Land Tenure in the Cook Islands
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Australian National University by Ronald Gordon Crocombe
‘The productivity of the land and the social advancement of the people are dependent as much on the evolution of sound systems of land tenure as upon the development of improved agricultural practise.’
This thesis is based on original research conducted by the author during the course of a Research Scholarship in the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University.
Table of Contents
Preface
The authors of development programmes in the Pacific area today are more aware than their colonial predecessors of the significance of ‘custom’ as a factor to be reckoned with in the accomplishment of their objectives; an importance which remains regardless of whether custom is considered a helpful medium for facilitating the introduction of new ideas and techniques or an obstacle to innovation which has to be either overcome or circumvented.
For the most part, however, the acceptance of such a viewpoint has been in principle rather than in practice; and it is seldom indeed that the blue-prints of planning agencies have attempted to define the special segments of custom likely to affect the achievement of their aims, and even more seldom that detailed research has been undertaken to determine their precise nature.
The objective of this study is to examine a specific aspect of custom in a particular area: firstly, to determine its character and constituent traits in the precontact era; secondly, to identify and describe such modifications as were brought about by three generations of contact with European culture; and lastly, to describe and analyze the effects of modern administrative policies which are themselves essentially based on assumptions concerning such custom.
Acknowledgements
Should any of my friends care to read this study, they would probably consider that this fact or that idea originated from them, and in all probability it did, for I have drawn on the knowledge and views of others to such an extent that it is not possible to acknowledge or identify the specific contribution of each of them.
The need for a study of land tenure in the Cook Islands was first suggested to me by Mr J.B. Wright, then Secretary of the Department of Island Territories (now High Commissioner for New Zealand in Western Samoa), and through the good offices of Professor J.W. Davidson of this University, facilities were provided to permit the research to be undertaken. It has been my good fortune to have had the project supervised by Mr H.E. Maude who has freely given of his wealth of experience in practical dealings with land tenure problems in the Pacific, as well as of his vast knowledge of the ethnohistory of the region. In addition to most helpful suggestions as to the carrying out of the project, Mr R.P. Gilson has made available all his historical material on the area, including comprehensive notes extracted from British Colonial Office and Foreign Office files as well as London Missionary Society records relating to the Cook Islands.
Field work was made possible by a generous grant from the Australian National University and by facilities made available in the field by the Department of Island Territories and the Cook Islands Administration. To Mr J.M. McEwen,
To Pa Terito Ariki of Takitumu, and to Kainuku Ariki, Mr and Mrs C.T. Cowan (Tau Puru Ariki and Vaikai Mataiapo), Mr G. Crummer (Tangiiau Mataiapo), and Mrs Clara Gladney (Maoate Mataiapo), I am deeply obliged for the invitation to carry out field studies in the progressive tapere of Turangi ma Nga Mataiapo on Rarotonga. Not without reason, the Maori people are cautious of investigations into questions of land tenure, and the generosity of these chiefs and their people in giving a considerable amount of time as well as a wealth of information will never be forgotten.
Rongomatane Tetupu Ariki of Atiu, the Ui Mataiapo, Ui Rangatira, the people of Tengatangi village and of Atiu as a whole, will always be affectionately remembered by my wife and I for their hospitality and kindness, and for their
Of the many others in the Cook Islands whose assistance is acknowledged, mention must be made of Mr Ned Marsters of Palmerston Island; and Dr John A. Numa, Mr Teariki Tuavera and Tamaiva Iro Rangatira, all of Rarotonga. Mr A.O. Dare, who assumed the post of Resident Commissioner since my departure, kindly supplied data on the recent experiment with the Mauke fern lands.
Dr A.P. Vayda of Columbia University, Dr Donald S. Marshall of the Peabody Museum, Dr Neil Gunson of the University of Queensland, and Dr Norma McArthur of the Demography Department of this university have obliged with information and suggestions.
In addition to the continuous guidance of Mr Maude and Professor Davidson the following persons read drafts and gave of their specialized knowledge on specific aspects of the work. Mr H.W. Sheffler of the Anthropology Department of the University of Chicago commented on chapters 2 to 6 and 12, Professor G. Sawer of the Law Department of this University read chapters 10, 12 and 15, Dr E.K. Fisk of the Economics Department assisted with chapters 13 to 15. Dr Emily Sadka of the Pacific History Department gave invaluable advice and assistance with the final revision of the whole work. While absolving them from any responsibility for the material here presented, I am nevertheless extremely grateful for their views, suggestions and criticisms.
The format, typography and preparation of duplimats has been handled by Mrs Aino Guenot with her customary precision and care and the maps were drawn in their final form by Messrs H. Gunther and J. Heyward. In addition to checking, correcting and suggesting improvements, a constant and stimulating encouragement has been provided at all times by my wife.
Abbreviations
Glossary and Conventions
The explanations given below have been kept as brief as possible and do not purport to be exhaustive. In particular, while many Maori Note that the term Maori is used in this thesis with the meaning ascribed to it in the Cook Island dialects, i.e. referring to the indigenous people of the Cook Islands or to things pertaining to them.
The common convention of underlining words in languages other than English has not been followed for two reasons: firstly because this is a study of a particular aspect of Maori culture, and in such a context it appears inappropriate to treat Maori words as foreign; and secondly because underlining has occasionally been used in the thesis to emphasize particular words or ideas, and the use of the same technique for two different purposes may cause confusion.
The Cook Islands in Relation to Neighbouring Territories and New Zealand
Introduction
This study is set in the Cook Group, an archipelago of fifteen tiny islands totalling only 88 square miles in area, yet scattered over 850,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean between Tonga and Samoa on the one hand, and French Polynesia on the other. Since
The islands are divided physically into two groups. The Northern Group consists of seven islands of coral formation which constitute the central segment of that scattered band of atolls that sweeps across the Pacific from French Oceania to the Marshalls. The Southern Group islands are, with two minor exceptions, of volcanic origin, and all eight islands lie within a radius of one hundred and fifty miles of Rarotonga, the administrative headquarters of the Government of the Cook Islands. In area the islands range from Nassau which is only 300 acres, to Rarotonga which covers 16,602 acres. The population of the permanently settled islands ranges from 92 on Palmerston to 7,827 on Rarotonga; the total for the whole group being 18,041.NZPP A3
The group lacks mineral deposits of commercial value, and its principal natural resources are the soil and the sea - though the potential of the latter is as yet little known. The soils vary considerably in their productive potential, but only 9,523 acres or 16 per cent of the total land area of the group is considered suitable for agriculture. Figures in this paragraph are based on Fox and Grange, Soils of the Lower Cook Group, and NZPP A3
The climate of the group is tropical and shows little seasonal variation. The mean annual temperature lies in the mid-seventies. Annual rainfall is about seventy to eighty inches and in general is well distributed throughout the year, except in the Northern Group where periods of drought are sometimes experienced. Hurricanes usually strike some part of the group once or twice in each decade, and the commercial productivity of the islands hit is severely disrupted for a year or more thereafter.
Of the wealth of truly indigenous vegetation found in the group, very little indeed makes any significant contribution to human welfare. The coconut, banana, breadfruit, taro and most of the other subsistence crops were introduced by the Polynesian immigrants to the islands in centuries past, and other crops like citrus, coffee and tomatoes came with
In the first part of the thesis an attempt is made to reconstruct the pre-contact land tenure system of Rarotonga, the largest and most populous island of the group. It was not possible to attempt a detailed description of the system of every single island as a basis on which to build a generalized model, owing to the time needed for such a task, and the inadequacy of the data available for the smaller islands. The main variations found to exist are between the systems applying on the atolls of the Northern Group and those of the high islands of the Southern Group, and are clearly imposed by environmental factors. Others, however, are attributable to differences in cultural origin – most markedly between the people of Pukapuka, whose origin lies in Western Polynesia, and those of the rest of the group, whose origin may be traced to Eastern Polynesia. To a lesser degree there are minor variations within each subgroup and even within individual islands, though no major differences are apparent between the islands of the Southern Group, which contains 85 per cent of the population and 86 per cent of the land area. With the possible exception of Mangaia, about which little is known. The results of recent anthropological researches by Dr Donald S. Marshall should be available shortly and will presumably clarify the tenure situation on that island.
In describing a land system as it was a century and a half ago, it is of course impossible to obtain the degree of accuracy which can be obtained by a contemporary field survey, but if a study of change is to be made, it is essential that it should start by determining the cultural situation as it was at the temporal baseline of the study -
The date of first contact has been taken as
In reconstructing the pre-contact land tenure system of Rarotonga we have five major sources of evidence. In the first place we have the physical features of the island, which have had clearly discernible and important effects on land use and concomitant tenure; and with this may be coupled the archaeological record - marae and house sites, boundary marks and grave-yards, irrigation works and terracing. There is also the one paved road which is still clearly discernible and which led right round the island following the low-lying fertile strip, but there were no roads or paths across the mountains. Sub-surface archaeological research, on the other hand, though one of the most useful aids to reconstruction, has not yet begun on Rarotonga.
Our second source of evidence is the mass of recorded data left by members of the culture concerned, people who were in many cases active participants in the pre-contact tenure system but who naturally did not make written records until the art of writing had been introduced and the process of change had begun. Rarotongans, in common with many other Polynesians, have exceptionally long memories, particularly for names, relationships and incidents. Their memory for numbers and periods of time, on the other hand, is often very
The art of writing was first taught in
One of the most important native manuscripts for far located is the four hundred page work of Maretu, an excannibal who became a pillar of the church. He made no abstractions or interpretations and simply recorded what he remembered; any relationships described are between particular people and thus, while they may not bear wide generalization, they do provide instances of actual behaviour. When such behaviour conforms to Maretu's expectations, which in all probability means that it conforms to custom, he makes no further comment; when it does not, he feels constrained to explain further or pass judgement. While he never quotes any principles of land tenure, he does describe incidents which illustrate particular principles in action.
While Maretu speaks almost exclusively of his own life-time, another Rarotongan, Terei by name, was a true historian
The native records have the advantage of having been written by men who knew no other language and no other culture than their own. These have all been studied in the vernacular, including the few which have been translated into English.
Thirdly we have for evidence the records of external observers, persons whose impressions were based not on participation but on observation, and invariably through eyes which saw the situation in terms of cultures which differed markedly from those of the natives. The only known landings
The early missionaries left about eight published works which deal significantly with this island but as more unpublished material becomes available their relative importance as source material is diminishing. The letters, journals, and reports of the missionaries have, however, been preserved and are very useful sources; since almost every month each missionary sent a detailed report to his directors in London, a journal had to be prepared for every missionary voyage, and reports had to be submitted every year. Despite a natural emphasis on ecclesiastical affairs these documents cover a very wide range of subjects, often describing customs or giving the background to disputes.
The advantage of these mission records lies in their detailed nature and frequency of recording, which affords a fairly constant picture of the march of events. All the missionaries understood and worked exclusively in the local dialect and they participated in almost every aspect of the local life. On the debit side, however, is the fact that, like all other foreign observers, the missionaries saw through eyes which were conditioned by a different culture, and though they understood the native language, they probably did not understand a number of the concepts expressed in it.
Other foreign observers were traders, whalers, travellers and warship commanders; persons whose visits were generally brief and for specific purposes, and whose writings accordingly provide relatively little information beyond details of trade, crops grown, names of local notabilities, and
Fourth among the available sources are the results of such earlier researches as may provide information about various aspects of the pre-contact era. By far the most important collection in this category is that accumulated by the Land Court, which was established in
Our fifth source of evidence for pre-contact history lies in contemporary field-studies, which may provide some indications as to the nature of the system which existed earlier, for, despite many changes, there appears to have been a considerable degree of carry-over. Change takes place at different rates in different aspects of a culture, and land tenure is one of the aspects of Rarotongan culture in which change has come about much more slowly than in such fields as religion or education. A present-day survey by itself can give only the slightest indication of the tenure system in the 1820s, yet in conjunction with the other sources
Finally, some inferences may be drawn from a knowledge of other tenure systems, particularly those in related groups of islands possessing a similar socio-political organization. These may give clues to correlations which may be sought, or show whether circumstantial probabilities are consistent with actualities elsewhere. Deductions made on this basis can only be in the nature of probabilities, but in some cases even these may be of relevance.
Each of the above sources has its inadequacies, but each helps to clarify the outlines of a situation which no longer exists; at least not in its pristine form.
The second part of the study is concerned with the effects of European contact on the tenure system during the nineteenth century. Here the records of the missionaries are the most detailed, though not necessarily the most objective; and they are supplemented by the reports, diaries and publications of naval and other marine officers, traders and travellers, as well as by the files of the British Colonial and Foreign Offices, the New Zealand Government and the Western Pacific High Commission. The evidence for this period, however, particularly in so far as it relates to competition for land, is heavily weighted in that it is generally concerned with expressing the viewpoint of the European and much less frequently with that of the Maori. There are, it is true, some records by Maoris, and some of the early records of the Land Court contain valuable evidence by Maoris, but the Land Court, too, was a European institution, and, in its early years at least, no less liable to prejudices
For the final section, which deals with administrative policies and their effects, a considerable amount of material was available from official files and records (including those of the Land Court), as well as from a field study carried out from March 1959 to May 1960. The first month was spent in New Zealand consulting the records of the Department of Island Territories, and material in the Alexander Turnbull Library, the Polynesian Society and the Auckland Institute Library. From April 1959 to January 1960 was spent in the Cook Islands, where detailed field surveys were carried out in the Tengatangi district of Atiu, the four contiguous tapere known as Turangi ma Nga Mataiapo at Ngatangiia on Rarotonga and on the island of Palmerston. At Rarotonga the relevant records of the Land Court and the central administration were also examined. The Department of Island Territories and the Cook Islands Administration generously gave unrestricted access to files and documents, but while these were studied in some detail I have refrained from referring to those which are not normally available to the public. January to May 1960 was spent in field studies in Tonga and Western Samoa, but time and the volume of material collected has precluded the inclusion of comparative data from these sources.
In some aspects, and in particular those relating to the effects of decisions of the Land Court on the functioning of the tenure system, the analysis is at times rather critical. This criticism is not intended to be negative, but it is felt that the existing situation cannot be adequately understood, nor can remedial action be effectively taken, unless the causal factors are clearly identified. Nevertheless, there
In the final chapter an attempt is made to draw together the conclusions which arise from the study as a whole and to suggest some possible alternative approaches to the solution of the more serious problems thus brought to light.
Part One
The Pre-Contact Land Tenure System of Rarotonga
The Pre-Contact Land Tenure System of Rarotonga
Historical Background- c.
to1823
This period of nearly a thousand years covers the whole span of Rarotongan history from the inception of human settlement about 875 A.D. until the arrival of European missionaries in the year
In the present chapter an attempt will be made to reconstruct, from the various accounts of Rarotonga's precontact history, as consistent a picture of the march of events as the evidence will permit. Clearly the sources speak only from tradition, except for the decades immediately preceding The following works were consulted in connection with the pre-European history of the island: Best, JPS 36:122–34; Buck, Vikings of the Sunrise 112–16, Arts & Crafts of the Cook Islands 11–13; Cowan (Tau Puru Ariki), Tumu Korero 1:9–11, 2:4–7, 6:2–4 + 13–14, 9:4–9, 10:5–9; Fraser, JPS 6:72–3; Gill, Wm., Gems from the Coral Islands 2:3–4; Gill, Wyatt, JRAI 6:2–8, AAAS 627–36; Gudgeon, JPS 12:51–61 + 120–30; Itio MS; Kiva, JPS 6:1–6; Manuiri, JPS 5:142–4; Matatia, JPS 4:99–131; Maretu, MS; More, JPS 19:142–68; Native Land Court files; Nicholas (translator), JPS 1:20–29; Numa, MS; Pitman, Journal, passim; JPS 6:6–10; Savage, ‘Iro Nui Ma Oata’, Smith, Hawaiki passim, JPS 12:218–20 and 16:175–88; Tama, JPS 15:209–19; Taraare, JPS 8:61–88 + 171–8, 28:183–208, 29:1–19 + 45–69 + 107–27, 30:129–41, also MS; Ta'unga, MS; Toarua, JPS 20:139–43; Teaia, JPS 2:271–9; Terei, Tuatua Taito, JPS 26:1–18 + 45–65; Vakapora, JPS 20:215–18; Williams, A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands passim; Williamson, The Social and Political Systems of Central Polynesia 1:263–82.
While excavation and radio-carbon dating may eventually reveal a relatively precise date for the initial colonization of the island, we are dependent for the present on traditional accounts. These record the arrival of various immigrant canoes, with subsequent settlement and wars, and the building of a road round the island, all long before the arrival of the voyager Tangiia about the year 1200 A.D. Smith, on the basis of genealogical evidence, gives the year 875 A.D. as the nearest estimate of the date of first settlement. - A full discussion of the known history of Toi is given by Smith, who concludes that the road was built about six generations before the arrival of Tangiia. - Hawaiki 208.JPS 16:175–88. Fletcher, in a more recent survey, puts the time of Toi over a hundred years before Smith's estimate. - JPS 39:315–21.
Early records often refer to these first settlers as the ‘Mana'une’ or ‘Tangata enua’ (people of the land), but there is no evidence to indicate that they were other than Polynesians. The first of them landed at the harbour now known as Ngatangiia and established themselves in the nearby Avana valley. It is from these people that the Kainuku line of chiefs trace their descent. Most records show them as having come from the island of Iva in what is now French
Iva is variously described as Nukuhiva (e.g. by Gill, Some of the later immigrants also came from Iva, and others from a place called Atu-apai. The latter place is believed by some to be Haapai in the Tonga Group, but as most of this party was wiped out in battle their point of origin is not important.AAAS 629), as Hiva'oa (e.g. in JPS 2:271), or as a place name in Raiatea (e.g. in JPS 6:9). However, all these islands are part of what is now French Polynesia. Indigenous writers do not attempt to give the location of the island of Iva.
Rarotonga
Major Cultural and Physical Features
The traditional evidence available then indicates that at the close of this phase the island was populated by people who traced their origin from Iva - somewhere in Eastern Polynesia. The land was now held by conquest, and throughout the pre-European period rights held by conquest superseded all other rights in land.
The second phase opened with the arrival of two independent parties of settlers, towards the end of the twelfth century. The one party, led by Tangiia, came from the island of Raiatea in the Society Group. All sources except two agree that Tangiia came from the All sources give Manu'a as Karika's island of origin.Tuatua Taito 6–8 and a translation by Stair from a Rarotongan missionary's account in JPS 4:99–131) show Tangiia as having come originally from Upolu and thence having travelled to JPS 19:176.
While all accounts indicate that the two parties arrived at about the same time, some claim that Tangiia was the first to arrive and others that Karika was. Similarly, while all accounts show them to have been on amicable terms, some claim that Tangiia's was the paramount or most influential party, and others that the supremacy lay with Karika's party. It all depends on whether the author of the account concerned identified himself with the one party or the other. An analysis of the various accounts shows that those written by or collected from descendants of Tangiia claim that he was paramount. Reports from Karika's descendants, on the other hand, show him in this role. The various accounts, nevertheless, agree on many significant points. Gilson has aptly noted that ‘this unwritten history was a flexible instrument subject to wide variation in order to rationalise partisan claims and de facto political situations’.-‘Administration of the
The number of persons in each party can only be a matter of conjecture for while some traditions do not comment on number, others give varying numbers up to a maximum of 400 in Tangiia's party, and 140 in Karika's. Likewise, the sexual composition of Tangiia's party is in doubt. Some claim that he brought his womenfolk with him, others that it was a canoe-load of warriors only. All agree, however, that Karika did bring at least one woman, a daughter, whom Tangiia took to wife.
Perhaps the strongest force unifying the two groups was the necessity for defence, for shortly after their arrival on the island Tutapu arrived in pursuit of Tangiia with whom he had a long-standing quarrel. Tangiia sought the aid of Karika's party to repulse the invaders, who were subsequently killed to a man. After Tutapu, other canoes arrived from
The subsequent history of the island can be more easily followed if we deal separately with each of the three tribes which were in existence in the year
Takitumu was the name of Tangiia's canoe and this name was applied both to the tribe which traces its descent from men who travelled to Rarotonga in that canoe, and to the district which they occupy. Though he was from a chiefly family, Tangiia was not himself a man of high rank. No tradition records his relationship to other members of his party, though some refer to them vaguely as his kopu tangata (cognatic kinsmen). The only exceptions to this generalization are Pa and Tinomana. Pa was adopted by Tangiia, but was a son of the renowned Tahitian chief Iro. Being of such high rank, Pa was later made titular head of the Tangiia tribe and it is through him that the Pa Ariki line of high chiefs trace their descent. Tinomana, of whom more details will be given later, was the son of Tangiia.
The other line of high chiefs of the Takitumu tribe today is that of Kainuku Ariki. The Kainuku people trace their descent from those early settlers who were living on the island at the time of Tangiia's arrival and who formed an alliance with Tangiia's people. Whether or not this union was preceded by conflict or threat of conflict is not known though the resident party were given only a minority role in the affairs of the group. Te Aia says that Tangiia was on friendly terms with the people already established on the island, ‘and made them his own people, and he assumed to himself and his children the position of ariki over all the mataiapo of Tongaiti… so that he had everyone under him, including his own mataiapo’. (Tongaiti is the name frequently given to the party in occupation of the land at the time of Tangiia's arrival.) - Te Aia, JPS 2:275. It will be noted, however, that the leaders of the Tongaiti party were given the status of mataiapo (i.e. semi-independent chiefs), though of the total number of these titles created the Tongaiti received only a small proportion.
Though closely linked with the Tangiia people by marriage, Kainuku's party has retained its separate lands and separate identity. At the time of arrival of the missionaries, and apparently for some time before, Pa and Kainuku were joint chiefs of the tribe. They remain so to this day. In parochial affairs Pa generally takes responsibility for the eastern section, and Kainuku the southern section. Pa's people are the more numerous, however, and in matters concerning the whole tribe Pa often acts as sole spokesman. Despite this tendency for Pa to be deferred to as the more influential, both are high chiefs of the same rank. Kainuku is today (and has been for many generations past) an ariki title, but I can find no reference to its being of this status in Tangiia's time.
