Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Maori Race

Chapter VIII. Rank, Rights of Property. Habits

Chapter VIII. Rank, Rights of Property. Habits.

page 123

Rank, Rights of Property.

There was no trace of regal institutions in New Zealand. There were great chiefs who ordinarily wielded almost unlimited power in their own districts, but their actions were regulated in important matters by references to councils and with some deference to public opinion. Government was really a “democracy tempered with awe” for there was too much influence of birth and priestcraft to permit a true democracy in a system where both the aristocratic descent and the magic power were supposed to be derived from the gods. It may, however, be called a democracy if we use the term as the reverse of autocracy, and there were conditions in its constitution which allowed of success and honour being won by men of humble descent possessing brains and courage.

In alluding to some mighty noble the people might now and then apply a name of honour (Au, Pu, Take, Tumu, etc.) more befitting a king than a noble, but the highest title in practical use was that of “Lord” (Ariki), if we page 124 allow a spiritual as well as a temporal potency to the rank. He was the Priest-Chief, “the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son,” etc., down from the gods of heaven and earth, but his position was of so interesting a character that it demands separate notice. Next below the Lord was the chief of each sub-tribe (hapu), that nearest in descent to the main line of ancestry being accounted highest. Then came the near relatives, such as brother and sister, of the chief of the sub-tribe; then his cousins and more distant relatives. After these ranked the ordinary “professional” (tohunga) who though generally a priest or wizard needed not always to be a priest, but must be a “skilled person” either in witchcraft, canoe-making, house-building, tattooing, etc. Next came the free-men of the tribe, gentlemen by birth, but of little weight and few possessions. Probably the bulk of these would be either descendants of far-off relatives or sons of chiefs by slave wives. Lastly, the slaves.

The grades of precedence needed much study, for the “crossings” and family relations were endless. The child of a man not closely related to the Ariki by his father might be more nearly allied through his mother, and thus it arose (as in other Polynesian islands) that the child might be greater than either of its parents because uniting the honours of both lines. To such an extent was this accumulation of ancestral dignities carried that it would end at last in the production of a child of such an imposing social position that no possible spouse could be found to mate on equal terms page 125 with such magnificence. Again as a further study in social intricacies we may notice that all a chief's children were not of the same rank; in a system where a man might have several wives the birth and position of the wife affected the status of the child. This, with a few generations of intermarriage and the custom of adoption (especially of adopting a deceased brother's wives and children), gave a complexity to social observance among a people jealous of their rights that would puzzle a Herald's College to control so as to avoid vexation.

The position held, however, by men of noble birth was one of power, evoked partly from the awe arising from the hereditary possession of spiritual gifts as “god-begotten” and partly from the respect with which custom surrounded them from childhood. The greatest were set apart, guarded by endless ceremonial and tapu rights which wrought an unseen bulwark about them against intrusion and offence. Little by little as the kinship became more distant and as the relationship to the great personages “watered out” so the respect shown grew less till at last one reached the stage of the ordinary free man who had little else than his personal courage or skill to sustain his dignity. But through all ran the line of primogeniture; in every family the eldest child ruled the others, and they seldom failed to obey. There were separate terms for every relationship, but a man never said “my brother,” he either said “my elder brother” (tuakana), or “my younger brother” (teina). page 126 So also, a woman did not say “my sister,” but “my elder sister” (tuakana), or “my younger sister” (teina), using the same words for her sisters as the man for his brothers. But the leading chief considered himself (though he would hold council with them) as the equal of all the rest of the tribe and would say of them “we two” will do this and that, implying that he was one and the rest were the other. This pride of position by birth belonged to women as well as to men; one whom we should style a princess was sometimes set apart with her own servants in a carved house surrounded with three rows of palisading like a fort. Her servant who cooked the food would give it to a higher servant, and that one to another still superior, till a “maid of honour” handed it to the noble lady. One instance is known in which a tribe almost worshipped a woman (Hine Matioro) as their chieftainess. Even after her death men's lives were spared if they asked for mercy in her name. Until a few years ago the obedience shown to a chief's command was very great, even if he was not a priest-chief (Ariki) but a war-leader. When Te Rauparaha on one occasion was hard beset by foes who drew near the hiding-place where he and his small band lay concealed, a wailing cry broke from the baby of a young married couple who were with him. The chief said to the parents “Strangle that child.” He was obeyed at once.

