The Taking and Re-making of Tāmaki Makaurau
by the Scholars of Ethnography 1900–1980

So, thou art Tamaki the Adulteress, the woman of ten husbands, nay, of a hundred husbands, and now thou art gone to seek still another husband and a stranger too. Begone, thou adulteress, begone!

Te Kanawa Te Ikatu, rangitira of the Ngāti Mahuta and Ngāti Naho (March 1838)

–⬦–

Introduction

Slowly but surely, central and local governments, state-owned authorities, and many private companies are finding it politically correct to refer to Auckland as Tāmaki Makaurau. This transformation by spreading meme is inexorably replacing the name of New Zealand’s largest city. It is occurring without prior public debate or democratic referendum. They unfurl the usage of Tāmaki Makaurau upon the citizens of Auckland as a fait accompli. Yet, in 2016, there was a referendum on the lesser matter of changing the design of New Zealand’s national flag. Aucklanders deserve honesty and openness about such a major cultural change.

For nearly 100 years, there have been campaigns to preserve the original Māori names of places, both natural features and their settlements. This is absolutely a correct course of action. But now restoring original names is almost complete, the pendulum is swinging too far, creating a new iniquity. Campaigners are also targeting place names for replacement that are deep within European culture.

So, is Tāmaki Makaurau really equivalent to Auckland and why is it being pushed forward as a pre-eminent place name (toponym) for Auckland? Why are events at the city’s founding also being reinterpreted or worse, rewritten? Should they halt this process pending an official inquiry? In the spirit of open-mindedness, Aucklanders deserve to see if there is a valid reason for changing the name of their city, which has been a settled matter for 180 years. It is long overdue to fill a gaping void and research the history behind Tāmaki Makaurau.

The evidence presented in this article leads to a surprising and unexpected conclusion, which is that Tāmaki Makaurau is not a Maori name, it is a European place name constructed in the 20^th century from Tāmaki makau rau, a whakataukī (proverb). Further, the proverb is modern, originating in the 1860s.

Sixty years after the founding of Auckland, a group of New Zealand Europeans, identified and collectively known here as the “Scholars of Ethnography” took an obscure proverb. They re-made it into Tāmaki-makau-rau, calling it a classical place name of the ancient Māori. A few years later, they also derived the name Tāmaki Makaurau. Subsequently, over 80 years, they gave oxygen to this new meaning by regular usage in English-language publications until finally they formalised it in New Zealand academia, the influential journal Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum. Once established as perceived wisdom in academia, it has filtered through quasi-governmental organisations such as the Waitangi Tribunal, then spilled into the greater public domain, including today’s Māori culture. The Māori never had a place name for the settlement and land area of Auckland, instead, they used Akarana as its transliteration in te reo Māori.

How did Tāmaki Makaurau come about? It is necessary to find and examine exhibits of the proverb and its usage in Māori culture. Investigating this evidence gives us enough to introduce the Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis, which explains the most probable origin of the proverb. References in ethnology are analysed here, identifying the key role of those within the Scholars of Ethnography. Events at the founding and naming of Auckland by Governor Hobson are examined. In the conclusion, recommendations are made to recognise and preserve the integrity of the historical record at the founding of Auckland, and to preserve the nation’s multicultural heritage.

Researching Tāmaki Makaurau (TMR)

This research begins with online sources, which quickly reveal that Tāmaki Makaurau is a proper noun derived from the descriptive phrase Tāmaki makau rau. A straightforward translation provides:

Tāmaki (noun) the land (isthmus) between the Waitemata and Manukau harbours
makau (noun) favourite, object of affection, lover, spouse, wife, husband
rau (numeral) hundred, many or numerous

As a toponym, with hyphens or concatenation, it has three variants (six, without macrons!) interchangeable in text: Tāmaki Makaurau, Tāmakimakaurau and Tāmaki-makau-rau. For the sake of brevity, we collectively use TMR here to reference the place name in all its variations, unless referring to a historical source or quote. TMR is distinct from the phrase.

There are a couple of matters of formality. First, to reflect the correct pronunciation of long vowels in Māori words, from the 1970s academic works made use of a double vowel spelling, e.g., Maaori and Taamaki. This is cumbersome and superseded by the recent revival in usage of the macron, e.g., Tāmaki. The New Zealand Gazetteer updated relevant official place names en masse in 2020. This is observed here, except regarding historical sources and quotes. Second, colonialist terminology is rejected here, where people call other cultures by a name which they did not first use for themselves. Hence, the terms “native” or “aborigine” are avoided unless it is a quote, or a formal title set by the government of the day. Some Māori became so inured to being called “Native” that they eventually used it for themselves. Since the Maori Purposes Act (1947) Part I s2, modern standards rightly find such a culturally repressive practice to be distasteful, derogatory and unacceptable.

Researchers strive to identify the earliest references from primary sources recorded by the most authoritative observers of the time. This is done here, in order to most accurately determine the original historical context of TMR. Before each finding is examined, they are divided into two categories of usage within which they occur: Māori society and ethnography on Māori culture. Researchers perform ethnography by getting evidence on the ground within the society under study, while ethnology is the branch of science concerned with the study of human cultures. It is not possible to follow ethnography based on assumptions. In contrast, ethnology is holistic, studying demographics and comparative ethnography, allowing theoretical debate on the origins and interrelationships of different cultures and their symbolism. In New Zealand, ethnographic work dominated in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but as field research completed over decades, ethnology became the dominant form of the discipline.

Upon searching for all forms of Tāmaki makau rau and TMR, it is clear they are extremely obscure until the last quarter of the 20^th century. A search of the National Library at Wellington reveals a handful of references before 1950. A search of the National Library’s “Papers Past”, with its enormous archive in English and Māori from 1839 to 1950, reveals a few dozen different mentions. Google Books does not yield any result earlier than 1908. Australia’s vast Trove archive does not reveal any reference until 1932, despite having many early articles about New Zealand. Out of 300,000 heritage images in the Auckland Library, there are zero matching results. Also useful are the letters of early missionaries and 19th century Land Court testimony. These are essential to any understanding of events occurring as early as the founding of Auckland in 1840. Place names are “sticky” as people use them early and often. Normally, historical social usages outnumber the references by academics who study that culture, unless perhaps it is a dead or dying culture. Māori culture was nowhere near dying in the late 1800s, yet, while Tāmaki makau rau existed within oral tradition, it is so rare that it may have been close to fading out of usage and lost. Importantly, there are several distinct usages of Tamaki makau rau in 19th century sources, but TMR only exists in 20^th century sources. The first step is to examine the origin of the word and place name Tāmaki.

Tāmaki, the Place Name from tamaki the noun

The word tamaki is from Polynesia, originating before the migrations to New Zealand. Horatio Hale, in his Polynesian Grammar of 1846, gives the meaning in Paumotuan (Tuamotuan) as “fight”. [i] Similarly, the missionary William Gill defines its usage in Tahitian as “combat”. [ii]  Te reo Māori and the Tahitian language have diverged. A review of Māori dictionaries gives different meanings, including the nouns “omen”, “premonition”, “nervous tic”, the adjectives of “ominous” or “foreboding”, and the verb intransitive “startled”. Historian of the Māori, George Graham, offers the meaning “object of conquest”.

The editor and publisher of reference books, Adolphus Reed, conflates all the meanings: “Tamaki is a word for battle, as well as a nervous twitch that was regarded as an omen before battle.” [iii] He relates the most thorough discussion on half a dozen possible origins of the proper noun, including “battlefield” and a strike or blow by Maki. One further curiosity also hints at the wide model of Austronesian dispersal; tamaki is a noun in Japanese and similarities exist between Māori and Japanese. [iv]

Research for the Auckland Council hints at multiple Māori names existing for the Auckland isthmus: “Other names for the Isthmus refer to the many tribes and layers of associated histories such as those descended from the Aotea, Mataatua, Arawa and Tainui waka.” [v]  During the 19th century, the Māori always used Tāmaki for the isthmus, hence, Europeans also called the central area of Auckland Tāmaki district. Note that it was conventional in the 19th century to refer to a geographic region as a district.

The Māori have clearly defined the geographic extent of Tāmaki for centuries because of its unique features of geography, mostly surrounded by seashores and waterways. Its western edge is the Whau portage, by Te Atatu on the Waitemata, to Karaka (Green Bay) on the Manukau. The South-eastern boundary is Te To Waka at Ōtāhuhu, the most important portage of all. Around the Tāmaki district were others: Takapuna and Mahurangi districts were north, Hauraki eastward, Manukau is south, and Waitakere to the west. The Māori also considered the Waitemata islands of Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, Motukorea, Rakino, Motohoropapa and Otata within Tamaki. [vi]

The Land Court judge, Francis Dart Fenton (1821–1898), drafted the earliest map of the Auckland isthmus focused on Māori history. Fenton made it to help his understanding of geographic references during the Ōrākei and Ōkahu title investigation in 1868. His original shows place names, pā, village and battlefield locations on a green and blue background. Later, he updated it and included a monochrome version as a folding map (Figure 1) in his Important Judgements Delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court (1879).

Figure 1. Fenton Map of the Auckland district, with Māori place names – central detail, 1868

Fenton drafted his map for the Ōrākei Land Court hearing, which he updated and published in 1879. The Tamaki River and Tamaki Strait are named, with the Manukau Harbour at bottom left. Ōrākei is in mauve. Credit: Author image

This is a popular account summarising the evidence and thinking behind many of his decisions at the Land Courts. He also reported that the name Tamaki, for the isthmus, had fallen into disuse and it was confined to the suburb. [vii] Notably, for this investigation, TMR does not appear on Fenton’s map or any other until about the early 1930s.

Tāmaki remains the official name of an Auckland suburb on the western side of the Tamaki River (Te Wai-o-taiki and Whangai-makau). Historical sources commonly mention the Tamaki Heads, being the entrance of the Tāmaki River. The main historic site is the western head, a volcanic cone, now Taylor’s Hill in Glendowie, which was once the fortification Taurere Pa. Tamaki Plains is used to describe the smoother land of the central and southeast isthmus between the volcanic cones, including Mount Smart, which has the name Rarotonga.

In 1910, Elsdon Best (1856–1931) became New Zealand’s first professional ethnographer, working at the Dominion Museum, Wellington. Best is clear in his understanding of the location and extent of Tāmaki. In 1924, while regarded as the foremost authority on Māori culture, he published his work The Maori, which has:

They are said to have been numerous in the Tamaki district, the Auckland isthmus, but we are not told as to whether or not they lived in fortified villages there. […] The extensive and numerous terraced hills of the Auckland district cannot have been occupied by a non-agricultural people, for the surrounding lands and sea inlets could not have supported them. [viii]

Once more, with bold emphasis added, Tāmaki is the isthmus within a greater area, which is the Auckland district. There is no mention of TMR by Best, unless it exists in his papers, warranting further research. Unfortunately, Tāmaki is missing from his “Topographical nomenclature of the Maori”, published in the New Zealand Official Yearbook 1919, possibly as his focus was more towards southern and central parts of the country and the name was not much used at the time.

After Auckland was founded, usage of the name Tāmaki steadily declined as people used “Auckland isthmus” instead. However, it remains the Māori name for the isthmus, but over the last century, there is little recognition of it. In recent decades, Tāmaki has become an abbreviation for Tāmaki Makaurau. As TMR’s star has risen, Tāmaki’s has fallen. Like a ghost, Tāmaki, the proper noun for the land of the isthmus, has vanished from many modern dictionaries and books of place names, both in print and online.

Tāmaki makau rau in Māori Culture

Linen That Talks

The Māori were so impressed by the power of writing, at first, they referred to paper as “linen that talks”. From the 1830s, they began creating letters, reports, histories and other documents building up a substantial corpus. Private and iwi archives, throughout the country, have many unique papers. [ix] They have not yet published it all in books, microfilm, or made it available online. However, much of it is only of local relevance. In the kōrero of the Ngāti Porou of the East Cape, which is published, the word Tāmaki is absent. Perhaps this article will encourage anyone who locates a hitherto unseen Māori usage of Tāmaki makau rau to make it known. In the meantime, it is necessary to proceed with what is available.

The distinct early usages of Tāmaki makau rau in Māori culture comprise a set of exhibits, which are here numbered 1-8 and explored. Notably, the first reference, made in 1838, is unique, as it is a primitive and verbose format. At least four early explanations exist of the same rhetorical allusion “makau rau” spoken in context with the land known as Tāmaki. The second exhibit is an English translation of Tāmaki makau rau, while the remainder (numbers 3-8) are in te reo Māori. The final exhibit presented here occurs in 1913. Note, bold emphasis is applied to some of the longer exhibits to enable the phrase under research to be more easily seen in context.

Exhibit #1 by Te Kanawa

Te Kanawa Te Ikatu (ca.1770–ca.1860) made the earliest known spoken usage of “makau rau” in context with the land Tāmaki. [x] He was a chieftain of the Waikato hapū Ngāti Mahuta and Ngāti Naho, eminent in the Waikato, during the decades 1820–50. Te Kanawa’s rohe (tribal lands) were around Kāwhia and Aotea harbours, central and west Waikato, which the Ngāti Mahuta seized, in 1821, by conquest of the Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Koata, led by Te Rauparaha. In May 1822, Te Kanawa was a close confidante with Te Wherowhero, joint leaders in the unequal and disastrous “mere versus musket” defence of Mātakitaki pā at Pirongia against the firepower of the Ngāpuhi, where 1500 Waikato Māori died. Two years later, Te Kanawa journeyed to the Bay of Islands, with Te Wherowhero’s youngest brother, Kati Takiwaru, to make peace with the Ngāpuhi through betrothal to Matire Toha, of high rank. Te Kanawa remained active in the interests of the Waikato tribes during and after the Musket Wars. He attended the largest peacemaking, held at Ōtāhuhu in late-March 1838. Te Kanawa appears to have signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi twice: at Manukau in March 1840 and again at Kāwhia, two months later. [xi] During the 1840s, he was on good terms with the Colonial Government, as was Te Wherowhero, who lived then at Pukekawa, where the Auckland Domain is today. Te Kanawa fades from history in his old age, about the time Te Wherowhero adopted the forename Pōtatau and became the first Māori King of the Tainui confederation in 1858.

Fortunately, there are at least four historical references from authoritative sources about a memorable speech he made at the Ōtāhuhu peacemaking. The first and only near contemporary account is in a letter by the lay preacher William Fairburn, dated 29 May 1839 at his Maraetai mission station, (Exh. #1a). He wrote to Rev. William Jowett, Clerical Secretary of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) at Salisbury Square, London:

I believe I mentioned to you in my last letter the origin of the purchase to have arisen at the time Messrs Williams, Maunsell, Hamlin and myself assembled the natives of Waikato and the Thames in order to attempt a reconciliation to the parties. Otahuhu is a narrow neck of land which divides the Eastern from the Western coast, a spot which according to native account has from time to time the cause of much bloodshed. To illustrate this I will take the liberty of relating a part of the speech of the respectable chief Kanawa regarding the land when at our last meeting in March 1838. Standing up, after several others had spoken, he addressed himself to the land in the following manner. So thou art Tamaki the Adulteress the woman of ten husbands, nay, of a hundred husbands, and now thou art gone to seek still another husband and a stranger too—begone—thou adulteress begone—at the same time striking out his foot as though he was spurning the adulteress from his presence. The allusion made by him above of the ten husbands it was in reference to the number of times the land through war had changed owners but now it was brought to a close by its being united to a stranger, hence a kick with his left foot, which action is quite in agreement with native custom parting with anything of note. [xii]

The bolded exhibit above is an English translation, not including the precise phrase Tāmaki makau rau, but a verbose format in a dozen words. Fairburn relates Te Kanawa speaking metaphorically about Tāmaki to theatrical effect. He equates the land desired by many tribes with a woman desired by many men in symbolic comparison. Then he spurns the land by spurning the imaginary, unfaithful woman. The land of Tāmaki, subject to many claims, is passing yet again into different hands. This time it is not to any Māori, but a “stranger”, in this context, a general euphemism for non-Māori, i.e., Europeans. Te Kanawa made a grand gesture of frustration and dismissal in his speech at the peacemaking, effectively renouncing his tribal interest to all Tāmaki district. This was a hugely significant event, subsequently retold by tribal elders in various hapū at Manukau, Tāmaki, and Waikato.

Fairburn is writing his letter 14 months after the 1838 peacemaking, but first touches upon his own vast land purchase within the adjacent Manukau and Hauraki districts, which he conducted with 32 chieftains and elders in January 1836. Fairburn found Te Kanawa’s speech in 1838 useful to illustrate prior Māori contention over tribal lands, emphasising his own peacemaking motive.

The second reference to Te Kanawa’s speech occurs 30 years later at the Land Court title investigation for the Ōrākei and Ōkahu claims. The case concerned Ngāti Whātua land at the Waitemata shore of Tāmaki district (see the Fenton Map). Parliament set up the Native Land Courts by Act of 1862 to resolve dispossessed Māori claims, of which there were many by the 1860s. However, the process was flawed, as it followed the English system of named individual and corporate land titles, ensuring future sales were more likely by sweeping away the centuries-old Māori system of collective land occupation by hapū. [xiii] Hence, there were usually competing individual claims for the same land. The court held the principal Ōrākei claim in October and November 1868 at the Auckland Provincial Chambers. National Archives preserves the Ōrākei Minute Books which contain transcriptions of testimony, depositions, and proceedings.

Despite Te Kanawa’s memorable casting out of “Tamaki the Adulteress”, his son Wiremu Te Morehu Maipapa Te Wheoro (ca. 1826–95) of the Ngāti Naho, was to pursue his own claim upon a share of Ōrākei. His hapū is closely associated with the Ngāti Mahuta in the Tainui confederation. Te Wheoro was a chieftain and held the position of Assessor at the Land Courts, investigating various claims before hearings took place. [xiv]

Te Wheoro gave his witness statement on 23 October 1868 and was deposed by James MacKay, government land agent and interpreter. Of relevance to the phrase Tāmaki makau rau is (Exh. #1b):

I alluded to the peacemaking at Otahu. I was not present but I was told by my elders Te Kanawa spoke of this land comparing it to a woman who had many lovers, addressing the land said I am your husband (He was addressing these remarks to N. Paoa). He said this because the land had formed a subject of dispute between the different tribes. Waikato N. Paoa give me our mutual woman. I did not hear what answer N. Paoa made. That’s all. [xv]

Te Wheoro is relating what he had learned from his elders about Te Kanawa’s speech in March 1838. He asserts that Te Kanawa addressed his remarks to the Ngāti Pāoa. Curiously, he elaborates upon the meaning behind Tāmaki makau rau, without using the actual phrase.

There is a third mention of this event, (Exh. #1c), also on 23 October, made by Eruera Maihi Patuone (ca.1764–1872), the Ngāpuhi rangitira of Upper Hokianga. Decades before, Patuone was a member of the 1822 war-party led by his friend Hongi Hika, who raided the Waikato. About 1835, to help establish peace between the tribes, he married Takarangi, sister of the Ngāti Pāoa rangitira Te Kupenga. Patuone then settled in the Hauraki region. He had long been of the Christian faith when, on 26 January 1840, he and Takarangi were baptised by Rev. Henry Williams of the CMS. As was usual, they received baptismal forenames, for him Eruera Maihi (Edward Marsh), the same as Williams’ son. Patuone spoke at the land court:

I was living at Whakatiwai when the war party of Te Kawau went there it was in the time of the peacemaking at Otahu. Kahikihi and myself then came to Otahuhu to make peace peace was then made between Kaniwha N. Paoa + Teata. [sic.] Kaniwha then said was a woman with many husbands and stamped on the ground peace was then made. [xvi]

He only makes a brief mention of Te Kanawa’s speech and confirms Ngāti Pāoa and Ngāti Te Ata present at the peacemaking.

On 12 November 1868, Rev. Robert Maunsell of the CMS makes the fourth mention of this event (Exh. #1d). He was cross-examined as a witness at the Ōrākei Land Court:

Do you remember any meeting at Otahuhu short time after for examination of scholars? There was a great peacemaking.

How long after the first you came? About five or six years. There was a remarkable speech at the time by a man who called the land an adulteress.

Who made that speech? I think Kaniwha.

Who were the natives present at that peacemaking? Kaihau was there I do not know much about it. [..] [xvii]

I did not understand Kaniwha’s speech at the time. He stamped upon the land as if it was a woman called it an adulteress, he told her to be off as she had killed many husbands. I don’t know that that was said for the purpose of deciding the ownership of the land. The land had been sold. [xviii]

The New Zealand Herald and Daily Southern Cross newspapers at Auckland reported the Ōrākei Land Court proceedings each day. These are a valuable additional resource to the official land court minute books. The Herald reports Maunsell’s replies and further information when deposed by Edwin Hesketh:

The Rev. Dr. Maunsell said he first visited New Zealand in the beginning of 1835. Had lost all his memoranda and books in a fire. […] There was another peace making subsequent to that, when a remarkable speech was made by a man who addressed the land as “an adulterous woman,” and told her to ‘be off.’ It was Takanawa. [..] By Mr Hesketh, the explanation of Takewero’s [sic] address to the land was the following: The Tamaki was a sort of a proverb, as the scene of so many battles. Mr. Fairburn had bought the land. Takawana said the land was like an adulterous woman who had a great many husbands, and now that it was sold she had better be off. [xix]

The Southern Cross reports his replies when deposed by James McKay:

Another peace-making took place at Otahuhu several years after the one he had already mentioned. He remembered a very remarkable speech by Te Kanawa, who spoke of the land as an adulterous woman. He said, stamping his foot, “You have been an adulterous woman, and many men have been killed through you; go!” Mr. Fairburn had then bought the land, and it was in allusion to that that Te Kanawa spoke. Tamaki had been the scene of many battles. [..] In cross-examination by Mr. Mackay, Dr. Maunsell said he presumed the fights alluded to by Te Kanawa were those against the Waiohua. [xx]

Te Wheoro, Patuone and Maunsell, are all recounting from memory of 30 years previously, so they must give some variation in the retelling. Overall, they are quite consistent with Fairburn’s recollection, made only 14 months after the event. None of the four men use the phrase Tāmaki makau rau, they only allude to its meaning.

Exhibit #2 by Hōri Tauroa

The first mention of the actual phrase Tamaki makau rau, found during research here, is an English translation of testimony given by Hōri Tauroa on Thursday, 22 October 1868, at the Ōrākei Land Court. Hōri Tauroa Te Katipa (1824–1883) was a chieftain of the Ngāti Te Ata, as his mother, Uruhutia, was the sister of the late chieftain Katipa Te Awarahi (d. 1861). Their ancestral lands lay from Ihumātao on the Manukau harbour, extending through Karaka, Waiuku, Awhitu and Pokeno to the Waikato River.

Tauroa was no stranger to the Land Courts, having also worked in the role of Assessor and previously claimed land at Pokeno. He was at the Land Court on his own behalf, claiming a share of Ōrākei, despite Judge Fenton’s disapproval due to him perceiving a conflict of interest. The court reporters provide a comprehensive summary and highlights of the previous days’ events, including Tauroa’s testimony reported by the Herald (Exh. #2a):

I saw Mohi Poatou and his relations of the Ngatipaoa, living at Okahu in the second Governor’s time. I mean Fitzroy. I do not consider Shortland a Governor. I know Hetaraka, but did not see him there. The pas built there were not fighting pas. The Ngatipaoa had their own reasons for living there, and whether they have a claim to the land {or not they should know best. I will answer the question by and bye, but will first repeat the proverb, “Tawaki of a hundred husbands.” Ngatipaoa is one of the husbands. Hetaraka has an interest in the land. Hetaraka can tell his own interest; he is very close to you.} [xxi]

The Southern Cross has a similar account, (Exh. #2b):

I do not wish to say whether the Ngatipaoa have any claim to the land; {that is for them to say. (Witness was pressed several times for an answer.) I will answer by a proverb, “Tamaki of the hundred husbands.” Ngatipaoa is one of the husbands. I admit Hetaraka to have a claim to Okahu.} [xxii]

Again, bold emphasis is added here. Note, the Herald typesetter spells Tamaki wrongly but, significantly, in both accounts, Tauroa announces to the court that Tāmaki makau rau is a proverb! The text between curved braces “{ }” above is missing at the relevant place in the Land Court Ōrākei Minute Book 1, where it should appear at the end of page 46. This page looks incomplete, possibly because of a brief interruption to the note-taker. No less than six bilingual experts on te reo Māori were present, including Judge Fenton, acting for various parties and the Land Court. Perhaps the interruption was due to them having an off-the-record discussion about the proverb Tauroa had just used? It is fortunate the newspaper reporters were present, or his early usage would have been lost to history.

Exhibit #3 by Rewi Maniapoto

The earliest usage of Tamaki makau rau in te reo Māori, found and presented here, occurs on 30 May 1879, spoken by Rewi Manga Maniapoto (ca.1815–94). He was the war chieftain of the Ngāti Maniapoto, whose tribal lands extend through the southwest of the Waikato-Waitomo district. Maniapoto was making an official visit to Auckland at the invitation of the Native Minister, John Sheehan, with whom he had a cordial relationship. It was his first visit to Auckland since before the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s.

Maniapoto arrived with Sheehan on a government special service train from Ngaruawahia, where he received a hero’s welcome from a mayoral party and a crowd of about 1000 people. [xxiii] Standing on the platform, he gave an exclamation of appreciation about the place of his arrival.

Newspaper reports in 1879 describe Maniapoto’s visit but not the content of his speech. It is only much later they provide further detail. The Herald newspaper columnist ‘Mercutio’ recalls the occasion, mentioning his visit in two separate articles. The first is in March 1894, 15 years after the event:

When Rewi visited Auckland after the war there was a large gathering at the railway station to meet him. The Mayor was there (I think Mr. Peacock) and a large number of leading citizens. When Rewi alighted from the carriage the Mayor gave him a short address of welcome, which was translated to him. Rewi then made his reply which consisted of an ancient whakatauki, or proverb, and, I think, a few lines of a song. The Mayor requested the Rev. Mr. Buddle, who was present, to translate Rewi’s speech for the benefit of the crowd of notables, who were all eager to hear what the great man had said. Mr. Buddle, though a first-class Maori scholar, could not on the spur of the moment deal with the allusions in an obscure and antiquated proverb.

[…] I may say that I went to Rewi and afterwards, got him to repeat what he said, and then Mr. C. O. Davis, after the study of some hours, exploited the address. [xxiv]

In December 1895, ‘Mercutio’ adds further clarity by repeating the proverb itself, “I remember how Rewi, looking over the city and its surroundings, recalled a Maori legend, ‘Tamaki, makau rau!’ that is, the Tamaki district was like a beautiful girl who had a hundred lovers…”, (Exh. #3a). [xxv] Bold emphasis added here as the sense of this is consistent: Tāmaki is the place name of a district and Tāmaki makau rau is whakataukī, a proverbial saying about it.

On 5 September 1903, some 24 years after Maniapoto’s visit, another pseudonymous Herald correspondent, ‘Vindex’, relates the same occasion in “A Historic Proverb”, (Exh. #3b):

There was a large crowd and the town was gay with bunting. Rewi stepped from the railway carriage, and looked around. He said in a clear voice, but with the air of a man who spoke in a dream — “Tamaki. e Tamaki.’ Tamaki makau rau!” (“Tamaki. O Tamaki! Tamaki of a hundred lovers.”) He said this twice. No one present knew the proverb.

[…] I went up to the Northern Club to which Rewi had been driven, and found him sitting in the lobby. I asked him to repeat the proverb and the legendary song which he had recited. This he did, and I wrote the words down carefully. I then went to Mr. C. O. Davis, who was famous for his knowledge of Maori proverbs and songs. We got together several Maoris, and thoroughly exploited the whole matter. That was the first time I ever heard of the proverb — makau rau. [xxvi]

‘Vindex’ concludes with “The Maoris imagined Tāmaki as a beautiful maiden with a hundred lovers.” Assuming ‘Vindex’ and ‘Mercutio’ are not the same person, it seems ‘Vindex’ asked ‘Mercutio’ to repeat his eyewitness account of Maniapoto’s visit. This article prompted Carl Esaias Nilsson (1829–1909), master of languages and Māori lore, then living at Rotorua, to write a letter to the editor of the Herald, (Exh. #3c):

The proverb quoted by Rewi, as stated in the articles written by ‘Vindex,’ was well known by all the Ngatiwhatua people. (The Ngatiwhatua were the owners of ‘this district by conquest of the Waiohua.) The proverb cropped up at the Native Lands Court when the Orakei case was being heard. ‘Rau’ is figurative and does not mean a hundred. The name of Tamaki gives a good idea of what the old fighting chiefs thought of that part of the country. It meant struggle,’ strife, contest, anything fought for as well as the combatant—the whenua tamaki was a contested land. [xxvii]

Nilsson, also known as Charles Edwin Nelson, understood and confirmed the usage of Tāmaki makau rau as proverbial. He writes the Ngāti Whātua, the principal tribe of the Tāmaki isthmus, knew it, even though it was evidently rare enough to be unknown to the crowd of people at Rewi Maniapoto’s arrival.

Swedish-born Nelson is a highly credible source evidenced by his biographic sketch. His grandfather was an author on anthropology, his father a lecturer in archaeology. Nelson had experience as a shipbuilder, bushman, sailor, trader, surveyor, and interpreter, a “walking dictionary” who knew Sanskrit and spoke at least ten languages including Swedish, German, French, English, Portuguese, Hebrew, Arabic, multiple Polynesian dialects and Māori. His wife Isabella Ihapera Stanaway was related to Te Ōtene Kikokiko, rangitira of Te Taou, thereby Nelson learned Māori lore from the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. [xxviii] The historian, James Cowan, described him as a “White Tohunga”, with a deep knowledge of Māori culture and “his knowledge of Maori mysticism was profound [being] schooled in the early days by some of the real old ‘medicine-men’. So deeply was Nelson steeped in Maori priestly lore, that many Maoris regarded him as a real tohunga.” [xxix] Nelson also worked as an interpreter at the Land Courts. In 1892, ten years after Isabella’s death, he relocated to Rotorua to manage the Geyser Hotel at Whakarewarewa, organising tour parties in the thermal region. He had a keen interest in moko and wood carvings, helping preserve many items for future generations, including entire wharenui (meeting houses). Sadly, Nelson wrote no books or articles, just letters and a few brief biographies of senior Māori, hence his vast knowledge and personal notes are long lost in the shadows of New Zealand’s past. Scholars of today are lucky to have his explanation of Tāmaki makau rau after hearing Hōri Tauroa use it back in 1868.

Exhibit #4 by Kerei Kaihau and Matutaera Tāwhiao

The next usage of Tāmaki makau rau found here occurs on 19 January 1882, in a memorial speech honouring the land and the dead, given by Kerei Kaihau on behalf of Matutaera Tāwhiao, the King of the Tainui confederation. Tūkāroto Matutaera Pōtatau Te Wherowhero Tāwhiao, son of Pōtatau Te Wherowhero, was visiting Auckland after an absence of 25 years. His party arrived at Queen’s Wharf by paddle-steamer from Ōrākei, where they were staying as guests of the Ngāti Whātua. Tāwhiao received a large municipal welcome, like Maniapoto had three years earlier. Upon alighting at the wharf, he spoke a few words of salutation and then handed over to his secretary to give a prepared oratory.

The king’s secretary was Kerei Kaihau (ca.1850–ca.1920), son of Aihepene Waka Kaihau (ca.1820–1892) the ariki (high-chieftain) of the Ngāti Te Ata. Aihepene was half-cousin to Hōri Tauroa, from whom there is the first recorded usage of the proverb Tāmaki makau rau. Kaihau honoured the gods and the dead before announcing “E pa, e! ko Tamaki tenei; kua tae mai. Tamaki e! Tamaki! Tamaki makau rau, nga tirohanga a mata, te waihotanga ake a nga tangata matua, kua ngaro ake nei o runga,” […] [xxx]

Charles Oliver Bond Davis (ca.1817–87) who was friendly with the Waikato tribes and knew Tāwhiao personally, produced an English translation of the speech. Kaihau then gave it to the Herald for printing, here in part:

“O Father! Tamaki is here. I have arrived. O Tamaki! O Tamaki!—Tamaki of a hundred lovers, whose countenance was gazed upon, and who was left by our fathers who have passed away” […]

Davis is another highly credible source. He arrived in New Zealand about 1830 and became fluent in the Māori language. His help with the Treaty of Waitangi gave him employment at the Colonial Government from 1842 to 1857, after which he took up writing and set about founding several short-lived te reo Māori newspapers. In the 1860s, he became regarded as one of the top four scholars of Māori culture and he also served as an interpreter at the Land Courts. Davis explained his translation, thereby making the first known ethnographic reference to Tāmaki makau rau:

The allusions in the above address require some explanations, and these have been kindly furnished by Mr. C. O. Davis, who made the above translation. — In saying “O! Father,” Tawhiao addresses his own father, Te Wherowhero. — Tamaki is the great name of the districts surrounding Auckland. “Tamaki of a hundred lovers” means that this district was a coveted one with the Maoris. They cultivated easily the volcanic soil. The volcanic mounds made admirable sites for pas — they had here abundant fish of all kinds. Tawhiao goes on to say that the beautiful Tamaki was gazed upon and left by their fathers […]

This is a further usage of Tāmaki makau rau as a proverb about Tāmaki, the isthmus. It is uncertain how much of the speech Kerei Kaihau drafted and how much input Tāwhiao provided. The two men would have been like-minded in its detail. They both considered Tāmaki to be a district and Tāmaki makau rau a descriptive saying about it. Clearly, Tāwhiao regarded the Tainui amongst Tāmaki’s many figurative lovers and regretted how they found it was in other hands, so had to travel southwards to settle.

Davis explains “Tamaki is the great name of the districts surrounding Auckland”, referring to the districts (suburbs) within the Tāmaki isthmus, around central Auckland. From the 1840s, Auckland was larger, extending to Takapuna, Papakura, Howick and Great Barrier, well beyond Tāmaki. This is an important clarification, as seen later, the genesis of the remaking of the proverb Tāmaki makau rau into the place name TMR by the Scholars of Ethnography is their deliberate distortion of Davis.

In connection with Tāmaki makau rau, Davis heard Hōri Tauroa use it in 1868 and fetched the 104-year-old Patuone to court on the following day when he mentioned Te Kanawa’s speech. ‘Mercutio’ consulted him on Maniapoto’s use of the phrase in 1879. Researchers can be confident in accepting Davis’ explanation of Kaihau’s and Tāwhiao’s speech.

Exhibit #5 by Mita Karaka

The final 19th century usage, here, is by Mita Karaka on 19 March 1899 at Waahi Marae, Huntly West. He was meeting Richard Seddon, the New Zealand Premier, with other Waikato chieftains, headed by the 3rd King of the Tainui confederation, Mahuta Tāwhiao, son of Matutaera Tāwhiao. Mita Karaka Ngatipare (1839–1901) was a chieftain of the Ngāti Tahinga, a tribe closely associated with the Ngāti Te Ata. Their lands are between Raglan and Port Waikato. The Auckland Star reported on the event:

Mita Karaka, a middle-aged chief from Waikato, […] welcomed the Premier to Tamaki (the Auckland isthmus), and to Hauraki. ‘The person of this land,’ said he, ‘is Tamaki-makau-rau (Tamaki of the hundred spouses).’ This expression is applied to a woman who has many husbands, who remains with one now and then takes another. This piece of land is the same as that woman who married many times. She is now married to Europeans.’ (By this the speaker meant that Auckland had passed away from the Maoris.) ‘I said welcome to Hauraki,’ continued Mita Karaka. ‘Ngatimaru are the people of that place. I call them Ngatimaru-ko-whao-rau, the tribe of a hundred openings or holes. The reason of that name is because the country of the Ngatimaru is now full of holes through the Europeans digging for gold. That people have become just the same as the people who have married Tamaki-makau-rau, the Europeans. In reference to Taupo, the head man of that place is Te Heuheu, who is here, the chief of the Sea of Taupo. There is a mountain there, at Taupo-Moana, and this is the name it bears, Tongariro. The meaning of that word ‘riro’ is that it is gone; it has gone to the persons who married Tamaki—the Europeans. Those are the three places; the fourth is Waikato. It is called Waikato-taniwha-rau (Waikato of a hundred water monsters, i.e., chiefs). [xxxi]

Mita Karaka gives a complex speech, weaving a common thread in allusive metaphors to make a serious point. He is wistful about the loss of large land areas from the Māori to Europeans, but also injects a whimsical play on Tāmaki makau rau, creating his own variation to describe the misfortune of the Ngāti Maru, whose stronghold is in the Thames area, with a new saying “the tribe of a hundred holes.”

