Intersecting Lines Intersecting Lines Deidre Brown INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 1 This paper is divided into two parts. Firstly, I propose to show certain architectural drawings that were produced in the 1860s by Maori. The drawings relate to the construction of Pai Marire niu. For this discussion, a short explanation of Pai Marire will be provided. The concept of niu as architecture will also be explored, although a full description of their development is beyond the scope of this paper. A description of the niu architectural drawings will follow this explanation. These are archived drawings, contained in three documents: the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ an 1852 Maori language edition of the New Testament, and ‘Aporo’s Sketches.’ An investigation of Maori draughting knowledge will be preceded by a description of Pai Marire’s drawing distribution system. The second part of the paper will explore the intersecting relationship that Pai Marire, the archive and architecture have with theory. The architectural drawings studied in the first part are Pai Marire’s architectural appropriations from Pakeha. Architectural borrowings are identifiable in them, and can be used to broaden our understanding of architecture, theory, and drawing. I Pai Marire Pai Marire is a religion based on Maori understanding of the Bible and pre-contact spirituality. At its height, in the mid-1860s, it had approximately 10,000 followers in the central North Island, about twenty percent of the total Maori population.1 Pai Marire’s founder was Te Ua Haumene of South Taranaki, a Wesleyan lay-teacher in the 1840s, and follower of the Maori King in the 1850s.2 After experiencing a vision of the Angel Gabriel in 1862, Te Ua began to formulate a gospel called ‘Pai Marire’ (‘good and peaceful’). His teachings were recorded, by scribes, in books for circulation throughout the central North Island. Included in his gospel were instructions for the erection of niu, or ‘posts,’ through which God could communicate with Pai Marire followers. 3 A t least fifty niu were built during the New Zealand Wars, of which four are still known to be standing. Typically they resembled a flagpole (fig 1) or a ship’s mast (f i g 2 ), with at least one cross-tree. Niu were usually surrounded by a fence. Te Ua’s good and peaceful teachings were delivered during a lull in the twelve years of the New Zealand Wars. Taranaki had just endured a twelve month armed conflict with government troops over the forced survey of Waitara; and, only months after his vision of the Angel, new conflict began in Taranaki when a party of soldiers, on a crop-destroying operation, were killed by Te Ua and local Pai Marire adherents.4 After this incident, Pai Marire became a vehicle of spiritual, if not physical, resistance, and the niu became an architectural icon of the New Zealand Wars. Niu as Architecture To discuss niu as architecture does not preclude them from fulfilling other functions. They were also a development of boundary posts, whakapakoko (‘god-sticks’), moari (swing poles), tuahu, centres of learning, flagpoles, Christian symbolism and ship’s masts. Architecture was only one of the many aspects of Maori culture that niu would go on to influence. However, in this paper, it is their architectural function which is under examination. Niu are described here as ‘architecture’ because they fulfilled some of the same architectural functions that ancestor houses and Christian churches also served, and they went on to influence the hybrid modern meeting-house form. During the New Zealand Wars, niu amalgamated ancestor and church architecture in a form that could be quickly erected during times of conflict. Like the ridge-pole, rafters and support poles of an ancestor house, the main post and rigging of the niu were believed to catch the wind-messages of the angels and deliver them to the encircling Pai Marire followers.5 Also, the sacred space inside the niu fence seems to have been regarded with similar veneration as a Christian altar. Only Pai Marire leaders were permitted to stand in this area, from which they would administer a liturgy to their followers.6 In the Christian sense, the niu was not an object of worship but a place of worship. INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 2 Like other types of architecture too, niu afforded protection from the elements, and provided a partition between interior and exterior space. For example, Pai Marire followers believed that by participating in ritual activities around the niu, they became surrounded by an impenetrable barrier; a roof, floor and walls of spiritual energy, that would protect them from any external force. There is a belief amongst some tohunga whakairo (master carvers) that the yard-arms of niu had the same transitory associations as Maori door lintels.7 Niu could be interpreted as doorways between protected and unprotected realms. The fence around the niu also defined internal and external areas, or sacred and common space. The first modern meeting house was reputed to have been built in the 1870s by certain of Te Kooti’s followers who had previously been Pai Marire adherents. By painting niu flag motifs onto the structure of this seminal building, Te Tokanganui-a- noho, Te Kooti’s followers influenced the symbolic vocabulary of future meeting-house builders.8 Hence, niu architecture probably influenced the development of meeting house architecture. A transition between internal and external realms was marked by the lintel, which acquired spiritual connotations as niu yard-arms during the New Zealand Wars. Pai Marire flag motifs, which were an integral part of niu construction, were an important development in modern Maori meeting house construction. In the intersecting lines of the Maori architectural tradition, nui may have been the first architecture to have been built from architectural plans and drawings. Three documents exist in archives around New Zealand which support this contention. The niu architectural drawings in question belong to the ‘Ua Rongopai’ ledger-book, a 1852 Maori language edition of the New Testament and ‘Aporo’s sketches.’ Ua Rongopai The first set of niu drawings to be discussed, appear in the ‘Ua Rongopai’ ledger-book. They were prepared sometime before 1866. The ‘Ua Rongopai’ is currently archived as a Maori Manuscript in the Grey Collection of the Auckland Public Library. An anonymous note attached to this book claims it was “found in a native hut during the war on the west coast of the North Island.” Lyndsay Head believed that the ‘Ua Rongopai’ was probably seized from a Maori settlement at Putahi, in Taranaki, during January 1866. As Head wrote, “we probably owe the survival of the Ua Rongopai to the instructions given the soldiers to search for written documents, so that they could be examined for evidence of hostile intent against the government.”9 Eleven sketches of niu, nine of them named by location, appear in the ‘Ua Rongopai.’ Of these, five niu that can be placed on a modern map, all are in the South Taranaki/Wanganui area. Similarities between these drawings suggest that they were drawn by the same artist. The ‘Ua Rongopai’ also contains another twenty-one black ink and pencil sketches, including a two page map of the Waikato area, and drawings of flags, machines and a weather- board building. A series of cross designs may be niu plans. One such design is drawn directly above an elevation of a niu. If it is indeed a plan, this method of presentation is strongly reminiscent of nineteenth century architectural draughting convention. The drawings of the ‘Ua Rongopai’ are complemented by the two chapter gospel of Te Ua, an outline of Pai Marire services and a record of songs and prayers which were probably used in conjunction with the niu. 10 All of the writings in the ‘Ua Rongopai’ appear to have been dictated by Te Ua to a scribe identified in the text as ‘Karaitiana Te Korou,’ almost certainly the Ngati Kuhungunu figure of the same name.11 From similarities in handwriting it seems that Karaitiana also drew the niu sketches. From the writings of William Colenso, who baptised Karaitiana near Masterton in 1848, we know that t h e s c r i b e a n d a r t i s t o f t h e ‘ U a Rongopai’ was a fluent reader of the Maori Bible. 12 Government documents from 1862 described him as a supporter o f t h e M a o r i King, but Angela Ballara and Mita Carter believed that this allegiance was only based on a mutual opposition to land sales.13 However, for Karaitiana to be the scribe of Te Ua’s gospel, he must have had some religious empathy with Pai Marire. Karaitiana used two methods of niu illustration. The first appears to be a combination of elevation and plan, or perhaps, perspective. This method was generally employed to depict ‘two-piece’ top-mast and main-mast constructions. The second is similar to a flat elevation. He used this simplified technique to illustrate ‘one-piece’ mast constructions. In all eleven niu drawings, Pai Marire flags were depicted in some detail. Typical of the sketches showing two-piece mast constructions is the drawing captioned ‘Potatau Putahi’ (f i g 3 ). Potatau was the second Maori King, INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 3 and Putahi was a Pai Marire pa (fortress) located in the South Taranaki area. In this pencil illustration, the mast is drawn in elevation, while the fence surrounding it is viewed from the top. The rigging of this niu is carefully drawn, and the two-piece mast and yard-arm are carefully illustrated, a possible indication that the Putahi niu was drawn from life. The flags in this drawing intimate Pai Marire’s reverence for Potatau. The inscriptions ‘Ingikimene’ (‘the King of Men’) and ‘Ingipotatau’ (King Potatau) on two flags demonstrate an allegiance to him. 14 A tri-star motif, featured on two of the seven standards, is borrowed from the King Movement’s ‘Aotearoa’ flag. Star motifs like these appeared later in paintings on the porch, window lintel and interior rafters of Te Tokanganui-a-noho.15 The reoccurrence of Kingitanga symbolism, in this drawing and throughout these architectural sketchbooks, alludes to the respect that Pai Marire, and Te Ua in particular, felt for the Maori King. By following Karaitiana’s drawings, Pai Marire adherents would have been able to reconstruct these flags, and similarly show their support for Potatau, and his war in the Waikato. Karaitiana’s simpler method of illustrating one-piece mast constructions is typified by the Taiporohenui niu drawing (f i g 4 ). His use of front elevation may have been due to the elementary construction of this niu, which consisted of one tapered pole with a halyard. This is in contrast to the two-part mast and complex rigging seen in the Putahi sketch, which required a more complex method of illustration for its construction to be properly understood. The niu at Taiporohenui, Te Ua’s headquarters from 1865 to 1866, is notable because it’s construction is also described in Pakeha sources. According to Kimball Bent, a Pakeha who fought