2:2 (2004), 64-76 ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
SURVEYING ȱ IN ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ was ȱ intimately ȱ linked ȱ to ȱ the ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ boundaries.
ȱ Not ȱ only ȱ were ȱ surveyors ȱ charged ȱ with ȱ the ȱ job ȱ of ȱ making ȱ and ȱ marking ȱ physical ȱ boundaries ȱ on ȱ the ȱ land, ȱ they ȱ also ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ engaging ȱ with ȱ and ȱ crossing ȱ social ȱ and ȱ cultural ȱ barriers.
ȱ As ȱ the ȱ vanguard ȱ of ȱ mass ȱ European ȱ settlement ȱ these ȱ proponents ȱ of ȱ imperialism ȱ frequently ȱ came ȱ into ȱ contact ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori, ȱ often ȱ forming ȱ social ȱ bonds ȱ which ȱ were ȱ at ȱ odds ȱ with ȱ their ȱ roles ȱ as ȱ surveyors.
ȱ This ȱ article ȱ argues ȱ that ȱ surveying ȱ was ȱ not ȱ just ȱ concerned ȱ with ȱ physical ȱ boundary ȱ crossing; ȱ it ȱ was ȱ also ȱ inextricably ȱ linked ȱ to ȱ cultural ȱ and ȱ social ȱ boundary ȱ crossings.
ȱ
Following ȱ a ȱ brief ȱ discussion ȱ of ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ surveying, ȱ the ȱ focus ȱ shifts ȱ to ȱ Fred ȱ Mace, ȱ a ȱ surveyor ȱ who ȱ lived ȱ and ȱ worked ȱ for ȱ much ȱ of ȱ his ȱ life ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ
Country, ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori Ȭ controlled ȱ area ȱ usually ȱ off ȱ bounds ȱ to ȱ Europeans, ȱ particularly ȱ surveyors.
ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ shows ȱ us ȱ that ȱ not ȱ only ȱ were ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ surveyors ȱ charged ȱ with ȱ measuring ȱ literal ȱ boundaries, ȱ they ȱ also ȱ lived ȱ their ȱ lives ȱ on ȱ cultural ȱ and ȱ social ȱ boundaries.
ȱ Furthermore, ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ surveyors ȱ such ȱ as ȱ Fred ȱ
Mace ȱ also ȱ possessed ȱ the ȱ ability ȱ to ȱ successfully ȱ negotiate ȱ political ȱ and ȱ ideological ȱ boundaries.
ȱ In ȱ this ȱ sense, ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ adds ȱ another ȱ dimension ȱ to ȱ the ȱ study ȱ of ȱ ȱ surveyors ȱ as ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ boundary Ȭ crossers.
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Nineteenth ȱ century ȱ settlers ȱ to ȱ colonies ȱ such ȱ as ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ often ȱ came ȱ in ȱ search ȱ of ȱ status ȱ and ȱ mobility ȱ not ȱ open ȱ to ȱ them ȱ in ȱ their ȱ home ȱ country.
ȱ Many ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ settlers ȱ originated ȱ from ȱ the ȱ English ȱ lower ȱ middle Ȭ classes, ȱ holding ȱ fairly ȱ ambiguous ȱ positions ȱ on ȱ the ȱ social ȱ ladder.
ȱ As ȱ office ȱ workers ȱ and ȱ clerks ȱ they ȱ often ȱ had ȱ greater ȱ status ȱ than ȱ factory ȱ labourers, ȱ but ȱ in ȱ many ȱ cases ȱ were ȱ still ȱ unable ȱ to ȱ obtain ȱ upward ȱ mobility ȱ or ȱ recognition ȱ within ȱ the ȱ upper ȱ echelons ȱ of ȱ English ȱ society.
ȱ Those ȱ who ȱ occupied ȱ the ȱ lower ȱ middle Ȭ classes ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries, ȱ as ȱ Jean ȱ and ȱ John ȱ Comaroff ȱ point ȱ out: ȱ ȱ
Those ȱ who ȱ did ȱ make ȱ their ȱ way ȱ up ȱ the ȱ social ȱ ladder...
ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ not ȱ secure ȱ members ȱ of ȱ a ȱ more ȱ elevated ȱ class, ȱ but ȱ the ȱ bearers ȱ of ȱ anomalous ȱ rank; ȱ neither ȱ of ȱ the ȱ rich ȱ nor ȱ the ȱ poor, ȱ of ȱ the ȱ ruling ȱ nor ȱ the ȱ ruled.
ȱ Caught ȱ in ȱ the ȱ fissures ȱ of ȱ the ȱ class ȱ structure, ȱ they ȱ were ȱ suspended ȱ between ȱ the ȱ privileged, ȱ whose ȱ values ȱ they ȱ shared, ȱ and ȱ the ȱ impoverished, ȱ from ȱ whence ȱ they ȱ came ȱ – ȱ and ȱ to ȱ whom, ȱ if ȱ they ȱ failed, ȱ they ȱ would ȱ return.
1 ȱ ȱ
64 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

Status ȱ and ȱ rank ȱ were ȱ particularly ȱ associated ȱ with ȱ Protestantism ȱ in ȱ the ȱ nineteenth ȱ century, ȱ endorsing ȱ the ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ the ȱ “self Ȭ made ȱ man”, ȱ and ȱ the ȱ idea ȱ that ȱ salvation ȱ could ȱ be ȱ obtained ȱ through ȱ continual ȱ betterment ȱ and ȱ hard ȱ work.
ȱ Miles ȱ Fairburn, ȱ in ȱ his ȱ analysis ȱ of ȱ a ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ labourer, ȱ has ȱ written ȱ of ȱ the ȱ popularity ȱ of ȱ Samuel ȱ Smiles ȱ at ȱ that ȱ time.
ȱ Smiles ȱ promoted ȱ self Ȭ help ȱ and ȱ betterment ȱ and ȱ published ȱ a ȱ number ȱ of ȱ books, ȱ including ȱ the ȱ bestseller ȱ
Ȭ
ȱ (1859).
