Discretización del espacio con visión artificial para geometrías 2.5D

Karapitipiti: Shows grandparents, siblings, children and parents.

Tāhū: Sets out the main lines connecting the main ancestors of a tribe from which one descends.

Tātai Hikohiko: Condensing recital to more illustrious ancestors in an ancestral line and skipping others.

Taotahi: Stating single lines without those of their wives or husbands.

Tararere: A single decent line from an ancestor, excluding intermarriages and other kin on the line.

Ure Tū/Ure Tārewa: Stating male lines of descent.

Whakapiri: Stating common sources of connection.

Whakamoe: Marriages included on the lines of descent

These various techniques could be used to express whakapapa relating to a particular type of whakapapa kōrero or for various means such as,

Kōrero Pūtake: Whakapapa of origins (pre canoe migrations to Aotearoa)

KōreroWhakawhānaungatanga: Whakapapa relating to family connections

The key idea regarding these various techniques is not simply that there are multiple ways to highlight whakapapa; but that whakapapa is not limited to just lineal descent patterns as understood within the non-Māori understanding of the word genealogy (C. W. I. T. R. Smith, 2000). The method used fits with the context and reason for the occasion, highlighting the contingent and flexible nature of whakapapa.20

This nature can give rise to dispute and controversy through varying interpretations of a particular event, history or whakapapa. This was evidenced by land court hearings in the 1800s, which put differing versions of whakapapa and narrative into an adversarial and

20 _{I have on several occasions been introduced to other Ngāi Tahu people at tribal hui by Dr Terry Ryan MBE}

(an acknowledged whakapapa expert both by Māori and non-Māori alike). For each person that I was introduced to, the whakapapa given by Dr Ryan regarding who I descended from differed. This was because the whakapapa being used, was that which connected me to the person I was being introduced to. This method of sharing connection, called whakapiri, is at the same time both extremely powerful and emotionally deep.

Page 75 of 212

non-Māori validification and judgement process. Head (2006) highlights how on occasions whakapapa in this environment, was purposely manipulated to achieve certain outcomes. Despite this, in general terms the validity of whakapapa from the viewpoint of the holder of that whakapapa represents reality, as they understand it. If knowledge and experiences differ then alternative interpretations and truths may arise. Diversity is acknowledged through the debate surrounding the various interpretations of how particular tīpuna or elements within the whakapapa are connected. These debates cannot then be reduced to singular right or wrong answers. Instead, they represent an on-going dynamic within which identity is framed and understood.

At an individual level, a simple question like “who are you” when asked in a Māori context has “more profound levels of meaning” (Reilly, 1996, p. 390) than just asking for your name. The question can elicit substantially different answers from Māori depending on who is asking the question and the context in which the question is asked. Answers can differ significantly depending on circumstance and occasion. Reasons for this are numerous. Firstly, there is a significant tapu (sacred) element to whakapapa and given only to someone trusted to receive it. Such is the case for Ngāi Tahu with Dr Terry Ryan MBE being handpicked by tribal elders (Turei, 2005), to work on updating whakapapa records held by the tribe. He is also the recipient of tuku whenua [gifting of land] by a senior kaumātua within Ngāi Tahu, Riki Te Mairaki Ellison, to validate his status within Ngāi Tahu as someone who holds equivalent status as if they were in fact a tribal member.21 Secondly, a person stating whakapapa may intentionally focus on whakapapa to highlight their relationship to the person asking the question (being the whakapiri method as noted earlier). A different questioner could elicit a completely different response. These are by no means an exclusive list of reasons, but instead further highlight that whakapapa is important and used in dynamic and contingent ways by Māori. Durie (2003a) describes this Māori concept through the term tūhonohono. This is a search for the commonality between things and events in order to identify associations and create relationships.

2. (5)(c)(ii) Whakapapa expressed through physical objects

Whakairo carving represents a key media for representation of whakapapa. Most marae [meeting houses] contain multiple carvings representing important ancestors, stories and events. Over history, carvings have developed, becoming more ornate; however, the symbolism remains the same. Whakairo is not just restricted to Māori ancestors. Many marae may also have Pākehā ancestors or those who were important in an areas’ history, such as Otāwhao marae in Te Awamutu, which has a carved poupou [post] of General

21 _{These acts give a person the mana and sanction to allow them to live and work within a tribal territory and}

Page 76 of 212

Cameron. He fought battles against Māori across the North Island and was involved in the invasion of the Waikato and the nearby siege of Orākau in 1864.

Additionally, seemingly plain objects can also represent whakapapa, such as the uncarved poupou in the Te Kotahitanga Marae at the Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland. This piece symbolically represents the whakapapa of the wood used in the marae carvings and of the whenua [land] where the wood came from. Other forms of physically represented whakapapa include the prolific rock art paintings in the South Island. Although the stories of many of the paintings are yet not fully understood, meanings and representation have been correlated to particular whakapapa kōrero for a number of them. Some of the most famous of the rock art pictures are those of bird figures, which relate to Pouākai [birdman] kōrero narratives.