Interestingly, we see Tamaki-makau-rau for the first time in a hyphenated form. As discussed later, this is certainly because James Cowan was the reporter at Waahi Marae, and he copied the style of Thomas Henry Smith, who had the style of hyphenating whakataukī, which he wrote about, and Cowan somewhat regarded him as a mentor.

Exhibit #6 by Te Puna Reweti, Erurangi and Te Aho O Te Rangi

On 15 July 1904, at Government House in Princes Street, Auckland, Te Puna Reweti, an elder of the Ngāti Whātua, led a dozen senior Māori in a welcome to Governor Plunket. [xxxii] They also made a gift of a pounamu mere. The welcome, in Te reo Māori, has the ending “Kia ora tonu koe, Na te iwi o Tamaki makau-rau o Waitemata.” (Figure 4).

Figure 4. An Address of Welcome to the Governor, 1904 – final paragraph

Section of a contemporary hand-out produced for guests, printed by J.M. Field, Albert Street, Auckland. Credit: Author photo

George Graham, who had an early interest in Māori history, translated their welcome:

Health and Prosperity be ever with thee, Oh Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, the reflection of King Edward VII; Health also to thy lady and her children. Love has been brought hither, and the Great Ocean of Kiwa breaking ceaselessly on these shores has been appeased. Welcome to you and your chiefly friends. Our greatest desire is this: that both races be as one in the possession of enlightenment and mutual affection, in law and goodwill. Long life to you. From the tribes of Tamaki of the hundred lovers and of Waitemata the sparkling waters.

The Māori reference “Tamaki makau-rau o Waitemata” as they are making a poetic speech and Plunket refers to it as poetry in his reply. It is the first instance found of TMR in a te reo text, but ambiguity is present over whether they use it as whakataukī or a place name. Graham, in his translation gives it a poetic context “Waitemata the sparkling waters”, hinting to the former. A short song followed the speech, about which Graham also made a substantial translation and explanation. Te Puna Reweti subsequently published it in the Herald. The ethnological context of the welcome and song will be discussed later.

Exhibit #7 by Ōtene Pāora

The Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei were objecting to the unwelcome proposal of a sewerage outfall to be built at Ōkahu Bay. A reporter of the Herald newspaper visited and conducted an interview, probably with Ōtene Pāora. The resulting article includes:

Although the Ngatiwhatua, at the time of the Ngapuhi raids, retreated into the Waikato country, the land of Tamaki Makau Rau was never occupied by the Ngapuhi, who branched off to fight the Ngatimaniopoto, and the Ngati-whatua came back and occupied the lands again, […] [xxxiii]

The reporter uses Tāmaki Makau Rau as a place name, presumably for the isthmus, and it appears to be a departure from 19th century usage as a proverb, but there is no hyphenation or concatenation seen in TMR. Pāora supplied a terse letter appended to the article in the newspaper, firmly rejecting the outfall plans, but his letter omits the word Tāmaki. The outfall was eventually built and did much damage to the foreshore.

Ōtene Pāora (ca.1870–1930) was senior in the Ngāti Whātua, a lay reader in the Anglican church. He was tireless in campaigning at Parliament to have the ownership of title to Ōrākei and Ōkahu made over to trustees on behalf of the tribe. After 1898, some of the 13 individual owners were gradually selling off pieces, diminishing the land holding. Ultimately, his aim succeeded, but long after his death and most of the land was sold.

Exhibit #8 Welcome to Governor Halsey

Finally, a second Māori welcome at Auckland, published on 2 May 1913, makes mention of TMR. The occasion is Governor Halsey’s tour of New Zealand after his arrival. The welcome has 38 signatories from many hapū of greater Auckland, including Hauraki and Waikato. The same text appears in the Herald, and three other newspapers.

Welcome, Captain Halsey, officers, and men of H.M.S. New Zealand, visitors this day welcome, who represent the greatness, the might, and power of the British Empire, who have come from across the great seas (Moananui a kiwa) in your great war canoe, which is the envy and fear of your enemies and our enemies. You have now arrived at Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu. This is the bow of our canoe Aotearoa, this is Tamakimakaurau, this is the shore and land where our ancestors have settled for ages, and where Queen Victoria and her Governors have stood for our protection up to this time, the reign of our most gracious King George. Welcome to Auckland, which is inhabited by people of both races, European and Maori, under the Treaty of Waitangi. […] [xxxiv]

Bold emphasis is added here. It is a formal and gracious address, where they say Governor Halsey has arrived at the North and South Islands, using a common element in Māori culture where a waka (canoe) is a metaphor for the land. Here, they describe the Tāmaki isthmus as the bow of Aotearoa, the North Island. [xxxv] They employ a poetic usage of Tamakimakaurau in a concatenated form, which is standard in te reo Māori today. Henare Kaihau, rangitira of the Ngāti Te Ata, was liaising with the mayor of Auckland to agree on a time when the Māori could welcome the new governor. Even though they settled on the morning of May 1st, the hour came, then Kaihau advised the Māori could not make it. However, Halsey had other appointments afterwards, hence they could not rearrange it before he left. [xxxvi]

The Herald lists the many signatories, including Ōtene Pāora, who is also the source of exhibit #7. Another signatory is Wiremu Tauroa (1842–1925) son of Hōri Tauroa, who is the source of exhibit #2.

Observations

We now have a confirmed researched understanding that Tāmaki makau rau is a contracted metaphor or proverb, not a place name. The Māori of the 19th century considered it to be whakataukī useful for poetic emphasis and grand speechmaking about the famous Tāmaki district. The 19th century exhibits #1-5 from Māori culture, are in complete accord on Tāmaki makau rau as a proverb, but there is the sense of ambivalence starting in the early 20^th century when TMR is first found. Exhibits #6 & #8 show ambiguity in their usage and the beginnings of TMR, leaning towards a place name rather than a proverbial usage. Separately, we will examine the ethnographic usage of Tāmaki makau rau and TMR, which begins in 1900 and dominates until the late 20^th century. Next, it is necessary to learn more about Māori proverbs and specifically those of the district called Tāmaki.

Proverbial Sayings including Whakataukī of Tāmaki

Vernon Roberts arrived in New Zealand in 1865, whereupon he traded goods and became a friend of Wiremu Te Wheoro. The Māori knew him as Rapata, always a keen observer of their way of life. His reminiscences in Kohikohinga include “The Maori were so naturally poetical, so given to the use of metaphor and simile, yet so well endowed with common sense, that it was inevitable they should come to the employment of proverbs and sayings to fit almost any occasion. They used them in their hundreds and their recorded tales are full of them.”

In Māori culture, sayings of all types are pepeha. Common examples are by individuals describing themselves or their background for a mihi or greeting. Pepeha includes epithets which are a short phrase about a person or tribe, for example: Ko Te Arawa mangai nui (The boastful Arawa). However, significant sayings are whakataukī, usually uttered by important people, or have an ancestral origin. More rarely, when the originator is known, they are whakatauākī. Pepeha and whakataukī bring messages about all aspects of life and are influential in Māori society. [xxxvii] There are also kīwaha which are idioms, dialectal sentence fragments and colloquialisms.

In English, the meaning of “proverb” is a wise saying of concise cultural wisdom conveying a common-sense truth or fact: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Sayings may decorate a sentence. Sayings also include formal slogans and mottoes, descriptive of cities, capturing an essential aspect of them. For example: City of Sails (Auckland), and Eternal City (Rome). Regarding land, there is Emerald Isle, poetic of verdant fields to describe the island of Ireland. Its originator is William Drennan; hence it is whakatauākī of Ireland.

Brevity does not unmake the proverb. Two-word proverbs exist, such as Me rimurehia (Like seagrass), Ngākau rua (Two minds), Tatau pounamu (The door of greenstone). Three-word proverbs are common. The visionary Māori politician, Āpirana Turupa Ngata (1874–1950), enjoyed composing and publishing poetic verse. As a young man, he took a walking trip along the Waikato River, and observed that every bend held a village with a chieftain. In his writings he described Waikato taniwha rau, equating them all with the mythical beast, intended in a complimentary fashion. Mita Karaka also mentioned this proverb, in 1899, so perhaps Ngata learned it from him. It is a three-word whakataukī of a very typical structure, found in many places.

Note that it is usual for Māori place names to be derived from descriptive phrases. The key distinction is they are not pepeha or whakataukī concerning a pre-existing name. Consider the place name “Takawhenua” near Takapuna on Auckland’s North Shore. It derives from “The fall of the land”, i.e., describing the geographic feature of how the land meets the sea as a long cliff top. Any saying arising from a later event there, or about the quality of that place, will be pepeha or whakataukī relating to Takawhenua.

Now, it is appropriate to focus on descriptive wisdom from historic events about the district Tāmaki, which was desired and fought over many times. Tāmaki makau rau was first used by chieftains and conveys a proverbial message, hence it is a significant saying. The Pīhema whānau of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, have a manuscript (No. 78) with Tāmaki makau rau as a saying about the Auckland isthmus. This is on account of its fertile soil and abundant fish supply and being densely populated in the past. [xxxviii]

Clearly, care is required to distinguish usage of a proverb from the place name itself or confusion results. In fact, this occurs recently, in the academic Journal of the Polynesian Society, where three different proverbs (from those listed in Table 1.) are at once considered place names for “wider” Auckland. [xxxix]

Table 1. Māori proverbs about the Tāmaki district

Ngā Whakataukī a Tāmaki	Tāmaki in Proverbs
Kei Tāmaki te rua ō Te Waiohua	The store-pit of Te Waiohua is at Tāmaki
Kia mau ki Tāmaki	Hold fast to Tāmaki
Ko Tāmaki hokinga tahi	Tāmaki where one returns
Tāmaki herenga waka	Tāmaki the resting place of many canoes
Tāmaki kainga ika me ngā wheua katoa	Tāmaki where fish and bones are so succulent that they are all consumed
Tāmaki makau rau	Tāmaki of a hundred husbands or hundred lovers or desired by many
Te pai me te whai rawa ō Tāmaki	The luxury and wealth of Tāmaki

Interestingly, Tāmaki was not the only place with a proverbial hundred lovers. There are references to the same whakataukī for the east coast townships of Wairoa and Gisborne: Wairoa makau rau [xl] and Turanga makau rau. [xli] The latter is translated by Tiaki Hikawera Mitira (J. H. Mitchell) as “Turanga of many darlings” in Takitimu, his history of Ngāti Kahungunu. [xlii]

The Māori consider customary title, by holding mana (authority) to Tāmaki, a position of great privilege, which was envied by many. The isthmus has many volcanic cones which were ideal for defensive fortification and the volcanic soil was rich for crops. Its many shores were teeming with fish. (Note: it is possible to see how teeming they once were, and how depleted our modern oceans are, by visiting the spectacular Goat Island Marine Reserve at a calm tide). Any chieftain who controlled the Tāmaki portages could put waka into the western and eastern oceans at will. This limited everyone else to using one coastline. It is not surprising that Tāmaki acquired so many proverbs about it.

Proverbs about Tāmaki developed during pre-history. Therefore, the precise events surrounding the origin of them are lost in the mists of time, as surely are some proverbs entirely. However, Tāmaki makau rau appears to be an exception. The research here reveals substantial evidence which supports an origin within recorded history. In this paper the Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis, is advanced, which explains the context and events at the genesis of Tāmaki makau rau, from which the three toponym variations, known here as TMR, have later emerged.

Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis

I. Abstract (WTK)

The Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis (WTK) holds that the proverb Tāmaki makau rau developed in two phases. Phase One is the invention of a metaphor, motivated by the turning point in history when Europeans began buying land on the Tāmaki isthmus. In 1838, Te Kanawa Te Ikatu was the first Māori to speak “makau rau” in context with the land known as Tāmaki. Several hapū subsequently retold his metaphorical speech in oral kōrero, because it was momentous; a powerful rangitira had renounced his tribal claim. Phase Two begins in the 1860s, when the Ngāti Te Ata contracted his metaphor to Tamaki makau rau, which is a concise proverbial form.  The Ngāti Tipa, Ngāti Tahinga, Ngāti Mahuta and Ngāti Maniapoto, all picked up knowledge of the proverb, from chieftains of the Ngāti Te Ata, although it remained obscure in Māori culture. From 1879, it was occasionally useful in grand oratory and poetic language describing the desirable isthmus between two great harbours. Te Kanawa is credited here with whakatauākī for his metaphor, although the final proverbial form developed after his death, therefore some may correctly regard it as whakataukī of the Ngāti Te Ata or whakatauākī of Hōri Tauroa. Analysis of 19th century source material, exhibits #1-5 shown earlier and their associated context, supports this hypothesis.

II. Historical Background

Tāmaki, the narrow isthmus now the centre of Auckland, is a desirable place, where people lived, loved and fought over hundreds of years. In order to appreciate the context of Te Kanawa’s metaphor, it is necessary to review the deep history of the land and people, often at the mercy of outside forces.

a) Māori of Tāmaki: Prehistory

The first Polynesians inhabited the isthmus and adjoining harbours from the late 1200s. [xliii] About 1315, an eruption of Tarawera left an ash layer over the north-eastern North Island. Beneath this layer, archaeologists cannot find any human artefacts. [xliv] At Pig Bay on the north side of nearby Motutapu (Sacred Island), the evidence of ancient occupation dates from 1400. [xlv] The last period of volcanic activity at Rangitoto is contemporary, 1300–1450. [xlvi] Early inhabitants sometimes had to cope with atmospheric effects from two concurrent eruptions.

From Te Kawerau ā Maki, there is the Waiohua tradition that Rarotonga was the first name for the isthmus. [xlvii] Rarotonga, the principal island of the Cook Islands has several interior peaks of an eroded volcanic mountain. The early Polynesian arrivals may have observed a similarity when gazing upon the volcanic cones of the isthmus in their pristine natural state. Significantly, Rarotonga has small coastal islands, of which Motutapu and Oneroa, are names also seen in the main Waitemata islands.

The peak of Polynesian migration is about 1350, most notably for the history of Tāmaki: the Tainui, Arawa, Mataatua and Aotea canoes. Occasional conflict occurred, likely causing replacement of the original name for the isthmus with Tāmaki, as Nelson writes, it became “whenua tamaki”, a contested land. Rarotonga was then confined to the cone known as Mt Smart (perhaps the site of last stand?) Such early events of violence only punctuated long periods of peaceful living in the isthmus and nearby districts. Māori culture steadily developed its unique character, distinct from Polynesia. Hapū, groups of many interconnected families, became the principal division for tribal communities. Each canoe’s arrival created lasting alliances based upon shared ancestry.

The era of large-scale warfare and fortifications began in the early 1600s after the Taranaki rangitira Maki swept north taking Tāmaki and all the surrounding districts from Waitakere to the Hauraki Gulf. Subsequently, other chieftains conducted various campaigns and major pā were regularly built-up and attacked. Despite disruptions, by the 1720s, the Māori reached their heyday of settlement at Tāmaki, with a maximum population on the isthmus of 5,000 in many villages having extensive cultivations. [xlviii] At centre, the massive pā of Maungakiekie, residence of the Waiohua rangitira, Kiwi Tāmaki, dominated the landscape. Atop, by the single totara, hung a great pounamu pahu (gong). [xlix]

Treachery by Kiwi against the hospitality of Te Taou hapū of the Ngāti Whātua, who were then in the Kaipara region, led to their campaign for revenge, causing destruction of villages. About 1740, they defeated Kiwi, leaving Tāmaki largely depopulated. Even after years of recovery, there were never enough people and economic activity maintaining the large pā at Maungakiekie, Maungawhau (Mt Eden), or other major fortifications, which gradually fell into disrepair by the end of the 18th century.

b) Māori of Tāmaki: Post-European Contact

Further depopulation of Tāmaki occurred as disease swept through about 1795, again in 1810 and 1838. Epidemics came from European interaction and included strains of influenza, measles, tuberculosis and whooping cough, not previously experienced by the Māori.

The larger northern tribal areas in 1800 were the following. The Ngāti Whātua iwi comprised the three hapū, Te Taou, Ngā Oho and Te Uringutu. They each inhabited areas of the western two-thirds of Tāmaki, up to Maunganui Bluff, north of present-day Dargaville, and eastward towards Whangarei. Te Maki ā Kawerau inhabited Southern Kaipara and Waitakere ranges; Ngāti Pāoa occupied from Mahurangi to Takapuna, Waiheke and the Hauraki Gulf, including the eastern third of Tāmaki; Ngāpuhi, the largest iwi in New Zealand, dominated Northland, centred on the Hokianga.

The Ngāpuhi conducted campaigns southward in an escalating series of utu, avenging earlier incidents. In the early 1790s, they battled the Ngāti Pāoa and Ngāti Tai for Takapuna pā. About 1807, the battle known as the Feast of Seagulls took place on the west coast fortification of Moremonui near Maunganui Bluff. The Ngāti Whātua defeated the Ngāpuhi, despite them being armed with the first few muskets used in Māori warfare. Hongi Hika (ca.1772–1828), the Ngāpuhi rangitira, swore revenge after seeing his father, half-brother and sister killed. [l] The Ngāpuhi were first to gain knowledge of European technology, all of which appealed to Hongi, but his desire was for muskets. In 1818, his men conducted a successful raid on the Ngāti Maru of the Thames area, using 50 muskets. Hongi wanted more, so he made a trip to England on a whaling ship with Thomas Kendall. He exchanged gifts he received to accumulate firearms, most successfully at Sydney. In July 1821, after his return, he was ready and armed.

Hongi rallied a taua (war-party) of some 2000 Ngāpuhi with 1000 muskets, which set off south. His target at Tāmaki were the Ngāti Pāoa people led by Te Hinaki, living below Maungarei (Mt Wellington). The Ngāpuhi killed 300 Ngāti Pāoa at Mokoia Pa, near where the old Panmure bridge is today. When advancing, Hongi got his foot jammed between two stakes of a palisade and had to protect himself, brandishing handguns until his men arrived to rescue him. They moved on to massacre 1000 more, destroying the major settlement of Mauinaina and its villages. Clusters of human bones lay in earthen ovens and scattered over the area for years afterwards. The next foray was in February 1822, when the Ngāpuhi could smash their way southwards deep into the Waikato, in a series of campaigns which left whole hapū displaced from their former lands.

By 1824, the displaced Te Taou and Ngā Oho hapū of northern Ngāti Whātua took refuge near Mahurangi, but then retreated down into western Tāmaki and stayed briefly at Horotiu, near today’s Queen Street, but they had to move on. In February 1825, the well-armed Ngāpuhi crushed the Ngāti Whātua at Te Ika-a-Ranginui, near Kaiwaka at the eastern Kaipara.[li] The number of Ngāti Whātua occupying the Tāmaki isthmus was never large, and they feared the worst. Later in 1825, the last of them finally abandoned Tāmaki and headed to safer districts. A consistent feature of successful Ngāpuhi campaigns is their preference to return north with trophies and slaves, instead of long-term occupation and conferring “ahi kā” burning fires while residing on conquered lands. In 1827, the French explorer, navigator, and botanist, Dumont d’Urville visited the Waitemata and witnessed about 100 raupo huts crumbling away near today’s Judges Bay. This village may have been built by the Ngāti Whātua who fled Kaipara. It was empty and the whole of Tāmaki uninhabited, except for a few people fishing bravely on the Manukau shore. d’Urville tried to climb Maungawhau but found the scrub-cover impassable.

Displaced tribes were at first helped and tolerated in the Waikato and Hauraki regions, but after many years, smaller conflicts resulted when hosts tired of their presence. Once the Waikato tribes got muskets, in 1832 they turned them on Taranaki, but that is another story. For perspective, the unrestrained slaughter of inter-tribal Musket Wars killed twenty times more Māori than those killed by British troops in the later New Zealand Wars. Even today, the Māori are still referred to as a “warrior race”, for good reasons. [lii]

c) Missionaries of the CMS

In 1799, Anglicans founded the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in England. Their aim was to bring Christianity to all parts of the British Empire, and they considered Australia and New Zealand important destinations for missionary work. Primarily, they performed catechism, oral teaching of the lessons, and meaning of scripture and Bible study. Lay preachers who came from other professions supported ordained priests, hence Christian teaching expanded into general education, agriculture and other skills. Samuel Marsden led the first missionaries to the Bay of Islands during December 1814. The Māori proved keen to learn and were exceptional at memorising scripture and other passages of text.

Rev. Henry Williams (1792–1867) was senior, after Marsden, the most influential of the CMS missionaries, arriving in late 1823 at the Bay of Islands. Before long, he was travelling in Northland and the Tauranga areas, attempting to establish lasting peace between the tribes. William Thomas Fairburn (ca.1795–1859) was a carpenter working for the CMS at Sydney and his first visit to New Zealand was with Marsden in 1819. He and his wife, Sarah, then travelled with Henry Williams to help establish the mission at Paihia, where Fairburn now worked as a lay catechist. James Hamlin (1803–65), was a flax-dresser, weaver and lay preacher, who arrived in 1826 with William Williams (younger brother of Henry). He worked at Te Waimate and Kerikeri missions.

In the mid-1830s, the CMS took action to spread the gospel and their work further south from the Bay of Islands into the Hauraki, Manukau and Waikato districts, bypassing the depopulated Tāmaki. In 1835, they based Fairburn at the Ngāti Maru village of Puriri, south of modern-day Thames. Hamlin travelled to Meremere, setting up a mission with Alfred Brown, who later set up the Tauranga mission.

The most effective catechist of all was Rev. Robert Maunsell (1810–1894). Unlike other CMS missionaries, he knew Hebrew as well as Greek. Before he left England, he even learned enough Māori to hold a basic conversation, as a student of Samuel Lee, who taught missionaries before departure. Maunsell set to work translating the Old Testament within a year of his arrival at the Bay of Islands in 1835.

Catholics and Methodists also set up missions in New Zealand and helped various peacemaking efforts at Tāmaki and surrounding districts after the Musket Wars. However, the different churches within Christianity, with varying interpretations of scripture, created confusion in the Māori, who also preferred original texts in te reo Māori over later revisions.

On 18 March 1835, by the Waikato River near Ngaruawahia, those who were key to the origin of Tāmaki makau rau came together for the first time. Henry Williams casts a ray of light into distant history and a rare cameo of Te Kanawa, as he relates in his diary:

They conducted us to old Kanawa in great state, amidst the throng of natives, old and young. The old man had a venerable appearance, with a long white beard. After the ceremony of placing all in due order in a large circle in which the old Chief took a very noisy and active part, I first arose and told the object of our visit, to suppress their wars and establish peace, that they might possess the blessings of the Gospel of peace, peace with man and peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Messrs. Hamlin and Fairburn also spoke which was replied to by old Kanawa and others. [liii]

The Māori usually took pride in having a mission station on their land, however, the missionaries had to explain often that their presence was contingent on peace between the tribes. It seems the missionaries were not clear about the reason they did not find Māori in Tāmaki and parts of Hauraki. They thought it was because of frequent warfare between themselves, not specifically because musket-armed war parties of the Ngāpuhi caused exile of the tribes a decade earlier. The CMS missionaries were soon to become central to peacemaking events at the conclusion of the Musket Wars. Rightly or wrongly, two large land transactions occurred, the effects of which still echo today.

d) Peacemaking and Land Purchases

By 1835, with the Waikato tribes now owning many muskets, the Ngāpuhi threat subsided. Manukau and Hauraki tribes were returning to their vacant lands. However, they found new tensions between themselves and neighbours when they re-awakened old, overlapping claims. Hauāuru Te Otatu, a Ngāti Pāoa rangitira, later explained the situation with examples. Ōtara was disputed by the Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Tamaterā and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Takanini and land east of Papakura was disputed by Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Tai. [liv] At stake was the risk of renewed fighting, but after so much bloodshed, there was a mood to avoid it.

Many peace-making events occurred, including two at Puneke on the east side of the Tāmaki River, near today’s Musick Point, and two at the neutral ground of Ōtāhuhu, the “dragging place” between the harbours. The Māori organised the first of these peacemakings, and it happened in December 1835 at Puneke between Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Tamaterā and Waikato. Te Wherowhero led the Waikato, who were the Ngāti Mahuta and their allies, Ngāti Te Ata. The hui (meeting) achieved much in a reduction of tension it but was just a start and perhaps Te Wherowhero realised its limitations. Afterwards, he asked Henry Williams for a solution. Williams proposed that the missionaries would hold disputed land as a buffer between the tribes, and Te Wherowhero accepted this, in principle.

On 18 January 1836, Williams arranged a second peacemaking, this time at Ōtāhuhu. Patuone of the Ngāpuhi bravely accompanied the missionaries and was a representative of the tribes which launched the Musket Wars. With Ngāti Pāoa chieftains, they came to meet the Waikato at Ōtāhuhu. Williams writes in his diary:

This piece of land was a bone of contention between the Ngati-Paoa and the Waikato tribes. It was unoccupied land in the district now known as Panmure, and to preserve peace the Ngati-Paoa asked that the missionaries purchase it, so that it would no longer be a cause of trouble. I did not want it and suggested to Fairburn that he should buy it. In order to make peace possible, Fairburn bought it for £900 in goods, and in this way peace between the tribes was assured. In after years Fairburn was unfairly criticised for this transaction. [lv]

Although Williams mentions Panmure, this was not to be included, only eastward of the Tāmaki River. Ngāti Pāoa and the Waikato tribes assented to the missionary plan, as they wished to make peace, and agreed on the extent of Fairburn’s purchase.

Four days later, back at Puneke, they held a third and larger peacemaking, now to transfer the land. Attending were Fairburn, Hamlin, Maunsell, Williams, Preece and Flatt, all from the CMS, with many chieftains and senior Māori present. The farm labourer, John Flatt, relates the deed was prepared in duplicate on foolscap paper, one in English and one in Māori. The Ngāti Pāoa signed first, but Taiuru, rangitira of the Ngāti Tamaterā, was influential at the meeting. Once he signed, most of the remaining Māori promptly did so, except for a few who cited objections, including the suggestion of a mysterious prior purchase. [lvi] They concluded the vast Fairburn Purchase (marked “FP” in Figure 5). Depending upon where they drew the west boundary at Mangere, it totalled some 83,950 acres (340 sq. km), larger than all Tāmaki!

Curiously, they often referred to the Fairburn Purchase as “Tamaki”, even though the land is adjacent, straddling the Manukau and Hauraki districts. The likely explanation is the missionaries confusing its extent, and the chieftains could preserve mana when yielding up their claims by calling it Tāmaki, knowing it wasn’t. [lvii]

The following year, Fairburn divided off a reservation for the Ngāti Tai, whereupon he established a CMS mission station at Maraetai. Later history then becomes confusing, as Fairburn signed a deed intending to allocate a third of the land to five different tribes depending upon their numbers, but he formalised nothing further. Some Māori lived there and cultivated, but he also intended for his children to farm it. In 1839, a report reached London that Fairburn was refusing the resale of 500 acres (202 ha) to the CMS for another mission. However, on 5 April 1841, Fairburn signed a deed, transferring a third of the holding to the CMS. He could never reconcile his purchase with their leadership, insisting his plan was to ensure lasting peace between the tribes. In fact, approval by the CMS became moot. A select committee at Parliament in Westminster decided Fairburn’s purchase was so large it became a special case for examination. They even raised the concern it was large enough to be potentially self-governing. They instructed the CMS to reduce Fairburn’s holding, but, late in 1841, he resigned from the Society over the matter. He closed the Maraetai mission in 1843 and moved to Ōtāhuhu, founding his own school.

In contrast to Fairburn’s purchase, James Hamlin conducted a commercial transaction not motivated by peacemaking. On 15 February 1838, he purchased a tract of 1100 acres (445 ha) from the Ngāti Pāoa, for an estimated £302 in goods. [lviii] Te Karamū Kahukoti (also known as Herua) made his mark first, then nine chieftains and elders, witnessed by Fairburn and his son. [lix] The land extended from the Ōtāhuhu portage to Waipuna on the southern shore of Panmure Basin, including the areas known today as Sylvia Park and Panama Road. The Original deed has 600 acres, but it was nearly twice that (marked “HP” in Figure 5), as reported in the Government Gazette of January 1842. On 20 March 1838, Hamlin separately met with the Ngāti Whātua rangitira and paid them for their interest in the narrow dragging point of the Ōtāhuhu portage.

The CMS received a lot of criticism from the public and government officials for their excessive land acquisitions, characterised as “land-buying missionaries”. They were on the back foot defending their pre-1840 actions. This is fair criticism because CMS staff purchased well over 80,000 ha on the North Island. The Colonial Government, for the Crown, cut down Fairburn’s purchase to the maximum it allowed of 2460 acres (1068 ha). Hamlin’s purchase received similar treatment, still leaving a large holding at Waipuna.

The Crown’s presumptive rights in New Zealand arise from sovereignty via cession of signatory lands at the Treaty of Waitangi, or annexation of non-signatory lands and “discovered” uninhabited islands. As is the case in Britain and several other Commonwealth countries, the Crown is the absolute owner of all land and freeholders have perpetual tenancy to an estate on the land. [lx] Hence, the Crown usually kept any disallowed claim which was from a “bona fide” sale, as happened to most of Fairburn’s and Hamlin’s purchases, rather than returning the excess land to the Māori.

III. Phase One: Metaphor

In early 1838, Fairburn suggested to Maunsell and Hamlin that they arrange a further peacemaking for the Māori. The main land area still in dispute was Tāmaki. He also proposed a joint examination of their students, testing their knowledge of scripture. [lxi] They agreed and held this fourth event at Ōtāhuhu, during 21–29 March 1838. It proved to be much larger than any previously, with substantial interest and up to 1500 Māori attended. Present were the Ngāti Pāoa led by Te Karamū Kahukoti and Patuone; Te Taoū of the Ngāti Whātua from Māngere, led by Te Kawau, and the Ngāti Tamaoho of Manukau. Waikato Māori far outnumbered the Tāmaki and Hauraki present. Ngāti Te Ata attended, also Te Wherowhero who led the Ngāti Mahuta then living at Onehunga. Attending was Te Kanawa who was usually living at Kāwhia. [lxii]

Figure 5. Tamaki has a Stranger for a Husband

Maori geographic areas (green) and settlements (red), prior to the founding of Auckland in late-1840. Land purchased by lay catechists of the Church Mission Society is shown with light stripes, initialled and outlined. Mission stations are also shown (purple). Credit: Author graphic

They set up tents to provide accommodation, and it ended with a celebratory feast. All the chieftains must have spoken at the peacemaking, but Te Kanawa was most memorable. He gave a grand, euphemistic speech including “Tamaki the Adulteress the woman of ten husbands, nay, of a hundred husbands”, equating the land of Tāmaki with an unfaithful woman. He concluded kicking out at the ground, abandoning the long-held Ngāti Mahuta claim to Tāmaki, at least abandoning the claim that his chiefly authority represented.

Fairburn’s near-contemporary relating of the speech gives rise to three inferences (a,b,c), while two further inferences (d,e) arise from historical context. These discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence collectively show Te Kanawa conceived of a new metaphor.

a) Absence of “Tāmaki makau rau”

First, William Fairburn’s account (Exh. #1a) is clear circumstantial evidence he was unaware of any significance to Tāmaki makau rau. It is only possible to construct the three-word phrase from his recounting of about a dozen words. It is surprising, as he was one of the most well-travelled missionaries in the Hauraki and Northern Waikato districts during the late 1830s meeting many Māori elders. His work took him long distances for weeks at a time. Occasionally, he travelled on horseback, but more often on foot through difficult terrain. He preached on the Coromandel Peninsula, at Maketu and Tauranga, and as far as Rotorua and Matamata. [lxiii]  

Te Kanawa’s son Wiremu Te Wheoro was not present at the peacemaking but makes clear he heard about it in Ngāti Naho or Ngāti Mahuta kōrero, saying “I was told by my elders”. He also explains the speech but fails to mention Tāmaki makau rau (Exh. #1b).

The Ngāpuhi rangitira, Eruera Patuone, was one of the foremost living experts on Māori lore, with a vast memory of history gained over 100 years. He recollected as far back as 1769, when his father, Tapua, took a canoe out to meet Captain James Cook’s ship Endeavour, off Cape Brett. They gave Patuone and Tari, his older sister, a piece of cooked pork to eat. It was the first time any Māori tasted pork. Tapua was the rangitira and tohunga, educating his son to succeed him. Patuone also became a tohunga, learned spiritual lore and all tapu protocols. Ngāpuhi widely recognised him as an authority in political and religious matters. [lxiv] He lived in the Auckland area for over 30 years before the Land Court hearing. Yet, he is brief “Kaniwha then said was a woman with many husbands and stamped on the ground” (Exh. #1c). It is extraordinary, if TMR really is a great, ancient name for the Auckland area, that he did not use it there and then.

Nor is it in the testimony of Rev. Robert Maunsell, or his rigorous cross-examination when asked about Te Kanawa’s speech, (Exh. #1d). Maunsell learned all he could of te reo Māori, while living at the Northern Waikato and Auckland, also for more than 30 years. He took great care and efforts to perfect his usage of Māori words and would slip quietly into a pā or village and sit listening to conversations. Later, he offered gifts and tobacco to any Māori who could prove him wrong in his use of Māori words and wanted to be taught six unfamiliar words a day. [lxv] He spoke to many elders while translating the Old Testament into Māori, yet still didn’t know about Tāmaki makau rau or TMR, only the more verbose metaphorical allusion he once heard.

Three witnesses and his son, who heard it retold later, describe the chieftain’s metaphorical speech. If the phrase Tāmaki makau rau meant anything, at least one of the above experts on Māori culture would have used it when relating the speech. The absence of Tāmaki makau rau in exhibit #1 is strong circumstantial evidence that Te Kanawa invented a metaphor before the proverb existed.

b) Usage of “makau tekau”

Second, Fairburn makes two mentions of “ten husbands” in his letter. It is unlikely he would have embellished his quotation of the chieftain in this way. In rendering Fairburn’s translation back into te reo Māori, Te Kanawa spoke similarly to “… o makau tekau kāore o makau rau”. He would not have said the word tekau (ten) unless he was making up the metaphor on the spot. Consider a teacher introducing the ancient Arabian Nights, a collection of Middle Eastern and Indian writings. From at least the 10^th century, they named it The Thousand and One Nights. No teacher would ever say The Hundred and One Nights. A child might make that mistake, not an adult. Similarly, anyone who knew Tāmaki makau rau as an important and ancient name, would never diminish it by using “makau tekau”, and never in a hui taumata, such a great meeting which was the peacemaking with many chieftains present.

c) Reference to “stranger”

Third, the qualification “gone to seek still another husband and a stranger too” is significant. Te Kanawa knew of all the hapū who desired Tāmaki over generations past. They might currently be friends or foes, but they were not strangers. Europeans were strangers, and their coming was a wind of change. The wise chieftain must have foreseen that once Europeans carved up Tāmaki, Māori domination of it ended forever. He was then resigned to this turn of fate, expressing his profound frustration and dismay, with a heartfelt “begone, thou adulteress, begone”. His use of “stranger” explains his motivation to renounce his tribal claim, thereby he originated the metaphor in order to dismiss the land in a grand flourish.

This qualification does not occur again, except indirectly. Mita Karaka shows off his knowledge of whakataukī in his allusive speech of March 1899 at Waahi Marae, (Exh. #5). He is driving home two concurrent themes at once: places now controlled by Europeans and coincidence through sayings using rau, many or a hundred of something. Three times he mentions Tāmaki passing into the hands of Europeans, and he closely associates Tāmaki makau rau with this historical transition. Who was the stranger spoken of by Te Kanawa? He was one of the few British who owned land in Tāmaki.

d) Ngāti Pāoa connection

This hypothesis has the explanation that Te Kanawa was referring to Hamlin’s purchase of the south-eastern corner of Tāmaki from the Ngāti Pāoa and Ngāti Whātua. He was not referring to Fairburn’s purchase or any other. Hamlin’s purchase was news to him at the meeting, because they transacted it only a few weeks earlier. The final payment was the day before the peacemaking started. Principally, the Ngāti Pāoa sold to Hamlin. In 1868, Wiremu Te Wheoro relates in his testimony that Te Kanawa addressed his speech to the Ngāti Pāoa, apparently putting blame on that hapū alone, (Exh. #1b). Patuone also links the speech to the Ngāti Pāoa. (Exh. #1c).  Further, Hōri Tauroa mentions the Ngāti Pāoa and their lands, directly preceding and after his usage of Tāmaki makau rau (Exh. #2).

