Objetivos específicos

it has endured through generations, but temporary – i.e. ceasing at death or departure - if not)

He mahi nga tikanga o te ahi ka roa i runga i te whenua ‘the proper meanings of “long burning fire on the land” derive from work’. This clause deals with rights derived from labour, which Ropata divides into two categories. When ‘long-burning fire’ is another term for continuity through generations, the right to the land is

permanent. When the occupation is sustained within the compass of a single lifetime, the right to land ceases with departure or death.52

21 [Unnamed but another ahi ka roa]

Ropata cites the case of someone knowing a war party was coming. He would look for the best defensive position to build a pa, whether on his own land or that of other members of the tribe. If the pa proved successful, it would remain his pa, but no-one forgot that the land was not his. Similarly, a land owner might agree to someone else establishing a garden on his fertile land, but kaore nei ona take ki taua whenua, ‘he has no rights to that land’. 53

22 [Another ahi ka roa]

When either a stranger friend or relation sees fertile land belonging to another, he may make use of it for cropping, but when his crop is raised, he leaves the land as his work, though welcomed by the owner of the land, confers no permanent rights.

23 [Another ahi ka roa]

This clause simply reinforces the assertions in clauses 20-22 that long occupation and use does not necessarily confer permanent rights, but when these evidences are

combined with the right ancestry, they do.

24 Take tango whenua (false right arising from seized land)

‘There is no right when a man just takes the land (kainga) , even when it is kept down to the present.’ This clause emphasises that rights spring from the law. A person acting outside the law cannot expect its protection, even though continuity of occupation is maintained.

25 Take muru kai (right of plundered food)

If food is plundered from its owners, they will kill the culprit[s] and eat them. The relatives of those who were killed then avenge their dead in further killing. They also take the land; this circumstance constitutes an inheritable right of ownership. Muru is the punishment for wrongdoing within the group. As the original plunder assumes a

52

In the pre-treaty period purchases of land were occasionally considered by the sellers within this frame of reference. This may suggest why land deeds developed a strong emphasis on the declaration of permanence at an early date.

53

In this article Ropata clarifies the meaning of kainga at that time: ahakoa noho kainga mahi whare

ranei me era atu mahi a te tangata. . .kaore he take. ‘Although they live on the land [kainga], or make

malefaction by the owners of the food, the fact that the plunderers end up with the land can be seen as just.

26 Take taha hinu (inheritable right arising from potted birds)

This clause pertains to food gathering on the land of another. If the worker habitually gives the fattest birds to the land owner, in return for his courtesy and respect the owner might make him a gift of the land; which gift confers an inheritable right of ownership: ka tukua te kainga mo taua tangata taea noatia ki tenei takiwa. Preserved birds are given as an example of a more general case.

27 Take makutu (inheritable right through action against witchcraft.)

A person alleged to have killed by witchcraft (makutu) is killed and his land permanently taken. This clause assumes the crime is within the kin group.

28 Take tupapaku (inheritable right resulting from war waged to avenge

atrocity)

This is the first time that Ropata introduces an iwi/hapu distinction (ki te mate te tupapaku o tetahi iwi hapu ranei), but this is no more than to indicate that some hapu are sufficiently powerful to act alone. According to Ropata, if one tribe or hapu should disinter, cook and eat a deceased member of another group, his tribe ‘will destroy the iwi and take their land permanently.’ The presupposition of the ability to do so shows Ropata speaking as a powerful chief.

In summary, take were developed after 1840 as a code of land rights used in government policy to identify ownership of land and incorporated in law. The list describes how land was originally gained or subsequently divided up, the main take being founded on conquest, occupation and inter-generational continuity, with others such as gift and deathbed deposition less commonly adduced.54 Ropata’s manuscript gives a different view. He shows take as a way of expressing the politics of group membership. It functioned as sanctions for wrong-doing and rewards for proper behaviour. This reveals its role in creating the moral order of Maori society. The rights of take were contingent on peace. They were extinguished by conquest or other lesser dispossessions, which, however, under colonial rule faded to extinction as shapers of inter- and intra-tribal politics. Territories were fixed in their 1840

boundaries. Former avenues for the aggregation of power closed off, as intra-group

54

fighting was relinquished as the new culture of Christianity became influential. While much of the Maori culture of governance disappeared under British rule, take were left standing, because of the British need to find a workable formula for assessing the ownership of land. This allowed a model of Maori land ownership to develop which was in isolation from the governance of society.

CHAPTER SIX