare at Wehi Wehi marae, Manakau, Horowhenua is named after

the ancestor Wehi Wehi and the hapu who lived in the Manakau/Waikawa area

(which is our whanau now). The name Wehi Wehi was also given to the

tupuna whare at Ukaipo marae, Te Poi, Waikato in the mid 1990’s, as that is

the area Wehi Wehi grew up as a young man. Ukaipo marae decided to

recognise Wehi Wehi as a hapu of the marae and today we have whanau who

identify strongly with both marae and who attend hui at both marae. …[T]here

are many close whakapapa ties between Wehi Wehi and Tukorehe whanau

because of kinship ties, intermarriage after the hekenga from the Waikato in

the 1830’s and because the two Horowhenua marae are just down the road

from each other!691

649. Ngāti Wehi Wehi are recognised in other tupuna whare in the Horowhenua

region, such as Ngātokowaru, which was carved by master carver and Anglican priest

the Reverend Hāpai Winiata and opened in 1978. Anthropologist Dr Bernie Kernot

writes that a guest carver produced an effigy of Wehi Wehi as a reference to the

historic mission church of Rangiātea at Ōtaki.692

In the carving, Wehi Wehi is

represented as carrying a basket with a superimposed cross. Kernot states: “According

to one local version, the Ngāti Wehiwehi subtribe of Raukawa is said to be the

guardians of the sacred soil from the shrine of Io brought to Aotearoa on the Tainui

canoe and subsequently placed under the altar of Rangiatea.”693

650. Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s intimate association with the tradition of the sacred soil

from the shrine of Io, brought to Aotearoa on the Tainui waka, indicates that Wehi

690 Pers. Comm. Patricia Jacobs, by email, 11 February 2013. Paddy is married to Jeremiah (Jerry) Jacobs of

Levin, who belongs to Ngāti Kahungunu, but who has been involved with Ngāti Wehi Wehi most of his adult

life.

691 Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia, Pers. Comm., by email, 15 October 2012.

692 The original church of Rangiātea, built in 1851, was burned down by an arsonist in 1995. The Ōtaki

community rallied around and raised funds for replica church to be built, which was opened in 2003. See:

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/wellington-region/14/1.

693 Kernot, B., “An Artist in his Time”, JPS, Vol. 90, No. 2, 1981, p. 163. NB: Kernot identifies Ngāti Wehi

Wehi with Raukawa in his article, which is not generally accepted by Ngāti Wehi Wehi today, who see

themselves as belonging to Ngāti Kauwhata.


March 2013

283

Wehi, and by implication, Kauwhata, have long been involved with a highly restricted

level of kaitiakitanga within the broader Tainui descent group, a status that is now

publicly recognised in the carving of their tupuna in Ngātokowaru Tupuna Whare.


March 2013

284

13 Report Conclusions

651. This report sets out to explore the extent of customary interests Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi retained in the Waikato at 1840 and thereafter; and if

so, whether those interests were subsequently recognised or abrogated by actions or

omissions of the Crown. The first chapter outlines the traditions relating to the

establishment of Kauwhata and his descendants in the Maungatautari district.

Kauwhata was a descendant of the Tainui ancestor Whatihua, through

Uenukuwhāngai, who settled in the Maungatautari district at Hurumutu, together with

his father Kōtare and his younger brother Tukorehe. The narrative traditions indicate

that Ngāti Kauwhata established and maintained close relationships with all of the

major Waikato Tainui descent groups, and participated in the political economy of the

region as independent tribal identities.

652. Kauwhata’s children, Hinepare, Tahuri Wakanui and Wehi Wehi, became

eponymous ancestors of Ngāti Kauwhata hapū. Ngāti Hinepare established themselves

on the Pukekura block, with Ngāti Tahuri just to the south at Puahue/Te Whānake. The

descendants of Wehi Wehi forged strong links with Ngāti Tukorehe, Ngāti Hinerangi,

Ngāti Hauā, and also (through links to Tamapāhore in the early period) with the Ngāti

Awa people from Tauranga who became known as Ngāi Te Rangi. This

whanaungatanga supported Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s ancestral rights to lands in the vicinity

of Te Poi, which are recognised today at Ūkaipō Marae, east of Te Poi, where the

Tupuna Whare is named Wehi Wehi.

653. In due course, other hapū affiliated to Ngāti Kauwhata emerged, such as Ngāti

Pareteuaki and Te Werokoukou, occupying Puahue/Rangiaōwhia and the lands south

of Te Whānake and Maungatautari, alongside Ngāti Ruru, a branch of Ngāti Korokī.

Ngāti Kauwhata hapū share whanaungatanga with hapū of Raukawa, particularly Ngāti

Whakatere and Ngāti Takihiku, as well as with Waikato iwi Ngāti Apakura, Ngāti

Mahuta, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Korokī-Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā. The primacy of

Kauwhata’s take tupuna status on the western side of the Maungatautari district was

repeatedly affirmed by many witnesses in various courts and Commissions.

Irrespective of their personal tribal affiliations, Kauwhata was cited as the basis of

their ancestral rights to these lands.