By the close of 1834, some 70 Europeans were living at the Hokianga Harbour, including Thomas Mitchell, a timber merchant from Sydney. [lxvi] He transacted with the Ngāti Whātua at the Northern Manukau, on 11 January 1836 for south-western Tāmaki and Waitakere. The boundary was never properly laid out and the Ngāti Whātua later explained the transaction was just for the Karangahape peninsula. The Mitchell purchase cannot be the source of Te Kanawa’s discontent, as the Ngāti Pāoa were not involved, and Mitchell died on 6 November, the same year as his purchase. Even though his wife, Mary, inherited, the Māori considered all rights granted by them to be extinguished. Other purchasers at Tāmaki, such as Clayton and Dalziell were after 1838.

Te Karamū Kahukoti of the Ngāti Pāoa was the first signatory at both land sales to Fairburn and Hamlin. Taiuru of the Ngāti Tamaterā is prominent on the Fairburn deed and several other tribes signed. In his letter (Exh. #1a), Fairburn conflates Te Kanawa’s speech with his own purchase, detailed earlier. He was under pressure to justify his land buying. Fairburn’s purchase was two years before the Ōtāhuhu peacemaking and well-known to all the tribes. There was no surprise about this to warrant such a metaphorical speech from Te Kanawa. The ariki of the Ngāti Mahuta, Te Wherowhero, approved of Fairburn’s deed (even if he understood its purpose differently), so how could Te Kanawa show public dismay about the transaction later? Further, the only part which touched Tāmaki was the dragging place in Ōtāhuhu.

The sheer size of Fairburn’s purchase and his subsequent resignation meant that he could be the lightning-rod for general complaints a long time afterward. In this context, Maunsell replied “Fairburn” when asked about Te Kanawa’s speech (Exh. #1d). Perhaps he was not so certain and may have suspected James Hamlin’s purchase was a contributing factor, but a smaller one when considering the land sizes. Therefore, he felt no need to risk impugning the name of Hamlin, his late colleague, good friend and CMS priest, ordained in 1863.

e) Ngāti Whātua connection

About mid-1838, after the Ōtāhuhu peacemaking, Te Kawau and his people of the Ngāti Whātua felt safe enough to extend from Mangere and re-occupy Ōrākei after the absence of over 12 years. Judge Fenton concluded the year to be 1836, but he mixed up the second Ōtāhuhu meeting with the first. [lxvii] The principal Tāmaki tribes naturally welcomed any powerful chieftain to renounce their tribal claim on Tāmaki. The Ngāti Whātua at the Mangere pā and later at Ōkahu and Ōrākei, included Te Kanawa’s dismissal of “Tamaki the adulteress” with “a hundred husbands” in their oral history.

The Land Court Minute Books of 1868 for Ōrākei, contain nearly 600 pages of testimony and deposition. However, no instance of the Ngāti Whātua using Tāmaki makau rau is found, let alone as TMR, the place name, although their testimony is a small part of it. However, the Ngāti Pāoa and others local to the isthmus don’t use it either. Many times, witnesses make an introductory statement with poetic force. They describe the extent of their ancestral lands, especially cultivations and fisheries, on and around the isthmus, and they provide details of their whakapapa (ancestry), tribal history and village and pā occupation as far back as their oral tradition permitted. They used Tāmaki a hundred times for the land of the isthmus, but not its proverb.

In his 1903 letter to the Herald, Charles Nelson asserted the proverb was “well known by all the Ngāti Whātua people”. So, there is a contradiction in the historical record. The WTK hypothesis resolves this because it enables a distinction to be more accurate. They all knew of Te Kanawa’s metaphorical speech, but not the concise proverb, Tāmaki makau rau, until 1868, if they heard Tauroa’s usage at the Land Court, or at latest, May 1879 when Maniapoto visited Auckland.

IV. Phase Two: Proverb

While Te Kanawa’s metaphor is important, it is also lengthy. It is natural to expect that during the retelling of the event, the Māori would contract it. A story fragment becomes a saying. Kōrero becomes whakatauākī. Someone coined the concise form Tāmaki makau rau in the three decades between March 1838 and October 1868. Investigation turns to the Ngāti Te Ata, because all the 19th century usages, exhibits #1-5, have a connection with them. Later, it is it picked up by neighbouring hapū in the Waikato. The transition is graphically represented in space and time on a map of the central-west North Island, showing Auckland and Northern Waikato including Tainui hapū boundaries (Figure 6). [lxviii]

Figure 6. Origin of Tamaki makau rau at Waiuku in spatiotemporal context

Movement of metaphor and proverb and its transition within hapū of the Manukau and Waikato regions. Invention and dissemination of the metaphor (blue arrows) precedes contraction into a proverb (red dashed triangle). From Waiuku, dissemination of the proverb occurs  (green arrows). Spread of the proverb is postulated by dashed arrows. Further exhibits of 19th century usage may enhance this graphic. Waikato hapū boundaries reflect those of 1840, according to research by Te Pei Hurunui Jones, adapted here from Tainui: Oral and Traditional Historical Report (2012). Credit: Author graphic

a) Ngāti Te Ata connection

The spotlight for the origin of Tāmaki makau rau falls on Hōri Tauroa and Aihepene Kaihau, who were half-cousins. Tauroa’s mother was the half-sister of Te Waka Kaihau, the father of Aihepene. Background detail of their lives is presented here as information is sparse and fragmentary. The whole provides context, which helps understand how and when the phrase Tāmaki makau rau may have spread.

In February 1835, Henry Williams and James Hamlin arrived at Tamaki and travelled into the Manukau as far as Waiuku, without finding any Māori. [lxix] Later that year, Te Wherowhero and the Ngāti Mahuta travelled north with the Ngāti Te Ata. Notably, the powerful ariki had shared kinship with the Manukau hapū through his grandfather. The Waikato tribes were as well-armed as the Ngāpuhi and felt safe enough to reoccupy ancestral land between the Manukau Harbour and Waikato River. The principal Ngāti Te Ata pā at Waiuku was important as the entrance to Te Pai-o-Kaiwaka portage to the Awaroa Stream for access to the Waikato River, avoiding open sea. They welcomed another missionary presence on the Manukau Harbour, after the Wesleyan priest William Woon was briefly at Ōrua in February and March 1836. Six months later, Robert Maunsell and James Hamlin purchased land on behalf of the CMS, at Moeatoa, some 4 km northwest of Waiuku. They set up a church mission and school in raupo huts. In January 1838, the missionary William Wade visited and found the school to be exceptionally well run. [lxx]

The Ngāti Te Ata, headed by the rangitira Te Waka Kaihau and his half-brother Katipa, had a firm presence at the second Ōtāhuhu peacemaking. As young chieftains of the future, the cousins must have attended the major event, especially being students in Maunsell’s school. Hōri Tauroa, aged 13–14, and Aihepene Kaihau (also spelled as Ahipene), aged 17–18, would have been mere observers. Likely, they heard speakers, including Te Kanawa (Exh. #1), in between examinations on their knowledge of scripture.

Displaced tribes were on the move. In 1839, the missionaries split their efforts and abandoned Moeatoa, within just three years of its founding. They hoped to find greater numbers of students where more Māori travelled. Hamlin moved to Ōrua at South Head on the Manukau, opposite the pā at Karangahape and closer to Tāmaki, where the Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Mahuta were settling. Maunsell negotiated with the Ngāti Tahinga for a new site at Port Waikato, setting up by mid-1839.

In 1853, Robert Maunsell and his wife, Beatrice, founded a further mission at Te Kōhanga, some 10 km eastward up the Waikato River. Tauroa evidently remained in close contact with Maunsell, as a fellow Christian, bringing the gospel to Māori communities. In 1857, Maunsell finally completed translation of the Old Testament into te reo Māori, completing his formidable work of two decades, including restarting after losing all in a fire. Although it still required many revisions, he sent a draft to England for printing. The CMS received copies back in mid-1858, then Maunsell organised a celebratory Bible Society meeting at Te Kōhanga to begin distribution. Senior members of the congregation made brief speeches. Tauroa was there and proposed a resolution for assent: “That this meeting recognises the duty of aiding by contributions to the Bible Society. We must honour God’s works. Let us show our love by giving our mite to the Lord’s work.” [lxxi] His motion was seconded by Waata Kūkūtai, rangitira of Ngāti Tipa, who had given 750 acres (303 ha) of land for the mission and was a staunch supporter of Maunsell.

Aihepene Kaihau became involved with the Waikato King movement in 1858 as superintendent of police for its assembly. He and his cousin were friendly with Governor Grey’s administration. In 1863, they both requested he protect Waiuku during hostilities between the Crown and Kingitanga. [lxxii] Warfare finally forced Robert and Beatrice Maunsell to abandon Te Kōhanga mission in October 1863. Although they returned briefly in 1864, the death of Beatrice caused him to move permanently to Parnell, Auckland.  About this time, the cousins became assessors for the Land Courts. Tauroa travelled widely in this capacity. In 1866, he was present assisting early Land Court hearings at Cambridge. This included the only appearance made by the great Christian and “kingmaker” Te Waharoa of the Ngāti Hauā, shortly before his death. Two years later, Hōri Tauroa made the first known usage of the proverb Tāmaki makau rau at Auckland (Exh. #2). Although no usage by Aihepene Kaihau is found in this research, he must have known it too. His relationship with the Ngāti Mahuta at Ngaruawahia was close. About 1872, he married Te Paea (Sophia) daughter of Matire Toha and Takiwaru, the late uncle of Matutaera Tāwhiao. Aihepene remained a confidante of Tāwhiao and his son from Waiuku, Kerei Kaihau, became Tāwhiao’s Secretary.

The Ngāti Te Ata, including Aihepene Kaihau, were present in lengthy discussions with Rewi Maniapoto, two weeks before his visit to Auckland (Exh. #3). In 1882, Kerei Kaihau used Tāmaki makau rau in his speech on behalf of Tāwhiao (Exh. #4). Even if Tāwhiao wrote the oratory, which he more likely delegated to his Secretary, Kerei Kaihau could have added Tāmaki makau rau to embellish it. In 1899, when Mita Karaka used Tāmaki makau rau at Waahi Marae (Exh. #5), the next speaker was Henare Kaihau, son of Aihepene, brother of Kerei Kaihau.

b) Other Tainui connections

Mita Karaka was a student at Maunsell’s “Waikato” mission in the 1850s. [lxxiii] As he was from the Ngāti Tahinga, he may have attended first at Port Waikato, then Te Kōhanga. Later he lived at Raglan on the Whaingaroa Harbour, where he worked as a licensed surveyor for the government. In July 1874, he opened a trading company and store at the newly built Raglan wharf. If he did not already know Tāmaki makau rau from his time living near the Ngāti Te Ata, then he had another opportunity at Te Kopua Marae, southwest of Te Awamutu.

Rewi Maniapoto kept great standing as a war chieftain. He motivated many hapū, including the Ngāti Te Ata, to join a major 14-day hui at Te Kopua in early May 1879. [lxxiv] Up to 2000 Māori were reportedly present, and it was a forum for the airing of many grievances over two decades of land loss in the Waikato. The mood was sympathetic to Tāmati Ngāpora, the younger brother of Tāwhiao, who demanded the Crown relinquish lands confiscated in 1863 and remove Europeans living there. It was nowhere near a unanimous position and some chieftains, including Rewi Maniapoto, wanted progress without such an unlikely reversal from the Crown. Tāwhiao remained aloof and enigmatic, while the attendance of Governor Grey was a matter of much disagreement and prior debate. A newspaper report mentions Aihepene Kaihau was in attendance. Likely Hōri Tauroa was there. Chieftains held many side meetings, and the cousins would have attended some of them.

Later that month, when Rewi Maniapoto spoke Tāmaki makau rau at Auckland, ‘Vindex’ reported a “large crowd” and “no-one present knew the proverb”. Knowledge of history was a keen passion for educated Victorian society, so it is surprising at least one person did not immediately recognise Tāmaki makau rau if it was an ancient place name. According to ‘Vindex’, it was unknown even to Thomas Buddle, a “first-class scholar of Maori lore”. Rev. Thomas Buddle (1812–1883) was a founding member of the Methodist church in New Zealand. Arriving in 1840, he ministered at Auckland, Waikato and around New Zealand, eventually becoming an expert in te reo and Māori culture. With the knowledge of 39 years, Buddle must have felt shocked that he could not immediately provide the crowd with a meaning for Rewi Maniapoto’s proverb.

The reason Buddle did not know the proverb was not just because it was obscure, but because it was recent, not ancient. Probably, the war chieftain had just learned it himself, two weeks earlier, from the Ngāti Te Ata at Te Kopua. Further, the cousins or Kerei Kaihau must have mentioned the proverbial form, Tāmaki makau rau to the Ngāti Mahuta at Ngaruawahia, and this is how Tāwhiao came to learn of it.

V. Discussion (WTK)

With an ancient name or proverb, the narrow, highly interconnected provenance evidenced in the 19th century historical record, would be unexpected. Hence, there is a clear sign of a late origin close to its date of first known usage. This is the case, even if Te Kanawa’s pre-cursor metaphor never survived in any historical record.

The Ngāti Te Ata has proximity to all 19th century usages of Tāmaki makau rau. The simplest explanation, applying Occam’s Razor, has them contracting Te Kanawa’s metaphor during the relating of oral traditions, principally at Waiuku. Hōri Tauroa, and likely his cousin, Aihepene Kaihau, are close to its origin and must have variously introduced it as whakataukī to their relatives and others, including Rewi Maniapoto, Tāwhiao and Mita Karaka.

However, only a late origin explains both Hōri Tauroa’s knowledge and Robert Maunsell’s ignorance of it in 1868. Any early usage of Tāmaki makau rau soon after the events of 1838 would have reached Maunsell’s ears in short order. It is inconceivable that students would use an important phrase the teacher never learned when the teacher soaked up languages like a sponge and was a keen enthusiast of te reo Māori. He always wanted to learn and discuss words and phrases new to him. [lxxv] Maunsell’s ignorance of Tāmaki makau rau and TMR implies Ngāti Te Ata usage of the proverb began in the 1860s, close to, or after the time he left the Waikato.  This date is strengthened, as neither Wiremu Te Wheoro nor Patuone mentioned it in 1868, showing they had not learned it in the 30 years since Ōtāhuhu. Te Wheoro was close to all events at Ngaruawahia from where the 1882 usage comes, so they must have learned it after 1868.

If TMR really is over 500 years old, an ancient name shortened to Tāmaki, the 19th century usages in Māori culture should occur at random locations in greater Auckland and seen elsewhere on the North Island. Statistically, we would be unlikely to find a direct linkage between any of the early exhibits. If it was 300 years old, developed during the 18th century, we might expect a minority connection between the exhibits. In this situation, there would be more usages because both the shortened and unshortened forms would be current, such that experts in Māori lore were likely to know it. We do not see this pattern in the exhibits.

VI. Conclusion (WTK)

According to the Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis, the Ngāti Te Ata coined Tāmaki makau rau in the 1860s during the retelling of Te Kanawa’s metaphor. It spread, and all forms and usages of the proverb have arisen since. This is useful to students of Māori culture, as it details a rare insight. How a historical sequence of events leads to a public metaphorical allusion, which is subsequently related in oral kōrero, originating a more concise form as whakatauākī. 

In any normal investigation, it would be right to finish by publishing the hypothesis, but this is not possible. The original usage of Tāmaki makau rau in Māori culture is clear, but in the early 20^th century, there is an observable pivoting towards the place name, TMR, hinted in the ambiguity of exhibits #6-8. It is necessary to find out what happened to the proverb in the years since 1900. Focus moves to the discipline of ethnography, a branch of the science of anthropology, the study of human development and the many cultures of humanity.

Tāmaki Makaurau in Ethnography

Early Ethnography in New Zealand

The Encyclopaedia Britannia provides a useful definition which must be kept in mind for its ramifications: “Contemporary ethnography is based almost entirely on fieldwork and requires the complete immersion of the anthropologist in the culture and everyday life of the people who are the subject of their study.”

The extensive work of dedicated ethnographers saved for posterity much oral history of Māori culture in New Zealand. They realised that elders and kaumātua, guardians of tribal knowledge, genealogy and traditions, born in the 18th and 19th centuries, were passing away. Their knowledge was being lost forever instead of handed down. This was because of the Māori being heavily depleted since European arrival, particularly from new diseases and firearms in inter-tribal warfare. There was also a disruption of sub-tribal social structures and drift to urbanisation. Fortunately, they preserved much for future generations. A century ago, individuals with a deep understanding of the Māori language performed ethnographic research. The field slowly developed its professional, academic character.

Stephenson Percy Smith (1840–1922) arrived in New Zealand in 1849. From 1859, he worked for many years as a surveyor and officer for the Land Purchase Department, travelling widely in the North Island. [lxxvi] With Edward Tregear and William Skinner, Smith founded the Polynesian Society in 1892 and wrote extensively on Māori history. In 1898, Smith published an ethnological map featuring Māori place names of Auckland (Figure 7). [lxxvii]

Figure 7. Smith Map of the Auckland Isthmus with Māori place names

Inset to a larger map “North N.Z.” to illustrate “The Peopling of the North”, (1898) Credit: Author image

Smith lived at Auckland for three decades, where he conducted research, interviewing many Māori elders. Evidently, TMR held no significance to him, or he would have used it on his map. He had the same understanding as Elsdon Best, and all contemporary authors about the scope and name of Tāmaki. In 1910, he wrote: “From the rendezvous at Whangarei, the fleet passed on to Tamaki, or the Auckland Isthmus, on their way killing some people at Te Weiti, twenty miles north of Auckland, who were probably some of the Ngati-Whatua.” [lxxviii]

In New Zealand, researchers aspired to be published in the influential Journal of the Polynesian Society, (Journal). Smith and Tregear are considered unreliable today on their grand ethnological theories of Māori origins, but Tregear remains well-regarded in his linguistic work, particularly his monumental The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary (1891). They do not appear to reference Tāmaki makau rau or TMR in any of their published works. Nor is a reference found from William Skinner, who specialised in Taranaki history.

An examination of early maps of New Zealand, as presented by Peter Maling in Historic Charts & Maps of New Zealand, 1642-1875 (1999), yields no mention of TMR. Prior to 1900, the only academic reference to Tāmaki makau rau is the explanation Charles Davis made in 1882, published in the newspapers.

Ethnography 1900–1928

The second earliest ethnographic reference, found in this research, comes in June 1900. It is from James Cowan (1870–1943) journalist, author and historian. He was a lifelong researcher of the Māori, usually known today for his two-volume work The New Zealand Wars: A History of The Maori Campaigns and The Pioneering Period, (1922–23). Many years earlier, while working at the Auckland Star newspaper, Cowan wrote “Maori Place Names”, which appeared in the New Zealand Illustrated Magazine. One of many examples he described was:

Tamaki-makau-rau which is the classical Maori name of the Auckland isthmus, affords a glimpse of the poetical as well as the practical element in native character, for it tells that the natural beauties and other attractions of the district were not lost on the ancient Maoris, who so prized the place they called it “Tamaki of a hundred lovers. [lxxix]

His mention of “classical” and “ancient” implies the archaeological period following the Archaic or moa-hunter period, usually known as “early” today. Cowan presents Tamaki as the contracted form of a previously longer name used in prehistory. Note that he uses “of a hundred lovers”, which strongly shows provenance from Charles Davis’ translation of Kerei Kaihau’s speech on behalf of Matutaera Tāwhiao, published in 1882, (Exh. #4). Cowan must have been the reporter at Waahi Marae in 1899 where he hyphenates the proverb (Exh. #5). Yet, his definition, which asserts TMR is a place name, is consistent only with exhibits #6-8 of 20^th century usage in Māori culture which occur after his article is published.

John Logan Campbell (1817–1912) was Auckland’s most prominent pioneer citizen, a landowner, businessman and philanthropist, often affectionately known as the “Father of Auckland”. On 11 July 1901, he gifted his estate known as One Tree Hill to the people of Auckland. The Herald describes the event, including an article for historical context. It has no author, but the writer is clearly informed on the Māori history of the Tāmaki isthmus:

The whole isthmus, from Otahuhu to the Whau, was called by the Maoris Tamaki. The native name of the stream which we call Tamaki is Whangamakau. It can easily be understood that Tamaki was a favourite place of residence with the Maori people. It had in it much warm, volcanic soil, suitable for the growth of the taro and the kumara, while it gave easy access to the sea on both sides, where could be procured in plenty the mataitai, or fruits of the ocean, which formed so important a part of Maori food. All over this part of New Zealand it was known, and the dwellers therein were envied. The Maoris had a proverb. “Tamaki Makaurau” – Tamaki of a hundred lovers. They pictured Tamaki as a fair maiden, attracting the regard of many lovers. [lxxx]

This reads as a learned ethnological summary; hence, it is significant. Unlike Cowan, the author is consistent with exhibits #1-5 of 19th century usage in Māori culture. The writing-style in the entire article reveals a close match to the works of George William Rusden (1819–1903). He was a Melbourne-based inspector of schools, senior civil servant, author and historian who impressed several Australian governors with his grasp of historical detail. He travelled through the North Island in the first months of 1879, where he met Māori chieftains, including Rewi Maniapoto, and visited many historical sites. The Globe newspaper reported a visit to Ōrākau. “[Rewi] has spent the day in company with Mr Sheehan, Paul Tuhaere, Majors Te Wheoro and Kemp, Aihepene Kaihau, and others [including Rusden], and appears to be enjoying himself immensely.” [lxxxi] Rusden was thereafter sympathetic to the plight of the Māori in the face of colonialism. After his retirement, he wrote the three volume History of New Zealand, published in 1883. Assuming Rusden is the author of the Herald article, he may well have learned of Tāmaki makau rau during that trip.

The accomplished teacher, writer and feminist Edith Searle Grossmann (1863–1931) was, in 1897, a tutor of university students at Wellington. A year or two later she moved to Auckland. Grossmann published an article in the Otago Witness newspaper on 16 October 1901, “Tamaki, Present and Past” (Part II). She writes “These green terraces and hollows [of pā] were once their ramparts and their trenches. At that time the neighbourhood was, in Maori proverb, ‘Tamaki, of a hundred lovers’ — the scene of battle and conquest and possession, the prize of one great rangatira after another.” [lxxxii] Grossman is in clear agreement with Davis and Rusden, but at variance with Cowan’s explanation in “Maori Place Names”.

George Graham (1874–1952) was an accountant, lawyer and historian of the Māori. Although not a professional ethnographer, he started record-keeping in the 1890s and specialised in the Auckland region. Māori culture quickly became his lifelong passion and he gained stature in the field of ethnology.

Associated with the welcome to Governor Plunket, in June 1904, (Exh. #6), is an article by Te Puna Reweti published in the Herald newspaper. [lxxxiii] It is about the poetic song given by the Māori, following their welcome. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was usual for Māori elders to seek a translator when inserting a notice into the English-language press. Graham continued this tradition, when he helped Te Puna Reweti. [lxxxiv]

The article appears to be a fusion of two works; Te Puna Reweti’s text in the opening and closing paragraphs, and Graham’s explanation which is the central part. It begins “On behalf of the Māori tribes of Tamaki and the Waitemata” and relates the prophecy of Titahi, an important Ngāti Whātua tohunga, whose wisdom was crucial in the decision to sell the site upon which Auckland was founded. The central part of the article appears to be George Graham’s additional text, where he gives a lengthy explanation, including:

Therefore, it is correct that we of Tamaki-makau-rau, who invited the first Governor to Waitemata, should greet his successor and again utter that song of our ancestor Titahi. Other tribes should also greet him in their districts and with their own songs. [..]

Now our presentation of a mere is not a meaningless gift. [..]

Now Tamaki-makau-rau is the ancient name of the Auckland isthmus, for this was a land convulsed by the inter-tribal warfare by many tribes, who envied its possession. Hence this was a whenua-tamaki (a contested land) and was likened unto a beautiful girl who had a hundred lovers (makau-rau). – Hence the words of the old song sung by visitors to us from other districts:

The final part may be a translation of Te Puna Reweti’s text once more:

Tenakoe. e Tamaki! Tenakoe, Tenakoe; Tamaki-makau-rau-e! which means Greetings oh Tamaki! Greetings, greetings to thee, Oh! Tamaki of numerous lovers. This is our whaka-maramatanga (explanations) of our song of welcome and of our gift to our Governor and of the name Tamaki-makau-rau, which we wish made known by you to the people; that all may understand.

Clearly, Graham was influenced by James Cowan’s interpretation of TMR as a place name, which he referenced in 1900, as “ancient”.  Of note, Graham’s usage of “whenua-tamaki” echoes Charles Nelson’s terminology in his letter to the Herald published ten months earlier (Exh. #3c).  The gift referred to at the end, is the mere, not the name of TMR.

Graham’s attribution “sung by visitors to us from other districts” directly links the usage of TMR in the 1904 welcome speech to the speeches made by the high-profile visitors Maniapoto and Tāwhiao (with Kerei) over 20 years earlier. Arguably, he implies the Ngāti Whātua learned the phrase Tāmaki makau rau from those visits, if not Tauroa’s usage. It cannot be said whether Te Puna Reweti held the same understanding of TMR as a place name, instead of whakataukī. This is because Graham was providing him with a translation and explanation about which he could not critique the details of it, or he wouldn’t need help.

From 1908 onwards, James Cowan mentions TMR when writing about the Māori pre-history of Tāmaki in his popular tourism books. He also uses it in his first major ethnographic work The Maoris of New Zealand (1910). [lxxxv]

Graham met many Māori chieftains and elders born in the mid-19th century, learning first-hand from them. He became a member of the Auckland Institute and Museum (AI&M) where he volunteered by assisting in artefact collecting and research. Graham applied himself with such dedication he eventually came to be considered the foremost authority on Māori history and place names in the Auckland region. In August 1919, he published “Local History of Maungawhau (Mt. Eden)” in the Eden Gazette, an Auckland suburban newspaper, where he re-iterates that TMR is a place name, however he reverses its chronology:

The strife was long and bitter, and the results no doubt were very weakening to both tribes – thereby justifying the old Maori proverb “by land and women men are lost.” ‘Tis said else that Puhi-huia’s wars originated the Maori name for the Auckland Isthmus – ‘Tamaki-Makau-Rau’ – Tamaki of the hundred lovers (a tamaki is anything which is an object of contention). [lxxxvi]

In this quote from Graham, there is still inconsistency, but at least an advancing of his understanding about TMR. The explanation here is that the Māori adopted TMR for the Tāmaki isthmus after “Puhi-huia’s wars”. The well-known love story of Pongi and Puhihuia was first written by John White, the government-funded recorder of Māori ethnography in the 1870s. Graham and others later investigated it, including conducting a careful reading, one line at a time, with Māori elders. They found it to be fictional, although placed in context to real tribal battles which had occurred on the isthmus during the 17th century. This fits with recent carbon-dating of Māori fortification remains in the Bay of Islands, showing that only around 1650 did Māori inter-tribal warfare transition to the high level witnessed by early Europeans. [lxxxvii]

Importantly, Graham’s understanding of TMR was still not a settled matter for him. In an undated typescript “The Origins and Meanings of Maori Place Names” he shows a process of revision underway in his knowledge, possibly from having interviewed many more Māori elders over two decades of research.

Some place names as we use them are often only the vestigial form of a fuller name. For example, such is Tamaki. The fuller form of which is Tamaki-Makau-Rau, usually rendered as “The (land) contested for by a hundred lovers”. This name constitutes what the Maori terms a pepeha, the nearest rendering of which is a national or tribal motto or adage. [lxxxviii]

Graham reiterates Cowan’s view that Tāmaki is a shortened form of a more ancient name, but he now shows the understanding of TMR as a saying, motto or adage. This is a state of confusion through loose terminology. A pepeha cannot also be a proper noun. It can be a saying about a name, used in verse or emphasis to substitute for a name, but it is not to be considered the actual name. For example, “Eternal City” has never been the actual name of Rome, “City of Sails” has never been the actual name of Auckland, current or past.

It is a common-sense conclusion that a proverb about Tāmaki originated after many battles on the isthmus, plausibly during the long period of inter-tribal fighting in the 1600s. This is an alternative to the Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa Hypothesis, where Tāmaki makau rau is a later contraction from Te Kanawa’s lengthy metaphor of 1838. Either way, the Māori coined it long after the isthmus was named simply as Tāmaki, when there was conflict over its desirability for occupation.

In mid-1922, Graham published “The Maori History of the Auckland Isthmus (Tamaki-Makau-Rau)” as a companion piece, the first part of John Barr’s The City of Auckland, New Zealand, A History. In 32 pages he provides an overview of Māori history up to 1840, while using the name Tamaki about 80 times regarding the land of the Auckland isthmus. He also mentions its proverbs:

The resources of the district and the extent of the fortifications and cultivation were famous far and near. On the Manukau and Waitemata, large fleets of canoes for fishing and war purposes were maintained. Hence the proverb “Te pai me te whai-rawa o Tamaki”—the luxury and wealth of Tamaki.

The many previously described wars had ere this earned for the Isthmus the appropriate motto “Tamaki-makau-Rau” (i.e., The spouse contested for us by a hundred lovers). [lxxxix]

Bold emphasis is added here. Graham finally comes to an understanding aligned with 19th century Māori usage. He clarifies TMR is a motto for the isthmus, named Tāmaki, but insists on hyphenating it like Cowan. Perhaps he spoke to elders of the Pīhema whānau of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, who told him Tāmaki makau rau was whakataukī? Perhaps it was after reflecting upon his interview with Mate-Kino of Te Kawerau ā Maki, at Opahi Bay, Mahurangi West, who explained how it was Rarotonga (not TMR) which preceded Tāmaki?

Both “motto” and “proverb” are synonymous with whakataukī in Māori culture, described earlier. He confirms the explanation of Tāmaki makau rau as proverbial, not a place name, rejecting his previous understanding, held in his published writings between 1904 and 1919. However, Graham subtitled his 1922 work with TMR and similarly ended it, presumably for reasons of literary flourish and emphasis. A month later, in August 1922, when riding a wave of appreciation for this scholarly work, he founded the Anthropology and Maori Race Section (renamed Maori Studies Section in 1968) at the AI&M, where he remained an active member.

On 5 August 1924, at St Heliers Bay, Auckland, Graham delivered a talk called The History of Tamaki-Makau-rau. Auckland Isthmus. This is further evidence that he remained fond of the proverb and didn’t mind titularly using it, instead of just the name Tāmaki. In 1925, a second printing of “Maori History” appeared in Graham’s major work Auckland a Guide. [xc] It is a slightly revised version but has same explanation of Tāmaki-makau-rau as a motto.

Graham also made regular contributions to the Journal, where he made clear in a history of the Kawerau tribe that Waitakere was not within Tāmaki: “His attention was directed to “the fires beyond Tamaki” (i.e., the Waitakere ranges) which were the first indications he had from the seaward of human occupation of these parts.” [xci] Graham’s article, “A relic of the ancient Waiohua of Tamaki”, also in 1925, is about a large cylindrical basalt rock, still present in Cornwall Park. At the conclusion, he provides meanings to a list of Māori nouns including: “Tamaki is the old name of the Auckland Isthmus.” [xcii] Arguably, he is careful to observe academic rigour in the Journal, a publication read by the most knowledgeable ethnologists in the country.

Raymond Firth (1901–2002) was born in East Tāmaki, Auckland. He studied economics, then in 1924, refocussed to primitive economics and social anthropology. In 1925, he published “The Maori Carver” mentioning an old meeting house called “Makau-Rau” by Pukaki Creek on the Manukau: “which bears in mind the ancient name of the Auckland Isthmus – ‘Tamaki-makau-rau’ meaning Tamaki of the hundred lovers.” [xciii], Notably, Firth’s translation and use of “ancient” echoes Cowan (1900) and Graham’s 1904 article for Te Puna Reweti in the Herald. A consequence is the unsatisfactory situation where a younger researcher regards Graham as a trusted source, referencing TMR as a place name in his academic article for the Journal. Yet, in the same year, Graham makes his own Journal contribution, avoiding any mention of the proverb and specifically defines Tamaki as the “old” place name!

Firth makes the first mention of TMR in the Journal, immediately declaring it as a place name and being ancient. The Presbyterian missionary Rev. Henry James Fletcher (1868–1933), combed the Journal and other source documents for his exhaustive draft Index of Māori Names of people, places and objects. He promptly included TMR into his list. [xciv]

Throughout, James Cowan remained active, prodigiously writing nearly 30 books. He also wrote 100 brief articles on Māori history, over the years 1921–33, publishing them in newspapers. [xcv] In 1928, Cowan published an extensive 15-part series in the Auckland Star called “The Story of Auckland”, where again he mentions TMR:

For centuries it was a highway for war parties from north and south, but until Ngati-Whatua descended on the district from the Kaipara two hundred years ago it was held continuously against all-comers by the great Waiohua tribe, a blend of all the tribes that had at various periods settled on the Hauraki shores. The beautiful old tribal name, Tamaki-makau-rau, descriptive of the Auckland plains and hills, preserves for us the memory of those unrestful times; it means “Tamaki the much beloved,” or “Tamaki contested for by a multitude of lovers.”  [xcvi]

Note that he published it six years after Graham’s similar work on the same subject where Tāmaki-makau-rau is explained as a motto, i.e., a proverb. Cowan refers to TMR in his own work, abstractly, as “descriptive” of Auckland, but he still calls it an “old” name consistent with his original position where TMR is the “classical” and “ancient” name, implying the Māori later shortened it to Tāmaki. There is no joint publication by both men resolving their differing understanding of TMR.

Ethnography 1929–1980

Graham’s understanding of Tāmaki-makau-rau as a motto, which he published in 1922 and 1925, is clear (Figure 8a), but now there is another transformation. In January 1929, he publishes his article “Maori Life” in the Municipal Record, which is a dramatic volte-face:

“TAMAKI-MAKAU-RAU”–such is the a[n]cient Maori name of this Isthmus of Auckland and its surrounding district. The following narrative of inter-tribal strife (tamaki), continued over many centuries of time, will show how indeed appropriate the name was –meaning as it does “The land contested for by a hundred lovers.”

This description by Graham is a reversal to his original understanding 25 years earlier, discarding what he had learned since (Figure 8b). Not only does he refer to TMR as a place name, for the first time it is expanded to refer to the isthmus “and its surrounding district”, i.e., the greater Auckland area.

Figure 8. From Proverb about the Isthmus to Place Name for Auckland

George Graham, amateur ethnographer, defines Tamaki-makau-rau differently in his publications Left: (a) the appropriate motto for the Tamaki isthmus, “Maori History of Auckland” (1922 and 1925) Right: (b) the ancient Maori name for the Isthmus and surrounding district, Municipal Record (1929) Credit: Author images

Municipal Record was a short-lived quarterly publication issued by the Auckland City Council to households during March 1924 to January 1929. The final issue, produced in co-operation with the AI&M, focused on popular science relevant to the Auckland district. As founder and a committee member of the Anthropology and Maori Race Section, George Graham provided editorial work and content. The Municipal Record is not an academic journal, but this major redefinition of TMR was to prove influential to younger ethnographers coming to the fore.

Ethnographic cartography, where Māori place names have primacy, shows how many British and European place names are replacements for pre-existing Māori names. An early example is the previously illustrated Fenton Map, drafted or used by Francis Fenton in the Ōrākei Land Court during 1868, later published in 1879. It covered the Auckland district and presumably, similar maps aided other title investigations. The first maps mentioning TMR only occur in the 1930s. There are two with “Tamaki-makau-rau” which are crucial to our investigation. For the sake of clarity “Kelly Map” and “Adkin Map” are used in this paper.

Leslie George Kelly (1906–1959) was a journalist and historian with Ngāti Mahuta ancestry. His lifelong passion was Māori history and culture, but his profession was in the railways, which led to his accidental death.  In the 1920s and 1930s, he undertook substantial ethnographic work researching in the northern half of the North Island and publishing many articles in the Journal.

