Creation Narratives of Mahinga Kai

CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI

Mäori customary food-gathering sites and practices

Chanel Phillips* Anne- Marie Jackson† Hauiti Hakopa‡

Abstract

Mahinga kai, Mäori customary food-gathering sites and practices, emerged at the beginning of the creation narratives when the Mäori world was ﬁ rst formed and atua roamed upon the face of the land. This paper critically evaluates the emergent discourses of mahinga kai within key Mäori creation narratives that stem from the Mäori worldview. The narratives selected for analysis were the following three creation narratives: the separation of Ranginui and Papa-tü- ä- nuku, the retribution of Tü- mata- uenga and the creation of humanity. The multiple discourses that emerge from these narratives involved mahinga kai as whakapapa, whanaungatanga, tikanga with the subsequent discourse of tapu, kaitiakitanga with the subsequent discourse of mauri and mätauranga. A discursive analysis of mahinga kai in Mäori creation narratives conﬁ rms mahinga kai as an expression of Mäori worldview and reveals a myriad of understandings.

Keywords

mahinga kai, customary food gathering, creation narratives, Mäori worldview

* Ngäti Hine, Ngäpuhi. PhD Candidate, School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Email: [email protected] † Ngäti Whätua, Ngäpuhi, Ngäti Wai, Ngäti Kahu o Whangaroa. Senior Lecturer, Mäori Physical Education and Health, School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. ‡ Ngäti Tüwharetoa. Teaching Fellow, Mäori Physical Education and Health, School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. DOI: 10.20507/MAIJournal.2016.5.1.5 64 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

Introduction The worldview is the central systemisation of conceptions of reality to which members Customary food- gathering sites and practices of its culture assent and from which stems are fundamental to many Indigenous peoples their value system. The worldview lies at the worldwide (United Nations, 2009). The ability heart of the culture, touching, interacting with for Indigenous peoples to collect and main- and strongly infl uencing every aspect of the tain their connection to and sustainable use of culture. (p. 56) these practices underpins positive conceptuali- sations of identity, health and wellbeing (King, Essential to a Mäori worldview are creation Smith, & Gracey, 2009; Panelli & Tipa, 2009). narratives (Jackson, 2011; Marsden, 2003b). Furthermore, these practices are underpinned Creation narratives convey myth messages that by unique worldviews, from which diverse form the belief and value system of people, knowledge systems and cultural paradigms governing their everyday practices and norms emerge. Within an Aotearoa New Zealand (Ka’ai & Higgins, 2004; Marsden, 2003b). (hereafter referred to as New Zealand) context, Jackson (2011) warns that multiple versions of an example of customary food- gathering sites creation narratives exist among iwi and hapü; and practices is encapsulated in the phrase however, “the stories that revolve around mahinga kai. them have a common thread or theme running Mahinga kai has multiple interpretations. through them” (Marsden, 2003b, p. 55). Broadly, mahinga kai is described as a tra- The American scholar Joseph Campbell ditional Mäori food-gathering practice with (2004) provides another layer of understanding significance also attached to food-gathering of the roles of myth and narrative, and identi- sites, with “mahinga” meaning “sites denoting fi es four functions of myth: (1) “to reconcile work” and “kai” meaning “food”. “Mahinga” consciousness to the preconditions of its own incorporates the verb “mahi”, meaning “to existence . . . to evoke in the individual a sense work”; “ngä” is a suffi x that converts a verb into of grateful, affi rmative awe before the mon- a noun and thus “mahinga” literally means “the strous mystery that is existence”; (2) “to present work” (“Mahinga”, 2003). Another interpreta- an image of the cosmos . . . that will maintain tion divides “mahinga” into its three syllables: and elicit the experience of awe”; (3) “to vali- “mä” means “white” or “light”, “hï” means to date and maintain a certain sociological system, draw up and “ngä” is linked with “kai” to form a shared set of rights and wrongs”; and (4) “to a plural (“the foods”). This interpretation sees carry the individual through the stages of life mahinga kai as an unearthing and drawing up from birth through maturity through senility to of the light to feed our bodies physically and death” (pp. 5–8). This paper is concerned with spiritually (R. Davis, personal communication, the fi rst three of Campbell’s functions. May 19, 2014). The importance of mahinga While the connections between mahinga kai, kai to iwi, hapü and whänau goes beyond any the Mäori worldview and creation narratives are cursory defi nition, however; it was a livelihood, known anecdotally, there are few papers where an identity, a part of the people. these connections are made explicit. Patterson Mahinga kai is therefore an expression of (1994) examines the concept of whanaunga- a Mäori worldview. The Mäori worldview tanga embedded in Mäori creation narratives, is a paradigm of Mäori culture from which while Jackson (2011) analyses the connection stems the Mäori belief and value system (Royal, between creation narratives and the Mäori 1998); it is how Mäori perceive the “ultimate worldview within a fi sheries context. Marsden reality and meaning” (Marsden, 2003a, p. 3). (2003a, 2003b, 2003c) similarly highlights the Marsden (2003a) explains further: importance of creation narratives for framing a

