Māra mataitai - Māori Seafood Gardens

By Phil Ross, Te Rerekohu Tuterangiwhiu, Vanessa Taikato, Jacinta Forde and Heather Earle

Ancestral Connections & Geographic Extent Temporal Extent Biophysical Manipulations Target Species Ceremony & Stewardship Current Status

While the human occupation of Aotearoa New Zealand has been brief, Māori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa) have a long history of implementing innovative approaches to the management of marine resources. These management approaches have included rahui (a form of tapu restricting access to, or use of, an area or resource by the kaitiakitanga (guardians) of the area), pā ika (fish traps and possibly fish ponds) and māra mataitai (seafood gardens) (Tau et al. 1989, Williams 2004, 2016a, 2016b). 

Māra mataitai is a term that is used to describe a number of different approaches to marine resource management (usually of shellfish or seaweeds) with different types of māra mataitai appearing to have been used throughout Aotearoa (Williams 2016b). The most well known techniques have included (a) the seeding or transplantation of marine species to areas where they did not occur naturally or in great numbers, (b) habitat enhancement to improve yields and (c) habitat creation, usually through the placement of rocks, to facilitate translocations and local access to a resource. It is likely that these management techniques were brought to Aotearoa by early migrants from Polynesia and then adapted to work with local species and conditions. Subsequently, variants of the māra mataitai concept have been implemented across the length of Aotearoa and continue to be used today. 

The earliest references to māra mataitai are from the time of Kupe, the Polynesian explorer who, according to some tribal narratives, first settled Aotearoa. Oral traditions refer to Ngā Mara o Kupe (the gardens of Kupe) in Te Hiku o te Ika (The Tail of the Fish) in the far north of Aotearoa. It is believed that these māra mataitai were subtidal and were used to cultivate seaweeds. Another early practitioner was Ruawharo, a tohunga (priest) who travelled to Aotearoa in the 11th century on the Takitimu waka (one of the great canoes that brought Polynesian migrants to New Zealand from Hawaiki). Ruawharo is said to have seeded kūku (mussels; Perna canaliculus) and other shellfish along the Bay of Plenty and East Coast to serve as food for his descendants (Best 1929).

Māra mataitai have left behind little in the way of physical structures that could be used to date the use of these practises. However, ethnohistorical accounts suggest that this form of resource management and stewardship has been practiced since the earliest days of human settlement of Aotearoa (Best 1929; Williams 2016b). 

Kupe, after arriving from Polynesia (c. 925), recognised the need to secure a food supply for his people. It is said that he utilised techniques brought from the tropical Pacific to build pā kanae (a type of fish trap) near Opononi (the area still carries the name ‘Pākanae’ to this day), before traveling north and establishing Ngā Māra o Kupe near Te Hapua. In southern Aotearoa, the Waitaha people (an early Māori tribe who inhabited the South Island) have oral traditions which tell of their tūpuna (ancestors) translocating toheroa (Paphies ventricosa), a revered surf clam, from Te Oneroa a Tohe in the far north to Te Waewae Bay in the far south. 

There are numerous written accounts of māra mataitai being used in the more recent past (Best 1929, Tau et al. 1989; Williams 2016b). Rakiihia Tau of Ngai Tahu described the translocation of toheroa and other marine species around the South Island over the course of at least four or five generations (Tau et al. 1989). 

Translocation for the purposes of either establishing marine species in new locations, or enhancing existing populations, appears to have been one of the most commonly used approaches to Māori seafood cultivation. Shellfish were not necessarily sourced from the nearest, or most convenient location, but from the area where the species in question had the greatest mana (standing). Toheroa are said to have been translocated over 1,300 km from Te Oneroa a Tohe to Te Waewae Bay (Ross et al. 2018), and then to other South Island locations (Futter 2011). At a smaller scale, it was also common that when wild harvest expeditions yielded a catch that was greater than the immediate needs of the people, excess seafood would be brought close to home, and deposited in coastal areas to be used as pātaka (food storehouses) for when weather conditions or time did not allow for expeditions to preferred fishing grounds (Waitangi Tribunal Report 2002). The Ngai Tāhu iwi were known to have transported shellfish (adults and spat) in pōhā (bags made of bull kelp) to seed new locations. The pōhā used to transport these “root stocks” were dropped in the intertidal zone and pricked with holes to allow slow release of spat. The pattern of holes would identify the whanau (family) who had transported it, warning others not to interfere. Unquestioning adherence to the rules of society was the guarantee that such investments were safe (Williams 2016a).

The tending of natural or translocated shellfish beds is said to have included the removal and movement of rocks, and the thinning of shellfish populations to improve the quality of habitat and enhance conditions for shellfish growth (Williams 2016a, 2016b). At Oreti Beach, bull kelp (Durvillea spp.) was buried within certain sections of beach to fertilise toheroa beds and enhance productivity. If shellfish became infected with soft shell disease, individuals were culled with the use of predatory whelks that would preferentially prey on individuals with weakened shells (Tau et al. 1989). 

