tended to simplify Maori social structure, viewing it in terms of a hierarchy in which hapu were seen as ‘sub-tribes’, which were ‘dependent parts’ of larger tribes. Thus, officials were inclined to ‘deal with large, diverse groups of Maori people as single entities’, which they labelled ‘tribes’.⁵⁹ In addition, Ballara says, Crown officials (and later the Native Land Court) often gave priority to rights based on conquest over those based on ancestral associations.⁶⁰

The civil commissioner at Tauranga, Henry Clarke, set out his understanding of customary rights in the Tauranga district in June 1865, as follows:

Most of the difficulties in settling the claims in this district will arise from the fact that the Ngaiterangi claim only by conquest. They did not destroy the original inhabitants, but allowed them to remain as cultivators of the soil (not slaves), subject to the conquerors. Some of the principal chiefs took the best of the women as wives, and in some cases, some of the Ngaiterangi women married men of the conquered tribe – the pure Ngaiterangi are now in the minority. The-issue of these inter-marriages have, when they have thought it would suit their purpose, ignored their claims through Ngaiterangi, and have fallen back upon the claims derived from the original occupants, this has been the cause of much bloodshed, even down to a very late date, and is now frequently the cause of angry debate.⁶¹

It is not clear what Clarke was referring to when he described the claims of the original inhabitants as having been the cause of bloodshed ‘down to a very late date’ – as mentioned above, we are not aware of evidence of significant armed conflict between Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Ranginui in the nineteenth century.

Two years later, when Clarke was asked to explain the relationship between Pirirakau and Ngai Te Rangi, he began by copying the extract from his June 1865 letter which we have just quoted. He then observed that Pirirakau claimed to be descended from Ngati Ranginui, ‘the tribe conquered by the Ngaiterangi’, but that their leading men were ‘Ngaiterangi really’ and that they claimed through Ranginui only in the belief that by doing so ‘they will be able to oust all other claimants’. Clarke wrote that Pirirakau had at one time considered themselves subject to the Ngai Te Rangi rangatira Hori Tupaea, requiring his consent before taking any action involving land. He also reported that Ngai Te Rangi did not recognise any Pirirakau claims that were based on their descent from Ranginui.⁶²

Clarke’s understanding of rights to land at Tauranga relied on the views of ‘loyal’ Ngai Te Rangi chiefs. It seems that, by the 1860s, tensions had emerged over the extent of Ngai Te Rangi’s rights by conquest, and these had become entangled with the divisions over the Kingitanga, which we discuss in our next chapter. In 1860, Tauranga chiefs attending the

59. Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c1769 to c1945 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998), pp 70,85, ch 6

60. Ibid, pp 80, 90–92

61. Clarke to Mantell, 23 June 1865, AJHR, 1867, a-20, p 12 (doc m9(a))

62. Clarke to Richmond, 25 April 1867, AJHR, 1867, a-20, p 59 (doc m9(a))