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 65

Mäori worldview; however, a deep understand- this worldview (Smith, 2003). Kaupapa Mäori ing of mahinga kai is not gained from these theory is grounded in advancing Mäori beliefs works. This paper therefore contributes to our and knowledge systems and creates a safe space understanding of the depth and breadth of mahi- to explore things Mäori within the academy nga kai, which emerges from Mäori creation (Smith, 2003, 2012). CDA is similar to kau- narratives that stem from a Mäori worldview. papa Mäori theory in that it has shared aims The three creation narratives examined here of transformation and social change (Jackson, are the separation of Ranginui and Papa- tü- ä- 2011, 2015). The use of CDA in conjunction nuku, the retribution of Tü- mata- uenga and the with kaupapa Mäori theory builds on Jackson’s creation of humanity. The discussion that fol- (2011, 2013, 2015) research that confi rms the lows is our interpretation of these narratives in validity of employing these methods of research relation to their discourses of mahinga kai. The in order to “further the aspirations of the Mäori narratives were analysed utilising Fairclough’s community” she worked with (Jackson, 2015, (2003) concept of emergence, which derives p. 2). from critical discourse analysis (CDA), in con- CDA is both a theory and a method, which junction with whakapapa, which derives from interrogates ideologies and power relations kaupapa Mäori theory. Mahinga kai is embed- involved in discourse (Fairclough, 2010). This ded in a framework of cosmogonic whakapapa paper utilises Fairclough’s interpretation of encoded within Mäori creation narratives that CDA (Fairclough, 2001, 2003, 2009, 2010; express a Mäori worldview. The aim of this Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Weiss & Wodak, paper is to identify the emergent discourses of 2003; Wodak & Meyer, 2009), which analyses mahinga kai within these three creation narra- discourses or “ways of representing aspects of tives to provide a platform for interpreting a the world” that emerge from texts (Fairclough, Mäori worldview. 2003, p. 124). Furthermore, CDA researchers tackle resistance and imagine ways and pos- sibilities for social change and emancipation Methodological approach: Kaupapa (Fairclough, 2009)—a similar goal to that of Mäori theory and CDA kaupapa Mäori theory (Jackson, 2011, 2013, 2015). Kaupapa Mäori theory and CDA were used as both the theoretical and the methodologi- Whakapapa and emergence of cal frameworks of the study. Specifi cally, the discourse concept of whakapapa (deriving from kaupapa Mäori theory) and emergence (deriving from Whakapapa as a methodology has been CDA) were employed to interpret the creation described as an analytical tool Mäori use to narratives as they pertain to the discourses of make sense of the nature, origin, connection, mahinga kai. Fairclough (2003) describes how relationship and locating of phenomena (Royal, discourses within texts emerge through themes. 1998); as “a basis for the organisation of knowl- The narratives were analysed to identify the edge in respect of the creation and development main themes and these were then categorised of all things” (Barlow, 1991, p. 173); and as into discourses—the emergent discourses of a way of ordering, thinking, storing, debating mahinga kai. and acquiring new knowledge which links the Kaupapa Mäori theory is “a distinctive past, present and future (Graham, 2005, 2009). approach which stems from a Mäori world- Whakapapa therefore examines the origin of view” (Moewaka Barnes, 2000, p. 9) and refl ects all things and thus their connectedness across the underlying principles or aspects based on time and space.

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 66 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

Fairclough’s (2009, 2010) concept of interpretation of CDA, utilising the concept of emergence has similarities with whakapapa. emergence to identify the multiple discourses According to Fairclough (2010), emergence of rangatiratanga within a fisheries context is “the processes of emergence of new dis- through the analysis of relevant narratives. The courses, their constitution as new articulations narratives selected for analysis in this paper are of elements of existing discourses” (p. 618). He the separation of Ranginui and Papa- tü-ä- nuku explains that emergence “is approached on the (Grey, 1965; I. Heke, personal communication, principle that nothing comes out of nothing— September 17, 2014; Patterson, 1994; Reilly, new discourses emerge through ‘reweaving’ 2004), the retribution of Tü-mata- uenga (Grey, relations between existing discourses” (p. 619). 1965; Patterson, 1994; Reilly, 2004) and the This is comparable to whakapapa, which is creation of humanity (Grey, 1965; H. Hakopa, rooted in the intricate connectedness of all things personal communication, November 3, 2014; in space and time. Everything has a whakapapa Patterson, 1994; Reilly, 2004). or familial origin; likewise, the emergence of dis- The Ranginui and Papa-tü- ä- nuku separa- courses stem from pre- existing discourses that tion narrative depicts the creation of Te Ao blend to create a “new” discourse (Fairclough, Märama, the emergence of the world of light 2010; Jackson, 2011, 2015). Like whakapapa, and day through the separation of the primor- emergence is a genealogical approach, and thus dial parents. Coming after the separation of is an appropriate means of analysing Mäori the primordial parents, the second narrative creation narratives. depicts the aftermath of the separation through Jackson (2015) argues that integrating kau- the retribution of Tü-mata- uenga. This narra- papa Mäori theory and CDA creates a synergy tive, for the most part, involves the children of that operationalises the research process and Ranginui and Papa- tü- ä- nuku. It is of particu- “demonstrates the importance of utilising theo- lar importance to mahinga kai, as the story retical tools that allow researchers to unpack explains the origins of food and thus the prac- complex discursive and social relations” tice of food gathering that stems from this. (p. 264). Following this approach, the sub- The fi nal narrative is the creation of humanity, sequent sections are a combination of results, which describes Täne’s role in creating the fi rst analysis and discussion of the discourses of woman, Hine-ahuone. From their union Hine- mahinga kai that emerge from three creation tïtama is born, whom Täne later marries, and narratives. The three creation narratives were together they populate the Earth with their selected for analysis because of their widespread children (humankind). The nuances of mahinga familiarity and relevance to mahinga kai. kai encoded within these narratives express a Mäori worldview and validate the choice of these popular narratives for analysis. A discursive analysis of mahinga kai creation narratives The separation of Ranginui and Papa-tu-– a-nuku– A discursive analysis of the selected creation narratives reveals the depth and breadth of mahinga The creation of Te Ao Märama has its origins in kai and shows how mahinga kai refl ects a Mäori the separation of Ranginui and Papa- tü- ä- nuku. worldview. This paper takes a similar approach Ranginui and Papa-tü- ä- nuku were joined in to Jackson (2013), who employed a discursive a tight embrace where their offspring lived in analysis of rangatiratanga in Waitangi Tribunal total darkness between them for eons. One of reports and in the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti their sons, Uepoto, was accidently washed to o Waitangi. Jackson also employed Fairclough’s the extremity of his mother through her urine.