Property apart from land was scanty, and the richest had little to bequeath to his heirs and successors. Apart from the communal page 127 right to tribal possessions, a man owned his own house if he had built it, and if it was on his own land. His clothes, his weapons, his tools, and his ornaments were his, and but little else. Often a man's house was not on land acknowledged by the tribe to be his, but if he had been allowed to erect it on land allocated to him by a promise publicly made, if was his property. If he obtained acknowledged permission from a landowner to fell bush and make a cultivation in any locality he could use it as long as he chose, and the crop was his. He could keep anything he obtained by hunting or fishing, always with the understanding that if a man of higher rank expressed a liking for the product of the chase, etc., it would have to be given up to him. This was invariably done, but, as it was sure to be rewarded by a return present of greater value, it was done willingly. Near a settlement land was understood to more particularly belong to certain persons; one man looking upon a particular portion as belonging to him or his family, and he would hold to this even if the place had been deserted for years. The chiefs of course held most land, but everyone had some private estate to treat as he pleased. The larger portions were tribal lands to be cultivated in common, but a man might want to consult his own taste as to some favourite spot.

A man or family might hold a right to do certain things in a certain place, thus, to gather shell-fish from a particular sand-bank, to hunt rats or small birds in specified localities, to gather berries in a prescribed part of the forest, page 128 or to put down his eel-baskets at a certain weir in a river or lake outlet. Sometimes two families might each have a right over a certain place, thus, one might dig fern-root there and the other hunt rats, and so on. A right might exist for a limited time, perhaps for a year only. The right was advertised by a pole (rahui) set up, having a bunch of grass or leaves fastened thereto. There were not only individual rights but collective rights apart from the communal right. Thus, a party of persons might agree to make a large seine net, or to go together to snare birds, etc. It was difficult to understand where the communal right, the collective right, and the individual right separated, but they were regulated by old custom, and the general spirit of toleration and hospitality tempered all. Over the large area of common land individual interests were allowed to be exercised by a general courtesy, and if one marked a tree, for instance, out of which he intended to make a canoe, another would be considered a boor instead of a gentleman if he interfered without having a prior claim, or affirming some principle such as ownership of that particular place.

If there was trouble between members of the same tribe as to the ownership of particular lands or property the tribe would discuss the question at an arranged meeting. There the genealogies would be quoted showing how some ancestor in ancient times had such a cultivation, eel-weir, etc., at such a place, and the case would be decided by the law of custom in similar matters.

page 129

Of all property land was the most valued asset a Maori could bequeath, or that could descend by inheritance. From his early youth the son of a chief accompanied his father if possible on his hunting and fishing expeditions that he might learn the name and history of every boundary and portion of the tribal lands. The head of a family had a perfect right to bequeath his property to his son or nephews and a death-bed bequest had the force of law, but customarily the property did not pass to his grandsons till all his sons were exhausted. Thus, if a father had sons named A, B, C, D, on the death of the father the property passed to A, but not on the death of A to A's son. It went to B, and on B's death to C, and so on to D, but at D's death it reverted to the son of A. For this reason a man preferred counting succession through his grandfather instead of through his father. Sons inherited the land and it was only parted with when the men of the tribe were destroyed. Girls did not receive land to hold in permanent occupation lest they should marry strangers and the land should be claimed by enemies. This custom of leaving the lands to males was universal, and accounts for the brothers' consent being necessary to their sister's marriage. If they consented they could give her a piece of land, but if she married into a strange tribe they would say “You can go with your waist-girdle only (as our forefathers would have said “Be married in your shift”), you will only be a slave to blow your husband's fire.” In some tribes male children inherited their father's page 130 land and girls their mother's, but if a girl married a stranger from another tribe she forfeited, and her children had no claim to the land of their mother's tribe, but could be reinstated if adopted by one of their mother's brothers. If after a girl had married and received land she had no children, the land again reverted to her family. If a father had girl-children only, his land became theirs, but if the girls' husbands belonged to the same tribe as the girls they had to be people of considerable consequence to resist encroachments of their wives' relations, while if the women married strangers they would have to hold the land by force of arms. A chief's granddaughter had an equal claim with her male cousins on her grandfather's lands, and her claim held good as far as her own grandchild, but then reverted to the male line of the second generation from the male ancestor from whom they claimed. If this had not taken place there would have been tumultuous wrangling over lands and property arising from chiefs' daughters' marriages, and family wars would have been incessant. In some tribes an eldest son would grab all he could at his father's death unless a younger brother was plucky enough to oppose him.