ȱ Smiles ȱ was ȱ a ȱ product ȱ of ȱ the ȱ European ȱ ideologies ȱ of ȱ the ȱ time ȱ and ȱ his ȱ list ȱ of ȱ “Smilean ȱ ideals” ȱ included: ȱ perseverance, ȱ determination, ȱ cheerfulness, ȱ punctuality, ȱ employment, ȱ method, ȱ honesty, ȱ thrift, ȱ accuracy, ȱ attention ȱ to ȱ detail, ȱ cleanliness, ȱ orderliness, ȱ concentration, ȱ self Ȭ discipline ȱ and ȱ self Ȭ control.
2 ȱ Smilean ȱ ideals ȱ were ȱ closely ȱ connected ȱ to ȱ the ȱ idea ȱ of ȱ progress ȱ — ȱ a ȱ very ȱ strong ȱ trope ȱ in ȱ late ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ Europe.
ȱ
“Progress” ȱ penetrated ȱ almost ȱ every ȱ aspect ȱ of ȱ life, ȱ from ȱ capitalist ȱ ideas ȱ of ȱ production ȱ to ȱ individualism, ȱ enlightenment, ȱ and ȱ of ȱ course ȱ scientific ȱ knowledge.
3 ȱ This ȱ view ȱ proposed ȱ that ȱ individuals ȱ were ȱ autonomous ȱ beings ȱ who ȱ ‘created ȱ society ȱ by ȱ the ȱ sum ȱ of ȱ their ȱ actions’ 4 , ȱ rather ȱ than ȱ the ȱ other ȱ way ȱ around.
ȱ This ȱ related ȱ closely ȱ to ȱ the ȱ prevailing ȱ world Ȭ view ȱ that ȱ everything ȱ was ȱ divisible ȱ –and ȱ able ȱ to ȱ be ȱ compartmentalized ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ categorized.
ȱ M.
ȱ Marsden ȱ and ȱ T.
ȱ A.
ȱ Henare ȱ speaking ȱ specifically ȱ of ȱ the ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ colonial ȱ context, ȱ suggest ȱ that: ȱ ȱ
Western ȱ culture ȱ whose ȱ major ȱ focus ȱ is ȱ on ȱ the ȱ natural ȱ universe ȱ assumes ȱ that ȱ it ȱ is ȱ comprised ȱ of ȱ indestructible ȱ atoms ȱ of ȱ solid ȱ matter ȱ and ȱ conforms ȱ to ȱ strict ȱ mechanical ȱ laws ȱ in ȱ an ȱ absolutely ȱ predictable ȱ manner… ȱ it ȱ can ȱ be ȱ understood ȱ and ȱ [is] ȱ scientifically ȱ describable.
5 ȱ ȱ
European ȱ thought ȱ at ȱ this ȱ time ȱ therefore ȱ espoused ȱ idealistic ȱ notions ȱ of ȱ distinction, ȱ rank ȱ and ȱ clear Ȭ cut ȱ boundaries.
ȱ The ȱ country ȱ and ȱ city ȱ were ȱ seen ȱ as ȱ binary ȱ oppositions, ȱ as ȱ were ȱ the ȱ secular ȱ and ȱ spiritual ȱ worlds; ȱ “race” ȱ was ȱ used ȱ to ȱ categorize ȱ and ȱ rank ȱ many ȱ diverse ȱ peoples; ȱ class ȱ divisions ȱ were ȱ widely ȱ recognized; ȱ and ȱ the ȱ need ȱ to ȱ order ȱ and ȱ structure ȱ the ȱ world ȱ pervaded ȱ the ȱ sciences ȱ and ȱ technology.
ȱ ȱ
Smilean ȱ ideals ȱ of ȱ order, ȱ accuracy, ȱ and ȱ perseverance ȱ were ȱ also ȱ related ȱ to ȱ the ȱ need ȱ to ȱ compartmentalize ȱ and ȱ explain ȱ the ȱ world, ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ one’s ȱ own ȱ social ȱ actions.
ȱ Land ȱ surveying ȱ was ȱ yet ȱ another ȱ means ȱ through ȱ which ȱ boundaries ȱ were ȱ made ȱ – ȱ both ȱ metaphorically ȱ and ȱ physically.
ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
When ȱ immigrants ȱ from ȱ England ȱ and ȱ other ȱ parts ȱ of ȱ Europe ȱ began ȱ to ȱ arrive ȱ in ȱ New ȱ
Zealand ȱ in ȱ the ȱ mid Ȭ 1800s, ȱ they ȱ believed ȱ it ȱ was ȱ essential ȱ that ȱ the ȱ “wilderness” ȱ of ȱ New ȱ
Zealand ȱ be ȱ accurately ȱ and ȱ efficiently ȱ surveyed ȱ in ȱ order ȱ to ȱ facilitate ȱ speedy ȱ settlement.
ȱ As ȱ J.
ȱ A ȱ McRae ȱ wrote ȱ in ȱ his ȱ book ȱ celebrating ȱ the ȱ centenary ȱ of ȱ the ȱ New ȱ
Zealand ȱ Institute ȱ of ȱ Surveyors, ȱ new ȱ settlers ȱ to ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ viewed ȱ the ȱ colony’s ȱ
M ¬ ori ȱ inhabitants ȱ as ȱ a ȱ ‘floating ȱ population’, ȱ who ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ ‘scattered ȱ and ȱ insecure ȱ communities’.
6 ȱ
New ȱ Zealand’s ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ population ȱ in ȱ the ȱ early ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ was ȱ considered ȱ “insecure” ȱ due ȱ to ȱ the ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ property ȱ rights ȱ were ȱ not ȱ fixed ȱ by ȱ any ȱ legal ȱ system ȱ recognizable ȱ to ȱ Europeans.
7 ȱ Similarly, ȱ much ȱ of ȱ the ȱ European ȱ population ȱ at ȱ the ȱ time ȱ (whalers, ȱ traders, ȱ and ȱ missionaries) ȱ led ȱ transitory ȱ lives, ȱ moving ȱ constantly ȱ around ȱ the ȱ country.
ȱ The ȱ Crown’s ȱ view ȱ was ȱ that ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ essential ȱ to ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 65

transform ȱ the ȱ new ȱ colony ȱ from ȱ a ȱ haphazard ȱ land ȱ of ȱ impermanence ȱ into ȱ a ȱ “neat”, ȱ
“civilized” ȱ nation.