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 67

There he saw a glimmer of light called te kitea (I. leaving Tü-mata- uenga to face the wild winds Heke, personal communication, September 17, of Täwhiri-mätea alone. This act of betrayal 2014). Uepoto returned to his brothers and told pressed Tü- mata- uenga into a rage and he them what he saw, and so the brothers began sought revenge on those brothers who aban- discussions to separate their parents. Tü-mata- doned him. He achieved this by consuming the uenga, the fi ercest of the children, proposed offspring of his brothers: fi sh and sea creatures that they kill their parents (Grey, 1956). Täne from Tangaroa, birds from Täne, kümara from suggested that it was better to push them apart; Rongo and aruhe from Haumia-tiketike (Reilly, “one would be beneath them as a parent and the 2004). According to Reilly (2004), the retribu- other above them as a stranger” (Reilly, 2004, tion Tü- mata- uenga sought against his brothers p. 3). Täne successfully pushed Ranginui and effectively subjugated them under his authority Papa- tü-ä- nuku apart, bringing into existence as teina; only Täwhiri- mätea remains his adver- Te Ao Märama (Grey, 1956; Reilly, 2004). sary today, whose “anger [is] equal to that of Reilly (2004) explains: “the separation initiates Tü” (p. 4). Thus Tü made the food sources noa a process of differentiation whereby the par- and prepared them for human consumption. He ents, their various sons, and their descendants, made snares from the resources of the forest to become associated with aspects of the natural trap birds, nets to catch fi sh and implements to world of the Mäori” (p. 5). This whakapapa is dig up kümara and aruhe in the ground (Biggs, depicted in Figure 1. 1966; Grey, 1971).

The retribution of Tu-– mata- uenga The creation of humanity

The aftermath of the separation of Ranginui The third narrative examined is the creation of and Papa- tü- ä- nuku is another critical narrative humanity. Several atua, including Täne, played underpinning a Mäori worldview. Täwhiri- a part in creating the fi rst woman from the red mätea was outraged that his brothers had ochre at Kurawaka, a sacred place in Hawaiki. separated their parents. According to Reilly Täne fashioned the fi rst woman, Hine-ahuone (2004), “out of great love for his parents” (also known as Hine- hauone) and implanted Täwhiri- mätea waged war on his brothers and both the ira atua (by virtue of his status as atua) their offspring by sending down great and dev- and ira tangata; he also implanted mauri into astating winds. All but Tü-mata- uenga fled her. Her names represent her entry into this from his wrath. Tangaroa fl ed to the sea, Täne world: Hine-ahuone means “woman shaped disappeared into the dense forest, while Rongo from ochre” and Hine-hauone represents the and Haumia-tiketike burrowed into the earth, breath of life that was breathed into her by

FIGURE 1 Whakapapa of Ranginui and Papa-tü- ä-nuku (adapted from Jackson, 2011, p. 139).

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 68 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

