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.