Muriwhenua Fisheries Claim / SOE Claim

3 Research Accounts Of Fisheries Before 1840

Dr Habib, a senior fisheries consultant in private practice, has had a long involvement with New Zealand and other fisheries. His overseas experience has included work in the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, American and Western Samoa, the United States of America, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines. New Zealand clients have been the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Maori Affairs, the Department of Justice and numerous private firms and individuals. The greater part of his research for the Tribunal was not challenged. On the contrary it won praise from Crown and claimants' counsel alike.

In the course of our hearings many references were given to the works of various scholars, and a number of extracts were put in. Amongst other things we asked Dr Habib to review all of the books, articles and dissertations to ensure that the quoted extracts represented a fair sampling of the authors' opinions, and to research additional works for other views. Dr Habib found a consistency of opinion and description amongst the various writers. The following overview of traditional fishing and fish resources as gleaned from written sources is based largely on Habib's work.

We first add a caution in referring to 'traditional fisheries'. Maori tradition, like Western tradition, is always changing, adapting and responding to new needs, challenges and ideas. There is no rule that things handed down cannot be passed on with improvements. In providing a description of 'traditional' fishing, we do not thereby imply that the dynamics of tradition ceased in 1840, or that that which is about to be described must represent Maori traditional fishing today. Obviously major changes were required when Maori arrived from other Polynesian Islands, and again, when the European came.

We also add a rider. The following accounts relate mainly to Maori fishing as a whole. The evidence is however, that Maori fishing practices, customs and beliefs were substantially the same for all tribes, there being a common Polynesian heritage and a continuing communication and exchange of ideas amongst them. Local variations are due mainly to the distinctive geography of some places. The evidence specific to Muriwhenua confirms that their fishing practices, customs and beliefs were not broadly different from elsewhere. What differs is that the Muriwhenua continental shelf is more extensive in comparison with its land mass than elsewhere in New Zealand; and that soils of indifferent quality led to a greater sea dependence and a distinctive post-European experience.

3.1 ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNTS

3.1.1 Legend

At least the tribes are all agreed that New Zealand was born through fishing. The story may be less probable than even Jonah and the whale but there is a good explanation for it. Local history begins with the exploits of Maui, a culture hero renowned throughout Polynesia who pulled New Zealand from the depths in a fishing expedition, forbad his brothers to destroy the catch, and left it stunned at the surface, its continuing life apparent in occasional tremors.

Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck) presented this concise description of the Maui myth.

[Maui once] forced his brothers to continue the course of the canoe [on a fishing trip] until they evidently sailed out of Polynesia into the unknown waters of the South . . .. He at last decided where they should fish. He evidently had a line . . . used as a hook the lower jawbone of his grandmother . . . and smeared the hook with . . . blood [from his nose]. With such a hook and bait, symbolic of supernatural power, he hooked a fish . . .. This huge fish termed Te Ika a Maui . . . became the North Island of New Zealand . . .. Some traditions state that the South Island was named originally Te Waka a Maui (the Canoe of Maui), which carries the implication that the fish was caught from that canoe . . .. The Maui myth of fishing up islands is widely spread throughout Polynesia . . .. The fishing up of islands is a Polynesian figure of speech, for the discoverer of an island did fish it up out of an ocean of the unknown . . .. So, Maui fished up New Zealand (Te Rangi Hiroa 1949:4 - 5)

With Maui came a host of Polynesian gods with their own record of wonderful deeds including Tangaroa, god and father of the fish, Punga, the father of the shark, and Ru, the father of lakes and rivers. In Maori tradition, the fish belong to Tangaroa, and it is only by respecting Tangaroa and his sea-home that anyone may take of his bounty.

Most traditions, though they vary in detail, say Kupe discovered New Zealand. He too was in the pursuit of fish, discovering New Zealand during a lengthy chase of the great octopus of Muturangi. He named this place Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud. Upon his return to Hawaiki he informed his people of Aotearoa advising them that

the soil smelt good and food abounded in the streams, sea, and margin of the ocean (Te Rangi Hiroa, 1949:7).

It seems unlikely to us that a maritime race who peopled the Pacific, and eventually came here, and whose myths and legends are bound up with fishing stories, could ever have had only limited involvement with the sea. That theme is developed by Te Rangi Hiroa in The Coming of the Maori, (1949). Fish images describe the course of Maori settlement, the people of Tauranga being called Purukupenga (full net) for example, through the local abundance of fish, while those of Rangitaiki and Matata were called Wai o Hua (waters of abundance) because of the plentiful supply of freshwater fish in their rivers (1949:12).

3.1.2 Species, Customs and Techniques

Te Rangi Hiroa's main descriptions are of the early fishing culture. Fish from the sea (ika moana) and from the rivers, lakes and streams (ika wai whenua) provided a rich food supply. Sea fish and eels were cleaned, split and hung to dry. Sharks, mainly dogfish species, were beheaded and also hung to dry this way. Small freshwater fish were dried and packed in baskets for future use. Small fry like whitebait were cooked in leaf packages, dried in the sun and stored. Freshwater koura were cooked, shelled and dried. Shellfish such as paua, sea mussels (kuku) and pipi were cooked, shelled and threaded onto long strips of flax, dried and kept as reserve food. The drying in all cases was by sun. The preserved food was stored in specially built storehouses (pataka) (Te Rangi Hiroa 1949:106).

Maori were compelled to be expert fishermen for New Zealand was indifferently provided with animal food. They possessed dogs and rats, introduced from Polynesia. Bird-snaring and fishing were therefore essential activities. Fortunately, the seas surrounding New Zealand teemed with fish and the freshwater areas were well supplied with eels, whitebait, koura, freshwater mussels (kakahi) and other species (Best 1924:258 - 259).

Dr Firth lists 35 kinds of sea fish that Maori used for food in addition to eel, freshwater fish and koura taken from lakes, rivers and streams (Firth, 1959:56 - research since has increased this number to over 120). Maori knew the seasons of spawning and maturity for the species they utilised including crayfish (Firth 1959:60). Fish were thoroughly understood in terms of their habits and movements. Offshore fishing grounds, located by cross bearings from landmarks, were visited at appropiate times according to periods of seasonal abundance or when fish condition was best.

Religious ceremonies were an essential part of fishing. Gear was arranged on the day before and various karakia (incantations) were offered. The first fish taken, Te Ika Tuatahi, was returned to the sea with an appropriate karakia to invite the gods to bring an abundance of fish to the hooks. The first fish taken belonged to the tohunga (Taylor 1855:83 - 86).

Tapu, makutu and rahui were applied to control human behaviour and protect natural resources. Objects of importance to the community, large canoes and eel weirs for example, attracted considerable tapu. The tapu attached to objects and objectives intensified according to their degree of social importance. The construction of a large fishing net attracted full tapu to the net, the net makers and the surrounding shore for some considerable distance, ensuring that the workers' energies were kept concentrated on their tasks and that the area remained clear of the distractions of others. Tapu and makutu also protected fish resources by restraining the manner of use and extent of user. Rahui was applied to prohibit the use of fishing grounds under pressure or to prevent fish being taken out of season (Firth, 1959:245 - 281).

Several texts describe the fishing gear and methods of the early Maori. Notable references are Te Rangi Hiroa, 1926, 1949; Hamilton, 1908; Best, 1924; Polack, 1840, Vol 1; and Downes, 1917. The following paragraphs drastically abbreviate the resultant data.A well developed fishing technology brought from Polynesia had still to be adapted to local conditions. Indigenous materials were used to capture a largely new range of species. That the Maori adapted successfully is well shown in archaeological evidence, with middens around the country documenting the nature of Maori fishing activities, and gear. But adaptation to new experiences necessarily took time. Archaeological evidence suggests that in the interim, seal fisheries were brought near to extinction by Muriwhenua Maori centuries ago.

Widespread fishing encompassed most of the coastline, offshore islands, freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. Coastal fishing was, for the most part, concentrated in a band of only a few miles from shore but special grounds at a distance of tens of miles from shore were also visited. Almost all species of fish within the range of Maori fishing gear and methods of capture were used. The shoreline, estuarine and freshwater species were particularly well known and all species were utilised in one form or other. In Best's opinion, fishing was a national industry in Maoriland (Best, 1924:397).

Techniques were also well established with kupenga (nets), kaharoa (seines), aho (lines), matira (fishing rods), matau (hooks), hinaki (traps) and pa (fish weirs). Flax was used for nets and lines and as lining for traps and weirs; local aerial tree roots and other timber provided additional material for traps and weirs. Paua shell was used for fish lures; bone, shell and other materials were fashioned into hooks.

There were a host of nets and seines. The rangatahi was a small seine; korohe, a bag net; puhoro, a large net; while hutu, kukuti, matiratira, porohe, takeke, tarahou, tauwhatu, tawauwau, tiheru, turangaapa and whakawhiu were other net names. The tarawa was a conical net, the purangi a bag net for lampreys, the korapa a scoop or landing net for warehou, the koko a small scoop net for taking kehe, the koko kahawai or tikoko a landing net for kahawai. Horapa was a small hand net while the atata, toemi and pouraka were hoop nets or traps. The whakapuru was a fixed-frame shrimp net, the titoko a hand net arranged on a forked stick, and the toere, rohe and aruaru were also hand nets. The kaha was a net for whitebait and the tata a small bag net. The auparu was a net used in the mouth of rivers, fastened to poles called pou-tahaki.

The mataurau was a funnel-shaped net used on rocky coastlines, the purangi a huge bag net used in tidal rivers. All fish nets and traps which were set, and not handled, were termed kawau moe roa. The toemi, a small hoop net or trap, was used to take lobster.

Some seine nets were extraordinarily large. The first explorers described some as up to five fathoms (nine metres) deep and 500 fathoms (900 metres) long. Later commentators were to observe nets double that length! These were used to herd schooling fishes like kahawai into shallow water. Some particularly large ones were recorded at Te Kaha and Maketu in the Bay of Plenty.