March 2013

285

654. Chapter 2 describes the physical boundaries of Ngāti Kauwhata’s ancestral

rohe in the Waikato, defined by the rivers: Waikato, Pūniu, Waipā, and the Mangapiko

Stream. The significance of the Mangapiko, in the heart of the Ngāti Kauwhata rohe,

was highlighted by Hakiriwhi at the 1884 investigation of the Manukatutahi ki

Otautahanga (Maungatautari) block, when he said the name was “probably given to the

stream of that name at the beginning of the world by Ng’ Raukawa and Kauwhata.”694

655. Chapter 3 briefly reviews recent work by distinguished scholars on the cultural

underpinnings of customary Māori society, which is offered as a counterpoint to the

Native Land Court’s tendency to privilege raupatu (conquest) and ‘the strong arm’ as

the basis of Māori customary land rights. Dr Ballara’s analysis interprets pre-1840

conflicts as driven by the demands of tikanga, and particularly the imperative that utu

be obtained for any transgression against a chief and/or his hapū/iwi.

656. Chapter 3 concludes by discussing the relationships (whanaungatanga)

between Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa on the one hand, and Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Hauā/Ngāti Korokī on the other. Elsewhere in the report, whanaungatanga

between Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Apakura/Ngāti

Mahuta are also examined. These relationships were fundamental to the political

alliances forged by Ngāti Kauwhata in the early nineteenth century (and previously),

which enabled and encouraged Ngāti Kauwhata to a) join the heke to Kapiti; and b)

entrust their ancestral lands to the care of their whanaunga who remained behind in the

Waikato. Notwithstanding Crown representative William Mair’s assertion to the Ngāti

Kauwhata Commission, that “those Ngāti Kauwhata who migrated were known as

Ngāti Raukawa, while those Ngāti Kauwhata who remained were known as Ngāti

Hauā”, numerous witnesses in the Courts and before the Commission clearly stated

that Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa were distinct tribes. The Ngāti Kauwhata

chief, Tapa Te Whata stated that this had been so since ancient days, when Ngāti

Kauwhata numbered 800 to 1000 warriors.

657. Chapter 4 is a lengthy review of the tribal traditions, highlighting conflicts that

developed between the various Tainui kin groups as they affected Ngāti Kauwhata

from around 1700 through to the early historical period. This section builds towards

the great battle of Hingakākā, where Ngāti Kauwhata appear to have been involved in

694 Evidence of Te Hakiriwhi, Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga (Maungatautari) case, 29 May 1884, Waikato MB

12, pp. 253-254.


March 2013

286

the events that precipitated the original take: the great gathering at Marokopa for the

running of the Kahawai, where Pikauterangi suffered an intolerable insult. Along with

Raukawa, Ngāti Kauwhata were implicated in the utu Pikauterangi subsequently

obtained at the expense of Ngāti Apakura. These events ignited a host of unresolved

take between two sets of allies; although the evidence is scant, it seems likely that

Ngāti Kauwhata joined Pikauterangi’s grand alliance, which suffered a devastating

defeat near Ngāroto at the hands of the alliance led by Waikato-Maniapoto.

658. While some authors have noted the connection between those hapū and iwi

who suffered defeat at Hingakākā and those that subsequently migrated to ‘Kapiti’, the

evidence presented in the Land Court generally agreed that after the battle both the

victors and the survivors on the defeated side returned to their ancestral lands. After

Hingakākā, the warfare continued at Kāwhia and in the Maungatautari district through

the second decade of the nineteenth century, though on a lesser scale. However, it was

during this period that the intervention of northern war parties began, bringing with

them the first examples of a new Pākehā weaponry.

659. The summer of 1821-22 heralded two momentous events that affected Ngāti

Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi more or less directly. In November-December 1821,

Hongi Hika’s great Ngāpuhi taua devastated Ngāti Pāoa at Tāmaki Makaurau and

Ngāti Maru at Tōtara Pā, Hauraki. And early in 1822, while hard-pressed at Kāwhia by

Waikato-Maniapoto, Te Rauparaha’s Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Koata embarked on the

great hekenga south to Kapiti. Ngāti Kauwhata would not make their first journey

south until 1824-25, and the main hekenga did not leave until 1828. Their reasons for

leaving and the affect their leaving had on customary rights at Maungatautari became

the main questions exercising the Native Land Court and various commissions and

Native Affairs Committees through the final three decades of the nineteenth century,

and on into the first years of the twentieth.

660. Ngāti Kauwhata did not appear at the first Native Land Court investigation of

the Maungatautari blocks in 1868. They subsequently succeeded in obtaining a Royal

Commission of Inquiry into their ancestral rights in these lands in 1881, but the

decision went against them. In coming to their decision, the Commissioners became

convinced (writing against the evidence of numerous witnesses from all sides) that

Ngāti Kauwhata was actually a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa. This became the default

Crown position in subsequent hearings and investigations by Select Committee, so that


March 2013

287

in later accounts it can be difficult to distinguish the actions and protests of Ngāti

Kauwhata from those of Raukawa. To some extent, the Court’s error became a self-

fulfilling prophecy.