Natural objects similarly can be imbued with multiple layers of whakapapa, hidden to the naked eye. An example of this is the sacred rock Te Rongomai ō Te Karaka located in the Waitomo area of the King Country district of the North Island. Notably it was blown up to make way for a small hydroelectric scheme in 2010 (Holoway, 2010). Unfortunately, because there is no physical representation of the whakapapa on the physical object, such as memorial plates or being directly inscribed with names, it was viewed by many unsympathetic to issue as “just a rock” stopping progress. Those same people would assumably be aghast if it was an engraved concrete memorial plaque with their family ancestor’s names on it, blown up. Then to rub salt into the wound, to have to endure seeing the demolition explosion cheered and celebrated on site by the companies involved. All this for the sake of a few extra megawatts of electricity into the local power supply…

2. (5)(d) Storage of Whakapapa

There is an array of technology for recording and storing whakapapa additional to memory. One major culturally non-Māori technology introduced to Māori during colonisation was that of printing of writing. Māori were quick to take up the new technology of writing (Haami & New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2004). A result of various governmental land claim commissions, laws enabling individualisation of land title and legal proceedings regarding the loss of land, resulted in whakapapa being recorded in written form. The encroachment of colonisation also resulted in the extensive recording of whakapapa for posterity.

Within modern tribal structures, the formalise Māori tribal organisation is created within a legal format that usually prescribes the need for a “register of members” to be kept. This is a list of those who whakapapa to specific identified tribal ancestors. Given the size of some tribal entities, this can result in there being tens of thousands of members. Organisational structures usually use electronic databases to record and store member information and many hapū and iwi such as Ngāi Tahu, keep records that include whakapapa for those members, on computer, in addition to paper records. There are two motivations for this information, a statutory motivation and a communications motivation that “serves the

Page 77 of 212

purposes of both tikanga-kāwanatanga (e.g. registered membership of an incorporated society) and tikanga-a-iwi (e.g. information dissemination).”, (Tomlins-Jahnke, 2005, p. 108).

In order to have a “correct” list of “members”, there are usually formal processes for checking registration applications, signed off by someone with significant experience and expertise in tribal whakapapa. Interestingly, eligibility to register can vary significantly between tribes. In Ngāi Tahu’s case, it is based on descent from those listed in the document known as the “Blue Book”, as set out in Section 7 of the ("Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act," 1996) being,

members of Ngai Tahu iwi living in the year 1848, whose names are set out in the list appearing at pages 92 to 131 (both inclusive) of the book containing the minutes of the proceedings and findings of a committee (commonly known as the Ngaitahu Census Committee) appointed in the year 1929, the book being that lodged in the office of the Registrar of the Maori Land Court at Christchurch and marked “Ngaitahu Census Committee Minutes 1929”

Some issues arise from the storage of whakapapa information within corporate databases. These include the ease with which records can be entered or altered; potentially without the knowledge of descendants concerned. In addition, there are issues surrounding how tribal organisations “manage” whakapapa. Traditional mechanisms for ensuring robustness of whakapapa are hindered within legal-bureaucratic organisational structures that are highly subject to the whims of those who control the organisational structures.

With the use of recording whakapapa for membership purposes, whakapapa is transformed from whakapapa into a non-Māori concept, “membership”, with resulting implications. Indeed Ngāi Tahu variously calls the department that deals with whakapapa and registration, “Tribal Services” and “Membership Services”. Previously it was internally and externally known as the “Whakapapa Unit” and is still called that today by its tribal members. Concern about the effects of corporatisation on whakapapa are noted by Carter (2003). Kelly (2002), on the other hand posits, “The management of the whakapapa by the contemporary leadership - Te Rūnanga ō Ngāi Tahu - constitutes the adhesive that holds together the individual members”. This comment can be criticised on a number of levels, primarily because it reduces whakapapa to a mere tool enabling administration and management of tribal members, stripping away any wairua [spirituality] and tapu [sacredness] of the whakapapa. Contrastingly, Carter (2003) and her earlier master’s thesis Waymouth (1998), view whakapapa as the primary cohesive basis for the whānau, hapū and iwi that make up Ngāi Tahu, being imbued with tapu and wairua.

A further increasingly popular source of recording whakapapa is for individuals to record it in genealogical databases available over the internet. This similarly poses issues in terms of validation and also of ease of access to information by non-descendants of the particular whakapapa. Further issues raised revolve around the reduction of whakapapa to mere data and names, what this does to the tapu nature of whakapapa. Royal (1996) raises concerns in

Page 78 of 212

this area, that “technology is seen as history, not humans” (p. 1). Furthermore, without the corresponding layers of narrative, whakapapa become just lists of names to which there is little emotional attachment.

Page 79 of 212

Wāhanga Tuatoru: Mātātuhi Arotakenga - Chapter 3 - Literature