Line fishing (hi ika) was a favourite method of capturing fish. A great number and variety of hooks and fragments have been unearthed at archaeological sites throughout the country. Hooks (matau) varied in size, shape, material and construction. They ranged from simple one-piece hooks to complex composite hooks. In the Northland area, many small hooks were made of paua shell in U-shape and sub-circular forms.

Duff (1977), in his narrative on the moa hunter period of Maori culture, describes three types of lure fish-hooks; the kahawai lure, comprising a bent wooden shank faced with paua shell, and fitted with a barbed point on the upper surface of the distal extremity; the barracouta lure, a straight, massive, four-sided wooden shank in which the unbarbed hook was thrust right through the shank; and the minnow shank of stone, bone or shell. The first two were a local evolution of the pearl shell lure of the tropics, and like that lure, were trolled from a rod in canoes through shoaling fish. Duff also described bait fish-hooks (Duff 1977:198 - 217).

The fishing lines were made of dressed flax fibre which was rolled on the thigh into two-ply twisted cord. Lines varied in thickness and hooks ranged in size, shape, material and construction depending on the fish species sought.

More has been written on gorges, traps, weirs, dredges, spears, sinkers and other types of nets which also formed part of the Maori fishing equipment. Collectively they point to a vast amount of thought, study and innovation in the Maori capture of a wide range of species.

Maori legends indicating the fecundity of fish in the pre-European period are confirmed by later writings of the early Europeans. Savage for example, an early visitor to New Zealand, reported,

This bay [Bay of Islands] abounds in fish of all descriptions . . .. The snapper and bream are uncommonly fine - the crayfish and crabs excellent, and the oysters . . . well flavoured and . . . in great abundance (Savage 1807:20 - 21)

The colonists will find the greatest abundance of fresh and salt water fish . . . [T]he fisheries of this country would be an invaluable source of wealth . . . (pp162,168).

In 1803 George Bass, explorer and entrepreneur, sought from Governor King of New South Wales an "exclusive privilege or lease" for seven years of a part of New Zealand's seas to supply the Australian colony with salted fish, advising

I have every proof short of actual experiment that fish may be caught in abundance near the south part of the South Island of New Zealand or at the neighbouring islands

but Bass disappeared with his ship on the voyage to New Zealand (McNab 1908, 243 - 5).

3.1.3 Traditional 'Ownership' Rights

In the relationship of the ancient Maori to the natural resource, a system of definite individual rights obtained. But there were also whanau, hapu and iwi rights. The Maori tribe (iwi) was the sum total of its hapu, the hapu an aggregation of whanau, and the whanau an association of close relatives, as for example, several brothers with their wives, children and grandchildren.

Individual rights obtained to personal property, tools, weapons, clothing and ornaments. Occasionally, private use rights attached to an agricultural plot, fishing ground, or birding tree but more commonly, rights to resources were owned by a number of people in common, such as a whanau group.

To the whanau group usually 'belonged' the dwelling house, stored food, the small eel weirs on branch streams, small fishing canoes, and some gardens, fishing grounds and shellfish beds in the immediate vicinity. Though they did not formally 'own' the fishing grounds and beds, at least their prior rights of use were respected.

The hapu exercised control over larger units, meeting houses, food storage pits and pataka, the large eel weirs on main rivers, the central gardens, war canoes, larger fishing or seafaring vessels, and some specific fishing grounds.

The tribal property was made up of the lands of the various hapu, the lakes, rivers, swamps and streams within them and the adjacent mudflats, rocks, reefs and open sea. The tribe, as the greater social group, incorporated the rights of the lesser groups. Major fishing expeditions, journeys, trade arrangements, peace pacts and war were undertaken at tribal level. Cohesion was maintained through an intimate knowledge of bloodlinks, the constant deference to tribal ancestors on formal occasions and regular tribal gatherings, especially to mourn for the dead.

In practice each whanau was self-contained and controlled. The larger group would not interfere unless the matter was of wider concern. Territory and resources were jealously and exclusively maintained unless there was good reason to open these up to the wider community.

Boundary marks were common to delimit both land and water areas, but more usually the knowledge of boundaries was simply passed down. The boundaries were minutely known and natural features, streams, hills, rocks, or prominent trees, served to define both land borders and the location of fishing grounds at sea. Smaller and more specific 'private properties' were often indicated by a sign or mark of some kind, named and placed by the owners and sometimes said to carry their mauri (life-force).

But the rights of small units were always subject to the overright of the hapu or tribal group on matters affecting the people as a whole. A whanau could not vacate its patch for strangers, for example, for the admission of strangers to tribal ranks affects everyone, and it could be calamitous to village life if that were done without general assent.

The nature of traditional land and fishing rights has been the subject of judicial determinations, particularly in the Maori Land Court but also in the Supreme Court. The ownership of fishing grounds was considered by the High Court in Keepa v Inspector of Fisheries [1965] NZLR 322 (Hardie Boys J) where it was said

Gresson P pointed out in In re the Bed of the Wanganui River [1962] NZLR 600 that the Maori recognised no individual or personal right of title or ownership of land. All land was held on a communal basis. So, too, I believe with rights such as fishing rights : they were at a human level exercised by individuals but they were the right of the whole tribe . . .

But it must necessarily have been an exclusive tribal right. I cannot conceive of a Maori fishing right enjoyed by Maoris generally. As the Chief Judge [Maori Land Court] said in his findings of fact:

It is well known that the Maoris had their fishing grounds at sea and that these were jealously guarded against intrusion by outsiders.

There are problems, nonetheless, in accommodating Maori customary concepts in Western terms. These problems are considered at 9.3.

3.1.4 Traditional Fishing Areas

The location of traditional fishing areas is known by Maori today and was much commented on by early European visitors. Polack, for example, wrote

The sea-side is often tapued by certain tribes who possess the sole right of fishing for shell-fish on the beach (1840:275).

Best, (1909:476), observed

Thus in former times the Ngai Turanga hapu of the Urewera had rights to the waters of the Tauranga river between Otara and Okehu . . . they had the fishing privileges of the stream.

Beattie, (1920:53), noted that in Southland the natives assembled every October and November to catch lamprey. The best stations on the river were well known, and only certain hapu had the right of working them.

Nicholas, (1817:235), commented on the existence of sharply defined fishing rights at Kawakawa in Northland, the limits being marked out by stakes driven into the water. He observed several rows of these stakes belonging to different hapu, each having their prescribed boundaries beyond which they did not venture to trespass for fear of punishment from their neighbours.

White, (1889:117), referred to disputes over shark-fishing grounds off Puponga Point and elsewhere in Manukau Harbour thus

Ngati-kahu-koka claimed these grounds, as also did the Nga Iwi of Maungawhau . . .. This was the cause of strife between them. At times intervals of peace obtained, when both hapu would go fishing together, but this rarely lasted long . . ..

As with land, fishing grounds were clearly included as part of the Maori asset base and within the concept of traditional ownership rights. To the casual observer of the time the impression that Maori fisheries were site-specific was most commonly gained. Fisheries were seen to have functioned on a site-specific basis, whether used by individuals, whanau, hapu, or even the whole tribe.

However, so far as the tribe was concerned, it controlled not only the site-specific grounds but the whole of the inland waters and seas adjacent to its tribal lands.

An exception to that general rule relates to specifically arranged inter-tribal rights.

There were also rights of another kind; in former times, it was almost necessary for the support of life to pay a visit to the sea coast during the scarce months; thus each inland tribe claimed a right to visit the sea shore, though included in another tribe's district, and even to have a fishing station close to those of others (Taylor 1870:357).

3.1.5 Comparative Studies

The people of Polynesia constitute one family, the family of Hawaiki, populating a large area of the Pacific Islands in a series of migrations that began with the voyagers of Austronesian origin, thousands of years ago.

Not surprisingly then, many concepts are not the exclusive preserve of the Maori. Johannes, (1978:350), in a dissertation on traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania, wrote

The right to fish in a particular area was controlled by a clan, chief, or family, who thus regulated the exploitation of their own marine resources. Fishing rights were maintained from the beach to the seaward edge of the outer reefs. In some areas where the fishermen sought tuna in offshore 'holes' . . . fishing tenure included deep waters beyond the reef . . . until early this century, when the custom of shark fishing miles offshore died out, fishing rights extended to where the islands were barely visible from a canoe (about 40 miles).

Traditional fishing rights are still maintained in many places in the Pacific and again, we quote Johannes (1978:351).

Today each of 16 municipalities in the Palau district has the right to limit access to the fishing grounds in its vicinity. Within at least one municipality there are further subdivisions so that each of several villages has control of the adjacent fishing grounds.

According to Johannes (1982:241) this is also the case in Papua New Guinea.

Traditional inter-village fishing boundaries in Papua New Guinea are often marked by lining up obvious features along the reef edge - such as a channel mouth or protruding boulder - with a particular islet or river mouth or a large tree along the coast . . .. Seaward boundaries are often held to extend out to the customary limits of fishing activity. In some Manus villages this boundary is held to be where the water depth reaches the limit of bottom fishing - 100 to 200 metres. Where pelagic fishing (fishing in the upper layers of the open sea) is important, seaward boundaries may extend to the point where land is barely visible from a canoe.

There are some interesting parallels between the nature of traditional fishing rights in Papua New Guinea and early Maori perceptions. Johannes (1982:244 - 245) noted that in the islands just north of Manus the rights to use certain fishing techniques, to fish in certain areas, and to catch certain species are owned by particular individuals, families or clans. The nature of the rights is often complex and Johannes noted a case of hundreds of different rights spread among 100 to 200 villagers, and sometimes relating to fishing grounds of only a few square kilometres. Fish surplus to local requirements were given away and a system of reciprocation applied. This was an integral part of an exchange system that formed the basic framework around which traditional society was formally organised.

In a paper on fishing practices in Tokelau, Hooper (Johannes, 1983) argued that the multitude of customary restrictions surrounding fishing were primarily directed to maintaining the authority of the elders and the stability of the social order. The people made extensive use of their available marine resources, both in the lagoons and the immediate surrounding ocean. Like pre-European Maori, Tokelauans used lines, hooks, lures, rods and nets of various kinds as well as traps and stone weirs. The elders were responsible for maintaining the seasonal calendar by which all fishing activities were regulated, as was also the case with the Maori. Their knowledge of fishing technique and particular fishing grounds was very closely guarded and was taught, most commonly at sea, to selected children only. The elders directed the fishing operations which were typically conducted on a communal basis and with the chiefs apportioning catches.