661. In addressing the mass of often-contradictory evidence presented to it, the

Native Land Court was inclined to reduce the debate to a series of questions, in order

to ascertain whether the claimants had maintained customary rights to the land under

investigation up to and beyond 1840 and the establishment of Crown Colony

Government in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In the case of Maungatautari (the 1884

Manukatutahi ki Otautahanga hearing), three questions were asked in terms of whether

Raukawa (not Ngāti Kauwhata) had maintained their rights to the block. These were:

1) Did the battles between Waikato and Raukawa have any bearing on the ownership

of Maungatautari? 2) Did Marutuāhu gain mana over the block? 3) Did Ngati Haua

gain mana over the land following the Battle of Taumatawīwī? Once again, although

neither Ngāti Kauwhata nor Ngāti Wehi Wehi were referred to in the Court judgment,

it is assumed that the 1884 Court followed the decision of the 1881 Commission in

equating Ngāti Kauwhata as a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa.

662. In answer to question 1, the Court found that the internal warfare amongst

Waikato had no bearing on the decision of Raukawa (and by implication, Ngāti

Kauwhata) to migrate to Kapiti. We might be tempted to leave the matter there, were it

not for the fact that contradictory evidence presented at various investigations has

tended to blur the chronological sequence and dating of the post-Hingakākā battles.

This in turn has tended to push the Court towards a finding (with respect to the second

question) that Marutuāhu had gained mana over the Maungatautari lands. Therefore, it

is argued that rather than Hingakākā being the battle that determined whether people

migrated or not, the key battles for understanding the chronology are Tangimania and

the siege at Hangahanga Pā.

663. The fight at Tangimania Pā did not involve Ngāti Kauwhata; it was between

the Raukawa hapū of Ngāti Whakatere and Peehi Tūkōrehu’s Ngāti Paretekāwā hapū

of Ngāti Maniapoto (with allies, Ngāti Hikairo and Ngāti Apakura). Both sides, it

appears, had assistance from musket-armed Ngāpuhi (or Ngāti Whātua). Either before

or after Tangimania, one section of Ngāti Raukawa under Kiringutu departed for the

Hawke’s Bay, where they attacked the Ngāti Rakaipaka pā of Moumoukai, at Nūhaka.

Suffering a defeat at Tangimania, the remaining Ngāti Whakatere escaped to take


March 2013

288

refuge at Hangahanga Pā on the slopes of Maungatautari, where Ngāti Kauwhata also

happened to be in residence. After a two-month siege, the occupants were allowed to

escape. Sometime later, Tūkōrehu and Te Akanui, the leaders of Ngāti Paretekāwā,

initiated a peace-making with their former enemies, Ngāti Raukawa, after which each

tribe returned to their ancestral lands. It was noted that at this time Te Wharepakaru,

the chief of the Ngāti Hinepare hapū of Ngāti Kauwhata returned to his land at

Pukekura.

664. According to some witnesses in the Native Land Court, the Hangahanga siege

occurred after the arrival of the Marutuāhu refugees at Maungatautari; some stated that

it coincided with the attempt by Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa to overcome Ngāti

Kahungunu in Hawke’s Bay (c.1822), while others alleged that Marutuāhu were

already occupying Hauwhenua Pā on Maungatautari when the Hangahanga siege took

place.695

The notion that a large cohort of Ngāti Raukawa was absent in Hawke’s Bay

when Hangahanga Pā was besieged is explained by the previous expedition led by

Kiringutu, which departed for Moumoukai immediately prior to the siege. The

conflation of the Hangahanga siege with Hauwhenua simply ignores a great deal of

evidence to the contrary.

665. In the 1868 hearings into Pukekura and Puahue, Te Raihi provided a detailed

chronology stating that the last battle amongst Waikato was fought in 1822 and that

peace was made in 1824. Later accounts of the traditional history of the district, as

summarised in Native land Court judgments, departmental memoranda, or decisions of

commissions of inquiry, stretch this timeline even further, suggesting that Tangimania

occurred as late as 1823, and that Hangahanga Pā took place immediately before the

battle of Taumatawīwī (December 1830).696

666. On the basis of Te Winiata Tupotahi’s evidence to the Manukatutahi ki

Otautahanga hearing in 1884, it is argued here that the siege of Hangahanga preceded

the departure of the Amiowhenua expedition by several months. Tupotahi states that it

was after Tūkōrehu made peace with Raukawa at Pawaiti that he joined Amiowhenua,

while the Pawaiti peace was the culmination of a series of hui, korero and tangi/waiata

for the dead at various Raukawa pā that took place sometime after the siege of

695 Evidence of Haimona Patara, Te Rohe Pōtae investigation, 10 August 1886, Ōtorohanga MB 1, pp. 97-98

696 See, for example, ‘Memorandum in re Maungatautari’, MA 13 48 [b], Part 2, ANZW; cited in: Terry Hearn,

“Raukawa, land, and the Crown”, 2008, pp. 233-234.