Some or all of Tangiia's men were elevated to the rank of mataiapo (chief) and each was allotted a block of land running from the mountain to the coast. These blocks, known as tapere, are the most important land divisions on the island. Each mataiapo settled with his family on the tapere lands and formed the nucleus of a new settlement. Nicholas (translator), JPS 1:23.
While tradition states that this land division occurred shortly after Tangiia's arrival, it seems unlikely that each of the men could have established a viable unit so soon. It
Each mataiapo had his own marae, A sacred ground enclosed by low stone walls in which ceremonies of a religious nature took place. Maretu, MS 33–59.
Early in the period of settlement the title of komono was created, one holder being appointed by each mataiapo as his spokesman and deputy. Komono (which may be translated literally as ‘deputy’) probably began as the name given to the person who was next in seniority to the mataiapo, but in time it became an hereditary title under the mataiapo. One account states that komono were appointed at the same time as the mataiapo, but this is the only tradition which mentions komono at that early date. - Nicholas, Savage, ‘Dictionary of the Rarotongan Language’. The creation of four rangatira titles in Avarua by promotion of the younger brothers of the ariki is described in MB 1:319 NLC. This instance would have occurred circa JPS 1:23.
The tribe which traces its descent from Karika was known as ‘Te Au o The criteria of selection of the priests is not given in any account. Quite possibly they were from priestly families in their islands of origin.
Karika himself and some of his followers left the island after some years of residence and set sail for Iva, never to return. However, not all his party left, and those who did not maintained marriage connections with the people of Tangiia. Traditions record that some men of Tangiia's party also voluntarily joined the Karika faction.
By the time of arrival of the first Europeans the Tangiia and Karika parties were politically separate entities, and Makea was the ariki title of the Avarua district, but this division was of relatively recent origin. In the eighteenth century the Makea title was divided into three branches. Known as the Makea Nui (or Makea Pini), Makea Karika, and Makea Vakatini respectively. ‘The custom has always obtained in Te au o
The title of mataiapo was not used in this district, nor, consequently, was that of komono. There are seven mataiapo in this district today, but these broke away from the Takitumu district after the arrival of the mission. For example, two of the leaders of the Uritaua party which landed in Rarotonga about
There is considerable evidence to suggest that, by
While a wide range of terminology is used to describe the situation, the following sources give an indication of the relative status of the mataiapo of Takitumu and the rangatira of Avarua (who were, of course, next in line to the ariki in this district). Moss considers the mataiapo to have been the most powerful class on the island, who in a large measure controlled the actions of the ariki. Rangatira, on the other hand, he regarded as tenants at will under the ariki or mataiapo, whom Moss considered to have been the landowners. Moss, Williams, Gill, Ibid. 12. All places within Takitumu district. L.H. Trenn - personal notes. Details of population are given on page 45.Fortnightly Review 54:778. He, nevertheless, says that they were ‘irremovable, by time-honoured custom, so long as the due services [were] performed’.A Narrative… 216.Gems… 4.
The origin of the different political structures (and consequently the landholding systems) may alternatively be sought in the respective Tahitian and Samoan origins of the two groups. However, the evidence indicates that the Samoan immigrants contributed but little to the culture of Rarotonga as it was at the time of first European contact. As some authors stress the Samoan connections of the Karika party beyond the point which the available evidence can support, the issue requires some elaboration.
Firstly, the language of Rarotonga is derived from and closely related to that of Elbert, These are tabulated and discussed by Vayda in Many references are made to there being eight or nine named subgroups within Tangiia's party, to the many warriors who accompanied him and later became mataiapo, and to the numerous marae they constructed. None of the traditions mention the names of any of Karika's party with the exception of a daughter and a son. This does not necessarily indicate that their numbers were few, as Karika and some of his party left the island and never returned, and thus the Karika traditions may have been less well recorded. However, this would only tend to substantiate the point that their long-term influence on the culture was inconsequential.South-Western Journal of Anthropology 9:147–73.American Anthropologist 61:817–28. See also Burrows, Etnologiska Studier 7:1–192. Buck, in a table showing diffusion of culture traits within Polynesia, shows that the six listed traits which apply to Rarotonga all apply identically to the Austral Islands, and with one exception to Arts and Crafts… 487. On page 525 of the same work Buck presents a chart of cultural derivation of various islands, which shows
The different authority structure and the different degree of power wielded by the Makea ariki as opposed to other ariki on the island can best be understood by viewing
Most of the larger and more fertile tapere were also the seats of particular ariki, and were on the whole much more populous than the tapere of the mataiapo, Apart from their much greater area and agricultural potential, the remains of large (but now abandoned) terraced taro patches in these valleys suggest that they did carry larger populations. The Avatiu valley was left in the hands of the Uritaua, an immigrant group whose leaders were made rangatira under Makea. Control was acquired over the Ngatipa tapere when its chief, unable to control internal dissension in his lineage, handed over his authority to the Makeas. How they acquired control of the area between Avatiu and the boundary of Arorangi is not known, though this is the poorest land on the island and it is doubtful if it ever supported much population. The district of Tupapa did not join the Makea party until just after the arrival of the first Tahitian missionaries.
The support of the three most powerful groups within the Avarua area was maintained by the high chief taking a high-ranking wife from each of them, and creating the eldest son from each wife as an ariki. This triple arikiship was,
There is only one ariki title in this district, namely that of Tinomana. While of the same rank as other ariki, the Tinomana title seems never to have achieved the eminence of either Pa or Makea. Tinomana is stated by some authorities to be descended from Tangiia, but from a marriage prior to that with Karika's daughter, and by others to be a direct descendant in the male line from Karika. In view of the intermarriage between the chiefly lines it is quite possible that he was in fact a direct descendant of both founding ancestors. Alternatively, the truth may lie in the explanation of one authority to the effect that Rongooe (the first holder of the Tinomana title to break away) was a son of Makea te Ratu, but that between the time of his conception and his birth his mother lived with the then holder of the Tinomana title. - Te Aia, Terei, JPS 2:276.Tuatua Taito, part 8.
All sources agree that Rongooe, the progenitor of this line in Arorangi, was banished in the fifteenth century for his despotism, and fled to the western part of the island (which appears to have been considered a haven for refugees) where he later became accepted as ariki. Though the process by which he achieved ascendancy is not known, we do know
In They were still living in the mountains when the first missionaries arrived.
After the defeat of the invaders from The traditions claim that Tangiia ‘outlawed’ war - e.g. Toarua, Te Aia, JPS 20:140. It may be claimed that the description of this period as one of peace merely reflects ignorance of what actually did go on, but as wars are recorded both before and after, it seems reasonable to assume that no major conflict took place during the period.JPS 2:275.
The more important wars are recorded in the traditional histories, and though accounts of the less spectacular battles have never been assembled together, the fact of their occurrence is confirmed by many individual family histories, and by evidence given in the Land Court. Mission and mission-influenced reports, however, tend to over-emphasize the extent of warfare and the related evils of ‘heathen darkness’.
Missionaries and other early European writers often convey the impression (in their published works at least) of an island permanently divided into hostile tribes whose only contact was in war. E.g. ‘… so general and constant were the enmity and jealousy of one tribe toward another, that the majority of the people were confined to the range of district where they were born, only hearing vague reports, but knowing little definitely, respecting the tribes beyond them.’ - Gill, Gems… 12.
Indications of some degree of movement are suggested firstly by the existence of a well maintained inland road which ran right round the island about half a mile from the coast. Secondly, many accounts refer to members of various tribes, and even the whole island, assembling for the offering of first fruits and certain other ceremonial activities. E.g. Taraare, Details of the installation of Makea Pori Ariki by Kainuku Ariki and Pa Ariki are given by Maretu. - MS 29. Terei describes the installation of Tinomana in the district of the Makeas. He notes in another connection that once installed to office an ariki was sometimes carried right round the island. - Terei, JPS 30:140; Maretu, MS 21.Tuatua Taito, 46 and 31.
Fourthly, there was intermarriage between districts, with concomitant obligations and subsequent blood ties linking the families concerned. E.g. the visit of an Avarua rangatira to his brother-in-law in Arorangi is described in detail in PSI 76; Maretu describes Makea as withdrawing from a successful attack on Arorangi when he saw a close relative among the Arorangi party. - Maretu, MS. For the birth of a high-ranking child ‘all the principal people in the whole land bring cloth, not this district only, but the whole land…’. - Pitman, Journal 9.11. Maretu refers to the land of the Makeas on the south side of the island - MS 162; Buzacott refers to claims by several Avarua people to land in the Takitumu district - Buzacott to LMS ‘early The significance of this term as an index of interaction between tribes was first pointed out to me by Judge Morgan. Its relevance is supported by the fact that at Arai-te- Terei, Tuatua Taito 37.
Warfare, which was not uncommon, would be the major factor inhibiting freedom of movement. Another danger
Social Organization
The system of social organization which developed over the centuries on Rarotonga was based on a pattern that was brought from Eastern Polynesia but was modified in the course of time in response to local environmental and demographic circumstances. A schematic representation of certain elements of the indigenous social structure is given in the diagram on page 32. While current archaeological and ethnohistorical research such as that of Green and Oliver and others is throwing more light on the form of this prototype, its exact nature is still being studied.
While larger units were at times formed for warfare and other ad hoc purposes, and there were some ceremonial occasions on which all the people of the island assembled together, the tribe was the largest social group coming under long-term unitary leadership. Gilson argues that these units were sub-tribes rather than tribes and that the whole island constituted a single tribe. However, as the three sections functioned generally as separate units, it has been found more convenient to refer to them as tribes. - ‘Administration…’ 19. The term ‘vaka’ means canoe as well as tribe. E.g. Patu Tita in evidence. - MB 19:167 NLC.
The head of each group was also the head of one of each of the groups below him, e.g. the ariki was head of his own nuclear family, of his own household, of his own major and minor lineages, as well as being leader of the tribe as a while. Specialists (e.g. priests, tattoo experts, fishing masters) occurred at the levels of chief of major and minor lineages
Ideal Structure of a Rarotongan Tribe
Note:
Titular headship of the tribe was vested in the ariki who, due to their descent from the gods and their super-natural powers, were treated with great veneration. Gill noted that a commoner would not look Make a in the face ‘lest the regal glance should devour [him]’. - Since that time, however, this title has again regained ariki status. Terei, E.g. Tamaariki and Kaena. - MB 1:114 and 199 NLC. Maretu, AAAS 629. Heirs to the ariki title invariably had several wet nurses. - Williams, A Narrative… 515. The sacred nature of the head of an ariki is indicated in Terei, Tuatua Taito 46–7.Tuatua Taito 28–9. Numa also refers to seven ariki at a time prior to the division of the Makea title. - MS 14.JPS 20:201. It is possible that war (tamaki), in the sense in which Maretu is using the term, refers only to inter-tribal conflict.
The vaka was both a social and a territorial unit. In the latter sense it referred to the area inhabited by the tribe, and for this use of the term we have chosen to use the word ‘district’ (of which there were consequently three). Matters of interest to the whole tribe were discussed on the tribal koutu, The ‘royal court’ of a reigning ariki. For a fuller description see page 62. Maretu quotes an instance shortly after the arrival of the first Tahitian missionary, but before conversion to Christianity had been effected, where in the ariki ordered an offender to pay an idol and a pig as compensation to an injured party. - MS 81. This is the only pre-Christian reference of this sort noted.
It was noted earlier that the island was divided into sub-districts called tapere, and that each was allotted to a particular mataiapo (or ariki). The tapere often took its name from the founding mataiapo or from an incident with which he was associated. E.g. Ngati Vaikai or Ngati Maoate - the second word in each case being the name of the founding mataiapo. The tapere of Tikioki exemplifies the naming of a tapere after an incident with which the founding ancestor was linked. Legend states that Tangiia sent Terei to In practice anybody whose claim was derived from a person who was an accepted member of the ngati. Among the many chiefly genealogies examined, instances of tracing through a female were found to be quite rare; but this rarity was perhaps exaggerated by the tendency to rationalize towards the ideal, and to the fact that when a man acquired his title through his mother, the remembered genealogical link would be from the man to his maternal grandfather, omitting the mother altogether. This refers to post-contact instances prior to the establishment of the Land Court in
The lineage (as distinct from the tapere) was invariably known by the name of the founding ancestor, prefixed by the word ngati. For instance, a lineage which traced its descent from an ancestor named Ru would be called Ngati Ru, irrespective of the name of the tapere, but as the name of the founding mataiapo became a heritable title name, some tapere (e.g. Ngati Vaikai) have the same name as the occupying lineage.
The descent group occupying the tapere will be referred to as the Takaia, being high priest, faded into oblivion after the establishment of the mission.major lineage, as most major lineages became subdivided in the course of time into several minor lineages. In the Takitumu and Arorangi districts the leadership of the major lineage lay with the mataiapo, whose virtual independence of the ariki in matters relating to land was based on the traditional charter by which the lands of the island were allotted to each mataiapo. In Avarua, on the other hand, headship of three of the six major lineages lay with the three ariki, and of the others, one was headed by the
Each mataiapo, as head of the major lineage, had a marae which was the focal point of the religious activity of the lineage. While some heads of minor lineages also had marae, this was not usual, and religious activity seems to have been centred at the major lineage level. Tangi-taura, a rangatira under Vakapora Mataiapo, had his own marae, and it may have been significant that Tangi-taura considered himself as virtually independent of Vakapora's authority. - Vakapora. JPS 20:215–8.
While a person was said to ‘belong’ to the lineages of his two parents and also to those of his grandparents, clear distinctions were drawn between his rights and obligations in respect of each of these lineages. The structural picture presented here derives from field-work data. It is, however, consistent with the principles which emerge from historical sources.
A child's Gill states that it was done by reference to the gods, for as the different lineages owed allegiance to different gods, the god of the father was different from the god of the mother and affiliation was formally settled by dedicating the child to the lineage god of one or other parent. He goes on to say that the mother usually gave up one child at least to her own tribe, the rest going to the father's. - primary lineage affiliation was usually determined at birth and was confirmed at its naming. If the child was named by its father or by members of his lineage, then it became a member of that lineage, and the person bestowing the name was obliged to supply clothes for the child, and special foods for the mother for some days after parturition. A permanent relationship was set up
AAAS 323–4 and 331. This custom is still quite commonly observed today.
Primary membership of a lineage could also be acquired by adoption, which was a common method of reinforcing links between individuals and between their respective lineages. The predominant direction of adoption was from a female who had married out, back to her father or brother in her natal lineage. Adoptees were thus almost invariably chosen from secondary members of the adopting lineage (as defined below). If, however, an unrelated person was adopted, he was formally regarded as a member of the lineage, though this membership was marginal and its retention dependent on continued acceptance by the group.
While the major lineage was predominantly a residential unit living within the tapere, it also included for certain purposes all those persons who had been born into the lineage but had subsequently married out or left the tapere, provided they had not been banished or otherwise severed their social connections with their natal lineage. Maintenance of these connections required attendance at lineage gatherings and appropriate contributions to lineage feasts. A wife usually resided with her husband's lineage, but did not become a primary member of it. Persons who were born into a lineage but who subsequently left it at marriage, or adoption, or
contingent members of their lineage of origin, since they did not exercise many of the rights of primary members during their absence and their resumption of primary rights was contingent upon a variety of factors, the most important of which were probably the concurrence of the head of the group and the resumption of residence within it.
Children of contingent members will be referred to as secondary members of the lineage of that parent. To a lesser degree the children of secondary members of a lineage were themselves secondary members, and their connection was recognized for certain purposes. They will be referred to as distant secondary members. There was no definite period of time, or number of generations, which had to elapse before one was no longer eligible for membership of a lineage, though the possibility of gaining entry was clearly reduced by the passage of time. However, other factors were probably even more important, and lineages which needed extra fighting men were presumably content to recognize the most tenuous link with a potential member, whereas those with inadequate land to support their present numbers would not be anxious to admit even close relatives.
While an individual was a primary member of only one ngati as of right he was a potential member of all other lineages from which he could trace descent, either matrilineally or patrilineally. It is appreciated that some writers have raised objections to the use of the term ‘lineage’ in Polynesia due to the fact that Polynesian descent is not necessarily traced unilineally, and Firth suggests the term ‘ramage’ instead. - The term ‘kopu tangata’ is also used with other connotations which are not of immediate relevance in this context.Man 57:4–8. As the latter term does not yet appear to have achieved wide currency, the former will be adhered to in this study, for while Rarotongan descent groups were often in fact ambilineal, they were supported by a patrilineal ideology and a strong patrilineal bias.
Persons whose residence with a lineage was not based on descent or adoption (i.e. those whose membership was due to marriage, to the seeking of refuge or otherwise) will be referred to as permissive members of that lineage. To sum up then, membership of the ngati was based on descent and residence. Primary, contingent and secondary members belonged by the first criterion; primary and permissive members belonged by the second. It was those whose link was by both descent and residence (i.e. the primary members) who constituted the core of the ngati, or what might be called the ngati proper.
Most major lineages were subdivided into a number of minor lineages (also called ngati), the members of which also traced their descent from a common eponymous ancestor. Like the major lineage of which it was a part, the minor lineage was a predominantly patrilineal descent group. Subdivision generally occurred through the elevation of a real or classificatory younger brother of the titleholder to a position as head of a sub-unit within the major lineage. Often the person chosen was a potential rival for the senior position, whose ambitions were held in check by being given a position of responsibility at a lower level.
There were two categories of minor lineage head (in addition to which the ariki and mataiapo each headed his own minor lineage). The first was the komono or deputy of
As there were no mataiapo in Avarua this title was not encountered in that district. Savage, ‘Dictionary…’.
The core of the minor lineage or kiato was basically a residential unit living in a group of neighbouring hamlets, This is an assumption based on the views of informants, for no detailed descriptions of these hamlets are available, though passing references are made to them. They were superseded immediately after first contact by the mission villages near the coast.
The extended family was a component part of the minor lineage and was based on the same structural principles. It was a group of persons who traced their descent from a common progenitor, sometimes still living, but often deceased a generation or more ago. This progenitor was refered to as the metua (elder) and all those persons descended from him were known as ‘te uanga o mea’ - ‘the descendants of so-and-so’ (the elder concerned). The core of the uanga was the basic residential unit - the household (kainga tangata). Each household usually contained three or even four generations of people, and it was here that the primary and permissive members of the uanga lived. Leadership of the household and of the uanga it represented lay with its elder (also known as metua) who was ideally the senior (but not necessarily the eldest) resident male. Each ariki, mataiapo, komono and rangatira was metua to his own household.
The puna consisted of a man, his wife and his children plus and minus adoptees. If a man had more than one wife, the family established by each constituted a separate puna. Each puna then was headed by an adult male (though a polygamous man would be the head of more than one puna). Each household probably comprised several puna and a few young single adults (mapu). The puna appears to have been of little importance economically, its main function being that of a procreating unit.
The young unmarried men, the untitled married men, and even many untitled heads of households were known as unga.
Gill, Ibid. While vernacular references to unga are generally in respect of ordinary untitled men (e.g. Terei, JPS 20:128.Tuatua Taito 37) there are some instances in later sources where the word was used to denote under-privileged commoners (e.g. by Pa Ariki, NZPP A3(b)
The social and economic status of the commoner is of some importance, and became a major issue when the Land Court was established and it became necessary to specify the relative rights of commoners and titleholders. Most
Gill, Gill, Moss, JPS 20:129. By ‘land owner’ he appears to mean the holder of the relevant title.Gems… 12.JPS 3:24.
Reference is sometimes made in the literature to ‘slaves’ (tuika'a). The term seems to have some validity, though only in a relative sense. Tuika'a were either prisoners taken in war who were kept as retainers by the victors, or under-privileged refugees given asylum. They became part of the household, and should be regarded as under-privileged commoners rather than as slaves in a Western sense. If conditions were too onerous they always had the alternative of running away to serve some other chief. The name tuika'a literally means ‘sewn with sennit’ and refers to the custom of marking pigs by tying sennit through their nostrils. Some authorities consider that persons so
Gill, Life in the Southern Isles 34.
Some indication of the demographic composition of the various social groups at the time of first contact can be deduced from details of the numbers of tapere, titles and lineages, as well as from population counts by early missionaries. The total population, which was estimated by the first observers at between six and seven thousand, E.g. Williams, But making allowance for the transfer of the Tupapa sub-district from Takitumu to Avarua just after contact.A Narrative… 19. Working from a basis of food requirements in relation to given resources and technology, a recent student of Polynesian populations considers that the island could not at that time have supported more than 7,400 people. - Lay, ‘A Study of Certain Aspects of Human Ecology in the Polynesian High Islands during the Pre-contact Period’ 167.
There were some twenty-eight tapere in Takitumu and nine in Arorangi giving an average of 135 persons in each
In Mangaia an accurate census was taken in There were several conquered tapere (like Vaimaanga which was divided among the six major lineages responsible for its conquest) which had no separate mataiapo of their own. In some instances (probably those where the division had been an amicable one) the seniority of the original mataiapo continued to be recognized, and that title was referred to as mataiapo tutara (senior or paramount mataiapo). In such cases the subordinate lineages were more like minor lineages than major ones.No te au Enua i aere ei te Pai Orometua 1846 65; and ‘Census of the population of Mangaia
The only available indication of household size is that when the first European missionaries divided the people of
Prout, No attempt was made to compile a full list of rangatira titles in existence at the time of first contact, and accurate estimates of the demographic composition of the smaller groups must await archaeological research.Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. John Williams 248.