ȱ In ȱ this ȱ sense ȱ surveying ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ was ȱ directly ȱ associated ȱ with ȱ the ȱ colonial ȱ ideal ȱ of ȱ “civilization” ȱ – ȱ particularly ȱ through ȱ European ȱ preoccupations ȱ with ȱ demarcation, ȱ permanence ȱ and ȱ fixity.
ȱ What ȱ many ȱ European ȱ settlers ȱ and ȱ administrators ȱ failed ȱ to ȱ realize ȱ was ȱ that ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ ideas ȱ of ȱ boundaries ȱ and ȱ land ȱ ownership ȱ did ȱ already ȱ exist ȱ – ȱ they ȱ were ȱ just ȱ conceived ȱ of ȱ in ȱ a ȱ different ȱ manner.
ȱ
M ¬ ori ȱ structures ȱ of ȱ land ȱ title ȱ proved ȱ to ȱ be ȱ particularly ȱ obscure ȱ to ȱ European ȱ eyes, ȱ and ȱ were ȱ the ȱ cause ȱ of ȱ much ȱ contention.
ȱ
“Ownership” ȱ in ȱ the ȱ European ȱ sense ȱ was ȱ not ȱ a ȱ concept ȱ easily ȱ applied ȱ to ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ land ȱ tenure.
ȱ For ȱ M ¬ ori, ȱ land ȱ belonged ȱ to ȱ the ȱ tribe ȱ (
) ȱ and ȱ sub Ȭ tribe ȱ (
Ā ), ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ being ȱ individual ȱ or ȱ
¬
ȱ (family) ȱ related.
8 ȱ This ȱ meant ȱ that ȱ although ȱ individuals ȱ and ȱ family ȱ groups ȱ could ȱ claim ȱ ‘ownership’ ȱ over ȱ certain ȱ pieces ȱ of ȱ land, ȱ the ȱ
ȱ and ȱ
Āȱ were ȱ involved ȱ in ȱ any ȱ decisions ȱ relating ȱ to ȱ its ȱ re Ȭ acquisition ȱ or ȱ exchange.
9 ȱ
Claims ȱ to ȱ land ȱ were ȱ closely ȱ associated ȱ with ȱ conquest, ȱ discovery ȱ and ȱ ancestral ȱ right.
10 ȱ
In ȱ addition ȱ to ȱ these, ȱ title ȱ (
) ȱ to ȱ ownership ȱ was ȱ especially ȱ linked ȱ to ȱ the ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ occupation ȱ – ȱ the ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ term ȱ
ȱ
¬ȱ (“lit ȱ fire”) ȱ encapsulating ȱ the ȱ idea ȱ that ȱ connection ȱ to ȱ the ȱ land ȱ was ȱ related ȱ to ȱ continual ȱ usage.
11 ȱ Interestingly, ȱ this ȱ concept ȱ is ȱ the ȱ inverse ȱ of ȱ the ȱ European ȱ impetus ȱ for ȱ surveying, ȱ which ȱ dictated ȱ land ȱ had ȱ first ȱ to ȱ be ȱ owned ȱ before ȱ it ȱ could ȱ be ȱ occupied.
ȱ
In ȱ general, ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ land ȱ was ȱ “owned” ȱ by ȱ the ȱ whole ȱ tribe ȱ and ȱ no ȱ one ȱ individual ȱ had ȱ the ȱ right ȱ to ȱ alienate ȱ any ȱ part ȱ of ȱ that ȱ land ȱ without ȱ special ȱ consent.
12 ȱ As ȱ Sir ȱ Hugh ȱ
Kawharu ȱ has ȱ written, ȱ the ȱ authority ȱ to ȱ administer ȱ land ȱ usage ȱ (stewardship) ȱ lay ȱ with ȱ community Ȭ appointed ȱ elders, ȱ who ȱ in ȱ turn ȱ answered ȱ to ȱ the ȱ
Āȱ as ȱ a ȱ whole.
13 ȱ In ȱ this ȱ sense ȱ individual ȱ or ȱ autonomous ȱ ownership ȱ of ȱ land ȱ was ȱ a ȱ foreign ȱ concept, ȱ as ȱ community ȱ sanctions ȱ and ȱ input ȱ were ȱ of ȱ the ȱ utmost ȱ importance: ȱ ȱ
The ȱ right ȱ of ȱ every ȱ individual ȱ to ȱ an ȱ equal ȱ share ȱ of ȱ his ȱ community’s ȱ resources ȱ was ȱ recognized ȱ by ȱ giving ȱ him ȱ rights ȱ of ȱ occupation ȱ or ȱ access ȱ to ȱ those ȱ resources.
ȱ These ȱ rights ȱ could ȱ not ȱ be ȱ taken ȱ away ȱ from ȱ him ȱ by ȱ anyone, ȱ even ȱ a ȱ chief, ȱ without ȱ the ȱ sanction ȱ of ȱ the ȱ community ȱ authority ȱ that ȱ assigned ȱ them.
14 ȱ ȱ
The ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ
, ȱ meaning ȱ ‘guardianship, ȱ conservation, ȱ fostering, ȱ protecting, ȱ sheltering’ 15 ȱ was ȱ also ȱ an ȱ important ȱ one.
ȱ
ȱ was ȱ different ȱ to ȱ the ȱ
European ȱ notion ȱ of ȱ ownership, ȱ as ȱ it ȱ clearly ȱ separated ȱ (European) ȱ notions ȱ of ȱ owning ȱ and ȱ controlling ȱ land ȱ from ȱ (M ¬ ori) ȱ ideas ȱ of ȱ belonging ȱ to ȱ and ȱ protecting ȱ it.
ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ also ȱ considered ȱ Mother ȱ Earth ȱ (
) ȱ to ȱ be ȱ an ȱ ancestor.
ȱ She ȱ was ȱ not ȱ property ȱ to ȱ be ȱ owned, ȱ and ȱ instead, ȱ humankind ȱ had ȱ user ȱ rights ȱ to ȱ her ȱ resources.
