New Zealand

This chapter will focus on the New Zealand Maori, the prehistoric inhabitants of New Zealand. Maori are Polynesians who settled the country about 1000 years ago from an unidentified location to the north, in Polynesia. They are the tangata whenua, literally ‘the people of the land’. In early historic times, Europeans (principally British) and Asians (particularly Chinese, attracted to the goldfields in the first instance) settled in New Zealand, but clearly the Maori are the reason New Zealand physical anthropology is distinctive. We will also make some references to the Moriori, who are of the same Polynesian descent as the Maori but, early in the human settlement of New Zealand, migrated to a small group of islands east of New Zealand, the Chatham Islands (Wharekauri), where they became isolated for some centuries and so form a separate population. Settlement of New Zealand by Europeans dates from approximately 200 years ago, and from

the very first contact, the origin of Maori and Moriori in particular, and Polynesians in general, was a source of much interest and conjecture by Western scientists and anthropologists. Consequently the field of ‘physical’ anthropology (or ‘biological anthropology’ as it is now known locally) developed early in New Zealand’s history, with the impetus of researching these origins. This fascination was primarily because of the very different physical appearance, social and cultural customs of Polynesians from those of the nearest neighbours in Melanesia and Australia (Forster 1996; Howe 2003). In the spirit of the times, not only did the research attempt to identify Polynesian origins but also to place them in human taxonomy. The methods used were those employed universally to categorize human populations from their skeletal remains, principally craniometrics (Buck 1938). The methods of acquisition of the koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains) for research included

what was perceived to be justified and ethical ‘collecting’, often from caves that were favoured by Maori as either primary or secondary burial sites; or they were sold to institutions by Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent) or disaffected Maori. Koiwi tangata were also deliberately stolen from burial sites (King 1981). Museums created an international demand for Maori and Moriori skulls to add to their collections of examples of indigenous populations (Fforde and Hubert 2006). This occurred on a large scale, as exemplified by the ability of Mollison (1908) to

collate published data from museum collections of over 275 Maori skulls, and Poll (1902) to prepare a similar collation from 100 skulls of Moriori. About half of the skulls included in these studies were deposited in museums in New Zealand and the remainder in Austria, France and Germany. This treatment of koiwi tangata in the 19th century was a reflection of the European attitude towards indigenous peoples at the time and is detailed elsewhere (Fforde and Hubert 2006; Tapsell 2005; Tayles 2009). Those involved in this field included academic staff of the Medical School at the University

of Otago, where the morphology and origin of Maori was among the first research topics, and accordingly a collection primarily but not exclusively of skulls was amassed from the late 19th century. This collection has formed the basis of over 60 publications and research theses, starting from the earliest description of cranial morphology by John Scott, Professor of Anatomy at the Medical School (1893). The only Maori researcher, Sir Peter Buck (also known as Te Rangi Hiroa), was active many decades ago. In 1925 he published a paper on the diet of prehistoric Maori that drew on evidence from the collection published by Scott (1893: 20). Apart from the inclusion of the skulls in the collection at Otago in publications seeking to categorize the Maori, other researchers were particularly interested in the prehistoric Maori dentition, which showed unusual patterns of wear and a lack of dental caries (Houghton 1978; Pickerill 1912; Taylor 1962a, 1962b, 1963, 1970, 1975). The most prolific researcher was much more recent. Associate Professor Philip Houghton was the first to provide a thorough description of the singular characteristics of the Maori and Moriori cranial and postcranial morphology (Houghton 1980, 1996). During the 1980s he and Professor Martin Kean, then Dean of the Otago Dental School, developed a theoretical basis for the cranial morphology (Kean and Houghton 1982, 1987, 1990; Houghton and Kean 1987), and Houghton also proposed an adaptive hypothesis to explain the distinctive Polynesian postcranial morphology (Houghton 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1996). For most Maori, the scientific expectation that morphology could act as a surrogate for genetic

affiliation has no merit. Maori culture has a very strong oral tradition that not only documents the origins of their ancestors in the South Pacific but also documents the genealogy, the whakapapa, of individuals. This is an important aspect of being Maori, as whakapapa defines relationship to family (whanau), subtribe (hapu), tribe (iwi) and ultimately through ancestors (tupuna) to the land (whenua). The skeletal remains of tupuna are the physical embodiment of whakapapa (Ngai Tahu 1993) and are sacred. Strong emotional ties to tupuna mean that the idea of researchers handling koiwi tangata and storing them on museum shelves is abhorrent to Maori. Clearly the interests of Maori are of primary concern in research involving koiwi tangata in the 21st century. The founding document of New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi, was drafted by repre-