Ritual specialization appears generally to have occurred at the level of the lineage head, and one authority claims that each major lineage head was a specialist of one type or another. Numa, MS 7. Savage defines ta'unga as: ‘A name applied to any person who was appointed to, or held the office of a priest, or any person who was skilled in any special art.’ - ‘Dictionary…’. Gill notes that ‘artisans were priests’ and goes on to say ‘That the Rev. John Williams should be able to fell a tree and build a vessel as well as preach and teach was in perfect harmony with their traditional ideas of a priest-chief’. - There were originally one in Karika's party and five in Tangiia's, but one of them later transferred his allegiance. See page 20. Of their existence there is ample evidence in random references in the indigenous literature - e.g. Terei, As Judge Morgan has said ‘The Gospel and the principal chiefs survived so it is not difficult to imagine what might have happened to an antagonistic priestly class’. - Taputapuatea rehearing, NLC. Buck, Jottings from the Pacific 224.Tuatua Taito 51. Even the early mission literature refers to them from time to time - e.g. Buzacott, Mission Life in the Islands of the Pacific 41.Arts and Crafts… 129, 206, 211, 245 and 499.
While the lower social strata generally sought their wives within the district, those of higher rank (especially the ariki) often sought theirs from other districts. Of inter-district marriages between chiefs there is ample documentary evidence, but of the marriage of commoners only the evidence of present-day informants is available. Moss, Gill, Ibid. No pre-contact genealogical evidence to indicate the relationship between spouses has been located.JPS 3:20.AAAS 330.
Polygyny was practised, though most sources consider it to have been the prerogative of the chiefs. Indigenous writers do not specify any principle, but all polyginous marriages they refer to are those of chiefs. Foreign observers who refer to the plurality of wives do not indicate whether or not commoners were entitled to this privilege. Among the many instances recorded in native accounts in which chiefs married sisters are two mentioned by Terei - Tuatua Taito 9 and 24. Pitman, Journal 29.6. The wives of Kainuku Tamoko Ariki. Gill, Gill, Gems… 12.Gems… 13.
Child betrothals were arranged between chiefly families, but the extent of this custom is not known. Mrs Buzacott tells us that some of the chiefs wanted ‘to marry Karika's son who is perhaps about ten years old, to a daughter of Makea who is perhaps about six years of age. It is perfectly consistent with their former customs for the parents to agree for their children in their infancy and childhood…’ This ‘marriage’ was contracted and a feast was prepared as a confirmation of the arrangement. Mrs Buzacott, Journal 16.8. Moss, AAAS 326.JPS 3:20.
The marriage of persons of rank was the occasion of ceremony and gift exchange on a large scale. The relatives of each party accumulated their gifts, which were then transferred to the family of the other party for distribution. ‘… all the people took cloth to the newly married couple according to their custom, the people as a body to the chief's son and the relatives of the damsel to her father. After which the father of the young chief takes the portion of the cloth brought to his son and sends it to the father of the damsel - and he in return sends his portion to the chief.’ - Pitman, Journal 9.11. Ibid.
While the preferred marriage was between persons of the same social class, none of the classes were endogamous and it was not uncommon for chiefs to marry commoners. Gill, Gill, JPS 20:129. The existence of this custom is beyond doubt, but its incidence is impossible to ascertain as precontact genealogies generally omit wives other than the senior wife through whom the title passed.AAAS 329–30.
The ideal pattern of transmission of titles was from father to eldest son. The study of genealogies shows this to have been the dominant pattern but, owing to the fact that kinship terminology was classificatory and adoption was widespread, what is stated as being father to son may not infrequently have been uncle to nephew. In the more recent generations such distinctions are known, but in earlier generations they were not, indicating a process of assimilation to the ideal as time obliterates the details. One authority claims that if the eldest son were unfitted to hold the title, then it was sometimes claimed that the appropriate god had taken up its abode in the youngest member of the family, and the title passed to him accordingly. - Gill, Life… 46. No actual cases of this have been noted, either in the pre-contact era or later.
A chief might have no son at all, in which case a number of aspirants might put forward claims on a variety of bases. An adopted son may make a claim, and in such a case the status of the adoptee's born parents, as well as his blood relationship to the adopting father, would be important considerations. In at least one pre-contact instance the adoptee used the strength of his club to compensate for the weakness of his adoptive right relative to that of other claimants. Savage, ‘Iro Nui Ma Oata’ 59. The successful claimant in the example cited was both a child of an ariki family of another district and a close relative of his adopted father.
The genealogy of Rongooe as recorded by Wyatt Gill shows that when Rongooe was banished to the other side of the island the title went to his younger brother. Gill, One genealogy of an ariki line recorded during the last century shows 24 generations prior to the time of European contact. In 22 of the cases the title is shown as passing from father to son, in one case to a younger brother, and in the remaining instance the title was split into two and each of two sons of the previous ariki was given ariki status. - Gill, Except where the elder is alleged to have been adopted out in which case his status relative to that of the next elder brother has sometimes been a matter for dispute. The fullest account is given by Terei, Ta'unga, MS 3.AAAS 628. It should be noted, however, that Terei gives a different account of this chapter of events - Tuatua Taito, part IV.AAAS 627–33. Later Land Court evidence, however, shows that at least one of the ariki in the above line was an adopted child, and that the title was divided into three and not two. With such known errors in the more recent part of the genealogy, one can reasonably assume the possibility of other deviations from the norm in the earlier and lesser known portion of it. Even in post-contact genealogies instances are known where the socially accepted genealogy differs somewhat from the known biological facts.Tuatua Taito part I.
The selection of the ariki in the Takitumu and Arorangi districts was a matter for their respective priests and mataiapo, while in Avarua it was the responsibility of the
Those rangatira who were entitled to participate are listed in MB 12:295–6 NLC. Those with no direct blood connection to the ariki were excluded. E.g. Numa, MS 13–14. E.g. Maretu, MS 20–31. Moss states categorically that ariki were selected by the other ariki on the island, but that the new appointee had to be chosen from the family of the deceased. Given the rule of primogeniture and the necessity to select from the family of the deceased, they could not normally have had much in the way of choice, though their confirmation may have been required. On the other hand, it is possible that Moss is confusing their right to participate in the ceremonial with a right to select. - Moss, JPS 3:24.
In Minutes of Meeting of Arikis Council 5.11. Ibid.Te Torea 9.11.
On the question of a dying titleholder designating a successor by will (reo iku), the Arikis Council said ‘An ariki may wish to appoint a successor on his … deathbed. After the ariki's death these words shall be carefully considered, and if it is found that the party named as a successor is a proper heir, such words shall be confirmed, not otherwise’. Ibid.
Titles were sometimes transferred to a new holder during the lifetime of the previous incumbent. When missionaries first called at Rarotonga in Gill, A Narrative… 138. This is the only reference found to this custom which Williams calls ‘kukumianga’. The word ‘kukumianga’ in modern Rarotongan means ‘wrestling’, but informants did not recognize the word in the connection which Williams mentions. Gill does, however, mention having often seen instances of aging parents handing over the family house to the son who was to succeed to headship of the family while they retired to a small hut nearby. Gill, AAAS 630. In the particular instance the elder chiefs could have relinquished their titles as a result of their defeat at the hands of the Ngatangiia chiefs, for the transfer took place between the time of their defeat and of the reinstatement of their power in Avarua.Life… 46.
Genealogical evidence indicates that lesser titleholders were selected by the same principles as the ariki, but informants today claim that their formal acceptance was a matter for the senior members of the subgroups below that title. This is supported by evidence given before the Native Land Court. Illegitimates (i.e. children born other than from socially recognized spouses) were not eligible to hold titles. There are a few post-contact examples of such persons succeeding to titles, but invariably the child's right was acquired through the adopting parent and even then trouble resulted.
Women were not eligible to hold any titles, though tradition tells of a woman who was once created an ariki. However, such was the wrath of the gods at seeing this
1 Rather probably, the wrath of the gods was reinforced by some more secular potion administered by their earthly agents at the feasting.
1Terei, Tuatua Taito 31.
As a concrete illustration of the pre-contact transmission of rank titles, the following example has been reconstructed.2 In this instance the title Te Tika (mataiapo) changed hands four times and the title Kautai (also mataiapo) twice, before they became united as a result of the marriage of the holder of the title of Kautai to the eldest daughter of the holder of the title Te Tika. There were four further transmissions after the titles became held concurrently by the one individual (it is possible that the last one or even two of these occurred after European contact). Of the total of ten instances of transmission, five are from father to eldest son, one is from the last incumbent through his eldest daughter (who is married to a man of rank) to his second eldest grandson (the eldest grandson inherited his own father's title), one is by reversion from the last incumbent to his surviving elder brother, two are from the incumbent to his next younger brother (in at least one of the cases this was due to the elder brother dying without issue), and the last is from the incumbent who had no brother (and probably no issue) to his next most senior classificatory brother.
2From evidence contained in MB 1:5–26 NLC. See diagram page 59.
It will be noted that excepting where special circumstances prevailed the title passed from father to eldest son; that the title did not pass to brothers if the previous holder had male issue; and that females and their issue were omitted except in the special case of Paiau, the eldest
A Pre-Contact Example Illustrating the Pattern of Transmission of Rank Titles
The Distribution of Rights to Land
It is inappropriate to say that anyone ‘owned’ land in Rarotonga, for this might suggest that individuals had absolute power to use and dispose of land as they wished. In fact, more than one person was involved in every piece of land and the rights of every individual were conditioned, not only by rights of a similar order held by others in the same land, but also by a hierarchy of rights of different orders held at various levels within the society. No rights were recognized as belonging to the island as a whole, There were two possible (or partial) exceptions to this rule. The first was the road round the island, which was built centuries ago and is still in use. It was the approved route for all persons travelling between districts or tapere. However, the lands it traversed were those of the various lineages, and it was only safe to use the road in times of peace. The second partial exception occurred in the case of the few great marae which, though vested in particular ariki, were nevertheless used by the whole island on some occasions.
Land rights were held by social groups, and the rights of each group were nominally vested in the title name of the head of that group, and it was by that name that the lands were known. Lands of the Makea tribe were referred to as Makea lands (te enua o Makea) and decisions taken relative to those lands The most usual decision taken at this level would be in respect to applying a ra'ui or customary prohibition on certain products from all the lands of the tribe. Decisions at this level would include those relating to the reallocation of lands of a kiato which had died out. With the exception of some unused lands in the central mountainous core. This land is not included as belonging to the island as a whole, for while it may be so conceived today, there is no evidence of its having been so regarded in precontact times.at the tribal level were made by the holder of the Makea Ariki title.within
at the lineage level would be dealt with by the holder of the title of Anautoa Rangatira.within the Anautoa lineage, those lands allocated to a particular kiato would be referred to in the name of the head of that kiato. At a lower level again, the lands of particular households were referred to in the name of the household head. All arable land on the island was associated with a particular tribe and a particular lineage and that in current occupation at least with a particular kiato and/or household. There was no land which was not associated with a particular title,
The ariki was the titular head of the tribe, and in formal speech the whole of the lands of the tribe were often spoken of as the lands of the ariki. Likewise, the lands of smaller groups were referred to in the name of the lesser chief concerned. There is no doubt that the ariki were very highly respected and regarded as having considerable power, both sacred and secular. It is equally clear, however, that in regard to land these powers were tempered by the recognition of a series of other rights, and by the need to retain the support of the people.
In reading the source material it is often difficult to distinguish between the rights of the chief and the rights of his tribe or lineage, for the two are often spoken
The koutu is … the seat or royal court of a reigning ariki…. It was the special place where all offerings … to the ancient gods were first assembled … where all the chiefs and persons of note … and members of the ariki family were buried … where all tribal annual feasts were held…. Each tribe had its principal koutu and lesser grade koutu. At the principal koutu the ariki usually … resided with … certain members of his family. Certain other chiefs and warriors whose tribal standing and functions made it necessary to do so also resided there…. The only tribal ranks that were entitled to the dignity of holding and possessing a koutu were those of ariki and mataiapo tutara.
The ariki would ex officio be the head of his particular koutu…. According to tribal accounts no one ariki or individual could claim the absolute ownership of a koutu, this place was in reality the property of the tribe, and the ariki as head of the tribe was the trustee…. A mataiapo tutara is a mataiapo of very high standing who has some degree of influence over other mataiapo in the vicinity - see page 37 footnote 2.
Savage, ‘Dictionary…’. Two of the most important koutu on the island at the time of first contact with Europeans were Arai-te-
Tonga (the koutu of the Makeas) and Pu Kuru Vaa Nui (the koutu of the Pa Ariki).
The koutu then may be regarded as ariki land or as tribal land, and indeed it was both. While koutu were always referred to as the koutu of the ariki concerned, it is apparent that the rights of the ariki and the tribe were closely interwoven and the right of the tribe or lineage was symbolized in the name of its chief. An example of this symbolic ownership is given in a description of the pre-contact ceremony for the investiture of a new ariki which says: ‘At this time also is delivered over to the ariki the supremacy over the lands…’. A little further on the author notes that the ariki must also be given a ‘small piece’ of land at the koutu. Smith (quoting Tamarua), Firth makes a similar point in reference to the New Zealand Maoris. He says ‘… the chief did not have a personal claim in all the lands of his tribe. To certain places he had an individual right, derived from his ancestors, from occupation or from some other cause, and he also possessed a claim in pieces of land held in common with his relatives. His interest in the remainder of the tribal territory is of a socio-political rather than an economic nature…’. - Firth, JPS 12:220.Economics of the New Zealand Maori 377.
Like other members of the tribe, the chiefs had particular lands for residence and food supply which were held in the same way as other family lands. If the successor to an arikiship was not living at the koutu, it would be necessary for him to reside there after his appointment, but he generally continued to draw on his family lands for his food supply.
Should any family die out, the land reverted to the source or line from which it had come - in practice to the chief of the line from whose lands it had originally been allotted. The chief (probably after consulting other members of the group) could either reallocate the land to some family which needed or wanted it, or he could leave it unoccupied, in which case it would be under the direct
There was a certain flexibility as to place of residence and as to the admission of new members or the expulsion of others. It was the titleholder who, nominally at least, was responsible for such decisions. References to admissions and expulsions in indigenous writings almost invariably describe them as being effected by the titleholder even when (in the case of eviction) it is clear from the description that the whole group participated.
The rights of the tribe may be more properly described as those rights of its component individuals which were held in common or exercised collectively. Though the tribe was a significant unit in political affairs, tribal rights in land were limited.
Firstly there were rights of access. In daylight and on approved activities members of the tribe could move freely within the area provided they kept to the appropriate pathways and were on friendly terms with the lineages whose lands they were crossing.
Secondly there were rights to those lands specifically set aside for tribal use. These were small in area and
The third tribal right was that to produce of all tribal lands for feasts involving the whole tribe. To these every household was expected to contribute. While this was a social obligation deriving from membership of the tribe, it was closely related to the occupation of land, for every primary member of the tribe was occupying his own portion of the lands within the tribal district; An exception to this rule occurs in the relatively few cases of persons exercising primary land rights in districts other than their own. In such cases they did contribute to certain functions organized by the tribe in whose district the land was situated, and their doing so was stated explicitly to be due to their land rights. In this sense they can be regarded as primary members of the tribe to which they made the contributions.
The existence of tribal meeting places and records of tribal meetings indicate that there was some system of consultation about affairs of common concern but there is no evidence to suggest that land rights were discussed at these meetings. Tribal aid was probably expected in the defence of tribal lands, though it was not always forthcoming and the available evidence shows that tribal unity was much more often achieved for defence than it was for attack. It might be expected that the forest lands would be held by the tribe in common but this was not so. By dividing the island into triangular segments running from a peak in the mountains
The main products obtained from the mountains were building materials, berries, plantains and wildfowl. There is in fact some land within the core of the central mountain complex which is not identified with any particular lineage. There are claims to its ownership in the literature based on ancient native myths, but the Native Land Court has never been called on to determine its ownership. It is not in use, and according to informants never has been. It was considered to be an area frequented by spirits.
The major lineage was the largest and most permanent unit having control of the allocation and use of land. Tribal units expanded and contracted with the exigencies of warfare and the occasional transfer of political allegiance by some lineages from one tribe to another. The larger major lineages each occupied a whole valley and most of them trace that occupation to the time of settlement by Tangiia about 1200 A.D. As noted earlier, the original mataiapo were each allotted a tapere on which they settled with their families. See page 18. There are a few atypical tapere (e.g. Tauae) which do not extend from the sea to the mountains.
Once allocated to a minor lineage, the rights of the major lineage over the land were limited to four - the symbolic right,
Most of the tapere lands were subdivided among the minor lineages, each of which was headed by a rangatira or komono, or by the mataiapo himself. The minor lineage was the most important landholding unit in the system, its lands having clear-cut boundaries which were intended to be permanent, though reorganizations no doubt occurred. Such of the tapere lands as were not occupied by or allotted to particular minor lineages remained the common property of the major lineage; however, according to Land Court investigations, such lands were but few.
The most common indigenous pattern of division within the tapere was to take the central stream-bed as the basic boundary, then allocate sections of land running at right angles from the stream-bed back to the flanking ridge which formed the boundary with the next tapere. On the flat lands the ancient inland road was taken as the starting point lands were allocated at right angles to the road running either seaward to the lagoon or inland to the hills. This pattern of land division is illustrated by the attached map of Turangi and adjacent tapere.
THE PATTERN OF LAND DIVISION:
IN THE VALLEY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE STREAM-BED. ON THE FLAT LAND AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE INLAND ROAD.
Turingi & Adjacent Tapere
In some cases the minor lineage was allocated a ‘slice’ of the tapere running from the sea to the mountains, and in others it was allocated particular separate portions of land such that it held sufficient of each category of land for its particular needs. In the case of the valleys, while the lands allocated ran from the stream-bed to the ridge-top, the only lands planted were close to the stream-bed. Coconut and other trees might be planted on the gentle slopes, but the steep hillsides, which constituted the bulk of the land area, were not planted. On these hillsides, despite the nominal allocation to a particular minor lineage, members of the major lineage could collect wild fruits and hunt wildfowl. The extent of this right to forage is not known but present-day informants say that it did not extend to the cutting of trees for building purposes without permission.
Rights to the lagoon and its products were generally exercised by the matakeinanga occupying the tapere, but the extent of subdivision within the tapere is not clear, for while the boundary point on the outer edge of the reef was known for district and tapere boundaries Informants today still claim to know these boundaries, but as all land below high water mark has since Though in some cases they did so. E.g. MB 1:107 and 163 NLC. This custom has long since ceased on the island.
The right to take coral rock for building marae or other purposes, or to take pebbles for making pathways, lay only with the lineage which owned the portion of lagoon concerned. For any others to make use of these materials required prior consent. Wyatt Gill describes public fish poisoning drives which used to be held in Rarotonga and in which the whole island participated. Buck, Gill, Jottings… 140–2.Arts and Crafts… 217. This remains the case today.
Reef passages giving access from the lagoon to the open sea were associated with the senior title of the major lineage of the tapere in which they were found. Confirmatory evidence is given by witnesses in the Land Court in AMB 1:15 and MB 19:170 NLC. Buck, Taraare, MS 112–13.Arts and Crafts… 210.
Separate treatment of the kiato does not appear to be merited, as they functioned in the same way as the minor lineages of which they were a part, though necessarily on a smaller scale.
The extended family constituted the elementary unit of landholding and was identified with the use of particular portions of the land of the minor lineage. The household (the residential core of the extended family) was the
Examples of this pattern of domestic living are still seen in some of the outer islands today. As William Gill observed, ‘A family, as the term signifies to an English ear, was not known among this people’. - Williams, Gems… 12.A Narrative… 207. The oven stones and kitchen middens are in many instances still visible today.
The boundaries of the lands of the households were less permanently defined than those of the lineages, and were subject to more frequent adjustment at the direction of the minor lineage head, in order to better comply with the changing needs of the various households. So far as can be ascertained the nuclear families within the household were
The rights of the individual were invariably shared. No doubt there were instances of individuals being the sole survivors of families which died out, and such persons could, theoretically at least, inherit the whole of the family lands. Such an atypical situation, however, could not last for long, for the individual concerned would either marry, in which case he would normally produce multiple offspring; or alternatively he would die without issue, in which case the lands would revert to the head of the lineage for reallocation to some group which was in need.
The fact that rights were invariably held by more than one person has often led to the view that they were held in common, and that the rights of each member were equal, or of the same order as those of the others. The blanket term ‘communal tenure’ has often been used with this connotation. To the extent that the term is given this connotation, it is quite inappropriate to describe the land tenure system of Rarotonga, and probably equally inappropriate for many other societies to which it is applied. While this term is perfectly appropriate to an institution such as the Israeli kibbutz, it is confusing indeed to categorize the Rarotongan tenure system by the same term as is used to describe a kibbutz.
To illustrate this point let us reconstruct a hypothetical household in pre-contact Rarotonga and examine the land rights associated with it. The composition of the household is shown in the diagram on next page.
The rights of C are dependent on her marriage to B. If the marriage breaks up her rights lapse, but his are unaffected. If he dies, the continuation of her right to use will be a matter for the next titleholder (probably H) to decide. At the moment, the probability of C being allowed to remain and use the land if her husband dies is greater than that of J being allowed to remain if her husband dies, for J is younger, her family has not yet established a
A Hypothetical Pre-Contact Household in Rarotonga
Note: All relationships are given with reference to B - the head of the household
The temporal aspect of each right differs. In the event of the continued planting of the patch, the male agnates have a lifetime right plus the ability to pass that right to their children. This right is modified if they leave the household to reside elsewhere. That of the refugee E ceases on his death and does not pass to his issue unless specific provision is made for them. That of the female agnates continues only until such time as they marry, when, though they do not lose all rights, the nature of them changes.