Täne. Täne created the perfect being; her tinana Discourse of mahinga kai as was born from the sacred ochre of Papa- tü- ä- whakapapa nuku; mauri and wairua were imbued in her and her hinengaro was imbued with knowledge The discourse of mahinga kai as whaka- when Täne brought back the kete wänanga papa is prominent in the Mäori worldview from the uppermost realm in the heavens and and this is refl ected within the creation nar- shone light into her mind (H. Hakopa, personal ratives. “Whakapapa” derives from the root communication, November 3, 2014). Täne word “papa” meaning foundation or base. and Hine-ahuone produced the fi rst daughter, “Whakapapa” is defi ned as our genealogical Hine- tïtama, whom Täne married and had chil- table, the foundation from which we emerge dren with. When Hine- tïtama learned that her (Marsden, 2003a). Barlow (1991) explains husband was also her father she fl ed in shame that “whakapapa is the genealogical descent to Rarohenga and became Hine- nui- te- pö. This of all living things from the gods to the present narrative explains the holistic and cyclic nature time” (p. 173). The discourse of mahinga kai of Te Ao Mäori wherein humans are born of as whakapapa is concerned with the genealogi- the Earth, and the body returns back to Hine- cal descent from which mahinga kai sites and nui- te- pö and Papa- tü- ä- nuku in death. practices are derived. The sites of mahinga kai stem from the separation of Ranginui and Papa- tü- ä- nuku narrative through the emergence of Identifi cation of discourses within the natural environment, while the practice of creation narratives mahinga kai stems from the retribution of Tü- mata- uenga narrative through the fi rst account Returning now to CDA and the concept of of eating food. emergence, Fairclough (2003) explains the fun- Mahinga kai as a discourse of whakapapa damental ways of identifying discourses within is manifest in the separation of Ranginui and the texts. He asserts that one must “identify Papa- tü- ä- nuku and the emergence of Te Ao the main parts of the world . . . which are rep- Märama, which brought into existence the resented—the main themes [and] identify the natural world and thus mahinga kai sites. particular perspective or angle or point of view Russell (2004) explains: “whakapapa is the from which they are represented” (p. 129). backbone that permits humankind to interact The three creation narratives were read and with their land and landscapes” (p. 218), from re- read to identify the main themes and key which mahinga kai resources are harvested. phrases, which were then categorised into the For example, in the fi rst narrative, the “process emergent discourses of mahinga kai. The crea- of differentiation whereby the parents, their tion narratives are underpinned by a Mäori various sons, and their descendants, become worldview and thus refl ect the discourses of associated with aspects of the natural world” mahinga kai represented from a Mäori per- explains why mahinga kai sites, within both the spective. The emergent discourses of mahinga landscape and seascape, fall under the mana of kai within the three narratives were mahinga the respective atua within each domain (Reilly, kai as whakapapa, whanaungatanga, tikanga 2004, p. 5). Russell (2004) adds that mahinga with subsequent discourse of tapu, kaitiaki- kai “stems from whakapapa . . . which is rooted tanga with subsequent discourse of mauri and in the land and in the place names of that land” mätauranga. (p. 218). Mahinga kai as whakapapa is refl ected in the sites where food is gathered and these sites have whakapapa back to the atua. Mahinga kai practices are also evident within

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 69 the retribution of Tü- mata- uenga narrative. that “when we are forced to do harm to our The origin of mahinga kai is Tü-mata- uenga’s kin, if there is scope for recompense and for consumption of the offspring of his brothers enhancing their lives we are expected to do this” (Reilly, 2004; Walker, 1996). By consuming (p. 28). Whanaungatanga is about uplifting and the offspring of his brothers, Tü-mata- uenga enhancing kinship ties between people and the subjugated them under his authority as teina environment so that both may fl ourish (Dacker, and effectively removed the tapu from these 1990; Marsden, 2003b; Roberts, Norman, resources (Reilly, 2004; Walker, 1996). Minhinnick, Wihongi, & Kirkwood, 1995). Patterson (1995) explains that “without this Whanaungatanga in relation to mahinga precedent, all of the children of the great gods, all kai refers to the relationships and kinships of the animals and plants, would be highly tapu that are uplifted and enhanced through food and therefore too dangerous to use” (p. 410). gathering—kinships between people as well According to Reilly (2004), Tü-mata- uenga’s as the connections between people and place consumption of his brothers’ offspring meant (Marsden, 2003b; Patterson, 1994; Roberts that “the senior tuäkana [became] junior rank- et al., 1995). Dacker (1990) explores the ing tëina” (p. 5). Tü- mata-uenga gained control importance of mahinga kai for whanaunga- over his brothers (except Täwhiri- mätea) and tanga within a Ngäi Tahu context. He implores humans, who are under the mana of Tü- mata- “tïtï connected most of Kai Tahu . . . after the uenga, have the right as tuäkana to continue hopu tïtï (the catching of tïtï) came the kaihau- to consume the offspring of Tü- mata- uenga’s kai—the exchanging of foods” (p. 14). The brothers (Reilly, 2004). Walker (1996) explains practice of food exchange played a major part that “the subordination and commodifi cation in whanaungatanga and building relationships of the descendants of Täne, Tangaroa, Rongo with one another as well as with the places and Haumia-tiketike transformed them from they worked. Kaihaukai is described as “the the sacred estate of gods to the profane level of cultural bonds that were expressed through artifacts and food” (p. 17). When we eat foods the exchange of foods, at hui, tangi . . . that from the sea and land we are expressing this bound the people to each other and to the land” whakapapa. Whakapapa is closely associated (Waitangi Tribunal, 1991, p. 897). Thus, the with whanaungatanga because “it is through concept of whanaungatanga, which cements genealogy that kinship and economic ties are relationships between people, and specifi cally cemented” (Barlow, 1991, p. 173). to whänau, is evident through the practice of mahinga kai. Discourse of mahinga kai as whanaungatanga Discourse of mahinga kai as tikanga