sentatives of the British Crown in 1840 on the grounds that there were benefits for both sides in the British establishing sovereignty over the country (Orange 2004). It was hastily translated into Maori, with the result that the English and Maori versions have some contentious differences, but the point relevant here is that ‘Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties.’ This can be taken to include the remains of tupuna. Not only is there a moral and ethical

duty not to disturb these remains; the Treaty provides a written contract between Maori and the Crown. The Treaty was clearly disregarded in many respects since 1840, not only in relation to koiwi, although the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 with the ability to hear claims for redress by ‘any Ma-ori or group of Ma-ori who may have been prejudiced by laws and regulations or by acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown since 1840 that are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ (Waitangi Tribunal 2009). Since then, numerous longstanding claims by Maori have been settled and the process is ongoing.

Clearly the spiritual, emotional, cultural and legal rights of Maori are now accepted as primary in the field of biological anthropology in New Zealand where prehistoric skeletal remains are involved. The first formal actions taken to acknowledge what had happened to koiwi tangata since European

settlement were initiated by Dr Maui Pomare, a member, and ultimately chair, of the National Museum Council 1978-92. During his time in office he pushed for the creation of a repository, known as a Wahi Tapu (place sacred to Maori), in the National Museum (now known as Te Papa Tongarewa) inWellington, for the appropriate temporary storage of koiwi tangata held in the Museum collection until such time as provenance could be established and repatriation to appropriate iwi could be completed. In 2003, a Government Order in Council established a repatriation programme, with the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Research Committee, based at Te Papa, the Government Agent. The role of the Committee is to locate koiwi in international institutions and to negotiate their return to New Zealand (Te Papa, n.d.). This is an ongoing process (Tayles 2009). With this current repatriation process, clearly the export of skeletal remains for research is not

considered. The Protected Objects Act 1975 legislates the control of cultural items derived from an archaeological burial site, including scientific samples and organic remains. The Act places the regulation under the control of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. In relation to research on prehistoric skeletal remains within New Zealand, as the collections

of any size are now under the control of iwi, permission for access for research must be made to them. Of relevance to international researchers, there is effectively no likelihood of access to acquire data purely for the purposes of using Maori as a comparative population in a worldwide study. Where there may be the possibility of determining evidence about the prehistoric Maori themselves that might be of interest to iwi, the question of access to Koiwi held in Wahi Tapu for research is as yet untested. In 1993 the largest iwi in the South Island, Ngai (‘Kai’ in the local dialect) Tahu, developed a

policy on Koiwi Tangata (Ngai Tahu 1993). They were the first iwi in New Zealand to do so. This policy iterates the rights of the iwi to manage the koiwi from their rohe (tribal area) under the Treaty of Waitangi. This policy has been accepted by regional museums within the rohe, which extends over much of the South Island of New Zealand, to the extent that Wahi Tapu have been established within the Otago Museum (Dunedin) and the Southland Museum and Art Gallery (Invercargill) in 1994 (Gillies and O’Regan 1994). The collection of koiwi from the Ngai Tahu rohe held in the University of Otago was transferred to the Wahi Tapu in the Otago Museum in 2003 under an agreement between the University and the iwi. Where the geographic origin of koiwi tangata in museum collections is known, the ultimate arbiters of the long-term disposition, whether retention in Museum Wahi Tapu or reburial, will be the local runanga (council, assembly). The policy recognizes the role of scientific investigation of koiwi tangata and reserves the right to control research access and to edit for reasons of cultural sensitivity any material proposed for publication, including illustrations. The policy is exclusive to Ngai Tahu, with no equivalent applicable to all iwi. A relevant and significant recent event has been the reburial of a collection of human skeletal

remains from an early prehistoric site, Wairau Bar, at the northern end of the South Island of New Zealand. These burials represent the earliest known prehistoric cemetery sample and were excavated over several decades in the mid-20th century. The collection represented about 40 individuals and had been held in the Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand. Some research on the material had been published (Houghton 1975). The collection had been the subject of repeated requests for reburial by the local iwi, Rangitane, and in 2008 an agreement was reached between the iwi and the Museum, on the understanding that the skeletons would be first researched by biological anthropologists. The collection was transported to the University

of Otago and the data collection, coordinated by Dr Hallie Buckley under a Memorandum of Understanding between Rangitane, Canterbury Museum and the University, was completed by early 2009. In April 2009 the tupuna were returned to Rangitane and the results of the research presented to the iwi before the tupuna were reburied at the site in watertight caskets, with appropriate ceremony. This is the first large-scale return and reburial of prehistoric Maori skeletal remains and therefore represents a seminal event in the history of biological anthropology in New Zealand. There is anecdotal evidence that conducting and presenting the research before reburial is altering attitudes of iwi towards science and scientific research.