16 ȱ ȱȱ With ȱ the ȱ arrival ȱ of ȱ European ȱ settlers, ȱ missionaries ȱ and ȱ administrators, ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ were ȱ confronted ȱ with ȱ concepts ȱ of ȱ individual ȱ and ȱ private ȱ land ȱ ownership ȱ that ȱ did ȱ not ȱ easily ȱ fit ȱ their ȱ views ȱ of ȱ land Ȭ tenure ȱ and ȱ
.
ȱ Similarly, ȱ European ȱ authorities ȱ attempted ȱ to ȱ categorize ȱ a ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ land ȱ stewardship ȱ that ȱ seemed ȱ just ȱ as ȱ alien ȱ and ȱ incoherent.
ȱ Various ȱ Native ȱ Land ȱ Courts ȱ and ȱ governing ȱ bodies ȱ therefore ȱ attempted ȱ to ȱ create ȱ a ȱ system ȱ in ȱ which ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ conceptions ȱ of ȱ
ȱ and ȱ boundaries ȱ (which ȱ were ȱ often ȱ fluid ȱ and ȱ seemingly ȱ formless ȱ to ȱ European ȱ eyes) ȱ were ȱ articulated ȱ in ȱ terms ȱ of ȱ the ȱ European ȱ need ȱ for ȱ structure ȱ and ȱ fixity.
ȱ The ȱ result ȱ was ȱ a ȱ set ȱ of ȱ principal ȱ rights ȱ to ȱ land ȱ (discovery, ȱ ancestry, ȱ conquest ȱ or ȱ gift), ȱ which ȱ had ȱ to ȱ be ȱ ‘proved ȱ before ȱ a ȱ claimant ȱ [could] ȱ be ȱ said ȱ to ȱ have ȱ established ȱ a ȱ claim ȱ conclusively’.
17 ȱ
66 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

The ȱ difference ȱ between ȱ European ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ conceptions ȱ of ȱ land ȱ was ȱ also ȱ exemplified ȱ by ȱ the ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ for ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ land ȱ was ȱ not ȱ just ȱ a ȱ commodity ȱ to ȱ be ȱ mapped ȱ
— ȱ it ȱ was ȱ in ȱ itself ȱ a ȱ map.
ȱ As ȱ Te ȱ Aue ȱ Davis, ȱ T.
ȱ O’Regan ȱ and ȱ J.
ȱ Wilson ȱ write: ȱ ȱ
The ȱ names ȱ in ȱ the ȱ landscape ȱ were ȱ like ȱ survey ȱ pegs ȱ of ȱ memory, ȱ marking ȱ the ȱ events ȱ that ȱ happened ȱ in ȱ a ȱ particular ȱ place, ȱ recording ȱ some ȱ aspect ȱ or ȱ feature ȱ of ȱ the ȱ traditions ȱ and ȱ history ȱ of ȱ a ȱ tribe…The ȱ daily ȱ use ȱ of ȱ such ȱ place ȱ names ȱ meant ȱ that ȱ the ȱ history ȱ was ȱ always ȱ present, ȱ always ȱ available.
ȱ In ȱ this ȱ sense ȱ living ȱ and ȱ traveling ȱ reinforced ȱ the ȱ histories ȱ of ȱ the ȱ people.
18 ȱȱ ȱ
The ȱ colonial ȱ imperative ȱ of ȱ mapping, ȱ marking ȱ and ȱ inscribing ȱ land ȱ was ȱ inextricable ȱ from ȱ surveying ȱ in ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand.
ȱ Surveying ȱ was ȱ symptomatic ȱ of ȱ
European ȱ perceptions ȱ of ȱ ordering ȱ and ȱ viewing ȱ the ȱ world, ȱ and ȱ related ȱ closely ȱ to ȱ what ȱ
Giselle ȱ Byrnes ȱ has ȱ called ȱ ‘the ȱ larger ȱ enterprise ȱ of ȱ colonisation ȱ though ȱ language’.
19 ȱȱ
Just ȱ as ȱ European ȱ notions ȱ of ȱ “civilization” ȱ and ȱ “history” ȱ relied ȱ heavily ȱ on ȱ the ȱ authority ȱ and ȱ authenticity ȱ of ȱ the ȱ written ȱ word, ȱ so ȱ too ȱ did ȱ the ȱ appropriation ȱ of ȱ land.
ȱ
Not ȱ only ȱ was ȱ land ȱ written ȱ about ȱ (in ȱ literary ȱ works, ȱ travelogues, ȱ scientific ȱ writing, ȱ and ȱ survey ȱ records), ȱ it ȱ was ȱ also ȱ written ȱ on.
ȱ Boundaries ȱ were ȱ made ȱ visible, ȱ particularly ȱ with ȱ the ȱ building ȱ of ȱ fences ȱ and ȱ permanent ȱ structures.
ȱ The ȱ ultimate ȱ goal ȱ of ȱ turning ȱ New ȱ Zealand’s ȱ forested ȱ lands ȱ into ȱ ‘smiling ȱ fields’ 20 ȱ was ȱ another ȱ way ȱ in ȱ which ȱ land ȱ was ȱ inscribed ȱ with ȱ European ȱ meaning.
ȱ Yet, ȱ just ȱ as ȱ the ȱ physicality ȱ of ȱ a ȱ boundary ȱ was ȱ important, ȱ boundaries ȱ that ȱ existed ȱ only ȱ on ȱ a ȱ page ȱ were ȱ equally ȱ as ȱ significant.
ȱ The ȱ naming ȱ of ȱ places ȱ and ȱ the ȱ mapping ȱ of ȱ land ȱ were ȱ two ȱ of ȱ the ȱ most ȱ critical ȱ factors ȱ in ȱ turning ȱ physical ȱ land ȱ into ȱ perceptual ȱ landscape: ȱ ȱ
Names ȱ domesticated, ȱ memorialised ȱ and ȱ celebrated ȱ the ȱ British ȱ settler ȱ presence…Maps ȱ are ȱ powerful ȱ ideological ȱ constructs: ȱ they ȱ are ȱ textual ȱ representations ȱ of ȱ culturally ȱ specific ȱ perspectives ȱ of ȱ land, ȱ and ȱ they ȱ often ȱ reveal ȱ more ȱ about ȱ the ȱ map Ȭ maker ȱ than ȱ they ȱ do ȱ about ȱ the ȱ mapped.