There would be some lands in which some of these people held rights, but others held none at all. For instance, C would still have secondary rights in the lands of her natal lineage. B would have no rights at all in these lands. R, who was born into his maternal grandfather's lineage and spent his early years there, would have the right, subject to certain conditions, to return to that lineage. No other member of the household, with the possible exception of his
Reference is frequently made by observers of the Rarotongan land system to decisions being made by the family group and convey the impression that all had equal rights to participate. Just what is meant by the family group is seldom specified. Let us imagine that R did die. The land given him by his grandmother, A, would revert to its source - in this case the deceased father of B who held the title at the time the land was given to A. Who would decide its reallocation? The participation of each member of the household would not be at all equal. Those who were not descended from the father of B would have no say at all; the children would have no say on account of their age, though particular adults would no doubt uphold their interests; A would have a special role as the person to whom the land was originally given, but as she is past child-bearing, no longer has any living male issue, and resides as an aged dependant in the household, her views may not be very influential. F would probably have little, if any, influence, firstly because her mother A, from whom she derived her right, was still alive; and secondly because, whereas her mother was the first-born daughter of a chief of this lineage, F was the daughter of a chief of another lineage. If she were to get marriage lands (which is most unlikely since she is living
The above description sets out only a few of the rights held within the household concerned. A fully itemized account of all the individual rights of any household would be very long indeed.
Within the extended family as within other social groups the rights of the component individuals were differentiated by a system of priorities which gave precedence to males over females, to titleholders over commoners, to older over younger siblings, to residents over absentees, to earlier claimants over later ones, to agnates over cognates, and to agnates over affines. These criteria were reinforced by the concepts of mana (broadly ‘power’) and tapu (broadly ‘sanctity’) such that, other things being equal, those persons whose descent was traced through lines of males, and through generations of first-born sons, and supported by centuries of occupation of the same area of land were possessed of the greatest degrees of both mana and tapu, and those whose connections were traced through females, through junior siblings, and from persons living elsewhere were possessed of the least of these qualities.
Individual rights to self-propagated crops are not clear from the source material and we must rely on present-day information and practice. The fruits of the wild plantain (musa fehi), which grows in dense clumps at the head of almost every valley on the island, is said to have been the common property of the minor lineage. A prohibition was imposed on the gathering of the crop until a sufficient quantity was considered to be ripe, at which time the prohibition was lifted and the harvesting was made a festive occasion. Secondary and contingent members of the owning lineage could come and join in the party and it was customary to send a bunch to those who did not come. This practice is still observed in some areas. Some lineages today even go so far as to advertise the ra'ui and its opening in the daily press - e.g. As noted in the Glossary, the term ‘Maori’ is used here to refer to the indigenous people of the Cook Islands News 15.12.
The rights of any individual were clearly dependent on his or her status within, or relationship to, particular social groups, and no individual could hold or exercise any land rights except as a function of his membership of a social group. An individual's connection with any particular
Firstly there were the rights of primary members of the lineage or other descent group, whose rights to the land will be referred to as MB 21:147–50 NLC. In the instance involving two mataiapo titles as illustrated by diagram on page 59 above, the two titles were first given to two sons with the obvious intention of maintaining the separate identity of the lineages, but due to the untimely death of the junior titleholder, the senior holder then amalgamated the lineages. During the nineteenth century (later than the period shown on the genealogy) the amalgamated lineage again split and two separate titleholders wereprimary rights, i.e. they could plant and harvest as of right. While an individual normally held primary rights in one lineage only, affiliation was not invariably so clear-cut. It was not uncommon to provide for a relative (particularly a child) for a period without adopting it fully, and such a person could drift between agnatic kin and matrikin or pay prolonged visits which might or might not become permanent. During such periods of transition one could exercise certain rights as a primary rightholder in two lineages. Sooner or later, and generally in the event of marriage, one would be forced to opt for the one or the other, though it is conceivable that in rare instances primary rights could be held in two lineages. Such an instance occurred in the early nineteenth century as a result of the inheritance of a rangatira title through the maternal line, and later the inheritance of an ariki title through the paternal line, due to a combination of unusual demographic and political circumstances.
Next there were the rights of contingent members of a lineage whose right to plant and harvest the lands of their natal lineages was contingent on return there or on express permission. Their rights to the lineage lands will be referred to as contingent rights.
Thirdly, there were the rights of secondary members of the lineage (i.e. the children of contingent members). We will speak of their rights to land as The fact of ‘belonging’ to a lineage was for secondary members more in the nature of an idiom of kinship and its obligations and responsibilities, than it was a recognition of land rights.secondary rights, for while it was generally accepted that they would be admitted to that lineage if they wished to join it, and could thereby gain primary membership of it, they did not under normal circumstances plant there while residing in another lineage. To a lesser degree, the children of secondary members of a lineage were themselves secondary members, and they also had a potential, but markedly weaker, right to the land. They will be referred to as distant secondary rights. In the event of dire necessity there was no limit to the lengths one could trace secondary affiliations of this sort, but in practice they were seldom revived to the extent of exercising land rights.
Fourthly, there were the permissive members of the lineage, whose rights to the land will be spoken of as permissive rights. Such rights could not be transmitted and their maximum duration was accordingly the life-time of the holder.
A distinction may be drawn between proprietary rights in the land on the one hand, and rights to its usufruct on the other. Proprietary rights were held by the various descent groups, and as entry to any of these groups could only be acquired by descent or adoption, these rights were
Women were not eligible as heads of any social groups and accordingly they could not exercise such rights as were vested in rank titles. As a member of a household, every woman shared a joint use-right with the other residents and as a member of a descent group she held proprietary rights in that group's lands. Those women who did not themselves exercise primary rights in their lineage lands were nevertheless frequently the channel through which males acquired their rights. In the event of adoption or of there being no resident sons to inherit land rights, these often passed to grandsons through a daughter. The frequency of such a pattern of inheritance is not known, but natural causes and the extent of warfare must frequently have resulted in the loss of direct male heirs. Maretu claims that 730 people were killed in the wars between Takitumu and Avarua in the second decade of the nineteenth century. - MS 19. This is possibly an exaggerated figure, but available descriptions of the wars indicate that the losses must have been considerable.
A widow was often allowed to remain in her husband's household after his death, and if she had adult sons this seems to have been the normal pattern. Having no blood right in the household, her continued residence was by permission and not as of right. Williams mentions that
Williams, See e.g. Savage, ‘Iro Nui Ma Oata’ 58.A Narrative… 139. In the normal course of events the heir to the headship of the family would be the widow's own son who would have acquired rights from his deceased father. In view of the predominantly patrilocal pattern of residence removal from the family cannot have been the norm. Present-day informants say that if a woman was childless, or if she had only young children, it was customary for her to return to her born family, and this is confirmed by Gill, AAAS 331.
The Acquisition and Loss of Rights to Land
The following discussion of the means by which land rights were acquired in pre-contact times will provide a baseline for later comparison with the processes operating at various stages of the post-contact period. Presumably the landholding system was not static during the pre-contact era, and any reference to a custom existing in that era should (unless the context indicates otherwise) be taken to mean that it was effective at the time of first European contact, and not necessarily that it had applied from the time of first settlement.
It was by this means that the first settlers obtained possession of the island. How they subdivided and exploited their lands is no longer known. However, tradition records that they came from somewhere in the area now known as French Polynesia, and it is therefore likely that they brought with them a system of land tenure which fell within the same broad category as that brought by the later migrants from the same culture area.
Lands thus acquired could be retained only so long as no other settlers arrived, or if they did, then only so long as the lands could be defended. From what little is known of this very early phase, it seems that the original colonists were successful in retaining considerable segments of the island despite competition from later migrants. With the advent of Tangiia and Karika, however, they
Throughout the pre-contact era, conquest constituted the ultimate title to land; all land being held either by conquest or the ability to resist it. In all the records of pre-contact battles in the vernacular source material there are few indeed wherein a land dispute is given as the cause of the outbreak. The most common causes were disputes over rank titles (which, of course, carried certain land rights with them), insults, and actual or attempted adultery with the wives of chiefs. Nevertheless, it is clear that the acquisition of land was often an important motive for warfare, and that the exchange of insults was the appropriate provocation to justify the commencement of hostilities.
Firstly they could retain the rights permanently, and in the cases where the defeated party were exterminated this was invariably the case. The conquerors usually divided the lands among themselves, and settled some of their number there, for empty lands were liable to be settled by someone, and the surest way to retain title was to occupy.
Not infrequently, however, the losing party fled rather than risk extermination, and sought asylum in some lineage in another area (if possible, one to which they could claim relationship). Frequently the accounts do not give sufficient detail to determine whether or not the refugees sought out kin in their search for asylum. In many cases, however, the fact of relationship is stated, but in no case is there evidence to the effect that the refugee and the host were unrelated. It seems probable from the evidence that one sought out the most powerful relative from whom shelter could be expected. It was often not possible to make such an attempt immediately, and it was customary to make tattoo marks on the throat and arms as a reminder that vengeance was yet to be exacted. If it were not satisfied within the lifetime of the aggrieved party then he could pass it on to one of his children who was then obliged to act himself or to pass the mark on to his children. - Pitman, Journal 2.6.
It is therefore not surprising that many instances occur wherein individuals or families which had been defeated and banished were later permitted to return and have some or all of their lands restored to them. Sometimes this occurred within the lifetime of the actual aggressors, sometimes not until the next generation or even later. For example, in the late eighteenth century Tinomana Ariki was insulted by a member of one of the descent groups living in the district. Tinomana assembled a war party and attacked the offending family, killing all except one. The conquered lands were allocated among Tinomana's followers, but when the sole survivor attained manhood, he was given a particular portion of the lands of his descent group, and was later elevated to the rank of mataiapo. - Terei, Tuatua Taito 43–4.
Alternatively again, the land was sometimes restored in full, but conditionally. The defeated party might be required to render tribute periodically in acknowledment of
E.g. Maretu, MS 84.
Finally, there were instances where the conquerors restored the lands completely and unconditionally. Survivors who fled would constitute a lingering threat to the conquerors, who would be well aware that if a suitable opportunity presented itself the exiles would attempt to repossess the disputed lands. It was probably for this reason that attacking parties attempted to exterminate their enemies to a man. Thus, if the defeated survivors were numerous, or if they were supported by strong friends, it was unusual for the victors to try to retain all the lands permanently. Conquerors sometimes took the pigs and chattels of their enemies and destroyed their crops, houses and marae. After retaining the control of the lands for some time they allowed the fugitives to return and repossess their lands, provided they showed due humility in doing so. The classic and best documented case in this category is that of the defeat and driving away of the Avarua people in about
Initially, having assumed supremacy over the island, the people of Tangiia's time may be said to have held in common, but before long they divided out the lands among themselves. Following this primary allocation, with its well defined boundaries between tapere, the lands within each tapere were used by the respective lineages as they required them. In the early stages there would have been ample land for all, with surpluses in every tapere, and the nucleus who settled in each would have had ample room to expand and shift its cultivations, for, as different crops required different soil conditions, each family needed several pieces of land under cultivation at any one time. As families grew, their cultivations would spread over increasingly wider areas of the tapere land, and smaller groups would hive off from the parent body to set up their own households. Being separate units of production and consumption they would plant their crops separately from the parent group, and in the course of time the areas planted by them would become identified as theirs.
When divisions were made between the more important families such that each constituted a separate minor lineage, their respective land boundaries seem invariably to have been specified, but boundaries between the garden crops of households within the same minor lineage seem to have been determined by the extremities of the area cropped rather than by predetermined spatial limits of rights. These boundaries seem to have been flexible, and not to have retained any long-term identity once the area enclosed by them was no longer in use. This does not apply to irrigated taro patches which did retain long-term identity.
Another form of allocation occurred when a social group with a defined area of land became too large to be an effective unit, or when strife developed within it. Then the group would split, and either one party could ask the head of their lineage to allot them another piece of the lineage lands, or the existing lands could be partitioned and henceforth the two factions would function as separate units. Presumably this latter course was increasingly resorted to in the later years when a growing population forced closer settlement. Partition seems to have occurred most frequently after the death of a metua (the patriarch or household head) in those cases where there was disagreement as to who should succeed to his role. The normal pattern seems to have been for this position to fall to the deceased's eldest son, or, if he were too young, or if there were no sons, then to his next eldest brother. In either case the choice would be conditional on the son or brother concerned being resident there, for the role of metua was one requiring constant attendance within the family. If two aspirants to the position could not be reconciled, then partition was the simplest solution.
A boy usually lived on the lands of his father, and as he grew to adulthood he participated in the gardening and food gathering activities and learned the boundaries of such
It is necessary to distinguish between proprietary rights which were acquired by inheritance and rights which existed merely as a by-product of one's residence in the household. The latter (those of wives and other permissive members) were never more than conditional rights of use. In so far as land use was concerned, it could be said that the living members of the household succeeded in common to the rights in common of those who died or left the family. Perhaps the most appropriate description is that attributed to an African chief who said ‘We conceive of the land as belonging to a vast family, many of whom are dead, a few of whom are living, and countless members of which are yet unborn’. Meek, Land Law and Custom in the Colonies, epigraph.
The administration of the lands of the household centred on the senior resident male member, though an aged family head could retire and pass the responsibilities on to his successor - usually his eldest son. It was presumably at the level of the minor lineage that the most common read-justments in land rights of the component groups were made
Wills The indigenous term is ‘reo iku’. Gill, ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ Life… 77.
The rights which could be transferred by will were strictly limited. As a man's pigs, chickens and mature crops were consumed at his death feast, wills did not apply to such chattels. This custom is still adhered to on some of the outer islands, and ceased on Atiu less than a decade ago.
A woman could make a will disposing of the rights in her marriage land, but the disposition had to be within her own issue. The only other circumstance under which it was considered proper for a woman to make a will was to devolve a lifetime use-right on her husband if he was living on her land. There is no evidence of a corresponding right of a dying husband to grant a life interest to his wife. With the exception of wills by women in the atypical circumstances described all available examples of wills are those by titleholders - rangatira, mataiapo or ariki. Whether the lack of evidence as to wills of others is due to their not being of sufficient social and economic importance to record, or to the fact that commoners did not have the power to devise land rights by will, is not clear.
The only other circumstances whereby one could inherit primary land rights in lineages other than one's own born or adopted lineage were when lands which were given in marriage had subsequently passed to a secondary member, In which case the land could be inherited from the maternal grandfather.
If a right-holder died without male issue, his rights normally fell to those who held in common with him. For
It is not likely that many whole lineages died out, for if numbers were dwindling too low, new members could be adopted, or the waning lineage could merge with a contiguous (and undoubtedly related) lineage. This may have been done either voluntarily or under pressure. Strong neighbours would be tempted to spread into vacant lands, and a voluntary merger may have been preferable to the possibility of loss by force.
In the normal course of events a woman did not exercise rights of use in her own family lands after she married, but she could return to them if need be, and secondary rights to those lands passed through her to her children.
There was, however, one circumstance under which a woman who was absent could, as of right, plant, harvest and control
Such land was known as ‘enua tao'anga rima’ (it was known as ‘topenga piro’ on some islands). All recorded instances of marriage gifts of land concern the daughters of chiefs. While some informants claimed that only ariki and mataiapo had the privilege of setting aside such lands, occasional examples of leading rangatira having done so have been noted.
A chief wishing to set aside land as a marriage portion was not required to consult anyone though he could only allocate it from the lands of his own minor lineage. The gift was announced at the wedding feast.
Ideally, the marriage portion was not used by anyone other than the woman to whom it was given and by her issue, but in fact it was common for her to allow her family of origin to make use of it until such time as she or her children needed it. While she could not dispose of the land, she could allow a custodian (usually a relative) to look after it for her. In such a case, along with the
The information in this paragraph was supplied by informants in Rarotonga, who were familiar with the pre-Land Court (i.e. pre-
If the bride left her husband she and her children could return to her own extended family and could use the land set aside for her. Normally though, if she was accepted back, she would participate jointly in the use of the family lands, and unless she or her children made use of it then it would lose its character as a marriage gift and become again regarded as family land. This invariably happened if she died childless. Marriage land appears most commonly to have been used by specific children of the donee. Though they could make use of it while remaining members of their father's lineage, it was more usual for the mother to send a particular child back to live with her own lineage and use this land. Here again, if the child were sent back when young, and adopted into its mother's family, he would participate jointly in the exploitation of common lands and the marriage portion would again revert to its source unless he made use of it. While no figures are available to substantiate the point, it appears that the majority of rights given as marriage gifts were little exercised, the land reverting naturally in the course of time to those who gave it. This view is supported by the comments of informants, and by the fact that when the Land Court investigated the title to all the lands on the island, very few portions were claimed as marriage lands.
Certain rights in land were at times transferred by gift, but never all the rights in any parcel, for some rights invariably remained with the donors. Such gifts were always conditional and invariably implied a right of reversion to the donor if the donee died without issue. It may be better to avoid the word ‘gift’ altogether, for to the Western ear it implies the handing over of the fee simple of the land. Nevertheless, the term is frequently used in the literature, and is quite a convenient one provided it is remembered that only specific rights were given, and on specific conditions.
Gifts were given for a particular period of time - either the lifetime of the donee, or the period of his residence in the district, or for such period as he and his issue wished to occupy the land. If the time specified was a lifetime then the land reverted to its source on the death of the donee. If, on the other hand, the gift were given to the donee and his issue for so long as they might wish to use the land (and this was the widest form of gift given) then, of course, the donees' right would strengthen over time, for, provided it was used, they retained their right in perpetuity. Such rights were given ‘tuatau ua atu’. While this phrase is usually translated as ‘for ever and ever’, it may be more faithfully interpreted as ‘from this time onward’, implying ‘as far as we can see’. The connotation is one of indefiniteness rather than irrevocability. Two unstated stipulations appear to have existed in all gifts. The first was that relations between the parties remained as at the time of transfer, and the second was that the right be exercised. Many examples exist wherein a right which had been granted while amicable relations existed between the parties, was withdrawn or challenged by the donors (or their issue) when relations between them deteriorated.
Gifts were given either as an acknowledgment of services rendered, Lands were frequently given for outstanding service in war. This is, of course, a relative difference. Assuming an element of reciprocity to have existed in all exchanges, the underlying cause of the difference was no doubt that whereas in the former case the quid pro quo (in the form of some service redered) was already met, in the latter case it was still to come. Pitman, Journal 12.5.
Descriptions of fugitives from war or justice fleeing from their lands and seeking refuge with relatives elsewhere are many. Some remained only temporarily, others remained throughout their lives; though some of their issue later returned; while others again remained permanently in their new location. Usually the person given the temporary right either died without further issue or married into the donor family, and in the latter case he would gain a use-right for
No instance has been noted wherein a refugee married other than into the lineage in which he resided. Presumably if he did marry into another lineage it would be in his interests to shift his residence there.
It was customary for persons holding land by permissive occupation to take to the donor some token of the produce of the land. This was not regarded so much as payment, as an acknowledgment that the occupier's right was only a subordinate one. Such a token gift would be taken to the head of the host family. However, contributions of food were taken to heads of groups for other reasons too: to help in group functions, as a sign of friendship or gratitude, or as gifts on occasions associated with the life crises of relatives. This custom of taking contributions of food and its implications in the matter of land rights was later to become a very important issue, though a somewhat confused and contentious one.
An adoptee was known as a ‘tamaiti angai’ - literally a feeding child. In the literature the term ‘tama 'u'a’ was applied to adoptees who were not related by blood, but there was some inconsistency in the use of this term by informants.
The adoption of children was a very common practice, and adults were adopted occasionally. Adoption could take place at any time from birth onwards, though it was frequently arranged before birth. In Western terminology adoption connotes a definite relationship which is established at a particular time and transfers specified rights and obligations from one party to another, but in Rarotonga the adoptive relationship varied considerably and could be established either at a particular time or over a period.
Adoptees from outside the lineage were almost invariably secondary members of it (i.e. the children of contingent members) and automatically assumed the status of primary members once adopted. Both the father and the brothers of the adoptee's mother were primary right-holders there and could provide land for the child. This would not be possible if the adoption took place from the family of origin to a contingent member living in another lineage, for the adopting parent in such a case had only permissive status in the lineage of residence and had no power to make provision for land rights of others. Persons with no recognized connection by descent were sometimes adopted, though this was much less common than the adoption of kin, With a population of about 7,000 people living on a small island and only very limited contact with other islands, every person was no doubt related to every other. The significant factor in adoption would no doubt be whether or not the relationship between the parties was recognized. This supposed tendency may possibly be due to the lack of evidence about such adoptions by commoners. However, as the adoption of non-relatives appears generally to have been motivated by political considerations it is unlikely that commoners were involved to the same extent as chiefs, if at all.
While a person was adopted by a particular household and lineage, he was also adopted by a particular individual (not by a husband and wife jointly). This is still almost invariably the case today.
Ideally, an adoptee's rights were specified at the time of adoption, but the ideal was not always achieved in
‘If native custom is properly carried out the lands to be awarded to an adopted child are made known at the time of adoption…. Unfortunately this procedure was not always followed….’ - Judge Morgan, MB 22:339 NLC. Moss, JPS 3:23. This is still generally the case today.
Frequently one or two special portions of land were set aside for the adoptee and his issue for so long as they lived and used the land. The adoptee would be brought up by the family which had adopted him, but once he reached maturity he could either remain in that household or set up a new household on the land allotted to him. If he did not exercise his rights in the special plot or plots allotted to him either by he himself or some of his issue using them, then they reverted to the source from which they came. The right of an adoptee to will land given to him by his foster-family was limited to his own issue. Should he wish to devise it to others, the consent of the donors was required.
Even when a particular portion of land was set aside and used by the adoptee, he could not remain exclusively on that land, nor could he obtain all his requirements from it. The mountain-sides, the taro swamps, the rich alluvial flats, the rocky foreshore, and the lagoon each yielded products which were not available from the other. Most commonly an adoptee was given a piece of alluvial gardening land, and some taro swamp land but this did not satisfy all his needs
Once adopted into another family or lineage a person could only exercise contingent rights in the lands of his lineage of origin. But in many cases the process of adoption was not so clearly defined, especially if the households were close together so that children could spend some of their time with their born parents and some with their maternal uncles and grandparents, and could exercise similar primary rights in both households. If, in a particular case, a child moved between his mother's household and that of his maternal grandparents, and in his adolescence tended to accept the latter as his more usual abode, he would exercise his land rights there. But in the event of friction his right in the adoptive household might be disputed, and if he were unpopular for some reason the household into which he had been born may not want to take him back. While this type of case appears to have been the exception (for most children would be welcome in either group) it probably did occur occasionally. No pre-contact example of this type has been located but a post-contact example wherein neither family were prepared to make adequate provision of lands for the child of a deceased adoptee is given in MB 22:318–20 NLC.