By June 1929, Kelly had created a map of the Waitemata and North Shore, which he deposited at the Auckland Museum. Then in September, he presented a further map to the museum, described as being “of the Auckland district, complete with Maori place names.” [xcvii]

Figure 9. Kelly Map of the pre-European Auckland district – top-centre detail

Part of an ethnographic map of the Auckland district carrying only Maori place names, L. Kelly (1940), entitled Tamaki-Makau-Rau. It may be the original or a revision of the first Kelly map, reported in 1929. Credit: Auckland Institute and Museum G9083.A82

Kelly entitled his map of the Auckland district “Tamaki-Makau-Rau”, which implies TMR is the name for a major part of the Auckland district where much of the built-up area existed then. However, he also has a minor legend at lower right which reads “Map of the Tamaki Isthmus with Maori place names”. Unfortunately, Kelly did not delineate the boundaries of the isthmus distinct from the Manukau, Takapuna and Waitakere districts. Therefore, his use of TMR weighs more heavily as the whole district, not just the isthmus.

The Alexander Turnbull Library at Wellington records that Pei Te Hurinui Jones deposited a copy of the same map in 1938. [c]  Jones and Kelly were then doing collaborative work on the history of the Tainui people. The library returned Jones’ map to a representative of his estate, so in 1980, a reduced photographic copy of the Auckland Museum map was deposited as a replacement. Later, it becomes clear 1980 is a significant date in this investigation. The Auckland Central Library records a further example of Kelly’s map work, but a librarian could not find it when sought for this research.

The geologist and ethnographer, George Leslie Adkin (1888–1964), was a pioneer in the conservation of natural history and archaeological sites. He knew Elsdon Best for many years and became interested in ethnology after previous success researching the geology of the Tararua Range. In 1926, he joined the Polynesian Society and performed research on Māori culture in the Horowhenua region. In his ethnographic notebooks of the 1930s, Adkin wrote notes on many Māori place names, associated to his hand-traced maps of areas throughout New Zealand. Volume three deals with the Auckland region, where he uses TMR as the name for the isthmus (Figure 10). [ci]

Figure 10. Adkin Map of the Auckland district – mid-centre detail

Tamaki-makau-rau used in cartography to identify the Tamaki isthmus (detail), G. Adkin (ca. 1930–36). Credit: Alexander Turnbull Library, MS-Papers-6061-04

Fortunately, Adkin was studious in providing dates and sources of names used in his maps. The clustering of dates for sources and low volume sequence number, determines he created it before 1936. His map of the Auckland district gives primacy to Māori place names, although many English translations and substitutions still appear. He used blue for land-water boundaries, with the Manukau Harbour at bottom left. The Great North and Great South roads are in red. Adkin has the Tamaki River identified but chose not to use Tamaki for the isthmus. To see why, reference is made to his place name list accompanying the map:

Tamaki-makau-rau = “The Land Contested for by a Hundred Lovers” – (tamaki = inter-tribal strife). (Auckland Municipal Record. Jan 1929). This is the ancient Maori name for the Waitemata – Manukau Isthmus + adjacent district.

Adkin makes clear his source is the Municipal Record. Hence, his understanding is from George Graham’s departure in 1929, from the researched understanding he had in 1922 and 1925.  Adkin reveals he had not read Graham’s “Maori History”, by including Kiwi-tamaki as a place name for the pā at Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill), making a significant error in his list. Kiwi Tāmaki was the most famous and last of the old Waiohua chieftains of the isthmus.

Adkin also annotates “+ adjacent district”. This is from Graham’s evolution of the proverb into becoming a place name for the wider Auckland district, not just the isthmus.

Both the Kelly and Adkin maps have their western boundary beyond Henderson, northern cutting through Motutapu, eastern is by Waiheke and southern boundary beyond Puketutu Island and passing through Papatoetoe. It is unknown whether Kelly inspired Adkin after seeing his map-work, or vice versa, but it is a strange co-incidence they created both maps about the same time, covering a very similar extent within the Auckland district.

James Rutherford (1906–63) Professor of History at the University of Auckland, must have been influenced by Cowan and Graham. In his article “One Hundred Years Ago”, published in 1939, he writes: “The Auckland Isthmus had been the scene of countless tribal wars and invasions. Its Maori name, ‘Tamaki mata Rau’ [sic] (the wife contested for by a hundred lovers) is a reminder of its stormy history.” [cii] Clearly, “mata” escaped the proof-readers.

Graham retired in 1948, but in one of his final articles, published in the Journal in 1946, he writes: “Pakira. The Hauraki chief who led the Hauraki invading war-party into the Tamaki and Manukau districts to revenge the death of Ureia.”[ciii] Surprisingly, Ureia was a sea mammal, possibly a tame seal or dolphin, who must have been much-loved to be avenged through deadly conflict. In this article, Graham recognises that Manukau and Tāmaki are separate districts. As Manukau is separate from Tāmaki, then neither can TMR include it, regardless of whether it is a proverb or ancient name. So, he was not maintaining consistency with what he published in the Municipal Record in 1929. He is reverting to his 1922–25 understanding about Tāmaki, the place name for the isthmus.

Andrew Vayda is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Ecology at Rutgers University in the United States. For his dissertation, in the mid-1950s, he travelled to New Zealand to research Māori history. He published in the Journal, where he references Graham’s research, explaining that Tāmaki is the place name while Tāmaki makau rau is the motto about the place. [civ] Unencumbered by the growing confusion between Tāmaki and its proverb, he simply identified the most logical ethnographic explanation and quoted directly. Vayda then wrote Maori Warfare, published in 1960, which is regarded today as a classic about Māori conflict in pre-European times.

George M. Fowlds (1886–1974) was a vice-president of the Auckland Historical Society and a former member of the Auckland regional committee of the Historic Places Trust. He gives credit to Graham being recognised as the best authority on the Māori history of Tāmaki pā. They were in communication shortly before Graham’s death and Fowlds first accepted Graham’s view on TMR.  In 1957, he published Auckland’s Volcanic Cones where he has “The isthmus was Tamaki-makau-rau. Tamaki of a hundred lovers.”, implying it is a name. However, perhaps after receiving a correction on it, ten years later, he refers to Tāmaki makau rau as descriptive. His paper “The Maori Association with the Volcanic Hills and Craters of the Auckland Isthmus”, discusses historical fortifications and the tragic loss of over 100 Māori archaeological sites to quarrying. Fowlds writes about Tāmaki: “Yet, this was also a reason for the price of possession and holding of this bitterly contested region, appropriately earning the description Tamaki makau rau (Tamaki, the spouse contested for us by a hundred lovers).” Hence, in 1967, Fowlds is consistent with the same understanding Vayda made a decade earlier, Tāmaki makau rau is purely descriptive, not a place name, so he removes its hyphenation.

Aileen Fox (1907–2005) was an English archaeologist who worked at the Auckland Museum for a short period in the mid-1970s. Late in 1977, she published “Pa of the Auckland Isthmus: An Archaeological Analysis” in AI&M’s publication, Records. [cv] She uses Tāmaki in her article for the isthmus but has the following comment in the epilogue: “The Auckland Isthmus has had a troubled prehistory; it was not known as Tamaki-makau-rau without good cause (Tamaki with a hundred lovers, i.e., desired by many)”. This is non-specific language, showing uncertainty about TMR in her mind, but the use of hyphenation is consistent with a place name rather than a descriptive proverb.

For years, the confusion arising from Graham’s and Cowan’s writings about TMR was of limited effect to academic researchers elsewhere. However, this changed due to the actions of the ethnologist, historian and author David Simmons (1930–2015). In 1962, Simmons joined the Otago Museum as an anthropologist. Six years later, he moved to the AI&M where the transformation of TMR into a place name for the Auckland area first becomes formalised within New Zealand academia.

In 1975, Simmons wrote an informal, non-academic article of limited circulation “TAMAKI-MAKAU-RAU: Traditional Stories of Events in Auckland’s Past”, which he reprinted in 1977. He subtitled his work with a cover explanation of how it “was the ancient Maori name for the Auckland area.” It begins with “Ancient Forts a World Wonder in Their Own Right.” where he reiterates: “…advantages of the cones could not be missed by the fiercely contesting claimants to this portion of land, which was named Tamaki Makau Rau (Tamaki with a hundred lovers).” His article builds upon the remaking of TMR by Graham in 1929 and Kelly in his maps of 1929–40. Between publishing two versions of the pamphlet, Simmons took the opportunity to slip in a mention of TMR, “Waiohua tribe of Tamakimakaurau (now called Auckland)” into his long-researched book The Great New Zealand Myth (1976:175). In three consecutive years, Simmons uses all three different spellings of TMR, showing his usage in a great state of flux. His book remains a major work on early Māori history, debunking the “Great Fleet” scenario first envisaged in the 19th century by S. Percy Smith. Although, recent studies of archaeological, DNA and genetic evidence do now favour the description of mass migration, or fleet, for the 14th century Polynesian arrivals. [cvi]

The Auckland Museum promoted David Simmons to Assistant Director in 1978, where he became the principal custodian of the museum’s growing archive of George Graham’s unpublished works and papers, some donated by his estate. Graham died when Simmons was age 22, so it is unlikely he communicated to Graham about Māori place names. Therefore, Simmons proceeded without previously discussing with Graham his usage of Tāmaki makau rau and TMR. In Records, dated 25 January 1980, Simmons publishes a pair of consecutive articles which he identifies as Graham’s unpublished work. [cvii]  The first is “Maori Place Names” (pages 1-10) which Simmons derived from a talk Graham gave at the Museum and a newspaper article he wrote, both in 1926.  The raw material is a commentary and partial list of place names and meanings. Simmons says he has them “edited into a single version”. Of interest, there is:

TAMAKI is a name now confined as a named place to the districts on either bank of the Wai-o-Taiki tidal river also called the Tamaki. It is however correctly the name of the isthmus as a whole. Te Tamaki-makau-rau to give it its full name, and means Tamaki – (a thing which is the object of interminable contest or strife.) makau is a young person sought after as a spouse, rau a hundred or numerous. Hence the name of this appropriately named and much contested tribal area, the scene of centuries of tribal conflict for its possession: – Hence “The land contested for by hundreds”.

Note, the entry for Tāmaki differs not only from Graham’s published works of 1922/25 but also from the re-interpretation he made in 1929, three years after the above work. Despite this inconsistency, and perhaps others, Simmons used Graham’s words with only cosmetic changes. The second article which follows is “George Graham’s Maori place names of Auckland”, (pages 11-39) also edited by Simmons and it contains, for the first time, the entire list of Graham’s partially published place names. The following extract is of note:

TAKAWHENUA “The fall of the land”. A place about half-way between Narrow Neck beach and Takapuna Beach, say about the foot of Seacliffe Road, off Victoria Rd.

TANGIHANGAPUKAEA “The blowing of the war trumpet”. A pā on the site of Pt. Britomart.

TAMAKIMAKAURAU “Tamaki of the many lovers”. The general name for the Auckland Isthmus. So named because tribes were continually at war for its possession.

TE TAPERE “The family meeting house”. The bay or point on Manukau Harbour below Hillsborough Cemetery.

Tamaki, the most important Māori place name in the Auckland region, is now missing and its whakataukī is used in a concatenated form as a place name for the isthmus! While Tamaki is a place name in Grahams’ first article, Simmons sees fit to exclude it from the second, even though he included other names from various documents by Graham. Curiously, the no-longer existing Tangihangapukaea appears out of alphabetical order where Tamaki should appear. Although Graham’s description limits its extent to the “Auckland Isthmus”, Simmons uses TMR twice to refer to the whole of Auckland in his editorial preface. He does not present any editorial commentary that Graham had a contradictory understanding about TMR and knew one meaning, then changed it several times.

Until 1980, usages of Tāmaki makau rau and TMR are rare enough for this paper to collate many of them. It helps to provide a full understanding of the evolution of TMR and its spread. As mentioned in the introduction, during eighty years, ethnographers have completely transformed the obscure proverb Tāmaki makau rau into a modern place name (bizarrely, with multiple spellings): Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tāmakimakaurau and Tāmaki Makaurau. It has become significant to the public at large because the effects go far beyond academia. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the historical context to form an understanding of how this change occurred.

The Taking and Re-making of Tāmaki Makaurau

Scholars of Ethnography

The first Polynesian arrivals named the isthmus Rarotonga, but other names may also have been applied. Its surrounding districts gained their own long-held names: Aotea, Awhitu, Hauraki, Mahurangi, Manukau, Waiheke, Waitakere, Waitemata, etc. After early conflicts, Tāmaki became the Māori place name for the isthmus. Settlements were distinct: Mangere, Onehunga, Ōrākei, Ōtāhuhu, etc. Tāmaki was only the name of the land, never the settlements upon it. Auckland was founded by Europeans in 1840, spreading outside Tāmaki within months (first to what is today, the Devonport area). The Māori had no collective name for the multiple districts partially within Auckland, or for the town, hence they used the transliteration Akarana, until the late 20^th century.

Despite the situation before 1900 being settled in Māori and European cultures, the review of evidence in this paper shows Tāmaki makau rau has evolved into TMR. First, ethnographers used hyphenation and concatenation to make it more visually acceptable as a place name to English language and te reo Māori speakers, instead of it being obviously a short phrase.

Ethnographers have re-made Tāmaki makau rau into TMR, in three distinct events:

1. Transformation of Language: Tāmaki makau rau being a proverbial phrase about the quality of the Tāmaki isthmus to it becoming Tāmaki-makau-rau (TMR), a prior “classical” and “ancient” place name substituted for it. (James Cowan: 1900)
   
2. Transformation of Extent: TMR being a place name for the isthmus only, to it covering the Auckland area including the “surrounding district” i.e., north, south, east and west of the isthmus. (George Graham: 1929)
   
3. Transformation of Authority: TMR being taken and remade by amateur ethnographers only, to becoming a formal toponym in ethnology and anthropology. (David Simmons: 1980)

Each of the transformations shall be examined to find how these researchers, grouped here as Scholars of Ethnography, took and re-made a proverb into a new name for the land and city of Auckland, which extends far beyond the isthmus.

Transformation of language: Proverb to Place Name

James Cowan lived at Ōrākau, southwest of Cambridge in central Waikato. His father’s farm was one of two, subdivided upon the bloody battleground known for the last stand of Rewi Maniapoto, one of the later events in the New Zealand Wars. He learned te reo Māori and gained a lifelong interest in Māori culture, motivated by sad history under his feet. Their neighbour was the trader and farmer, Andrew Kay, who was a friend of Matutaera Tāwhiao. In about 1885, Andrew Kay had the notes and cheques of Te Peeke o Aotearoa printed at the press of the short-lived Auckland newspaper Evening Bell. [cviii] This favour for Tāwhiao, evidences the firm’s connection with the Waikato. Cowan started work at the Evening Bell in 1887, aged 17, but the newspaper failed in May 1888, so he joined its rival, the Auckland Star. There, he became a journalist and produced many articles in 15 years of employment. His style was unique as he broke new ground in investigative reporting, actively seeking stories and interviews, meeting many renowned Māori and Europeans, including Tāwhiao, Governor George Grey, Robert Louis Stephenson (1893) and Mark Twain (1895). [cix] Two men he encountered in the 1890s would become lifelong friends: fellow historian of the Māori, George Graham, and the talented artist Charles Goldie.

On 11 November 1889, Thomas Henry Smith (1824–1907), formerly a Land Court judge who retired in 1876, gave a reading of his recent paper “On Maori Proverbs” at the AI&M on Princes Street. [cx] He included Waikato tamioha rau or “Waikato of the hundred heroes, or great ones. As a tribe having a great number of illustrious chiefs.” Linguistically, it is identical to Tāmaki makau rau, so applies to this study. In the archive of Cowan’s personal papers is Smith’s article, where he annotated the first page with “Nga whakatauki”, using a capital-style “K” in the middle of the word, a distinctive feature of his handwriting. [cxi] So, Cowan read the article and was perfectly aware that Smith considered Waikato tamioha rau to be whakataukī or proverbial, not to be considered another name for “Waikato”, or in any sense that it is an “ancient”, “classical” or “old” name. It is a saying about the Waikato district, most useful in poetic language or emphasis during storytelling.

Whakataukī should never be hyphenated. However, T.H. Smith did so, e.g., Waikato-tamioha-rau. This is superfluous and creates confusion, because hyphens were conventional in 19th century texts to reveal separate words in Māori compound proper nouns. Peter Buck, also named Te Rangi Hīroa, was an accomplished anthropologist who published many papers on Māori and other Pacific ethnology. In 1932, he observed “An objection to hyphening on the part of New Zealand writers has probably been due to the fact that the method was overdone by John White in his Ancient History of the Maori. In this work he broke up many proper names into syllables; and in translating each syllable arrived at a different meaning from that conveyed by the word which comprised the syllables.” [cxii]

In September 1892, T.H. Smith was to follow up his 1888 article on Māori proverbs with “Maori Nomenclature”, upon which he also gave a lecture at the Institute. Cowan must have attended in his capacity as a reporter because an article about it promptly appeared in the Star newspaper.

The politician and banker, William Pember Reeves produced The Long White Cloud Ao Tea Roa (1898), a highly popular book on New Zealand history. Cowan strongly disagreed with Reeves’ translation and usage of Aotearoa, for which he considered “Long Bright World” to be more correct, and he considered it a name for the North Island only.

At the Auckland Star, Cowan was their correspondent for Maori affairs, so, most likely it was he who attended the Māori meeting with Seddon at Waahi Marae in March 1899. The article has his fingerprint, the hyphenated form of TMR, but its translation is the clumsy “hundred spouses”. He must have later found mention of Charles Davis’s translation “hundred lovers”, when reading back issues of the papers, including news of Tāwhiao’s visit to Auckland in 1882.  Cowan never uses “spouses” again, preferring Davis’ “lovers”. In the article for the Star, he did respect Mita Karaka’s proverbial usage of the phrase.

Motivated by a desire to publicly correct Reeves and inspired by T.H. Smith, Cowan wrote an article “Maori Place Names”. Unlike Smith, who focused on linguistics, root words, morphemes and the structure of Māori proper nouns, Cowan wanted to increase awareness in society about the rich history imbued in their names. The tenor of Cowan’s article is one of emphasis on their origin and poetry, often how they rise from a happenstance of one sort or another. But he faced a quandary over Tāmaki, the famous and historical place name in Māori culture, lately displaced by “Auckland isthmus”. While its meaning in te reo is foreboding or ominous, in contrast, one of its proverbs is translated to Tāmaki of a hundred lovers, which he must have considered much nicer.

Cowan knew Davis’ explanation of the proverb as the desirability of Tāmaki because of its many natural resources, but he took the decision to turn it into a “classical” name of the “ancient Maoris”. He implies they used it for the Tāmaki isthmus, and it was shortened before recorded history. Because T.H. Smith used hyphens, Cowan copied his style and considered it licence enough write Tamaki-makau-rau, which makes it appear like a name.

In “Maori Place Names”, Cowan partially hyphenates most of the examples he discusses, e.g., Puke-kohe, Koro-rareka, Motu-tapu, in order to help the reader in identifying the meanings of name parts. This usage was never meant to represent the conventional spelling, but it camouflaged the cuckoo Tamaki-makau-rau, which would otherwise have stood out as whakataukī. It is difficult to accept that Cowan believed what he wrote. He wasn’t writing for an academic purpose, so he took a poetic licence to make his article more interesting. Also, by using the adjectives “classical” and “ancient”, he muddies the water in the event someone challenges him on it. This decision proved to become fateful.

Before Cowan’s article was published it had two public readings. He was enthusiastic about his subject and wanted to generate wider interest, but he was a very reluctant speaker, happiest at his writing desk. So, on 12 Oct 1899, James Montague gave a reading of “Maori Place Names” to the Literary and Historical Association meeting at the Auckland Harbour Board building. Montague was a public speaker extraordinaire, able to hold a conversation only by quoting Shakespeare. He had a strong interest in proper elocution and the correct pronunciation of Māori place names. The audience enjoyed his talk. One impressed critic reported, “a veritable wonderland was disclosed”, so they asked Montague to repeat the reading at the same venue on 10 May 1900.

In June 1900, the New Zealand Illustrated Magazine published James Cowan’s “Maori Place Names”, where it immediately received a much larger audience throughout the country. Indeed, his article proved so popular others read it aloud at literary meetings and events elsewhere. Inexorably, the concept spread in New Zealand European society that TMR was the ancient Māori name for the Auckland isthmus.

Charles Goldie had returned from Paris two years earlier and set up his studio at Auckland and then painted portraits of Māori elders and chieftains. In 1901, Cowan helped him through an introduction to Wiremu Pātara Te Tuhi, [cxiii] leading subsequently to Te Aho O Te Rangi Wharepu, both of Ngāti Mahuta. The latter was co-signatory with Te Puna Reweti on the Māori welcome to Plunkett in 1904, translated by George Graham. Knowing this web of connections gives us insight into how Cowan mentioning TMR, as an ancient place name, would create a meme rippling through both Māori and European social networks.

By September 1903, his assertion was enough for at least one knowledgeable person to want to set the record straight about the meaning of Tāmaki makau rau. The Herald correspondent ‘Vindex’ re-published the eyewitness account of his colleague ‘Mercutio’ in “A Historic Proverb” explaining Rewi Maniapoto’s use of it, at his visit in 1879. Also in 1903, Cowan’s writings and knowledge of te reo and Māori culture were extensive enough to bring an invitation from Wellington, to join the recently formed Department of Tourists and Health Resorts, at the New Zealand Government. He quickly accepted the offer and left for Wellington.

‘Vindex’s clarification of Tāmaki makau rau as simply a proverbial saying about the Tāmaki isthmus, plus the confirmation added by the “White Tohunga” Charles Nelson in his letter to the editor, recalling Hōri Tauroa’s usage at the Land Court in 1868—was soon to be crushed. In 1904, the Herald published George Graham’s translation of Te Puna Reweti’s letter explaining the song following the welcome to Governor Plunkett. In it, Graham gave a history about the founding of Auckland from the Ngāti Whātua perspective of the Titahi prophecy. Further, Cowan’s influence is apparent in Graham’s writing. He seized the revelation that TMR was an ancient name for the Tāmaki isthmus, devoting much text to it. Cowan was already an accomplished researcher and writer, four years older than Graham, hence, deserving the presumption of veracity for his knowledge of history.

In the first decade of the 20^th century New Zealand, railways were the principal mode of long-distance land transport. From his desk at the Department of Tourists, Cowan wrote for New Zealand Railways Magazine encouraging people to tour by train. Arguably, Cowan did read ‘Vindex’s 1903 explanation of the proverb, and stood corrected on the matter, as he omitted TMR from his guidebook for tourists New Zealand or Ao-tea-roa: (The Long Bright World): Its Wealth and Resources, Scenery, Travel-Routes, Spas, and Sport (1907). [cxiv] For research on this work, he travelled the length of New Zealand by train.

The year 1908 has significance here. It is when Cowan crosses the Rubicon and starts using in his professional works, the new toponym which he created in 1900. He must have visited George Graham and the Ngāti Whātua when back in Auckland and seen their welcome to Plunkett published in 1904; that they had taken his lead and were on record using TMR. Perhaps he felt aggrieved that he had to fall into line with Reeves and the Department of Tourists over changing the extent of Aotearoa. He took that as a green light for his own re-making of a piece of Māori culture (Figure 10). Cowan inserts TMR three times in his significantly revised second edition of Long Bright World (1908).

Figure 10. Transformation of language

James Cowan uses the historic place name Tamaki in his 1907 cyclopaedic tourist guide, Long Bright World. In his 1908 edition, he re-starts the process of erasure, turning one of its proverbs into the place name. Credit: Author images

Similarly, in the travel guide Overland Monthly (1908) he writes “The isthmus was the Tamaki-makau-rau of the Maoris—’Tamaki-of-a-hundred-lovers’. He also uses a spelling of TMR not seen since: “Tamakimakau-rau”, which show his re-making is in an evolving state of flux. In a sign of insecurity about his deception, in both publications he hyphenates the English translation to reinforce the impression of a proper noun. From this time onwards, he makes use of the hyphenated form of Tamaki-makau-rau for the Tāmaki isthmus, in his many articles and books on travel and history.

Cowan’s influence reached the Australian journalist and travel writer Frank Fox, enough for him to reference TMR in his Oceania; Peeps at many lands (1911). Cowan produced New Zealand Cities: Auckland (1912), where he has “Tamaki-makau-rau, ‘Tamaki of a Hundred Lovers,’ the olden Maoris named the rich and beautiful neck of country dividing the eastern ocean from the west, upon which City of Auckland now stretches its busy and prosperous length.” concluding with “whenua-tamaki a contested land.” [cxv] This is Nelson’s phrase, which Graham used and repeated.

Cowan continued giving prominence to TMR, when contributing historical articles to newspapers and periodicals, using the proverb as a place name at least once in each of his major writings about Auckland. David Colquhoun, a biographer of James Cowan, explains: “Although little read today, during his lifetime his writing did much to shape the way New Zealanders perceived their history.” [cxvi]

It took 18 years for George Graham to learn differently and publish his own ethnographic explanation of Tāmaki-makau-rau consistent (sans hyphens) with those of Davis, ‘Mercutio’, ‘Vindex’, Nelson, Rusden and Grossman. By that time, Graham had done much primary source research but published only short articles. In his first larger work, “Maori History of the Auckland Isthmus (Tamaki-Makau-Rau)”, he specified the difference between the place name Tāmaki and its proverbs, of which Tāmaki makau rau is one of two mentioned.

On 24 July 1928, the first part of Cowan’s series “The Story of Auckland”, appeared in the Auckland Star. [cxvii] This prompted Graham, six days later, to annotate a copy of James Barr’s City of Auckland (1922) with his “best regards” and send it to him at Wellington. Certainly, this was in recognition of Cowan as a kindred spirit, producing historical works which bring Māori culture to the public. It is unlikely that Cowan had time to receive and read Graham’s contribution to Barr’s book, then make any correction to his usage of TMR, even if he wanted to. Once more, he uses the proverb as the name for the isthmus, in his series about Auckland and its prehistory.

Cowan’s private papers at the National Library comprise some 202 pieces. Graham’s research, manuscripts and personal papers are similarly prodigious, occupying 1.5 metres of shelving at the Library of the AI&M. Perhaps a complete examination of both these collections of personal papers will reveal a specific correspondence between the two men about their published differences over Tāmaki makau rau and its meaning. Unfortunately, the tide of 20 years of social usage, generated by Cowan’s prodigious output, swamped any authority Graham might have gained over the matter and he soon folded.

If Cowan ever regretted the confusion he caused by creating TMR, he would have found it unpalatable to reverse course after so many years. The genie was out of the bottle, and any reversal damages his public reputation. He showed he was defensive about his reputation by rectifying strong criticism made by the author Stuart Babbage in Hauhauism: An episode in the Maori Wars 1863–1866 (1937). Cowan successfully achieved a late revision to a page of Babbage’s book, by direct request to the publisher A.W. Reed. [cxviii]

Transformation of extent: Isthmus to All Districts

It is now clear how the transformation started, but it went to the next level in the late-1920s. George Graham was a frequent contributor to the Auckland newspapers about Māori history and culture, but there is a noticeable change in his focus during the 1920s, when there was concern in New Zealand society about the decline of Māori culture. First, he actively defended the usage and preservation of Māori place names, for example, preserving Titirangi and Waitakere against talk of changing these names. Then he weighed in on important social issues. In 1927, Graham became embroiled in a long series of letters to the editor of the Herald about rates assessments for Māori land. He became increasingly concerned about the difficulty of Māori youth finding local employment, their subsequent drift to urbanisation and challenges to being seen as equal members of European-dominated society.

Āpirana Ngata received his knighthood for service to the nation, both as a politician and champion of Māori culture. Perhaps galvanised by his achievement, a month later, Graham made a major decision and founded Te Akarana Maori Association. As had transpired at the Anthropology and Maori Race Section of the AI&M, Graham was content to launch an organisation, but initially invite others to accept the public face of leadership. Puhipi James Rukutai first served as Association President and Patrick Smythe, deputy master of St Stephen’s College, ran it as Secretary, until succeeded by Graham (Figure 11). They set it up to bring together “educated Maoris” [sic] in order to promote Māori history and culture and foster a better understanding in the Auckland public.

Figure 11. Letterhead of Te Akarana Maori Association

George Graham, President, writing as the Hon. Secretary to James Cowan, 18 February 1935 Credit: Author image

On behalf of the Association, Graham wrote to the newspapers on a wide range of civic matters affecting the Māori, including health and education.  All this is relevant here because Graham’s change of focus becomes obvious. For three decades, his primary interest lay in recording Māori ethnography and history. Now he expanded into a far more assertive role, speaking up to preserve Māori culture in modern society, taking on the heavy work of pushing the pendulum of social change the other way. While Graham’s concerns are honourable, much needed then, and still resonate today, their pursuit must have compromised his ability to maintain objectivity when drawing upon his ethnological knowledge.

Graham is taking affirmative action to further Māori language and society. This is now his priority in life and the wider context when he penned his opening paragraph for the January 1929 issue of Municipal Record.

He began the second phase of the transformation of TMR, which is the re-making of its geographic extent. Cowan’s “classical Maori name of the Auckland isthmus”, “descriptive of the Auckland plains and hills” is no longer adequate. Graham decides TMR cannot be simply the Tāmaki isthmus, it had to become the place name for wider Auckland, “this Isthmus of Auckland and its surrounding district” i.e., its built-up area and environs. Why?

The fundamental reason is to fill a void, to erase the historical inconvenience that the Māori never had a name for the town and settled land area which Auckland has occupied since its founding, spilling far beyond Tāmaki. While the transliteration Akarana is perfectly usable in te reo Māori, and in fact, Graham chose it for the Association, it is an outlier in the fundamental respect of its etymology.  When compared to other te reo Māori proper nouns, it stands out, especially on a map which represents the Māori landscape in pre-European times.

Leslie Kelly’s work with the railways at Wellington occasionally brought him north, where he discovered Te Akarana Maori Association, joining its membership in mid-1928. He found like-minded people, including George Graham, with whom he began a collaboration. Graham gave Kelly help with his list of place names as the principal resource for his map-work. Graham had collected Māori place names and their meanings, but never published the full list in his lifetime. In 1925, he published a partial list in his major work Auckland a Guide, explaining 60 place names within the Tāmaki isthmus and other parts of Auckland.

The detail of conversations within the Association in 1928-29 will never be known. What is known is the proximity of two events. Graham’s transformation of the extent of TMR occurs just five months before Kelly made the first donation of his completed map-work to the Anthropology and Maori Race Section. His map, in June 1929, extends across the Upper Waitemata and North Shore. At the museum, council member and ornithologist, Arthur Pycroft, made mention of Fenton’s map, 60 years earlier, observing that Kelly had more names. Graham reported Elsdon Best saw Kelly’s map and approved of it. [cxix] Whether it carried the title TMR is uncertain, unless someone can identify it once more, as the monochrome map in the Auckland Museum is hand-dated 1940. If it carried TMR, then Best’s approval would pertain to the rest of the map as he lived in Wellington and unlikely to have encountered TMR before, except in Cowan’s writings.

In April 1930, Kelly completed a map with Māori place names for the whole of Northland while based at Helensville, northwest Auckland. [cxx] As mentioned earlier, on his 1940 map, Kelly is ambivalent about the usage of TMR. While he employs it boldly as the title, he annotates in small print it refers to the Tāmaki isthmus. Graham’s enthusiasm for expanding TMR to refer to the whole of Auckland has qualified acceptance by Kelly, likewise by Adkin, who produced his maps about the same time. Adkin carefully constrains TMR to the central isthmus. Modern-day academics do not observe such restraint.

The Kelly Map has clearly captured the imagination of archivists at the AI&M as, during 2020, they invited the public to write poetry about the coloured version. What is missing is a professional research article discussing its historic context and providing appropriate cartographic and ethnological criticism of it. At first glance, its artistic style and yellowing makes it look much older than the 1930s, but it needs to be kept in context. While Kelly created a map of cultural significance, with only Māori place names, it is the product of modern amateur cartography. He made it a century after European settlement started and the best era for ethnographic research in the field to determine toponym usage. Kelly’s employment of Cowan’s place name Tamaki-makau-rau as its title is misleading, not just because it is a proverb, but because the mapped area is a part of Auckland much larger than the Tāmaki isthmus, which is referred to in the legend.

To be clear, Fenton’s and Smith’s maps, drafted in 1868 and 1898, have historical precedence in ethnology. Because TMR had not been invented, they were not misled into using it as a Māori toponym on their maps. So, Fenton described his map as Auckland District, while Smith used Auckland Isthmus to refer the section covered by the inset.

Coinciding with the Auckland Anniversary celebrations of 31 January 1932, a Herald supplement carried the article “Maori King Feted” recalling the events of Tāwhiao’s visit to Auckland 50 years earlier. The author is unnamed but writes in the style of George Graham, including his use of the word “correctly” in defining TMR, also seen in his 1926 manuscript list of Māori place names. The key segments of two Herald articles, relating to Tāwhiao’s memorial speech given by Kerei Kaihau, are shown below. In 1882, Charles Davis has:

Tamaki is the great name of the districts surrounding Auckland. “Tamaki of a hundred lovers” means that this district was a coveted one with the Maoris.

In 1932, George Graham writes:

Tamaki was the Maori name for Auckland, being Tamaki-makaurau — “Tamaki of a hundred lovers” —correctly.

It is interesting to compare explanations of the translations. As mentioned earlier, Davis is referring to the suburbs surrounding central Auckland, within the isthmus, which has the great name Tāmaki, a proverbially desirable place. In 1922/25, Graham published his research with the same understanding as Davis. Yet, here, a decade later, he chose to rely upon Cowan, but distorts his extent of TMR by omitting mention of the isthmus. Further, Cowan relied upon Davis but chose to distort his meaning of Tāmaki makau rau from allusive phrase into ancient name. This is the opposite of best ethnological practice and creates confusion.

Graham’s lifelong difficulty reconciling TMR with its historical context is clear in his publications. It was first the ancient place name for the Tāmaki isthmus (1904), then a later, 17th century name for the isthmus (1919), then a pepeha or adage, then a motto for the isthmus (1922 & 1925), then a place name for the wider Auckland area well beyond the isthmus (1929 & 1932). Over decades, he tried to hammer the square peg of the proverb into the round hole of a place name while significantly evolving its meaning and usage.

In the mid-1930s, Graham was performing the role of President of the Association, which remained active until 1948. Its fading away is concurrent with Graham’s retirement in 1949, showing he alone was giving the organisation momentum. By the close of 1952, both Cowan and Graham were deceased. Without their support, usage of TMR was infrequent, although a few academics and authors mentioned it, such as Raymond Firth who still believed Graham’s 1904 translation of Te Puna Reweti’s explanation published by the Herald. Others consider that Reweti used TMR as a toponym, [cxxi] whereas he meant it either as whakataukī, or was misled by Graham and Cowan. Sydney Waters, in his magisterial The Royal New Zealand Navy (1956) shows provenance from Cowan when he writes about the training facility on Motuihe Island: “The name chosen for the new training establishment was Tamaki, a shortened form of Tamaki-Makau-Rau, the ancient Maori name of the Auckland isthmus.” [cxxii]

In Māori culture, TMR had negligible traction, based upon observation through the lens of the periodical Te Ao Hou (The New World), issued quarterly between 1952–75. Te Ao Hou was a publication of the Maori Affairs Department of the New Zealand Government. Its first editorial explains it being “planned mainly to provide interesting and informative reading for Maori homes […] where all questions of interest to the Maori can be discussed.” [cxxiii]

Interestingly, they use TMR just once in over than 20 years of publication. In 1957, there is a reference to “Tamaki Makaurau” by Elsdon Craig when searching for a marae location for all Māori of Auckland. The Tainui use the proverb Tamaki makau rau poetically in a lament for the 5th King, Koroki Te Rata Mahuta Tāwhiao Pōtatau Te Wherowhero, after he passed away in May 1966. The proverb is also the title of a poem by Kathleen Grattan, printed in 1973. Usage of TMR in Te Ao Hou is minimal, evidencing the limited effect of Cowan’s long promotion as a place name and Graham’s transformation of extent. Notably, only the usage by Craig has TMR clearly occurring as a place name substituted for Auckland. Perhaps he saw an old copy of Graham’s 1932 Herald article?

