Tieke

Maraeand/or Tourist Campsite? Confrontation and Cooperation in Whanganui National Park, New Zealand

Bibliographic Data

ID2144665
AuthorsHal B Levine (0000-0001-7101-802X, Russian State Agrarian Correspondence University, corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume21
Issue1
Pages43-56
Publication date2011-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAnthropological Forum (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0066-4677 • E-ISSN: 1469-2902
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00664677.2011.549449
OpenAlexW2008349580
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited11

The Māori site of Tieke Marae is located on a Department of Conservation campsite in Whanganui National Park, New Zealand. It has been occupied for 16 years by members of the Tamahaki hapu (sub-tribe, known as Te Whanau o Tieke (the family of Tieke), and their supporters. Tamahaki maintain that Tieke Marae was confiscated illegally, and that they will remain in place until the New Zealand Government recognises their claim to 267 acres currently inside the Park. Te Whanau o Tieke has effectively put its stamp on Tieke by landscaping the marae (ceremonial meeting ground) erecting buildings, raising a pou whenua (an elaborately carved pole that demarcates their territory) conducting burials, and hosting thousands of visitors, including government officials. Their occupation has been peaceful, helped in recent years by the spirit of cooperation that has developed between the group and the Department of Conservation. Events at Tieke Marae seem to reinforce some points recently made in anthropological and legal literature about solving disputes over contested sacred sites. Brown (2004 Brown, M. 2004. Who owns native culture?, Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]) and Yablon (2004 Yablon, M. 2004. Property rights and sacred sites: Federal regulatory responses to American Indian religious claims on public land. Yale Law Journal, 113(7): 1623–63. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) maintain that local agencies, rather than courts, are better placed to work out compromises between indigenous people and national governments than courts. While agreeing about the usefulness of local agencies in bringing out solutions to issues involving federal use of indigenous sacred sites, I conclude that a real solution at Tieke requires the kind of definitive justice that only a court or some equivalent legal body can deliver

Archaeology · Geography · Government (linguistics) · Indigenous · Landscaping · National park · Political science · Sociology · Tribe · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · Ecology · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Law · Public Administration