On the other hand, and this appears to have occurred much more frequently, an adoptee sometimes succeeded in holding primary rights in both lineages, for in the same way that a family could set aside land as a marriage portion for a woman who married out, so also could they set aside land for a child who was adopted out. As with the marriage gift, such land was more often used by one of the issue of the
The number of children adopted today is reducing year by year and the land rights of the respective parties are now clearly specified. Nevertheless, the Registrar of the Land Court (Mr L.H. Trenn) estimates that nearly ninety per cent of the land disputes which come before his notice concern rights acquired by adoption or by permissive occupation. There is evidence to indicate that this is no new phenomenon, for indigenous histories contain numerous instances of disputes over the rights of adoptees.
There is no information available with regard to sex preferences in adoption, though accounts of adoptions by ranked families usually refer to male children.
No quantitative data is available from the pre-contact era to indicate the relative incidence of each of the various ways of acquiring land rights, but in one of the best documented of the early land cases witnesses incidentally name those persons who actually planted the block of land in question during the nineteenth century. Of a total of about 60 persons mentioned it has been possible to determine in 36 instances the persons from whom each acquired his right to plant. Of the 36, 19 acquired their rights from their fathers, 1 from his father by adoption, 5 from their mothers, 2 from classificatory elder brothers, 4 from their wives, 2 from wives of their brothers, and 3 by permissive occupation from persons apparently unrelated. Avaavaroa case - MB 1:107–39 NLC. It will be noted that the above persons were users and did not necessarily have proprietary rights in the land.
From evidence given in the Ngati Te Ora case See appendix B.
The ideal claim to land began with discovery or conquest, and was then traced by a process of inheritance in the male line, supported by continuous occupation. While the ideal of patrilineal inheritance was achieved in the majority of cases, it is apparent from the examples quoted above that the alternative provisions for acquisition of
E.g. MB 4:277 NLC.
A person could be deprived of land rights as punishment, but this deprivation was usually a concomitant of expulsion
The actual driving out of the family was known as ‘akataa’ and a person who had been so driven out was accordingly known as a ‘tangata akataa’. The act of seizing his possessions was known as ‘aru’, and that of devastating his crops and destroying his house was called ‘akatanea’. This system of plunder was similar to the New Zealand Maori custom of muru. E.g. Pitman, who graphically describes the banishment and confiscation of lands of a set of brothers for a crime committed by one of them. - Journal 14.8.
With the possible exception of rights lost by banishment or conquest, no right was extinguished in one fell swoop. Even in the case of conquest or banishment rights were often not entirely lost, for they may be gratuitously restored, or action may be taken to repossess them. Likewise in the case of gifts, the donor retained residual rights.
The continued recognition of rights to any particular portion of land as belonging to a particular social group was dependent upon occupation by members of that group or by persons to whom they had delegated some of their rights. Just what constituted ‘occupation’ in the case of little-used lands is difficult to define, but residence within the tapere concerned appears to have been one of the prerequisites. If there was inadequate land, groups could probably not maintain for long their rights to land which they did not actively use. Even if a claim to unused land was impregnable to an aggressor it could nevertheless be vulnerable to the humble request of a friend and potential supporter.
The Utilization and Role of Land in Rarotonga
Rarotonga is a volcanic island about twenty-six square miles in area; its high mountainous core being dissected into a series of valleys and ridges which radiate out across the coastal lowlands to the lagoon which encompasses the island. The three major soil types follow the pattern of physical configuration: For full details of soil types see Fox and Grange, Soils… 7–13. For sketch map of Rarotonga see page 14 ante.
Corresponding to these three soil zones were three zones of plant life, but those of the coastal fringe and the mountainous interior supplied relatively few of the needs of the people, the bulk of the food and other subsistence requirements (apart from marine products) being obtained from the middle zone, the whole of which had been cropped at one time or another, and was covered entirely with either second growth or cultivations. Cheeseman, TLS 6:265–8. Details of the flora of the island are given by Cheeseman, TLS; Wilder, Flora of Rarotonga; Gill, Jottings… part III; Buzacott, Mission Life… 240; and Pitman to LMS 29.11.
Most of the food supply was produced by agriculture, the principal crops being taro (colocasia esculenta), breadfruit, bananas, kumara (ipomea batatas), yams, arrowroot, kape (alocasia macrorhiza), coconuts and ti (cordyline terminalis). Kava (piper methysticum) was grown for use as a beverage. Buck states that mataiapo particularly grew it just outside their homes, but there is no indication that it had the close link with status and ceremonial that obtained in Western Polynesia. - Early mission accounts refer to a scarcity of pigs, and while this was in fact true for the Avarua and Arorangi districts at the time of arrival of the first missionaries, it was due to the recent defeat of those districts at the hands of Takitumu when their pigs were killed and their crops destroyed. Captain Chase of the ‘Falcon’, who visited the island in Arts and Crafts… 18–20.New Bedford Mercury 15.4.
Fishing was carried out in the streams, in the lagoon, and in the open sea, and provided an important part of the diet. Eels were caught in the taro swamps and crabs were taken on the beaches at certain seasons. Fish weirs, made of coral boulders, were constructed in the lagoon. Watercress was gathered from the stream-beds and edible seaweeds were collected in the lagoon.
Other foods were gathered but not generally cultivated, the most important being plantains, chestnuts, roots and berries. In periods of famine after hurricanes or destructive wars, candlenuts, roots, pandanus drupes and even banana stalks were eaten. The main green foods consumed were taro leaves and the leaves of the poroporo shrub (solanum oleraceum).
Breadfruit, taro, bananas, and plantains were the most important crops. The breadfruit was seasonal, producing but one crop annually, in summer, which was the season of plenty. The two seasons recognized were the Kuru (literally ‘breadfruit’ referring to the season of plenty) and Paroro (scarcity). Bananas were (and still are) preserved in some of the ‘A man who has two or three pits of chestnuts, as many of mai or sour breadfruit paste, with a number of old cocoa-nuts, is well provided for against the season of scarcity.’ - Gill, Diary of Andrew Bloxam 86. No reference to this having been done on Rarotonga has been located.Jottings… 196.
Raw materials for every need were, with the exception of a few obtained from the lagoon and sea, derived from the land. Most garments were made from the beaten inner bark of the paper mulberry (broussonetia papyrifera) and the breadfruit, while a coarser cloth was prepared from the bark of the banyan tree (ficus prolixa). The hibiscus (hibiscus tiliaceus) which grew in profusion in uncultivated areas, furnished cordage from its bark, platters from its leaves and rafters from its branches. Mats and other plaited-ware were produced from the leaves of the pandanus (some varieties of which were cultivated) and the coconut. While
Timber for house-building and the manufacture of canoes and other artifacts was obtained from cultivated trees such as the coconut and breadfruit, as well as from forest trees. A host of articles of lesser importance was obtained from the land - candlenuts for torches and dyes, barringtonia for fish poisons, pua (fagraea bertercana) for perfumes, vines for the making of fishtraps and a variety of products for medicinal purposes. None of these products were cultivated, supplies being collected from self-propagated trees. Owing to the random growth of such trees, a considerable area of land was necessary to ensure an adequate supply of all products. With one unimportant exception there are no gregarious trees native to Rarotonga. - Wilder, Flora… 5.
There being no trading on the island (or between this and any other island) there was no incentive for production beyond the quantities necessary for subsistence, for gifts and tribute, and for the entertaining of guests. The risk of hurricanes, to which most of the crops were vulnerable, made food preservation prudent, but known techniques of preservation were limited to the few products already mentioned, and nothing could be done to protect most of the crops from hurricane damage.
Land was not regarded as a capital good and there was no conception of the sale of land or its produce. Line ages with surplus land could nevertheless exploit it to their own advantage, in order to swell their ranks and prestige, by making land available to distant relatives and refugees whose subordinate status made them vulnerable to larger than usual contributions of tribute.
The Rarotongan people were aware of the different soil types and their potentialities for various crops. Taro was planted in the alluvial soils of the stream-beds and swampy depressions of the old lagoon bed. Most varieties were grown in swamps (both natural and artificial) and necessitated the use of a simple irrigation system of dams and water channels to enable the crop to be grown across the valley floor and not just in the stream-beds themselves. This technique of cultivation, which was so prevalent at the time of first European contact, is still practised today, though on a smaller scale.
As Buck noted, a good deal of supervision was required to ensure that the various families, having terraces at various levels, got their fair share of water, especially in dry periods. Such a system required organization above the household level (for various households used a common source of water) and would probably have been the responsibility of the head of the major lineage. Unfortunately no indigenous records illustrate this point, but Buck maintains that ‘… the chief who owned the land had command over the irrigation channel and the distribution of the water’. He quotes an example where Kainuku Ariki had cut off the supply of water to one of his ‘tenants’ owing to the latter's failure to provide certain tribute. - Arts and Crafts… 250. Presumably this action was taken by Kainuku as head of his own lineage and not as an ariki of Takitumu.
The rich soil and the warm moist climate made growth rapid and easy. Consequently there were not the refinements in agricultural technique which are often found in areas where the pressure of the external environment necessitates more careful husbandry. The only agricultural implements were the ironwood digging stick (ko), and the planting stick. These are more fully described in Buck, Arts and Crafts… 248–9.
It was probably due to the limited range of implements and to the fact that the staple vegetable (taro) required very little clearing and a minimum of other cultivation that the bulk of the food supply was obtained from this source, as well as from breadfruit, bananas and plantains, which did not require cultivation at all. Garden crops were grown, but they merely supplemented the above-mentioned staples. Shifting cultivation was practised, but it only applied to the less important crops like kumara, arrowroot, yams and giant taro which were grown on the alluvial flats and the lower slopes of the hills. Swamp taro, bananas and the tree crops did not require the rotation of soil or crop.
Planting was carried out according to the phases of the moon, each night being clearly categorized as propitious or otherwise for growth of the young plant. This custom is still practised by some people on the island. While some nights were considered propitious for planting in general, others were considered appropriate for specific crops only.
Ridges and other natural features were used almost invariably to demarcate the hilly parts of one tapere from another. The flat coastal portion was usually marked by rows of chestnut or banyan trees. Chestnut trees are still commonly used as boundary marks, and due to the age which these trees are said to attain, many of them may have been growing since the pre-contact era. Relatively few banyan trees are left today as most have been destroyed to make room for agriculture, since each tree in its natural state may cover an acre or more of ground. It is not known whether these were an indigenous feature (as they were in A map showing current ownership of land in Rarotonga illustrates this point clearly. See page 68. These features are clearly seen in any of the early surveying handbooks.
Boundaries between contiguous taro plots were marked by stone retaining walls which were necessitated by the irrigation system. Alternatively earth-works (motu) were constructed to divided the plots, and bananas or breadfruit were planted on them. Trees, or stones, or a row of banana plants, are often used today to demarcate contiguous plots belonging to members of the same minor lineage and it is claimed that this is an old-established system. All lands, including home sites, were identified by a particular name and each subdivision within a block was individually named. It was the prerogative of the owning group to give or to change the name. A meaning was always ascribed to the name and it is not uncommon for disputants in Land Court cases to tender knowledge of the origin of the name as evidence of ownership. Likewise, the fact that members of a particular descent group had been buried on certain lands, or had marae there, was not infrequently used as evidence of ownership of the surrounding lands. Though examples do exist of descent groups which had been conquered and had forfeited the rights to most of their lands being permitted to continue to use the burial grounds and marae.
Confirmation of the transfer of any land was shown by the preparation of a feast to which all interested parties were invited. Any person who partook of the feast was
As discussed earlier, each tapere of land was associated with a particular descent group which, conquests apart, traced its connection with that land back through generations of illustrious ancestors to founder chiefs who were held in such veneration that they had assumed some of the qualities of deities. The spiritual and temporal prosperity of the group was closely related to the sanctity of the local marae, the presence in the locality of the buried remains of countless forbears, and the fertility of the soil from which the occupants of the tapere derived their sustenance.
The land and the society were intricately interwoven. No rank title and no descent group was conceivable apart from the lands associated with it, and no material good could be acquired other than from the land or the sea. The recruitment of additional members and the provision of ceremonial and hospitality so vital to the continued status of the group were dependent on adequate resources of land and labour. It is accordingly understandable that land acquired a considerable prestige value and that a man was ‘great according to the number of his kaingas or farms’. Williams, A Narrative… 215.
The necessity to defend the land from those who would acquire it by aggression or encroachment necessitated joint action by those with interests in common, and this no doubt constituted a major unifying force in the society, acting as a brake on any tendency for the individual to pursue his own interests to the detriment of the right-holding group as a whole.
The exercise of land rights carried with it certain obligations to other members of the groups which held rights in the land concerned. There were obligations which functioned to maintain and reinforce social relations, such as the necessity to supply produce for marriages, funerals and other occasions of social interaction, and those requiring mutual assistance and the provision of land for the use of particular kin on appropriate occasions.
There were also obligations which functioned to reinforce the political organization. Members of the lower social orders rendered tribute to members of the higher strata within the same segment of the political structure. Two particular services which every man was expected to render were known as aratiroa (the provision of food and services for distinguished visitors) and arevananga (the construction of public buildings including the high chief's house). In addition there were various offerings, largely of a religious nature, which were known by the generic name of atinga. While particular forms of atinga were provided for particular ceremonial occasions, atinga was also payable to the head of the appropriate landowning group by persons who planted under conditions of permissive occupation.
It is impossible to determine exactly the degree to which tribute was an obligation deriving from the holding of rights in land, though there was certainly a relationship between the two. In reply to a question about the tenure of land asked by Sir W. J. Steward, Pa Ariki said: ‘This is the custom from our fathers: The Ariki…has his land. Now, he puts that land into the hands of his people. The Mataiapo owns his land. He also has that land in the hands of his people. Following the chief [mataiapo] there is the Komono, and he also holds land, and is linked with the chief - is under the chief. The land is in his hands and the hands of his people. The word about the people on his land is with the chief to whom he adheres. Now, when the chief has any work in hand he sends his messengers to the Komono and to the Kiato under him. Then they do what the chief requires; they bring whatever he has instructed them to bring. Concerning the Arikis, they have under them Rangatiras, and these Rangatiras are usually the younger members and branches of the kingly family. And there is their subdivision of land in their own hands. But the power over these Rangatiras is with the Ariki. When the Ariki has work in hand he sends word to these Rangatiras of his, and they come at the summons of the Ariki, and do what is to be done, when anything is required in the way of food, or so on. That is our system on the land here.’ - Even in the case of Makea Ariki rendering atinga to Pa Ariki and Kainuku Ariki, this was not done in Makea's capacity as high chief of Avarua, but as the holder of a portion of land in the Takitumu district. - AMB 2:58 NLC. E.g. AMB 1:17.NZPP A3B
Non-resident members of a lineage were, it is true, entitled to food from the lands of that lineage when passing over them, or when visiting the primary group. But the right to take fruits for refreshment when travelling, and the obligation to provide food for visitors or passers-by was universal and applied to all persons, whether relatives or otherwise. Such transient acts of use thus had no necessary correlation with rights of ownership.
The status of chiefs was reinforced by making certain products their exclusive prerogative. Turtle was considered sacred and could be eaten only by men of high rank, Gill, Buzacott, Smith lists shark, urua and punupunu, and states that these fish were still reserved for the high chiefs in Buck, Terei, Jottings… 221.Mission Life… 110. This custom is still observed to a limited degree today.JPS 12:220.Arts and Crafts… 209.Tuatua Taito 24.
An offering of first fruits took place in December each year, on the rising of the Pleiades and a variety of other ceremonies were held on particular occasions throughout the year. All participants were expected to contribute foodstuffs for the festivities, and while the pattern of contribution and distribution differed for various ceremonies, it was usual to leave a portion on the marae for the gods, to render a share to the chiefs, and to distribute the balance to the people on a household basis. Taraare, JPS 30:137–41.
Within the residential core of the descent group there was a sexual division of labour for certain tasks, though the sexes co-operated in others. The construction of houses, the heavier agricultural work and pelagic fishing were the province of men. Women assisted with planting and harvesting, and weeding was considered to be primarily women's work. Some early reports indicate that cooking was the responsibility of the men. E. g. Gill, This form of cooking, known as ‘ta'u’, is still today done by men when pigs and large quantities of food require to be cooked for feasts.Life… 64.
While the household was the elementary unit of production and consumption, nearby related households were called on to assist with heavy tasks like clearing bush or constructing taro beds, and whole lineages must have co-operated in such tasks as carrying large tree-trunks, some of which Maretu says required fifty to one hundred men at a time. Maretu, MS 50. Co-operating groups of this sort are little used in agriculture today, and the last occasion my informants remember when pere vaere (a large-scale co-operative group to clear land alternately for each of the members) operated was in the 1940s.
Chiefs were not exempt from agricultural labour, and were expected in this and other work to lead by active participation. ‘Chiefs and all take their portion of work. If any work public or domestic is going on the great and under chiefs are all at their post.’ - Pitman, Journal 12.10.
Access to land or crops could be controlled or denied by the use of the ra'ui, or customary prohibition, by the appropriate chief. It is still used occasionally on Rarotonga, and quite frequently on some of the outer islands. E. g. Taraare, JPS 30:141; Terei, Tuatua Taito 30.
The settling of disputes in relation to land rights was a constant problem. Even given the system of priorities for the allocation of rights, and of conditions for their retention and loss, rival claimants did not always agree on the relative merits of their claims, and a tribunal or other machinery was necessary to give and enforce judgement in the event of dispute. This aspect of the tenure system was but little developed, and was probably its greatest weakness, being detrimental both to social stability and volume of production.
Differences could be handled by negotiation between the parties, by reference to a higher authority, or by fighting. As direct trial of strength was always possible, negotiations must have been made with an eye to the probable outcome if warfare were finally resorted to.
While there are many examples of settlement by negotiation after the arrival of the English missionaries, there are very few before but this may simply be due to the fact that if negotiations were successful, there would be nothing
Gill, AAAS 334.
Those who lacked the physical resources to take direct action could resort to sorcery and invoke supernatural agencies to punish offenders. The mission so effectively destroyed the priesthood and crushed the indigenous magico-religious structure that little knowledge of these processes remains. All that can be said is that sorcery was practised and that a class of ‘priests’ specialized in the exercise of this craft. Sickness was sometimes attributed to sorcery in retaliation for ‘land grabbing’. - Hutchen to LMS 16.2.
The principles of land tenure described in the foregoing chapters should be regarded as a body of common understandings which, other things being equal, guided behaviour. But variations in physical strength, power of personalities, number of dependants and other factors resulted in other things not always being equal - and the application of the principles was modified accordingly. Ideally, the overlapping claims acquired through the various channels were reconciled by decisions issued by the chief or chiefs concerned;
The tenure system was one in which individuals sought their own maximum advantage in the face of two inhibiting factors. The first was the limitation of process, due to advantage having to be sought through the channels of accepted custom, and the second was the necessity to allow for the claims of other right-holders (in its extreme form the ability to resist aggression) limiting the extent to which that advantage could be pursued.
In view of the propensity to expand one's rights, coupled with the flexibility of means of acquiring and losing rights, it is not surprising that at the time of first European contact every inch of land on the island was claimed by one party or another - and sometimes by more than one. Theft and damage to crops in retaliation for other wrongs were very prevalent and acted as a strong disincentive to the expansion of plantings by those with adequate land. Furthermore, with a population of 7,000 For fuller details of population at this time see page 45. Fox and Grange, Maretu, MS 19. Pitman to LMS 17.12. Maretu, MS 33. He does not suggest that it was all planted, but merely that it was in the recognized occupation of one or other family.Soils… 40. They consider a further 1,530 acres to be usable for tree crops though not generally suitable for agriculture.
Disputes as to ownership and use were frequent, though historical records show them to have been much more prevalent between lineages than within them. This reflects the fact that the machinery for settlement of disputes within tapere was relatively efficient, whereas that above the tapere level was not. Pitman, Journal 28.7.
Williams described the situation by saying: ‘Another difficulty was produced by what they call Williams, kai kainga, or land-eating, which is getting unjust possession of each other's lands; and these, once obtained, are held with the greatest possible tenacity; for land is exceedingly valuable in Rarotonga, and on no subject were their contentions more frequent and fierce. On investigating this last practice, we found it to be a species of oppression in which so many were involved, and also a point on which the feelings of all were so exquisitively sensitive, that to moot it would be to endanger the peace of the island. We therefore thought it most advisable to recommend the chiefs to allow it to remain for the present in abeyance.’A Narrative… 139.
Land disputes were most commonly encountered in cases where the primary holders of the rights concerned had died without surviving issue in the primary group, and where more than one secondary claimant wished to acquire the rights in question. While recorded pre-contact disputes most frequently involved titleholders of different lineages who claimed the same lands by different criteria, it is apparent that problems sometimes arose between chiefs and their subordinates within the same lineage group, for in He thereupon made arrangements for the restoration of the lands to the former owners. - Buzacott, Mission Life… 146.
Such was the state of land rights in
Part Two
The Impact of European Culture on Land Tenure,1823–98
The Impact of European Culture on Land Tenure,
Changes in the Distribution of Land and Land Rights
The institutional framework within which the system of land tenure described in the first part of this study was evolved, appears to have retained the same basic features for at least a thousand years. Despite modifications to suit particular cultural and environmental circumstances, a comparison with the cultures of the New Zealand Maoris, the Tahitians and the Hawaiians shows a persistence throughout of fundamental forms and themes. It is probable, in fact, that the first radical change in the culture of the people of the
In most parts of Polynesia the first agents of culture change were traders, but as the The missionaries were preceded by explorers such as Cook, Byron and Bellinghausen; by traders like Goodenough, Hort and Lamont; and by spasmodic calls for supplies by whalers and other vessels. These random visits to particular islands were decades apart, and as Beaglehole has said, ‘… the social change initiated by these brief visits was very slight…it was left to the missionaries therefore to be the agents of social change…’. – Rarotonga from Social Change in the South Pacific 14.