The idea of whanaungatanga is embedded Tikanga is crucial for applying and understand- within the separation of the primordial parents ing a Mäori worldview because it represents narrative. Patterson (1994) concludes that Täne the correct and appropriate social behaviours separates his parents “in order to create an open based on the ideas, beliefs and values inherent to environment in which he and his brothers can Mäori (Jackson, 2011; Mead, 2003). As Mead live and ﬂ ourish” (p. 28). Whanaungatanga (2003) explains, in this sense represents kin protecting each other—Täne protecting his brothers. The acts tikanga is the set of beliefs associated with of adorning his mother with trees and decorat- practices and procedures to be followed in ing the skies with whetu for his father provides conducting the affairs of a group or indi- another level of whanaungatanga, indicating vidual. These procedures are established by

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 70 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

precedents through time, are held to be ritually Tapu is everywhere in our world. It is present correct, are validated by usually more than in people, in places, in buildings, in things, one generation and are always subject to what words and all tikanga. Tapu is inseparable a group or an individual is able to do. (p. 12) from . . . our identity as Mäori and from our cultural practices. (p. 30) The key terms in Mead’s (2003) definition are precedents, practices and a set of beliefs Tapu is inherent to the cultural practice of that inform adherence to correct conduct. mahinga kai, as Dacker (1990) explains: Precedents refers to the actions of our ancestors, the knowledge accumulated over several gen- both the places and the working of mahika erations and transmitted inter- generationally kai were controlled by tapu . . . people did not through oral traditions, and how these may start working the resource until the tapu was inform our actions today (Mead, 2003). The removed, and when they fi nished, the preser- creation narratives are an example of the prec- vation and the use of the food was controlled edents the atua established; creation narratives by tapu, too. (p. 16) are “insights from the past [that] are utilised to solve problems of the present . . . and develop- Tapu is evident throughout mahinga kai and ing further for the next generations” (p. 21). In “controlled each phase of the work” (p. 16), this sense, the three creation narratives above including the preparation, gathering, eating are imbued with tikanga through the various and sharing. This was important because it precedents that were established from them. “meant that resources were used wisely, and it Practices are the vehicles to operate and also prevented those without a right from work- perform tikanga (Mead, 2003). An example is ing them” (p. 16). Only selected people were the practice of mahinga kai, where tikanga is allowed to work certain resources of mahinga exercised through the precedents established in kai. Dacker explains that in Ngäi Tahu “there the creation narratives and customary concepts were many different kinds of places reserved related to food harvesting. Customary concepts from general use—especially from any use to do are inherent to the Mäori belief system, which with food” (p. 21), for example, tüähu, where marks Mead’s fi nal aspect of tikanga. Tapu is rituals and ceremonies surrounding food were an example of a customary concept inherent carried out only by tohunga. These were tapu to mahinga kai practices and a fundamental areas, wähi tapu, because of the association discourse of tikanga. with the rituals surrounding food. Another Tapu emerged from the retribution of Tü- aspect of tikanga, which is also associated with mata- uenga narrative in which Tü- mata- uenga tapu, is the concept of kaitiakitanga. As noted consumes his brothers’ offspring, ultimately above, tapu controlled all aspects of mahi- removing the tapu and making food from nga kai, so “that resources were used wisely” these atua safe to eat (Patterson, 1994; Reilly, (p. 16). The next section discusses kaitiakitanga 2004; Shirres, 1997). This analysis is similar to in relation to tapu and explores one way of Mead’s (2003), who stated “the source of tapu being wise with our resources. is traceable to the primeval parents, Rangi and Papa, and their divine children, the departmen- Discourse of mahinga kai as tal Gods” (p. 46). Tapu, an important element kaitiakitanga in all tikanga, is defi ned by Marsden (2003a) as sacred or set apart and refers to the restrictions Kaitiakitanga derives from three words: the pre- placed upon objects, people or places. Mead fi x “kai”, the root word “tiaki” and the suffi x (2003) describes the importance of tapu: “tanga”, all of which help to shape the meaning

