The date of MÄori occupation of Aotearoa New Zealand has long been disputed. Non-MÄori historians in the early twentieth century collated MÄori migration myths and from these suggested a discovery date of 925ā950 CE and a settlement date of 1150ā1350 CE (Hiroa 1949; Sinclair 1959; Schwimmer 1966; Metge 1967). This became the accepted start date for MÄori settlement. When Hanson (1989) questioned the basis on which these dates had been formulated in his controversial article āThe Making of the MÄoriā, suggesting that this was a ācultural inventionā, he was strongly criticized, not least by MÄori themselves, who perceived the criticism to be of their culture ā of MÄoridom. One of the consequences of the article was that the subject of the Moriori people was again raised. It was suggested not only that these migrants, originating from Melanesia, were the first settlers in Aotearoa New Zealand but that the subsequent MÄori colonizers either had driven them from the land or had decimated their population. These opinions suggested to some people that, as MÄori were also colonizers, and as they were not the first settlers, they had no more right to the land than did the Europeans (King 1999).
This situation had serious political implications for MÄori land claims and calls for compensation through the Waitangi Tribunal (an official body instituted in 1975 to examine MÄori claims over land rights and to adjudicate on compensation for loss of land, where appropriate; see Sharp 1997: 4). King (1997, 2003) sought to quell the controversy in his History of New Zealand. He detailed the origins of the Moriori, describing them as early Polynesian settlers of MÄori ethnicity; he then outlined their migration from Aotearoa New Zealand to the Chatham Islands, to the east of Aotearoa New Zealand, and the subsequent colonization of Aotearoa New Zealand by a further wave of settlers, the ancestors of the current MÄori population. MÄori settlement of Aotearoa New Zealand is now thought, from archaeological evidence, to be more akin to the late thirteenth century.
Abel Janszoon Tasman was the first European to discover Aotearoa New Zealand in 1642, but it was not until 1769, when the, then, Lieutenant James Cook set foot there, that the gradual colonization of the country by Europeans began. Initially, it was predominantly sailors, whalers, sealers and escaped criminals from prison colonies in Australia who frequented the islands. French explorers also made contact with the MÄori people: Jean de Surville shortly after Cook and Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne in 1772 (Belich 1996; King 2003).
1 PÄkehÄ is the term for a non-MÄori person; it is now often taken to mean āNew Zealander of European descentā. In 1835, representatives of the British Crown drew up the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand in Waitangi. Although MÄori had no input into the writing of the document, some iwi did sign it. However, a statement claiming that a āConfederation of United Tribesā had signed the document was inaccurate, as there was not one cohesive MÄori nation but a collection of nations (King 2003: 154ā5). The document had no constitutional status, and āan official in the Foreign Office in London referred to it as āsilly and unauthorisedāā (King 2003: 155). However, it ābecame a foundation for the assertion of Indigenous rights, and it was another step in the direction of a formal constitutional relationship with Great Britainā (King 2003: 155; emphasis in original).
Trading with the country expanded further with the establishment of the New Zealand Company in 1838. Under the management of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, the company started to buy land cheaply from MÄori, with a view to making a profit from the European settlers who were starting to move to the country (Belich 1996). Wakefield and the company also had plans to set up a government in Aotearoa New Zealand, a situation that prompted the British Government to act in order to establish the country as a colony. It was as a consequence of these actions, together with concerns over lawlessness and the safety of both British settlers and the MÄori, that Aotearoa New Zealand was annexed and the Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up (King 2003).
The Treaty was to prove a key factor both in legitimizing colonial rule in Aotearoa New Zealand and in the subsequent process of decolonization of the country (Perrott 2005). Representatives of the British Crown and MÄori chiefs signed it on 6 February 1840 (London 1994; Cohen 1998). The two versions, one in English and the other in MÄori, presented at the signing, in Waitangi in the north of the North Island, contained significant differences in wording within their texts. This led to disputes over their interpretation, which would ultimately have long-term repercussions for relations between the European settlers and MÄori iwi (tribes).