March 2013

289

Hangahanga.697

It is generally accepted that the Amiowhenua taua set out from the

Kaipara, Tāmaki and Hauraki in the autumn of 1821 and was away for at least a

year.698

The Amiowhenua taua was itself besieged at Pukerangiora in the first months

of 1822, and it was only with Te Wherowhero’s intervention that this siege was lifted

and the taua continued on its return journey. Tūkōrehu’s participation in Amiowhenua

is well-documented.

667. The Raukawa/Ngāti Tūwharetoa expedition to Hawke’s Bay also occurred in

1822 (the date provided by Te Rauparaha’s unsuccessful appeal to the Raukawa chiefs

to join the Kapiti migrants, made when he met them at Taupō prior to their departure).

It was also reported that following the sack of Mātakitaki by Ngāpuhi, the earlier

Pawaiti peace was ratified by the whole of Waikato, who put aside their historical

differences to unite against the common foe. This triangulation of events, some of

which can be reliably dated, places the siege of Hangahanga Pā around the summer of

1820-21, or possibly a little earlier. Therefore, Ngāti Kauwhata and their Raukawa kin

had been at peace with Waikato for the best part of a year prior to the arrival of the

Marutuāhu refugees, the latter fleeing their homeland in fear of Ngāpuhi muskets. It is

also clear that upon their arrival, the Hauraki tribes did not immediately provoke

trouble with their hosts, but lived with them peacefully as guests for a number of years.

668. It appears that the Courts never established a clear understanding of the

sequence of these events, and were either unsure when they occurred, or accepted that

the Hangahanga siege occurred after the arrival of the Hauraki refugees. This

‘concertina-ing’ of events fostered a perception that Raukawa (and Ngāti Kauwhata)

were under relentless pressure, as the decades of internal warfare amongst Waikato

was replaced in short order by conflict with the refugees. Having accepted this

scenario it was but a short step for the Courts to conclude that Marutuāhu had effected

a raupatu over all those from Maungatautari who migrated in the 1820s, including

Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi.

669. Given then that the final peace-making amongst Waikato occurred c.1822, we

come to the second question posed by the Native Land Court investigating

697 Evidence of Te Winiata Tupotahi, Manukatutahi Otautahanga (Maungatautari) hearing, 7 August 1884,


698 Ballara, A., Taua, 2003, pp. 216-217. It is also well-known that Āpihai Te Kawau was not at Tāmaki to

support Ngāti Pāoa against Hongi Hika in late 1821, because he was away with the Amiowhenua.


March 2013

290

Maungatautari in 1884: Did Marutuāhu acquire mana over the block? This in turn

raises questions about the motivations behind the various migrations. On this count,

this report has established that Ngāti Kauwhata and Raukawa were not driven away by

their Waikato kin in the same way that Te Rauparaha was, and when given the

opportunity to join his migration in 1822, they refused.

670. It was Ngāti Kauwhata, led by Te Puke ki Mahauariki, Ruamaioro and Te

Māhunga, who undertook the first migration from the Maungatautari district, around

the time of Te Rauparaha’s victory in the battle of Waiorua (c.1824). The Land Court

witnesses stated that they went at the behest of Te Rauparaha and to obtain guns. En

route through the Whanganui district, the Ngāti Kauwhata migrants became embroiled

in a series of battles. After gaining initial victories, the heke was confronted by an

overwhelming enemy force at the battle of Makokoti on the Whanganui River, where a

number of Ngāti Kauwhata chiefs and many others were killed. The survivors of the

heke then joined a large group of Te Ati Awa who were likewise heading south to join

Te Rauparaha. Following his visit to Kapiti seeking news of Te Rauparaha’s welfare,

the Raukawa and Ngāti Kauwhata chief Te Ahukaramū returned to Maungatautari

having promised Te Rauparaha and Waitohi that he would bring his people south. Far

from being driven from Maungatautari by the threat of the Marutuahu, Te Ahukaramū

had to resort to burning his people’s houses to force them to join the migration.

671. Witnesses in the Native Land Court stated that Ngāti Kauwhata joined in the

various Ngāti Raukawa migrations that occurred between 1824 and 1828. Although

there is some evidence for disputes arising between Ngāti Raukawa and Marutuāhu,

there is no evidence of any disputes between Ngāti Kauwhata and Marutuāhu that may

have precipitated this migration. Indeed, such fighting as there was tended to be

random and opportunistic, while the most notable killing of a chief of rank, that of

Whatakaraka, was almost accidental. Indeed, members of the party responsible for his

death entered the pā to tangi over his body. At the time, Te Whatanui was on his way

back from the Horowhenua district, intent on gathering up his remaining people to take

south on the final Ngāti Raukawa migration. Inasmuch as this was already planned,

references to Te Whatakaraka’s death being the catalyst that forced his people to

migrate appear well off the mark.

