TRADITIONAL MAORI WARFARE
Some of the early European
observers Maori behaved with unbridled savagery. These observers were entirely
wrong. Warfare in Māori society was ritualized and controlled according to an
established set of rules. The decision to take up arms was usually a last
resort, preceded by careful deliberation. The fighting was fierce and bloody,
however, Māori war parties did not usually seek to annihilate their enemy.
Traditional warfare was not about wanton killing and destruction. It was about
seeking utu (repayment) for past wrongs. Māori were not constantly at war, but
they did live with the constant threat of
war. This fact of
life is literally carved into the New Zealand landscape. In the upper North
Island in particular the remains of Māori pā (fortifications) are clearly
visible on precipitous headlands and hilltops near the coast. Māori developed
the art of fortification well before arrival of the pākehā and the musket.
In 1845-6 the British Troops were
facing an enemy with centuries of experience in combat. Māori were excellent
strategists and tacticians and they had adapted their fortifications to face an
enemy armed with guns. The actions and successes of Māori leaders during the
Northern War can only really be understood in the context of traditional Māori
warfare.
Warfare and Society
The concept of utu really is the key to
understanding traditional Māori warfare. Utu is sometimes translated as
“revenge” but this is incorrect. Utu actually means “repayment” or “balanced by
an equivalent”. If an offence was committed, the party wronged would seek
repayment to restore their mana. A failure to extract utu would cause the
offended party to lose face, to suffer a loss of mana. In a worst-case scenario
a desire for utu could lead to war.
Without a paramount chief or a formal justice
system, Māori had their own ways of resolving disputes. Some rangatira acted as
mediators, negotiating peaceful solutions which satisfied the need for utu and
maintained the mana of the feuding parties. In more serious cases, the sending
of taua muru (a stripping party) was a way to obtain utu without actually
killing anybody (or at least, without killing anybody important). A taua muru
was a hostile expedition, where a party of warriors was sent to plunder or
destroy property belonging to those who had committed the offence. Taua muru
were very dramatic, the warriors brandishing their weapons and making a great
display of aggression. However physical violence didn’t happen, or if it did,
it was directed towards a few low-ranking individuals. Despite appearances,
taua muru were a means of maintaining the peace.
Warfare often arose from an act which affected the
mana of a group. The murder of a tapu person was the most serious offence.
However, wars were also fought over seemingly minor incidents, such as petty
theft or insulting words. The “Girls War” is an example: it happened in 1830 in
the Bay of Islands, and began with a dispute between four young Māori women of
high-rank. Two of them were the former wives of a particular whale ship
captain, and the other pair were his current wives. The argument began as a
play fight, but it escalated, and the women uttered dire curses at each other.
The situation was serious, because the women had insulted the mana of each
other’s chiefly relatives. In the end, the exchange of insults led to a battle
during which a number of warriors were killed.
The rationale for taking up arms was presented in
terms of mana and utu, and the usual purpose of warfare was to settle disputes.
However, underlying economic motives did come into play. Māori, like people
everywhere, were sometimes driven by a desire to obtain property or to access
some natural resource. In some cases, an insult to the mana of the antagonists
could provide a convenient justification for confiscating property or taking
over gardening land
Attack
Wars were fought at the level of the hapu, but not
always between individual hapu. Others were drawn in by close kinship ties or
by their duty to support a dominant chief. Most hapu could field between 100 to
400 warriors, who fought as separate units commanded by their respective
rangatira.
Planning an attack required a great deal of work,
especially if it was directed against hapu living far away. To begin with,
there were arrangements to be negotiated with potential allies. There was
visiting to be done, feasting, discussions and debates. Then there were
practical considerations. Extra crops were planted well before a long-distance
campaign. Some of the harvest went with the war party, and the rest was to make
sure there was enough food and seed stock for the following year. Haste and
stealth were not necessarily important. It was not unusual for the enemy to
hear word of the attack well in advance, allowing them plenty of time to
prepare.
It is important to remember that Māori warriors
were not professional soldiers – they were also the bulk of the male workforce.
When the men were off fighting, they were clearly not available to undertake
their usual work. Furthermore, many women and older children would travel with
the war party to provide logistical support. The withdrawal of the most capable
men and women from the workforce inevitably put pressure on the resources of
the hapu.
Once the battle began, each unit would function in
a separate but co-ordinated manner. Rangitira were not generals in the European
sense – they led by example, fighting alongside their men. The course of a
battle depended upon the situation: gaining access to an enemy pā
(fortification) was quite different to skirmishing in the forest or on the
beach.
Without guns, Māori couldn’t kill each other from
afar. The fighting was very real, hard-fought, with warriors and civilians
killed at close quarters. There hasn’t been a lot of biological anthropology
carried out on Māori skeletons, because ko iwi (human remains) are tapu in the
extreme. However some of the skeletons which have been examined show that
person died violently, by a sharp blow to the head with a patu-like weapon.
The fighting was constrained and controlled by
tikanga, “rules of engagement” that both sides understood. Although the
fighting was brutal and bloody, the objective wasn’t necessarily to annihilate
the enemy. Most war parties set out to kill at least some people. However, it was not uncommon for a victorious war
party to withdraw, having killed a sufficient number of people to achieve utu.
If the warring hapu were connected by kinship a handful of deaths would suffice
– the fighting would stop and peace talks would begin. Battles between
non-related hapu were more protracted and brutal. The survivors of a hapu
defeated might be driven from their lands, forced to seek an entirely new place
to live.