The titles by which lands were held were (1) Lands held by hereditary descent and lands held by undoubted conquest. (2) Lands over which many members of a tribe had a joint right, but which contained other portions, the property of individuals or of families non-resident, or of other tribes. (3) Debatable lands, page 131 claimed by adjoining tribes. These were the frequent causes of war and drained one side or other of its fighting men. (4) Lands once owned by natives conquered but allowed to remain on sufferance. (5) Lands once held by a tribe, conquered, and driven away, but considered to hold a right of redemption some day when strong enough. These titles were again made complex by the different claims which could be made to hold them. Some of these were as follows: (1) Descent, i.e. by universal consent as to the lands having been owned by direct ancestors. (2) Because the bones of the claimant's parents or forefathers have been buried (or were at one time buried) there. (3) Because his umbilical cord at birth was cut there, or the after-birth of his mother when he was born was buried there. (4) By having acquired it through his wife; this was only during his wife's lifetime or (if she died) during the youth of the children. (5) By having been one of the warriors who conquered it. (6) By having been wounded on it. (7) By having acted as an ally by supplying food, weapons, etc., to the victorious war-party. (8) By being cursed on it. (9) By having received it for some service as a gift publicly declared by the ruling chief of the tribe and acknowledged in open assembly. (10) By being allowed through a public permission from its owner to occupy it either by building a house there or cultivating the soil. (11) By his ancestors having been allowed to catch rats or eels, etc., there. (12) By his tree (kawa, the branch used in baptism, sometimes page 132 planted) having grown there. (13) By some ancestor having been (by permission) buried there. (14) By his ancestor having set up an altar (tuāhu) there or a fort (pa), etc., etc. Sometimes grim but grotesque claims were set up, such as that made by a chief who asserted that his ancestor had killed an ancestor of the other side, had made a bird-cage out of his enemy's ribs and backbone, and had kept therein a tame parrot. This cage was set up on the land and was a plain proof in Maori eyes that he was the owner of the land in question. One man claimed on the ground that his ancestor was a lizard that used to live on the land; another that his ancestor once saw a ghost there. This latter claim was allowed by the Colonial Government and a Crown Grant made. Even the acceptance of a valuable present from one chief to another might be made the subject of a claim by the giver to the land on which the event occurred. Should any act be performed which passed without comment by the owners, their silent acquiescence was taken as recognition of a claim. Thus, a chief named Raukataura, passing through a forest owned by a friendly tribe, had one of the feathers of his head-dress torn out by a shrub. Sitting down, the chief made a little fence of broken sticks round his sacred feather. He was accompanied on this occasion by some of the men of the tribe owning the place, but they said and did nothing. Their silence and inaction were construed as an assent to ownership, and the sons of Raukataura held possession by this title until the page 133 present day. Had the little fence been broken down and obliterated no claim would be sustained. Sometimes if a chief should wash or comb his sacred head when journeying across a piece of land his people would claim the land, or if he slept in a temporary hut for a night, title would be asserted. These claims were not, however, made lightly, there were to be other circumstances, such as the death of a near relative at the time; something to mark the event as of importance before such claim was established, and it always had to be upheld by the law of the strongest.

If a chief discovered or took up unappropriated land, he acquired the mana of that land and divided the territory among the tribe as he saw fit, according to native custom, regarding himself as a trustee for the whole. Having made this allotment the lands so held would pass on from generation to generation and were under good title.

It sometimes happened that a chief after traversing the lands along the shore would on turning inland reach a mountain range, where he would meet another chief on land-acquiring business also. Each would halt and sticking his spear in the ground agree that this range should be the common boundary. If the boundary was along a valley instead of a ridge piles of stones were set up as termini, or holes were dug in the ground to show the demarcation. When a chief was murdered on a piece of land by men not the owners of such land his relatives would claim it by right of the bloodshed, and when a chief was drowned a page 134 demand was made by his friends that a prohibition (rahui) should extend over a portion of the sea and shore where his body was found, that is, that no shell-fish should be taken from that place or its neighbourhood for a time, generally a year. To remove the prohibition a number of fish, sharks especially, were captured by the tribe in occupation, and the relations of the drowned person invited to a feast where the dried fish was offered as a present. If the occupant tribes broke the prohibition the land was claimed by the drowned man's friends.