This applied also in Maoridom with large fishing operations being common. Gilbert Mair (1923:49) described such an example of communal fishing. The chief Te Pokiha at Maketu, directed the operation of a large seine net 1900 metres long. Several hundred were required to haul this net and the many thousands of fish caught were apportioned by Te Pokiha himself.

Richard Matthews (1910) also described a large fishing expedition by the Te Rarawa of Muriwhenua under the chief Popota Te Waha. It involved over 1,000 persons from several villages using 50 fishing canoes and lasted over two days. Popota had the ultimate control of the whole affair, the right to declare the fishing days and to control all aspects of the operations. The fisheries expertise was distributed among the crews of the fishing fleet in the form of what Firth called 'minor executive heads' (Firth 1972:230).

Tokelau fishing expeditions were highly elaborate being both a public celebration and a ritual performance, replete with taboos (tapu), anxiety, an air of high seriousness and a display of passionate concern.

Similar traditions applied to early Maori fishing expeditions. Te Rangi Hiroa (1921:444 - 449) described early dredging for koura and kakahi in Lake Rotorua as being conducted from large canoes, often war canoes, by elaborately dressed fishing crews who indulged in spectacular body movements during manipulations of the dredges.

An extensive literature exists on traditional fishing rights and practices and there are great similarities between those of the Maori and other Pacific peoples. Ruddle and Johannes, 1983, and Anderson, 1986, provide useful compilations. (See also 9.3).

3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACCOUNTS

3.2.1 A prominent New Zealand archaeologist, Dr Janet Davidson, has emphasised the importance of fishing in New Zealand's prehistory. Fish bones in archaeological sites throughout the country confirm the extent of fishing and often reflect the fishing methods used. Detailed investigations of fish remains at different sites provide information on regional variations and strategies.

Dr Davidson has presented region-specific information for Northland, Coromandel, Hauraki Gulf, Bay of Plenty, Cook Strait, Otago and Fiordland, and has discussed the importance of various freshwater fisheries in inland areas at Taupo, Rotorua, Waikato and South Island locations. She was called by the claimants to explain the results of surveys in the Muriwhenua region and put in several submissions and documents (Nos A5, A43, A44 and A45). Once more, Muriwhenua typifies the extent of fishing everywhere, Dr Davidson describing fishing in other places for comparative purposes.

Dr Davidson's archaeological evidence reveals a long and rich history of Maori occupation in the Far North, extending back in time at least 700 years. The great importance of marine resources is shown by the wealth of shellfish remains on the surface of former pa and living sites, as well as by numerous items of fishing gear found in sand dunes and elsewhere over the years. She reported on the remains of a weir or fish trap on Parengarenga Harbour, on large quantities of shellfish in pa sites at Te Toi, Puponga and Pokere, and on the remains of kina and paua in sites along the northern shores of Te Paki and aroun'd North Cape Peninsula. The discovery of large numbers of fish hooks made from shell and bone also provided indications of the importance of kai moana. In particular, she said, the catching of fish, and the making of fish hooks from moa bone were among the principal activities in the North. The archaeological record indicates as well, a widespread capture and use of freshwater eels.

In a 1984 publication, Dr Davidson described evidence of a wide range of fish at a Mount Camel site including a catch consisting of some 2,352 snapper, about 100 trevally, 50 - 80 kahawai, and 60 others of assorted species including barracouta, porae, rays, kingfish, parrotfish, porcupinefish, rock cod, john dory, groper, perch, red snapper and tarakihi. Line fishing with baited hooks and lures was an important fishing technique. From North Cape to the Bay of Plenty, she said, snapper was the main catch of fishermen of all periods.

The preservation of fish by drying was an important aspect of life for the early Maori. Fish were baked or simply hung from poles or rocks to dry. Large quantities of preserved fish were stored. The archaeological evidence is that preservation of fish was practised from at least the fourteenth century. It was probably a regular aspect of subsistence in most regions from earliest times.

3.2.2 In a further report on Northland archaeology, Maingay (1986) considers the environment of the Far North was New Zealand's equivalent to the tropical homeland of the prehistoric Polynesian settlers. Since the 1960s, systematic and extensive surveys have been carried out of more than 1,000 archaeological sites in the Muriwhenua area. There was evidence that the area was populated throughout prehistoric times, that specialised forms of agriculture were developed, and that the coastal resources were 'enthusiastically exploited'. Specific reference was made to predominantly shell middens along the beaches and dunes of Karikari Bay, East Beach and Houhora Harbour, to shell and fishbone deposits along the Kaimaumau shoreline on Rangaunu Harbour, and to middens containing toheroa and tuatua along the west coast of the Aupouri sandspit. The first prehistoric occupants at Mount Camel inside the north head of Houhora Harbour pursued a broadly based economy with fish and marine mammals as the most important items of food. Further reference was made to sealing, fishing, shellfish collecting and fish hook manufacture near Cape Maria Van Diemen, and to remains which indicate that there was large scale collection and preservation of shellfish along the coast adjacent to the Aupouri sand dunes. Other key areas, Parengarenga, Mangonui and parts of Rangaunu Harbours are unsurveyed in terms of their archaeology, but there are obvious signs to indicate that Te Hapua, Spirits Bay and Parengarenga Harbour were active settlement areas. Parts of Ninety Mile Beach and the area from Ahipara to Herekino Harbour and Whangape were densely settled as were parts of Doubtless Bay.

3.2.3 The dependence upon the sea was obvious from the archaeological reports but of some interest to us was the evidence of resource depletion. While the amount of good horticultural land was limited, as was the variety of suitable crops, the evidence suggests quite substantial environmental modification had occurred along the whole peninsula, due to soil exhaustion and destruction of the forest cover. This change over several centuries had greatly limited the agricultural potential of the area by the eighteenth century, creating a greater dependence on fish than, in say, the twelfth century, as illustrated by the Mt Camel excavations. Increased pressure on the fishery may have caused a severe reduction in the number of mammals such as seals. The orthodox archaeological view is that in many places the variety of fish caught became increasingly limited from the fifteenth century. Very large populations were known to exist in the far north, and to sustain them, sophisticated management and harvesting techniques were required, but these may not have developed until the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.

3.3 HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS

We need a constant reminder that the fish life of today is no indicator at all of what it once was. The decline is obvious, but what is not apparent is the extent of the former bounty. Counsel had referred to some early eye-witness accounts that taxed credulity. We asked Dr Habib to seek a wider sampling of early opinion. This merely affirmed that which Counsel for the claimants had provided. While the extracts below do not all relate to Muriwhenua, collectively they describe the state of New Zealand waters in early times and the extent of native user. Such accounts as relate to Muriwhenua tell that the North was no exception. The following comes mainly from Habib's work, using ships' journals, logs and publications cataloguing the records of many travellers to New Zealand from the time of Abel Tasman. The record shows that Maori were indeed fine fishermen and were capable of operating on a very large scale, with enormous seine and trap nets used to great effect. The accounts corroborate too, the observations made in the archaeological reports.

An excellent summary of historical accounts on Maori fishing was prepared by the University of Waikato's Centre for Maori Studies and Research. That summary, (doc B5l), was a valuable guide to much of the historical record, but other sources were also enquired into.

Abel Tasman reported people and gardens on the Three Kings Islands in 1643 (McNab 1914 cited in Maingay 1986), but the first reference we quote is from the journal of Captain James Cook's initial voyage. The date of the entry was 5 December 1769 when Cook's vessel was in the Bay of Islands. The visit was to survey the bay and take on supplies. They found many Maori in the bay who were most adept at catching fish.

Some few we caught our selves with hook and line and in the saine but by far the greatest part we purchass'd of the Natives, and these of Various sorts, such as Sharks, sting-rays, Breams, Mullet, Mackerel, and several other sorts; their way of catching them are the same as ours, (viz) with hooks and lines and with saines, of these last they have some prodigious large made all of a Strong kind of grass [flax] (Beaglehole 1955:Vol 1 p219).

Joseph Banks, a botanist on Cook's ship Endeavour, made an entry in his own journal on 4 December 1769

. . . [The Maori] after having a little laught at our seine, which was a common kings seine, shewd us one of theirs which was 5 fathom deep and its length we could only guess, as it was not stretchd out, but it could not from its bulk be less than 4 or 500 fathom [700 - 900 metres]. Fishing seems to be the cheif business of this part of the countrey; about all their towns are abundance of netts laid upon small heaps like hay cocks and thatchd over and almost every house you go into has netts in its making (Beaglehole 1955:Vol 1 p444).

While in Mercury Bay (Coromandel Peninsula) on 8 November 1769, James Cook observed

The Natives brought of to the Ship and sold us for small peeces of Cloth as much fish as served all hands, they were of the Mackarel kind and as good as ever was eat, . . .. Thursday 9th . . .. As soon as it was day light the Natives began to bring off Mackarel and more then we well know'd what to do with (Beaglehole 1955:Vol 1 0p195).

In January 1770, Joseph Banks made the following observations in Queen Charlotte Sound

We saw a man in a small canoe fishing . . . he took up his netts . . . about 7 or 8 feet in diameter extended by 2 hoops; the top of this was open and to the bottom was tied sea Ears [paua] . . . as bait; this he let down upon the ground and when he thought that fish enough were assembled over it he lifted it up by very gentle and even motion, so that the fish were hardly sensible of being lifted till they were almost out of the water. By this simple method he had caught abundance of fish and I believe it is the general way of Fishing all over this coast, as many such netts have been seen at almost every place we have been in (Beaglehole 1955:Vol 1 p456).

The small net for individual fishing that Banks described is now known to have been a very effective fishing method widely used in the Marlborough Sounds.