672. Soon after Te Whatanui’s heke left, c.1828, the last major Ngāti Kauwhata

migration followed, taking an inland route, in contrast to Ngāti Raukawa, who


March 2013

291

travelled via the coast. Te Wharepakaru placed his lands at Pukekura in the hands of

the chief Murupara (also known as Te Wiwini or Te Whetowheto), to act as kaitiaki

and hold the land against the eventual return of the migrants. Te Waharoa was also

cited as one who was entrusted with the land; though he himself never lived there, his

cousin Pohepohe lived at Pukekura. Both had rights to the land through Pare Paoro, a

descendant of Hinepare and Wehi Wehi who married Pūrangataua of Ngāti Hauā. This

trusteeship was highlighted by requests for the migrants to return to their ancestral

lands, made by Porokoru and Haunui, chiefs of Maungatautari; as well as by Te

Wherowhero (in the 1840s, before he became King), Tamihana Tarapipipi in 1866,

and another delegation led by King Tawhiao in 1872.

673. Ngāti Kauwhata wished to participate in the 1868 hearings into

Maungatautari, but were denied when these clashed with a Native land Court sitting at

Rangitikei in which they were involved. By the time they realised the Maungatautari

blocks had passed the Court, the time allowed for appeal had expired. Later, the

successful claimants (mostly Ngāti Hauā) testified that had Ngāti Kauwhata been

present at the 1868 Cambridge Court, they would have admitted them into the titles.

After years of petitioning, Ngāti Kauwhata were finally granted a Commission of

Inquiry, which sat in early 1881.

674. Witnesses in the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission (including Ngāti Hauā

witnesses) stated that a significant Ngāti Kauwhata contingent participated in the battle

of Taumatawīwī alongside Ngāti Hauā, and were therefore directly involved in driving

Marutuāhu away. Taumatawīwī occurred two-three years after the final migration

south, which supports the contention that Ngāti Kauwhata maintained a physical

presence at Maungatautari after the migrations. Given the absence of a significant

Marutuāhu victory over either Ngāti Kauwhata or Raukawa, it is difficult to see how

the Courts could sustain a claim of conquest when their opponents were not

vanquished, but simply living elsewhere, with the potential to return well-armed with

the same weapons that had driven Marutuāhu out of Hauraki in the first place. The

brevity of the Marutuāhu occupation is also noteworthy; in normal circumstances

raupatu would require a sustained period of post-conflict occupation by the conquerors

and, generally, intermarriage with the defeated tribe.

675. This brings us to the third question asked by the Court: Did Ngāti Hauā

acquire the mana over the land following Taumatawīwī? It has already been noted that


March 2013

292

Te Waharoa did not occupy Maungatautari after the battle. His daughter, Harete Te

Waharoa told the Court that her father was obliged to occupy Matamata, at the

northern end of the Ngāti Hauā rohe as a bastion against further incursions by a

refreshed and still belligerent Ngāti Maru, and that by protecting the Waikato’s

northern borders, Te Waharoa was exercising rangatiratanga over the whole district.

676. The alternative explanation was that Te Waharoa’s rights to Pukekura derived

from his descent from Kauwhata through Hinepare and Wehi Wehi, and though these

were weakened by his non-residence, that caveat was less significant by virtue of his

kaitiakitanga, imposed upon him by the departing Ngāti Kauwhata chiefs. According

to this perspective, Te Waharoa’s victory at Taumatawīwī, while undoubtedly

achieving a host of positive outcomes for Ngāti Hauā and their close allies, was also an

expression of that kaitiakitanga, albeit a very powerful one.

677. In an attempt to convince the 1881 Commission that Ngāti Kauwhata’s

enduring rights were recognised by Wīremu Tamihana, Alexander McDonald gathered

the whole of the Tamihana clan to inform the Commissioners of Wīremu Tamihana’s

abiding concern for Ngāti Kauwhata. One of the more remarkable pieces of evidence

was that Tamihana had had a sea-going vessel built, which he named Kauwhata, with

which he planned to bring back the bones of his kin who had been killed in the south,

for burial with their ancestors. The Commissioners were unimpressed by this evidence;

they also refused to allow as evidence a letter from Tamihana’s widow, apparently

describing her husband’s love for Ngāti Kauwhata.

678. The summary of evidence presented to both the Commission and the Court is

substantially identical to the case that is being advanced in this report:

that Ngāti Kauwhata/Wehi Wehi were not forced to migrate;

that they left some of their number at Maungatautari to keep their fires warm;

that this was acknowledged by their neighbours at various times;

that the Ngāti Kauwhata who remained fought at Taumatawīwī and therefore

helped evict the Marutuāhu;

that the people who migrated to Kapiti (and elsewhere in the south) returned

at regular intervals to keep their association with Maungatautari alive.


March 2013

293

679. After the Ngāti Kauwhata Commission ruled that Ngāti Kauwhata was a hapū

of Raukawa, it appears that those Ngāti Kauwhata living in the Waikato simply

reverted to taking direct action in an attempt to maintain their rights. They occupied

the Pukekura and Puahue blocks, returning again and again whenever they were turned

off. Petitions protesting the Maungatautari awards continued to flow, though they were

now generally under a Raukawa rubric. Native Land Court investigations of

surrounding land blocks invariably had to consider the same basic evidence, summed

up as the two conquest theory. However, as these blocks were investigated,

Maungatautari began to look more and more like a special case; that it was only there

that Marutuāhu was able to ‘conquer’ the migrants, and only in the case of

Maungatautari that Ngāti Hauā’s victory at Taumatawīwī had gained them full and

exclusive land rights.