21 ȱȱ ȱ
Mapping ȱ and ȱ naming ȱ were ȱ two ȱ important ȱ ways ȱ in ȱ which ȱ colonial ȱ authorities ȱ sought ȱ to ȱ appropriate ȱ indigenous ȱ land ȱ and ȱ assert ȱ their ȱ authority.
ȱ This ȱ becomes ȱ especially ȱ clear ȱ when ȱ looking ȱ at ȱ the ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ most ȱ surveyors ȱ employed ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ guides ȱ to ȱ help ȱ them ȱ navigate ȱ throughout ȱ the ȱ country.
ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ would ȱ lead ȱ the ȱ survey ȱ party ȱ to ȱ particular ȱ landmarks, ȱ only ȱ to ȱ have ȱ these ȱ places ȱ “discovered” ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Europeans ȱ in ȱ the ȱ group.
ȱ As ȱ Mary ȱ Louise ȱ Pratt, ȱ discussing ȱ colonial ȱ encounters ȱ in ȱ general ȱ has ȱ stated: ȱ ȱ
As ȱ a ȱ rule ȱ the ȱ “discovery” ȱ of ȱ sites… ȱ involved ȱ making ȱ one’s ȱ way ȱ to ȱ the ȱ region ȱ and ȱ asking ȱ the ȱ local ȱ inhabitants ȱ if ȱ they ȱ knew ȱ of ȱ any ȱ big ȱ lakes, ȱ etc.
ȱ in ȱ the ȱ area, ȱ then ȱ hiring ȱ them ȱ to ȱ take ȱ you ȱ there, ȱ whereupon ȱ with ȱ their ȱ guidance ȱ and ȱ support, ȱ you ȱ proceeded ȱ to ȱ discover ȱ what ȱ they ȱ already ȱ knew.
ȱ 22 ȱ ȱ
An ȱ example ȱ of ȱ one ȱ such ȱ surveyor ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ was ȱ the ȱ famous ȱ Charles ȱ Heaphy.
ȱ
His ȱ ‘adventurous ȱ exploits’ 23 ȱ took ȱ him ȱ all ȱ over ȱ New ȱ Zealand, ȱ and ȱ on ȱ one ȱ of ȱ his ȱ most ȱ notable ȱ exploratory ȱ journeys ȱ Heaphy, ȱ accompanied ȱ by ȱ two ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ
, ȱ ‘discovered ȱ
Lake ȱ Rotorua ȱ and ȱ the ȱ upper ȱ part ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Buller ȱ River ȱ and ȱ its ȱ tributaries’.
24 ȱ One ȱ of ȱ the ȱ reasons ȱ why ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ were ȱ not ȱ officially ȱ credited ȱ with ȱ the ȱ discovery ȱ of ȱ places ȱ was ȱ the ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ authority, ȱ at ȱ that ȱ time, ȱ lay ȱ in ȱ literacy ȱ and ȱ writing.
ȱ Surveying, ȱ as ȱ an ȱ official ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 67

means ȱ of ȱ documenting ȱ in ȱ writing ȱ the ȱ characteristics ȱ of ȱ land, ȱ took ȱ precedence ȱ over ȱ the ȱ oral ȱ or ȱ mental ȱ maps ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori.
ȱ For ȱ colonial ȱ administrators ȱ the ȱ connection ȱ between ȱ the ȱ authority ȱ of ȱ the ȱ written ȱ word ȱ and ȱ inscription ȱ of ȱ land ȱ was ȱ undeniable.
ȱ
Just ȱ as ȱ the ȱ written ȱ historical ȱ narrative ȱ was ȱ given ȱ authority ȱ over ȱ oral ȱ accounts, ȱ boundaries ȱ inscribed ȱ by ȱ Europeans ȱ also ȱ created ȱ a ȱ sense ȱ of ȱ ‘deep ȱ possession’.
25 ȱ This ȱ deep ȱ possession ȱ embraced ȱ the ȱ ‘scientific ȱ vocabularies ȱ of ȱ geology ȱ and ȱ surveying’, ȱ which ȱ Isabel ȱ Hofmeyr ȱ describes ȱ as ȱ generating ȱ a ȱ ‘saturated ȱ knowledge ȱ of ȱ the ȱ earth ȱ that ȱ stretches ȱ both ȱ horizontally ȱ and ȱ vertically’.
26 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ particularly ȱ relevant ȱ when ȱ looking ȱ at ȱ surveys, ȱ which ȱ were ȱ generally ȱ marked ȱ on ȱ the ȱ land ȱ through ȱ the ȱ use ȱ of ȱ pegs ȱ
– ȱ generating ȱ boundary ȱ lines ȱ both ȱ horizontally ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ vertically ȱ (below ȱ the ȱ earth).
ȱ
This ȱ seems ȱ to ȱ have ȱ been ȱ a ȱ particularly ȱ important ȱ concept ȱ to ȱ surveyors.
ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ
(who ȱ I ȱ will ȱ discuss ȱ later ȱ in ȱ the ȱ article) ȱ was ȱ said ȱ to ȱ have ȱ ‘fallen ȱ foul’ ȱ with ȱ Chief ȱ
Surveyor ȱ Percy ȱ Smith ȱ for ȱ using ȱ a ȱ piece ȱ of ȱ pumice ȱ (sitting ȱ above ȱ ground) ȱ instead ȱ of ȱ a ȱ more ȱ durable ȱ Totara ȱ peg ȱ (penetrating ȱ below ȱ the ȱ surface) ȱ to ȱ mark ȱ a ȱ permanent ȱ boundary.
27 ȱ
Ironically, ȱ whilst ȱ Europeans ȱ endorsed ȱ the ȱ view ȱ that ȱ the ȱ written ȱ took ȱ precedence ȱ over ȱ the ȱ oral ȱ — ȱ the ȱ physical ȱ over ȱ the ȱ metaphysical ȱ — ȱ survey ȱ lines ȱ were ȱ nothing ȱ more ȱ than ȱ
ȱ boundaries.