Early visitors were high in their praise of the Maori as a fisherman and of Maori fishing equipment and methods. Anderson, who travelled with Cook on his third vogage to New Zealand, remarked of Maori fishing gear

Their cordage of fishing lines is equal in strength and evenness to that made by us, and their nets not at all inferior (Beaglehole 1955:Vol 1 p893).

He marvelled as to how fish could be caught with the odd native hooks, but admitted that the Maori was a much better fisherman than his seamen.

In Narrative of Voyage to New Zealand, entry of 29 December 1814, J L Nicholas recorded

Their nets are much larger than any that are made use of in Europe . . .. [O]ne of them very often gives employment to a whole village (1817:Vol 1 p235).

Nicholas reported seeing Maori in the Bay of Islands hauling ashore an immense net containing snapper and other fish, which they readily agreed to exchange for a few nails. He noted that the people were very industrious in attending to their fisheries which were numerous and well supplied. His narrative also records that Maori observed certain fishing rights with limits to areas marked out by stakes driven into the water. Several rows of stakes were in evidence, with the stakes delimiting areas belonging to the different tribes. Trespass on areas belonging to others was resented and instantly attracted retribution.

Savage, who spent two months at the Bay of Islands in 1806, described the excellent quality and construction of Maori nets, lines, hooks and lures. The nets and lines were made of flax which he noted were of great strength and durability. He described their quality as being

. . . so excellent that it is desirable to obtain some of them for the purpose of taking bonitas [marine tuna], albacore [marine tuna]or dolphin [dolphinfish, marine, pelagic], on the passage to Europe. The natives will receive our fish-hooks in exchange for them (Savage, 1807:64).

Savage made two useful observations. First, the strength and durability of flax was considered greater than that of European materials used at the time for line construction, hence Savage's desire to secure some flax lines for the purpose of taking tuna and dolphinfish, large, pelagic (surface-dwelling) species with strong fighting qualities. Second, barter between travellers and Maori was well established at that time. Later Savage referred to Maori women being

. . . as expert at all the useful arts [of fishing] as the men, sharing equally the fatigue and the danger with them upon all occasions . . . (1807:65).

There are several useful references in the historical record to the Muriwhenua area, in addition to those quoted earlier.

In April 1772, the two ships of Marion du Fresne, Mascarin and Marquis de Castries, anchored in Spirits Bay off the north coast of the North Island. Jean Roux, an ensign aboard Mascarin, reported seeing several storehouses containing nets 80 to 100 fathoms long [140 - 180 metres] and 5 to 6 feet wide [l-2 metres], weighted at the bottom by stones, and fitted at the top with light pieces of wood for flotation. He noted

It was not only these nets that made us think these natives must be industrious: it was apparent in everything we saw (Ollivier 1985:133).

In 1793, a French expedition led by Commander Antoine de Bruni d'Entrecasteaux, recorded Maori occupation of Three Kings Islands (Manawatawhi) and speculated that such occupation was chosen

. . . because they easily find means to fish in the midst of the shoals. . ..

Later in the day d'Entrecasteaux approached shore near North Cape and traded iron for fish hooks, lines, sinkers and fish. He noted that Maori possessed

. . . lines and hooks of different shapes; to the end of some they had put feathers, a bait which they make use of to attract voracious fishes. Several of the lines were very long, and had at their extremity a piece of hard serpent-stone, to sink them in the water to great depths . . .. the sea furnishes them with food in great abundance. They sold us a good deal of fish which they had just caught; there is so great a quantity along the coast, that, in the little time that we continued lying to, we saw several very numerous shoals, which rising to the surface of the sea, ruffled it at different times for a very extensive space . . .. (Labillardiere, 1802:Vol 2 82 - 4).

Colenso (1868:9) described the fishing at about 1840.

They [the Maori] were very great consumers of fish . . . . The seas around their coasts swarmed with excellent fish and crayfish; the rocky and sandy shores abounded with good shellfish . . . . The rivers and lakes contained . . . plenty of small fish and fine mussels and small crayfish; the marshes and swamps were full of large rich eels . . . . In seeking all of these, they knew the proper seasons when, as well as the best manner how, to take them . . . . Sometimes they would go in large canoes to the deep sea-fishing, to some well known shoal or rock, 5 to 10 miles from the shore and return with a quantity of large cod, snapper, and other prime fish; sometimes they would use very large drag nets, and enclose great numbers of grey mullet, dogfish, mackerel and other fish which swim in shoals; of which (especially of dogfish and of mackerel) they dried immense quantities for winter use. They would also fish from rocks with hook and line, and scoop nets; or singly, in the summer, in small canoes manned by one man and kept constantly paddling, with a hook baited with mother-of-pearl shell, take plenty kahawai; or with a chip of tawhai wood attached to a hook, as bait, they took the barracouta in large quantities. Very fine crayfish were taken in great numbers by diving, and sometimes by sinking baited wicker-traps. Heaps of this fish, with mussels, cockles, and other bivalves, were collected in the summer, and prepared and dried; and of eels also, and of several delicate fresh water fishes, large quantities were taken in the summer, and dried for future use.

3.4 ACCOUNTS OF THE MAORI ECONOMY

3.4.1 Introduction

Counsel for the claimants produced records of a Maori fish trade that quickly expanded from the barter of fish for European goods from early explorers, to the sale of fish to all the main but rudimentary settlements established from the early 1800s. Though the Muriwhenua record is restricted to the early form of barter, the evidence of substantial fish sales to pre-treaty settlements was so extensive that the Crown readily conceded that Maori pre-treaty fisheries had a commercial component.

We were nonetheless dissatisfied that a commercial component should be held to exist simply because Maori sold fish to Europeans before 1840. We understood that tribes traded fish and other goods in a very large way before Europeans arrived, in accordance with their own practices. The modern koha system where cash, though formerly goods, is laid on marae with an expectation in certain cases of the eventual return of an equivalent is no mere matter of social form in our view, but is the remnant of a fabric that once clothed a considerable trade. Trade applied generally in our view, just as the koha system applies in Muriwhenua as everywhere else.

Dr Habib collated evidence of the pre-European fishing trade. We have summarised the result in this chapter. It begins with an examination of the origins and practice of what has been called gift-exchange, then proceeds to consider the rapid adaptation of that system to Western trade forms.

The study points to a widely prevalent and substantial 'exchange of merchandise' (to adopt a dictionary definition of commerce) amongst the pre-contact tribes, but the association of the customary practice with social and political objectives, on lines peculiar to Polynesia though not dissimilar from Amerindian potlatching, ought not to disguise that it was trade nonetheless, or prevent us from thinking that business is the sole prerogative of the Western World and that nothing is commerce if it is not conducted on Western terms. The essential point is that in accordance with their own mode of doing things, Maori capitalised on their tribal resources and traded the profit of their labours for goods not readily available to them, for the benefit of their livelihoods and to their economic advantage. In the light of what follows, it seems hard to imagine that Maori should be considered as having no greater interest in fish than in obtaining that necessary for personal needs.

3.4.2 Resources for Trade

The natural environment and its biological resources formed the basis of Maori economic activity, but the environment was not the same in all places nor, as archaeologists have shown, was it the same in one place at all times, due to climatic shifts and human activity.

Throughout the country lakes and rivers abounded and the extensive coastline was nearly everywhere at hand. The forests were dense and rich and the flora of great diversity. But apart from the birds, animal life was scarce. The only indigenous land mammal was the bat; lizards and tuatara represented the reptiles; the rat and dog arrived with the Maori settlers. Birds were well represented with over 200 species.

The moa existed in both the North and South Islands and sea mammals, such as seals, were much more numerous and widely distributed when the Maori arrived. This was fortunate, for the transplanting of tropical agriculture to a temperate climate must have been a difficult and haphazard task. By the fifteenth century larger species of moa had become extinct and seals were being driven to the bottom extremities of the South Island and its off-shore islands. With the moa and the seal gone from the menu for most Maori, fishing became even more important, and over 120 species are known to have been used as food along with numerous shell fish and fresh water types.

After possibly more than a 1,000 years of living in Aotearoa, and despite mistakes, the pre-European Maori had come to understand the relationship of one resource to another and of each to the environment as a whole.

The forests provided much of the raw material for their economic activity. It provided timber for a wide range of purposes, bark for roofing, raupo for thatching, toetoe for lining, aka creepers for eel pots and lashings, harakeke or native flax for clothing, cordage and nets.

The forest also provided food. Edible berries were collected from kahikatea, rimu, matai and miro trees. Hinau yielded an edible pulp. The Maori also cultivated vegetable food.

Mineral resources were utilised to manufacture tools. Basalt, different varieties of greywacke and other rocks provided stone for adze blades, pounders and sinkers. Obsidian flakes were fashioned into knife-like implements. Greenstone supplied material for adzes and chisels. Sandstone was used for grinding.

Animal products were used in a wide variety of ways. Whalebone was used for combs, ornaments, pins, fish-hook barbs and weapons. Dog skins and bird feathers were utilised for cloaks.

The rat, dog, many species of birds and virtually all accessible species of fish and shell fish were drawn upon for flesh food.

Fishing and shellfish gathering were predominant activities for coastal tribes and featured highly in the economic life of inland tribes with access to freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. Marine and freshwaters were well supplied. Taylor, (1855:410 - 418), lists 35 species of sea fish, 15 species of fresh water fish, six of marine crustacea, seven of marine shell fish, two of marine molluscs and one freshwater shell fish, all used by the Maori. (Later studies have added more. We have identified 120 species known to Maori but continuing research is constantly finding more. Appendix 6 records the Maori, English and Scientific names for the species refered to in this report.)

But Aotearoa was also a land of great diversity, from the warm bays and inlets of the North, to the volcanic lava-stream landscapes of the central North Island, to the high ranges of the Southern Alps and the vast reaches of the Canterbury Plains. The predominant resource varied considerably from place to place and the range of life was not evenly spread. Tribes boasted of those resources for which they were best known, as appears even today in the manner in which tribes entertain their visitors. Through the possession of different resources the scene was set for exchange, but the work ethic of the Maori, which contrary to some presumptions involved much more than subsistence, ensured that the act was played.