Confronted with the difficulties of teaching diverse and scattered groups, the evangelists persuaded their followers to reside near the mission headquarters on each island. This involved a change in both the place and the pattern of residence. Previously all people had lived in nucleated hamlets in their own tapere, or in the case of the atolls, on their own motu, An islet in an atoll. Rakahanga may be regarded as an exception, as all four lineages there had always lived in a single village. This was no doubt due to their small numbers and the fact that they all sprang from the same two ancestors. On Pukapuka, the people had since long before European contact lived in three distinct villages on one motu, but there were only two other motu on the atoll and neither was suitable for permanent habitation. Having regard to the small size of the populations of these two islands, and the circumstances of their origins, it may be claimed that they were not exceptional, for the settlements were not unlike the hamlets of the other islands.
The sites for the mission stations, and consequently for the new settlements, were chosen in consultation with the leading pro-Christian chiefs, and were accordingly located within the tapere of the most powerful of them.
The collection of all the people of one district (who had previously lived scattered over the various tapere) into a single village seldom occasioned serious difficulty, presumably because all the inhabitants recognized a common origin and a common high chief. On the other hand, attempts to bring together the people of more than one district were unsuccessful in the long term, and in no case did a village survive intact where people were brought to live on the lands of a high chief whose authority they had not recognized prior to European contact. In Mauke the people of the two tribes were brought to live in two contiguous villages. By a judgement of the Land Court in
The case of Atiu, which at first sight appears to be an exception, in fact serves to illustrate the rule. There the single settlement is not, and never was, a single village, but rather seven contiguous villages each on its own
Today these are usually referred to as five villages, as the three southern villages, which were the smallest, in many respects function as a single village known as Areora.
A more typical pattern is shown in the case of Rarotonga, with its three pre-contact tribal divisions. At first the missionaries tried to establish a single settlement at Avarua, the district of Makea Ariki, and initially they were quite successful, for Tinomana and Pa Ariki of the other two districts. Maretu, MS 65. The village only lasted for three years.
A church and mission station were built, and though all parties co-operated in these projects, each district undertook specific aspects of the work. In the early stages the people of Avarua fed the visitors, in accordance with custom. However, the numbers were so great that food
The Avarua district had only been reoccupied the previous year following the devastation of its food crops by Takitumu. See page 87 footnote 2. The same problem arose when the settlement later shifted to Ngatangiia. Pitman considered this to be one of the most cogent reasons for having a separate settlement in each district and says: ‘The natives had to fetch their food from Avarua to this place [Ngatangiia] every day, consequently they could not attend to instructions unless they neglected their lands.’ - Pitman to LMS 6.11. For a detailed description see Maretu, MS 88–91.
Rifts soon appeared in the organization of the mission settlement. It had been intended that the ariki would confer on matters of common interest, but, owing to the status struggle between them, no long-term unity was effected. Only the strong personalities of the teachers and the promise of great rewards from Jehovah held the community together. Lacking cohesive leadership at the top, the three tribal power structures were inadequately knit, and when the balance of power shifted in favour of the Takitumu chiefs the whole settlement moved to Ngatangiia, though it was not long before many people returned to Avarua. Ibid. 99–103. Ibid. 109.
In that year two separate villages were formed, one at Ngatangiia and the other at Avarua. In Pitman, Journal, In the case of Matavera and Titikaveka distance from the planting lands must also have been conducive to the setting up of separate villages. The Takitumu district is about twelve miles long, and is the largest in the Cook group. It is the only district in the group in which the populace live in more than one village.
The next phase was the spread of the villages from closely packed clusters of houses, usually on one tapere, to lines of houses spread out along either side of a newly-formed road which cut at right angles through the various tapere. This may be illustrated by the following sketch map of Ngatangiia village. Just when the spread took place is not known, though informants say that this village was in the compact form until it was destroyed by a hurricane in
The Changing Pattern of Settlement
Turangi Ma Nga Mataiapo (Ngatangiia)
It will be seen that whereas the initial village was all on one tapere, the new pattern was for each family to build beside the new road on its own tapere. This called for adjustments within tapere but not between them, and the friction which had resulted from living on the land of other lineages was to that extent overcome. However, while this trend was manifest in many islands of the group, it did not usually apply to all inhabitants, as some people
Ngatangiia was one of the few villages in the group where everybody removed to his own lands and none was left in the original compact village. In most places the original village became the core of the ribbon-pattern village.
On most of the islands the settlement pattern followed the same three phases: firstly, the compact agglomeration of all people at one spot, secondly, the split into separate villages each based on its own district, and thirdly the spread of the villages to a ribbon pattern such that, while the nucleus of the village remained, many people shifted along the road a little in order to build on their own family lands. Atiu and Mitiaro did not develop beyond the first phase. Pukapuka and Rakahanga, which had had compact villages before European contact, retained that pattern. These people were usually those least interested in church affairs. Such a drift occurred on Rarotonga, Aitutaki, Mangaia and Penrhyn.
The establishment of villages and the necessity for those who aspired to divine grace to live in them See Pitman, Journal 1827–30 passim. In Atiu the term ‘taura oire’ was used. Re Arorangi village see MB 1:59–69 NLC; re Avarua village see MB 4:21A, B and 47A NLC; re Atiu villages see Atiu MB 1:122 NLC. While house-sites only were given in all other cases, in the case of Arorangi village a large area was also set aside as a commonage for the livestock of the inhabitants.
No charge or rental was levied for the use of housesites, though native concepts of reciprocity in most cases resulted in the rendering of gifts to the chief of the owning lineage. The ‘Land Occupants Act’ of Evidence in Land Court cases is not conclusive. See AMB 1:1–29 NLC.
In the early decades, retention of the village pattern of settlement depended on the power and status of the missionaries who introduced it. As mission influence waned, people left the villages and drifted back to their lands and as mission influence waxed, people were attracted back to the villages again. Pitman, Journal, November 1828 and 22.10. Royle reported with approval the conditions in the Aitutaki village where ‘their conduct [was] open to the closest observation and their principles and motives inviting the strictest scrutiny’. – Royle to LMS 22.7. This drift was manifest throughout the Southern Group, but did not occur on the atolls with the exception of Penrhyn.
The missionaries also persuaded the people not to accommodate more than one nuclear family in each house, in contrast to the pre-contact system whereby several related nuclear families often lived within the one building. Pitman, Journal 10.10.Boston Daily Whig 1.8.
Following initial conversion, a state of tension developed on most islands between the converted party and
‘…the servants of Rio [a Tahitian missionary] seized the kaingas [lands] of several chiefs and retained them to this day.’ – Pitman, Journal 30.12. ‘The various ariki and mataiapo gave pieces of land right round the island to the teachers.’ – Maretu, MS 88. The teachers held ‘a great many kaingas or portions of ground, which were…given them, at least some of them, from fear.’ – Pitman, Journal 10.11. Pitman, Journal 20.12. Such as those lands still held today under the Rio and Papehia rangatira titles.
The cessation of polygamy at the instigation of the mission resulted in many wives returning with their children to their families of origin. The children then inherited in the maternal line in the same manner as they would have if their fathers had been living uxorilocally. As occurred with the issue of the first wife of Makea Pori – MB 23:11 NLC; and with the rejected wives of Rongomatane Ngaakaara of Atiu – Vaine Rere, MS 2. E.g. Kainuku Ariki, as detailed in MB 1:266–94 NLC.
A particular method of adjustment which occurred as a result of the establishment of the villages was the exchanging of a house-site in the new village for a plot of land elsewhere. While it was not widely practised, it was not uncommon in Aitutaki, and occurred in a few instances on Rarotonga. Re Aitutaki see Aitutaki MB 14:241–2; re Rarotonga see AMB 1:18 and Pitman, Journal 15.2.
The first two decades of contact with European culture were marked by catastrophic population decline. In See page 45. Pitman to LMS Lovett, Major epidemics were dysentry in 1831 and 1843, whooping cough in Maretu, MS 134. He claims that a thousand people were buried at the Rangititi burial ground and six hundred at Araungaunga during the epidemic. Prout, McArthur, James Chalmers: His Autobiography and Letters 82.Memoirs… 313.Populations of the Pacific 83–9.
As a result of these epidemics much land must have reverted by escheat to the heads of the various descent groups, and it is probable that many minor lineages and kiato either died out or were absorbed by others. Absorption of this type inevitably favoured those of higher rank as unclaimed rights reverted to the titleholder next in seniority in the rank hierarchy. In Gill, George Gill to LMS 1.1. I have frequently heard it said by members of the older generation in both Rarotonga and Atiu that prior to the setting up of the Land Court many people were anxious to adopt the only surviving child of parents who had died. The adopting parents then took control of the land which the child was to inherit, but often retained the bulk of it as their own, as the child was unaware of the extent of its rights.Gems… 69.
In Royle to LMS 17.5. Chalmers, Journal 4.7.1872 to 13.9. Royle to LMS 17.5. Bingham to Clarke 7.2. The languages and physical features of the Penrhyn (and some Manihiki and Rakahanga) people show distinct Micronesian traits which are probably attributable to this chapter of events. Beaglehole, Captain Henry Richards to Rear Admiral Kingcombe 8.5. Wyatt Gill, Journal 9.2.1863 to 23.3. With the single exception of Pilato of Pukapuka.Ethnology of Pukapuka 5.
From the mid-1840s large numbers of young men began signing on as crew on whalers and other vessels. Pitman estimated that over a hundred had gone to sea from his district alone between December 1848 and July 1849, and that equivalent numbers had gone from the other districts. Pitman to LMS 3.7. The proportion of men to women at the time emigration began was approximately 100 to 150 – William Gill to LMS 26.3. While youths were constantly leaving Mangaia to go to sea, by Pitman estimated the number at only one in twenty. – Pitman to LMS 1.1.The Friend 1.3.
With the decline of whaling in the 1850s the young men began travelling to Re Tahiti and By Royle to LMS 13.12. Vivian, The Friend 19.10.Ethnology… 5.Messager de Tahiti 28.5.
Within most of the islands there was a drift towards that village which became the port and trading centre. For example, on Mangaia in ‘Census of the Population of Mangaia’ Based on data in the above census. Based on ‘Census of Rarotonga’ Based on ‘Census of Rarotonga’ as at 1.6.NZPP A3
This drift was effected by a relatively greater percentage of persons in the port village than in other villages, basing their claims to membership on customary criteria other than the norm of patri-virilocal residence. To some extent this was no doubt a voluntary shift due to preference for residence near the port, and accomplished by residence with matrikin or other relatives, by living with one's wife's lineage if she came from the port village, or by permissive occupation with some family in the area.
The next phase of population movement was from the outer islands of the Southern Group to Rarotonga. Migration to Rarotonga from the Northern Islands was insignificant until after the turn of the century. Prior to that time the main stream of migration from these islands had flowed to Based on comparison of data contained in ‘Te Rainga io Mangaia i te Marama ia Ibid.
By ‘Census of Rarotonga’ as at 1.6. Ibid. There was no selling or leasing of land among the islanders.NZPP A3
The rights of those who left for overseas were not necessarily protected, and some of those who remained away for long periods found on their return that the rights to many, if not all, of their lands had been assumed by somebody else – generally a titleholder further up the hierarchy. E.g. MB 22:46 NLC. Prohibitions against emigration existed on Mangaia and Aitutaki for many years. – Chalmers to LMS 23.12.1872 and 19.12.Life and Adventure in the South Pacific 96.
Moreover, under native custom, rights which were not exercised tended to lapse, and the rights of those who left a landowning group reverted to that group or to its head as trustee. Reactivation of abandoned rights was possible only to the extent that the head of that group chose to grant them.
In pre-contact times, with the exception of Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro, there is little evidence of regular contact between the islands, and no evidence of any express provision being made regarding the land rights of persons who left for indeterminate periods and who might or might not ever return. The absentees were contingent members of the extended families from which they originated, but contingent membership of a descent group was normally associated with continuing interaction on appropriate social occasions. As most absentees were unable to maintain any contact with their home islands, as those at home were seldom aware of just where the absentees had gone or what their intentions were, and as few indeed ever returned, With the exception of labour recruited in groups to work in particular places for specific periods.
It was not uncommon during the latter half of the nineteenth century for a rangatira who departed for other shores to leave his title, lands and people in the hands of the ariki. E.g. MB 15:182 NLC. There are no instances of ariki being absent from their islands for long periods with the exception of Ngamaru Ariki, the paramount chief of Atiu who married Makea Ariki of Avarua. He in fact maintained his title and power and made frequent visits to his island to do so. Minor matters were attended to for him by the chief judge (a leading mataiapo) whose authority was clearly subordinate to that of Ngamaru. There are few instances of mataiapo being absent for long periods, but in such as have been recorded, the title and lands were administered by the ariki in the meantime.
While at the time of departure titleholders probably intended their absences to be only temporary, some were in fact away for decades and others never returned. During their absence, the ariki, in his role as rangatira, often allowed strangers to occupy portions of the land, and in some instances appointed them as titleholders (usually with
Tinomana Ariki awarded titles to Salmon (a European), Taripo (a Chinese), Papehia (a Tahitian) and John Vairakau (a Hawaiian). E.g. 106 E Rehearing NLC.
As a by-product of this population movement, some influential individuals were able, through migration and marriage, to hold land rights on more than one island. E.g. Tangiau who held rights in Mangaia and Rarotonga – Deeds Register Item 98 NLC; Tapanga who held rights on Rakahanga and Rarotonga – Hamilton Hunter to High Commissioner 10.9. The only case noted was that of Ngamaru Ariki who leased lands on Mauke and Atiu, and performed other acts of ownership while resident in Rarotonga.
Towards the end of the century, when ariki powers over land were at their height, it became common to regard the strip of infertile coastal land which lay between the lagoon and the coast road (which had been constructed in the 1830s) as being ‘under the special control and mana of the district arikis’. ‘The Coast Timber Preservation Ordinance’ Ibid. The ordinance was designed to preserve the coastal shelter-belt. There was no suggestion that the ariki held
From the early 1830s onwards foreign traders and planters attempted to settle in the islands. They were strongly opposed by the European missionaries who consistently warned the chiefs of the dangers of settlers and were able to have laws enacted to prohibit or limit settlement. The mission role is well illustrated in a letter from Reverend Buzacott in which he forwarded draft regulations which he had drawn up ‘by order of the chiefs of the island respecting foreigners etc. Will you state if there be anything objectionable in them, as they would readily alter any of them at our suggestion’. – Buzacott to LMS 8.12. E.g. re Mangaia see Report of Judge Tepou 23.9.Narrative of a Voyage Round the World performed in His Majesty's Ship Sulphur during the years 1836–42 2:18.
On Aitutaki and Mangaia (where European missionaries were based) foreign residents other than employees of the church were specifically forbidden, Re Aitutaki see Royle to LMS 10.1. E.g. ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ While this rule was no longer applied in Rarotonga in ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ Selections from the Autobiography of the Rev. William Gill 252. One reason for this law was to stop foreigners acquiring land rights through native wives. – Hutchen to LMS 10.9.The Market House, Avarua, Regulations and Prices. Also ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ clause 20.The South Sea Islands – Possibilities of Trade with New Zealand 54; also Moss to Governor 29.7.NZPP A6
Notwithstanding these limitations, and despite active mission opposition, a few foreigners were resident on each of the larger Southern Group islands almost continuously from Every trader for whom information is available had an ‘entente cordiale’ with one high chief or another, and generally married that chief's daughter or other close relative – e.g. Exham on Atiu lived with Ngamaru Ariki and was married to his daughter (
The men who had a more direct influence on native concepts of land tenure were the settlers who wanted to acquire land permanently or for long periods in order to grow cash crops. The first of these was Alexander Cunningham, who established a sugar plantation on Rarotonga in Wheeler, Ibid. Maretu, 141. Heath, Day and others to Palmerston 14.5.Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of the late Daniel Wheeler 544.
Apart from several persons who settled on Mangaia in Wyatt Gill to LMS 16.8.
The pressure against foreign settlers was so strong that many who wanted land were unable to acquire it, in most cases due to active mission opposition, See, for example, Irvine to Consul 23.2. In
Some of those who did acquire rights to land encountered difficulties in relation to the precise nature of those rights: a problem which was due to the differing concepts of natives and Europeans. For example, an American settler who was friendly with the Chief Judge of Avarua asked for and was allocated a plot of land on which to grow vegetables. When he later fenced the land two young men came and started building a house on it. The American's protest was considered by the ariki, who rejected it as the land in question had been the house-site of the deceased father of the young men. The settler thereupon asked his host about a small coffee plantation which he had established inland and which he thought he could sell on his departure from the island. ‘When they bear fruit,’ his host told him, ‘the fruit is yours, but the ground is
Gill, King and Governors of Mangaia to British Consul 26.3.Gems… 74–5. In all probability the American regarded the gifts he had given his host to be payment for the freehold of the land.
Provision for the registration of land transactions was made in Of the 79 leases by natives to Europeans (there were in addition a few sub-leases from Europeans to other Europeans) entered in the Deeds Register from the time of its opening in July 1891 until January 1899 (the date to which data was abstracted), 59 were by ariki (including 2 by the European husband of Tinomana Ariki), 4 by mataiapo, and 4 by rangatira. Of the remaining 12, 2 were made by the Government of Aitutaki, 1 by ‘a governor and two landowners’ of Mangaia, and 9 by persons whose rank status is not known – based on Deeds Register NLC. Of the above 79 leases, 44 were in respect of land in the Avarua district, 11 in the Takitumu district, and 11 in the Arorangi district. Of the remaining 13, 5 were in Aitutaki, 4 in Mauke, 2 in Atiu, and one each in Mangaia and Manuae – based on Deeds Register NLC. This, of course, covers only the registered leases, and according to Moss the bulk of Europeans occupying Maori land did so ‘in the Maori tenure’ and subject to ‘the Maori obligations’. – Moss, JPS 3:20–6. While the ‘Act to Guard against Secret Dealings in Native Lands’ of
The total area leased to foreigners is not known, though nearly half of the registered leases were for house-sites only. Of the 64 registered leases made before It should be noted that this covers only those leases which were registered, and of these only those whose areas have been able to be determined (by tracing the blocks of land to later survey records). This includes 929 acres of land for which the area is accurately known, an estimated 120 acres of land which was registered but the area of which can only be assessed, and an estimated 150 acres of land alienated by way of gift by Tinomana Ariki. No estimate can be given of the amount of land occupied by Europeans but not formally leased. Not all the land leased to foreigners was arable (as some leases ran from the coast to the mountains and encompassed a variety of soil types) but the bulk of it undoubtedly was.
When Britain declared a protectorate over the Southern Cook Islands in Colonial Office to Governor 8.2. Moss, Moss, Ibid.NZPP A3 1892:35. As this proposal was opposed he later advocated settlement by Europeans or others who would utilize local labour on their plantations. – Moss, Fortnightly Review 54:786.Ioi Karanga, editorial 29.1.Te Torea (which ran from 1895 to 1899) also supported foreign settlement.NZPP A3 1895:14.
Despite these pressures, relatively little additional land was leased, owing to the fact that the Maori people were not prepared to make the lands available, at least not at the prices offered. In [Hutchen], ‘Phases of Native Life and Christian Work in the Hervey Islands’ 14. Gudgeon, Te Torea 5.7.NZPP A3 1900:23.
Using native labour, Europeans settled and exploited the various uninhabited islands of the group, and most of them claimed ownership by occupation. Nassau was occupied as from Minute dated 17.2. William Marsters to Governor of HBM Consulate for Samoa Record 4 Register no. 927 SBC. The island had been leased in First to the Pacific Islands Company, then in Though none had lived there or actively used the island for generations.
At the time of first European contact the island of Manuae was inhabited by Aitutakians who had obtained it by conquest from the people of Atiu, but the population dropped so low that the island was abandoned in the 1830s. It was thereafter occupied by one European and another under varying arrangements with the Aitutaki authorities until one of the Europeans tried to sell the island, after which time the Aitutaki chiefs kept their own representatives
Evidence presented to Major J.T. Large, Resident Agent at Aitutaki on 31.10. Minute of 1.12. It is only 302 acres in area.
On the whole, the direct influence of European settlers was not great, partly because they had no direct representation on any law-making body, and partly because all their activities in relation to land were mediated through the high chiefs. The effectiveness of the opposition to settlement by the mission and the native people was no doubt due to the fact that the A study of other Occasional illegal alienations were made, but these were not recognized by the Land Board of With the single exception of Takamoa in Rarotonga, which was sold to the mission for 150 dollars. Hutchen to LMS 10.9.NZPP A3 1896:31.
One significant by-product of the settlement by Europeans and Chinese, as well as by islanders on islands other than their own, was a marked increase in uxorilocal marriages and a consequent increase in the number of persons claiming their land rights through their mothers. While some outsiders settled on each of the islands, the numbers were greatest in Rarotonga, where the maximum concentration occurred in the Avarua district.
The Form and Function of Introduced Laws
The Tahitian teachers made no conscious modifications to land custom, and in some cases not only condoned acquisitions by conquest but actively participated in them. When the European missionaries arrived, however, and were confronted with land disputes which threatened to develop into open warfare, they set about effecting changes. Largely as a result of their influence the extent of warfare lessened year by year, and from the mid-1830s onwards it became a rare occurrence. Ritual plunder, too, seems to have been abolished by the missionaries, for no instances of it are recorded after the first few years of contact.
