![Thumbnail: [Volume 36, 1903 page 14]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_36/thumbnails/rsnz_36_00_0033_0014_ac_02.gif)
[Read before the Auckland Institute, 5th October, 1903.]
In works treating on Polynesian ethnology and sociology the subject of marriage is invariably disposed of in a few sentences. The writer usually states that there was no marriage rite among these peoples, but that, in New Zealand, a custom obtained by which young people were betrothed to each other. Others have said that a formal handing-over of the woman to her husband was usual in New Zealand. These brief remarks show a surprising paucity of information, and are often rendered in such a manner as to give readers the impression that marriage among the Maori people was, in former times, but a low type of cohabiting, to which no ancestral customs, forms, or rite pertained. I propose to show in this paper that these scant accounts are misleading, and that the impressions left on the reader's mind after a perusal of the same are quite erroneous.
The Maoris were ever a most punctilious people, and ever adhered rigidly to ancient customs and forms, social and otherwise. No exception was made in regard to such of these as related to marriage. They might occasionally be ignored by young people, but if so the tribal opinion, or that of the sub-clan or family group, would at once condemn such a breach of custom. I propose, then, to show that—First, there was a marriage rite among the natives of New Zealand. Secondly, a recognised and enforced mode of procedure obtained in regard to marriage, the arrangement of which was conducted by the elders of the interested couple. There were, undoubtedly, exceptions to the above arrangements, but these exceptions are no proof that such rules were not generally recognised, and upheld. The same might be said of our own marriage system, which is by no means universally followed among us. For instance, the rite, which will be explained anon, was performed over parties belonging to the rangatira class only—i.e., persons of good birth—but never over low-born persons (tutua or ware); but even in the case of the latter the marriage would not be a formless pairing or cohabiting, but would be proposed, discussed, and arranged, with possibly
![Thumbnail: [Volume 36, 1903 page 15]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_36/thumbnails/rsnz_36_00_0034_0015_ac_02.gif)
little ceremony, but nevertheless deliberately and properly adjusted.
The description of such customs, &c., pertaining to court-ship, betrothal, marriage, divorce, and other matters as will hereinafter be described has been obtained entirely from members of the Tuhoe Tribe of Maoris, who have inhabited for centuries the rugged district situated between the Bay of Plenty and Te Wairoa, on the East Coast. This article does not assume to be a description, or even a compendium, of the marriage customs of all the native tribes of New Zealand. Differences in customs, &c., are sure to be found as between different tribes.
The system of ethology, or code of ethics, of the Maori in former times was suited to a communistic and primitive people, and, like their religion, was more closely adhered to and upheld than the systems. moral and religious, of many more-advanced peoples. To marry any one of closer kinship than a third cousin was deemed incest, and great exception was taken to such unions. They were severely condemned.
In order to understand the following notes on the Maori marriage system it is necessary to have a clear idea of the tribal organization of these people, and their system of consanguinity.
The natives of New Zealand base their tribal organization on their descent from the last and most important migration of Polynesians from the isles of the Pacific, although they are also descended from the ancient tribes of the land, a prior migration of a similar ethnic people. This latter origin is, however, not much heard of, as the mana (power, prestige, &c.) of the old-time people passed away and was replaced by that of the descendants of the last migration, which arrived at New Zealand about the middle of the fourteenth century. Thus, the Tuhoe Tribe, although principally of aboriginal blood (of the earlier migration), have long discarded their ancient and more applicable tribal name of Nga-Potiki for that of Tuhoe-potiki, who was a chief of the descendants of the latter migration.
The collection or group of peoples, termed iwi (tribes) by the natives, are subdivided into hapu (sub-tribes or clans), and these again into sub-hapu or family groups (also termed hapu).
Edward Jenks, in his “History of Politics,” says that the tribe “is a large group, consisting of several hundred individuals, the fully qualified among whom certainly believe themselves to be descended from a common male ancestor…. But in most cases the common ancestor of the tribe is a fictitious person,” &c. The other social unit he
![Thumbnail: [Volume 36, 1903 page 16]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_36/thumbnails/rsnz_36_00_0035_0016_ac_02.gif)
terms the clan (or sept). This, he says, “is a much smaller body, consisting of some three or four generations only, in descent from a perfectly well-known male ancestor,” &c. Now, these remarks are not applicable to the social organization of the Maori people. Jenks's “tribe” is equivalent to the Maori hapu or sub-tribe. His “clan” is the Maori sub-hapu (or sub-clan). In former times it was a poor Maori tribe indeed that could not muster a thousand fighting-men. Also, among the Maori a common ancestor of a tribe is by no means a fictitious person. The Maori clan or sub-tribe may be descendants of an ancestor who lived ten, or fifteen, or more generations ago, and may consist of hundreds of individuals. Certainly it would appear that in some cases—e.g., the Arawa—the primal social unit might be termed rather a group of tribes, a league. But in cases where all members thereof are descended from a common ancestor, and, however non-cohesive in times of peace, yet group themselves ever together in defence against an extra-tribal enemy, and act in other important matters as a political entity, then such a people, or collection of peoples, must be looked upon as a tribe.
The unit of the social organization of the Maori is, I take it, the consanguineous family group or sub-clan (i.e., sub-hapu). Now, it would entirely depend upon the numbers of such a sub-clan as to whether the members thereof would or would not be required by native custom to contract exogamous marriages. Even then such unions would not be exogamous in regard to the tribe or hapu. As a tribal matter marriages were usually endogamous in former times. We will, however, make this matter clearer by means of the genealogy of a portion of a sub-hapu as an illustration. Prior, however, to entering upon a description of Maori marriage we will tarry a while with the gods, and invade the realm of myth and animism.