I would have thought that the common term 'chattels,' as used in legal English, could serve as an adequate equivalent to 'taonga.' anything more than this would be an unfounded romanticisation of Maori words and concepts.
Thanks Gary. Dispute over the meaning of that single term Taonga has always stood out to me as having the potential to dramatically alter the meaning of the entire Treaty agreement, particularly when it is (mis) interpreted as some coveted abstraction such as scenic beauty rather than simply a prized possession or other concrete artefact. The latter of which there can be no doubt was the British intent at the time.
It is also worth noting that in Sir Apirana Ngata’s booklet explaining the Treaty in Maori, the English translation of "taonga" is rendered as “possessions”.
Furthermore, Ngata specified examples of the material possessions he believed the Treaty was referring to — canoes, taiaha, greenstone patu, and kumara pits.
The meaning of "taken at the point of a spear" is particularly relevant at the end of the Musket Wars. In that context, it likely meant "booty" or "the spoils of war".
Your research and putting the pieces together are a great benefit to all of us who read your articles . We done . Have you sent this on to Paul Moon , historian.AUT.
Thanks Gary. Property procured by the spear would cover just about everything Maori could get. They engaged in tribal warfare over land and whatever else which involved spears. They hunted with spears. They didn't build on what they had, or settle and expand without beating up somebody else who had something. Spears again. Even to build a waka, if they didn't have the access to the necessary tree trunks then raiding somebody else's was the default way of procurement. Spears again.
Or trade. Shrunken heads were profitable. Spears again.
So all Maori gains as far as TOW is concerned stopped when muskets became popular. Spears were dumped for those. Which means Taonga stops at that place in history.
Nice historical context reflection Gary Judd KC. It’s also important to note that while these elements may be considered, the ultimate authority for interpreting the Treaty rests with the courts. The weight given to each element will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by the parties involved.
Unfortunately what was a ‘prior meaning’ is now otherwise these days being conveniently redefined by the Crown as matters play out to pursue an alternative goal to achieve the UNDRIP directive. i.e. definition wise, the Crown adopts a “partnership approach” where the Crown has already shown it will consider a collaborative approach with Maori communities to define "taonga" in the Treaty context, acknowledging both historical and contemporary perspectives under a self-determination narrative where the treaty is seen as a living document. Maori have a vision for the future and are purusing it under the cloak of treaty grievances and demanding respect for its culture that most Kiwi appear happy to now accomodate as most prefer to be kind. Those who do not are claimed as racist.
So nowe we see an existing framework structure has already been established to allow the court to refer to in order to determine the meaning of words previously ascribed to the Treaty, such as "Maori wards" or the approach of the Law Commission, known as treaty jurisprudence.
Treaty jurisprudence being the body of legal principles and decisions that have developed over time in relation to the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Waitangi. It provides a framework for courts to consider when resolving disputes involving the Treaty, including questions of meaning and interpretation.
Some of the key elements of treaty jurisprudence include:
• The original text of the Treaty of Waitangi, including its English and Maori versions.
• The historical circumstances surrounding the signing of the Treaty, including the intentions.
• Intentions of Parliament when enacting legislation related to the Treaty and conduct afterwards.
• Previous court decisions that have interpreted the Treaty and its terms.
• A set of principles as derived such as partnership, participation, self-determination redress.
• Media interpretation to influence public understanding and, indirectly, judicial interpretation.
• Māori perspectives are relevant, as they represent a Crown partner.
• Treaty-based policies.
• Historians and linguists provide valuable insights.
• Māori language experts will clarify the meaning of Māori words and phrases in the Treaty.
• Examining how similar treaties or concepts are interpreted in other countries.
• International law and conventions relating to indigenous rights.
By considering these elements, courts develop a more nuanced and informed understanding of the meaning of Treaty terms and how they apply to contemporary issues. Not just historical context.
The Crown now respects Maori preferred meanings that suit their present objective. An objective that law commission president pursues and directs Cabinet to adopt, with the likes of the AUT Dean of the school of law, or the professor at the University of Auckland Faculty of Law, who specialises in indigenous peoples' rights on international and constitutional law or Sir Geoffrey Palmer. All under a so called umbrella of “Crown Maori partnership” that these actors all support with some 200 plus Maori law society persons who have influence over the Crown who is continually advised to respect Maori or face confrontations.
I would have thought that the common term 'chattels,' as used in legal English, could serve as an adequate equivalent to 'taonga.' anything more than this would be an unfounded romanticisation of Maori words and concepts.
Thanks Gary. Dispute over the meaning of that single term Taonga has always stood out to me as having the potential to dramatically alter the meaning of the entire Treaty agreement, particularly when it is (mis) interpreted as some coveted abstraction such as scenic beauty rather than simply a prized possession or other concrete artefact. The latter of which there can be no doubt was the British intent at the time.