If when war had driven away a tribe from their villages and ordinary settlements its members were still allowed to occupy a portion of their old lands, they retained a claim to the whole on the ground that “their fires had never been extinguished.” The victorious party had not only to win, but to occupy every part of the conquered ground before their after claim became indisputable. In speaking of lands held by conquest (as distinguished from the incontestable hereditary lands) a chief would base his claim on them as payment (utu) for his relatives killed in obtaining them. In settling land recently acquired by conquest, the rule sometimes adopted was that whoever first claimed a place could have it by immediately performing some act of ownership; and that he could own as much as he could travel round before encountering another selector. One would start off in his canoe and, landing, dig some fern-root and cook it. Another would start inland, and meeting some fugitive make page 135 the place sacred by killing him and offering him as a victim. Another would go to the top of a hill, and set up his spear as a mark of occupation. When one tribe had given military support to another, the assisting forces were generally allotted a portion of the conquered territory (or rights thereon) by gift to their chief. Any of the allies, however, who had a relative killed in the service of the victors had a particular claim beyond that of the general tribal right, but these claims were subject to occupation being made permanent. As a rule allies were only granted sub-rights in recognition of service. If they had the right of fishing, bird-snaring, etc., the produce of the first day's sport was sent at once to the Ariki of the dominant tribe; certain men of that tribe were deputed to be present, and to stop all further fishing, snaring, etc., till word was brought that the first-fruit offering had been accepted. Such sub-owners were not allowed to bury their dead on lands held on this tenure; if they buried their dead there it showed a disregard or even open defiance of their landlords. There existed a night on the part of dispossessed persons to recover lands once theirs if they could, and by “nursing men” recover sufficient warlike strength to resume possession. Though conquest always was a good title so long as occupation lasted, the “resumptive right” always remained with the broken tribe that had been driven away. If divisions of a tribe had been fighting among themselves, when peace was concluded land changed hands. By some peculiar sense of page 136 justice it was the sub-tribe that had suffered most losses that received the larger portion of land. Land would also change hands as damages in a case of adultery,; “land for woman” was a rule. Sometimes cheating took place over this, as the injured party on going to take the land might find other claimants in possession. Men who were without lands or important family connections were called in the South Island “men of an odd number” (tangata hara), or “men not to be counted.” It was not unknown that such a landless man and one with no powerful relatives could by great courage and skill gather to himself in a kind of “Cave of Adullam” the bolder spirits and unsettled characters from several tribes and make himself a power. In such a case he would almost certainly endeavour to strengthen his position by marriage, and would woo the daughter of some powerful neighbour. Lest this should contradict the principle above mentioned, that the wife could not take her land away to a stranger, it should be remarked that in this case it would be the man who would go to the woman and so swell the strength of her tribe. It would have been different if the man had been a chief of a powerful territorial tribe, who would expect to take the woman away, and any right to her land with her.

Habits, Etc.

The modes of thought and action are best described when considering war, religion, traditions, dress, etc., but some matters may easily page 136a Kumete—A Large Carved Wooden Bowl for Holding Food.The round portion above the bowl is its lid, fixed on a spike (for photography) to show the carving. page 137 escape notice in a general account, and peculiarities may be therefore dwelt upon in a separate description.

When a person of very noble birth arrived in a strange place and desired to make a formal declaration of rank, it was necessary that he or she should on no account use the ordinary means of ingress or egress. The visitor could not enter by the common gateway of a village fort but had to climb over the palisade or have the palisading removed. So, when the great chief Maru-tuahu came to see his father he climbed over the palisade of the pa at Whakatiwai.1 This sacredness of course only belonged to very high rank, and in one case when a celebrated ancient priestess was welcomed to a strange village, the chief of the settlement came outside and said—“Come! Welcome! If you come by the authority of Tu, the god of war, dare and make a path for yourself, but if you come by the authority of Tahu, the god of peace and plenty, I will make a path for you and open a road for you over my stockade.”