alongside Pai Marire, this totara niu was one of the first built in Taranaki.16 He claimed it was fifty feet tall, and crossed with a fourteen-foot yard. Karaitiana’s drawing approximates to these proportions. Bent also remarked that the niu had undergone the same dedication ceremony as used for Maori architecture. A large piece of unworked greenstone had been buried beneath its foot, following the custom of placing stones under the first pillar of a house. This similarity may imply that Pai Marire saw niu as fulfilling some of the same functions as houses. By examining the niu drawings from the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ two important themes in Karaitiana’s method of depiction have become apparent. The first relates to his selection of either complex or simple drawing techniques depending on the niu’s construction. Hence, his deliberate and detailed sketches may have been patterns for projected niu building schemes. A second theme is the repetition of Kingitanga motifs. These were obviously important to Te Ua, if not Karaitiana. Therefore, detailed drawings of King movement flags were produced for Pai Marire to copy. This iconography was later introduced into Maori meeting-houses, perhaps as a result of its popularisation by Te Ua, and these sketches. Neither of these themes could have been illustrated properly without Karaitiana’s patient, steady, drawing method. His command of the written word was probably developed at a local mission school, and it follows that he may also have received drawing instruction at the same institution. 1852 New Testament The second set of drawings to be examined were copied into an 1852 edition of Ko te Kawenata Hou, the Maori New Testament. This book was donated to the Alexander Turnbull Library Manuscripts section, by June Carle of Te Horo, in 1993. Three sketches show two niu and one set of flags, all depicted in a similar technical style to those of the ‘Ua Rongopai.’ It is plausible that they were executed at about the same time. That the drawings were copied into a Bible indicates the high esteem in which the artist held niu. There are no clues as to who this artist may have been, but the owner of the Bible is identified. According to an inscription inside, this Bible belonged to someone known as ‘Taria’ or ‘Tarea.’ Ballara has suggested that the Bible may have belonged to Katarina Taria of the Ngati Kuhungunu, who signed the Ahuriri (Napier) purchase deed in 1851.17 Another possible owner, also from the Hawkes Bay, could have been the high ranking chief Tareha Moananui, or a member of his family. 18 Interspersed with handwriting practice on some of the blank pages of this Bible, are two drawings illustrating Pai Marire niu. Similarities between the drawings suggest that they may represent one niu. The use of present tense captions intimates that these sketches were drawn while this niu was still standing in the 1860s.19 However the complexity of one drawing (f i g 5 ) contrasts with the simplicity of the other (f i g 6 ). This difference may indicate that less experienced draughtspeople were copying, and simplifying, other master-drawings. The most detailed niu drawing in this Bible is on the reverse side of the contents page (f i g 5 ). It shows a rigged two-piece niu mast, flying three flags. The rigging appears to have been drawn with the aid of a INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 4 ruler, indicating a familiarity with Pakeha drawing implements. Appearing on the lowest flag are two ‘spade’ symbols. In the text of the ‘Ua Rongopai’ Te Ua described the ace of spades as a metaphor for Maori men and women.20 The club was also repeated in the porch of Te Tokanganui-a-noho. Some of the other flag motifs appear with hand written a n n o t a t i o n s a t t h e t o p o f t h e page. According to Ballara’s translation, these inscriptions read, “this type of flag display is for all Hauhau; Te Ua’s flag is o n t h e u p p e r b e a m ; the King’s flag is much [or always] nearer the butt [of the pole].” She interpreted the caption at the bottom of the page as, “all Hauhau use this [method of flag] display.” These annotations reiterate the two major themes of the ‘Ua Rongopai’ niu drawings. Firstly, they refer to the sketch as an example of niu architecture for others to follow. Secondly, they reinforce the mana of the Maori King through the illustration of flags, while retaining a distinct ‘Hauhau’ or Pai Marire identity. It might be assumed, then, that the drawings in this Maori Bible were made for the same purpose as those in the ‘Ua Rongopai.’ It could be concluded that they were two of possibly many architectural instruction booklets for Pai Marire craftspeople. There are both similarities and differences between the niu drawings of the annotated 1852 New Testament a n d t h e ‘ U a R o n g o p a i . ’ B o t h documents have the appearance of niu construction manuals, and each illustrates the importance of Kingitanga symbolism in Pai Marire architecture. However, the draughtsperson of the Bible drawings is not as skilled as Karaitiana. This raises the possibility that there were Pai Marire master-drawings, such as those of the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ which were copied by other scribes. Aporo’s Sketches The last of the three documents to be examined is the posthumously titled ‘Aporo’s Sketches.’ These are presently held in the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington. An attached note by Gilbert Mair reads “Maori Sketches illustrating the Dreams by Aporo. Shot by me at Poripori Jany (sic) 23 1867 under a waterfall. I took the sketches, wet with his blood from his body. G. Mair.”21 Six niu and related drawings appear in ‘Aporo’s Sketches,’ part of a series of twelve illustrations concerned with Pai Marire. These illustrations are preceded by ten other drawings based on maritime themes and political cartoons. The depiction of sailing craft and two maps of Tauranga indicate that the artist of the maritime drawings had an awareness of nautical draughting and cartography. This knowledge was probably gained through working in either local shipyards or coastal trading. 22 T h e r e i s nothing about the sketches to indicate when they were completed, where they were drawn or who drew them. However, the sketches are assumed to have been drawn between 1860 and 1867, that is, from the beginning of the New Zealand Wars to the date of their recovery. They were probably executed in the Tauranga region, which is not only mentioned in the maritime drawings, but was where the sketches were recovered. With respect to the identity of the artist, differences in style and media suggest that this person was not responsible for the maritime sketches or the political cartoons.23 Unlike the niu drawings of the ‘Ua Rongopai’ and the annotated 1852 Bible, ‘Aporo’s Sketches’ have little in common with the denotative aspects of draughting (fig 7). They provide little constructional information. Their significance lies in their connotative spiritual motifs, which have been liberated from Pai Marire texts and flags that surround and construct the niu. They are not so much a guide for construction, as a celebration of niu. Indicative of this celebration are the last two niu drawings in this sequence, on the document’s final page. The first features a pole surmounted and surrounded by celestial symbols and a tiny serpent figure (fig 8). In the ‘Ua Rongopai’ Te Ua described serpents as guardians and the defenders of tribal boundaries.24 Hence, the reptile in this drawing may represent the niu’s protection of Maori territories. Architecturally, the serpent could signify physical shelter. Beside this niu is the inscription ‘He Ki,’ meaning ‘the key.’ Adjacent to the niu is an upraised hand, the Pai Marire gesture of homage, reaching towards a cloud, which is set against an outline of the sun. An inscription above this design translates as “the day of glory.” 25 I n t h e ‘ U a R o n g o p a i , ’ T e U a describes clouds as spiritual guides, and also states: “Let the glory of the Most High God be praised. He i s t h e o n e w h o c o v e r s y o u w i t h t h e c l o u d . ” 26 The ‘glory’ of Christ, returning in a cloud, is a reoccurring theme in the Bible. I n o n e o f t h e Bible’s passages he is “sitting on the right hand of power.”27 From these references, it appears that the representations of a hand, a cloud and ‘glory’ form a biblical metaphor for the second coming cited in the ‘Ua Rongopai.’ The caption on the next sketch can be interpreted as reading “the pole of glory.” This drawing, at right angles to the first, illustrates two niu-like poles on INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 5 either side of a person with his, or her, right arm raised. Both the poles and the person appear to be enclosed inside a fence. At the top of the left niu is a human face. Its significance may reside in the Pai Marire practice of using the severed heads of enemies as oracles in niu ritual. At the extreme left of this drawing is a descending or diving bird. This may represent Rupe, Te Ua’s personal owl deity, who was regarded as an agent of the spirit world. Effigies of Rupe were sometimes carved onto the base of niu masts, and this may explain it’s depiction on this niu drawing. As with the previous pages of niu drawings, these last sketches are of a highly symbolic nature. Pai Marire motifs have been liberated from flags, carvings and oral narratives, and have taken their connotative positions. In these drawings, the symbols have become an integral part of the niu’s construction. Since their primary function is not related to building, the architectural drawings of ‘Aporo’s Sketches’ differ from those in the ‘Ua Rongopai’ and the annotated 1852 New Testament. However, the drawings may have still been constructionally important. It is just that the arrangement of these elements does not denotate construction as a measured drawing would, but instead focuses on the connotative aspects of architecture. The niu illustrations of the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ the annotated 1852 New Testament and ‘Aporo’s Sketches’ can all be regarded as mid-nineteenth century Maori architectural drawings. This assertion is based on the artists’ use of drawing to illustrate both the denotative and connotative aspects of architecture. In the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ Karaitiana has carefully followed standard draughting techniques to produce informative drawings which may have been for an intended audience of niu builders. The drawings contained within the annotated 1852 New Testament appear to have been simpler copies of Karaitiana’s, or another artist’s, drawn by a less skilled hand. Captions, accompanying these elevations, imply that they were used as architectural drawings. They were drawn accurately and to scale. However, the drawings of ‘Aporo’s Sketches’ were more like architectural illustrations. Their composition focuses on the connotative aspects of niu architecture. In this respect, they are not so much like