It was the calm before the storm. The year 1975, when Te Ao Hou ceased publication, coincided with David Simmons’ plan to single-handedly propel TMR from obscurity into the limelight of public awareness.

Transformation of authority: Amateur to Academic

Sometime between 1968 and 1975, David Simmons came across Leslie Kelly’s map titled “Tamaki-Makau-Rau” at the Auckland Museum. Maps are powerful things. Like a picture worth a thousand words, they capture the imagination and enthusiasm of the viewer. He seized upon the unexpected finding of a Māori usage of the proverb Cowan took and re-made into an alternative for the hugely important name of Auckland.

In 1975, he produced a non-academic pamphlet TAMAKI-MAKAU-RAU: Traditional Stories of Events in Auckland’s Past. Arguably, this is a trial balloon, like the cautious raising of a proposal in politics to test the wind of public opinion. He was alert for pushback by anyone who had evidence Tāmaki makau rau was a proverb. Perhaps seeing none, he republished in late 1977 (Figure 13a) and listed it in general staff papers of the 1977–1978 Annual Report of the Auckland Institute and Museum. He waited a further two years in case of any academic pushback. Simmons is obvious in his aim, but meticulous in selectively achieving it.

Aileen Fox’s hesitant usage of TMR in 1977 shows that, hitherto, the transformation of the proverb by amateur Scholars of Ethnography was making limited inroads into archaeology and anthropology.  Elsewhere, opinion remained clear, as evidenced by Alexander Reed and Aileen Brougham in The Concise Maori Handbook (1978), a compendium encyclopaedia and dictionary, with toponyms and proverbs. They define makau rau as an expression “applied to several places” e.g., Tamaki makau rau – “meaning that it was a place which commanded men’s affections”. [cxxiv]

Figure 12. Transformation of authority

David Simmons, ethnologist, formalises Tamaki-makau-rau as a toponym in publications Left: (a) A trial balloon pamphlet (1977) Tamaki-makau-rau “was the ancient Maori name for the Auckland area” Right: (b) The stamp of academic authority in articles published by the Auckland Institute and Museum (1980) “Tamakimakaurau, now called Auckland” Credit: Author images

In January 1980, Simmons proceeded with publishing Graham’s drafts and notes on toponyms, cosmetically edited, in Records. It becomes the lead article in an influential academic publication. As editor of Grahams’ partially published place names, he gains the shield of plausible deniability in case of any future criticism over its definition of TMR. He selects two papers, the first with a definition of Tamaki, also mentioning TMR, and the second defining only TMR. In a short, 20-line editorial preface to the second article, he reveals his hand. Simmons writes “Many places of Tamakimakaurau, now called Auckland” […] “It is presented as a reminder of the debt present and future generations of Tamakimakaurau owe to George Graham”, ending with a eulogy, “Farewell sir, go to great Hawaiki, long Hawaiki, distant Hawaiki. Sleep well there, sleep well.” [cxxv]

Simmons places Graham on a pedestal, then fails to reference him properly. He makes an editorial mention of a 55-year-old article in an obscure suburban newspaper and a single citation to an unpublished draft on reminiscences, proverbs, ancestry and nomenclature.

As mentioned earlier, Graham published Auckland a Guide in 1925. It has two significant articles: “The Maori history of the Auckland isthmus (Tamaki-Makau-Rau)” and “Maori Nomenclature of the Auckland Isthmus and Neighbourhood” listing over 60 place names and their meanings, detailing Māori toponyms on the isthmus and nearby. This is Graham’s major published work in his lifetime, yet Simmons ignores it, citing Leslie Kelly, a third person who relied mostly upon Graham for his list of names! Simmons could not reference Auckland a Guide, for the reason it has Graham’s explanation of TMR as a motto for the Tāmaki isthmus. He didn’t want to make it easy for anyone who might raise a researched objection to Tāmaki being displaced by one of its proverbs.

This begs the question of how much peer review happened on submissions for Records. Perhaps, because of his senior position, Simmons’ contributions received only the most cursory review, or none. For good measure, he managed to use the concatenated version of TMR in his contribution to the 1979–1980 Annual Report of the Auckland Institute and Museum.

Simmons concluded the process Cowan had started 80 long years before. He established Tamakimakaurau as an antecedent, pre-European name for greater Auckland in an academic publication. Immediately, the AI&M followed this up by publishing a book for the public, Maori Place Names of Auckland: Their Meaning and History (Figure 13b), which simply reproduced the two articles from Records. With the name of the Auckland Institute and Museum behind it, the Scholars of Ethnography completed the transformation of authority on the matter.

From the 1980s, there is a major adoption in usage of TMR by academics of the humanities and social sciences in New Zealand. Simmons’ books influenced many decision-makers, where an early result was in 1988 when the New Zealand Post Office announced its acceptance of Tamaki Makaurau with Akarana as alternatives to Auckland. If anyone tried to correct the historical record, they were drowned out by a slew of later publications relying upon Simmons as the authoritative source, standing on the shoulders of George Graham and the AI&M.

In 1987, Simmons published his own popular account, Maori Auckland, where he used only the second article from Records, which omits a definition of Tāmaki. The ancient Māori name for the isthmus is kicked into the long grass, fully repurposed and evermore consigned to mere shorthand for TMR. He still fails to reference Graham’s major published work.

Confusion spread elsewhere in academia about Tāmaki and TMR.  In 1994, at the Science and Research Directorate in the Department of Conservation, Auckland, the archaeologist Susan Bulmer (1930–2016), author of 100 academic papers and reports, struggled to make sense of a proverb remade as a place name:

“Taamaki” is a term widely used today by Maaori speakers to refer to the Auckland city area, […]. Taamaki is derived from a more specific place name: “Taamaki Makaurau” – Taamaki desired by many – which refers specifically to the Auckland isthmus (Simmons 1980, Sullivan n.d.), the area of land between the Manukau and Waitemata harbours. [cxxvi]

Bulmer references Simmons, accepting his assertion that TMR is an old name shortened to Tāmaki, but refuses to accept it can refer to anything other than the isthmus between the harbours. She uses “specific” twice to emphasise the isthmus and ignores all the contradictory writings by Simmons, where he asserts TMR applies to greater Auckland.

Simmons’ final work, Greater Maori Auckland (2013) is a more comprehensive popular edition. Appendix I is the second article from Records.  This time, he uses the stratagem of hiding in plain sight, by including Appendix II “Proverbs of Tamaki’. He lists a couple of similar verbose proverbs, and five others which could be from anywhere, but fails to mention any of those found in Table 1, for which many sources were searched. Anyone who might deduce TMR is a proverb, finds Appendix II “evidencing” by omission, that it isn’t. By now, so much water is under the bridge, TMR has so much usage, when he references John Barr’s History of Auckland (1922), he probably forgot it includes Graham’s definition as a motto.

Simmons failed to perform proper critical research on Graham’s works and published deliberately misleading information about TMR. This is not an isolated incident. In 1985, he published Whakairo. Maori Tribal Art. He includes distortions of statements made by his primary source, Thomas Kendall (1778–1832), an early teacher and catechist in the Church Missionary Society.

Kendall arrived in New Zealand in May 1814, whereupon he learned the Māori language and the following year produced the first book written in Māori, published in Sydney. With Hongi Hika and Waikato, another Ngāpuhi chieftain, he travelled to England in 1820 on a returning whaling ship. After arrival, they collaborated with the Cambridge linguist Samuel Lee to formalise the reduced alphabet required for te reo Māori. They also constructed a more advanced written grammar and dictionary. [cxxvii] Kendall was one of the first to write translations of Māori oral traditions. His letters comprise an important early resource on religious cosmogony, spirituality, tapu, art and their interrelationships. Although, readers must extract ethnographic detail from deductions made by Kendall coloured by his own Christian worldview and digressions into Egyptology.

Judith Binney (1940–2011), Professor of History at the University of Auckland, author of Encircled Lands on the Tūhoe tribe of Te Urewera, was the foremost authority on Kendall’s work. In 1986, she found it necessary to compose an entire article, “At every Bend a Taniwha”, just to correct the historical record:

The fundamental confusion is Simmons’s claim that the ‘three states of existence’, as Kendall described the Maori cosmology, were Te Kore, Te Po, and Te Ao Marama. He states Te Ao Marama, this world, is the third realm of existence. Kendall gave no Maori name to any of these ‘States or Modes of Existence’. [cxxviii]

Binney continues with other examples. In the Auckland Museum, “Te Oha” is a rare surviving example of domestic storehouse, a pataka made by the Te Arawa. Simmons’ explanation of the meaning behind carved figure-work on its paepae (horizontal side panel) is subject to further corrections by Binney, after which she observes:

It would appear from the evidence that Simmons has fed Te Riria the already unreliable statements of Kendall, and they are, in turn, being handed back to us as tradition. Considering that Simmons has done so much valuable work in uncovering the interferences of S. Percy Smith in the oral traditions, this would seem to be an extraordinary procedure to have adopted.

Of note, Te Riria is a central figure in the Ko Huiarau movement, which has its own chronology of events occurring in 19th century New Zealand history, outside the corpus of academic consensus. [cxxix] Simmons enjoyed an ethnological collaboration with Te Riria, jointly producing Maori Tattoo (1989), republished as Moko Rangitira (1999).

Unfortunately, because Simmons has made distortions in popular books, the academic corrections by Judith Binney have faced an uphill struggle to be heard since. Yet, in one article she proves to have more integrity about Māori history, in her little finger, than the collective body of the Scholars of Ethnography.

Repurposing names for the three states of existence in prehistoric Māori religion are damaging to a proper understanding of Māori culture prior to European interaction. Cementing an invented name for Auckland is damaging to all Aucklanders of all nationalities who care about their city’s history. Simmons’ books with toponym lists, published in 1980, 1987 and 2013, have become influential in subsequent authors, cited as a reference hundreds of times in works on New Zealand place names and general history. Yet, his popularising of TMR and promotion of it within New Zealand academia has become the largest and most egregious of his colonisation of Māori narratives.

The lesson here is that while Simmons accomplished much in ethnology, he succumbed to flaws unacceptable to academic rigor. When his heart wanted something to be true that sounded better, he could, and did, find a way to contrive his preferred “truth” from a source he knew was flawed. The Polynesian Society honoured him with the Elsdon Best Memorial Medal in 1978. In 2016, his obituary appeared in its Journal. The last sentence is diplomatic: “It was probably during this time [1970s] that he made his greatest contributions to Anthropology and Māori studies, although some of his later works appear to have been influenced by informants of questionable reliability.” [cxxx]

It is right to be less diplomatic here and observe that Simmons played fast and loose with the ethnological record. To summarise: Simmons has a track record of leveraging informants of questionable reliability, implying non-existent detail in early sources, to support his ideal of what he wanted Māori history and culture to be. Unfortunately, his academic formalising of TMR has sparked a wider movement, to de-legitimise the official name of Auckland. Yet, it has been a settled matter for 180 years.

The most promoted form in English texts is Tāmaki Makaurau, which appears to be adopted from the whakataukī of Tāmaki in the welcome to Plunket (1904). This may have no more significance than a printer’s typesetter choosing to use a hyphen in “makau-rau”. George Rusden’s spelling (1901) is the same, but probably coincidental. He knew it as whakataukī in any case. Graham also used this spelling in 1932. The multiple spellings of TMR evidence the toponym having a confused, modern and artificial origin. The Māori now believe TMR is kōrero nehe, perceived wisdom of ancient history. Its origin is forgotten, while it is fuelled by 21st century academia, quasi-governmental committees and social media mimesis until it is enveloping Aucklanders today.

This paper is a presentation of research into Tāmaki Makaurau and once again, a point is reached where it is appropriate to write a conclusion and publish. But this is not possible, there is one more important line of enquiry.  For completeness, the events at the founding and naming of Auckland must be reviewed, including the transaction for original site. Then, it is possible to conclude properly on the effect today, of the transformation wrought by the Scholars of Ethnography.

Founding and Naming of Auckland

Hobson’s Decision from Extensive Research

Figure 13. Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson of New Zealand

Portrait by Mary Ann Musgrave ca. 1839, painted before his departure to New Zealand aboard HMS Herald Credit: National Library of Australia, ref. 135308113

The name “Auckland” was long in the mind of Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson (1793–1842), even while he sailed across the Tasman on HMS Herald, in January 1840. He had the intention of naming the new capital of the colony of New Zealand, after the man who saved his naval career, Lord Auckland, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Hence, in 1841, Colonial Secretary Willoughby Shortland set Auckland’s Anniversary Day on 29 January each year, the date of their arrival at the Bay of Islands. [cxxxi]

The Herald moored in the bay off Kororareka, with Hobson ready to begin his demanding mission. Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office had instructed him to secure British sovereignty of the islands comprising New Zealand through a treaty with the Māori. He then had to implement British law and establish departments of state. The next day, he took a boat to shore in full-dress uniform and marched to the Anglican Church, cheered on by the varied inhabitants of the town recently known as the “Hellhole of the Pacific”. His men hoisted the British flag, and he read two commissions on behalf of the Crown.

The first was a re-reading of the proclamation of June 1839 when the Crown extended New South Wales to include New Zealand. The other, his own letter of appointment as Lt. Governor under Governor George Gipps. At Paihia, the CMS missionary William Colenso printed two proclamations for him, asserting the Crown’s authority over British subjects in the colony, and controversially announcing that the Crown would only recognise land titles derived from government sales. Purchasing land directly from the Māori was no longer allowed, and the new government would formally investigate prior land sales.

He had discussions with James Busby, now ex-British Resident, and sent for the senior CMS missionary Rev. Henry Williams, who was away from Paihia, but returned the next day. During their meeting aboard the Herald, on 30 January, Williams suggested the Waitemata as the best place to establish the capital and centre of the new Colonial Government.

However, Hobson’s priority, with Busby’s help, was the rapid preparations for a treaty with the Māori. [cxxxii] It was fortunate Henry Williams had just returned from a long journey south, in order to have his skill translating the treaty into te reo, called Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He and his son Edward worked throughout the evening and into the night of 5 February. Explaining the document to the Māori and getting their signatures would have been impossible without the help of the CMS and other missionaries, particularly Williams. They performed the major signing ceremony of the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February, between many northern Māori chieftains and the Crown, represented by Hobson. During that occasion, a crucial intervention by the rangitira Tāmati Wāka Nene, supported by his brother Patuone, happened when it looked like the Māori would reject the treaty. They made seven copies for taking around the country, through the first half of 1840. Someone always read out the version in te reo Māori and explained it, before chieftains and elders, who concurred with Te Tiriti would sign.

Hobson knew the Bay of Islands from his earlier visit in 1837. He must have soon decided it was unsuitable for the centre of government. It was too northerly for a capital, had no large expanse of back country, few good anchorages for sailing ships or large deep-water harbours for loading and unloading. It was already well-populated by the Ngāpuhi. The European settlers had purchased and sub-divided many parcels of land, making it difficult for the government to get a large undivided landholding. So, Hobson was prepared to look southwards. The final location of Auckland was not like the proverbial “Hobson’s Choice” with only one good option. Hobson’s final decision only came after extensive research by a thorough survey and two personal visits to several promising locations.

Before 1840, Europeans rarely visited the western part of the Hauraki Gulf and Waitemata Harbour. They called the entire Hauraki Gulf, including all adjoining harbours from Cape Rodney to the Waihou River, simply “Thames”. While Hobson had the Thames under consideration for the capital, this was not definite. If they chose the Thames, ultimately, he would need to transact with one or more of a dozen different hapū depending upon which land the governor considered most suitable for the capital. Fortunately, travel by sailing ship between the Bay of Islands and the Thames was fast, taking just a day or two with a fair wind. Ships also facilitated official communications by carrying mail.

One settler who knew the area was William Cornwallis Symonds (1810–1841), previously, a British army officer of the 96th Regiment. He came to the Bay of Islands in 1839 and went into partnership setting up the Manukau and Waitemata Land Company to facilitate Scottish settlement. Soon it focused on the Mitchell claim of land in Tāmaki and Waitakere, which the company purchased from Mary Mitchell. Hobson met Symonds on 18 February 1840 when Captain Nias of HMS Herald invited him to join their voyage to the Thames after the signing of the treaty. Hobson saw qualities of leadership in Symonds and soon appointed him to the position of Police Magistrate for the Thames region. His stature was such the early Auckland settlers and Māori considered him to be the deputy governor. In fact, this post was vacant for a long time. James Freeman was first Acting Colonial Secretary, then Shortland gained this provisional position in late 1840, until he was officially appointed on 3 May 1841.

On 21 February, HMS Herald, under Captain Nias, sailed southwards. Hobson was on his first visit to the Thames, accompanied by Acting-Secretary James Freeman, Colonial Treasurer George Cooper, Surveyor-General Felton Mathew, Captain Symonds and Rev. Henry Williams, with seven Māori of the central North Island. They were chieftains and tribespeople of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāi Te Rangi, returning home to the Taupō and Tauranga regions. Detail of their identity and journey will become relevant to understanding this history.

When HMS Herald arrived at Waiheke and visited, Patuone joined the party as a guide. Hobson hired a trading ship for surveying purposes. The Ngāpuhi rangitira, recounts the first few days in his testimony to the Ōrākei Land Court. [cxxxiii] They headed west into the Waitemata to about where Mechanics Bay is today. Hobson wanted to explore the upper harbour, but Patuone was anxious to avoid the Ngāti Whātua, as they had not yet made peace. So, he urged the ship to moor at the northern shoreline. In the minute book, Patuone relates, “After going up to Mt Victoria the Governor came down and approved of Auckland.” The court reporter for the Daily Southern Cross provides a less definite translation “After going up Mount Victoria and looking around, the Governor spoke approvingly of the country. I did not see any people here [Official Bay] at that time. I did not see any fire at Ōrākei or Ōkahu at that time.” [cxxxiv]  Henry Williams wrote in his diary for 21 February, that Hobson identified the site of the present location for the new capital, but it was not the case. [cxxxv] The explanation is Williams and Patuone assuming so, but neither of them witnessed the rest of Hobson’s visit, as they stayed ashore before it ended. About 26 February, they sailed to Fairburn’s mission at Maraetai, where Williams and his companions disembarked. He told Fairburn about the new Colonial Government and enlisted his help with Hauraki chieftains to gain their signatures to the treaty. His companions would have departed there, for the overland journey southwards.

Hobson headed once more into the Waitemata, this time entering the “inlet”, now Hobson Bay, where he landed and climbed Ōhinerau at Remuera, later called Mt Hobson. He stood like so many have done since, appreciating the vista, obsidian waters sparkling into the northern distance to Takarunga (Mount Victoria) and Rangitoto. During the last days of February, he explored the upper Waitemata Harbour. Hobson rejected Te Atatu, but much favoured the area, appropriately known today as Hobsonville. [cxxxvi]

However, he made no decision, then disaster happened. On the first of March, after a stormy night, Hobson suffered a stroke, causing paralysis of his right side. It was bad enough for him to speak of resigning his naval commission. They remained at the Waitemata another week, until Henry Williams re-joined them and a treaty signing took place, then they took Hobson north for convalescence. Williams and others persuaded him not to make any quick decision and first try to recover at Te Waimate, the tranquil CMS mission west of Kerikeri.

On 6 April, from his bed, Hobson asked Felton Mathew to scrutinise the entire coastline between the Bay of Islands and Firth of Thames. He wanted a survey done of all the bays, harbours, and estuaries. The choice of location for the capital was to be guided by their results. Twelve days later, Felton and his wife, Sarah, working as his assistant, sailed southwards on the Revenue Cutter Ranger. For the next two months, they diligently conducted their important task.

At the Thames, the principal location of European commercial settlement was Whanganui Island near present-day Coromandel township. Gordon Browne owned a sawmill for ship timbers and spars. Peter Abercrombie ran a shipyard in partnership with his Sydney-based brothers. The American ex-whaler, William Webster, had a trading station, where he dealt in many products, purchasing cargoes and transacting with the Māori. Fluent in te reo, he married a niece of the powerful rangitira Kītahi Te Horetā of the Ngāti Whanaunga. News of the Mathew’s departure to survey the Thames quickly reached Webster at the Coromandel, as ships were frequently running to and from Kororareka. The two dozen Europeans in the Thames got to know that their region was in consideration for a government capital. Amongst them were four newly arrived Scotsmen seeking their fortunes, notably including John Logan Campbell and his future business partner, William Brown.

Webster was a smart man, and like Henry Williams, he knew the Waitemata was a favourable location for a port and capital. It was clear to those present that early land speculation at the site of the new town would be a profitable enterprise. Webster, with Māori companions, Campbell and Brown sailed across the Firth of Thames into the Tamaki Strait, where they encountered the Mathews on 1 May 1840. As the ships came close, probably it was Webster who called out for the Surveyor-General, then Felton Mathew appeared. However, they were to be disappointed. He told them there was no decision. Three weeks later, William Brown purchased Motukorea in the Waitemata, from Te Kanini of Ngāti Tamaterā and rangitira Katikati and Ngata, whereupon it became known as Brown’s Island.

On 16 April, Hobson arrived at Paihia from Te Waimate. The same time, his wife Eliza arrived aboard HMS Buffalo with Major Thomas Bunbury and about 90 men and officers from Sydney, sent by Governor Gipps when he learned that Hobson was gravely ill. Hobson was much improved in health, but he never fully recovered. In the first week of May, his fledgling Colonial Government took possession of land and buildings at Okiato, purchased from the wealthy merchant and United States consul, James Clendon. The governor took up residence at Okiato in Clendon’s 8-room building, renamed to Government House. It was then, Captain Symonds arrived with the Manukau-Kāwhia sheet of Te Tiriti, signed by many chieftains, then made his own letter of report. On 23 May, Hobson named the nascent town Russell after Lord Russell, Colonial Secretary, and his superior in London. It was the first capital of New Zealand and Russell gradually got applied to nearby Kororareka.

The Mathews arrived back to Russell on 11 June and Hobson excitedly welcomed Felton and his news. He received the full report of their survey and findings four days later. About 29 June, Hobson set off south again for a second visit to the Thames, using the same cutter, Ranger. This time, he was in the company of Dr. John Johnson; George Clarke, who was Protector of Aborigines, while still with the CMS; and David Rough, an ex-sailor, destined to be Auckland’s first harbourmaster. They reached the Hauraki Gulf on 4 July, anchoring off Waiheke. On 6 July, they sailed up the Tamaki River into the shallow lagoon (Panmure Basin), which was the area most recommended for the town in Mathew’s report. Mathew considered the prospect of a future canal cut through to the Manukau, an important advantage. They must have spent a couple of days examining the estuary, but its narrow, winding channel with sandbars ended all ideas they had for that location.

On 9 July, they oversaw the final signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Hauraki region, probably at Karaka Bay on the Tamaki River, the second signing which took place there. Afterwards, they went further up the harbour and anchored for the night near a rock called the Sentinel, now known as Watchman’s Island, off Herne Bay. Liking what they saw of that portion of the harbour, David Rough volunteered to remain behind for the night. He must have used a dinghy to take depth soundings and camped ashore, observing the tide. His colleagues continued aboard Ranger to the upper harbour where Hobson originally favoured a location for the capital, but they returned the next day disappointed, rejecting that area too. Meanwhile, David Rough found deep water suitable for anchoring ships. He relates:

In the afternoon, His Excellency, accompanied by Dr. Johnston, Mr. Clarke and myself, landed and walked along the shore to what is now called Freeman’s Bay. All we saw appeared favourable for the site of a settlement. Captain Hobson was much pleased, and without fixing on a particular spot for a site, we returned to the Bay of Islands. [cxxxvii]

Hobson’s search had ended. They arrived back at Russell on 11 July, coinciding with the appearance of the French naval frigate L’Aube under Captain Lavaud. After a cordial meeting, Hobson was pre-occupied with French Government intentions, so he focused on establishing British sovereignty over the South Island. He issued instructions to Captain Stanley, Chief Police Magistrate Michael Murphy and his deputy Charles Robinson to proceed to Akaroa. HMS Britomart slipped out of port on 23 July.

Also on 23 July, the barque Anna Watson under Captain Steward arrived at the Bay of Islands from Sydney. The 13 August issue of the Gazette newspaper reported “We are informed that the Anna Watson has been chartered by the Colonial Government, for the purpose of conveying down workmen and others to the Thames, is a preparatory step to the foundation of the Capital there. We have not heard that the precise locality is fixed on.” Only then did news spread that the capital was certain to be well south of the Bay of Islands. A few days later, the news also reached Port Nicholson, carried there by HMS Britomart. This decision dismayed the New Zealand Company settlers who thought their thriving township of 2000 people far more worthy of being the capital of the colony. Twenty-five years later, those with enough patience were rewarded when Wellington became the capital.

Hobson and his advisors knew perfectly well that to ensure clear title to their preferred site, it needed to be purchased. The land selected on 10 July was within the rohe of the Ngāti Whātua, and their consent was critical to the next step. Meeting with them became the priority on the next visit of government representatives, which eventuated in mid-September.

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and their land at Tāmaki

After returning to Ōrākei and Ōkahu in 1838, the Ngāti Whātua remained cautious about the Ngāpuhi. In February that year, a party of Ngāti Porou and Ngāti Kahungunu attacked Aotea (Great Barrier Island). Forces led by Te Horetā from Coromandel defeated them. News of this incident must have confirmed Ngāti Whātua concerns, but, unknown to all it proved to be the final conflict in the Hauraki region. [cxxxviii] Another perceived threat was the Ngāti Pāoa, who S. Percy Smith reports, attacked and drove them out of Tāmaki 18 years earlier. [cxxxix]

Figure 14. Te Kawau Te Tawa and his nephew Tamakihi Te Reweti

Portraits by John West Giles ca. 1844. Angas, G. F. The New Zealanders (1847), (Reed facsimile, 1966)

Te Kawau Te Tawa (ca.1790–1869) of Te Taou hapū, was the senior chieftain and had a complex personality. [cxl] In early life he was a much-feared warrior who fought in many battles as far south as the Cook Strait, but he was also mild mannered and keen to be friends with the Europeans. In late-life Bishop Selwyn baptised him, conferring the forename Abishai, pronounced Apihai by the Māori. Te Kawau and his wife Kirepiro had a son, Te Hira Te Kawau, known as Peter, who was rangitira at Ōkahu, and their daughter was Hera Whakamana. To forge alliances, Te Hira married the sister of Aihepene Kaihau of the Ngāti Te Ata. [cxli]

Te Tinana was a brother of Te Kawau, and Tamakihi Te Reweti his nephew. He matured to become a very astute, influential decision-maker. Te Kawau consented to Te Reweti conducting many affairs of the iwi and their relationships with Europeans. He gained the baptised name William Davis, and became known as Wiremu Reweti, or more plainly, Davis. Te Kawau’s sister Ātareta Tuha was the mother of Pāora Tūhaere, destined to become ariki of the Ngāti Whātua after Te Kawau’s death.

The tribe was much depleted from the musket wars, with a population at Tāmaki of about one hundred. Several sources give similar estimates. The surveyor William Farley Blake visited Ōrākei and Ōkahu several times in July 1841. At the Land Court in 1868, he reported he saw a population of about 80 Ngāti Whātua, with 12 or 15 whare and extensive cultivations in that area, estimated at 40 acres (16 ha). [cxlii] Similarly, Te Reweti recalled the tribe numbered about 100. [cxliii] In 1842, Charles Terry estimated a maximum of 250 “fighting men” in the whole tribe, [cxliv] for which he must have included the Kaipara settlements, implying a total iwi population perhaps three times larger. The late return of exiles increased their numbers.

According to their Land Court testimony in 1868, Ngāti Whātua returned to Tāmaki from Mangere, after the Ōtāhuhu 1838 peacemaking. [cxlv] First, they lived at Rangitoto-iti, a small volcanic cone near Remuera, since quarried away, which had ground favourable for cultivation. Then they extended to Ōrākei and Ōkahu. [cxlvi] The tribe would periodically depart in groups of ten people to plant and tend crops of vegetables then return home. The lower part of the Horotiu valley was swampy, but the upper part is north-facing and they first re-cultivated kumara there in spring of 1837 while still living at Mangere, again in 1838 and 1839, but left it fallow in spring of 1840, hence what remained was covered in weeds. [cxlvii] That year they first cultivated at Waiariki (Official Bay). This bay was by the eastern side of Point Britomart, now reclaimed under Stanley Street. Having several crops at discrete locations, ensured they would not go hungry. The tribe also enjoyed hunting birds and fishing by the Manukau harbour, regularly staying at Onehunga.

The Ngāti Whātua already knew Captain Symonds, which must have assisted him on his first mission for the government. Willoughby Shortland charged him with taking the Manukau-Kāwhia treaty sheet to the mission stations of James Hamlin at Ōrua, and Rev. Maunsell at Port Waikato. On 20 March, at Ōrua, Hamlin read out the treaty in te reo to the Ngāti Whātua rangitira. Te Kawau, Te Kanini and Te Reweti, became the first signatories to it, witnessed by Symonds.

Of the area which Hobson selected for purchase, David Rough gives an account of the time in July 1840, when he come ashore at what is now St Mary’s Bay and Point Erin:

I offered to leave the cutter and remain behind to take soundings and examine the shore at low water before daylight the next morning. Just as the sun rose, I climbed up the cliffs to where Ponsonby now is and beheld a vast expanse of undulating country mostly covered with fern and manuka scrub; several volcanic hills in sight, and near the shore valleys and ravines in which many species of native trees were growing, whilst the projecting cliffs and headlands were crowned with pohutukawa trees, whose rich scarlet flowers form in summer so gorgeous a feature of New Zealand’s coast scenery in the North Island. But there was not a sign of cultivation or of human habitation, the nearest native village being out of sight. The cutter had sailed up the harbour, and not even a canoe was to be seen on the spacious surface of the Wai-te-mata. [cxlviii]

The first settlers, such as Sarah Mathew, describe the area as uninhabited and had no evidence of any recent permanent village, settlement or active cultivations in the Horotiu valley and Freeman’s Bay areas. The remains of two old raupo huts were found near today’s site of the Northern Club on Princes Street. Likely these were observation shelters used during visits when cultivating. Only sturdy structures would have survived the weather since 1825, when the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara stayed during their retreat southwards. There was a cultivation of “potato plants among the tea tree” present at Official Bay. [cxlix] A pair of break-winds nearby were recently made for the settlers. [cl] At the Land Court, in 1868, Rev. Maunsell testified “There were no natives living here [Official Bay], they were all at Orakei, this was [September] the spring of 1840.” [cli]

First Crown Purchase at Tāmaki

While the ship Anna Watson was being readied at the Bay of Islands, Lt. Governor Hobson issued written orders to his senior officers for their mission to establish the new capital. Much to the umbrage of Felton Mathew and Dr Johnson, the less-experienced Captain Symonds was, technically, made head of the expedition. On 11 September 1840, Hobson handed a second letter to Symonds with orders specific to asserting Colonial Government authority over two land areas at the Thames:

You are hereby directed to take possession of Autea in the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty and hoist the British Flag thereon, the same having been presented to Her Majesty by the Native Chiefs who owned it. … [clii]

The Europeans considered William Webster to have purchased Aotea in its entirety and Māori ownership extinguished. Hobson’s instruction to hoist the British Flag was to make clear to Webster and his partners Jeremiah Nagle and William Abercrombie, that their pre-Treaty claims were now subject to a grant by the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1849, there was a flagstaff on the headland above Home Point, Nagle Cove, as depicted in a watercolour by the artist Joseph Merrett. [cliii] This might be a government flagstaff erected on a later mission. Symonds apparently misread the name “Autea” as “Korea”, a shortened form of Motukorea, as he only reports about that island. Possibly, Hobson confused the names.

On a separate matter, Hobson’s letter continues, authorising Symonds to negotiate with the Māori owners of the site he selected for Auckland:

… Should any difficulties arise relative to the occupation of the Land about to be formed into the Township on the Thames, you will use your utmost exertions to remove all obstructions and treat with the Natives for the purpose of satisfying them.

Two days later, Anna Watson departed the Bay of Islands with the first settlers of Auckland, anchoring near the Sentinel at 11 am on 15 September 1840. Already in the harbour, three days earlier, anchored by the northern shore, was the New Zealand Company chartered ship Platina, which had sailed up from Port Nicholson. It carried settlers, supplies, and the prefabricated wooden building, which was to become Government House at the new capital. They found deep water anchorage off the headland, between the Horotiu valley and Waiariki (Official Bay). The headland was briefly known as Flagstaff Hill, then later, Point Britomart. Both ships converged there. Keenly aware that negotiations were critical to their success, Symonds sent a Māori messenger to the Ngāti Whātua, and he found them at the Manukau harbour. They agreed to come over the next day.

In the meantime, it was up to Felton Mathew to determine the boundaries of the land they required and the exact site of the town. Mathew and Johnson made the difficult hike through thick fern and volcanic rubble to climb Maungawhau, the obvious marker for the southern boundary of the area Hobson selected two months earlier. From it, they defined a large segment of land centred due north to the Horotiu valley.

On the 16th, the Ngāti Whātua arrived, met the settlers, and learned which land they wished to bargain for. Symonds and Edward Williams explained the objectives of the Colonial Government in establishing a town and purchasing land. They found willing help from the tribe to unload their supplies onto the shore. Even so, no construction work could begin. On 21 September, Symonds wrote a letter of report to Freeman at Russell:

I explained to them the views of Her Majesty’s Government in sending a party here; and, had little difficulty in obtaining from them their sanction to the houses and stores being landed on any spot which might be selected by the Surveyor General – as well as a promise of assistance in discharging the ships from all of the tribe in the vicinity – about 60 in number.
I perceived however that they looked upon us with some suspicion and deemed it necessary to enter into an arrangement with them of the nature of the accompanying Document, the Preliminaries of which I arranged on the 17th. [cliv]

In late-life, David Rough published his recollections “The Early Days of Auckland” mentioning the same event:

The day after our arrival a number of natives came from the village of Orakei to see what we were about, and after a considerable amount of bargaining, Captain Symonds and Mr. Williams succeeded in getting the chief Rewiti to dispose of the land required for a township to the Queen. [clv]

They did not complete the considerable amount of bargaining required in one day. Negotiations must have become more difficult when Symonds and Williams explained that the land sale was to be permanent. No answer was immediately forthcoming from the Ngāti Whātua, so the negotiators had to return the next day. The iwi needed a major hui of all people, not just the elders and chieftains. As explained by the Waitangi Tribunal, in its 1987 report on Ōrākei: “Decisions affecting land, like all decisions of moment, were announced by tribal heads, elders, or a paramount chief, but only after a decision of the tribe as a whole had been sought.” [clvi]

Titahi (also spelled Titai) was an important Ngāti Whātua tohunga, a middle-aged man when Te Kawau was a boy. Primarily, he is remembered for a specific prophesy he made during a meeting at Ōkahu, which occurred about 1780. [clvii]

He aha te hau e wawara mai? [What is the wind that softly blows?]
He tiu, he raki, [It is the wind of the northwest, of the north,]
Nana i u mai te pupu tarakihi kiuta. [That drives the nautilus on our shore.]
E tikina atu e au te kotiu, [If I bring from the north,]
Koia te pou whakairo [The handsome carved post]
Ka tu ki Waitemata [And place it here in Waitemata]
I aku wairangi e. [My dream will be fulfilled.]

Titahi was alive as late as 1807 because he made a second prophecy, about a sandstorm blowing from the coast into Kaipara. They interpreted it as foretelling an attack by the Ngāpuhi, whose war-party was then met by pre-emptive strike and defeated in the Feast of Seagulls battle. [clviii] There does not seem to be a record of Titahi meeting any European in the 19th century, hence, he was deceased many years before Hobson arrived in New Zealand. Therefore, the Ngāti Whātua hui remembered his first prophecy during their deliberations conducted at Ōrākei on 16 and 17 September 1840.

Of the prophecy, the Ngāti Whātua considers the nautilus shell to be a euphemism for a sailing ship and the “unfolding of new order”. [clix] The carved post is interpreted as the kauri flagstaff which was brought ashore in anticipation of being erected on the headland. Once the hui agreed the prophecy was a foretelling of the governor’s arrival, the sale of land could also be agreed upon. The Europeans waited in anticipation. For 17 September, Sarah Mathew notes in her diary:

I am anxiously looking for the arrival of the Cutter which will I hope bring us such decisive intelligence as to enable us to arrange our future movements and resolve whether we land here or proceed southwards in the vessel.