The economic activities of the Maori were developed, according to Firth, within a framework set by the family, the tribe, the institution of property and the powers and duties of the chiefs. Maori society was far from being the victim of economic helplessness. Nor was it relieved by the wealth of natural endowments from the necessity for strenuous work. It was compelled by its environment to work, and it worked, on the whole, with success. Society attained a high excellence in individual craftsmanship, and carried out major undertakings demanding leadership and organisation. The forces at play were economic: food had to be secured, birds snared and fish caught. But the economic motive was intertwined with those that were social and religious. The social motives were the influence of tradition, religious sanctions, emulation and the search for prestige, pride in achievement, pleasure in work, the public condemnation of idleness and the recognition of leadership. Thus effort directed to economic ends derived its vigour and achieved its success partly from social and economic forces combined. The activity was at once intensified and lightened by the ritual that surrounded it, and the emotions which that ritual evoked.

Taylor considered

The New Zealander . . . is acquainted with every department of knowledge common to his race: he can build his house, he can make his canoe, his nets, his hooks, his lines; he can manufacture snares to suit every bird; he can form his traps for the rat; he can fabricate his garments, and every tool and implement he requires . . .. [I]t was not a single individual or a few that were adept in these various arts, but everyone. The implements they made, they also knew how to use; they could hunt, they could fish, they could fight . . . . It would be no easy matter to find any European who,in so many respects, could equal the despised savage of New Zealand. Such general knowledge makes the native at home wherever he may be (1870:4 - 5).

Firth added

In matters affecting animals, minerals, plants, or the heavenly bodies the economic lore of the native was full and varied . . .. [T]he specialists in each craft . . . possess a very wide knowledge of natural phenomena . . . . The wealth of vocabulary of the Maori in dealing with trees, birds, shrubs, plants, stones, fish, clouds, winds, and stars is truly surprising (1959:58).

More significantly, Firth noted that major undertakings were conducted communally as a series of tasks. Fishing practices, being tied to seasons, illustrated this well.

The coastal tribes around East Cape, for example, fished for hapuku and snapper in March to May, for warehou and moki in June-July, and for tarakihi, kehe, nguturu, porae, rawaru and kumukumu (gurnard) in August-October. Inland fisheries also had their seasons. In Autumn, fresh water eels migrated downstream to the sea and consequently in February, when streams were low, tribes in Wanganui and Waikato put out their eel weirs, traps and baskets in anticipation of the eel runs. In March to May, downstream migrating eels were caught. In May to July lamprey were taken, a species that migrate in the opposite direction. The Rotorua lakes people fished for toitoi in May-September, began fishing for koura in November, and for inanga and kokopu in December. In Taupo, inanga trapping began in September and was continued through to January, while inanga netting was conducted in a season extending from September to March. In sea fishing, there was also much variation in the season for taking the same species on different grounds (Firth 1959:81-82).

In the construction of the giant seine nets, arduous and constant labour was demanded. Operating the nets required similar labour inputs. The construction of large eel weirs was also hard work. Eels were an important item in the diet of many tribes and in certain districts great labour was expended in digging out large canals to facilitate capture of the eels during their seaward migrations. Firth (1959:197) refers to canals 10 to 12 feet wide, 2 to 3 feet deep, and over 12 miles long in the Wairau district of the South Island.

Many undertakings in the Maori economy were beyond the working power of an individual or family, and were performed by necessity or for reasons of greater efficiency by a large party of people drawn from the village or from several villages. The construction and operation of major fishing nets and weirs were undertaken by large scale communal efforts. This approach was also dictated by the biological periodicity of fish migrations and the abundance of certain species at particular locations in certain seasons. Organised communal effort was needed for the most efficient capture of temporary fish concentrations.

The communal effort was followed by a division of the spoils. Firth (1959:285) referred to an event on the Whanganui River when large numbers of eels were caught in traps set from weirs. It was the chief's job to apportion a share of the catch to each whanau group. A similar distribution mechanism applied when other large catches were made.

Shawcross (1967:330 - 352) expands upon the seasonal divisions of effort in this description relating to the Bay of Islands

That fish, a term which was often used broadly to include sea and freshwater fish and shell-fish as well, was the second essential constituent of the Bay of Islanders' typical daily meals [the first was fern root] was made very plain by the first explorers and early 19th century visitors. The Bay of Islands harbour abounded in fish of many varieties in the summer months, the annual coast fishing season, and the Maoris there caught and dried for winter use great quantities of these, including sharks. Shell-fish of several sorts were simultaneously collected in quantity and dried for winter storage. Rivers supplied eels and in the Bay interior there existed a large lake, Omapere (not seen by the earliest explorers), which was rich in fresh water mussels, eels, and other species of fresh water fish. In the early 19th century the Maoris living in the immediate vicinity of this lake had no need ever to visit the coast for fishing; some two thousand Maoris apparently obtained all the fish they required from Lake Omapere. Other tribes who exploited the extensive fern-root bearing and fertile agricultural land of the Bay Interior were forced to move to the coast for their fish supplies, leaving their interior lands once their crops were planted and their year's fern-root supplies were dug, usually in late November to early December, fishing and shell-fishing on the coast till early or mid March, then returning to the interior to harvest their crops, and remaining there until next summer's fishing season. This seasonal migration from interior to coast involved about one third of the total early 19th century Bay population; another third were involved in continual movement within districts adjacent to the coast, from fern-root and cultivation lands to favoured fishing inlets; the final third, including those of the south east Bay coast seen by the earliest explorers, were fortunate enough to have plenty of good fern and agricultural land right next to favoured fishing grounds and thus had no need to move far for economic purposes (forest land also being immediately available to them). These patterns of seasonal movement show just how essential, how basic, starchy mealy roots and fish (including shell-fish) were to this people.

The article cited tables the eighteenth century seasonal activities in the Bay of Islands as follows: June-July, fishing and mussel gathering at Lake Omapere; October, coastal dwelling tribes begin sea fishing; November, interior tribes move to the coast and begin sea fishing, shell fish are also gathered at this time; fish and shell fish are caught and dried through till March (Shawcross 1967:347 - 349).

Other early reports also noted the seasonal variation of food preparation activities.

As the winters are very stormy, the natives are reduced to inactivity for a large part of the year, and Orokaoua [sic] is a big fishery where fish are smoked and dried for winter provisions. (Extract from Voyage Round The World on the Corvette La Coquille, Rene Prima Lesson, 1824:66, cited by Sharp, 1971).

As mentioned elsewhere, great emphasis was placed on preserving (usually sun-drying) and storing for later use, seasonal catches and the catches resulting from major tribal expeditions.

From a dedication to industry, the organisation of labour and the preservation of large excesses of supplies, trade was a natural consequence.

3.4.3 Exchange as Trade

Dr Raymond Firth's book, Primitive Economics of the New Zealand Maori, first published in 1929, was the earliest comprehensive attempt to expound the customary form of Maori trade. Since then his work has received much criticism, it being said that he idealised the economic adaptation to Western trade forms to suit his thesis that Maori could be assimilated into a Western economy. It is also contended that conclusions were drawn with insufficient regard for significant regional variations. Nonetheless, the examples he gives of tribal exchanges in the precontact period remain valid and his explanation of the widely practiced method, which he called gift exchange, has not been seriously challenged.

Firth distinguished exchanges within communities ('intra-communal exchange') and between communities ('extra-communal exchange'), each of which involved all manner of goods and services.

Intra-communal exchange was limited and was principally to transfer items or services between specialists within the community, e.g. tattooing or the services of the tohunga for choice fish.

Exchange between communities ('extra communal' or inter-tribal) was more common (p403), and involved mainly foodstuffs and tools. Coastal dwellers exchanged fish, shellfish, shark oil, karengo (edible seaweed), paua shells and the like, with inland people, who responded in turn with preserved birds, eels, rats, cakes made from the meal of the hinau berry, feathers, bird skins and various forest products.

There are many recorded examples of this exchange. Colenso (1880:20) records baskets of dried seaweed being carried inland to be traded for forest products. In the Whanganui district preserved kaka (parrots), esteemed as a great delicacy, formed one of the staples of exchange with coastal tribes who sent dried fish in exchange (Shortland 1856:p214). The people of Rotorua and other inland lakes of the north exchanged large quantities of inanga (whitebait) and koura (crayfish). Marine crayfish were also fermented or dried and used as an item of trade with inland tribes. Waikato and Whanganui tribes traded large numbers of eels (Firth 1959:406). Firth concludes that the exchange of coastal for inland products was one of the major types of exchange to characterise the Maori economy.

Trade also extended great distances. Maori travelled widely and ancient connections exist today between tribes of distant places. Found artefacts can be shown to have come from afar.

Dr Davidson described the archaeological evidence

Stone adzes and other tools, and fine personal ornaments are indications of the wealth of the traditional communities of the Far North. One striking feature of the material is the quantity of artefacts and raw materials brought to the North from far afield. Stone adzes have been made from South Island greenstone, from D'Urville Island argillite or from Coromandel basalt. Ornaments, also, have been made from greenstone . . .

There can be little doubt that the communities of the Far North were wealthy in traditional terms . . . (doc A5:4).

3.4.4 Nature of Exchange

It is, however, the nature of Maori exchange that is unique to tribal societies, for each was made after the manner of gift and counter-gift. The loose use of the word 'barter' has merely confused, for barter implies agreement on rates of exchange. That was not the case of the early Maori trade, nor, for that matter, the position throughout Polynesia and many parts of North America.

Buying and selling for a price, as practised by us, was unknown to them . . .. They had, however, a kind of barter or exchange; or, more properly, a giving to be afterwards repaid by a gift. Dried sea-fish, or dried edible sea-weed, or shark oil, or karaka berries, would be given by natives living on the sea-coast to friendly tribes dwelling inland; who would afterwards repay with potted birds, or eels, or hinau cakes, or mats . . . (Colenso 1868:354).

The significant word in that passage is 'afterwards'. No stipulation was made by the donor on the amount of the commodity to be given back and no bargaining or haggling took place between Maori and Maori. The donor had subtle ways to indicate what was desired in return but quantity was unspecified. The general principle of Maori exchange was that for every gift given, another of at least equal value should be returned.