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 71 of this term (Marsden, 2003b). “Tiaki” in its (p. 69). For example, tapu governs the guardi- basic sense means “to guard” but also can mean anship custom of rähui that “designated the “to keep, to preserve, to conserve, to foster, to boundaries within which the tapu as a ban protect, to shelter, to keep watch over” (p. 67). was imposed” (p. 69). According to Marsden “Kai” signifi es the agent of the act, so a kaitiaki (2003c), rähui fulfilled two main functions is understood to be “a guardian, keeper, pre- “for the purpose of conserving or replenishing server, conservator . . . protector” (p. 67). The a resource . . . [and] on the occasion of death” suffi x “tanga” transforms the term to mean (p. 49). To not follow this tikanga, and to ignore “guardianship, preservation, conservation, rähui was dangerous physically and spiritually fostering, protecting [and] sheltering” (p. 67). to Mäori. On a pragmatic basis, ignoring a Kaitiakitanga is another discourse of mahi- rähui placed over a resource would result in nga kai that is fundamental to other related the depletion of that resource. Another layer of discourses that emerge from the narratives. kaitiakitanga relates to looking after the mauri For example, kaitiakitanga is a practice that that resides within the resources of the natural upholds tikanga such as tapu, is an inherent environment. part of whanaungatanga for protecting human The discourse of mauri stems from the crea- and environmental kin and is concerned with tion of humanity narrative in which mauri is whakapapa from where the original kaitiaki imbued in the fi rst woman, Hine-ahuone, by derive. Täne (Reilly, 2004). The concept of mauri, or The notion of guardians or spiritual kaitiaki life force, is essential to kaitiakitanga. Marsden is embedded in each of the analysed narratives. (2003b) explains that “mauri created benevo- Marsden (2003b) explains that “the spiritual lent conditions within the environment both sons and daughters of Rangi and Papa were the to harmonise the processes within the Earth’s Kaitiaki or guardians . . . Täne was the Kaitiaki ecosystem and to aid the regeneration process” of the forest, Tangaroa of the sea” (p. 67). (p. 70). Mauri is a fundamental principle in Following this, the notion of kaitiakitanga is the Mäori worldview. Marsden describes the about respecting and supporting the kaitiaki in signifi cance of the discourse of kaitiakitanga their role of safeguarding the various domains as mauri: of the atua: the sky, the land and the sea. Roberts et al. (1995) note that “this relationship Mauri- ora is life-force. All animate and other between Maori and land provides the clearest, forms of life such as plants and trees owe and deepest expression of what can be termed their continued existence and health to mauri. ‘environmental whanaungatanga’ or a ‘familial When the mauri is strong, fauna and fl ora relationship’ with the other components of the fl ourish. When it is depleted and weak those environment” (p. 10). Kaitiakitanga thus comes forms of life become sickly and weak. (p. 70) to represent the protection of our human and non- human kin, analogous to the narrative that This highlights the role of kaitiakitanga for depicts Täne protecting his brothers by separat- protecting the mauri within the natural envi- ing their parents. ronment. Returning to the example of rähui, Kaitiakitanga as a discourse of mahinga kai Kawharu (2000) explains how “rahui today is principally concerned with the preservation are implemented over a polluted or relatively and protection of mahinga kai sites and prac- unproductive resource base in order that spir- tices, which was upheld through various tikanga itual (mauri) and physical dimensions may be such as rähui. Marsden (2003b) explains that revitalised” (p. 357). The use of rähui in this “tikanga or customs [were] instituted to protect context is relatable to mauri, which “acts as and conserve the resources of Mother Earth” a metaphysical kaitiaki when humans uphold

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 72 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

customary management responsibilities” for carrying out this practice. For example, one (p. 357). had to be knowledgeable about the types of Mauri is “the bonding element that holds food available during different times of the year the fabric of the universe together” (Marsden, and the location of those resources, as well as 2003c, p. 44) and therefore must be sustained know the landscape (Dacker, 1990; Russell, and protected. Our function as part of the intri- 2004). Russell (2004) argues that “one needed cate web of familial whakapapa is to actively knowledge of what to look for as much as where protect mauri as kaitiaki of these taonga, it was located, in order to access mahika kai” which is to uphold tikanga (Roberts et al., (p. 234). She adds that “an intimate knowledge 1995). Tikanga Mäori is “firmly embedded as well as wise guardianship of [resources] was in mätauranga Mäori, which might be seen as essential to their ongoing use and ensured iwi Mäori philosophy as well as Mäori knowledge” survival” (p. 234). Russell’s “wise guardian- (Mead, 2003, p. 7) because “tikanga comes out ship” of mahinga kai resources highlights the of the accumulated knowledge of generations of importance of mätauranga to kaitiakitanga. Mäori” (p. 13). The following section examines One form of protection and guardianship of the discourse of mahinga kai as mätauranga and mahinga kai and its underlying mätauranga the importance of passing this knowledge on to is to ensure this knowledge is passed down future generations. to future generations. Kaan and Bull (2013) explain how stories about mahinga kai (similar Discourse of mahinga kai as to the narratives that depict creation) preserve – matauranga the practice and culture. They describe this intimate connection: Mätauranga emerges from all three creation narratives as these narratives share the fun- in gathering the food, we gather the stories damental elements of a Mäori worldview and that gave us nourishment. Just as the conser- reﬂ ect Mäori knowledge. According to Mead vation and preservation of our mahika kai (2003), “mätauranga Mäori encompasses all practices are important, so too is the preserva- branches of Mäori knowledge, past, present tion of our stories. (p. 72) and still developing” (p. 305). Royal (1998) describes mätauranga as knowledge that is Kaitiakitanga is more than protecting the sites “created by Mäori humans according to a set and practice of mahinga kai, it is about protect- of key ideas and by the employment of certain ing the mätauranga that is imbued within the methodologies to explain the Mäori experience practice. Mahinga kai as a discourse of mätau- of the world” (p. 2). Together these deﬁ nitions ranga “assists in the transfer of knowledge and describe how mätauranga is accumulated over continuation of [Mäori] cultural practices . . . generations stretching back to the time of crea- a way for us to learn about and connect with tion and how this knowledge explains the world our whenua, awa, roto and moana” (Kaan & from a Mäori perspective. Further to this, Mead Bull, 2013, p. 72). (2003) suggests that “while mätauranga might be carried in the minds, tikanga Mäori puts that knowledge into practice” (p. 7). The creation Conclusion narratives are embedded in mätauranga that is put into practice through tikanga and cultural The multiple interpretations of mahinga kai practices such as mahinga kai. emerge from Mäori creation narratives and The discourse of mahinga kai as mätauranga express a Mäori worldview. Campbell (2004) is concerned with the Mäori knowledge essential reminds us of the fundamental properties of