ȱ As ȱ Nola ȱ Easdale ȱ has ȱ written: ȱ ‘surveyors ȱ would ȱ weave ȱ their ȱ web ȱ of ȱ invisible ȱ lines ȱ in ȱ triangles ȱ across ȱ the ȱ country’.
28 ȱ This ȱ meant ȱ that ȱ survey ȱ boundaries ȱ were ȱ no ȱ more ȱ “authentic” ȱ or ȱ “real” ȱ than ȱ the ȱ pre Ȭ existing ȱ boundaries ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ used ȱ to ȱ define ȱ their ȱ territories.
ȱ When ȱ boundaries ȱ were ȱ created ȱ by ȱ surveyors ȱ they ȱ were ȱ done ȱ so ȱ on ȱ a ȱ page, ȱ not ȱ the ȱ land ȱ itself.
ȱ These ȱ ‘fantasies ȱ of ȱ possession’ 29 ȱ as ȱ Hofmeyr ȱ calls ȱ them, ȱ created ȱ major ȱ problems ȱ when ȱ the ȱ neat ȱ lines ȱ and ȱ measurements ȱ drawn ȱ on ȱ flat ȱ clean ȱ pages ȱ were ȱ imported ȱ onto ȱ rugged, ȱ unpredictable ȱ lands.
ȱ Writing ȱ about ȱ surveying ȱ in ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ South ȱ Africa, ȱ she ȱ states: ȱ ȱ
Once ȱ on ȱ the ȱ earth, ȱ however, ȱ they ȱ became ȱ much ȱ less ȱ clear ȱ cut.
ȱ Unlike ȱ the ȱ printed ȱ page, ȱ the ȱ countryside ȱ is ȱ seldom ȱ smooth ȱ or ȱ flat, ȱ and ȱ once ȱ one ȱ has ȱ to ȱ transfer ȱ the ȱ boundary ȱ ȱ line ȱ of ȱ the ȱ diagram ȱ into ȱ the ȱ reality ȱ of ȱ the ȱ veld ȱ there ȱ are, ȱ of ȱ course, ȱ rivers, ȱ hills, ȱ trees ȱ and ȱ bumps ȱ to ȱ confound ȱ the ȱ best Ȭ laid ȱ plans.
30 ȱ
The ȱ colonial ȱ idea ȱ that ȱ land ȱ was ȱ a ȱ passive ȱ entity ȱ that ȱ could ȱ be ȱ manipulated ȱ and ȱ moulded ȱ to ȱ suit ȱ certain ȱ requirements ȱ frequently ȱ ran ȱ into ȱ problems.
ȱ Colonial ȱ authorities ȱ often ȱ viewed ȱ indigenous ȱ peoples ȱ in ȱ the ȱ same ȱ manner, ȱ and ȱ similarly ȱ encountered ȱ problems ȱ in ȱ the ȱ face ȱ of ȱ indigenous ȱ resistance.
ȱ Resistance ȱ to ȱ surveying ȱ occurred ȱ all ȱ over ȱ New ȱ Zealand, ȱ and ȱ many ȱ land ȱ movements, ȱ notably ȱ the ȱ
ȱ in ȱ the ȱ North ȱ Island, ȱ proved ȱ that ȱ both ȱ the ȱ land ȱ and ȱ the ȱ peoples ȱ of ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ were ȱ ȱ not ȱ as ȱ easily ȱ colonized ȱ as ȱ it ȱ may ȱ have ȱ seemed ȱ on ȱ paper.
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
It ȱ was ȱ during ȱ the ȱ colonial ȱ period, ȱ when ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ dispersed ȱ across ȱ New ȱ
Zealand, ȱ that ȱ many ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ first ȱ came ȱ into ȱ regular ȱ contact ȱ with ȱ Europeans.
ȱ M ¬ ori, ȱ in ȱ fact, ȱ were ȱ often ȱ employed ȱ by ȱ surveyors ȱ as ȱ guides ȱ and ȱ labourers ȱ and ȱ played ȱ a ȱ crucial ȱ role ȱ in ȱ helping ȱ European ȱ surveyors ȱ navigate ȱ their ȱ way ȱ across ȱ the ȱ country: ȱ ‘Maori ȱ who ȱ guided ȱ the ȱ European ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ often ȱ called ȱ by ȱ them ȱ “the ȱ compass”’.
31 ȱ In ȱ return ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ gave ȱ surveyors ȱ the ȱ name ȱ of ȱ
, ȱ meaning ȱ ‘to ȱ measure’.
ȱ 32 ȱ This ȱ relationship ȱ contributed ȱ greatly ȱ to ȱ the ȱ early ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ collection ȱ of ȱ ethnographic ȱ
68 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

knowledge ȱ about ȱ M ¬ ori.
ȱ Men ȱ remembered ȱ today ȱ as ȱ great ȱ ethnographers ȱ such ȱ as ȱ S.
ȱ
Percy ȱ Smith, ȱ W.H.
ȱ Skinner ȱ and ȱ Edward ȱ Tregear, ȱ were ȱ actually ȱ surveyors ȱ by ȱ trade ȱ and ȱ most ȱ of ȱ their ȱ knowledge ȱ about ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ was ȱ amassed ȱ whilst ȱ in ȱ the ȱ field.
ȱ Byrnes ȱ notes ȱ the ȱ irony ȱ of ȱ this ȱ when ȱ she ȱ argues ȱ that: ȱ ȱ
[While] ȱ Skinner, ȱ Smith ȱ and ȱ Tregear ȱ were ȱ engaged ȱ in ȱ the ȱ physical ȱ transformation ȱ of ȱ the ȱ natural ȱ landscape, ȱ they ȱ were ȱ simultaneously ȱ involved ȱ in ȱ the ȱ textual ȱ conservation ȱ of ȱ its ȱ indigenous ȱ inhabitants.
33 ȱ ȱ
It ȱ could ȱ be ȱ argued ȱ that ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ surveying ȱ and ȱ ethnography ȱ were ȱ not ȱ totally ȱ dissimilar ȱ – ȱ both ȱ were ȱ concerned ȱ with ȱ ordering ȱ and ȱ categorizing ȱ the ȱ world, ȱ through ȱ acts ȱ of ȱ representation ȱ and ȱ authority.