This was the principle of utu or compensation in the wide sense, of obtaining an equivalent. The concept of utu pervades the Maori social, legal, political and economic order but the assessment of what was required, for accord and satisfaction, was left to the other side, be it the related family, the party that did the wrong or the donee tribe (Firth 1959:409 - 413).

In many cases, each party to the transaction knew what the other sought, and gave accordingly. Thus coast dwellers naturally presented fish to inland tribes and expected inland goods in return. In an essay by Colenso (1880:42) a footnote observes that 'crawfish' [crayfish] when caught and preserved

. . . were greatly prized, especially by the Natives in the interior, to whom presents of them were sometimes sent, who gave potted forest birds in return.

Shortland observed the same.

The inhabitants of the villages on the upper parts of the river Wanganui are celebrated parrot catchers . . .. Every evening, the birds taken during the day are roasted over fires, and then potted in calabashes in their grease . . .. Thus preserved, parrots and other birds are considered a delicacy, and are sent as presents to parts of the country, where they are scarce; and in due time a return present of dried fish, or something else not to be obtained easily in an inland country, is received. This was the sort of barter formerly most in vogue in New Zealand (Shortland 1856:214).

According to Stack (1877: 183 - 186), a regular system of trade between Kaiapoi and coastal villages had been in operation since 1700. Reverend Stack described the reported accounts of Moko, a Ngai Tahu chief about the middle of the sixteenth century, and the purpose of the stronghold he set up at Waipara

. . . the choice of the spot being determined by the existence of a cave in close proximity to the highway, along which a regular trade was carried on up and down the coast; the preserved mutton-birds, dried fish, and kauru edible stem of tupara tree from the south being exchanged for preserved forest-birds, mats, etc, from the north (Stack 1877:62).

This report illustrates that which we would expect, namely, that exchange activities were conducted amongst coastal tribes as well.

Firth doubts if this was as well established and as formal an arrangement as Stack makes out, but says

. . . it is clear that some method of exchange of products was widely practised by the South Island tribes . . .

With reference to the North Island however

Certain localities were noted for the production of special kinds of food. Thus by the people of Rotorua and other inland lakes of the North, the inanga (whitebait) and koura (crayfish) were preserved in large quantities; they were sent to the dwellers in other districts by way of presents or exchange, and were greatly appreciated (Firth 1959:405).

Supporting evidence has been found in case reports from New Zealand courts, as for example in Hone Te Anga v Kawa Drainage Board (1914) 33 NZLR 1139. The case dealt with the Kawa swamp, where large numbers of eels "were caught by the Maoris from time immemorial by means of eel pas and weirs" (p 1144). At page 1145 Mr Justice Cooper noted

Sometimes the catches were exceptionally heavy and the surplus eels were sent as presents to other tribes, sometimes to Natives residing at Rotorua, sometimes to those at the Thames, and presents in return of other kinds of fish were received from these Natives.

In the North again, Native Under-Secretary Donald McLean noted at the 1860 Kohimarama conference

The Ngatituahu and Ngatihinga in times past claimed the totaras and the produce of the Waitara river. Ngatikura and Ngatituiti recognised their right, and some Wtimes exchanged other produce with them for totaras and lampreys (1860 AJHR E-9 p 14).

This is some indication that the practice applied also in Muriwhenua.

The principle of utu, while not dependent on open discussion as to the value of goods, was nevertheless likely influenced by certain expectations on relative exchange values, based upon past transactions. In that respect 'barter', in a slightly modified sense, could probably be applied to the mechanism of gift exchange.

Reciprocity in gifts thus involved continuing obligations and delayed repayments. A tribe could receive preserved birds in their season and reciprocate by sending parcels of dried fish during the fishing season. As Firth (1959:422) observed, the second gift was often larger than the first which gave due recognition to the fact that the first party to the transaction had had to wait some time for reciprocation. Firth calls this a system of 'credit in exchange'. (We rather suspect that reciprocation in the repayment of obligations was usually more lavish than the original gift for another reason - to enhance a group's social reputation and prestige or in a word, its mana.)

As in the case of goods, so with services - an equivalent return was always required. The tattooer, who was a specialist of some importance, expected to be well treated for his services.

Various mechanisms ensured reciprocity. Social disapproval and loss of mana were probably the most effective in the context of the Maori psyche, but a failure to deliver would soon have acquired notoriety. It could well have resulted in the exclusion of the debtor from future deals and the loss to recalcitrant tribes of desired goods and services. There was also the fear of witchcraft, an influential tool in the early Maori world. The supernatural punishment for those who did not honour their obligations was said to be accomplished through the medium of the hau or vital essence of the gods. A fear of punishment was said to accompany the hau of gifts, a supernatural sanction for debt enforcement.

Some exchanges were more ceremonial but the principle of utu still applied. Gifts at marriage and funeral ceremonies had also to be reciprocated. Firth (1959:415) described one example thus

When a person dies some of the relatives at a distance come to kawe nga mate, bring their affliction. On such occasions the bereaved are the recipients of taonga (valued heirlooms) such as garments, greenstone articles, etc. At a subsequent time, on a death occurring among the people of the donors, the process is reversed, and the taonga are returned. Hence during a period of generations, heirlooms pass many times between related peoples.

The value of such heirlooms, in the eyes of Maori, was, and still is, very great. Their whereabouts, the circumstances of their transference, and the obligations still outstanding from them are kept in mind by the old people of the tribe and the information is passed down from generation to generation. These ceremonial exchanges were also of great importance in the Maori community life. Gifts and counter-gifts served to bind the different whanau or iwi concerned; the taonga themselves acted as the tohu, the tokens or material symbols of the social ties which provided the link between the groups (Firth 1959:416).

The principle of reciprocity, was fundamental. Firth (1959:421) pointed out that the principle permeates the social life of a great number of Pacific peoples. He cites examples from Melanesia, the Andaman Islands and other places.

To summarise then, an outstanding feature of gift-exchange, as outlined by Firth and others, was that each transaction had the appearance of being free and spontaneous, the donors giving with good grace, apparently of their own volition and without stipulation as to a return gift. In reality, a strict system of obligation applied, involving not only a requirement to give when the situation arose and an obligation to accept, but an imperative to repay the gift by providing another of at least equivalent value. Failure to repay attracted certain penalties, ostracism and doom. Mana required that repayment be somewhat in excess of equivalence. The purpose was not only to effect the transfer of goods to mutual advantage, but to establish continuing bonds and obligations between tribal and sub tribal groups (Firth 1959:423).

In 1976, in a paper to a seminar on fisheries for Maori leaders (doc D6, p3), Dr Pat Hohepa said

1[S]ince many inland peoples had iwi or waka links with coastal dwellers, . . . trade was not formalised into commercial compacts but was more in the nature of reciprocal gift-giving and all which these terms imply in cementing whanaungatanga relationships.

3.4.5 Post-contact trade

Though trade in a modern sense was lacking amongst the ancient Maori, the rapid adaptation to barter was indicative of some experience in the field. That experience lay in the practice of gift exchange. The basic concepts were the same and the difference not much more than that with barter, and modern trade, value is more defined and a settlement date is arranged.

The Maori gift-exchange required an understanding of equivalents, relative worth and reciprocity. These were also the essential elements of barter. Other Western norms that took longer to grasp - the emphasis on possessions, absolute ownership, contracts without continuing obligations and the equation of personal wealth with status and social power - were not essential to any effective early trade.

. . . and so we find that he [the Maori] began to engage in trade with avidity not many years after the coming of the white man. After his first unpleasant experiences with adulterated goods, he became a careful judge of materials, a keen bargainer with an eye to his profit, and would spend long hours in chaffering over the price to be received in return for his pigs and potatoes. Scrutiny of the early records of the contact of Europeans with the native people of New Zealand would soon convince anyone that the various concepts embodied in the notion of trade did not have to be laboriously implanted by the white man in the native, but, once given the stimulus of novel economic and social conditions, sprang up and flowered from a soil which had long contained their seed (Firth 1959:431 - 432).

Adaptation to western norms passed through two stages. During the phase of initial contact, the Maori traded food and native products for goods of a utilitarian nature such as iron and cloth. Till the end of the eighteenth century, transactions were spasmodic and were carried on between mainly coastal Maori and such European vessels that called.

The journals of early European explorers to Aotearoa are littered with references to trading with Maori. Fish seem to have been one of the first items of trade and the most prominent.

Possibly the first recorded instance of fish trading between Maori and Europeans is that provided by Cook on 15 October 1769

At 8 am . . . some fishing boats came off to us and sold us some stinking fish, however it was such as they had and we were glad to enter traffick with them upon any terms. . . . in a very short time they returned again and one of the fishing boats came along side and offer'd us some more fish . . . (Beaglehole 1955:177).

(Then followed the attempted kidnapping of one of Cook's crew, for which he named the place Cape Kidnappers. 'Stinking fish' probably refers to dried shark, a Maori delicacy).

On the 25 October 1769, between Cape Kidnappers and Tolaga Bay, Cook records

The natives gave us not the least disturbance, but brought us now and then different sorts of fish . . . which we purchased of them with Cloth beeds [sic] etc (Beaglehole 1955:184).

At Tolaga Bay Cook noted

During our stay in this Bay we had evebry day more or less traffic with the Natives, they bringing us fish and now and then a few sweet potatoes . . . (Beaglehole 1955:186).

Also in 1769 the French vessel, Saint Jean Baptiste, under de Surville, sailed past the North Cape of Muriwhenua. The journal noted (as here translated)

. . . much surprised to see a boat with five or six men coming towards us. They gave us the little fish and shell-fish which they had, and in exchange we gave them a little calico. . . . Shortly after, three big canoes came within gun-range of the vessel. From that distance they showed us now and then their fish. . . . they gave us a wonderful quantity of fish for some little pieces of calico . . . (McNab 1908:Vol 2 267).

Three years later another French ship, the 'Mascarin' captained by Lt M le St Jean Roux, had recorded in its journal (as here translated).