This idea of the un-sacred nature of the common or general entrance-way also pertained to child-birth, so when a child of very noble parents was born in a house the side of the building had to be broken out to allow the babe to be removed for the baptismal ceremony. When the semi-divine offspring of Tawhaki and Hapai, “the Heavenly Maid,” was born the side of the house was opened that the holy infant might be brought into the open air.2

page 138

Women were supposed to veil their faces, however high their rank, when approaching sacred places. If they ventured to disregard this they would be reminded of the fate of a lady of old time who saw with open eyes the Sacred Dog, and was in consequence changed into a rock in the sea. The story runs thus—A magician named Wheketoro had made an island “prohibited” (tapu) to secure the safety of some very uncanny pets, but some time after a chief named Kaiawa determined to remove the prohibition. He took his daughter Ponui with him, as her presence was necessary before he could light the sacred fire kindled by friction, near which his incantations and spells had to be recited. (She had to put her foot on the wood and hold it steady while the priest rubbed on the wood with another stick—an infinitely ancient rite in the pre-historic world.) When they had reached the island they omitted to veil the face of the girl and the Stone Dog, the Moho-rangi, looked upon her uncovered face. It gazed fixedly upon her and she looked fearfully upon the monster. The father collected some seaweed, made it sacred, and presented it as an offering to the Dog. Fire was produced by friction whilst Ponui stood with her foot upon the lower piece of wood. Then the girl was put to sleep and fires were lighted, one for the gods and one for men. Then fires were kindled in many places, and the smoke rose in dense clouds, filling the nostrils of the wild creatures till they sneezed and this made them tame. When the old man returned to the place where his daughter had slept he could page 139 not find her, and he went about crying “O Ponui, where art thou?” He saw a grass-hopper jumping in front of him; that was all. Then he lifted his eyes and looking out to sea, saw his daughter changed into stone and become a rock standing in the sea. He wept for her, but in vain. Women now never go near that island, lest the fate of Ponui, be theirs, and strangers veil their faces as they pass lest they should see the Moho-rangi.

A crouching attitude was considered a mark of respect from an inferior to a superior. To nod the head was a sign of dissent; silence also implied dissent, but acquiesence was signified by raising the eyebrows. If a Maori raised his arm showing the fingers of his hand closed on the palm, the sign was understood to mean “Enough. That will do!” It was considered extremely rude to step over a person who was sleeping or lying down. Even if only the legs or feet were stepped over it was an offence, particularly if it was a woman who committed the action. If a woman stepped over a male child, the boy would never grow up to full stature, but would be stunted.

A remarkable custom was that of “plunder” (muru). It was a difficult matter for a European to understand, but was a method by which an offence was expiated. It consisted of a band of persons (taua) visiting the offender and stripping him of all his movable property, or at all events of as much as was supposed to pay for the damage done. If a man allowed one of his boy children to get hurt, the tribe would muru the father for the page 140 loss or possible loss of the child, since the boy probably would have been a future warrior. If a man's wife eloped with a stranger her relations would muru the deserted husband, since he should have taken better care of her, and not have lost to the tribe a mother of possible fighters. If a man accidentally destroyed common property, such as a forest or plantation by fire, or if he caused a canoe to upset and so endanger the lives of his clansmen, or if through carelessness he did something which made an eel-weir or fishing ground tapu and so deprived the tribe of expected food, for all such matters a taua would set out and plunder the offender's property. Sometimes to the robbery would be added personal attack, and the recipient of these delicate attentions might be severely beaten as well as stript of property. Strange to say the practice was not resented, for this would have precluded the touchy or irritable person from robbing (judicially) any one else in turn. Piles of food were prepared, dogs killed and cooked, and all made ready for a feast, so as to receive these irregular officers of justice; indeed, if anything of value was kept back it would have been of little use, for it would be sure to be taken by the taua. A chief would have been quite indignant if not “plundered,” for it would have been a sign that he was a man of no consequence, unworthy of tribal resentment.

The only exception to and guard against the muru was the tapu which made the clothes, weapons, ornaments, etc., of a great chief sacred to himself alone and not to be touched by page 141 others. Muru was the punishment for unintentional offences only, as a general rule. If a Maori killed another wilfully, it would probably be a man of another tribe and the act would not be considered blameworthy; at any cost he would be upheld by the whole power of his own people, but if he killed a fellow tribesman or endangered his life accidentally, that was a sin within the clan itself and had to be expiated by the seizure of his property as damages. Perhaps “damages” rather than “plunder” is the best translation of muru.

The Maoris generally have fine regular teeth and these are left as Nature made them. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, for some of the natives in the Kawhia district had pointed or triangular teeth, “shark-teeth,” as they have been called. The custom of filling the teeth to a point is almost unknown in Polynesia and must be a family or tribal usage.

Similarly, circumcision was confined to a very limited number of persons, the descendants of Tamatea Urehaea, living near Cape Palliser. Generally, even the appearance of circumcision (tehe) was regarded with contempt or dislike.