Sarah is at the site of the future town, while the negotiators have returned to Ōrākei by ship, hoping to get a favourable result after the previous day’s discussions. If they secured a purchase in principle, they would pay a deposit. As far as she is aware, they may well refuse the offer to purchase, hence the alternative of the settlers to “proceed southwards”, towards the Tamaki Strait. What contingency orders existed are unknown, but if they headed just five kilometres east, as far as Kohimarama, they would talk to the Ngāti Pāoa instead.

Fortunately, the Ngāti Whātua told Symonds and Williams their offer to purchase land was considered acceptable for payment of gold and goods. On the 17th, they struck a preliminary arrangement. On behalf of the tribe, Te Kawau assented to Hobson’s choice of land for a new European settlement on the Waitematā. They concluded that having such a settlement nearby would help ensure the tribe’s long-term security and they would benefit from trade. The sale of the first land for Auckland was to be conducted in two stages. Initially, Symonds could do no more than make a deposit of £6, with the balance due when the governor arrived.

Captain Symonds sent a report to James Freeman with the original of the Preliminaries Document (Figure 15b) which reads:

Wai te Mata Friday, 18th Sept. 1840

It’s agreed this day on the part of “Te Kauwau”, “Te Reweti”, and “Te Tinana” and others of the Ngatewhatua tribe to cede to Her Majesty’s Government, temporally [sic], until its Purchase may be effected by the proper Crown Officer, that Portion of Land which is contained within the following Boundaries, Viz:

On the North, the Astuary [sic] of the Wai te Mata

On the South, a line drawn through Maunga Wau midway between the Waters of Manukau and the Wai te Mata

On the East, the River called Mate-hare-hare

On the West by the River called Opou.

In consideration whereof the aforesaid Chiefs have received six pounds sterling, in earnest, to be deducted from the Price of the lands hereafter to be determined, and in Witness have attached their Names.

Signed before us this 18th September 1840.

Wm. C Symonds, Police Magte.

John Johnson, M. D., Colonial Surgeon.

Felton Mathew, Survr. Genl.

David Rough, Harb. Master.

Ko te Reweti

Te Kawau X His Mark

Te Tinana X His Mark

Horo X His Mark

The four Ngāti Whātua rangitira at Tamaki all signed. Te Reweti was literate and wrote his name. Dr John Johnson produced a nice illustration of the flag-raising on 18 September 1840, though with many fewer people shown than attended (Figure 15a). Sarah Mathew gives a detailed account the events:

A beautiful morning seemed to smile on the auspicious circumstance of taking formal possession of a certain portion of the land: and accordingly, preparations were made for the important ceremony, and about half past twelve the whole party landed and proceeded to the height where the Flag staff was raised ready to receive the Royal Standard [sic], which was carried by the Harbour Master. The Police Magistrate, attended by the Clerk and Interpreter, then read a short preamble setting forth that a certain portion of land was to be given to the Government by certain chiefs, therein named, for a certain payment to be fixed hereafter, of which as earnest they were then and there to receive six sovereigns.

After some further discussion about the boundaries, it was at length decided, and the three principal chiefs signed the agreement or “puka-puka,” as they call all writings, which was also signed by the Police Magistrate and one or two other Government officers.

Then the Flag was run up by David Rough, and the whole assembly gave three cheers, the ship’s colours were also instantly hoisted and a Salute of 21 guns fired. Her Majesty’s health was then most rapturously drunk with cheers long and loud repeated from the ships; to the very evident delight of the Natives of whom nearly 100 had assembled round us. […]

At this stage of the business, the principal chief, Te Reweti, stepped forward and in a long vehement harangue seemed to be making very strong objections to admitting the Pakehas at all among them; though on the previous day it had all been arranged to his satisfaction. He said that a Pakeha who had resided long among them told him that the Queen of England would take all their land from them, and that they should then have none to live on. In reply he was told through the interpreter that this was false and that he should not believe what was said by bad white men who were only deceiving him for their own purposes; but that the Governor was come to see that neither Pakeha nor Māori were wronged and that all he or his Officers promised them should be strictly performed.

There was no rain though it threatened frequently: the first day without showers at least, which we have had for some time, a good omen I hope for the prosperity of the new city which is to rise on this spot. On the Flag staff was cut the name, Auckland, with the date of the day and year.

Figures 15. The Founding of Auckland on 18 September 1840

(a) Photo of a sketch, by John Johnson, of the British Flag-raising ceremony at Flagstaff Hill at the Waitemata Harbour. Ngāti Whātua are at the left, government officials and workmen at centre, Sarah Mathew wearing a bonnet is at centre right. Perhaps Symonds and Williams are with Te Kawau at the right. The ships Platina and Anna Watson fire cannons. Credit: Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections 5-1827 (b) The original Preliminaries Document. Credit: National Archives R23629896

Bold emphasis is added here, for reference later. After the founding celebrations completed, the Ngāti Whātua were generous in bringing some supplies of food to the settlers. Te Reweti later told S. Percy Smith that they left many acres of crops for them. Presumably these comprised the cultivation at Official Bay, [clx] and large clumps of wild vegetables within the boundaries. Abandoned cultivations had spread during the Musket Wars. The prominent early settler and author, Charles Terry, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society and Master of the Freemasons at Auckland, describes “…at Mt. Eden, and the remains of the most extensive pa, with their former cultivated grounds, on which are growing wild in luxuriant vegetation, tares, cabbages, turnips, celery, and grass. The tares were, in October (spring) 1840, in full blossom, four feet high, and there were some acres completely covered with them.” [clxi] These must have been well beyond the Karangahape ridgeline. Afterwards, the relationship quickly became economic. The Māori were often present trading food for goods or performing work-in-kind, constructing temporary raupo huts and break-winds for the Europeans.

In his letter of 21 September, Symonds planned to visit Motukorea, “tomorrow”, intending to raise the British Flag. Without re-dating his letter, he added more detail after the meeting occurred. Te Kawau accompanied him to the island, as they thought Māori were also living there. Coincidentally, Te Kanini was present on a visit to Brown and Campbell, who made their visitors welcome and shared lunch. Symonds offered help if they “removed to town”. [clxii] A few months later, Campbell moved to the mainland, then Brown followed.

From the founding, the settlement of Auckland proceeded in primitive conditions while more people regularly arrived. The cutter Ranger appeared on 1 October, with early settlers, including John Jermyn Symonds, brother of William Symonds. On 5 October, Sarah Mathew describes the location in her diary:

There is a beautiful stream running through the centre of the little amphitheatre or valley, and the landscape is really a gem; the buildings in progress of erection for Public Offices towards the head of the glen forming the back of the picture. There is a Maori path winding through the copse up the hill to the Flag staff, and thus far is our usual evening walk, the whole country is covered with Fern that it is difficult to move in any other direction.

For context, the stream is the Waihorotiu, which today is in a pipe under the west-side of Queen Street. The public offices were the prefabricated hut at the shore of Commercial Bay, then on the north side of Shortland Street, while the winding path is now underneath it. The “Fern” mentioned is bracken, about a metre tall, which has an edible root, but a terribly invasive plant. In this area of Tāmaki, it had crowded out almost all other species. Campbell, who made his first visit to the site of the town a few days later, described it similarly: “The capital!—a few boats and canoes on the beach, a few tents and break-wind huts along the margin of the bay, and then—a sea of fern stretching away as far as the eye could reach.” [clxiii]

On 12 October, HMS Britomart arrived at the Waitemata anchoring off Flagstaff Hill, where the military set up a garrison, giving it the new name Point Britomart. Aboard was George Clarke (1798-1875) who had an important role in the first few years of the Colonial Government. He arrived in New Zealand in 1824 as a lay preacher for the CMS, later helping set up and run the mission at Te Waimate. Henry Williams recommended him to Hobson for the official position of Protector of the Aborigines. In August, Clarke resigned from the CMS to join the government, reluctantly as he preferred to do missionary work, but realised the need for someone to be a guardian of the interests of the Māori. Unfortunately, he also had the task of negotiating early land purchases. This conflict of interest was later removed from him, but in the meantime, he did the best he could supporting the Māori as much as possible, while assisting the government. He immediately got to work, spending a week talking to the Ngāti Whātua and a half-dozen individual Europeans who had claims of varying legitimacy in the surrounding districts.

The Bay of Islands Gazette reported Hobson leaving Russell, on 16 October, for his third visit to the Thames. Sarah Mathew records his arrival at Auckland on the following day, but the weather was poor, so he stayed aboard (perhaps receiving visits by his officers including Clarke and his report of progress thus far). Hobson landed in the afternoon on 18 October, and he walked about, satisfied with progress.

On 20 October, Hobson gave written authorisation to Clarke to complete the land purchase, which Symonds had negotiated. He was at pains to ensure they fairly treated the Ngāti Whātua in the transaction and thereafter:

You are hereby authorized to treat with the Ngatiwhatua tribe, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, for the possession of the largest portions of their territory, if possible in a continuous section, taking care to reserve for the Natives an ample quantity of land for their own support; and you are further authorized to give, in payment for the same, money or barter to any amount you think just and equitable, both for the Government and the Natives, submitting to me as soon as possible an account of your proceedings. [clxiv]

It proved to be a major day. The deed “He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua” was prepared in te reo and a gathering of officials formed outside Symonds hut above Official Bay. Clarke describes the occasion “where, to the satisfaction of all parties, we finally adjusted the considerations for the land, the deed of conveyance being read to the chiefs in the presence of His Excellency the Governor, the officers of the ‘Favorite’ and of several of the Civil Department”. It is a remarkably well-preserved document on thick paper with minor foxing (Figure 16). The main text in te reo Māori is:

He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua

Wakarongo e nga tangata katoa. Ki tenei pukapuka kua oti te tuhituhi e te Kawau e te Tinana e te Reweti Tamaki me era atu Rangatira o te Ngatiwatua i te tahi taha, e Hori Karaka te kai tiaki o nga tangata maori, mot e Kuini o Ingarani i te tahi taha kua wakaae mai ratou kia tukua kia hokona te tahi kotinga wenua, kia ahatia kia ahatia ranei, me te Kuini o Ingarani oti tonu atu. Ko te kaha o taua kotinga wenua kua oti nei te hoko e matou koia tenei ko te kaha, ki te Nota ko te awa o Wai te Mata, no te awa i huaina ko Mataharehare tae noa ki te awa i huaina ko Opou, a no te wakamatenga o Opou maro tonu ki Maunga Wau, a tae rawa ki te wakamatenga o Mataharehare, no te wakamatenga o Mataharehare tae rawa atu ki te awa o Wai te Mata. Ko te ruinga o taua kotinga wenua koia tenei, e tonu mano o nga Ekara nui atu, nohinohi iho ranei, ko te utu mo taua wahi wenua koia tenei. E rima te kau Paraikete e rima te kau Pauna Moni, e rua te kau o nga Tarautete, e rua te kau o nga Hate, ko tahi te kau o nga Wekete, kotahi te kau o nga Kiapa, e rua kaho Tupeka, kotahi pouaka Paipa kotahi rau Tari Kaone, ko tahi te kau Kohua, ko tahi Peke Huka, ko tahi Peke Paraoa, e rua te kau o nga Patiti. – Kia pono to tatou tuhituhinga, me to tatou tohu ki tenei Pukapuka, ka tohungia nei e tatou i te rua te kau o nga ra o Okatopa i te tahi mano e waru rau e wa te kau o nga tau o te tatou Ariki.

Figure 16. He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua

Original sale and purchase land deed for the site of the city of Auckland, 20 Oct 1840 Addendum on 29 July 1841 to include £6 deposit paid under the Preliminaries Document of 18 September 1840 Credit: National Archives, Ref. R25301809

The associated translation is:

Land Deed

Listen all people to this book written by Kawau, Tinana, Reweti Tamaki and other Chiefs of the Ngatiwhatua on the one side by George Clarke Protector of the Aborigines for the Queen of England on the other side they have consented to give up to sell a portion of land to the Queen of England for ever and ever (for whatever purposes Her Majesty may deem right). The boundary of the said piece of Land we have now sold is this: the boundary to the North is the River of the Waitemata from the River named Mataharehare reaching the River called Opou and from the extremity of Opou in a straight line to Maunga Wau up to the rise or extremity of Mataharehare and from the extremity of Mataharehare up to the River of Waitemata the extent of this piece of land is this three thousand acres more or less. The payment for the said land is this: fifty blankets, fifty pounds of money, twenty trousers, twenty shirts, ten waistcoats, ten caps, four casks of tobacco one box of pipes one hundred yards of gown pieces ten iron pots one bag of sugar one bag of flour twenty hatchets. This writing with our signatures in this book is true signed by us on the Twentieth day of October in the Year One Thousand Eight Hundred and forty of our Lord.

(Signed) G. Clarke, P.A.

The mark of x Kawau.                      The mark of x Tinana.

(Signed) Ko te Reweti Tamaki.          The mark of x Horo.

(Signed) Thomas Ryan, J.P., Major, 50th Regt.       } Witnesses

(Signed) Wm. C. Symonds, P.M., Capt., 96th Regt.

I have received six pounds in money (£6) in addition to the money (named above) from Captain Symonds.

(Signed) Na Te Reweti.

(Signed) Edward Shortland              } Witnesses

(Signed) J. Coates.                            29 July 1841

The boundaries of the land transacted define a triangular slice of northern Tāmaki. It begins from Ruareoreo stream (Newmarket Stream) up Te Tiki, the Māori ridge track to Taurarua (Judges Bay) following the waterfront at the original high-water line westward including to Herne Bay to Cox’s Creek, up Cox’s Creek to the dip in today’s Williamson Road, then straight to the summit of Maungawhau (Mt Eden 196 m) then straight to the starting point at Ruareoreo stream. Felton Mathew calculated it to be 3,000 acres or 12 km². The amount paid in gold and goods has since been calculated to the value of about £281. [clxv]

Perhaps some settlers and Māori considered the first land purchase as enough for a township, to become like a Kororareka on the Waitemata. However, the governor had grander plans, and so did the Ngāti Whātua rangitira. George Clarke noted a discussion during the sale proceedings: “the [Ngāti Whātua] chiefs at the same time promising to sell a still larger tract of country when the Governor should finally reside among them.” [clxvi]

A few days later, at Auckland, on 23 October, George Clarke paid a further £2 for a wāhi tapu (Figure 17), i.e., an additional amount to have restrictions removed. Likely, this is regarding sacred sites where old burials lay within lava caves under the government’s side of Maungawhau.

Figure 17. Additional payment for wāhi tapu

“In addition to the sum of fifty pounds named on the other side of this deed the sum of two pounds have been paid for a wahi tapu.” Signed by George Clarke at “Waite Mata” on 23 October 1840. Credit: National Archives (Ref. R25301809)

Hobson stayed just 10 days on his third visit. He walked over to the Manukau Harbour and spent the night before returning. Tired from such exertions, he re-boarded Ranger and returned to Russell. They arrived on 1 November, followed by Anna Watson the next day. Both ships headed off to Australia. Their role in the founding of Auckland ended.

Soon, enough carpenters arrived at Auckland, and they brought in milled wood to construct many planked buildings. The new town was taking shape. Impressively, they carried the prefabricated frames, timbers, fittings and marble fireplaces of Government House, totalling 250 tons, high above Official Bay. They assembled the 16-room building on the eastern side of Princes Street, where a later building, Old Government House, still stands today.

In January 1841, the Colonial Government erected a flagstaff upon Takarunga. From this time, Auckland extended beyond Tāmaki. They presented Crown authority over a pre-emptive claim on the North Shore. At Fairburn’s mission, on 18 November 1839, the land-buying speculator Henry Tayler purchased some 1000 acres (404 ha) of the peninsula in southern Takapuna, from the Ngāti Pāoa, for goods valued at £116. [clxvii]

The Ngāti Whātua Methodist Minister Rev. Wiremu (William) Henry Toka (ca.1874–1935) describes two events in early 1841, on the occasion of their 92nd anniversary. The first event is a journey the Ngāti Whātua made to meet the governor at the Bay of Islands. Toka reports: “Te Reweti Tamaki had left Orakei village in January, 1841, with a party of Maoris, to extend to Governor Hobson at Paihia a welcome on behalf of the Ngatiwhatua people.” [clxviii] While there, Te Reweti must have raised questions about whether he they owed him any further payment. Hobson then wrote to Clarke on 5 February, requesting “a more explicit statement of the whole amount paid to Davis [Te Reweti] for the land at Auckland.” A week later, Clarke replied, referring him to the Land Deed of 20 October and its translation. [clxix]

Hobson completed outstanding matters at the Bay of Islands and made his fourth and final journey south in the government brig Victoria, arriving on 12 March 1841. The weather was poor, so he came ashore the following day. Looking well, a guard of honour met him, to be escorted to the recently completed and fitted Government House. After a year of searching and preparation, Hobson had officially relocated to the new capital. It must have impressed him with all he saw.

The second event related by Rev. Toka is about Hobson’s first visit to the Ngāti Whātua at Ōrākei and Ōkahu:

On March 14, Hobson arrived in the Waitemata, and met the chief Apihai te Kawau at the foreshore of Okahu, now known as the Orakei Maori reserve. Over 1000 people of the tribe were assembled there, and greeted Hobson with a wild welcome. Apihai te Kawau, in his welcome, said: “Governor, Governor, welcome as a father to me! There is my land before you Governor, go and pick the best part of the land, and place your people, at least our people, upon it!” Hobson then went back to bis ship, and the next day made another landing, near where Shortland street now is. He climbed the hill and placed a flag on about the position of Albert Park, the Maoris giving two hakas, one for the Waitemata and one for the raising of the flag. [clxx]

Clarifications are required. The number of 1000 is more likely several hundred unless other tribes attended. Toka paraphrased Te Kawau’s offer of land, as he never wanted Ōrākei, or Remuera sold. He must refer to ongoing negotiations for the second and far larger land transaction the Colonial Government and Ngāti Whātua concluded on 29 June 1841. It is described as “Orakei to Manukau” but is west Tamaki, Te Atatu to Manukau Road. [clxxi]

The flag-raising and haka is not to be confused with the founding occasion in September 1840 at Point Britomart. This was a separate event on 15 March 1841, the day following the Ōrākei welcome. Te Reweti and a group of Ngāti Whātua visited Commercial Bay by pre-arrangement. They met with Hobson and officials, then walked together up Shortland Street to Government House and took part in a friendly ceremony of flag-raising. [clxxii]

On 25 June 1841, Edward Shortland succeeded James Coates as private secretary to Hobson. The following month, on 29 July, they both signed an addendum to He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua. It reflected the £6 deposit made by Symonds in September. This was co-signed by Te Reweti, so perhaps it settled a difference of opinion and shortfall, as the government officials read the Preliminaries Document, mentioning deduction of the £6 from the £50 agreed in October. Instead, Te Reweti regarded the amounts in the October agreement to be wholly additional. In which case, the officials complied and paid him a further £6. There is an annotated total of £58 (including the wāhi tapu fee) on the wāhi tapu page of the deed.

The Historical Context Investigated

There has long been a movement in New Zealand academia and writers of popular history to de-legitimise the Crown’s purchase of the site for Auckland, calling it a “gift” or “treaty”. As a result, they have cast a cloud over Governor Hobson’s founding and naming of Auckland. The arguments put forward fall into three assertions that are interlinked: i.e., that the Ngāti Whātua invited Hobson to settle at the Waitemata before he saw it or during his first visit; that they gifted the land through a customary land allocation known as tuku whenua, creating a “partnership”; or what they received was such a low amount it was not a proper sale. Although others have explored and rebutted such arguments elsewhere, we investigate them here.

Assertion 1: Invitation to Settle

An ethnological report written by S. Percy Smith has great significance in the modern interpretation of history around the founding of Auckland, because he gives the Ngāti Whātua an assertive and pro-active role in Hobson’s selection of the site of Auckland. If they invited him, it changes the whole complexion of the founding.

During 1862-65, when Smith was living in Auckland, his friend Te Reweti, gave him a history regarding the Ngāti Whātua meeting with Hobson and welcoming him in 1841. Smith first mentions it briefly in the Journal (1899) “It was Te Kawau who invited Governor Hobson to settle on the shores of the Wai-te-mata, and he was there to welcome the Governor when Auckland was founded, in 1841.” [clxxiii] It seems peer review for the Journal was minimal. After publication, someone must have quickly corrected him they founded Auckland in 1840. So, he wrote up more detail about Hobson’s arrival and retrofitted Te Reweti’s history into 1840 instead. He publishes an expanded history in the Journal (1905) and his book Maori Wars of the Nineteenth Century (1910), which includes:

They sent off messengers to Kaipara, where Captain Symonds then was, and invited him to Wai-temata, whence, after staying some time, an embassy accompanied him to the Bay of Islands, going by way of Kaipara and Mangakahia. They found the Governor living on board a man-of-war, and after a fortnight’s stay, he brought the ambassadors back in his ship, and anchored off Wai-ariki (Official Bay, Auckland). There they found Apihai Te Kawau and the Taou people, who welcomed the Governor. [clxxiv]

Smith creates more confusion by prefixing his write-up with Titahi’s prophecy as if was first spoken in 1840, not sixty years earlier. He did this seemingly to rationalise an impetus for the tribe to make an unsolicited journey north. Smith does not provide any supporting contemporary sources for his history.

For over a century, historians have taken Smith’s relating of the account at face value and reproduced it in books as perceived wisdom. [clxxv] It heavily influences modern sources, research articles, iwi and government websites, Auckland Council publications and the Auckland Museum website. [clxxvi] Te Ara, The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, has this succinct summary: “Te Rewiti, Te Kawau’s nephew, was sent to the Bay of Islands to invite the new lieutenant governor, William Hobson, and negotiations led to the sale of 3,000 acres of land for the site of Auckland. By the deed, signed on 20 October 1840.” [clxxvii] Adolphus Reed in his historical work Auckland: City of the Seas (1955) is aware of Toka’s account of Hobson’s visit to Ōrākei in March 1841 and presumably Te Reweti’s journey in January 1841 but places the journey north into February 1840. [clxxviii] Similarly, to Smith, historians have repeated his account many times since.

Researchers have long puzzled over when the Ngāti Whātua could have made such a journey to invite Hobson to the Waitemata. To validate Smith, they have sought a gap in the timeline of events in 1840. Many concur that a party of Ngāti Whātua visited Hobson at the Bay of Islands in mid-February, arriving a week after the Treaty signing at Waitangi. How the Ngāti Whātua could have known in February about Hobson’s quest for a town site, (or even his arrival), they never properly explain. There is no record of any meeting when Hobson climbed Ōhinerau in late February. The tribe could have learned of Hobson’s plans during the treaty signing with Hamlin and Symonds at Manukau in late March, although the focus of discussion was on the all-important treaty. Meanwhile, at that date, Hobson was half-paralysed in bed at the Bay of Islands, not taking general visitors until after mid-April when he returned to Paihia from Te Waimate.

Circumstantial evidence given for Smith’s description of the event is seven Māori aboard HMS Herald in February with the assumption they were Ngāti Whātua. There is not a consensus on the event described by Smith, so it warrants a more detailed examination.

On 21 October 1839, Rev. Henry Williams embarked on a major missionary journey travelling inland through the North Island from Tauranga to the Cook Strait and back again. First, he sailed to Alfred Brown’s mission station at Tauranga Harbour. He then spent over two months trekking cross-country. He visited many tribes, bringing scripture and the message of Christianity, holding services, meetings, and talking to many Māori. After reaching the Kapiti coast, he reluctantly abandoned any idea of visiting the South Island and turned back. [clxxix] Williams gained loyal companions, Christian Māori from several tribes, some of whom would accompany him all the way to the Bay of Islands. Two companions were Iwikau and Te Korohiko, both younger brothers of high chieftains. Iwikau was a rangitira of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Taupō, and on 31 December 1839, he resolved to go with Williams to the Bay of Islands to see the mission stations there, despite misgivings about the Ngāpuhi. [clxxx] Te Korohiko was keen to do the same. He was from the Ngāi Te Rangi, at Tauranga, where his older brother was the ariki Tūpaea.

On 9 January 1840, Williams wrote in his diary “We were all glad to take some refresh­ment and proceeded onwards with my large party of natives from Cooks Straits and Taupo and Rotorua besides my own boys.” [clxxxi]After a happy reunion with his brother William and fellow missionaries at Tauranga, he was ready to return north. Williams, Brown and some of this group departed on the Martha, after six days at sea arriving at Paihia on 18 January. Eleven days later Hobson sailed into the Bay of Islands aboard HMS Herald. The Christian companions of Henry Williams were visiting the mission at Paihia, and it was coincidence Hobson arrived while they were present.

Iwikau and Te Korohiko are the final signatories to the Waitangi Sheet of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Neither had authority from their tribes to do so, and Iwikau was to find his signature repudiated by his older brother. However, his signature remained, and he became ariki in 1846, then named Iwikau Te Heuheu Tūkino III. If he intended to reaffirm his signature, he may have changed his mind. In 1856, Iwikau called a meeting at Pūkawa, on the southern shore of Taupō, near Tūrangi. Reportedly, 1600 Māori attended. They wanted a strong voice to speak against land loss and launched the process leading to the election of Te Wherowhero, as the first King of the Tainui Confederation.

After the signings at Waitangi and Māngungu, the Wesleyan mission at Hokianga, Hobson made ready for his first journey to see the Thames region and the Waitemata. Henry Williams prevailed upon the governor for the favour of aiding his companions on their return journey south, taking them as passengers, presumably, as far as Fairburn’s mission at Maraetai on the Tāmaki Strait. On the day of sailing, the ship’s log of HMS Herald has the following entry:

Remarks re Friday February 21st 1840, […] Rec’d the Revd H. Williams per Capt. Hobson with seven natives of New Zealand. Viz. Twikaw, Te Horoiko, Piauau, Taniwaho, Te Aramoana, Hoari Wiremu and Kemi Wiremu for passage [..] [clxxxii]

British naval ships have an Officer of the Watch who maintains the ships’ log for the captain. Clearly, the officer, or Captain Nias, struggled with the Māori names and gave some best endeavours spellings. Of the seven listed, the identities of the first two are certain. Twikaw and Te Horoiko are correctly Iwikau and Te Korohiko. The fifth named must be Hoani Te Aramoana, who was a rangitira of the hapū Ngāti Te Rangiita, also within the Ngāti Tūwharetoa iwi of Taupō. His connection to the CMS was close for many years, as in the 1850s, he was assisting Thomas Grace in teaching scripture at Pūkawa. [clxxxiii]

Piauau is extremely rare as a Māori name, though perhaps not another spelling error. This person may have been named because of a happenstance concerning a pīauau, a cutting tool, knife, or hatchet. Taniwaho might be Taniwharau, a name seen in the Rotorua region. Hoari [Hori/Hoani] Wiremu and Kemi [Hemi] Wiremu are baptismal names, George or John and James Williams, perhaps conferred by Henry Williams.

The seven Māori on board HMS Herald returning south in February, were not Ngāti Whātua ambassadors, they were Taupō and Tauranga pilgrims. At least two were Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Taupō and one from Ngāi Te Rangi of Tauranga. While biographical details of the other four are unknown, they are certain to be junior companions of the chieftains identified here, within the same or allied hapū.

We rule February out. Some researchers are already of the opinion that end-of-April or early May 1840 is more likely for a Ngāti Whātua visit north. It is when Captain Symonds travelled with the Manukau-Kāwhia Sheet of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, bringing it to Hobson. Co-incidentally for this article, the earliest Māori reference to the journey north is from Hōri Tauroa at the Ōrākei Land Court hearing, where he gives the first mention of the proverb Tāmaki makau rau (Exh. #2). Earlier during the same testimony, he relates:

We [Ngāti Te Ata] were living at Awhitu. After we had signed the paper I think Captain Symonds returned to Kaipara. He returned to Bay of Islands in the company of Te Reweti to bring the Governor. I remember the time of the Governor coming. N. Whatua were then living at Mangere, Waiariki and Horotiu. N. Teata were at Awhitu. [clxxxiv]

Several Ngāti Te Ata rangitira signed Te Tiriti on 26 April 1840. [clxxxv] Tauroa provides an early Māori account of the Ngāti Whātua journey north, implying the earliest possible date of end-of-April 1840. Tauroa is not saying the journey to the Bay of Islands was immediately after the treaty signing. He mentions Symonds first returning to Kaipara.

John Logan Campbell witnessed events before and after the founding of Auckland. He provides unique detail about the Ngāti Whātua perspective of Hobson’s search in the Waitemata. Campbell kept his early papers before drawing upon them for his entertaining memoirs, Poenamo: Sketches of the Early Days of New Zealand, first published in 1881. He explains in his interactive style “I am not going to write one word of fiction […] facts only will be narrated.” [clxxxvi] This is in the context of two sketches, but equally applies to his whole book, as he concludes with a message for his children “I have told you only a ‘plain unvarnished tale’; no word of fiction enters into it.” Campbell was only interested in true stories. When there is an error, it is not deliberate, an error in describing from memory perhaps, as he kept an early diary even recalling New Year activities on 1 January 1841. He rarely applied dates to his narrative, so other sources are required to pin his events down.

Campbell does mention the date 14 June 1840, before he and Brown went to live at Motukorea. [clxxxvii] While there, many weeks pass, while they keenly await any news of the new capital. [clxxxviii] Finally, probably during late-August, when their vegetables are sprouting in the rich volcanic soil, their friend, Pama, brings news from the Ngāti Whātua:

Great was the suspense in which we were kept until Pama’s return, and great the disappointment he brought to us, […] alas! the Ngatiwhatuas knew nothing whatever about the capital; no purchase of land had been made; they knew nothing of where the Pakeha town was to be.

What they did know was only this: –A small vessel had come into the Waitemata, that Pakehas had landed at Orakei and gone to the top of Remuera, and that they had gone away again after sailing all round the harbour; that afterwards another smaller vessel had come, and had kept sailing all round about and through the harbour, and a small boat had pulled into all the bays, and that a long time had been spent doing this, and then one morning the vessel was no more to be seen; but as the natives had all been away at Mangere kumara-planting and shark-fishing, this was all they knew, gathered from an old woman left at the Orakei settlement. [clxxxix]

The Ngāti Whātua witnessed Hobson’s first trip to the Waitemata in late-February, when he climbed Ōhinerau, but there was no meeting between them. Hobson’s search was cut short by his stroke. Afterwards, the tribe witnessed another vessel. It was Felton and Sarah Mathew performing a thorough survey of all the waterways and inlets. They finished at the Waitemata about 15 May, “no more to be seen” as they departed east for the Firth of Thames. By then, Symonds was back at the Bay of Islands having delivered a signed sheet of the treaty. He wrote a report dated 12 May, while he was there. If there was any journey north by the Ngāti Whātua, it would have been a major part of the news given to Campbell.

While Henry Williams and Patuone assumed that Hobson had chosen the site for Auckland when he climbed Takarunga in late-February, Symonds soon knew no such decision was made. While he did speak to Hobson recommending the Waitemata, both men were fully aware it aligned with Symonds’ financial interest in a land company. However, Symonds came to expect his company’s pre-1840 claim would fail in Tāmaki. At that time, no one in Hobson’s inner circle knew where the new capital would be, except between the Bay of Islands and the southern shore of the Hauraki Gulf, while the Waitemata was favoured. Those outside his inner circle assumed the capital would be near Kororareka. In early May 1840, Ensign Best, while guarding Government House at Russell, notes in his own diary that the Bay of Islands “must eventually be a place of great value to the government.” [cxc]

When Hobson was at the Waitemata on his second trip in early July, he would not possibly have by-passed the Ngāti Whātua if Te Reweti had visited him at the Bay of Islands two months earlier. Yet, there is no record of a meeting or visit to Ōrākei during that journey. The choice of the final location for the site of Auckland, made on 10 July, was a signal to immediately re-board and sail north.

Hobson’s letter to Symonds of 11 September and Symonds’ letter to Freeman of the 21st, comprise unambiguous historical evidence that they had held no earlier discussions between the Colonial Government and the Ngāti Whātua, who owned the land finally selected for the capital. Hobson wrote, “use your utmost exertions to remove all obstructions”. If they had already made an invitation, he would have started instructions from where those talks ended. They would have removed obstructions and Symonds’ negotiations would have been much easier, perhaps advanced enough to warrant full payment instead of negotiating a preliminary arrangement and making a deposit, “in anticipation of its purchase from them by the proper Crown Officer.” That officer proved to be George Clarke.

Symonds wrote that he and Edward Williams had to “explain the purpose of the government in sending settlers.” Clearly, the Ngāti Whātua had little or no information about Hobson’s plans for a town, or its status as capital of the colony where he would reside. Even if Symonds had mentioned the subject to them in prior months, his words clearly held no great significance until they met him and the settlers from Anna Watson and Platina at the Waitemata shore on 16 September 1840. Therefore, the time of end-April 1840 for a journey north by them does not stand up to scrutiny either.

While back at Onehunga a few days after the founding ceremony at Flagstaff Hill, Te Kawau discusses the preliminary arrangement. Campbell missed seeing the ceremony or hearing the cannons as he was travelling down the Tamaki River and crossing the Ōtāhuhu portage to the Manukau. He was in company with the captain of the schooner Dart and planned to trade goods for pigs. Motukorea made the ideal location for livestock, as no perimeter fencing was required. Te Kawau stopped by, and they fell into conversation:

At last old Kawau came to close quarters, and, squatting himself down beside me, he opened fire by propounding the question– “E hia nga tara mo tenei paraikete?” How many dollars for this blanket? […]

“E hia?” again repeats Kawau, drawling out the word while fumbling with the corner of the blanket he wore, and which at last he succeeded in opening, when out there jerked into his lap quite a small shower of–glittering sovereigns!

Again, benignly looking at me in the face, and breaking into a smile which caused to curl up still higher the tattooed wave-line at the corners of his mouth, he repeated in the most mellifluous tone– “E hia te tara?”

Why, the old man means what he says after all, but where the devil have all the sovereigns come from? And on my face wonder must have been so plainly written as I stared at the chief, that he said– “Te utu mo te whenua”–the payment for the land.

“Hallo!” I sang out in the most excited manner to the commander of the Dart, “Come here, look here; Kawau has got heaps of sovereigns–payment for land he says.”

“What land?” we both asked in a breath.

“For this land and the Waitemata land”, replied Kawau quietly; “We have been to Kororareka to get the utu and sign the pukapuka, and this is some of the money.”

“Hurrah! hurrah! hurrah!” shouted I, jumping up; “’The isthmus is bought–capital fixed–hurrah! hurrah!” […] Here was the explanation of the little topsail schooner we had seen from the island [Motukorea] slipping in to Orakei Bay. The chiefs had been taken up to sign, seal, and deliver the deeds and get part of their money, and here was some of it glittering before me in veritable proof.

“But Orakei, have you sold that?” I asked.

“Kahore, kahore!” –No, no! he said, which word was chorused from a dozen voices all around.

No indeed! Orakei and its lovely slopes were not sold. The land was higher up the harbour, and cutting across the isthmus to Onehunga, a narrow strip only a little to the west, embracing a large shore frontage to the Waitemata and of very miserable quality.  It was a Maori bargain, and he had been equal to the occasion –indeed, when was he not? He always kept the cream of the land and sold the skimmed milk […]

Bold emphasis is added here. Their discussion clarifies the historical record showing what the two men thought about the land sale at the time it was first agreed. This event can be dated to 19, 20 or 21 September, because it must have occurred after the Preliminaries Document, when Symonds paid Te Kawau £6 deposit for the site of Auckland. Also, it occurred before Symonds travelled to Motukorea to raise the British flag, when he explained to Brown and Campbell the government plans for the capital. Hence, the “small shower” of gold sovereigns must have numbered six, or perhaps twelve half-sovereigns, unless Te Kawau already had more from a prior trade with Europeans. Campbell sometimes indulges in cryptic prose. It makes uncertain the outcome of their trade. Arguably, at the end it is Campbell who pays Te Kawau 30 sovereigns plus his goods of blankets, calico and metalware (which he valued at 20 to 30 pounds), for 60 pigs.

Campbell was not yet a good speaker of te reo Māori, so he relied upon his friend for help and accuracy of translations to English. Campbell writes of land sold as far as Onehunga, but that was an assumption, the first sale was only as far south as Maungawhau. A later sale included Onehunga. Note, the chorus of voices are Ngāti Whātua companions of Te Kawau.