ȱȱ
Surveying ȱ in ȱ the ȱ colonial ȱ period ȱ was ȱ often ȱ a ȱ means ȱ through ȱ which ȱ middle ȱ class ȱ men ȱ could ȱ enact ȱ the ȱ heroic ȱ role ȱ of ȱ “adventurer”.
ȱ Throughout ȱ the ȱ British ȱ Empire, ȱ from ȱ Africa ȱ to ȱ India ȱ to ȱ Oceania, ȱ young ȱ men ȱ signed ȱ up ȱ to ȱ explore ȱ the ȱ “interiors” ȱ and ȱ
“hinterlands” ȱ of ȱ far Ȭ flung ȱ colonies.
ȱ Just ȱ as ȱ the ȱ literature ȱ of ȱ the ȱ time ȱ celebrated ȱ the ȱ idea ȱ of ȱ journeying ȱ into ȱ unexplored ȱ dark ȱ interiors, ȱ it ȱ similarly ȱ portrayed ȱ images ȱ of ȱ encounters ȱ with ȱ the ȱ Other, ȱ or ȱ as ȱ one ȱ man ȱ put ȱ it, ȱ the ȱ ‘dark ȱ multitude’.
34 ȱ Surveyors ȱ would ȱ no ȱ doubt ȱ have ȱ been ȱ avid ȱ readers ȱ of ȱ the ȱ popular ȱ literature ȱ and ȱ travelogues ȱ of ȱ the ȱ time ȱ Ȭȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ surveyor ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ even ȱ mentioned ȱ writing ȱ to ȱ acclaimed ȱ African ȱ explorer ȱ H.M.
ȱ Stanley, ȱ in ȱ one ȱ of ȱ his ȱ field Ȭ journals ȱ from ȱ the ȱ late ȱ ȱ
1870s: ȱ ȱ
Sent ȱ a ȱ letter ȱ to ȱ H.M
ȱ Stanley ȱ offering ȱ my ȱ services ȱ as ȱ volunteer ȱ to ȱ go ȱ across ȱ Africa… 35 ȱ
Surveyors’ ȱ own ȱ adventures ȱ in ȱ the ȱ colonies ȱ were ȱ frequently ȱ put ȱ to ȱ print ȱ in ȱ the ȱ form ȱ of ȱ diaries ȱ and ȱ field Ȭ journals.
ȱ As ȱ is ȱ the ȱ case ȱ with ȱ a ȱ number ȱ of ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ surveyors, ȱ these ȱ diaries ȱ were ȱ at ȱ times ȱ published ȱ back ȱ in ȱ England 36 .
ȱ This ȱ is ȱ clearly ȱ yet ȱ another ȱ extension ȱ of ȱ Byrnes’ ȱ idea ȱ of ȱ ‘colonisation ȱ though ȱ language’ 37 ȱ
Many ȱ early ȱ surveyors ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ were ȱ considered ȱ explorers ȱ and ȱ the ȱ words ȱ ‘discovery’ ȱ and ȱ ‘surveying’ ȱ therefore ȱ tended ȱ to ȱ go ȱ hand ȱ in ȱ hand.
ȱ As ȱ Byrnes ȱ writes: ȱ ȱ
The ȱ early ȱ surveyors ȱ are ȱ presented ȱ as ȱ willing ȱ actors ȱ in ȱ the ȱ theatre ȱ of ȱ conquest ȱ and ȱ are ȱ accorded ȱ the ȱ heroic ȱ role ȱ of ȱ ‘explorer’ ȱ as ȱ the ȱ curtain ȱ rises ȱ on ȱ each ȱ of ȱ their ȱ ‘discoveries’.
ȱ
These ȱ narratives ȱ firmly ȱ locate ȱ the ȱ achievements ȱ of ȱ the ȱ surveyor Ȭ explorer ȱ within ȱ the ȱ context ȱ of ȱ a ȱ future ȱ national ȱ history: ȱ surveyors ȱ are ȱ presented ȱ as ȱ unsung ȱ heroes ȱ whose ȱ efforts ȱ should ȱ be ȱ recognised ȱ along ȱ with ȱ those ȱ of ȱ soldiers ȱ and ȱ statesmen.
38 ȱ ȱ
The ȱ trope ȱ of ȱ surveyor Ȭ discoverer Ȭ explorer ȱ was ȱ repeated ȱ throughout ȱ the ȱ Empire.
ȱ Yet ȱ while ȱ colonial ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ the ȱ heroic ȱ figures ȱ of ȱ European ȱ expansion, ȱ indigenous ȱ populations ȱ simultaneously ȱ regarded ȱ them ȱ as ȱ symbols ȱ of ȱ land ȱ alienation ȱ and ȱ disruption.
ȱ As ȱ Nola ȱ Easdale ȱ writes: ȱ ‘Kairuri, ȱ as ȱ the ȱ measurer ȱ of ȱ land, ȱ became ȱ a ȱ symbol ȱ to ȱ Maori ȱ of ȱ all ȱ that ȱ was ȱ perceived ȱ as ȱ unjust ȱ in ȱ their ȱ dealing ȱ with ȱ governor ȱ and ȱ government’.
39 ȱ Not ȱ only ȱ were ȱ surveyors ȱ regarded ȱ with ȱ great ȱ suspicion, ȱ local ȱ indigenous ȱ populations ȱ also ȱ imbued ȱ the ȱ instruments ȱ of ȱ surveying ȱ with ȱ negative ȱ meanings.
ȱ Easdale ȱ notes ȱ that ȱ the ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ name ȱ for ȱ the ȱ theodolite ȱ (the ȱ instrument ȱ used ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 69

by ȱ surveyors ȱ in ȱ obtaining ȱ measurements) ȱ was ȱ
ȱ or ȱ
, ȱ a ȱ European ȱ corruption ȱ of ȱ the ȱ word ȱ
, ȱ meaning ȱ ‘goblin, ȱ demon, ȱ object ȱ of ȱ terror’.