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 73 myth that shape and enrich our lives. This paper Glossary has surveyed three of Campbell’s four functions of mythology. Regarding the fi rst, one must Aotearoa Mäori name for New “reconcile consciousness to the preconditions Zealand; literally “land of its own existence” (p. 1), and this paper has of the long white cloud” traced the origin of mahinga kai back to the aroha love, affection beginning of creation itself. In order to under- aruhe fern root stand mahinga kai (reconcile consciousness) atua gods, deity we must fi rst understand how it came to be awa river (preconditions of its own existence); thus an hapü sub- tribe analysis of the creation narratives was neces- Haumia- tiketike god of cultivated food sary. The second function of mythology is to Hawaiki the traditional Mäori place “present an image of the cosmos” (p. 9), and of origin the discursive analysis of mahinga kai within Hine- ahuone/ fi rst woman creation narratives provided here present a clear Hine- hauone image of our understanding of the universe: a hinengaro mind, mental element Mäori worldview. Finally, the third function Hine- nui- te- pö goddess of death of mythology is “to validate and maintain a Hine- tïtama fi rst daughter, dawn certain sociological system”, which relates to maiden the practice of mahinga kai and its associated hopu tïtï catching of tïtï, harvesting discourses. The emergent discourses of mahinga tïtï kai as whakapapa, whanaungatanga, tikanga hui meeting, gathering (with subsequent discourse of tapu), kaitiaki- ira atua spiritual or godly aspect tanga (with subsequent discourse of mauri) ira tangata human aspect and mätauranga illustrate the interconnected iwi tribe systems of mahinga kai that form our concept kai food, to eat of reality. Each ritual, concept and belief associ- kaihaukai cultural bonds expressed ated with mahinga kai is based on that entire through the exchange of system of a Mäori worldview. foods kaitiaki guardian, protector, spiritual animal Acknowledgements kaitiakitanga guardianship, protection, resource management Thank you to the East Otago Taiäpure Käti Huirapa ki South Island sub-tribe Management Committee, River Estuary Care Puketeraki Karitäne- Waikouaiti, Hawksbury Lagoon kaupapa purpose, goal, agenda and Käti Huirapa ki Puketeraki hapü for their kete wänanga the baskets of knowledge continued support and aroha throughout this kümara sweet potato research and beyond. Also a special thank you Kurawaka sacred place in Hawaiki to Brendan Flack, Karl Russell, Ron Bull, Simon mahinga kai/ food gathering practice, Kaan, Zack Makoare, Ihi Heke and Hoturoa mahika kai where food is produced Kerr for their input into the overall study. A and procured University of Otago Postgraduate Publishing mana power, authority Bursary funded this research; we are also grate- mätauranga knowledge, Mäori ful to the Graduate Research School for their knowledge fi nancial support. mauri life force, life essence

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 74 C. PHILLIPS ET AL.

moana ocean, sea References Ngäi Tahu/Käi South Island tribe Tahu Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga whakaaro: Key concepts in noa ordinary Mäori culture. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford Papa-tü- ä- nuku Earth Mother University Press. rähui temporary closure, Biggs, B. G. (1966). Maori myths and traditions. In A. H. McLintock (Eds.), Encyclopedia of New restriction Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Government rangatiratanga self- determination, Printer. chieftainship Campbell, J. (2004). Pathways to bliss: Mythology Ranginui/Raki Sky Father and personal transformation (D. Kudler, Ed.). Rarohenga the Underworld, realm of Novato, CA: New World Library. the spirits Dacker, B. (1990). The people of the place: Mahika Rongo god of uncultivated food kai. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand 1990 Commission. roto lake Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a taiäpure Mäori fi sheries method in social scientifi c research. In R. Wodak management & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse Täne- mahuta/Täne god of forests, birds, trees analysis (pp. 121–138). London, England: Sage. Tangaroa/Takaroa god of the sea Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual tangi/tangihanga funeral analysis for social research. New York, NY: tapu sacred, set apart, restricted Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical approach- Täwhiri- mätea god of the winds and relational approach to critical discourse analysis elements in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyers Te Ao Mäori the Mäori worldview (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis Te Ao Märama the world of day, light (pp. 162–186). London, England: Sage. teina younger sibling, of junior Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The rank critical study of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. te kitea the fi rst vision Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse tikanga custom analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse tinana body as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London, tïtï mutton bird England: Sage. tohunga skilled person, chosen Graham, J. (2005). He äpiti hono, he tätai hono: That expert, priest which is joined remains an unbroken line: Using tüähu altar whakapapa (genealogy) as the basis for an indigenous research framework. Australian Journal of tuakana older sibling, of senior rank Indigenous Education, 34, 86–95. Tü- mata- uenga god of war Graham, J. (2009). Nä Rangi täua, nä Tüänuku e Uepoto youngest son of Ranginui taoto nei: Research methodology framed by and Papa- tü- ä- nuku whakapapa. MAI Review, (1), 1–9. wähi tapu restricted places Grey, G. (1956). Polynesian mythology. Christchurch, wairua spirit, spiritual New Zealand: Whitcombe & Tombs. Grey, G. (1971). Nga mahi nga tupuna (4th ed.). whakapapa genealogy, connections, Wellington, New Zealand: Reed. origins Jackson, A. (2011). Ki uta ki tai: He taoka tuku iho whänau family (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of whanaungatanga relationships, connections, Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. networking Jackson, A. (2013). A discursive analysis of rangatira- whenua land, placenta tanga in a Mäori fi sheries context. MAI Journal, whetu stars 2(1), 3–17.