Te Kawau’s mention of Kororareka appears to be another important reference to the journey north, related by Smith. In fact, Smith probably read Poenamo, and this mention could explain his determination to retrofit Te Reweti’s account into 1840. However, there was simply no time for any Ngāti Whātua to visit the Bay of Islands and return, before Campbell could see for himself that the site for the capital was chosen. From Motukorea, he and Brown witnessed the first tents being erected at Official Bay and were visited by Symonds and Te Kawau a few days later. Therefore, Te Kawau’s use of Kororareka is not the place name, but a collective name for the new settlers, more accurately put: “We have been to those from Kororareka…” Perhaps, Campbell’s translation from te reo is too simplistic for the phraseology Te Kawau used. Te Kawau is referencing the tribe’s meetings at Waitemata with Symonds and officials (from Kororareka) on the 16th and 17th which resulted in the payment of a deposit (utu) and signing of the Preliminaries Document (pukapuka) on the 18th.

In Poenamo, Campbell mentions seeing visiting ships while at Motukorea. He describes “a small topsail schooner round the north head of the harbour and steer straight across to Orakei Bay.”, and “Then, again, we had seen the same craft pay a second and still shorter visit about ten days later, and on this occasion she did not even anchor, but only ‘stood off and on’ the bay, whilst her boat went ashore and returned, when away the vessel sailed again.”

These sightings have sparked speculation by historians. In an Auckland Star article “Orakei Names” (1926) James Cowan writes “He [Te Kawau] had been to the Bay of Islands in a little schooner—the Government craft—and had been paid for part of the site of Auckland.” [cxci] But there is no evidence. He is embellishing Smith’s account. In White Wings (1928) Henry Brett mentions “That schooner contained emissaries Hobson had sent down to negotiate with the Maoris for the purchase of the isthmus.” [cxcii] Well, Symonds and Edward Williams did use a cutter during their negotiations, to make at least one visit to Ōrākei on 17 September 1840, as Sarah Mathew witnessed them. Whether Campbell or Mathew confused a single-masted cutter with two-masted schooner remains an open question.

Te Reweti described to Smith the two events of January and March 1841, later related by Rev. Toka. But Smith failed to comprehend them as separate, confusing them with the earlier founding events of 1840. This leaves the conundrum of dating Hōri Tauroa’s account. He puts a little context to the time when Symonds and Te Reweti went to the Bay of Islands, by adding that the Ngāti Whātua were living at locations which became Official Bay and Commercial Bay, after Auckland was founded in September 1840. Those locations were uninhabited beforehand. The explanation is that Hōri Tauroa is describing events at Auckland in 1841, at “the time of the Governor coming.” Many Ngāti Whātua were trading goods or doing construction work at the new town, so he may have witnessed them, while aged 16 or 17. He is referencing the journey “to bring the Governor”, which Rev. Toka also relates in more detail, including the date.

The research presented in this article shows Governor Hobson first met the Ngāti Whātua rangitira on 20 October 1840, when they transacted the land for Auckland at Symonds’ hut. Rev. Toka’s account gives the date of January 1841 for their second meeting, when Te Reweti and a party of Ngāti Whātua journeyed north. This event is nearly a year after Hobson arrived in New Zealand and is the only time period consistent with contemporary sources.

The Ngāti Whātua elders requested Symonds travel with Te Reweti’s group to the Bay of Islands to meet the governor. Te Reweti and his ambassadors (as Smith describes) offered Hobson the honour of a formal welcome at Ōrākei when he completed his relocation. Te Reweti took the opportunity to press questions about payment for the land transaction in October, possibly disputing that it included the £6 deposit. Consequently, Hobson wrote a prompt letter of enquiry to Clarke, dated 5 February. This is proof of Te Reweti’s journey north in early 1841, as there is no other explanation for the letter, three months after the land purchase by the Colonial Government.

It is straight-forward to speculate additional reasons for their journey. Quickly, the new town of Auckland became a hive of construction, but the governor was absent. By January, the tribal elders must have been a little concerned about whether he had a change of plans. So, it is quite reasonable they would want assurances he was not making his capital elsewhere or staying at Russell. They must also have repeated their offer to negotiate the sale of a further and larger tract of land in central and west Tāmaki and may have returned on a government ship with Symonds, still considered by them as deputy governor.

S. Percy Smith has created an edifice of confusion and falsity which has persisted for 117 years. There was no Ngāti Whātua journey north to Lt. Governor Hobson in 1840. The invitation to settle is pure legend, an error-filled distortion by Smith.

Assertion 2: Customary Land Allocation

Until European interaction, the Māori understood land was held customarily as a tribal good. No individual could buy or sell sections of it or expect quiet enjoyment of what they used. Land could only change ownership through warfare, and only where the victors permanently occupy and exhibit “ahi ka” burning fires, proving alienation of the previous owners. They could confer land to another person or hapū, in return for a payment, on the basis they used it, but ownership remained with the original tribe. Such an arrangement has the modern label “tuku whenua”. Brent Layton concluded the Māori always understood alienation of resources on the land. [cxciii] So, it is smaller step to understand alienation of the land. Some modern historians argue tuku whenua was universal until at least 1840. Susan Healy infers from early documents where vendor and purchaser relationships are determined: “They all give instances where the original donors retained an interest in the land, so that the land would be returned to them when the conditions of the tuku came to an end or were not fulfilled.” [cxciv]

This is too simplistic, as much social change happened during two decades of early land purchases. While tuku whenua is a historical fact, it underwent a slow decline. The Māori considered their earliest transactions as tuku whenua, but the understanding of the European concept of permanent land alienation, through sale and purchase, grew and spread. The Māori quickly learned the care, maintenance and usage of muskets and gunpowder, so could they also understand land alienation.

In 1835, when Rev. Alfred Brown first ministered at Matamata, he had conversations with Tarapīpipi Te Waharoa, a man of great insights into many subjects. He told Brown:

The land will remain forever to produce food, and after you have cut down the old trees to build houses, the saplings will continue growing, and in after years will become larger trees; while the payment I ask for will soon come to an end. The blankets will wear out, the axes will be broken after cutting down a few trees, and the iron pots will be cracked by the heat of the fire. [cxcv]

Te Waharoa is describing the limits of trade goods for land. He immediately grasps the significance of land alienation, distinct from tuku whenua.

By 1840, many chieftains and elders knew the European concept of land alienation, especially within the northern tribes. There may have been a transition period where elders in a hapu considered a transaction with one European as tuku whenua, but another transaction elsewhere a permanent sale. Indeed, most times, there was an enduring economic and security relationship between the parties on an area of land transacted, which gives the appearance of tuku whenua in early letters and documents. This was not the case in southern areas where there was no significant prior European settlement, as was determined by the lawyer William Spain, who investigated the New Zealand Company purchases during 1842-43.

About the first week of May 1840, when Hobson settled at Okiato, he had a meeting with the Ngāpuhi rangitira. Ensign Best relates the occasion and his impression of it:

As soon as his health was sufficiently re-established, he invited Pomaray [Pomare] and several of the principal Chiefs residing about the Bay to a Kororo [kōrero]. The number assembled on this occasion was but small & I should not have mentioned it had it not been the first scene of the kind I ever witnessed. Capt Hobson sat in the centre the interpreter opposite and a Native chief on either side Pomaray being on his right; three other chiefs a Mr Clendon, Major Bunbury, Capt Lockhart and myself made up the party. The conversation was principally concerning the treaty between the Native chiefs of New Zealand and our Lady Queen which Pomaray expressed himself satisfied with and promised to bring Tererau, Kowetti, [sic] and all the principal Chiefs for many miles round on a future day to sign it. His delivery was exceedingly good and he argued the different clauses in the treaty as they were read over and explained to him with great astuteness. […]

I need not say that after such a scene I went away with a much higher idea of Mauri talent than I had had before. I forgot to add that all the Chiefs sat on chairs and that the most finished gentleman could not have behaved with greater propriety. They were all dressed in their native costume and were all exceedingly fine men. [cxcvi]

This meeting was an epiphany for Best which, it seems, some modern researchers need to consider in their own analyses before assuming the Māori could not have learned the meaning of land alienation, or any other European custom. The Māori of 1840 differed from those of 1815, as they had learned fast about products and ideas in the modern world.

Many early land sales were performed with a deed in English and not properly explained in te reo Māori. These were often undone by one of several early Land Claims Commissions, as they were not bona fide sales. [cxcvii]

There is language to assert land alienation. The most effective word is hoko (buy, sell, barter, trade, exchange) which was used at earliest European interaction. A search of 444 pre-1840 te reo Māori deeds, detailed by Rev. Henry Turton, [cxcviii] provides a count of word usage: hoko (150), hokona (88), and hokonga (74). Intensifiers are also important in land deeds to assert alienation. [cxcix] These are “oti tonu atu” (gone forever) (32), “ake tonu atu” (forever, ad infinitum) (69) and “ake ake ake” (evermore, on and on) (56). Tuku has 187 mentions in the deeds, while “tuku whenua” only occurs once. The split between deeds which use hoko instead of tuku, should be broadly indicative of intent understood on the part of the Māori.

George Clarke, Henry Williams and other advisors to Hobson must have explained the customary method of Māori land transfer known as tuku whenua. Hence, Hobson was at pains to ensure they understood the sale for the site of Auckland to be land alienation. Therefore, Symonds and Clarke used the clearest language for the Ngāti Whātua. The main text in the land deed, He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua, has hoko in three places as well as “oti tonu atu”, all clarifying the intent of the parties in the transaction. The document was read aloud in te reo before the parties signed, which is the heart of a verbal understanding.

Goodwin and Strack observe a key point in their paper on the comparative history of land agreements in Canada, Zimbabwe and New Zealand: “Misunderstandings and grievances have developed regarding the indigenous understanding of the verbal agreements and the Crown’s acceptance and implementation of the written documents.” [cc] While their observation is very important, it harms the understanding of contemporary context if couched in a polemic stance against colonialism, applying 21st century norms to 19th century cultures. Written documents obviously preserve the intentions of the parties far better than verbal agreements, but each land sale stands alone and has its own circumstances. In fact, the first Crown purchase for land at Auckland is exceptional in its association with the ultimate of indigenous verbal understandings.

Remembering and interpreting Titahi’s prophecy was the deciding factor for the Ngāti Whātua to proceed. They had significant discussions within themselves, and it is very unlikely they would consult Titahi’s prophecy on anything other than land alienation. The Crown was an enduring party. A town of many Europeans, like Kororareka, but on the Waitemata, would never go away. This was a much different matter than the breezy sale of Karangahape to Mitchell, who they could deal with, or would die or move away.

To conclude, the Ngāti Whātua weren’t selling to just any old settler, they were selling to the “rangitira” of the Europeans. They understood the 3000 acres at Waitemata were to be permanently alienated because of the language in the deed, and they consulted the prophecy of Titahi in order to make such a major decision. This marks the Preliminaries Document and He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua exceptional, as the consultation of a prophet is rarely (or ever?) in the oral traditions about the negotiation process of other early land transactions.

Assertion 3: Sale Price Too Low

In July 1840, the land Lt. Governor Hobson selected for the site of Auckland was mostly bracken-choked hills and ridges, interleaved by swamps, with some manuka trees and cliff-top pohutukawa. Towards Maungawhau areas were strewn with rocks and boulders. Today, land is valued primarily for its location and size. It does not really matter how rocky, swampy, infertile, or sloping it is. It can be transformed using modern machinery. In the 19th century, when people valued land, they were very much concerned about the quality of it because they were thinking about its output as an agricultural or pastoral smallholding. As Campbell observed, the Waitemata acreage was “of very miserable quality”. Hobson was not fussy about the land quality, because he was considering other factors, especially its centrality and a deep-water harbour.

Looking back over a century later, in a wealthier society, it is easy to scoff at the European payments for land as “a mess of pottage”. [cci] We must consider payments made in the time’s context. In New Zealand of the 1830s, European settlers valued iron pots, and considered them an essential item. To anyone scratching a living from the land, an iron pot for cooking is a prized item, whether they are Māori or European. The Māori valued and preferred goods which they could not manufacture, therefore considered utensils and fabrics to be items of privilege. The insight which Te Waharoa shows is the impermanence of such goods compared to the permanence of land.

Of course, gold is permanent, like land, keeping its value indefinitely. Some still criticise gold today for sitting, doing nothing, and not earning interest. Te Kawau knew its lack of utility and said plainly to Campbell, “Exceedingly good is the gold for the white man.”

Joseph Howe, the renowned Nova Scotia politician, journalist and writer, offers some contemporary bare land values. In 1851, he gave a speech comparing prices in several British colonies and provinces of Canada. Land in New Brunswick was £12 and 10 shillings per 100 acres, while Nova Scotia was £10 per 100 acres. [ccii] These prices are comparable to the £9 and 7 shillings per 100 acres paid by the Colonial Government for the first purchase of the site for Auckland. The two Canadian provinces are much smaller than the North Island of New Zealand, and closer to Britain for settlement and communication, which increases land value, but also have a colder climate which decreases value.

On 19-20 April 1841, the Colonial Government held the first land sales at Auckland, where speculators outbid most of the settlers. Only 116 lots were on the market, just 38 acres (15 ha), so they achieved London prices, totalling £21,300. [cciii] Hobson allowed about a dozen government officials to pay equivalent market prices for reserved lots, in recognition they needed to reside at the town to work. The proceeds were good for the government finances, but not for ordinary settlers, most of whom had to buy sub-divided lots in the secondary market. A further sale of rural lots in Parnell and Mechanics Bay on 1 September achieved £2910. By then, the population had reached about 1500, bringing in new buyers. At once it made the original land sale by the Māori appear very under-priced.

Joseph Howe also observed in Canada, that “high prices are paid not for land alone, but for civilization, without which land is of little value; for roads, bridges churches, schools, religious services and the means of education.” This is the important factor. When the Colonial Government bought land for the site of Auckland, there was no civilization in the manner of departments of the state to enforce laws and provide public services, but that was exactly what Hobson intended to build. Immediately, this becomes news elevating potential land prices, and the market will price-in future value of land destined to benefit from civilization. However, the converse is true. If civilization is intended for land, but the decision is reversed, land prices will fall. This happened at Russell in the Bay of Islands, when the capital (civilization) moved to Auckland, land prices fell and did not recover for half a century.

There is a further factor from the essential nature of capitalism as an incentive system. Land, which is owned communally, seen in tribal cultures, has limited value for an individual. No individual will expend significant work and resources improving land, which a chieftain or tribal council can take away at whim. This impoverishes tribal cultures and tuku whenua is an example of such a system, corrosive to wealth creation. It does not harness the response to incentives in human nature. Leased or loaned land is unattractive to settlers making long-term improvements, as incentives are still lost. At Auckland, land bought from the Crown carried with it guaranteed alienation of the former owner upon sale by private treaty to a new owner. It was the Colonial Government, on the ground, providing a framework for freehold ownership, with recognition of clean title and providing rule-of-law to resolve commercial disputes, which enabled improvement of land and equity build-up to result. This facilitates wealth creation, therefore higher land prices.

Implicit planning permission for sub-division adds further value. The Colonial Government did not have an experienced land-agent employed by them. So, they made simple errors such as selling large lots off Shortland Street and Queen Street, which could be sub-divided by speculators, known then as “land sharks”. Because they advertised the land sales three months in advance, speculators from New South Wales travelled to make bids, having seen before, other land price spikes at new towns in Australia. The Colonial Government realised high prices at Auckland because of its own presence and it was the vendor.

Running a government requires substantial funds, as George Clarke observed, “who pays for officials?” The annual budget for the year commencing 2 May 1841 came to a staggering £50,922, which included government officials and civil service salaries, the judiciary, survey and public works departments, police, jails, churches, schools and other expenditures. [cciv] It wouldn’t be long before land sales did not fund the government. With little other income, even during Hobson’s short governorship finances fell into the red.

In 1840, no one expected Auckland to mushroom in all directions so quickly. By 1868, the Ngāti Whātua had about 700 acres (283 ha) remaining of their original lands at Tāmaki and were suffering the indignity of having to fight for Ōrākei and Ōkahu at the Land Court. Hetaraka Takapuna, a mysterious Ngai Tai rangitira associated with the Waiohua, made a claim which was heard in December 1866. It was mainly based upon occupation before the fall of Kiwi Tāmaki. Pāora Tūhaere of the Ngāti Whātua, gave his testimony to the court:

I remember Auckland being sold by Tamati Reweti, Te Hira, Apihai, Te Keene, and myself. We got the purchase money. None of Hetaraka’s people or the Ngatipaoa got any of the money. The next piece of land sold to the Europeans was the Tararo at Maungakiekie (Mount Eden or Mount St. John), and thence on to the Whau. Tamati Reweti sold that. [ccv]

For some time, Tūhaere had the reins as the principal spokesman for the Ngāti Whātua. As rangitira, he represented them at the great Kohimarama conference of 1860. Here, he refers to the second sale of land for Auckland on 29 June 1841, which was for 13,000 acres (5260 ha) in central and west Tāmaki. [ccvi] Tūhaere was a signatory to the deed and confirms “we got the purchase money.” He also speaks of another major land sale.

On 21 October 1868, the main Ōrākei title investigation was underway. At the opening hearing, Te Kawau, aged about 88, is represented by his counsel, Charles MacCormick. In deposition, he responds to brief questions about historic land sales, as if it was one event, even though there were many sales:

Who were the people who sold Auckland to the Europeans? I did not sell it. I gave it to them.

Did not the Gov’r give you and your people money for it afterwards? No. I have been looking constantly for payment but have not got it. [ccvii]

When asked if he had sold the land for Auckland, Te Kawau answered for all the land which was lost to the tribe. They should have but didn’t ask him about later land transactions separately from the first. Te Kawau speaks about seeking payment, which he wouldn’t for a gift. Perhaps he had learned the hard way what Te Waharoa once explained. All their metalware and fabrics were by then broken, torn, and lost. This is a marked change in tone from his discussion with Campbell a day or two after the Preliminaries Document. A lot had happened over 28 years and Te Kawau was sadder and wiser. His payment was no more. Perhaps, his view in 1868 is that, with the benefit of hindsight, the tribe did not receive an enduring payment for their lands sold. Alternatively, he may have been specifically referring to the Remuera block, which he didn’t want sold, hence only gone via tuku. The sale in 1854, is missing from the Turton deeds, so it is unclear how much, if any was paid for it. [ccviii]

The Ngāti Whātua received more than simply gold and goods, they received the benefit of close trade with Europeans. They also received a peace of mind they sought from association with the Colonial Government, so no Ngāpuhi raid would happen again, destroying lives and property. During the 1840s, it was Te Wherowhero who most guaranteed peace at Auckland, which Governor Fitzroy fully realised at the great feast of Remuera in 1844. After Hone Heke’s men attacked Kororareka in March 1845, Fitzroy’s government built a house for Te Wherowhero on the Crown land of Pukekawa (in the Domain). [ccix] It was nearby, in the remains of Pukekaroa Pā where the Waikato ariki once made peace with the Ngāpuhi in 1828. Eventually, the Colonial Government grew strong enough to ensure peace long-term in the Auckland district.

Looking back to 1840, it appears at first glance the amount paid by the Colonial Government to the Ngāti Whātua for 3000 acres was low, compared to the resale prices six months later. When contextual factors are considered, this assessment becomes much more nuanced. Subsequent land sales by the Ngāti Whātua to settlers (especially during Fitzroy’s waiver) and later to the government prove to be more problematic when determining fairness, but those are for another article. The loss of the remaining 700 acres after 1898 is the real lament, as described by I. H. Kawharu in Orakei; A Ngati Whatua Community (1975). [ccx] The modern use of the term “treaty”, regarding the sale for Auckland, seems to stem from “Report of The Waitangi Tribunal on The Orakei Claim” (1987) [ccxi] This is a poorly drafted report, ignoring a large amount of historical evidence. [ccxii] It should have been an unbiased evaluation of the facts, but simply repeats claimant views, which are pitched to make the best case for compensation.

When two parties conclude a transaction, both perceive a fair value. The hindsight of today is not sufficient reason to consider the first land sale for Auckland to be valued too cheaply. We cannot consider it a gift, as it is clear the Colonial Government paid what both parties conceived as a fair price. The high resale prices achieved for sections were driven by economics: because of the new capital, security of title available, limited supply and speculation, the latter a problem widely observed at the time.

Founding of Auckland in Political Context

In 1839, the objective of the Colonial Office in London was to establish a modern state in New Zealand for British settlers while ensuring the Māori and their culture persisted. A Select Committee for New Zealand at Westminster, later reported on a significant concern at the time:

The sovereignty over these islands had, at an earlier period, been formally disclaimed, and their independence had been distinctly recognized, both by the Crown and by Parliament. This course had been pursued because it was considered (and by no means upon light grounds) that it was not advisable to extend British dominion in these distant regions; but in adopting this policy it was overlooked, both by the advisers of the Crown and by Parliament, that it was impossible to check the tide of emigration which set so strongly towards the shores of New Zealand, and that the regular establishment of British power was the only practicable mode of guarding against the evils which could not fail to follow from permitting a large number of Europeans to settle among its uncivilized inhabitants, without being subject to any legitimate authority or control.” [ccxiii]

The part-cession, part-annexation of sovereignty in New Zealand to the British Crown was the foundation for bringing to these islands 600 years of English common-law. At once, a vast overarching legal framework existed to support complex society. British law enabled the social structures of civilization required to forge prosperity and ever improving living standards for current and future generations. To accomplish this transition, they chose the right man in Captain William Hobson. During his short leadership, Hobson was afflicted by illness and conflicting advice. However, he faithfully executed instructions from Governor Gipps in New South Wales, Lords Russell and Lord Normanby in London, Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies. Āpirana Ngata wrote:

The figures of these three men, Hobson, Busby, and Williams are prominent on the stage which was set for the foundation of New Zealand’s constitution. They represented some of the best elements in the character of their race, were fully imbued with a sense of justice and fervently inspired with a mission to prepare the primitive folk with whose leaders they treated for the impact of an invading culture. [ccxiv]

Te Tiriti o Waitangi (and the English versions) are not about partnership between the Crown and Māori. If it is, then Ngata is terribly wrong or lying about “invading culture.” Māori became equal to the European settlers, all subjects, under a judicial system functioning without fear or favour. This is the main point of the preamble and third article.

The founding of Auckland was Hobson’s continuation of his mission. It is foremost a political event as it was the capital of the colony, the seat of the legislature from which all laws specific to the colony would be debated, enacted and first implemented. On 3 May 1841, Hobson received orders which had taken almost six months to arrive from Britain. New Zealand was now a colony separate from New South Wales. Hobson was promoted to Governor, giving him extra powers. He immediately passed an executive ordinance establishing the General Legislative Council. It had seven members including the Governor, Colonial Secretary and Treasurer, Attorney General and three Justices of the Peace. [ccxv]

The Legislative Council was comprised only of appointed government officials, as there was no possibility of approval for general elections or of them functioning properly at that early date. The Council sitting for Session I began on 24 May at Government House. Their first decisions were to adopt the laws of New South Wales, repeal some unneeded Acts, and to set up a nascent judicial system for the Colony. Session II covered much broader ground. Ordinances passed by the Council breathed fire into the distant laws from Britain, setting up the first great departments of the future nation state, in a raw, untamed land (Figure 18).

Figure 18.  Framework for Civilization and Prosperity

New Zealand Government Gazettes and Legislative Council Ordinances Sessions I & II (1841 & 1842). Printed at Auckland. Credit: Hunter Collection

Governor Hobson knew that by executing instructions of the Colonial Office at London, in an irreproachable manner, he was creating a meritocracy at Auckland. He wanted to ensure the framework of laws fostered social justice for all through properly functioning institutions of government. While he foresaw the Māori also benefiting from the laws of the land, he knew it would take time and there could only be an economic relationship between the Māori and the Colonial Government. Hobson wanted settlers and Māori to build lasting wealth for themselves, their families and descendants through private enterprise.

On 24 June 1842, Queen Victoria ratified Auckland as the capital, but this news did not reach Governor Hobson in time, as he passed away, aged just 49, on 10 September, after two further strokes in quick succession. Despite the turmoil of many petty disputes at the young town, his death brought everyone together on a sombre occasion. “Covered with a Union Jack, the coffin was borne by sailors of the government brig Victoria, preceded by a firing party of the 80^th regiment. A riderless horse was led behind the coffin.” [ccxvi] The Maori were deeply affected and mourned him. “They crowded into the town in great numbers early in the morning—and the ceremony of ‘Uhunga’ was performed in every quarter, as if for one of their own most valued chiefs—this is a long continued public demonstration of grief, during which they sit upon the ground and howl in chorus.” [ccxvii]

No Legislative Council session sat during 1843 as Governor Fitzroy did not arrive until late December. Notably, during Session III, Fitzroy’s Legislative Council passed an ordinance exempting Māori from many laws unless special circumstances applied, principally, that a complaint was raised by two chieftains. It became effective from 16 July 1844, needed in recognition that it would take time for their adjustment to a new type of society. At the outset, New Zealanders expected only partial sovereignty, and the process to full sovereignty took over 100 years, effectively completed in 1947. [ccxviii]

As the years come and go, new people strut and fret upon the stage. The town of Auckland endured and grew into a city far greater than anyone in 1840 could have truly imagined. Hobson launched a landscape of bracken, rock and scrub into what would become the world’s No.1 city, ranked for living standards, 180 years later. [ccxix] The city of Auckland today is his enduring memorial.

Every parent wants their children to do better than themselves, to be better educated, have better opportunities and experience higher living standards. Where do these standards come from? They do not arise from cultural purity anywhere in the world. They rise from nationwide rules for social conduct. The rules which underpin the high living standards, in New Zealand, are concepts from European culture, institutionalised in the modern sovereign state. These include equality under the law and state-recognised private property, cadastral maps, rights to the fruits of private enterprise and land improvements. We need state courts to hear and judge civil pleas of complaint requiring remedy. The suppression of corruption, sound money and small government are other foundations. Early government officials in colonial New Zealand well understood these essentials, which require enduring dedication and vigilance to achieve, and much work remains, even today.

Like the re-making of Tāmaki makau rau into TMR, by the Scholars of Ethnography, a similar fate has befallen the history of the founding of Auckland. As with the history of TMR, modern revisionism fails the public by creating a web of false histories. They downgrade to a footnote, the settlers and pioneers who did most to build-up Auckland in the 19th century.

Today, academics and historians benefit directly from Hobson’s vision as they sit in comfy armchairs, in quality houses or offices at Auckland, with clean title to their property. Yet, some of them show great hypocrisy, pretending away Hobson’s purchase of the original site of the capital for an independent colony, airbrushing his founding and naming of Auckland from the pages of history. It is time to remember what underpins our modern living standards, how Hobson started them in this country, and not to take them as a God-given spontaneous advancement.

Conclusion

Auckland — Founded in September 1840

Governor Hobson’s founding and naming of Auckland is a political event, and the Māori of the 19th century fully recognised his right to name the new town. His founding occurred at an uninhabited location, culturally and temporally discontinuous from prior habitation. The Ngāti Whātua did not invite Hobson to settle. Three months after the government purchased the original site for Auckland, they invited him to a formal welcome at Ōrākei. Because he settled at Auckland six weeks later, they interpreted this as having “brought the Governor”. The Māori took part economically, but not politically, in the founding and running of the town. Its status as the new capital is a new political order. The prophecy of Titahi includes: koia te pou whakairo (the handsome carved post). In its long-held interpretation, [ccxx] this is the flagstaff raised at Point Britomart, which had the name “Auckland” carved into it. The place name Auckland is literally the fulfilment of the Titahi prophecy!

The sign of a healthy society is where each culture recognises and respects the contributions made by other cultures, building a greater whole than any single culture could alone. Such synthesis has an example in place names. Maungakiekie, for the volcanic cone, within the suburb of One Tree Hill, is together a successful multicultural fusion. Māori and British heritage are both respected in this case, when names with distinct meanings remain a settled matter.

Auckland is not Tāmaki, just as London is not Middlesex, New York is not Manhattan. Many modern cities have completely urbanised an old district or shire within its boundaries. Rarotonga was probably the first name for the isthmus, then victors in warfare changed it to Tāmaki, but neither has equivalence to Auckland. Tāmaki was never a settlement in Māori culture, only a land area. Each settlement had its own distinct name, such as Onehunga or Mauinaina. Tāmaki, the isthmus within Auckland, the great multicultural city, is being fully respectful today about hundreds of years of heritage of both Māori and European cultures.

Tāmaki makau rau — Whakatauākī Coined in the 1860s

The Whakatauākī of Te Kanawa (WTK) Hypothesis explains how the proverb Tāmaki makau rau came about. In February 1838, James Hamlin, a European, transacted with Ngāti Pāoa for a large tract of land within Tāmaki. This dismayed Te Kanawa of the Ngāti Mahuta. Its implications motivated him to think of a forceful metaphorical allusion. Chieftains took pride in driving home debating points through such creative language. If we accept the WTK Hypothesis, we understand how the Ngāti Te Ata at Waiuku subsequently related his verbose dozen-word metaphor, finally contracting it to Tāmaki makau rau, over 20 years later.

If the WTK Hypothesis is to be rejected, someone must perform a further in-depth study on Tāmaki makau rau and TMR unearthing contradictory evidence supporting a different conclusion, while supplying many explanations. They must explain how several foremost experts on Māori lore and language didn’t mention or appear to know Tāmaki makau rau before the late 1800s, even when discussing Te Kanawa’s metaphor. They must explain why 19th century Māori, and experts who asked them about it, describe the phrase as a whakataukī, including by Hōri Tauroa, who first spoke it.

Tāmaki Makaurau — Re-made in June 1900

Tāmaki Makaurau is not a Māori name. It is a European place name created using Māori words. Upon recognising that no Māori name existed equivalent to Auckland, some historians, known here as Scholars of Ethnography, who liked the piece of whakataukī Tāmaki makau rau, used it to construct an alternative.

James Cowan first re-made te reo words using concatenation and capitalisation, so the result has the veneer of a Māori place name. He inserted hyphens to give Tamaki-makau-rau, the appearance of a proper noun. He then pretended it was a classical place name of the ancient Māori, publishing this in June 1900. Other variations came from it, by using concatenation instead of hyphenation: Tamaki Makaurau and Tāmakimakaurau, collectively, grouped here as TMR. George Graham was fooled, but later embraced Cowan’s invention. They fed this new name back to the unsuspecting Māori as kōrero nehe, or ancient history.

George Graham perpetuated and made worse Cowan’s deceit. In 1929, he expanded the extent of TMR far beyond the isthmus, misleading Leslie Kelly. David Simmons knew better, but in 1980, harnessing the prestige of the AI&M, he deceptively formalised TMR in academia, to promote it as the original name for Auckland. These ethnologists show bias from “complete immersion”, while also being shallow of academic integrity. Hence, they moulded the history of Māori culture into what they wanted it to be.

Further research on TMR is welcome, but there is enough to conclude that TMR has no basis to be considered an alternative to Auckland. During this research, it is clear no Māori name exists, which is culturally precedent or topographically equivalent to Auckland for the city and its region. Anyone who defends TMR as a place name, needs to show how Cowan, Graham and Simmons are correctly re-interpreting the proverb into a place name and correctly expanding its extent from the isthmus to include other districts such as Manukau and Waitakere, which have always been separate from Tāmaki. They must explain why Wairoa makau rau and Waikato tamioha rau are not also ancient place names and why people shouldn’t use those as names instead of Wairoa and Waikato. Frankly, such a different conclusion is unlikely to withstand even cursory academic scrutiny.

The late AI&M ethnologist, David Simmons, deliberately misleads two generations of New Zealanders. While the transliteration of Akarana is valid and usable in te reo Māori, Simmons did not want that. He wanted to start a process of change, paving the way for erasing the name Auckland from the map in English-language texts. He did not live to see it achieved, but he has caused other academics, such as C. K. Stead, to think it is correct and desirable. [ccxxi]

Curate, Don’t Curate!

In this matter, the Auckland Institute and Museum have crossed the line between conserving culture to creating culture. At first, the AI&M’s role was unwitting, misled by Simmons, but in recent years, a loss of objectivity is apparent. It seems the institution is itself now compromised. A review of the AI&M’s website reveals symptoms of the malaise. The city of Auckland is the cradle, crucible and lifeblood of the AI&M, nurturing it for 170 years. However, the AI&M publishes on its website “Auckland changes hands” in 1840, [ccxxii] therefore, denying Europeans founded it. This is something reminiscent of a spiteful teenager before his crying parents.

But it goes further. Evidently, eliminating the founding needs a different history to go with it. In its “2017-22 Five-Year Strategic Plan”, the AI&M has “The Treaty foundation of Tāmaki Makaurau provides for and embraces a growing and diverse society.” [ccxxiii] Writing that a treaty applies to Auckland, is a gross historical distortion of the land deed, He Pukapuka Hoko Wenua. While the AI&M has superb accuracy on catalogued objects, they frame their current Strategic Plan within a web of false histories, while pretending away European pioneering culture. How sad it is they rewrite the founding of Auckland, which is extraordinarily well documented, as shown in this paper, many other works, and in the AI&M’s own vast archive. At a minimum, the AI&M should consider the following recommendations to redress their part in the damage caused by Simmons:

1. Commission an in-depth, academic report on Tāmaki makau rau and TMR, with multiple, impartial contributors, including an evaluation of the WTK Hypothesis, presented in this paper.
   
2. Adhere to curating history, not creating history. Tāmaki Makaurau is not in the New Zealand Gazetteer of official place names, so its usage as a toponym should stop. The AI&M should not use it as a toponym on its website, museum displays, or future AI&M publications. Only when academics comprehensively reject the WTK Hypothesis, and TMR becomes a Gazetted place name through a process of democratic public referendum should the AI&M use it as a toponym.
   
3. Set up a Truth and Recognition Committee to research and review the important events of 1839–41. Especially Lieutenant-Governor Hobson’s choice of name and location for Auckland, the original land purchase and details of early settlement. Verify that he founded a world-beating city and is deserving of full historical recognition for his action. Verify the founding emerged from British, Irish, and other European cultures. This will set guidelines for strategic plans and publications.

The AI&M must be last to flex to social changes, which can be vacillating and transitory. It needs to be a rock of stability, preserving history instead of being at the forefront of rewriting it. Because David Simmons formalised TMR from his seat of power at the AI&M, it is from the AI&M that corrective guidance must now flow to the rest of New Zealand academia and society. It will take time to remedy Simmons’ actions in 1980. Many Māori have accepted the origin of TMR, from ethnology, as kōrero nehe. The Auckland Council has put considerable expense and effort into recognising and propagating TMR.

We must leave the Frankenstein’s monster of “Tamaki Makaurau Auckland” inert on the slab. We do not need it, and if it rises and lives, it tramples over the landscape of multiculturalism. Academics who use this construct should ask themselves why they are inserting a piece of Waikato whakatauākī in front of the official toponym Auckland. “Pre-Akarana” or “prehistoric Akarana” are suitable terms for academic reference to the tribes of the Auckland area prior to 1840.

Those who still adhere to Tāmaki Makaurau, as a place name, even after all the evidence here, might say, “Well, if the Māori did not have a name for Auckland, what is the harm in using an invented one?” The harm is that a recently invented name cannot have precedence. Pretending a new name to be ancient are damaging to Māori culture, ethnology, history, and multiculturalism. Further, it is the job of New Zealand academic historians to resist such a siren song and maintain the accuracy and integrity of all our forms of heritage for the long-term benefit of the public. Even further, the name Auckland is famous worldwide and therefore has international brand awareness and massive positive global recognition, giving it a financial value to the nation in the billions of dollars. Why consider throwing a great name away in preference to a recently invented falsity?

Factoids are historical distortions and inventions repeated far and wide as perceived wisdom. At least one factoid is corroding the name of Auckland: TMR as an ancient toponym. Other names or whakataukī (masquerading as a name) for places are typically discontinuous in both time and culture from events at the founding of modern cities. Somehow, names like Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton and others which are a deep part of our national shared cultural heritage, are suddenly supposed to mean nothing to millions of people. It is time to accept that the Māori did not have a contemporary name for everything in New Zealand, and this is inevitable in a multicultural society.