The Maoris did not yield to the unclean habit of spitting about. Saliva was one of the media by which anyone owing a grudge to the person who had spat could bewitch and bring the anger of the gods upon him. Therefore great care was taken that expectoration did not occur.

The track of a native differed from that of a European in that the feet were kept either page 142 straight or with the toes slightly turned in, one foot being set closely before the other with the sole flat on the ground. The Maori salutation (hongi) was to press the nose against the nose of the person greeted; sometimes with a low crooning song of welcome or lament. Natives disliked to hear a person whistling. It was supposed to resemble too much the voice of a spirit, as in a peculiar whistling voice supernatural beings communicated with men. The wizard (tohunga) always when “possessed” or when acting as a medium delivered his oracles in a hissing voice.

Maoris counted well up to a hundred, after that not so certainly, the word mano, now used for “thousand,” not originally being definitely that number, but “very many.” They counted by pairs for men, baskets of sweet potatoes, fish, etc. Time was reckoned by nights, not by days, so “to-morrow” was “the night's night” (apopo). The day was divided as follows:—
  • Daybreak—“The shadows of morning appear.”
  • Sunrise—“The sun mounts.”
  • Daylight—“Daylight.”
  • Forenoon—“The sun is on its way upwards.”
  • Mid-day—The sun is upright as a post.”
  • Afternoon—“The sun is tilted over.”
  • Evening—“The time of fires.”
  • Sunset—“The sun sets.”
  • Midnight—“Night and day are divided.”

The year was divided into moons, and the periods were distinguished by the names of stars or by the flowering of plants, thus the month answering to our January had its nights sacred to the star Rangawhenua and its days to Uruao, in this month the karaka tree flowers. March page 143 was Ngahuru, the harvest month for the sweet-potato crop, etc. The year commenced with the rising of the Pleiades (Matariki). There is a curious legend to the effect that the ancient year was of ten months only, till a certain teacher, full of the wisdom of the gods, came to men and instructed them to make the year twelve months long, and his precepts have been followed to the present day. The months, denoted by the appearance of the heavenly bodies, were checked by other natural means, viz, by signs such as the mating, moulting and changing notes of birds, the flowering of trees, the singing of insects and the arrival of the migrating cuckoo. Days were generally known by nights of the moon, as Whiro, Tirea, Hoata, etc.; some days were lucky and some unlucky, and on the latter journeys were not commenced or other important actions begun. The year was divided into two great seasons, Summer and Winter.

The powers of the inclined plane and the wedge were known to the natives, who also understood how to raise heavy weights by moving them up inclined slopes. Rollers or skids and the lever with a shifting fulcrum were used as helps to toil. The measures of length were the hand-span, the cubit (from end of fingers to bend of arm), the stride, the arm-span or fathom, and the yard or half-fathom, calculated from the tip of outstretched fingers and straight arm to the middle of breast. There were no measures of capacity or weight.

As looking-glasses, still pools of water were used. If a great chief fancied some particular page 144 pool that water was sacred to him and “prohibited” to others. So it is said that when Hina swam to Holy Island to find her future husband Tinirau, the fish-god, “she found his looking-glass wells, where Tinirau used to go to dress and to look at his handsome image in the water.”3

If certain places such as plantations, fruit, trees, etc., had to be kept clear of intruders, there was a rahui set up. It was done by putting in a post; sometimes a human victim was slain and his body buried at the foot of the post. Generally a girdle (maro) was put round the post, this girdle being made of petako or some other sacred plant, but sometimes it was buried at the base of the pillar. This girdle received a particular name, that of kapu, and was before using for this purpose subjected to powerful incantations which would kill any person interfering with the prohibition (rahui). When the girdle was concealed this was done lest it should be stolen and the “prohibition” made useless, if the girdle were lost it would not “bite,” as the phrase ran.

Just as among English people it is (or was) the custom to say “God bless you!” to a person who sneezed, so the Maoris also had their charm-saying to avert evil under similar circumstances. The full spell is:

“Sneeze, living Soul!
In the light of day,
Those inland are blest with plenty,
Those on the sea are blest with plenty,
There is plenty for the mighty lord.
Sneeze thou!
Baptised into life!”4

page 145

Often, however, only the first few words— “Sneeze, living Soul!” (Tihe, mauri ora!) were used.

Litters (Kauamo matika) carried on the shoulders, after the manner of palanquins, were often used for the transportation of nobles, especially for ladies of high rank.5