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016 CREATION NARRATIVES OF MAHINGA KAI 75

Jackson, A. (2015). Kaupapa Mäori theory and critical Reilly, M. P.J. (2004). Te tïmatanga mai o ngä discourse analysis: Transformation and social atua—Creation narratives. In T. M. Ka’ai, J. C. change. AlterNative, 11(3), 256–268. Moorﬁ eld, M. P. J. Reilly, & S. Mosley (Eds.), Ka’ai, T., & Higgins, R. (2004). Te ao Mäori—Mäori Ki te whaiao: An introduction to Maori culture worldview. In T. M. Ka’ai, J. C. Moorﬁ eld, M. and society (pp. 1–12). Auckland, New Zealand: P. J. Reilly, & S. Mosley (Eds.), Ki te whaiao: Pearson Education. An introduction to Mäori culture and society Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, (pp. 13–25). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson D., & Kirkwood, C. (1995). Kaitiakitanga: Education. Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific Kaan, S., & Bull, R. (2013). Kaihaukai: The exchang- Conservation Biology, 2, 7–20. ing of foods. Scope Contemporary Research Royal, T. A. C. (1998, January 13). Mätauranga Mäori: Topics: Kaupapa Kai Tahu, 2, 72–77. Paradigms and politics. Paper presented to the Kawharu, M. (2000). Kaitiakitanga: A Maori Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, anthropological perspective of the Maori socio- Wellington, New Zealand. environmental ethic of resource management. Russell, K. (2004). Landscape: Perceptions of Kai Journal of Polynesian Society, 109(4), 349–370. Tahu i mua, aianei, a muri ake (Unpublished King, M., Smith, A., & Gracey, M. (2009). Indigenous doctoral thesis). University of Otago, Dunedin, health part 2: The underlying causes of the health New Zealand. gap. Lancet, 374(9683), 76–85. Shirres, M. (1997). Te tangata: The human person. Mahinga. (2003). In Te Aka online Mäori diction- Auckland, New Zealand: Accent. ary. Retrieved from http://www.maoridictionary Smith, G. H. (2003, December). Kaupapa Maori the- .co.nz ory: Theorizing indigenous transformation of Marsden, M. (2003a). God, man and universe: A Mäori education and schooling. Paper presented at the view. In T. A. C. Royal (Ed.), The woven uni- NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Hyatt Hotel, verse: Selected writings of Rev. Mäori Marsden Auckland, New Zealand. (pp. 2–23). Otaki, New Zealand: Estate of Rev. Smith, G. H. (2012). Interview: Kaupapa Mäori: The Mäori Marsden. dangers of domestication. New Zealand Journal Marsden, M. (2003b). Kaitiakitanga: A definitive of Educational Studies, 47(2), 10–20. introduction to the holistic worldview of the United Nations. (2009). State of the world’s indig- Mäori. In T. A. C. Royal (Ed.), The woven uni- enous peoples. New York, NY: United Nations verse: Selected writings of Rev. Mäori Marsden Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (pp. 54–72). Otaki, New Zealand: Estate of Rev. Waitangi Tribunal. (1991). Ngai Tahu land report (WAI Mäori Marsden. 27). Retrieved from https://forms.justice.govt.nz Marsden, M. (2003c). The natural world and natural /search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68476209 resources. Mäori value systems and perspectives. /Wai27.pdf In T. A. C. Royal (Ed.), The woven universe: Walker, R. (1996). Being a Mäori. In R. Walker Selected writings of Rev. Mäori Marsden (Ed.), Nga pepa a Ranginui: The Walker Papers (pp. 24–53). Otaki, New Zealand: Estate of (pp. 1–29). Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin. Rev. Mäori Marsden. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, Mead, H. (2003) Tikanga Mäori: Living by Mäori interdisciplinary and critical discourse analysis. values. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical dis- Moewaka Barnes, H. (2000). Kaupapa Maori: course analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity Explaining the ordinary. Auckland, New (pp. 1–34). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Zealand: Whariki Research Group, University Williams, J. (2004). E päkihi hakinga a kai: An of Auckland. examination of pre-contact resource manage- Panelli, R., & Tipa, G. (2009). Beyond foodscapes: ment practice in Southern Te Wäi Pounmanu Considering geographies of indigenous well- (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of being. Health & Place, 15(2), 455–465. http:// Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. doi.org/c5zs5j Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009) Critical discourse Patterson, J. (1994). Maori environmental virtues. analysis: History, theory and methodology. In Environmental Ethics, 16, 397–408. R. Wodak & M. Meyers (Eds.), Methods of http://doi.org/fz75vt critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33). London, England: Sage.

MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1, 2016