Have taxpayer-funded employees in the civil service and media have been ordered to parrot new place names whether they like it or not? Such cultural appropriation is shameful. Based upon the rolling-out of name changes already seen, without public consultation, legitimate questions arise. Is the practice of dual naming, seen commonly today, a temporary arrangement? Is dual-naming intended to end in a generation or so, when English-language names are to be omitted?

The name Auckland is not just a keystone in New Zealand culture, it is the heritage of many cultures from all over the world who have made Auckland their home. It is a fundamental of civilised society that settled matters should stay settled, hence we must ground any reason for a change in evidenced historical facts and public consensus on those facts.

Nailing a False Coin to the Counter

At the Land Court for Ōrākei on 23 October 1868, there was a moving exchange which deserves to be read by every single student of New Zealand’s history:

Eruera Patuone, one of the oldest men in New Zealand, was the next witness. He was listened to with very great attention by the natives. Considerable difficulty was found by the interpreters in getting him to answer the questions, as he wandered away to battles and peacemakings long ago. He deposed; I remember the invasion of this part by Koperu. This was by my people. I remember the invasion by Hongi. Koperu was the origin of the evil — his being killed; and those people, the Ngatipaoa, suffered from this. Hongi landed at Tamaki. I did not come; I was detained by Europeans at the Bay of Islands; I was not at the taking of Mauinaina. The Ngatipaoa then left the land. (Witness then addressed the Ngatipaoa, sitting in the Court, and said, “Don’t be grieved if I speak of your defeat. These things were long ago, and you know that they did take place” Kitahi te Taniwha answered, “Do not hesitate for us; speak on.”)

These words bring tears to my eyes and make my scalp tighten. This is honour, this is integrity, this is dignity. How shallow is 21st century society when so many people today are snowflakes seeking safe spaces who couldn’t utter the words of Kitahi Te Taniwha in a similar situation. Thousands had died. It was painful to both speak and to listen. Wisdom was in the truth. The elders of the Māori were only interested in knowing the truth of what took place. Kitahi Te Taniwha died two and half years later, but at least he went knowing all he could of the past.

Therein is the lesson for 21st century culture, when truth is constantly the victim of priorities of the day, being rewritten, spun, massaged, messaged and shaped. People frequently sanitise truth for public consumption or censor it in case of someone being offended. For example, the great name Ngāpuhi is being replaced by the office for treaty settlements, who refer to them as “northern Māori”.  [ccxxiv] This is a creeping cancer. As a nation, it is time to do better and return to worthier values.

History is non-negotiable. We must understand events in history, warts and all, so that as a modern society today, everyone can strive to do better in similar situations. The Māori and Europeans of today deserve better than to be fed false histories by ethnologists and historians. This means not rewriting history, creating a pretend past in order to suit agendas of the present. Holocaust survivor and theorist on politics, Hannah Arendt, in “Truth and Politics”, writes “Even if we admit that every generation has the right to write its own history, we admit no more than that it has the right to rearrange the facts in accordance with its own perspective; we don’t admit the right to touch the factual matter itself.” [ccxxv]

Russell Stone, Professor of History at the University of Auckland and author on Auckland, writes, “George Bernard Shaw once said false coins should always be nailed to the counter. In that way their falsity is exposed for all to see; in that way they are kept out of circulation. And only then can we prevent unexamined myth from being converted into what is imagined to be delivered truth.” [ccxxvi]

It is now time to nail the false place name of Tāmaki Makaurau to the counter. New Zealand European culture cannot be a tabula rasa for writing over, anytime someone later popularises something. It is time to accept and acknowledge Governor Hobson founded Auckland with the political and social constructs required to ensure future prosperity for its citizens. Everyone in 1840 recognised his authority.It cannot be made any plainer. If New Zealand European culture has no value, then this country does not have a multicultural society. If truth has no value, then as a nation, we are lost.

–⬦–

Personal note

This article started as a cri-de-coeur about the potential loss of Auckland as the place name for New Zealand’s largest city. This name lies deep in my own family history and earliest memories. Yet, it appears that in today’s multicultural New Zealand some cultural anchors have no value, therefore easily cast off, even after 180 years.

Expecting that full research had been done on Tāmaki Makaurau (TMR), I intended a short article in defence of Governor Hobson’s right and authority to name the city he founded in 1840. However, during my research on TMR, it was a complete surprise to uncover so much misinformation and lack of academic integrity in New Zealand ethnologists and historians. It turns out that TMR is an egregious example of the very worst of their distortions and re-inventions.

I am saddened how my research on the transformation of TMR ends at the front doors of the AI&M. I have a life-long interest in world history and science and feel this was encouraged at an early age by many visits to the Auckland Museum. If unbiased academic research and public debate had been done first, then the findings of this article will have been made by others long ago and known much sooner. This article, “From Proverb to Place Name”, will have some errors, but none are deliberate. I have always sought accuracy; hence any corrections and additional information is welcome and will be incorporated in a later edition. I sent a preview copy of this article to the AI&M on 4 April 2022, asking for feedback, but no reply has been forthcoming in the 7 weeks since, so the article will be published as is.

Now I ask the AI&M, please consider my recommendations before the process of renaming goes any further. Ko te raru kei o ringaringa.

Comments, communications and corrections: HistoryHunter1[at]protonmail[dot]com

---

Notes

[i] Horatio Hale, Ethnography and Philology: United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. 6 (Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard, 1846), 268

[ii] William Wyatt Gill, Gems from the Coral Islands, Or, Incidents of Contrast Between Savage and Christian Life of the South Sea Islander (London: Ward & Co., 1856), 273

[iii] A.W. Reed, The Reed Dictionary of New Zealand Place Names (Auckland: Reed, 2002), 482-4

[iv] Kanariya Eishi, “Similarities Between Māori and Japanese” 7 Sep 2020
https://rakugonz.com/2020/09/07/similarities-between-maori-and-japanese/

[v] “History of Point Britomart,” City of Auckland – District Plan, Central Area Section – Operative 2004, Updated 2006, Appendix I (2006), 21

[vi] Auckland Minute Book No.1, (Native Land Court, 1866), 19-20

[vii] Fenton, F. D., Important judgments delivered in the compensation court and native land court, 1866-1879 (Wyndham-street, Auckland: Published under the direction of the Chief Judge, Native Land Court by Henry Brett, General Steam printer, 1879), 57

[viii] Elsdon Best, The Maori – Volume I (Wellington: Board of Maori Ethnological Research, 1924), 46

[ix] Reedy, A. (Trans. & Ed.), Ngā kōrero a Mohi Ruatapu: Tohunga rongonui o Ngāti Porou: The writings of Mohi Ruatapu (Canterbury University Press, 1993) 9, https://doi.org/10.18124/ed3c-jm64

[x] Makere Rika Heke, “New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero – Report for a Wāhi Tapu Area Mātakitaki, Pirōngia (List No.9812)” (Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, 2019), 12

[xi] “Te Kanawa” New Zealand History, accessed 27 June 2021, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/signatory/2-5

[xii] “W. T. Fairburn, manuscripts: Journal, letters, report 1828–49.” CNO 39, Church Missionary Society, London. University of Auckland library, Microfilm 79–336

[xiii] Marama Muru-Lanning, “The Analogous Boundaries of the Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato-Tainui and Kiiingitanga,” J Polynesian Soc. Vol. 120, No. 1 (March 2011): 9-41, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23041477

[xiv] Gary Scott, “Te Wheoro, Wiremu Te Morehu Maipapa ?–1895.” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007. http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/

[xv] Orakei Minute Book (OMB) No.1, (Native Land Court, 1868), 112

[xvi] OMB No.1, 63

[xvii] OMB No.2, 328

[xviii] OMB No.2, 330

[xix] “Native Lands Court.” New Zealand Herald, 13 November 1868, 3 (Papers Past)

[xx] “Native Lands Court. — Thursday.” Daily Southern Cross, 13 November 1868, 4 (Papers Past)

[xxi] “Native Lands Court. — Thursday.” New Zealand Herald, 23 October 1868, 4 (Papers Past)

[xxii] “Native Lands Court. — Thursday. Before Chief Judge Fenton and Henare te Pukuatua.” Daily Southern Cross, 23 October 1868, 4

[xxiii] “Rewi’s Visit to Auckland.” Evening Post, 31 May 1879, 2 (Papers Past)

[xxiv] “Local Gossip”, New Zealand Herald, 10 March 1894, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[xxv] “Local Gossip”, New Zealand Herald, 14 December 1895, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past).

[xxvi] “A Historic Proverb.” New Zealand Herald, 5 September 1903, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past).

[xxvii] “Local and General News.” New Zealand Herald, 11 September 1903, 4 (Papers Past).

[xxviii] Peggy & Gunnar Kullberg, Charles E. Nelson: A White Tohunga (London: IK Foundation, 2003), 39-53

[xxix] “Topics of The Day.” Press, 27 January 1909, 6 (Papers Past)

[xxx] “Tawhiao’s Visit to Auckland”, New Zealand Herald, 20 January 1882, 6 (Papers Past)

[xxxi] “Premier and Maoris.” Auckland Star, 20 March 1899, 2 (Papers Past)

[xxxii] “At Government House.” New Zealand Herald, 16 July 1904, 6 (Papers Past)

[xxxiii] “The Drainage Outfall.” New Zealand Herald, Issue 13468, 19 June 1907, 5 (Papers Past)

[xxxiv] “Disappointed Maoris.” New Zealand Herald, 2 May 1913, 8 (Papers Past)

[xxxv] Keith Darroch, Demystifying ‘The Great New Zealand Myth’: The social construction of the naming of New Zealand and its islands. (Revised ed.), (Christchurch: K. Darroch 2009)

[xxxvi] “The Battle-Cruiser.” Dominion, 3 May 1913, 6 (Papers Past)

[xxxvii] Hirini Moko Mead and Neil Grove, Ngā Pepeha a ngā Tipuna: The Sayings of the Ancestors (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2001), 9

[xxxviii] He Pepeha, He Whakatauki No Taitokerau, (Whangarei: Department of Maori Affairs, Government Printing Office. August 1987), 69

[xxxix] Merata Kawharu, “Indigenous Entrepreneurship: Cultural Coding and The Transformation of Ngāti Whātua in New Zealand,” J Polynesian Soc. Vol. 125, No. 4. (2016): 35, https://doi.org/10.15286/jps.125.4.359-382

[xl] Te Pipiwharauroa 136, No. 136, 1909/07 https://hekupuwhakamarama.blogspot.com/2017/01/te-pipiwharauroa-136.html (accessed 12 May 2021) ; Williams, H. T, He Whakatauki, he Titotito, he Pepeha (Gisborne: Te Rau Press,1908)

[xli] H. T. M. Wikiriwhi, “Proverbial and Popular Sayings of The Maori”, Te Ao Hou, (September 1955): 48, (Papers Past)

[xlii] Tiaki Hikawera Mitira, Takitimu (Wellington: Reed Publishing, 1972), 250

[xliii] Matthew Campbell, “The Torpedo Bay Excavations: Volume I, The pre-European Maori site.” (Auckland: CFG Heritage Limited, 2018), 11

[xliv] Lowe DJ, Newnham RM, McFadgen BG, Higham TFG: “Tephras and New Zealand Archaeology,” J Archaeol Sci. 2000, 27: 859-870, https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0614

[xlv] Janet Javidson, Foss Leach, “Archaeological excavations at Pig Bay (N38/21, R10/22), Motutapu Island, Auckland, New Zealand in 1958 and 1959,” Records of the Auckland Museum 52 (2017): 9-38

[xlvi] Shane, P.A.R., Linnell, T. “Earthquake Commission University Post-Graduate Research Programme: Reconstructing Rangitoto volcano from a 150-m-deep drill core (project 14/U684).” (Final report, University of Auckland, 2015)

[xlvii] George Graham, “Maki–a chief of the Wai-o-hua tribe,” J Polynesian Soc., Volume 27, No. 108 (1918): 219

[xlviii] Janet Davidson, “Archaeological investigations at Maungarei: A large Mäori settlement on a volcanic cone in Auckland, New Zealand.” Tuhinga 22 (2011): 83; Pool, I. Te iwi Maori. A New Zealand population past, present and projected. Auckland (Auckland University Press, 1991)

[xlix] James Cowan, “The Story Of Auckland.” Auckland Star, 14 August 1928, 6

[l] Leslie G. Kelly, “Fragments of Ngapuhi history: Moremu-nui,” J Polynesian Soc. Volume 47, No. 188. (1938): 173-181

[li] S. Percy Smith, Maori Wars of the Nineteenth Century (Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd, 1910), 329

[lii] “Historical: The Musket Wars (Maori vs Maori).” https://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2018/12/12/Sidestep-The-Maori-musket-wars

[liii] Church Missionary Record. Detailing the Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society for the Year 1836 Volume 7 (London: Richard Watts, nd) 167

[liv] Robyn Anderson, Volume 4: The Crown, The Treaty and the Hauraki Tribes 1800-1885. (Paeroa: Hauraki Maori Trust Board, 1997) 64

[lv] Lawrence M. Rodgers (Ed.), The Early Journals of Henry Williams 1826-40, (Christchurch: Pegasus Press, 1961), 437

[lvi] House of Commons Select Committee Report on New Zealand, GBPP, 1837, (Testimony of John Flatt)

[lvii] R.C.J. Stone, From Tamaki-Makau-Rau to Auckland (Auckland University Press; 2001), 166

[lviii] H.J. Ryburn, Te Hemara: James Hamlin 1803–1865: friend of the Maoris, (Dunedin, 1979) 82

[lix] H.H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Old Private Land Purchases in New Zealand, From the Year 1815 To 1840, With Pre-Emptive and Other Claims. Otahuhu And Waipina Block, Manukau District. 1877 (NZETC)

[lx] New Zealand Law Commission, “Tenure and Estates in the Land,” (Wellington: NZLC PP20, 1992), 1

[lxi] W. T. Fairburn, manuscripts (letter to Rev Jowett 30 April 1838)

[lxii] Ryburn, Te Hemara: James Hamlin, 41

[lxiii] “William Thomas Fairburn, 1795–1859 (aged 64 years)” Australian Royalty https://australianroyalty.net.au/tree/purnellmccord.ged/individual/I57857/William-Thomas-Fairburn

[lxiv] Charles Davis, The Life and Times of Patuone, the Celebrated Ngapuhi Chief (1876;1974), 126-7

[lxv] Helen Garrett, Te Manihera: The Life and Times of the Pioneer Missionary Robert Maunsell (Auckland: Reed, 1991) 67

[lxvi] “New Zealand – Hokiangi”, The Sydney Herald, 19 Feb 1835, (Trove)

[lxvii] Stone, From Tamaki-Makau-Rau 171-5

[lxviii] Sean Ellison et. al. “Tainui: Oral and Traditional Historical Report.” (Tainui Research Team, 2012)

[lxix] Ryburn, Te Hemara: James Hamlin, 50

[lxx] Jaden Harris, “Mayhead Road, Waiuku: archaeological monitoring, final report,” (CFG Heritage Ltd, 2011)

[lxxi] Transcribed by the Right Reverend Dr. Terry Brown Bishop of Malaita, Church of the Province of Melanesia, 2008 (10 November 1858). “Untitled article on Maori Bible translation”. The Church Journal, New-York.

[lxxii] Vincent O’Malley, “Choosing Peace or War: THE 1863 INVASION OF WAIKATO”, New Zealand Journal of History, 47, 1 (2013), 43

[lxxiii] “Anglican Synod.” New Zealand Herald, 23 October 1901, 7 (Papers Past)

[lxxiv] “Te Kopua Meeting. (Reports, etc., Respecting the Proceedings.),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1879 Session I, G-02, (Wellington: Government Printer, 1879)

[lxxv] Judith Morrell Nathan, “Maunsell, Robert”, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1m28/maunsell-robert)

[lxxvi] Kullberg, Charles E. Nelson: A White Tohunga, 153

[lxxvii] S. Percy Smith, The peopling of the North: notes on the ancient Māori history of the Northern Peninsula and sketches of the history of the Ngāti-Whātua tribe of Kaipara, New Zealand (Wellington: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1898), folded map mounted inside back cover (First issued as a separately paged supplement to the J. of the Polynesian Soc., 5, no. 4, Dec. 1896 to 6, no. 3, Sept. 1897)

[lxxviii] S. Percy Smith, Maori Wars, 185

[lxxix] Cowan, James, “Maori Place Names.” New Zealand Illustrated Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 9, (1 June 1900): 5 (Papers Past).

[lxxx] “The Site of Cornwall Park.” New Zealand Herald, 12 June 1901, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[lxxxi] “The Native Minister in Waikato.” Globe, 10 January 1879, 3 (Papers Past)

[lxxxii] “Historical Relics Of Auckland.” Otago Witness, 16 October 1901, 63

[lxxxiii] Puna Reweti, “The Natives and The Governor.” New Zealand Herald, 23 July 1904, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[lxxxiv] George Graham, Graham manuscripts MS 120 N1, Auckland Institute and Museum Library

[lxxxv] James Cowan, The Maoris of New Zealand (Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs, 1910), 97

[lxxxvi] George Graham, “Our District in Maori Days” Mt Eden Gazette, August 1919, Graham manuscripts MS 120 N2, Auckland Institute and Museum Library

[lxxxvii] McCoy, Mark & Ladefoged, Thegn. “In Pursuit of Māori Warfare: New archaeological research on conflict in pre- European contact New Zealand.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101113

[lxxxviii] George Graham, “The Origins and Meanings of Maori Place Names (no date),” Graham manuscripts MS 120 M54, Auckland Institute and Museum Library

[lxxxix] John Barr, The City of Auckland, New Zealand, 1840–1920 preceded by “A Maori History of the Auckland Isthmus, George Graham” (Auckland: Whitcombe and Tombs, 1922) 1–32

[xc] George Graham, Auckland: A Guide to The City and The Province of Auckland, With A History of The Tamaki Isthmus and a List of Maori Place Names (Auckland: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1925)

[xci] George Graham, “The history of the Kawerau tribe of Waitakere,” J Polynesian Soc. 34, No. 133, (1925): 19-23

[xcii] George Graham, “Te Toka-tu-whenua. A relic of the ancient Waiohua of Tamaki,” J Polynesian Soc. 34, No. 134, (1925): 175-179

[xciii] R. W. Firth, “The Maori Carver,” J Polynesian Soc. 34, No. 136, (December 1925): 277-291

[xciv] Henry James Fletcher, “Index of Māori Names, (ca.1925),” University of Waikato https://www.waikato.ac.nz/library/resources/library-publications/index-of-maori-names

[xcv] Jenifer Curnow, “Inventory to the Papers of George Samuel Graham,” (Auckland Institute and Museum, revised 1996)

[xcvi] Cowan, James, “The Story of Auckland — The Tamaki Isthmus in The Olden Time — Maori Life in peace and War” Auckland Star, 7 August 1928, 6 (Papers Past)

[xcvii] “Museum Exhibits.” New Zealand Herald, 19 September 1929, 12 (Papers Past)

[xcviii] “Maori Place Names.” Auckland Star, 11 January 1933, 6 (Papers Past)

[xcix] Leslie Kelly, “Tamaki-Makau-Rau Map”, Auckland Institute and Museum, G9083.A82, 1940

[c] Kelly, Leslie George, “Tamaki-Makau-rau. Map of the Tamaki Isthmus with Maori place names [copy of map].” Alexander Turnbull Library Ref: MapColl-832.12ee/1938(1980)/Acc.16368

[ci] George Leslie Adkin, “Maori Place-Names of New Zealand (vol. 3).” Ethnological notebooks, Alexander Turnbull Library Ref: MS-Papers-6061-04.

[cii] “One Hundred Years Ago” Auckland Star, 24 June 1939, 3 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[ciii] Geo. Graham, “Some Taniwha and Tupua,” J Polynesian Soc. 55, No. 1. (1946): 26–39

[civ] Andrew Vayda, “Maori conquests in relation to the New Zealand environment” J Polynesian Soc. 65, No. 3 (1956): 204-211

[cv] Aileen Fox, “Pa of the Auckland Isthmus: An Archaeological Analysis,” Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 14 (10 December 1977): 1-14

[cvi] Walter, R., Buckley, H., Jacomb, C. et al., “Mass Migration and the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand.” J World Prehist 30, 351–376 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9110-y

[cvii] George Graham and D. R. Simmons (Ed.) “Maori Place Names,” Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 16 (1979): 1-10

[cviii] Stuart Park, “Te Peeke o Aotearoa. The Bank of King Tawhiao.” New Zealand Journal of History 26, No. 2 (October 1992): 161–181.

[cix] James Cowan, Evening Post, 7 September 1943, 6 (Papers Past)

[cx] Thomas Henry Smith, “On Maori Proverbs,” Transactions and Proceedings of The New Zealand Institute XXII (Fifth of New Series) Article XIII (1888): 111

[cxi] James Cowan, Research papers relating to whakatauki and pepeha. Date [1889–1933] Ref MS-Papers-11310-159. National Library of New Zealand.

[cxii] Te Rangi Hiroa, “Recording of Polynesian texts and proper names,” J Polynesian Soc. 41 No. 164, (1932): 257-8

[cxiii] Roger Blackley, “Goldie, Charles Frederick” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1996. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3g14/goldie-charles-frederick

[cxiv] James Cowan, New Zealand: Or Ao-teä-roa (The Long Bright World): Its Wealth and Resources, Scenery, Travel-routes, Spas, and Sport (New Zealand: J. Mackay, Government Printer, 1907)

[cxv] James Cowan, New Zealand Cities: Auckland, (Whitcombe & Tombs, 1912) 9

[cxvi] David Colquhoun. “Cowan, James” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1996, updated January 2012. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3c36/cowan-james

[cxvii] Cowan, James, “The Story of Auckland — The First Inhabitants” Auckland Star, 24 July 1928, 6 (Papers Past)

[cxviii] Ariana Tikao, “An annotated history of James Cowan,” (23 July 2015), https://natlib.govt.nz/blog/posts/an-annotated-history-of-james-cowan accessed 24 Feb 2021

[cxix] “More Maori Lectures” Sun (Auckland), 6 June 1929, 7 (Papers Past)

[cxx] “Anthropology Society.” New Zealand Herald, 6 June 1929, 11 (Papers Past)

[cxxi] Stone, From Tamaki-Makau-Rau, 7

[cxxii] S.D. Waters, The Royal New Zealand Navy (Wellington: Historical Publications Branch, 1956), 421

[cxxiii] Te Ao Hou (The New World) (July 1952) 1 (Papers Past)

[cxxiv] Alexander Wyclif Reed, ‎Aileen E. Brougham, The Concise Maori Handbook (Wellington: Reed, 1978) 569

[cxxv] D. R. Simmons, “George Graham’s Maori Place Names of Auckland.” Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 16, (1980): 11–39,

[cxxvi] Susan Bulmer, Sources for the Archaeology of the Maaori Settlement of the Taamaki Volcanic District (Wellington, N.Z.: Dept. of Conservation, 1994)

[cxxvii] Kendall, T. and S. Lee. A Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand (London, UK: Church Missionary Society, 1820)

[cxxviii] Judith Binney “’At Every Bend a Taniwha’: Thomas Kendall and Maori Carving,” New Zealand Journal of History 20-21 (1986): 132

[cxxix] Ross Nepia Himona, “Ko Huiarau File” https://maorinews.com accessed 21 Oct 2021

[cxxx] Richard A. Benton, “David Roy Simmons, MBE (1930–2015)” J Polynesian Soc. 125, No. 4, (2016): 339-340

[cxxxi]  A. W. Reed, Auckland City of the Seas, (Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1955) 66

[cxxxii] Martin Doutré, “The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi…Found,” http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyBook/Precis.htm (accessed 6 January 2022)

[cxxxiii] OMB No.1, 64

[cxxxiv] “Native Lands Court—Friday. [Before Chief Judge Fenton and Henare te Pukuatua.]” Daily Southern Cross, 24 October 1868, 4 (Papers Past)

[cxxxv] Felton Mathew, The Founding of New Zealand: The Journals of Felton Mathew, First Surveyor-General of New Zealand, and his Wife, 1840-1847 Ed. J. Rutherford (Wellington: Reed, 1940), 173

[cxxxvi] Ibid 174-6

[cxxxvii] Rough, “Early Days of Auckland” New Zealand Herald, January 11-25, 1896 (Papers Past)

[cxxxviii] Geo. Graham, “Te Aotea (Great Barrier Island) The Happenings There, Leading to the Last Intertribal Wars of Hauraki,” J Polynesian Soc. 54, No. 4 (December 1945): 192-8

[cxxxix] S. Percy Smith, Maori Wars, 96

[cxl] Ani Pihema, Ruby Kerei and Steven Oliver. “Te Kawau, Āpihai” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1990). by Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t42/te-kawau-apihai

[cxli] OMB No.2, 56

[cxlii] OMB No.2, 273

[cxliii] Ibid

[cxliv] Charles Terry, New Zealand: its Advantages and Prospects as a British Colony – Part I. History of the Colony of New Zealand – Chapter II, (London: T. & W. Boone, 1842), 37

[cxlv] OMB No.2, 217 & 296

[cxlvi] OMB No.2, 319

[cxlvii] OMB No.2, 89 & 321 & 324

[cxlviii] “Auckland is Created as Seat of Government.” New Zealand Herald, 22 January 1940, 41 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[cxlix] OMB No.2, 264 & 283

[cl] OMB No.2, 283

[cli] OMB No.2, 330

[clii] Felton Mathew, The Founding 182

[cliii] Merrett, Joseph Jenner, “Nagel’s Cove,” The Fletcher Trust Collection, https://fletchercollection.org.nz/artworks/nagels-cove/ accessed 2 Jan 2022

[cliv] Captain William Symonds, “Reporting proceedings and forwarding agreements with natives.” letter to James Stuart Freeman, Acting Colonial Secretary, 21 September 1840, National Archives R23629896

[clv] David Rough, “The Early Days of Auckland.” New Zealand Herald, 18 January 1896, 1 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[clvi] “Report of The Waitangi Tribunal on The Orakei Claim,” (Wai-9, November 1987)

[clvii] David Simmons, Greater Maori Auckland (Bush Press of New Zealand: 2013), 60

[clviii] Leslie G. Kelly. “Fragments of Ngapuhi history: Moremu-nui” J Polynesian Soc. 47 No. 188 (1938): 175

[clix] “Te Pou O Kāhu Pōkere Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei” (2018), 7

[clx] OMB No.2, 89

[clxi] Charles Terry, New Zealand, 35

[clxii] John Logan Campbell, Poenamo: Sketches of The Early Days of New Zealand, (London: Williams and Norgate, 1881), 300-8

[clxiii] Campbell, Poenamo, 316

[clxiv] H.H.Turton, An Epitome of Official Documents Relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand. (Wellington: N.Z. Government, 1877-1883), No.2, 147

[clxv] Wai-9 23

[clxvi] Turton Epitome, Encl. 2, No. 3, 148

[clxvii] Barry Rigby, “The Crown, Maori, And Mahurangi 1840-1881,” (Waitangi Tribunal, 1998), 79

[clxviii] “Veteran Maoris”, Poverty Bay Herald, 31 October 1933, 11 (Papers Past)

[clxix] Turton Epitome, No. 4, 148

[clxx] Ibid.

[clxxi] Alemann, “Early Land Transactions”, folding map at 103

[clxxii] A. W. Reed, Auckland City of the Seas, 59

[clxxiii] S. Percy Smith, “Wars of Northern Against Southern Tribes, Part IV,” J Polynesian Soc. VIII (1899) 92

[clxxiv] S. Percy Smith, Maori Wars, 478-80

[clxxv] Claudia Orange, Te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Treaty of Waitangi (Wellington: Bridget William Books, 2013), 74

[clxxvi] “History of Point Britomart” City of Auckland – District Plan Central Area Section – Operative 2004 Updated 17/03/2006, http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/central/pdfs/annexure13g.pdf ; Andrea Stevens, “Auckland turns 175: early depictions of the city”, 23 Jan 2015, https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/about-us/blog/2015/auckland-turns-175-early-depictions-of-the-city

[clxxvii] “Te Kawau, Āpihai”, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1990)

[clxxviii] A. W. Reed, Auckland City of the Seas, 40-1

[clxxix] Rodgers, The Early Journals of Henry Williams, 447-54

[clxxx] Ibid, 471-2

[clxxxi] Ibid, 474

[clxxxii] ADM 53/672 – Herald 1838 May 31 – 1840 May 31, Admiralty and Ministry of Defence, Navy Department: Ships’ Logs, The National Archives, Kew, U.K.; John Rutherford, “One Hundred Years Ago” Auckland Star, 24 June 1939, 3 (Supplement) (Papers Past)

[clxxxiii] Isla L. Prenter, “The Development of Maori Christianity in The Waiapu Diocese Until 1911.,” (n.d.) 27

[clxxxiv] OMB No.1, 42

[clxxxv] Claudia Orange, Te Tiriti o Waitangi 356

[clxxxvi] Ibid, 125

[clxxxvii] Campbell, Poenamo, 167

[clxxxviii] Ibid, 277

[clxxxix] Ibid, 283

[cxc] A. D. W. Best, (Ed. N. M. Taylor), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-1843 (Wellington: Government Printer, 1966), 221

[cxci] James Cowan “Orakei Names” Auckland Star, 13 September 1926, 5 (Papers Past)

[cxcii] Henry Brett, White Wings (Volume II), (Auckland: Brett Printing, 1924-1928), 31

[cxciii] Brent Layton, “Alienation Rights in Traditional Maori Society: A Reconsideration,” J Polynesian Soc. 93 No. 4, (1984), 423-440

[cxciv] Susan Healy, “Tuku whenua as customary land allocation: contemporary fabrication or historical fact?” J Polynesian Soc. 118, No. 2 (June 2009): 111-134

[cxcv] John Caselberg (Ed.), Maori is My Name (Dunedin: John McIndoe Ltd, 1975), 29

[cxcvi] Abel D. W. Best, (Ed. Nancy M. Taylor), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-1843 (Wellington: Government Printer, 1966), 219

[cxcvii] Jack Lee, The Old Land Claims in New Zealand (Kerikeri: Northland Historical Publications Society, 1993) 20-1.

[cxcviii] H. H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Old Private Land Purchases in New Zealand, From the Year 1815 to 1840, with Pre-Emptive and Other Claims, Part I (Wellington: Government Printer, 1882)

[cxcix] L. F. Head, “An Analysis of Linguistic Issues raised in Margaret Mutu (1992) ‘Tuku Whenua or Land Sale?’ and Joan Metge (1992) ‘Cross Cultural Communication and Land Transfer in Western Muriwhenua 1832:1840” (Wai 45 G005) (Waitangi Tribunal Research Commission, undated)

[cc] David Goodwin, Mick Strack. “Between the Lines: the spirit behind land agreements,” (School of Surveying, University of Otago, 2009)

[cci] M. P. K. Sorenson. “Sold For a Mess of Pottage,” Te Ao Hou, (June 1959): 8

[ccii] Howe, J., Annand, W., Chisholm, J. Andrew, (ed. Joseph Andrew Chisholm), The speeches and public letters of Joseph Howe: (Based upon Mr. Annand’s edition of 1858) (Halifax, Canada: The Chronicle Publishing Company, 1909), 124

[cciii] John Barr, City of Auckland 60

[cciv] Charles Terry, New Zealand, 265-6

[ccv] “Native Lands Court.”, Daily Southern Cross, 5 December 1866, 5

[ccvi] H. H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume One, (Wellington: N.Z. Government, 1877), No.208, 270

[ccvii] OMB No.1, 15

[ccviii] Murray Clyde Meikle, A New Britain in the South Pacific: The Life and Times of a New Zealand Immigrant Family, Volume I (2021), 181-3

[ccix] “Auckland”, Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, 9 August 1845, 89

[ccx] I. H. Kawharu. Orakei; A Ngati Whatua Community, (Wellington: NZ Council for Educational Research, 1975), 8

[ccxi] “Report of The Waitangi Tribunal on The Orakei Claim” (Wai-9), (1987)

[ccxii] Stone, From Tamaki-Makau-Rau, 262

[ccxiii] Dandeson Coates, The New Zealanders and Their Lands. The Report Select Committee of The House of Commons, On New Zealand, Considered in A Letter to Lord Stanley, (London: Hatchards, Seeleys, Nisbet and Co., 1844) 4-5

[ccxiv] Guy H. Scholefield, Captain William Hobson: First Governor of New Zealand, (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1934), 10

[ccxv] Richard Arundell, Augur Sherrin, ‎J. H. Wallace, ‎Thomson W. Leys, Early History of New Zealand: From Earliest Times to 1840 (Auckland: H. Brett, 1890), 551

[ccxvi] Scholefield, Captain William Hobson, 173

[ccxvii] “The funeral of His Excellency the late Governor, Captain William Hobson”, Auckland Times, 15 September 1842, 2

[ccxviii] John Wilson, “New Zealand Sovereignty: 1857, 1907, 1947, or 1987?” (2007) https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLLawRP07041/new-zealand-sovereignty-1857-1907-1947-or-1987

[ccxix] “The Global Liveability Index 2021” (London: Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2021) https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2021/

[ccxx] Wai-9 31

[ccxxi] C. K. Stead, That Derrida Whom I Derided Died: Poems 2013-2017, (Auckland University Press, 2018), 72

[ccxxii] “Timeline: This timeline sets out some of the key events around the Treaty of Waitangi –New Zealand’s founding document.” https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/discover/stories/he-wataka-english (accessed 2 March 2022)

[ccxxiii]  “Five-Year Strategic Plan” https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/your-museum/about/five-year-plan (accessed 6 March 2022)

[ccxxiv] “Te Ākitai Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua Settlement Trust and The Crown: Deed of Settlement of Historical Claims” (2021), 12

[ccxxv] Hannah Arendt, “Truth And Politics”, The New Yorker, 25 February 1967, 52

[ccxxvi] Russell Stone, “This city’s future can’t be built on myths,” New Zealand Herald, 16 June 2009, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/irussell-stonei-this-citys-future-cant-be-built-on-myths/4OJZZEDORVEISL5KQRWJOWTU44/

Bibliography

Alemann, M., Early Land Transactions in the Ngatiwhatua Tribal Area. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, (1992)

Binney, Judith. ‘At Every Bend a Taniwha’: Thomas Kendall and Maori Carving, The New Zealand Journal of History, Volume 20, No.2 (1986)

Campbell, J. L. Poenamo, London, (1881)

Darroch, K., Demystifying ‘The Great New Zealand Myth’: The social construction of the naming of New Zealand and its islands. (Revised ed.), Christchurch, (2009).

Elliot, James, editor. The life of Henry Williams, Archdeacon of Waimate, Hugh Carleton, A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington, (1948)

Evans, Roger., Truth and obedience: the life and letters of George Clarke, 1798–1875: missionary, protector of Aborigines, and defender of the Treaty of Waitangi (2004)

Fenton. Important Judgements Delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court, ‎New Zealand. Compensation Court, (1879)

Garrett, Helen. Te Manihera: the life and times of the pioneer missionary Robert Maunsell, Auckland, (1991)

Graham, George Samuel. Auckland: a guide to the city and the province of Auckland, with a history of the Tamaki isthmus and a list of Maori place names, Whitcombe & Tombs, Auckland, (1925)

Native Land Courts – Ōrākei Minute Books (OMB), (1868)

Nicholls, Jim. Whakataukī — Kïwaha: Words and Phrases of Hauraki Kaikohikohi Kupu Hauraki Māori Trust Board, Paeroa, (2008)

Robinson, John. Unrestrained Slaughter: The Maori Musket Wars 1800-1840, Tross Publishing, (2020)

Rogers, Lawrence M. The Early Journals of Henry Williams, Pegasus Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, (1961)

Rutherford, J., editor. The Founding of New Zealand: The Journals of Felton Mathew, First Surveyor-General of New Zealand, and his Wife 1840-1847. Auckland University College, A. H. and A. W. Reed, Dunedin and Wellington, (1940)

Ryburn, H.J. Te Hemara: James Hamlin 1803–1865: friend of the Maoris, Dunedin, (1979)

Stone, Russell. From Tamaki-Makau-Rau to Auckland, Auckland University Press (2001)

Te Kopua Meeting. (Reports, etc., Respecting the Proceedings.), Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1879 Session I, G-02

Wishart, Ian. The Great divide: the story of New Zealand & its Treaty, Howling at the Moon Pub. (2012)