The British Crown and MÄori iwi interpreted concepts such as āgovernanceā and āsovereigntyā quite differently (Belich 1996; King 2003).1 In the MÄori version of the Treaty, the word āsovereigntyā was translated as ākÄwanatangaā, which literally meant āgovernorshipā, a very different concept. In contrast, in the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand, sovereignty had been translated as āmanaā (prestige, power, customary authority), a more appropriate comparison for MÄori people. The words ātino rangatiratangaā were also contentious. MÄori understood this concept as being able to āexercise their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasuresā; in other words, have sovereignty over their lands. In the English version, however, the wording was somewhat less strong, stating that MÄori could have āfull exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other propertiesā (King 2003: 160). Therefore, by signing the document, MÄori believed that they were granting the British the right to govern while, in fact, the British Crown was establishing supreme authority over Aotearoa New Zealand.
2 Here sovereignty is defined as āsupreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or communityā, while governance is āgovernment; exercise of authority; controlā (Dictionary.com 2012). Perceptions of the importance of the Treaty were also different. Many chiefs had signed the Treaty with their tattoo, their moko, rather than a signature, as this increased the mana and, therefore, importance of the document (King 1978: 14). New Zealand history indicates that it is debatable, however, whether the British placed the same level of importance on the document. These misunderstandings and misinterpretations were to have a fundamental influence on the historical and political development of Aotearoa New Zealand, which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to settle MÄori land claims.
The Treaty itself (comprising nine original documents, which had toured the country being signed) was, after being saved from a fire, stored in a safe until 1908. At this time, it was found to have been both water- and rodent-damaged. The subsequent attempts at repair in 1913 further damaged the documents, causing more staining. It was not until 1977 and 1978, following more than 15 years of exhibition, that initial conservation work was finally carried out. The final conservation of the Treaty was completed in 1987 and it was housed in its current secure display in 1990. Named the Constitution Room, the exhibition of the Treaty in its current surroundings in Archives New Zealand (ANZ) places it as the āfounding documentā of Aotearoa New Zealand, a catalyst for the resurgence of MÄori cultural identity and the land claims being negotiated through the Waitangi Tribunal (Archives NZ 2012a; SSC 2005).
In the decades after the signing of the Treaty, Europeans increasingly settled in Aotearoa New Zealand. Predominantly from the United Kingdom, but from various other European countries as well (particularly France and Germany), migrants moved to the major settlement towns of Auckland and Wellington in the North Island, and Christchurch and Dunedin in the South Island. Many of the settlers were poor people looking for a better life, where they could work for themselves, rather than as servants as had been the case in the United Kingdom. This founding sentiment has had an effect on the political development of the country, resulting in an egalitarianism that now permeates all levels of society (King 2003).
The effect of so many settlers, however, resulted in an increasing requirement for land. Some MÄori iwi (tribes) were apparently willing to sell land to Europeans; others lost their land through unscrupulous deals by an individual or several individuals within an iwi; still others had their lands confiscated when they opposed the rule of the British Government. This latter action led to wars over land between MÄori and Europeans in both the 1840s and 1860s, known as the New Zealand Wars (Cannadine 2001). From having possession of all the land pre-Europeanization, by 1891 MÄori held only 17 per cent of the land in Aotearoa New Zealand and their numbers had also reduced from being 50 per cent of the population in 1860 to only 10 per cent in 1891 (King 2003). Some iwi suffered more than others did. If an iwi was believed to have harboured a fugitive, for example, then this could automatically lead to land confiscation. This was the case for a number of iwi, particularly TÅ«hoe, around the Bay of Plenty region. Between 1868 and 1872, at the time of the New Zealand Wars, they were associated with Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, who was believed, by some MÄori, to be a missionary and resistance leader, but was considered an outlaw and murderer by the British (Belich 1996; King 2003).
In addition to losing land, MÄori culture was gradually eroded through acculturation and prohibitions on speaking the MÄori language. Until the Second World War, many MÄori still lived in rural tribal communities. Status was determined by mana and importance placed on whakapapa (genealogy). Instead of being allowed to learn on the marae (central area of MÄori village and its buildings), however, as was traditional in MÄori society, children were taught in Native Schools ...