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
It is also worth noting that in Sir Apirana Ngata’s booklet explaining the Treaty in Maori, the English translation of "taonga" is rendered as “possessions”.
Furthermore, Ngata specified examples of the material possessions he believed the Treaty was referring to — canoes, taiaha, greenstone patu, and kumara pits.
The meaning of "taken at the point of a spear" is particularly relevant at the end of the Musket Wars. In that context, it likely meant "booty" or "the spoils of war".
Thanks Gary, very interesting
Your research and putting the pieces together are a great benefit to all of us who read your articles . We done . Have you sent this on to Paul Moon , historian.AUT.
Very interesting research and read Gary. What a 'treasure' to find those ancient references! Thank you to both yourself and Bruce.
Thanks Gary. Property procured by the spear would cover just about everything Maori could get. They engaged in tribal warfare over land and whatever else which involved spears. They hunted with spears. They didn't build on what they had, or settle and expand without beating up somebody else who had something. Spears again. Even to build a waka, if they didn't have the access to the necessary tree trunks then raiding somebody else's was the default way of procurement. Spears again.
Or trade. Shrunken heads were profitable. Spears again.
So all Maori gains as far as TOW is concerned stopped when muskets became popular. Spears were dumped for those. Which means Taonga stops at that place in history.
Nice work Gary. Cue incoming outrage.
Thank you for acknowledgment. BM
The latest edition of 'Both Versions' is Edition 2.3, and available at
https://www.archivedmason.nz along with a 1993 related paper.
Nice historical context reflection Gary Judd KC. It’s also important to note that while these elements may be considered, the ultimate authority for interpreting the Treaty rests with the courts. The weight given to each element will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by the parties involved.
Unfortunately what was a ‘prior meaning’ is now otherwise these days being conveniently redefined by the Crown as matters play out to pursue an alternative goal to achieve the UNDRIP directive. i.e. definition wise, the Crown adopts a “partnership approach” where the Crown has already shown it will consider a collaborative approach with Maori communities to define "taonga" in the Treaty context, acknowledging both historical and contemporary perspectives under a self-determination narrative where the treaty is seen as a living document. Maori have a vision for the future and are purusing it under the cloak of treaty grievances and demanding respect for its culture that most Kiwi appear happy to now accomodate as most prefer to be kind. Those who do not are claimed as racist.
So nowe we see an existing framework structure has already been established to allow the court to refer to in order to determine the meaning of words previously ascribed to the Treaty, such as "Maori wards" or the approach of the Law Commission, known as treaty jurisprudence.
Treaty jurisprudence being the body of legal principles and decisions that have developed over time in relation to the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Waitangi. It provides a framework for courts to consider when resolving disputes involving the Treaty, including questions of meaning and interpretation.
Some of the key elements of treaty jurisprudence include:
• The original text of the Treaty of Waitangi, including its English and Maori versions.
• The historical circumstances surrounding the signing of the Treaty, including the intentions.
• Intentions of Parliament when enacting legislation related to the Treaty and conduct afterwards.
• Previous court decisions that have interpreted the Treaty and its terms.
• A set of principles as derived such as partnership, participation, self-determination redress.
• Media interpretation to influence public understanding and, indirectly, judicial interpretation.
• Māori perspectives are relevant, as they represent a Crown partner.
• Treaty-based policies.
• Historians and linguists provide valuable insights.
• Māori language experts will clarify the meaning of Māori words and phrases in the Treaty.
• Examining how similar treaties or concepts are interpreted in other countries.
• International law and conventions relating to indigenous rights.
By considering these elements, courts develop a more nuanced and informed understanding of the meaning of Treaty terms and how they apply to contemporary issues. Not just historical context.
e.g. Local councils must now impose alignments as to definitions as directed by the now existing local council codes-of-conduct as to treaty principles as inserted by the prior government https://www.lgnz.co.nz/documents/18/Code-of-Conduct-2022-Template_yMkZGYZ.docx
The Crown now respects Maori preferred meanings that suit their present objective. An objective that law commission president pursues and directs Cabinet to adopt, with the likes of the AUT Dean of the school of law, or the professor at the University of Auckland Faculty of Law, who specialises in indigenous peoples' rights on international and constitutional law or Sir Geoffrey Palmer. All under a so called umbrella of “Crown Maori partnership” that these actors all support with some 200 plus Maori law society persons who have influence over the Crown who is continually advised to respect Maori or face confrontations.
"respect self-definitions or face confrontations" is not really good faith partnership, as I was trying to say to my ex-Mrs, 🤣🤣