Wealth and the Power of the Chief
From this discussion of polygyny it is plain that the possession of wealth was important to the status of a Maori chief. This point may now be more explicitly developed,…
From: Unknown To: 1929 C.E.
Location: New Zealand
Note: This article has been excerpted from a larger work in the public domain and shared here due to its historical value. It may contain outdated ideas and language that do not reflect TOTA’s opinions and beliefs.
Wealth and the Power of the Chief
From this discussion of polygyny it is plain that the possession of wealth was important to the status of a Maori chief. This point may now be more explicitly developed, especially as it has hitherto received scant attention from most writers on the Maori.
The rank of a chief, his prestige and authority were primarily due to his position by descent. He could trace his ancestry back through a long line of noted forbears, comprising people of seniority and influence. Great regard was given by the natives to primogeniture, and the most prized genealogy of all was the aho ariki, the consistent line of descent through first-born sons. The followers of a chief were his relatives, descended from the same ancestors through junior branches. The chief was the man of many cousins and the more influential his connexion, and the more numerous the famous people from whom he could trace his descent, the higher his rank.
But birth alone did not suffice for chieftainship. Personality and executive capacity were also required to maintain rank and authority. An incapable ariki, as we already know, would be set aside in practical affairs, and only called upon to perform certain religious rites.
But to maintain his position the chief needed one thing more—wealth. Every man of rank had to be prepared to grant frequent hospitality to travellers, relatives, and visitors of note. A reputation for liberality was greatly sought after, and, conversely, a name for meanness and parsimony was a social stigma of the worst kind. The honour of a Maori chief was bound up with his ability to entertain lavishly when necessary.
Many were the shifts resorted to in order to preserve one's reputation when some unforeseen contingency had reduced the supply of food available for guests. Even when the provision of ample food was impossible, through no fault of the host, great shame was felt, and the imputation of poverty was a severe blow to the pride of a chief.
To illustrate these points: when the cultivations of Pehi Turoa, the great chief of Whanganui, were destroyed by the pukeko (swamp-hen) and awheto (caterpillar), he composed a song expressive of his shame and grief that on the arrival of guests he should have nothing to give them to eat and announced his intention of fleeing away to hide in his remote settlements.
Again, in the story of the well-known ancestor Paoa, it is related that on one occasion his supplies were all exhausted, and he was visited by a large party of his relatives-in-law. His shame was great; "he could not open his mouth to say a word, he felt so disgraced at not having any food to set before his guests." And that very night he left his village and departed far away to seek a new home.
That the mere lack of food for guests, irrespective of cause, would be shameful to a chief is shown in a curious incident. It is recorded how the brother-in-law of Tu-tamure travelled with a large party to Whakatane with the deliberate and pious intention of eating that chief out of house and home ”in order to shame him and his wife.” The reason was that the latter had boasted of the food supplies of that place. They were unsuccessful in their object, however, though they stayed as long as the rules of courtesy would allow. Thus the mana of Tu-tamure remained high.
The prestige of a chief was bound up with his free use of wealth, particularly food. This in turn tended to secure for him a larger revenue from which to display his hospitality, since his followers and relatives brought him choice gifts. Thus in the story of Paoa afore-mentioned, it is told how the real greatness of a young chieftainess Tukutuku was shown by her courtesy and generosity to all her dependents. This moved their hearts, and they brought to her as presents large quantities of food, such as dried shellfish and other delicacies, in order that she could show great hospitality to visitors.
Such gifts were made from a complexity of motive, partly in expectation of a return present, partly in recognition of the high rank and noble qualities of the chief, partly to propitiate his favour, and also because the reputation of the people as a whole mounted pari passu with the free exercise of hospitality by their leader.
Apart from lavish entertainment of strangers and visitors, the chief also disbursed wealth freely as presents among his own followers. By this means their allegiance was secured and he repaid them for the gifts and personal services rendered to him. All payment among the Maori was made in the form of gifts. There was thus a continual reciprocity between chief and people.
The chief also acted as a kind of capitalist, assuming the initiative in the construction of certain “public works” if the term may be so used. It was by his accumulation and possession of wealth, and his subsequent lavish distribution of it, that such a man was able to give the spur to these important tribal enterprises. Such efforts also redounded to his credit among the people. He was a kind of channel through which wealth flowed, concentrating it only to pour it out freely again.
It must be noted, however, that the Maori chieftainship by no means represented a plutocracy. There were no very rich men in the community; no towering cliff of property cut off chiefs from ordinary men. The fixed wealth of a man of rank was not immensely in excess of that of an ordinary tribesman; the difference lay in the larger quantities which kept continually passing through his hands. Part of his income was received as presents from his people and from visitors, but the larger share was provided by the labour of himself, his wives, slaves, and immediate attendants. The value of labour power to a chief thus explains the real importance in native life of the institutions of slavery and polygyny, which were exercised mainly in favour of the chiefs, and which, by giving them a command of wealth, definitely served to maintain their reputation for generosity and so to buttress their power and authority.
Correlated with his other functions was the habit and duty of a head chief to act as trustee and administrator of tribal property. He was the guardian of treasured ancestral heirlooms, which, though they were often spoken of as belonging to him, were really held by him in trust for the people. He was also spokesman for his kinsfolk in regard to the tribal land. Even when he appeared to settle its disposal personally, he did so only in virtue of the tacit consent of his tribe. The degree to which the promises of a chief were regarded as binding by his people and his acts ratified depended upon his status by birth, his personal magnetism, and the amount of trust they had in him. In this respect, as with hospitality, the chief had onerous duties to perform; the exercise of his privileges carried with it a heavy responsibility.
This correlation of wealth with social standing is an important feature of Maori society. As a generous host, as the entrepreneur in weighty economic affairs, as the distributor of goods to his dependents, and as the trustee of tribal property, the chief found the handling of wealth linked up with his rank and social status.
Firth, Raymond. Primitive Economics of the New Zealand Maori. George Routledge & Sons, 1929.
About TOTA
TOTA.world provides cultural information and sharing across the world to help you explore your Family’s Cultural History and create deep connections with the lives and cultures of your ancestors.