In rocky intertidal areas in southern Aotearoa, enclosed seafood gardens were created through the placement of boulders. These enclosures would be stocked with shellfish, filled with seaweed (thereby providing food), and then covered to disguise the enclosures and provide protection against unwelcome human interference or poaching. The northern iwi (tribes) Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Whātua incorporated the collection and cultivation of mussel spat and the transplanting of different shellfish species in their traditional resource management (Waitangi Tribunal Report 2002). Te Atiawa have also described construction of mussel farms where “boulders were placed in circles about two feet high with smaller boulders with mussels attached to them being placed in the middle to breed” (Waitangi Tribunal Report 2002).

Marine species targeted for cultivation included cockles (tuangi/tuaki, Austrovenus stuchtburyi), estuarine and surf clams (toheroa, Paphies ventricosa; tuatua, P. subtriangulata; pipi, P. australis), abalone (paua, Haliotis iris), scallops (tio, Pecten novaezelandiae) and algae (karengo, Porphyra sp.).

For Māori, māra mataitai were just one of a portfolio of strategies implemented to ensure food security. These seafood cultivation strategies existed within a highly connected landscape running from the mountains to the sea (i uta ki tai) and were managed with enhancements and restrictions informed by long and close relationships with the natural world. In Māori culture, all elements, both animate and inanimate, are connected through whakapapa (genealogy). Consequently, species, habitats, landscapes and people are all related and harvested or cultivated species are given the same respect as the family or tribal entity. This engenders a fierce ethic of kaitiakitanga (stewardship) (Kawharu 2016). 

Territory and resources were held collectively by the tribe (hapu or iwi) and as kaitiaki (stewards) of te taiao (the environment), Maori were obliged to manage the land and seascape sustainably for their people and for future generations. Utu, the concept of reciprocity to achieve balance, dictates the need to nurture the species and environments from which resources are being drawn. 

Rahui were used, not just as a means to restrict access, but also to designate spaces for harvesting, cultivation and management. For example, at Oreti where toheroa can be found across more than 20 km of beach, Ngai Tahu designated a much smaller area within which toheroa were managed and harvesting was permitted. Similarly, at Ripiro Beach in northland, when it became clear that government sanctioned recreational and commercial toheroa harvesting was not sustainable, the local iwi lobbied unsuccessfully to be given management control over a section of the beach (Murton 2006)

Māra mataitai are still being used today, but there are obstacles. For example, because Toheroa (Paphies ventricosa) are a protected species, a government issued special permit is required for any translocation. A permit can cost thousands of dollars and applications may be denied. In practise, this form of traditional management must often be conducted covertly and in violation of New Zealand law. 

The use of māra mataitai is further complicated by contemporary legislation. While the coastal strip within which marine species can be cultivated was once under the control of mana whenua (the iwi or hapu (tribes) with historic and territorial rights over an area), the Te Takutai Moana Act of 2011 made the marine and coastal area a common space, meaning it can not be owned by any person or entity. While Maori can gain recognition of their customary interests and rights, this is a complicated, slow and expensive process. Consequently, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to restrict access and harvesting rights to present day māra mataitai.

A recent example of marine resource management via the māra mataitai concept was a response to the expansion of the Tauranga Harbour shipping channel in 2015. The eastern bank of Paritaha, a mid-harbour sand bank and a favoured harvesting site for pipi (estuarine clam, Paphies australis), was dredged to allow larger ships access to the Port of Tauranga. Rather than allow those pipi to be dredged and dumped at sea, Tauranga iwi worked with the port company to move approximately 8 m3 of pipi and shell hash to sites where their elders and ancestors had previously relocated and cultivated pipi. In this case, the relocation was treated as an opportunity not just for food security, but to pass on mātauranga (indigenous knowledge) to their tamariki (children) and to reconnect the community to te taiao (the environment).

More Information:

Making pōhā (kelp bags) - https://youtu.be/IwVMlODvWNc

Tauranga pipi relocation - https://vimeo.com/653524075/f29c77792a

References

Best, E. 1929. Fishing methods and devices of the Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin 12, Wellington, N.Z.: Government Printer, 1986 12:251–252.

Futter, J. M. 2011. An investigation into the Murihiku toheroa (paphies ventricosa): matauranga, monitoring and management. MSc thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand.

Kawharu, M. 2000. Kaitiakitanga: A Maori anthropological perspective of the Maori socio-environmental ethic of resource management. Journal of the Polynesian Society 109:349–370.

Murton, B. 2006. ‘Toheroa Wars’: Cultural politics and everyday resistance on a northern New Zealand beach. New Zealand Geographer 62:25–38.

New Zealand. Waitangi Tribunal. 2002. Ahu moana: the aquaculture and marine farming report, Waitangi Tribunal report 2002 (Wai 953). Legislation Direct, Wellington, N.Z.

Ross, P. M., M. A. Knox, S. Smith, H. Smith, J. Williams, and I. D. Hogg. 2018. Historical translocations by Māori may explain the distribution and genetic structure of a threatened surf clam in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Scientific Reports 8:17241.

Williams, J. 2004. `E pakihi hakinga a kai: An examination of pre-contact resource management practice in Southern Te Wai Pounamu. PhD dissertation, University of Otago, New Zealand.

Williams, J. 2016a. Seafood “gardens.” The Journal of Polynesian Society 125:433–444.

Williams, J. 2016b. Kaitiakitanga in te wai pounamu: Resource management in a new environment. Environment and Ecology Research 4:310–321.