the measured drawings of the other documents. Like other Maori maps, paintings, carvings and textiles, produced in the 1860s, the sketches seem to have been drawn for a functional, rather than inspirational (or ‘decorative’), purpose. The niu elevations can be read as two parts. The illustration of the fence, pole and rigging configuration forms the first part of the composition. The second part relates to the flags. Each flag is drawn so that the shapes and symbols can be fully appreciated by the viewer. In all three documents, architecture is illustrated using certain formalisms of measured drawing, combined with the artistry of concept drawing. Drawing However, this alone does not prove that the resemblance between the documented niu sketches and architectural drawings is deliberate. The architectural sources of Maori draughting ability need to be explored. Drawing in pre-contact Maori society was practised in a number of forms, but the drawings discussed in this paper are specifically made by pen, or pencil, on paper. To Maori and Pakeha, in early colonial New Zealand, this type of drawing was more than a vehicle of communication, it was a method of appropriating land and power.28 Maori were subjected to the power that draughting facilitated – through measurement, division and control. Measurement was first employed by the hydrographers on board the Heemskerk and Endeavour. Division occurred with the arrival of settlers, who used survey drawings to subdivide the land resources.29 Control resided in the drawing of land boundaries. Survey drawing had already and often brought Maori and Pakeha into conflict. The f o r c e d s u r v e y o f W a i t a r a i n M a r c h 1 8 6 0 w a s t h e catalyst for the first engagement of the New Zealand Wars. Fighting resumed in Waikato, three years later, when government troops violated the ‘aukati’ (cut), a border between Kingitanga and Pakeha.30 During this three year period, the drawn line superseded the boundary post as a partition of power. Maori had become aware of the power of drawing as a tool of appropriation, and were using it to protect their land from the government. The relationship between Maori and drawing was not entirely born out of conflict. The graphical methods used in niu drawing may have been developed from Maori knowledge of survey fieldbooks. These books prepared by early survey parties contained draughted plans and, sometimes, architectural drawings. Most survey parties in the 1850s employed Maori as guides and assistants. 31 During these survey expeditions, Maori assistants would have become familiar with the contents of the surveyor’s fieldbook, in which illustrations and measurements were made in preparation for plan drawing. The drawings of niu are reminiscent of draughted elevations and architectural plans. One INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 6 practice in particular, of mixing elevation and plan on the one niu drawing, may have been an indication of Maori familiarity with Pakeha architectural conventions. In the early to mid-nineteenth century, some surveyors were also architects, and house plans often mixed these conventions.32 Familiarity with the surveyor’s notebook through employment in survey parties may have exposed Pai Marire followers to these techniques.33 Through both peaceful and dangerous liaisons with Pakeha, Maori had begun to be familiar with European architectural drawing. Understanding grew out of the new divisions colonists placed on the land. Followers of Pai Marire would have soon realised that the power of appropriation resided in the drawing. How, and why, this method of conveying information was selected rests with its convenience of exchange. Distribution The repetition of niu architectural drawings in the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ the annotated 1852 New Testament and ‘Aporo’s Sketches’ is cause for speculation that these illustrations were required for distribution. In pre-contact times, specialist tohunga (experts) who oversaw architectural projects had travelled between sites ensuring that tribal styles were maintained. During the New Zealand Wars however, travel became dangerous, and was often prohibited. New methods of disseminating architectural advice were needed to maintain conformity in niu construction. The ‘pattern-book’ approach, in which niu architectural drawings could be distributed and copied among Pai Marire villages, may have been derived from a similar experience which Maori had had with the Bible in the early nineteenth century. Christianity had spread faster than the missionaries could carry it, because for example freed slaves quickly took the Bible, and literacy, to their home tribes. 34 This experience of rapid dissemination of information through books was not lost on Te Ua. It is well known that he dictated his gospel to scribes, and encouraged the copying of these works for distribution among Pai Marire followers across the North Island. Similarly, niu drawings may have been quickly re-copied and distributed over a wide area. By providing a set of drawn models in documents such as the ‘Ua Rongopai,’ the annotated 1852 New Testament and ‘Aporo’s Sketches,’ followers could erect niu without prior knowledge of their construction. Information could be distributed quickly, and over a large area, and the advice of the tohunga was no longer needed. II Three lines of discourse intersect upon this topic of Pai Marire architectural drawings. The first discourse relates to the place of restricted Maori knowledge in academic theory. The second reflects upon the importance of archived information for architectural theory. The third involves the relationship of architecture and theory. Pai Marire and theory Most of the archived information concerning Pai Marire records the colonists’ desire for eradication of Pai Marire and the destruction of their niu poles. Two Pai Marire sketchbooks owe their place in the archive to their perceived use as ‘incriminating evidence.’ The guardianship of these manuscripts now rests with the archive, but responsibility for their interpretation does not rest solely with the researcher.35 As Charles Royal has indicated, interpretation does not imply or substitute for authorship.36 With respect to Pai Marire documentation in particular, the researcher has a responsibility to respect the authority of Maori authorship. Restrictions on the use of this material have to be observed. This is despite the decontextualisation of material within the archive. The conflict has robbed history of the original authors’ intentions for their work. It is now unclear for example whether these documents were ever intended to survive. In Maori culture, written manuscripts and drawings were comparable to oral narratives, and just as an oral narrative cannot be maintained after death, Maori manuscripts have often been either interred with their authors, buried under new meeting houses or otherwise destroyed. It is likely that many Pai Marire niu drawings were treated similarly. The niu drawings that are stored in archives today are in many ways divorced from their original context. The theorist must however respect customary restrictions about the use of these drawings, even if their divorcement within the archive gives some degree of academic licence. The message from Maori has always been that esoteric knowledge is not to be traded. To do so would be profane. For example a researcher cannot use these drawings for financial gain. Restraint must be applied to the management of restricted information. The ‘Ua Rongopai,’ annotated 1852 New Testament and ‘Aporo’s INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 7 Sketches’ contain restricted information which is understood to be intended for Pai Marire users. The original intent and purpose of these drawings has been lost to time, but this if anything only contributes to the tapu which still surrounds the meaning of the niu drawings and which ought not to be infringed by the researcher. Neither decontextualisation nor the loss of restricted or esoteric knowledge affects the contribution niu drawings can make to architectural theory. In many ways the archived sketches are now open to interpretation, and can be used as ‘evidence’ in the construction of seamless architectural narratives. It is by no means the case, however, that the descendants of Pai Marire have relinquished their rights to the documents. The reinstatement of tribal ownership is an active issue between Maori and the archive. Yet, as things stand today, the theoretical interpretation of Maori documents is not checked or reviewed by any authoritative Maori body. A burden of responsibility for correct interpretation rests on the researcher. Archive and theory As Beatriz Colomina writes, architectural discourse is merely the scholar’s method of ordering the chaotic archive.37 Architectural theory is about writing a r o u n d , o n o r inside the gaps between evidence. Theory relies on evidence to support continuous, or seamless, lines of argument. But the information is divided into individual units of evidence, achieved through categorisation. Since what we know about niu is mostly conjecture, the number of narratives that could be arranged within this ‘evidence’ is almost infinite. The niu drawings’ original function has become almost incidental, and in the context of the archive, they can take on a multiplicity of new meanings as ‘evidence.’ But scholarship is also immensely complicated by cultural interaction. The archive is also an interface between cultures. It is not an impartial storage space, but a workshop for the reassembly of decontextualised material. From the archive, theory is created, and dialogue is also maintained. Michael Goldsmith has likened the inter-action between colonial and counter-colonial cultures to an argumentative conversation.38 As in an argument, he writes, the shifts in position should be documented against the relative and changing power of the participants. But in this context, the Maori authors of the niu drawings cannot speak. A vital dialogue is on-going between cultures. But the two participants in this instance are architecture and information, and the argument is self-reflecting. Architecture and theory Can cultural ‘differences’ ever be comprehended in a single field of understanding? According to L e o n a r d B e l l t o “ t r y t o d o s o . . . t o p r e s c r i b e o r demand ‘correct’ or pure translation and universal, all-embracing, explanations, might be to create problems, rather than to solve them.”39 This is partly because translation, by nature, is faulty. Meanings and functions can become altered through change. The problem is also compounded by recently acknowledged discontinuities in theory. Borders between categories have become fragile and permeable. For example, two cultures, which might have once been depicted as ‘oppositions,’ can now be enclosed within a single term, and visa-versa. In architectural theory, borders have been permeated by multi-culturalism. The descendants of the other people, who were once the subject matter of theory, now participate quite happily within the discourse of architecture. Architecture is no longer a Western idea. The self is now architecture, and the other i s information. Using a process of reflection, the boundaries of architecture can be expanded. The mirror is formed by information about niu drawings, and an illusion of opposition is created. One advantage of oppositional discourse has been that it always relied on the culture of the oppressor for expression. The architectural theorist now needs to ask “who is reflecting whom and is the process passive or confrontational?”40 Royal holds the view that theoretical writing has in the past reflected a foreign view of Maori. 