680. Though the Maungatautari case was considered many more times by Native

Ministers, Select Committees and Royal Commissions, the results were always the

same; the status quo would prevail. Nevertheless, the Maungatautari file contains a

document headed, “Memorandum in re Maungatautari”, where the facts of the case are

set out in such a manner that the author reaches a conclusion on the case that is quite

the opposite of that reached by all those Ministers, Commissions and Courts. The

memorandum is undated, unsigned, and has no other heading, though it is annotated

with a number that suggests it originated in the Justice Department in 1905. The author

concludes that Marutuāhu did not conquer Raukawa, and that Ngāti Hauā did not

obtain rights at Maungatautari as a result of their victory at Taumatawīwī. Having

disposed of conquest as a valid take for Maungatautari, the author further concludes

that ancestral rights there were still active, and that Ngāti Raukawa should have the

opportunity to test them at a properly constituted tribunal.

681. At the time, the only judicial body available was the Native Appellate Court,

originally set up under the Native Land Court Act 1894. The Appellate Court consisted

of a minimum of two Native Land Court Judges; it was headed by H.G. Seth-Smith,

who had previously inquired into claims of corruption against the Assessor, Waata

Tipa, who sat on the 1884 Maungatautari case. When the Maungatautari case came

before the Native Appellate Court in March 1907, the Court affirmed the decision of

the earlier Courts. Although other petitions regarding Maungatautari followed, from

various petitioners, none were successful.


March 2013

294

682. In 1920, the visit to Rotorua by the heir to the British throne, HRH the Prince

of Wales, offered an opportunity for Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi to once

again press their case. Ngāti Wehi Wehi kaumātua travelled to Rotorua, taking with

them two mere pounamu, named for their tūpuna, Kauwhata and Wehi Wehi, to

present to the Prince. When, on their arrival they were refused an audience, they asked

the Waikato delegation led by their relatives, King Te Rata and Tupu Taingakawa to

present the mere, which they duly did. The Prince’s intercession may have contributed

to the Government setting up the Sim Commission of Inquiry in 1927, to enquire into

the confiscated lands taken under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and its

amendments. This latest Commission made little difference to Ngāti Kauwhata and

Ngāti Wehi Wehi because the decisions of the Courts that their Waikato land rights

had been extinguished by conquest still held.

683. At the risk of labouring the point, it must be stated again that by the twentieth

century, most claims on behalf of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi were

advanced under the auspices of Ngāti Raukawa. Witnesses for all sides in the early

title investigations of the Maungatautari blocks set up Kauwhata as their take tupuna.

Were a proper inquiry to have been held, there is every expectation that Kauwhata or

his children would have been set up as the ancestral rights in the land. The abrogation

of Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s ancestral rights at Maungatautari clearly

amounts to a material loss; but it has also proved to be a cultural loss, through having

tribal traditions effectively declared invalid.


March 2013

295

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Archives New Zealand, Wellington (ANZW)

Maungatautari (Rehearing) N92/899, MA 13/82/48b/2

“Memorandum re Maungatautari”, n.d., MA 1 852 1892/1220

MA 1 834 1863/163

Auckland City Libraries, (ACL)

Nāhe, Hoāni, 1960, “Account of the Emigration of the Maoris from Hawaiki: also, History of

the Paoa.” Auckland Public Libraries, NZMS 713

Maori Land Court Minute Books

Otorohanga MB 4

Waikato Minute Book 2



Maps and ML Plans (Quickmap, Custom Software Ltd)

ML Plan 763 Pukekura

ML Plan 764 Puahue

ML Plan 2279 Maungatautari No. 1

ML Plan 2280 Maungatautari No. 2

C. Heaphy, “Copy of Plan of Confiscated Lands set forth in Proclamation of 17 December

1864”, Roll Map A22, F2 & F3

Raupatu Document Bank

Raupatu Document Bank, vol. 55


March 2013

296

Personal Communications (Pers. Comms.)

Margaret Morgan

Reverend Te Hopehuia Hakaraia

Jeremiah Jacobs

Patricia Jacobs

Nigel Te Hiko

Don Tait

Jaret Taewa

Nat Green

Secondary Sources

Books and Articles

Ballara, Angela, Iwi: The dynamics of Māori tribal organisation from c.1769- to c.1945,

Wellington, VUP, 1998

Ballara, Angela, Taua ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? Warfare in Māori Society in

the early nineteenth century, Auckland, Penguin, 2003

Ballara, Angela, “Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900 in the Taupō, Rotorua,

Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts”, CFRT, 2004

Ballara, Angela, ‘Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa - Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu

Taingakawa’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of

New Zealand, updated 30-Oct-2012

Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian interpretation of racial conflict,