The abolition of warfare and ritual plunder, and a lack of formal provisions for settlement of disputes between districts led to an increase in settlements by negotiation, often with the advice or participation of the missionaries. Re Atiu see Buzacott to LMS 18.8. E.g. ‘It is not a good sign to hear so frequently of their complications with traders and with land affairs.’ - Harris to LMS 20.8. ‘The Laws of Rarotonga…’
The missionaries who initiated the Rarotonga code assure us that it was based on prevailing custom, and that they merely advised and recorded. The laws relating to land appear to be compatible with what is known of existing usage, though they provided for only a small part of the total body of custom, laying down only broad general principles and in some cases a scale of penalties in the event of their infringement. The relevant clauses are as follows:
Clause 5: Disputes about LandIf a chief
enter the land of another chief and claim it, the law shall decide between them. If the chief who is wrong persist in that wrong, then all the chiefs shall assemble and decide what his punishment shall be…. Unfortunately the vernacular version is not available, but the use of the word ‘chief’ in other parts of the law suggests that the original referred to ariki and not to all classes of chiefs.
There was no provision for disputes between lower ranks, or between commoners and titleholders.
The system of inheritance was not specifically laid down, though some provisions were included in the following rules:
Clause 10: The Widow and the FatherlessWhen the husband dies, if the widow be left with children they shall remain upon the land; but if she do evil and be found guilty three times she shall be removed…. If she marries again she shall also leave the land. Her children will remain, and the land be with them. If there be no children, the brother of the dead husband will take the land. If no relation be alive the land will go back to the chief or the Mataiapo, and remain with him.
Clause 14: About WillsWhen a person is dying let him make his will openly, in the presence of the Ariki, Judges, and many witnesses…. But if a man will a plantation to his friend, and his Ariki, or his Judge, or the authorities did not know of that will, it will be useless. This is the law of the will, and it is for the Ariki, the Judge, and the authorities to watch over it.
Clause 31 provided that every man had to plant food crops on penalty of a fine, but the nature and quantity of the crops were not defined. The custom of confiscating land for certain crimes was written into the law on ‘House-burning’ which provided that a person found guilty of this crime would be kept in irons for two years ‘and his land be given to the owner of the burnt house’. ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ Ibid. clause 11.
In ‘Te Au Ture Enua i Manihiki’
There is always much trouble caused in the land on account of disputes as to land, and on account of disputes as to testaments of dying persons and also through land grabbing.
These laws were made at a meeting of the ‘High Chiefs, Governors, Subchiefs and Chiefs and the three Land Courts of Manihiki’. For islands with a combined population of only 800 souls, this is indeed an extensive list of leaders, but none of them was specifically charged with the duty of executing the law. All disputes were to be taken to the ariki or the governor and the ‘investigators under the law’ (judges presumably, though this is not specified) were not to be consulted in the first instance.
Each of the islands had its own code, but relatively little is known of their precise nature, for, though references to them are numerous, no copies of most of them have been preserved. See appendix A. ‘Laws of Mangaia’ as at The Manihiki-Rakahanga code, which was by far the most comprehensive, lacked provision for the land rights of adoptees, and adoption was a major cause of land disputes.
Of considerable importance also, and frequently of greater significance than the formal codes, were the informal rules and arrangements made by those in authority. For example in Pitman to LMS 1.11. Gill to LMS 18.6. Buzacott, Deeds Register, item 117 NLC. Hutchen to LMS 16.2. Lawrence to LMS 18.12. Moss to Governor, Mission Life… 151.NZPP A3
Of greater significance than the laws and rules themselves was the manner in which they operated in practice, for none of them ascribed clear roles to particular persons or groups, nor did they lay down adequate rules of procedure.
In land matters the key figure in the power structure in most districts was the judge, one (or sometimes two) of whom was appointed at the time the laws were introduced. The initial appointments were in most cases made by the missionaries, though later ones were usually made by the local ariki. On Rarotonga the first judges were appointed by the missionaries themselves. - Pitman, Journal 19.9. With the exception of Ngamaru Ariki, who held the post of Chief Judge of Avarua from 1898 until 1903. While not a Rarotongan, he was the husband of Makea Ariki of Avarua, as well as being an ariki of Atiu in his own right. - For many years the Chief Judge of Atiu was the leading ariki, but when he took up permanent residence on Rarotonga he appointed leading mataiapo who were subordinate to him as Chief Judges. Tupe, the Chief Judge of Ngatangiia from 1827 to 1840, was the younger brother of Pa Ariki. From 1827 to 1898 the title of Chief Judge at Avarua was held by the holder of the Vakatini title, passing from father to son.Ioi Karanga 17.12.
A feature which stands out clearly in this period is that land problems were least serious on islands with powerful hierarchical rank structures, and most acute on Aitutaki, Manihiki and Penrhyn, the three islands whose rank structures had been most seriously damaged in the course of their contact experiences. On Aitutaki this was due to two factors: firstly, power in the indigenous society was diffused through a number of separate but equal chieftainships between which there was inadequate cohesion; and secondly, Reverend Henry Royle, who was in charge of the mission there from 1839 to 1876, was a man of powerful and autocratic personality who, unlike most of his fellow missionaries, chose to destroy the chiefly structure rather than work through it. On Penrhyn, where a similar diffusion of power existed, the situation was further complicated when slavers took away many of the chiefs and left the balance of power upset. Here again the dominant role was assumed by the resident missionary, a Rarotongan named Ngatikaro. On Manihiki the indigenous social order was typified by two groups between which there was considerable friction and jealousy, but neither of which was able to gain complete ascendency over the other; the balance of power was therefore liable to frequent disturbing fluctuations.
Within each of the three districts of Rarotonga, after the first decade of mission influence the ariki and judges had a degree of control sufficient to avoid the outbreak of open conflict, but serious interdistrict disputes continued until the middle of the nineteenth century. The laws appear to have been of little relevance in settling the serious interdistrict disputes which arose during the first twenty-five years of mission influence.
On Atiu, after the death of Rongomatane Ngaakaara, the ariki who led the conquest of Mauke and Mitiaro and who was in position of de facto authority over the whole island,
Gill, Buzacott to LMS 18.8. Lawrence to LMS 7.12. Lawrence to LMS 17.1.Gems… 237.
In Hunter to High Commissioner 31.8.1896 and 10.9.Te Karere
Conditions were no better on Penrhyn, where in the event of land disputes the law was ‘put aside and nothing [was] done to prevent them fighting’. Chalmers to LMS 4.7.1872 to 13.9. Ibid. It was the ‘king's’ power over the governors of the six districts that stopped disputes from developing to serious proportions. Both he and the mission realized that there would be disputes over succession to his title and that the new incumbent would not be recognized by all six districts. As expected serious land quarrels broke out very soon after his death and a disturbed political situation developed. - Harris to LMS 5.6.
It has been indicated that where there was a clear-cut status hierarchy land disputes were contained and seldom developed into open conflict. But as the administration of the land laws was entirely in the hands of the top strata of the social order the institution of law-codes served to strengthen their position relative to that of the lower classes. The European missionaries generally succeeded in their attempts to contain disputes by centralizing judicial
It was no longer feasible to banish a chief for despotism, as had not infrequently occurred in the pre-contact era, and the leavening effect of the supernatural sanctions of the heathen priests was replaced by a new supernatural system which operated more directly through the people who administered the law. Pitman to LMS 9.6.
The law-codes themselves seem to have been of little consequence in determining the course of action taken in any particular circumstance. Though the codes were drafted under guidance and persuasion from the missionaries, their execution was generally a matter for the high chiefs and judges except on Aitutaki and Penrhyn, where the missionaries had assumed the de facto position of high chiefs and therefore had a considerable say in the execution of land laws. On the other islands, while the missionaries exerted considerable influence over the chiefs, their advice was only acted upon to the extent that the high
For example, on Rarotonga, shortly after the laws were adopted in
In the rule about land disputes on Rarotonga, no principles were stated apart from the fact that ‘the law’ would decide. ‘Laws of Rarotonga’
The Protectorate was declared over the inhabited islands of the Southern Group in
With the coming of the British Protectorate in Previous to this time the principal actions taken by the navy in the group were to support European trading interests and discipline natives who interfered with them - see e.g. Lawrence to LMS 17.1. Bourke, Form of Proclamation 27.10. Bourke to Admiralty 13.11. E.g. see Moss to Governor 11.12.NZPP A3 NZPP A3
No changes were made in the indigenous political structure until Governor to Moss 25.2. The jurisdiction of the British Resident and of the Federal Parliament was limited to the Southern Group. The Resident acted as adviser to both bodies. ‘A Law to Provide for the Good Government of the NZPP A1 NZPP A3(a)
The first provision of any kind to apply to more than a single island was the ‘Declaration as to Land’, which was made by the Federal Parliament in ‘Declaration as to Land’ ‘Law for the Future Government of Mangaia’
Moss conducted an investigation of land matters in Aitutaki and found that disputes as to ownership were ‘constant’, usually as a result of adoptions or disputed wills. Moss to Governor, Moss to Arikis and Governors and People of Aitutaki 28.9. ‘[Law] To Settle Disputes About Land’ Though one of the judges of Aitutaki reported that he had ‘judged many land disputes’, but that there were many still outstanding. - Judge Te Taura to Moss 10.12. The names of members are listed in ‘A Law to Provide for the Good Government of Aitutaki’ NZPP A3 NZPP A3 NZPP A3
On Aitutaki provision was made for appeals from the decisions of the judges to be heard by the Island Council. ‘[Law] To Settle Disputes About Land’ E.g. Moss to Governor 19.7. ‘Power of Pardon Act’ ‘A Law to Establish a Supreme Court’ ‘Land Occupants Act’ NZPP A6
Moss tried to interest the people of the Federation in a programme of land reform and hoped to create a society of peasant farmers, independent of obligations to their chiefs and kin. He proposed that the government should assume control of all lands and collect fixed cash rentals from each occupying family. The government would then pay those rentals to the chief under whose jurisdiction that land was held. Ibid. Moss to Governor 18.11. Moss to Governor 18.11.Te Torea 19.10.NZPP A3 Te Torea 12.10.1895 and 19.10.NZPP A3
At the time he assumed office, Moss had complained that under the then existing system each ariki followed or disregarded the laws of his island at pleasure. Moss to Governor 17.1. Moss to Governor 17.10.NZPP A3
The land laws initiated by the mission were instituted in order to reduce dispute and ensure more ‘justice’ by
In his recommendations for modifications to land laws the British Resident aimed at security of tenure and increased productivity, but the most important of the reforms proposed by him (dealing with registered titles, rent commutation, and government control of land) were never adopted. Those which were adopted resulted in less security of tenure for commoners, though they may nevertheless have been a factor contributing to the increased production during the period, due to the increased chiefly power to organize and control production. This, however, was not the type of development which Moss had hoped to engender.
The New Role of Land
Prior to the advent of Europeans every man subsisted by the direct exploitation of land in which he held rights. Surpluses were produced for storage against the possibility of famine, for feasts and ceremonial, and for the prestige one gained by having ample supplies of food, but beyond this there is no indication of any incentive operating to engender the accumulation of large quantities of food or other material goods. As there was no product in general use which was not available in every district on each island, one's requirements were normally obtainable from land or water in which recognized rights were held.
As a result of contact with European culture, it became possible to subsist by other means than the direct exploitation of one's land rights, and consequently, to live without rights to land. Not many persons lived without some direct exercise of land rights, but among those who did were the pastors on islands other than their own, who were fed by their congregations, outer islands labourers on European plantations in Rarotonga, seamen on local schooners, and pearl-shell divers in Manihiki and Penrhyn who came from other islands.
There were also those who, in addition to subsistence production, took permanent or casual employment in cotton ginning, boat-building, labouring and other pursuits. Kelly, The South Sea Islands… 49.
The production of cash crops may be considered in two major categories according to motivation. Firstly there was production aimed at achieving divine grace and status within the church, for the most influential early contacts with European culture had been with missionaries who impressed on the natives the necessity for church buildings and offerings of saleable goods and money. E.g. ‘The State of the Society's funds I have not failed to lay before the people and urgently as possible pressed home upon their consciences a consideration of the subject…’ - Pitman to LMS 23.9. There was extensive planting of arrowroot in Rarotonga in the 1840s and almost the whole crop was ‘devoted to the service of God’ - Pitman to LMS 3.7. Pitman to LMS 3.7. [Hutchen], ‘Phases of Native Life…’ 29.Mission Life… 207; for the eight years 1873 to 1880 Mangaia gave an average of $1017 per year in cash to the church as well as free services and gifts in kind - Harris to LMS 20.8.James Chalmers… 116. This quite possibly constituted more than half their total cash income for the year.
Secondly, the land could be used for cash cropping with the aim of acquiring material goods for personal consumption. This aim, which was in competition with the pressure for funds by the church, served as an additional incentive to production. A part of this incentive was provided by the church itself through its insistence on the use of certain imported commodities, and particularly on the wearing of imported cloth, Those who did not wear imported cloth were not considered eligible for baptism. - Maretu, MS 73. While there is no statistical verification before Salem Vessels and Their Voyages 4:137.
A further incentive was provided by a demand for certain consumers durables, the possession of which was considered essential to the maintenance of social status. Until the 1850s, houses and furniture in the European style were popular with the leding families, in the 1880s sewing machines became a must in every household, and by For a wedding in
The relative importance of particular crops and particular soil types changed in response to new techniques and the needs of the developing market. The introduction of the spade, the hoe and the plough made the production of field crops very much easier, and the axe and the horse facilitated clearing operations. There are clear indications of a shift in emphasis from swamp taro in favour of garden crops. Three factors seem to have been responsible: firstly, whereas the new implements facilitated an increase in output of garden crops per unit of labour, they had little or no effect on taro cultivation where the digging stick remained the most useful implement; secondly, while there was a keen demand for kumara and arrowroot for the providore trade, there was little demand for taro due to its poor keeping qualities; and thirdly, the introduction of cats led to a rapid decline in the number of land birds, and this was considered responsible for the increased depredations of the taro-eating caterpillar.
It may be assumed that the reduced amount of time necessary to produce a given quantity of food resulted in increased production to the extent of the available market. Ships calling for supplies seem always to have fulfilled their requirements, and at prices which compared favourably with those obtaining in
Until the mid-1850s the bulk of trade was in fresh foods which were sold to passing whalers and other vessels as ships stores. For details of the particular crops and livestock traded at the various islands, together with an indication of prices and quantities see By The introduction of oranges to the Weekly Alta California 16.11.Wild Life among the Pacific Islanders 99.
These export crops took longer to grow, needed to be grown in larger quantities, and necessitated techniques of cultivation and processing with which the people were unfamiliar. There is no evidence of large-scale planting of oranges or coffee, in fact the great bulk of the trees were self-propagated. Moss to Governor 17.1.
The ownership of the introduced crops was dealt with according to existing indigenous concepts of ownership of plants by the planter, and there is no evidence of any new
The attractions of cash cropping were never sufficient to induce the full utilization of the land and one of the least biased reporters noted that the proportion of arable land under active cultivation was ‘quite insignificant. Even the cultivations of the natives - their orange groves and coffee plantations, their banana and taro patches - are either part and parcel of the forest or are almost overshadowed by it’. Cheeseman, TLS 264.
This state of affairs may be partly explained by the drop in population, the limited market for fresh foods and the inadequacy of storage and shipping facilities for non-perishable crops. An even more important consideration, however, appears to have been that there was no marked change in the standards of subsistence consumption of the great majority of the people. With the possible exception of expenditure on imported cloth, most of the income received was spent on annual donations to the church, the acquisition of status goods, and ceremonial. The satisfaction of these needs was conducive to periodic spurts of production for particular occasions rather than to a steady continuous output to meet increased day-to-day costs. Market limitations were not the only deterrent to over-production, for the energetic were vulnerable not only to claims for atinga from above, but to obligations to share and to assist their kin. Nor was it considered proper for the lower social orders to outdo their superiors in standards of housing, ceremonial or other consumption.
Thus, while the developing market was responsible for in increase in per capita output of agricultural produce,
The introduction of new livestock was not on a sufficiently large scale to engender special provisions in the tenure system, though it did result in increased difficulties in the control of wandering stock. Despite the erection of a considerable amount of fencing, there are indications that the ravages of wandering stock acted as a disincentive to production. See, for example, instructions issued by the chiefs of Mangaia 19.11. Sheep were also introduced, but did not survive for long.
In the matter of work organization, one minor change occurred in production for religious purposes, as in some instances land was cleared, planted and harvested by the whole tribe in order to raise church funds.Te Puna Vai Rarotonga 2:22–3. There were three groups in each district, one for the men, one for the women and one for the Sunday School children. Each group worked as a unit, and planted its section of land collectively. The men's group was usually led by the high chief and the women's group by his wife.
The most lucrative indirect method of exploiting one's land rights was by transferring some portion of them to foreigners, usually by way of lease. By In fact many of the rentals were fixed in Chilean dollars, the exchange rate for which fluctuated around $10 to the £1. This exchange rate has been used to convert all rentals to pounds sterling. Deed no.83 covered the lease of a section of land from Tinomana Ariki to Ah Chin for one pig per year. - Deeds Register NLC. Deed no.159 provided that the lessee of land at Aitutaki had to pay a cash rental of $30 per annum as well as to care for the native owners ‘and give them food and also for their grandchildren’. - Deeds Register NLC. Deed no.29 in respect of Tutakimoa plantation for coffee and orange growing made such a provision. - Deeds Register NLC. Deed no.134 provided that the lessor was to get possession after 25 years of a house to be built by the lessee. - Deeds Register NLC.
Alternatively, land rights could be exploited by allowing unrelated natives to settle on unused lands. To
An examination of the Deeds Register shows that at this period no leases had been made in favour of islanders.
The status of women improved as a result of mission influence and a surplus of males, and in Rarotonga in The previous ariki had no born children. Mrs Buzacott, MS 8.
In the initial stages this was simply a case of ariki signing the leases in the capacity of titular head of the tribe on behalf of the owning descent group. But all too frequently, by the time the lease expired, the ariki regarded the lands concerned as his own and not infrequently cited the fact of the lease in his name as ‘proof’ of ownership. Moreover, in the last two decades of the century, there were instances of ariki leasing lands without the knowledge of the owning descent groups and others of their forcing leases in the face of strong opposition from the owners, and in a few extreme cases native occupiers were evicted to make way for more remunerative occupation by foreigners.
Rental from leases became a major source of income for the ariki, and of the total annual rental income of £502.10.0 from registered leases in In addition to rentals some ariki collected harbour dues from vessels using reef passages in their districts. - MB 19:173–4 NLC.4(continued from previous page)Court investigations of ownership. Of these 45, some 39 were leases by ariki. In 20 of these cases the Court investigation showed that the ariki had no proprietary right to the land concerned, in 13 cases the ariki was found to be one rightholder among others, and in 6 cases ownership was awarded to the ariki alone. Of these 6 cases, however, 3 were lands which were vested by the time of investigation in either religious bodies or the Crown and whose ownership was accordingly never proven, 2 were lands awarded to the ariki for a life interest only pending full investigation (which has never been carried out) and in the one remaining case the ariki was shown to be sole owner of the land concerned. Of the 6 instances of lease by persons below ariki status, Court investigation showed that all lessors were either sole or part owners of the land concerned.
Many of the lands leased were those whose owners had either died or gone away. The motivation for leasing such lands cannot have been wholly mercenary, for it was the customary duty of the ariki to accommodate strangers, and they were under constant pressure not only from the potential lessors but also from the British Consul and later the British Resident. In the Avarua district of Rarotonga, where the number of foreigners was largest and the pressure to lease was greatest, the ariki must frequently have been embarrassed by conflicting obligations to visitors as against tribesmen. Nevertheless, the need to meet the requirements of visitors was at times used as a rationale to take land from those descent groups which were out of favour.
The granting of permissive occupation to outsiders was likewise the prerogative of the higher rank orders, and as the newcomers (mostly immigrants from other islands) were given no security of tenure they were vulnerable to excessive demands for labour and tribute from their hosts. This is not to suggest that they were maliciously exploited, in fact Maori tenets of hospitality probably made it obligatory for a chief to grant to any stranger who requested it the right to build himself a house on that chief's land. Some of the immigrants married into the lineages whose lands they were using and thus acquired a more secure right for themselves and their children. Nevertheless, the great majority lacked security and bargaining power, for their continued residence was dependent on continued good relations
Some observers have blamed the ariki for not granting leases to these strangers from neighbouring islands who settled on their lands, but it is most unlikely that many, if any, islanders would have wanted this form of tenure in any case. Even if the people had been familiar with it, the ariki made the laws and to a large extent administered them, and it is doubtful if a lease would have given any greater security than did residence at the pleasure of the ariki. Had cash rentals been charged on the scale paid by foreigners, relatively few islanders could have afforded them. Moreover, in Maori eyes, for a commoner to ask an ariki for a signed guarantee of tenure would probably have appeared as a gross insult. The relationship established by permissive occupation was a reciprocal and flexible one wherein the chief provided means for the sustenance of the visitor, who in return assisted the chief with produce and labour at appropriate times.
In effect what happened on Rarotonga during the latter part of the century was that the right-holders lost in the early decades of the century by disease and emigration were to some extent replaced by the influx of immigrants who were quite without rights. The number wanting permission to reside was considerable, and the number of chiefs in a position to grant that permission relatively few; the need of the immigrant was greater than that of the chief, and consequently one's continued residence was best secured by generous giving and liberal assistance with work.
In pre-contact times, the common people were the relatives of the chiefs, and had particular rights to particular portions of land. The lineage gained strength and status as its numbers increased, and it was accordingly in the interests
The ability of any man with available land to produce crops for sale or export may suggest increased individual choice. However, this was limited in practice by the organization of the market houses which provided a channel through which the chiefs could exercise control over the production and sale of cash crops. These market houses were set up originally by the missionaries to assist and regularize trade. In the Southern Group, one such market house was set up on each island. Market houses of this type were not reported from the northern islands, probably as the volume of trade did not merit their erection.