25 April 1772, [Tom Bowling Bay Far North]:. . . I found some men who were terrified at first. . .. They made me a present of excellent fish, and I gave them some trinkcets. Among them they had an old man who invited me into his house . . .. He called over a canoe which was coming back from fishing and he gestured to me to choose the fish that I liked most. I gave him a second present. . ..

5 May 1772, Bay of Islands: Very early in the morning of the 5th the vessel was surrounded by over 100 canoes, some with fish, others with potatoes. We traded with them; for an old nail they gave us as much as we wanted (translation by Ollivier 1985:143).

It was a beautiful day on the 11th. The natives did not miss the opportunity and came in droves. They exchanged their fish for nails or pieces of old iron (Ollivier 1985:145).

The next year we find in the journal of William Bayly of the HMS Adventure, captained by Furneaux, (Cook's second voyage)

9 April 1773: . . . they all presently withdrew to the other side of the Bay, where they continued fishing until evening when they came along side with great quantities of fish which they weree desirous of giving us . . . (McNab 1908:202).

And in Bayly's Journal of Cook's third voyage, aboard HMS Discoverer,

14 February 1777, Charlotte Sound: The Indians [Maoris] visit us every day in great numbers both on board and on shore bringing plenty of fish to sell, which we purchase for nails and pieces of old cloth etc (McNab 1908:219).

Joseph Banks, Marion du Fresne and d'Entrecasteaux have recorded similar accounts.

With the arrival of whalers, sealers and traders, beginning from the 1790s and with European settlers from the 1810s, European trade took hold. The manner and extent of Maori trade before 1840 is reviewed at 3.5 relating to whaling and sealing; and after 1840 in chapter 4. It is sufficient to say here that with the need to provision the boats of whalers and traders, aided by the introduction of new plants and livestock, and later, missionary advice, and with the exchange of goods for a whole new range of European items, Maori entered into the new form of trade with such enthusifasm that they were soon exporting to Australia. Trade was all around with the range of goods exchanged increasing greatly for both non-Maori and Maori. Maori produced crops of potatoes, flax, timber, pigs, fish and articles of native workmanship, and received metal tools, iron, blankets, clothing, tobacco, muskets, tea, sugar and other items.

Polack (1838:Vol 2 111), observed

Few nations delight more in trading and bargaining than this people; a native fair or festival best illustrates this fact. To such an excess are the feelings of the people carried in bartering with each other, that during war, though the belligerent parties seek for the annihilation of each other, yet at intervals a system of trade, as we have already stated, is carried on, that can scarcely be credited by strangers to their customs . . .. Any person having had dealings with them, are aware of their passion for commercial pursuits.

During the period to 1840, the interplay of cultures was between Maori and the European trader and missionary. Maori where then ascendant, outnumbering the Pakeha several-fold and controlling the natural resources of the land, forests and fisheries. The change in the Maori economic system was largely external comprising mainly the acquisition of new accessories. The internal workings of the Maori economy remained, nonetheless, intact. Production was still by ordinary native methods and the organisation of activity was continued on the usual lines. The whanau or hapu worked under the leadership of the head man, and the Maori system for the distribution of goods remained practically unaffected. In brief, the native economic structure was preserved but there were enormous technological changes, though affecting some tribes more than others.

New foodstuffs, new clothes and new habits had all been introduced with some impact. By 1840 some Maori had acquired their own whaling boats and stations and were travelling great distances.

It is in his conclusions that we part company with Firth. He considers that from their experience with gift exchange Maori made a smooth transition to trade in Western terms. Although they still retained their traditional system of gift-exchange, their liking for European goods, their facility to produce goods for trade, and their penchant for European trading practices meant they were well primed to enter the Western cash economy which was increasingly to dominate New Zealand life.

Undoubtedly Maori avidly pursued trade and new forms of endeavour with great alacrity, but we consider their success in doing so was tenuous, bolstered by a superiority of numbers and access to the major resources (despite the claims that were made that huge areas had been sold), and time was to show that once numbers changed, land was lost and the old tribal power was defeated, Maori were disadvantaged in economic competition, and their early economic initiatives have never since been so successfully repeated.

3.5 SEALING, WHALING AND NON-MAORI FISHING

Counsel for the Fishing Industry submitted

In the use of and guardianship over the fishing resource, Maori did not, as a matter of fact, exclude Europeans from fishing for domestic or commercial purposes. As at 1840, the Europeans fished in common with Maori throughout the zone which is the subject of this claim. Maori never questioned the right of Europeans to fish. The right of Maorki to fish guaranteed by the Treaty is accordingly a non-exclusive one. There is no conduct to show that it was ever contemplated by either Maori or Europeans that it might be otherwise;

To support that contention reference was made to a number of texts on whaling and sealing in New Zealand. It was said

We have not found a single reference with even a suggestion that Maori held the 'mana', control or authority over these greater coastal waters so as to require the Europeans to first seek their authority before entering these waters to fish, either commercially or for non-commercial purposes.

It was added

. . . whalers often purchased land from the Maori tribes for their whaling stations, but there is no record of any suggestion by Maori that they should at the same time negotiate the right to fish in the waters adjacent to that land. Clearly, therefore, they did not consider their rights in respect of their land and the fishery to be the same.

Counsel could point to very little data specific to Muriwhenua other than the fact that European whaling occurred there. Muriwhenua oral tradition records stories of whaling in pre-European times and accounts of whaling post-Treaty but very little in between. Our own researches revealed little more. Indeed the greater bulk of material refers to the South Island where the main whaling took place, and since there is a current fishing claim in respect of the South Island, we do not wish to make specific findings on this claim that might have greater significance for that. Nonetheless, the issue having been raised, and there being a dearth of material on the Muriwhenua position, we have sought a broad overview of the whaling and sealing activity as generally applying. The following brief account relies on Morton 1982, Richards 1982, Rickard 1965, Tod 1982, Coutts 1969, Bathgate 1969, Starke 1986, McNab 1907, McNab 1913 Dawbin 1954 and the specific reports that we particularly mention below.

Seals were caught by early Maori for meat, high energy fat and skins. European sealing began in the South Island, in the 1790s, dried skins being sent to China and salted skins to Europe; but there was probably no European seal exploitation in Muriwhenua, Maingay's studies suggesting that the Muriwhenua seal fisheries had collapsed as early as 1300. Certainly we could find no record of European sealing there.

Abuses by European sealers led to the rapid extinguishment of the seal fisheries in other places. Sealing gangs killed on the rookery grounds disrupting the colonies, and every seal was taken including the breeding females. Maori protested for in those districts where Maori had not themselves destroyed the fishery in the early years of occupation, elaborate management systems had come to apply. There is evidence however that Maori later joined with the sealing gangs, splitting profits.

The fate of the Chatham Islands seal fisheries, one of the largest in the country, illustrates a national pattern. Sealing began there in 1804, peaked in 1826 and had come to a complete end by 1844.

Whales were captured for meat, fat, oil and milk; whalebone artefacts were more highly valued than greenstone. Most whales were captured through natural or enforced strandings.

In our broad overview, the first whaling ships in the period to about 1807 had little contact with Maori, operating predominantly at sea and risking a visit to shore mainly to take on supplies from local Maori. It is not clear when or where it began but there was some very early activity involving sperm whale around North Cape and the Three Kings Islands. The William-and-Mary is recorded as being there in 1792 and the Britannia in 1793. There were probably some 15 whaling ships, mainly British, operating around New Zealand in this first stage.

From 1807 there was intense competition amongst the whaling ships of France, America, Norway, Spain and the East India Company, with some 16 boats arriving each year by about 1813. By then Maori were benefitting considerably, having a monopoly on providing supplies. From imported seeds, huge gardens were planted out. The excess was exported, treated flax, timber, potatoes, sweetcorn, preserved fish and pork being sent with the main shipments of seal skins, whale oil and bone. In return Maori were exposed to all manner of European goods and commodities. They also became accustomed to trading with cash.

The competition continued. In 1836, 151 whaling vessels visited the Bay of Islands, the numbers being even higher in the following six months. On another account 861 British whalers came to New Zealand between 1775 and 1844, on 2,153 voyages. Soon, the greater interest in whaling had shifted to the South Island and the East Coast of the North Island, although the Bay of Islands remained important.

During this second stage, from about 1807, Maori became attracted to whaling seeking to extend their role from that of produce suppliers. European whaling technology was far superior to theirs and this was to become the only area in fishing where Maori were to be keen to acquire Western skills. Non-Maori were eager to treat, numerous whaling stations being established amongst the tribes though again, principally in the South Island. Whaling was to become mainly shore-based, particularly from the 1820s.

It was in the context of much whaling competition that whalers had come to seek from local tribes, exclusive whaling rights in the seas off their lands and the sole right to establish a whaling station upon them. As we shall see the resultant deeds were eventually to come under official scrutiny, but it is apparent that Maori approached these arrangements from the standpoint of their own cultural experience.

As was custom between tribes seeking an alliance, selected women of high status were married to station managers and sea captains to seal the deals. Tod considers that in the South Island, the arrangement of marriages was seen as the first essential item of negotiation before whaling operations were settled. Other negotiated arrangements included the right of the tribe to catch and flag whales for towing and processing by the whaling company; conversely to render the carcasses to oil; alternately to have the head in return for processing the whole carcass. Rights to work the boats as seamen, or in the case of a young chief, as harpoonist or steersman, were also arranged. Some were to become navigators and ships officers and many Maori were eventually to travel to distant parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

Such arrangements were not confined to the South and many remain embedded in Maori oral tradition throughout the country. A French enterprise for example sought a deal with the local tribe at Te Kaha resulting in the marriage of a leading lady of that place and Captain Delamere. It was to result in a long involvement of the Delamere family and the local tribe in shore based whaling.

In the result, some Maori became protectors of whaling stations in their tribal territories warning off not only other Maori but the boats of other nations. They then began the practice of levying boats entering their harbours, and once again that practice was very widespread as shall later be referred to. Thus it was that Maori became not only the suppliers (and exporters) of local produce, but protectors of certain whaling stations. In the South Island there is a record that Maori even supplied coal to station blacksmiths.