Auckland, AUP, 1986

Bevan, Valentine, Tatou Tatou, all together the NZ Bevan family and its connections: also a

short history of Ngati Wehiwehi and Ngati Tukorehe, Levin, 1998

Boast, R.P., Buying the Land, Selling the Land, Wellington, VUP, 2008

Boast, Richard, “An Expensive Mistake: Law, Courts and Confiscation on the New Zealand

Colonial Frontier”, in Richard Boast and Richard S. Hill (eds), Raupatu: The Confiscation of

Maori Land, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2009

Buddle, Reverend Thomas, The Maori King Movement in New Zealand, (Pamphlet),

Auckland, New-Zealander Office, 1860

Buller, W. L., “Article LXIX – “The Story of Papaitonga; or, A Page of Maori History”,

(Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 21 February 1894), TPRSNZ, Vol. 26,

1893


March 2013

297

Cowan, James, The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the

Pioneering Period: Volume I (1845-64), 1955

Fenton, F. D. Important Judgements delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land

Court, Auckland 1879

Gorst, J. E., The Maori King, London, 1864

Graham, George, “The Account of Kupe and Tainui”, JPS, Vol. 28, 1919

Head, Lyndsay, with Lindsey Te Ata o Tu McDonald, “Māori Land Tenure and Chiefly

Authority in Whanganui, 1840-1865”, A Report for the Crown Law Office, 2007, (Wai 903

Doc#A113)

Hearn, T.J., “Raukawa, land, and the Crown: a review and assessment of land purchasing in

the Raukawa rohe, 1865-1871”, CFRT, 2008

Hutton, J. L., “Raukawa Traditional History Summary Report”, CFRT, 2009

Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, “He Maemae Mō Wahine-iti: A Death Chant for Wahine-iti,” Te Ao

Hou, No. 55, June 1966

Jones, Pei Te Hurinui & Biggs, Bruce, Nga Iwi o Tainui, 1995

Kelly, Leslie G., Tainui: The Story of Hoturoa and his Descendants, Christchurch,

Cadsonbury Publications, 1949 [Reprint, 2002]

Kernot, B., “An Artist in his Time”, JPS, Vol. 90, No. 2, 1981

McBurney, P., “Traditional History Overview of the Mahurangi and Gulf Islands Districts”,

MAGIC/CFRT, 2010, (Wai 1040, doc. #A36)

McBurney, P. J., “Public Works and Related Takings of Maori Land in the Raukawa Rohe”,

CFRT, June 2010

Marr, Cathy, “Public Works Takings of Māori Land, 1840-1981”, Rangahaua Whanui Series

National Theme G, Waitangi Tribunal, First Release, 1997

Marr, Cathy, “Te Rohe Pōtae Political Engagement 1864-1886”, DRAFT 2011, vols 1 & 2

Melbourne, Hirini, ‘Te Purewa’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara -

the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 30-Oct-2012

Metge, Joan, “Returning the Gift—Utu in Intergroup Relations”, JPS, Vol. 111, No. 4,

December 2002

Monin, Paul, This is My Place: Hauraki Contested 1769-1875 Bridget Williams Wellington,

2006

Oliver, Steven, “Te Rauparaha, ?-1849”, in, Oliver, W.H. (ed.), DNZB, Vol. 1, Wellington,

Dept. Internal Affairs, BWB, 1990

Oliver, W. H., “Te Whiwhi, Henare Matene”, DNZB, Vol. 1, Wellington, Dept. Internal

Affairs, BWB, 1990

O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement, 1840-1863”, Waitangi Tribunal, (Wai

898 #A23), December 2010

O’Malley, V., “Te Rohe Pōtae War and Raupatu”, Waitangi Tribunal, (Wai 898 #A22),

December 2010

Petrie, Hazel, Chiefs of Industry, Auckland, AUP, 2006


March 2013

298

Phillips, F. L., Nga Tohu a Tainui/Landmarks of Tainui, Vol.1, 1989

Pōmare, Māui and James Cowan, Legends of the Maori Vol. I, 1930

Roberton, J. B. W., “Genealogies as a basis for Māori chronology”, in JPS Vol. 65, No. 1,

1956

Roberton, J. B. W., “The Role of Tribal Tradition in New Zealand Prehistory,” JPS, Vol. 66,

No. 3, 1957

Roberton, J.B.W., “Māori Settlement Pattern of the Te Awamutu Region: 1800-1850”,

Journal of the Te Awamutu Historical Society, No. 1, June 1975

Roberton, J. B. W. “Maori Settlement of the Waikato District”, Te Awamutu Historical

Society Inc., Bulletin No. 2 (Revised), 1983

Rourke, Jinty, “Wilson, John Alexander, 1829-1909”, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography,

Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10

Royal, Te Ahukaramū Charles, (compiler), Kāti au i konei: He Kohikohinga i ngā Waiata a

Ngāti Toarangatira, a Ngāti Raukawa, Wellington, Huia, 1994

Rusden, G.W., History of New Zealand Vol. III, Melbourne, Melville, Mullen and Slade,

1883

Ryan, P. M., The Raupō Dictionary of Modern Māori, Auckland, Raupō (Penguin Group),

1995 (reprint 2008)

Salmond, Anne, Hui: A study of Maori ceremonial gatherings, Auckland, Heinemann Reed,

1975 (Reprint 1990)

Scott, John, “History of Maungatautari”, n.d. Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (MEIT)

website: http://netlist.co.nz/communities/MaungaTrust/files/6648/History%20of%20

Maungatautari.pdf.