Each market house was controlled by the local ariki, who made regulations for the conduct of the market and fixed the prices to be paid for each commodity. A copy of the regulations and prices of the Avarua market house as at The laws of Rarotonga provided that: ‘3. Chiefs are not to take the best pieces of cloth for their own use. Let them have a share and the people a share also. But if money only be paid by the captain it is right it should go to the chief. 4…. The person in charge of the market [i.e. the chief] is the proper one to take all things and deal with them… and the police are to take into custody any who do not obey these authorities.’ - ‘Laws of Rarotonga…’ Commander Bourke found this chiefly monopoly on trade still operating throughout the group in The Market House…
Another important technique used by the high chiefs to monopolize the export of produce was the application of the ancient customary prohibition or ra'ui to cash crops. The ra'ui was also sometimes used as a sanction forbidding the planter the right to harvest his crop - see, e.g. Hamilton Hunter to High Commissioner 10.9. As from Sometimes the crop had to be sold Provision was made for the ra'ui of crops by the Au (of which the ariki was head) but subject to the approval of the Resident. -‘[Law] For Electing the Au’ Cook Islands Gazette, passim.through the ariki to the trader concerned. - Exham to High Commissioner 1.9.Te Torea 9.10.
In addition to the ra'ui, some high chiefs had forbidden their subjects to deal with European traders except through them, or with their permission. Though this practice was specifically outlawed by the ‘Statute of Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro’
The increased centralization of authority in the hands of the high chiefs led to a de facto increase in their rights relative to those of the commoners. Towards the end of the century the view became widely accepted on some islands that the chiefs had absolute power over the land,
This view was particularly prevalent on Rarotonga, Atiu and Mauke. Many European observers noted an apparent difference between the ‘family’ ownership on Aitutaki and Mangaia and the ‘chiefly’ ownership on the other islands - e.g. Bourke to Admiralty 13.11. E.g. in Ioi Karanga 17.3.
On Rarotonga particularly the tenure of lands held by commoners became increasingly less secure. Some were deprived of their lands in order that they might be leased to foreigners, E.g. Wyatt Gill to LMS 28.10. E.g. E.g. in E.g. MB 19:163–4 NLC; Harris to LMS Te Torea 25.5.Te Torea 21.3.
The impact of European culture during this century served to further differentiate the social classes, and to emphasize class stratification rather than the segmented aspect of the society which had hitherto been the more pronounced. It also resulted in a higher level and range of consumption. But, with the exception of the holding of rank titles by women and the abolition of the acquisition of land by warfare and ritual plunder, there was little change in the various customs relating to the tenure of land. However, in view of the vastly different context within which those customs operated, there was a considerable change in the relative incidence of various customary processes, and of their function in the operation of the society.
The Establishment of the Land Court
In Moss, Seddon to Governor 24.7. File CO 209 Governor to Colonial Office 16.7.Fortnightly Review 54:776.
The Protectorate functioned satisfactorily enough while the local authorities concurred in the more important proposals of the Resident, and so long as their interaction was mutually advantageous. During
While only judicial power was ostensibly in question, the ariki had found that the control of the courts was a powerful adjunct to political and economic power as well, and interpreted the proposal as ‘taking all our power and giving it to the British Resident’. Minutes of Enquiry held before Sir James Prendergast 28.12. Moss to Hutchen 15.9. Moss' public statement of 29.9.NZPP A3 NZPP A3 NZPP A3
When the parliament refused to pass the bill, Moss panicked and threatened to ‘take matters up with the Queen’. He dissolved the parliament and the ariki petitioned the Governor for his removal. Petition of Makea, Pa, Karika, Kainuku, Tinomana and Ngamaru to Governor 7.9. Governor to Colonial Office 23.10.NZPP A3 2
2Governor to Colonial Office 7.12.
Sir James realized that the system of land tenure, whereby commoners could be evicted at will by the high chiefs, was incompatible with an elective democracy, and that the chiefs would be most reluctant to relinquish the mana they had as ‘landowners'. Prendergast to Governor 24.1. Minutes of Enquiry… With the frequent shipping connections and travel between the NZPP A3 NZPP A3 NZPP A3
As a result of the enquiry Moss was withdrawn and replaced by Colonel W.E. Gudgeon, a man of martial bearing who had won distinction in the wars against the Maoris of New Zealand, and believed that ‘stern authority’ was essential in dealings with Polynesians. He had been Resident Magistrate in two Maori districts and had served for several years as a judge of the Native Land Court of New Zealand. Gudgeon arrived by man-o'-war and was formally introduced at a full dress parade at which the naval commander read a proclamation declaring that Her Majesty Queen Victoria had ‘learned with much displeasure of their refusal to obey her wishes in regard to the enactment of the Federal Court Bill’. Proclamation of the Governor 26.8.NZPP A3
The High Court Bill was passed without question, Makea Ariki sent an abject apology to the Queen, Makea Ariki to Governor 13.9.
Effects on land tenure were immediate. One of the first moves was the passing of ‘an act to secure uniformity in leases and security of tenure to foreign lessees’. Sub-title of ‘The Land Act’ At present there are six recognized ariki on the island, but at that time Vakatini was not recognized as one.
To qualify for registration a lease had to have the approval of the Resident and at least three of the ariki. The Board was entitled to stipulate conditions for leases, and no land could be leased to a foreigner if it was in the beneficial occupation of a native of the island concerned, or if a Maori had been ejected in order that the land might be leased. All leases had to be accompanied by survey plans, and had to specify the rental and term of the lease. The Board met on various occasions to consider leases: a few were modified, but only one or two were ever declined.
One clause, apparently drafted by Colonel Gudgeon, read:
And whereas a large proportion of the best land in the island of Rarotonga is not in the beneficial occupation of any person and such land does not in any way add to the wealth or revenue of the island. And whereas there are a large number of persons of the Maori race in this island who have no land rights and who will never become producers unless fixity of tenure be given to them, it shall therefore be the duty of the Board to consider the means whereby land on perpetual lease may be secured to all of the deserving members of the native-born Rarotongans.
‘The Land Act’
1899 clause 18.
With the power over tribal lands still vested in chiefly hands (and that power based to a considerable extent on the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the land) one could hardly expect that such a body would so openly invite a major reduction in power. No action appears to have been taken on this clause.
In the same year an act was passed giving increased powers to the Au (informally constituted district councils of elders, headed by the ariki). Among other things they were given power to require the planting of coconut trees by all people in their respective districts, to ‘report to the chief of the Government’ those persons who did not adequately utilize their lands, to impound wandering stock, to levy dog-tax, and to place the lands of the districts under ra'ui in order to minimize theft and permit bulk sale of product. ‘Au Empowering Act’ ‘Statute of Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro’ ‘Statute of Aitutaki’
A start in the direction of introducing land taxes was made with the passage of a law which provided that land occupied by foreigners was to be subject to a tax of one shilling in the pound of its rental value as a tax towards the execution of public works. ‘An Act to provide for the Rating of Land in the Occupation of Foreigners’
Securing the passage of legislation was relatively easy, for the chiefs had learned the consequences of declining it, but having unpalatable legislation implemented in practice was much more difficult. Gudgeon could not at this stage force action which might antagonize the chiefs, for the Colonial Office would not consider annexation to New Zealand unless it was supported by the chiefs and, as Gudgeon said of himself:
I came here with the fixed intention of getting this group annexed; but on my arrival I found that the friends of Mr. Moss had made a bugbear of annexation…hence it was that for a long time I was very quiet, for it was absolutely necessary that I should gain the confidence of the arikis, and secondly that the Moss party should have no inkling of my real views, lest they should turn round and warn the Maoris that they were about to lose their mana.
Gudgeon to Seddon 29.8.
1900 NZNA.
He did not inform the ariki of his further proposals for land reform, ‘For if I did,’ he reported to the Prime
Gudgeon to Seddon 10.8. Gudgeon to Governor 2.4. Ibid.
In Petition of Makea, Karika, Pa, Kainuku, Tinomana and Ngamaru to Governor 6.9. Colonial Office to Governor 15.8. Seddon to Governor 18.8. This proposal was not acted upon.NZPP A3
A Colonial Office minute on the above proposals affirmed the necessity for fixity of tenure, and queried whether the title to land should be individual or vested in the tribe or other group. Colonial Office minute on Seddon to Governor 18.8. Colonial Office to Governor 7.11. Governor to Colonial Office 31.10.
Administration of the group was provided for by the Cook and Other Islands Government Act, ‘Cook and Other Islands Government Act’ Colonial Office minute on Governor to Colonial Office 18.12. ‘Cook and Other Islands Government Act’
‘If we wish to increase the productiveness of the Islands,’ said Mr Seddon in introducing the act to parliament, ‘[and] to further the settlement of a European population on the land, we shall have to give security of tenure and we shall have to encourage planting by the natives themselves.’ This was not provided for in the legislation, but an assurance to this effect was given by the Prime Minister. - Hansard 119:286.Hansard 119:289.
By Order in Council of 7.7.
The Order in Council, which was drafted by Gudgeon, Gudgeon to Seddon 7.3. ‘Rules and Regulations of the Cook and Other Islands Land Titles Court’ NZPP A3
As Administrator, Chief Judge of a Court of his design, head of the local legislature, and representative of New Zealand, Gudgeon was now in a much more powerful position than any ariki had ever been. The adoption of his land reform programme was now assured.
The stated objects of the Land Court were to increase productivity from native farms and to open unused lands for European settlers. The question of productivity from native lands will be dealt with later, and attention will now be given to the effectiveness of the policy of European settlement. This policy assumed three premises - firstly that there were large areas of fertile land lying waste, secondly that
As to the first premise, Gudgeon considered shortly after his arrival that 10,000 acres on Rarotonga alone should be available for leasing. Gudgeon, Fox and Grange, Gudgeon, Gudgeon, Fox and Grange, Gudgeon, Fox and Grange, NZPP A3 1899:23.Soils… 41.NZPP A3 1902:49, and Gudgeon to Mills 28.5.NZPP A3 NZPP A3 1902:50.Soils… 41.NZPP A3 1902:50.Soils… 41.
The second premise, that of a dying Maori population, was supported by the demographic data then available. At the turn of the century, however, the decline ceased. The policy-makers cannot be blamed for not knowing that, almost from the moment of annexation of the McArthur, Gudgeon, Populations… passim.NZPP A3 1902:55.
The Administration's third assumption was that unused land would be made available for settlers. It was supposed that once the islanders had their land rights assured by the award of documentary titles they would be anxious to lease such as they were not actively using in order to obtain additional income. If they were not prepared to do so voluntarily, however, the Resident proposed that the
Ibid. Gudgeon, Gudgeon, NZPP A3 1903:24.NZPP A3 1904:70.
When the Resident requested that he be given authority to enable him to enforce the leasing of unused land, the Minutes of meeting of 28.4. Gudgeon to Mills 12.9.Hansard volumes 125–30 passim.NZPP A3(b) NZPP A3
In Mills' covering memorandum of 1.9.NZPP A3 Te Karere
A few settlers By settlers is meant foreigners (invariably Europeans from NZPP A3 NZPP A4 1920:48.Hansard 247:336.
An act was passed in ‘The Cook Islands Act’ This law was not drafted in response to any pressure for reform, but merely due to the fact that it was discovered that through a technical error the laws of the islands were void and the past work of the Land Court needed to be validated. - Northcroft to Pomare 27.5. Maoris who held the islands portfolio were Sir James Carrol (1909–13), Sir Maui Pomare (1913–28) and Sir Apirana Ngata (1929–35).NZPP A3
The name of the Court was changed to the Native Land Court, and it was to consist of a Chief Judge and such other judges as were deemed necessary. The name of the Court had been changed in
-
Crown land;
While all land in the
Cook Islands vests ultimately in the Crown, the term ‘Crown land’ is usually reserved to apply to those lands which have been set aside by the Court for public purposes, and it is with this connotation that the term is used in this study. -
Customary land: being that which was ‘held by Natives or descendants of Natives under Native customs and usages of the
Cook Islands ’ (i.e. land the title to which had not been investigated by the Land Court); -
Native freehold land (i.e. land which had been customary land, but in respect of which a registered title had been issued by the Court to the persons it found to be the customary owners);
-
European land: being land other than native freehold land, the fee simple of which had been alienated to any person.
The area in acres of land in the various categories in
1958 was as follows:Rarotonga | Other Islands | Total | Crown land | 234 | 716 | 950 | Customary land | 3,181 | 23,903 | 27,084 | Native freehold land | 12,986 | 16,336 | 29,322 | European land (the only land in this category is that vested in religious bodies) | 201 | 69 | 270 | —— | —— | —— | 16,602 | 41,024 | 57,626 | (Source: LEGAS
1958 paper number 59 andNZPPA3 1958:24.) Of the above native freehold land the amounts alienated by way of lease in1960 were as follows:Leased by Europeans | 1,312 | 1,592 | 1,544 acres of this being the island of Manuae, which has since
March 1961 been leased by an indigenous co-operative society.2,904 | Leased by the Crown | 146 | 210 | 356 | Leased by Maoris | 655 | 22 | 677 | —— | —— | —— | 2,113 | 1,824 | 3,937 | (Source:
NZPPA3 1960:23)
All land lying below high water mark was declared to be Crown land, thus annulling the indigenous pattern of rights to reef and lagoon waters. ‘Cook Islands Act’
In general the act followed the earlier enactment under which the Land Court had operated, but several innovations were introduced. Permanent alienation of land (other than to the Crown for public purposes) was prohibited, and leases and other forms of partial alienation were limited to a maximum of sixty years. Ibid. sections 467–9.
Wills were invalidated in so far as they related to rights in customary and freehold land, Ibid. section 445. This restriction was probably imposed in order to avoid concealed alienation (such as secret sale) being effected under the guise of a will.
Provision was also made whereby a chief could hold land by virtue of his office as the holder of a particular title. ‘Cook Islands Act’
In granting freehold orders involving multiple owners, the Court was required to specify the relative interests of each owner in the land concerned. Ibid. section 423.
Until Order in Council Actual rehearings were few indeed. So far as I am aware no land case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court.
In Harvey, ‘Report to the Right Honourable the Minister of Island Territories’ 35–6. ‘Cook Islands Amendment Act’ Ibid. section 25.
The Appellate Court first sat in
Having dealt with the outstanding appeals the Appellate Court became a routine adjunct to the work of the Land Court and has since sat at three-yearly intervals. While sittings are normally held in Rarotonga, every attempt is made to ensure that it is accessible to the island people and sittings have been held in Aitutaki, Mauke and Atiu.
The Land Court in Action
The main function of the Court in its dealings with natives was to determine the customary owners of the land and to issue them with registered titles. These were known as ‘freehold’ titles, though the term carries a different connotation from that in New Zealand or England, for a Cook Islander with a ‘freehold’ title has no power of devise and is usually one of many co-parceners.
As indicated in part one of this study, a variety of classes of rights in land was held by a hierarchy of social groups and by a wide range of persons; the exact nature of the right of each individual depending on his or her status within, or relationship to, that descent group which held the primary rights to the land. Judge Gudgeon aimed to issue title to what he called the ‘true’ (or ‘real’) owners, and it is clear from his writings that when he spoke of ‘true’ owners he was referring to the primary members of the occupying minor lineage (or to an individual or sub-group within that minor lineage) to whom the land in question had been allocated under custom. Such persons are referred to here as primary right-holders. It was essential, he felt, that each ‘cultivator’ should hold his own plot of land ‘either in fee simple or by perpetual lease at a nominal rent’. Gudgeon, NZPP A3 1902:48.
He was aware of the fact that under native custom multiple rights were held in each section of land, but specifically provided the means whereby the Court would strengthen and confirm the claims of the primary right-holders and annul all other forms of rights. The reason for this action was two-fold: firstly, by breaking down the hierarchy of rights he hoped to achieve security of tenure and a lessening of tribute (as evictions and demands for tribute were invariably made by the heads of the higher segments of the social hierarchy); and secondly, by annulling the secondary rights of persons of the same social class as the primary right-holders he hoped to abolish the customary claims of kin and affines to the use, and more particularly to the produce, of the lands of their relatives (as the demands of kin were felt to be an obstacle to increased output). In short, whereas under custom one's land rights were a function of one's place within the social structure and conditional upon those of others, the Court proposed to give unencumbered rights to individuals, and to annul what it considered to be production-limiting customs which vested titles in persons as representatives of groups and limited the use to which they could put their rights.
This intention of the Court resulted in a very considerable modification to custom. Such a change may well have been justified, for the customary tenure system was evolved to meet the needs of an isolated subsistence economy, and by
To what extent then did the early Court achieve its aim? An analysis of all cases dealt with in Rarotonga from the first sitting on 2 April 1903 until 18 April 1905 shows that of the 167 sections of land investigated, This does not include village house-sites held under the akonoanga oire, leases, or church lands. The ariki and mataiapo would at this time have constituted about two per cent of the island's population.
Of the other 84 sections, some 13 were awarded to ariki and members of their immediate families, 4 to ariki and commoners jointly, 33 to mataiapo and commoners jointly, 16 to rangatira and commoners jointly, and only 18 to persons who were either commoners or whose rank status is not known to me. It is quite possible that some of the persons in this last group were in fact rangatira or komono. The Court seldom mentioned the rank of the persons to whom it made awards, and titles of the above two categories are so numerous that it was not possible to compile a comprehensive list of them.
According to the Judge's own criteria of what constituted a ‘true’ owner, his judgements at this period were not giving effect to his stated policy, for as only those persons named in the orders of title had any legal right to the land the junior members of many families were deprived of all rights to the land they were planting. The actual situation was close to the antithesis of that which it had been supposed would result from the operation of the Land Court. Fortunately, however, it would appear that custom in this matter was stronger than the legal provisions, and that, in the early years at least, the chiefs in effect regarded their title to the land as one of trusteeship rather than outright ownership, and the junior branches continued to occupy as before.
Judge Gudgeon was well aware that his awards were often not consistent with his intentions, but found his hands tied by the fact that:
From time immemorial it has been the custom to regard the eldest born of the senior branch of the family (mataiapo) as the natural guardian and trustee of the family land, as the man who, by right of birth and by subsequent election by the elders of the tribe, should manage the whole estate in the interests of the family…. So great is their respect for this old custom that it is well-nigh impossible to make those who are most deeply interested come forward and claim inclusion in the list of names. They are quite satisfied to have the names of one or two elders of the family placed on the Court records, and cheerfully ignore the possible legal effects of their own prejudices.
Gudgeon,
NZPPA3 1904:70–1.
In the same paragraph he goes on to claim that the people did not recognize the right of the titleholder as being
Henceforth, to avoid further aggregation of chiefly power over land, the Judge gave greater emphasis to ensuring that each ‘family’ (minor lineage or kiato) had separate lands awarded to it. As far as possible he insisted on recording the names of all adult members of the ‘family’ concerned, in some cases going so far as to include affines, but they were recorded as joint owners in each section rather than each man having an individual section allotted to him as the Court had earlier intended.
In the early years of the Court's operation there was but little proper investigation of ownership. It was usual for a claimant to stand and assert ‘I own this land’, whereupon the judge would ask whether there were any objectors, and if there were none he would award to the claimant or claimants without further ado. Substantiation of the claim was called for only when there was dispute. In many instances, no doubt, lack of dispute indicated the the claimant had derived his right by accepted processes of custom. Nevertheless, it was also in some cases due to the fact that other legitimate claimants were absent, intimidated, unaware of the fact that the case was being heard, or convinced that as junior members of the lineage it was not appropriate for them to appear in court and that their respective chiefs would be looking after their interests. Evidence of persons in each of these categories is contained in the records of the Appellate Court which was set up in
Judge Gudgeon realized that at least some of the titled claimants to lands before the Court were either not the rightful ones or not the only ones, and if such cases were
This view seemed plausible owing to the fact that the three most prominent ariki of Rarotonga, and the leading ariki of Atiu were all childless. Gudgeon regarded the NZPP A3 NZPP A3
By the time the holders of many of the life interests had died, Judge Gudgeon had retired. His successor, Mr Eman Smith, never exercised his powers as a Judge of the Land Court, and it was not until MB 5:158 NLC. Power to amend orders of title was given in clause 25 of the Order in Council of
Having thus empowered himself to grant succession, he proceeded to award it without further investigation to the heirs of those chiefs who had held the life interests. There was of course no legal provision for granting succession to life interests, and this action, which has been severely criticized by later judges, E.g. by Judges Morison, Harvey and Morgan in AMB 1:185 NLC. Title to lands wherein succession was granted to a life interest, but which have not been challenged in the Appellate Court, still remain uninvestigated today, for the reason that unless the de facto possessors apply to the Court for investigation, no jurisdiction exists under which they can be re-opened.
Arorangi was the first village investigated by the Court and there Tinomana Ariki claimed almost all the house-sites as successor to the original donee, and the remainder were claimed by subordinate titleholders on the same basis. None of the claimants disputed the right of the various householders to continue to occupy the sites. Each section was awarded to the ariki (or other titleholder) ‘subject to the occupation rights acquired by the house-owner thereon’. MB 1:59–69 NLC. Ibid.
Similar arrangements were made in Avarua, where some ariki still today collect the shilling per year atinga, though probably more as affirmation of their residual ownership than for the cash involved. These are the only two villages in the whole group where legal provision was made for atinga to be paid by the householders, and reflects the fact that the ariki of these villages had achieved greater power than those elsewhere. The sum fixed by the Court was intended as a commutation of the much larger contributions in kind which were thought to have been exacted.
On Atiu and Aitutaki, and in the two inland villages of Mauke, the descendants of the original landowners voluntarily waived any claim to residual rights to village lands and the occupiers were issued with freehold orders. Kimiangatau, the coastal village of Mauke, was not set up until
When villages were first established under the influence of the mission, the extremities of each were defined, and the total area contained within those extremities was considered to be village land held under the akonoanga oire. Each occupier and his issue was to have exclusive rights to the house-site allotted to him so long as they continued to occupy. But