From their trade Maori acquired that which was most coveted, their own whaling boats. It was known that these were used to traverse great distances at sea, to islands off the South Island in particular, one, over 1000 miles frtom Bluff. Also in this period, in the Bay of Islands though more especially in the South, Maori established their own whaling stations. Koro Snowden advised of the whaling boat still held by his whanau at Te Kohanga in Muriwhenua.

Those acquisitions increased after the British acquired sovereignty in 1840. Many foreign companies, without the same easy access to ports, were soon to leave. In many instances their Maori partners were to acquire or inherit their gear and many more stations became Maori owned. That happened, for example, at Te Kaha, and gives emphasis to another aspect of Maori arranged marriages as being directed not only to peace but to the acquisition of status and property. A large number of the Bay of Island stations also became Maori owned.

There were three interesting results. In the South Island in particular, but not exclusively, some whalers claimed to have purchased huge areas on account of these arrangements; but in the opinion of Edward Shortland, Protector of Aborigines, given in 1844 in many cases Maori had sold no more than an exclusive right of fishing for whales along their coastlines "to the exclusion of all others" and the right to establish whaling stations (BPP IUP NZ Vol 5 p 313, Shortland 1851; 86 - 87). As this is a matter that could be an issue in the South Island claim we will not go further into it.

In the second result, the practice of Maori claiming levies on boats entering 'their' harbours had become widespread, from the bottom of the South Island to the top of North. The spread of the practice may have been due to the large number of Maori engaged on whaling boats journeying to many ports. In 1835, Busby, British Resident, reported on levies "pretty regularly" imposed on ships entering the Bay of Islands and twice urged the British Government to buy off the Maori right, noting in his second letter, that the French or Americans might do so (Busby to Colonial Secretary, 1835 and 1836 letters 65/2 and 89, Alexander Turnbull Library, q MS Bus 1935/345). The significance is that after 1840, the Crown denied the Maori practice on the basis that by Treaty it now owned or had sovereignty over the harbours. Maori claimed that by the same Treaty existing Maori rights had been affirmed. Continual Maori attempts to levy boats was to be a contributing factor to the wars in the Far North and the Waikato and Maori still claimed the right to harbour dues as late as the Orakei Conference in 1879. This is referred to again, later in this report.

The third result is that Maori whaling was to continue long after the collapse of the main whaling industry by about 1845 due to unrestrained pressure on whale populations. Tribunal member Mr Delamere advises, of his own knowledge, that the Te Kaha station continued to operate into his lifetime, the last whale killed there being in 1934. There are records of Maori conducting whaling operations in Muriwhenua in the 1890s, and a little to the south of there, to about 1940.

These circumstances were once better known. In Baldick v Jackson (1910) 30 NZLR 343, Stout C J was to consider that an Imperial Act recognising whales as "royal fish" owned by the Crown, could not have application in New Zealand. He observed in the process that to recognise the application of the Act would be to assert a claim against the Maori who, "were accustomed to engage in whaling and the Treaty of Waitangi assumed that their fishing was not to be interfered with".

That is a broad overview and we do not seek to be more particular because the matter may be crucial in the South Island claim. In any event, the data on particular whaling arrangements is not from Muriwhenua. In that area the chief evidence is of the hunting of sperm whales, and mainly in that very early period when whaling operations were conducted offshore.

In Muriwhenua, ocean currents were known to swing in-shore at a certain time of the year at Rangaunu Harbour. Whales following the current were harried by canoes and beached in the confusion, or calves were forced to the shore in the knowledge that the mothers would not leave them. It is known that whales were pursued by canoes along the eastern beaches of Muriwhenua and many were taken at North Cape.

Some stories were told to us of whales in the early days. Haimona Snowden for example, described how Ngati Kuri hid inside a whale stranded at Te Kohanga (Wreck Bay today) in order to surprise Te Aupouri when the latter came to claim it. On another occasion a whale harpooned by Te Aupouri escaped into Ngai Takoto waters to be taken by the people there, giving rise to the Aupouri proverb

Taihoa te tohatoha, kia whakauungia ra ano te tohoraha ki uta

(Leave the talk of apportioning the prize until the whale is safely hauled ashore.)

In pre-European times we were told, whale calves were called by blowing under-water, resembling the mother's sound; also that between certain rocks dolphins were caught in nets on the eastern Muriwhenua coast and were another prized delicacy.

Lookouts were stationed on Whakapouka rise at Karikari to sight pods of migrating whales, and an island nearby (Whale Island today) was called Tuputupu-ngahau, for the whales that spouted there as they came up for breath.

A section of the people called Te Kari shifted from the mainland to Manawatawhi (Three Kings Islands). Local elders believed they went there in about the 1790s and became involved in whaling from that base. It is not clear whether they were whaling there before the Europeans came, or whether they went there to be involved in the early European whaling activity that centred on those islands. In any event the Te Kari people were known to be whalers. One of them, Pataea, or Tom as he was later called, was renowned for his skill as a harpoonist, and also for his ropework and use of the bow-line knot. Tom Bowline became his name, and Tom Bowling's Bay off North Cape (Takapauaka to Maori) is named for him. It appears however that Pataea was active in the later period, about say 1860 - 1880. The last of the Te Kari people did not return to the North Cape until the early 1900s, after a sojourn of over a century on Manawatawhi.

We can find no record of any shore based whaling in Muriwhenua before 1840. From such evidence as we can find, the most northerly whaling stations pre-Treaty, were at Hokianga on the West Coast and Whangaroa on the East. Mangonui, which is in Muriwhenua, was regularly used to rest crews and take on supplies, many Maori being attracted to the area to trade, as a result, but it was not a whaling station. It seems to have been preferred by some Captains as a rest and recreation area because the Bay of Islands had achieved some notoriety. One reference to ships calling in to Mangonui does suggest however that the position in Muriwhenua may not have been different from elsewhere. The log of the whaler Cadmus in 1833, records the demand that a local Maori pilot should guide the ship to anchorage in return for a pilotage fee.

The main recorded accounts of Muriwhenua whaling relate to the post Treaty period, when Maori predominated the whaling scene. A half caste whaling Captain, J Thoms, whose father was from a Cook Strait whaling station, appears to have led some considerable Maori activity in hunting humpback whales that became economically important after the sperm whale fishery off North Cape declined. This was probably in the mid 1800s. A shore-station was established at the tip of Karikari Peninsula. Temporary camps where oil was boiled out in try-pots were common, wherever there was a convenient landing, on the Ninety Mile Beach, Parengarenga and Karikari for example. After Thoms retired, the enterprise was continued into the 1890s (see Dawbin 1954:6 - 8). Whaling activity was centred also in Matai Bay, Mimiwhangata and Whangamumu. The station at Whangamumu closed in 1932 and an attempt to restart the industry in 1940 failed, marking the end of commercial whaling in Northland (Dignan 1985).

In view of some evidence applicable to other places, and the dearth of material on Muriwhenua, we consider it unsafe to assume that because of whaling, Muriwhenua Maori could be taken to have abandoned exclusive tribal rights before the Treaty. We consider rather that the record is indicative of a Maori desire to secure trade, and later to establish their own whaling businesses. It is the sovereign right of all people to seek progress in that way, and the record does not seem to us to indicate any waiver of that sovereignty.

The same must apply to other forms of pre-treaty non-Maori fishing. Except that other evidence may come to light, for we have found nothing on other forms of early European fishing in Muriwhenua, we incline to the broad description of a Northland settler's life in the 1830s, as given in Maning's Old New Zealand. In those days, Maning considered, Pakeha lived on Maori terms. So it was that he called himself 'a Pakeha-Maori'. A consent to use may be implied, but control should be implied too for numerical superiority gave the tribes the final say.

In 1840 we conclude, the Maori had a bounteous fishery which seemed to be under no immediate threat and they could afford to allow the few local settlers in their midst access to that fishery, provided they heeded the mana of local chiefs and any tapu or rahui in force.

3.6 MURIWHENUA FISHERIES AT 1840

The archaeological record, early European eye-witness accounts and the oral evidence of the elders leave us in little doubt that the Muriwhenua region was once heavily populated and that the tribes were largely reliant on the resources of the sea. But we have little documented evidence on their use of those resources in 1840. It seems that they had suffered considerable de-population since the late eighteenth century, due largely to the introduction of infectious diseases and an exacerbation of warfare. Indeed their population could well have been substantially reduced in some parts of Muriwhenua, and an overall decline continued until the late nineteenth century. It does have to be accepted that population estimates are difficult to make and subject to much debate. The introduction of pigs, potatoes and other crops led to a concentration of settlement on more fertile land, for instance around the mission station at Kaitaia and Henry Southee's farm at Awanui, and less reliance on sea foods (Dieffenbach 1843:Vol 1 pp197 - 221). Although local settlers and visiting whalers at Mangonui provided a small local market for Maori produce, the tribes lacked the considerable opportunities of those closer to the thriving markets at the Bay of Islands and, after 1840, Auckland. Yet, despite the concentration on land and cultivation, fishing remained an important activity, largely, it would seem, for domestic consumption but also as an item of exchange with inland hapu and Europeans.

The Muriwhenua tribes still took large quantities of fish from their harbours. In 1840, Ernst Dieffenbach, naturalist to the New Zealand company, began an exploration of the northern North Island. He noted that a great quantity of fish was being taken in Parengarenga Harbour, especially skates, herrings, mackerel and snapper and that "the natives were preserving them in great quantities by simply drying them in the sun". (Dieffenbach, 1843:Vol 1 p209).

In the late 1830s J S Polack referred to certain Muriwhenua tribes fleeing to Three Kings Islands and subsisting largely on the innumerable shoals of fish that were abundant on those shores. Polack also referred to the range of fishing gear used by the northern Maori as being of excellent quality, some of the seine nets of enormous size and all gear being very effective. He noted that fishing consumed much of the time of the people. They undertook fishing in large parties, often involving inhabitants of several villages (Polack, 1838 and 1840:Vol 1 196 - 203).

It ought to be noted also that Muriwhenua Maori had access to larger swamps and lakes than exist today. Large areas to the east of Kaitaia in particular were once covered by freshwater.