Smith, S. Percy, History and Traditions of the Maoris on the west coast, 1910

Stafford, D. M., Te Arawa, Auckland, Reed, 1967 (Reprint, 1994)

Steedman, John Aramete Wairehu., Nga Ohaki o Nga Whanau o Tauranga Moana, Publicity

Print, Tauranga, 1984

Stokes, Evelyn, Wiremu Tamihana: Rangatira, Wellington, Huia, 2002

Sullivan Agnes (draft in prep) “Maaori Gardening in Taamaki Before 1840”, Part 1,

Traditional, Ethnographic and Other Historic Documentary Sources, n.d.

Te Hiko, Nigel, “Raukawa Traditional History Report”, 2010

Te Rangikaheke, Wiremu Maihi, “Hape-ki-tuarangi”, JPS, 1941, Volume 50, No. 199

Te Rauparaha, Tamihana, Life and Times of Te Rauparaha, Peter Butler (ed.),

Martinborough, Alister Taylor, 1980

‘Tohunga’, “The Wisdom of the Maori”, The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 10,

Issue 1 (April 1, 1935), New Zealand Government Railways Department, Wellington

Turton, H. H. Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, Vol 1-2,

Province of Auckland (Wellington, 1877)

Turton, H. H. Epitome of Official Documents Relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases

in the North Island of New Zealand, Wellington, 1883


March 2013

299

Vennell, C.W. Brown and The Elms Tauranga. Tauranga, The Elms Trust, 1984

Waitangi Tribunal, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana, Wellington, Govt. Printer, 2004

Waitangi Tribunal, The Tamaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report, (Wai 1362)

Wellington, Legislation Direct, 2007

Ward, Alan, “Historical Report on South Auckland Lands”, Preliminary Discussion Draft,

Crown Congress Joint Working Party, 1992

Wright, Wayne, “Report by Wayne Wright in Response to Office of Treaty Settlements

Request for Information on Areas in Which Ngati Raukawa Exercised Customary Interests”,

Tokoroa, 2007

Young, G. and M. Belgrave, “Raukawa and the Native Land Court, CFRT, 2010

Government Publications

Appendices to Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)

“Return of Arms Surrendered by Natives”, AJHR 1864, E.–6

“Papers Relative to the Rangitikei Land Dispute”, Enclosure 1 No. 1, AJHR 1865, E.–2

“Further Papers Relative to the Manawatu Block”, AJHR 1866

Petition No. 14, “Ki te Runanga Nui o Niu Tirani”, 29 July 1867, AJHR 1867, G.–1

“Return giving the Names, Etc., of the Tribes of the North Island”, AJHR 1870, A.–11

James Mackay, “Report to the Native Minister”, 10 July 1873, AJHR, 1873, G.–3

John Bryce, Chairman, “Report on Petition of Tapa Te Whata and Others (No. 2)”, 17 August

1877, AJHR 1877, I.–3

“‘Report of the Commissioner’, Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission”, 14 March 1881,

AJHR, 1881, G.–2A

“Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission” (Correspondence relating to the), Memorandum by

McDonald for Native Minister, 8 July 1881, AJHR, 1881, G.–2B

Native Affairs Committee, “Ngatikauwhata Claims Commission”, 2 August, 1881, AJHR,

1881, I.–2

Native Affairs Committee Report on “Petition of Hōri Ohomairangi and 328 others”, June

1882, AJHR 1882, I.–2

“The Maungatautari Case (notes on, by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court)”, AJHR,

1885, G.–3

Native Affairs Committee Report on the Petition of Sir James Ferguson, December 1887,

AJHR, Sess. II 1887, I.–3B

“Landless Maoris in the Waikato, Thames Valley and Tauranga Districts who lost their land

by confiscation”, AJHR, 1900, G.–1

New Zealand Gazette (NZG)

New Zealand Gazette, No. 19, 7 June 1865


March 2013

300

Acts of Parliament

New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863, V. No. 8

Native Lands Frauds Preventions Act 1870, section 5, (33 & 34 V. No. 75)

The Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1904

Newspapers

Daily Southern Cross

New-Zealander

New Zealand Herald

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian

New Zealand Times

Te Karere Maori o Nui Tireni

Te Hokioi

Waikato Times

NGĀTI KAUWHATA AND NGĀTI WEHI WEHI INTERESTS IN …...Apr 03, 2013 · 10.2.2 The Pukekura Case...

Documents

Transcript of NGĀTI KAUWHATA AND NGĀTI WEHI WEHI INTERESTS IN …...Apr 03, 2013 · 10.2.2 The Pukekura Case...