41 H e writes, “the works that have emerged from the pens of Paakehaa writers have said more about the writers than about their Maaori subjects.” 42 Then, applying this argument to the architectural description of niu drawings, the theorist’s real achievement is a re-definition of the meaning of ‘architecture.’ The non-lexographical marks inscribed within the three Pai Marire documents are capable of being interpreted as architectural drawings and as a reflection upon architecture. Through identifying apparently ‘architectural’ traits in the archive, theory is capable of expanding the boundaries of architecture. By looking at the niu sketches as architectural drawings, a dialogue between architecture and information is set up. The perceived borders between Maori and Pakeha cultures are penetrated by architecture through an analysis of multi- INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 8 culturalism and the decontextualisation of archived information. By a process of self-reflectivity, architecture can explore new territories and re- discover itself. This re-discovery is achieved through both passive and active means. However, this is not a form of architectural imperialism, because theory is no longer striving for a general world view. The reclamation is both passive and active. The authors of the Pai Marire niu drawings appropriated architectural information from surveyors during intervals of co-operation and conflict. However, this is itself a reflection of theory because it assumes that the motivations of Pai Marire can be described at all. Commentators have variously described the drawings as, at one extreme, the ‘evidence’ of heretical religio-political ancestor worship, and at the other as evidence of early Maori architectural drawing. With respect to architectural theory, the appropriation of niu drawings should not be viewed as an imperialistic act. Applying Talal Asad’s anthropological argument to architecture, the role of theory in maintaining structures of colonialism is trivial. 43 The knowledge gained is esoteric, or uneconomic, and cannot be used as a weapon. However, the reverse argument does not hold. The expansion of a general world view has been central to Western architectural theory, even when the possibility of this hegemony has been excluded. This situation has arisen not only because theory in New Zealand has been undertaken by colonial institutions, such as the archive, museum and university; but, because architecture, as discourse and practice, is always both the reality that architectural theorists have attempted to define, and the method by which they attempted to define it.44 Architectural theory does not strive for a general world view. As with other academic disciplines, architecture can accommodate the “uncomfortable fact that there are people who live their lives [build their structures and draw their drawings] quite happily outside it.”45 By expanding the boundaries of architecture but at the same time acknowledging the limitations of theory, theorists can view new subject areas, such as niu drawings, and not consume them. Niu drawings then become an accessory to architecture. They allow access to information, that could be construed as being ‘architectural,’ from which the limits of architecture can be redefined. No longer a Western idea, architecture embarks on a process of self-discovery. This is not appropriation. By using archived documents, the theorist expands the definition of architecture using a mirror of decontextualised information. Summary Architectural theory seldom contributes to its sources. However through a process of self- reflection, archived information can contribute new ideas to, and highlight old ideas about, architectural theory. The success of this process is dependant on the sensitivity of the researcher. The architectural ideas reflected from niu drawings, build upon Pai Marire’s architectural appropriations from Pakeha. Note: The Maori words used by the author are vowel length neutral. In the instances where quoted authors have used long and short vowels the double vowel convention has been used. NOTES 1 Lyndsay Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” Journal of the Polynesian Society (1992), v. 101, n. 1, p. 7. 2 Lyndsay Head, “Te Ua Haumene,” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography ed. W. H. Oliver, (Wellington: Historical Branch of the Department of Internal Affairs, 1990), v. 1, pp. 511-512. 3 Herbert Williams, Christianity among the New Zealanders (London: Seeley Jackson and Halliday, 1867), p. 46. In the Ua Rongopai ledger-book, Te Ua makes reference to the niu, imploring followers to “Practise the things you were taught. You have the n i u a n d t h e guidance o f t h e Spirit, so that your people may enter in under you. D o n o t shut it; keep it open, for good or ill.” Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” p. 23. 4 Judith Binney, “Wars and Survival,” People and the Land: Te Tangata me Te Whenua (Auckland: Allen and Unwin, 1990), p. 130. 5 Bronwyn Elsmore, Mana from heaven: a century of Maori prophets in New Zealand (Tauranga: Moana Press, 1989), p. 200. 6 James Cowan, New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period (Wellington: Government Printer, 1922 [Reprinted 1983]), v. 2, p. 88. Herbert Meade, Ride through the Disturbed Districts of New Zealand (London: John Murray, 1870), pp. 127-128. 7 personal communication, T. Smith, Wellington, INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 9 (January, 1995) 8 Roger Neich, Painted Histories (Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1993), p 171-173. “Te Tokanganui-a-Noho was built for the Maori K i n g , T a w h i a o , w h o h a d b e e n a follower of Pai Marire since 1864. The practice of applying of niu symbolism to buildings was spread rapidly from the King Country to the East Coast, Poverty Bay, Hawke’s Bay and the Bay of Plenty regions. These motifs were repeated in a number of meeting- houses by the builders o f T e Tokanganui-a-noho, other followers of Te Kooti and impressed Kingitanga adherents who wanted to emulate the new style.” Neich, Painted Histories p. 173, 184. 9 Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” p. 13. 10 Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” p. 14. 11 Personal communication, Mr R. C. A. Maaka, (28 May, 1989); Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” pp. 14-15. 12 Angela Ballara, (& Mita Carter), “Te Korou, Te Retimana,” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography e d . W. H. Oliver (Wellington: Historical Branch of the Department of Internal Affairs, 1990), v. 1, p. 466. 13 Angela Ballara, (& Mita Carter), “Te Korou, Te Retimana,” p. 467. 14 Binney, “Wars and Survival,” p. 160. 15 Neich, Painted Histories p. 171. The club symbol, seen on three flags, was also applied to the architecture of Rua K e n a n a i n the early twentieth century. 16 James Cowan, Kimble Bent [sic], (Christchurch: Caper Press, 1911 [Reprinted 1975]), p. 80. 17 Angela Ballara, “Report on Marginalia in ‘Ko te Kawenata Hou,’”(Wellington: MS Papers 4754, Manuscript Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, 1993), p. 1. 18 Ballara, “Report on Marginalia in ‘Ko te Kawenata Hou,’” p. 1. 19 Ballara, “Report on Marginalia in ‘Ko te Kawenata Hou,’” p. 1. 20 Ua Rongopai, chapter 2, (January 13, 1863); Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” p. 19. 21 Evelyn Stokes, “Pai Marire and the Niu at Kuranui,” (Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980), (Occasional Paper n. 6), p. 50. 22 Stokes, “Pai Marire and the Niu at Kuranui,” p. 51. As Stokes has mentioned, shipbuilding and coastal shipping were established industries in Tauranga at the time these images were drawn. Stokes, “Pai Marire and the Niu at Kuranui,” p. 51. 23 Pencil, water-colour and ink, or sometimes combinations of pencil and water-colour or pencil and ink were used. 24 H e a d , “ T h e G o s p e l o f T e U a H a u m e n e , ” p . 3 8 . (note there were no serpents in New Zealand.) 25 Stokes, “Pai Marire and the Niu at Kuranui,” p. 54. 26 Head, “The Gospel of Te Ua Haumene,” p. 17, 27. 27 Matthew 26: 64; see also Mark 13: 26, Matthew 24: 30, Revelation 14: 14. 28 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity - Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994), p. 90. 29 Bernard Smith, Imagining the Pacific - In the Wake of the Cook Voyages ( N e w H a v e n and London: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 31. 30 Binney, “Wars and Survival,” p. 123, 124. 31 Nola Easdale, Kairuri - T h e Measurer of the Land (Wellington: Highgate/Price Milburn, 1988), p. 7. 32 Barbara De Vries, “Colonial Surveyors of New Z e a l a n d - 1 8 4 0 - 7 6 , An Overview,” New Zealand Surveyor (1974) v. 27, n. 5, p. 511. Easdale, Kairuri - The Measurer of the Land p. 12. 33 The use of surveyor’s jargon in niu chants is well documented, (Cowan, New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period ), so, it seems plausible that previous survey work might have also provided Pai Marire artists with some technical knowledge of draughting. 34 Peter Lineham, “This is my Weapon,” Mission and Moko: The Church Missionary Society in New Zealand ed. Robert Glen (Christchurch: Latimer Fellowship, 1992), p. 177. 35 Barry Barclay, “The Held Image,” AGMANZ (1989) v. 20, n. 1, p. 4. 36 Charles Royal, Te Haurapa - An Introduction to Researching Tribal Histories and Traditions (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books/Historical Branch of the Department of Internal Affairs, 1993), p. 24-25. 37 Colomina, Privacy and Publicity p. 9. INTERSTICES 4 Intersecting Lines 10 38 Michael Goldsmith, “The Tradition of Invention,” Other Sites ed. Michael Goldsmith & Keith Barber (Palmerston North: Massey University, 1992), p. 37. 39 Leonard Bell, “Under Capricorn - Some Partial Observations,” Art New Zealand (1994) n. 71, p. 51. 40 Goldsmith, “The Tradition of Invention,” p. 36. 41 Royal, Te Haurapa p. 26. 42 Royal, Te Haurapa p . 26. 43 Talal Asad, “From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Anthropology of Western Hegemony,” Colonial Situations ed. George Stocking (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), p. 315. 44 Asad, “From the History of Colonial Anthropology t o t h e Anthropology of Western Hegemony,” p. 315. 45 Goldsmith, “The Tradition of Invention,” p. 30.