40 ȱ The ȱ theodolite ȱ was ȱ therefore ȱ just ȱ as ȱ much ȱ a ȱ symbol ȱ for ȱ land ȱ loss ȱ as ȱ the ȱ surveyor ȱ was.
ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Even ȱ though ȱ surveying ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ directly ȱ represented ȱ the ȱ colonizing ȱ ȱ intentions ȱ of ȱ the ȱ crown, ȱ with ȱ European ȱ domination ȱ and ȱ authority ȱ in ȱ mind, ȱ surveyors ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ European ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ worlds.
ȱ Surveyors ȱ spent ȱ extended ȱ periods ȱ of ȱ time ȱ in ȱ the ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ bush ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ guides ȱ and ȱ surveying ȱ gangs, ȱ eventually ȱ learning ȱ much ȱ about ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ language ȱ and ȱ culture.
ȱ Some ȱ surveyors ȱ married ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ women ȱ and ȱ became ȱ members ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ communities.
ȱ This ȱ raises ȱ the ȱ interesting ȱ question ȱ of ȱ how ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ able ȱ to ȱ reconcile ȱ their ȱ movements ȱ across ȱ boundaries.
ȱ On ȱ one ȱ side ȱ they ȱ were ȱ overt ȱ proponents ȱ of ȱ colonialism; ȱ on ȱ the ȱ other, ȱ accepted ȱ members ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ communities: ȱȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ individuals ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ emissaries ȱ of ȱ change…Indeed, ȱ some ȱ questioned ȱ the ȱ efficacy ȱ of ȱ colonisation, ȱ especially ȱ its ȱ less ȱ than ȱ humanitarian ȱ effects, ȱ and ȱ debated ȱ or ȱ challenged ȱ the ȱ assumptions ȱ of ȱ their ȱ own ȱ society.
ȱ The ȱ colonial ȱ land ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ not ȱ simply ȱ indistinguishable ȱ components ȱ of ȱ a ȱ monolithic ȱ system, ȱ but ȱ individuals ȱ who ȱ were ȱ anything ȱ but ȱ innocent ȱ sources ȱ of ȱ information.
ȱ They ȱ were ȱ human ȱ beings ȱ every ȱ bit ȱ as ȱ complex ȱ and ȱ self Ȭ contradictory ȱ as ȱ ourselves.
41 ȱ ȱ
Many ȱ surveyors ȱ had ȱ strong ȱ links ȱ to ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ communities, ȱ through ȱ both ȱ friendship ȱ and ȱ marriage, ȱ and ȱ had ȱ close ȱ working ȱ and ȱ personal ȱ relationships ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ they ȱ met ȱ throughout ȱ the ȱ country.
ȱ As ȱ J.B
ȱ Mackie ȱ (Emeritus ȱ Professor ȱ of ȱ Surveying ȱ at ȱ the ȱ
University ȱ of ȱ Otago) ȱ states: ȱ ‘…I ȱ believe, ȱ that ȱ few ȱ Europeans ȱ had ȱ such ȱ close ȱ relations ȱ with ȱ the ȱ Maori ȱ as ȱ those ȱ early ȱ surveyors ȱ — ȱ the ȱ Kairuri.
ȱ They ȱ understood ȱ each ȱ other… ȱ
[yet] ȱ theirs ȱ was ȱ a ȱ “pig Ȭ in Ȭ the Ȭ middle” ȱ situation ȱ with ȱ a ȱ vengeance’.
42 ȱ
Some ȱ surveyors ȱ left ȱ very ȱ interesting ȱ accounts ȱ of ȱ their ȱ interactions ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori.
ȱ
These ȱ accounts ȱ were ȱ often ȱ matter Ȭ of Ȭ fact, ȱ and ȱ dealt ȱ with ȱ everyday ȱ life.
ȱ What ȱ is ȱ clear ȱ in ȱ both ȱ the ȱ published ȱ and ȱ non Ȭ published ȱ survey ȱ accounts, ȱ is ȱ that ȱ many ȱ surveyors ȱ found ȱ their ȱ position ȱ exceedingly ȱ difficult ȱ at ȱ times ȱ as ȱ they ȱ were ȱ compelled ȱ to ȱ answer ȱ to ȱ both ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ European ȱ concerns.
ȱ As ȱ Easdale ȱ notes, ȱ many ȱ surveyors ȱ despaired ȱ at ȱ the ȱ negative ȱ reactions ȱ they ȱ induced ȱ in ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ communities, ȱ and ȱ their ȱ label ȱ as ȱ ‘the ȱ hated ȱ class ȱ of ȱ grasping ȱ white ȱ man’.
43 ȱ Percy ȱ Smith ȱ made ȱ this ȱ difficulty ȱ clear ȱ when ȱ he ȱ wrote: ȱ ‘[It ȱ was ȱ not] ȱ ours ȱ to ȱ reason ȱ why, ȱ ours ȱ [was] ȱ to ȱ obey ȱ orders ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Government ȱ whose ȱ aegis ȱ was ȱ over ȱ them ȱ and ȱ us’.
44 ȱȱ
Surveyors ȱ frequently ȱ lived ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ two ȱ different ȱ cultures ȱ – ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ European.
ȱ While ȱ they ȱ tramped ȱ all ȱ over ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ marking ȱ out ȱ boundaries, ȱ they ȱ also ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ shuttling ȱ between ȱ two ȱ countering ȱ world Ȭ views.
ȱ A ȱ little Ȭ known ȱ man ȱ named ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ one ȱ such ȱ surveyor, ȱ and ȱ his ȱ life ȱ was ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ movements ȱ in ȱ and ȱ out ȱ of ȱ European ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ worlds.
ȱ Arriving ȱ in ȱ
New ȱ Zealand ȱ as ȱ an ȱ outsider ȱ and ȱ surveyor, ȱ Mace ȱ gradually ȱ made ȱ his ȱ way ȱ into ȱ the ȱ
M ¬ ori Ȭ controlled ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ before ȱ settling ȱ in ȱ Otorohanga.
ȱ His ȱ position ȱ as ȱ a ȱ
European ȱ surveyor ȱ often ȱ meant ȱ he ȱ came ȱ face Ȭ to Ȭ face ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ opposition; ȱ yet ȱ it ȱ also ȱ gave ȱ him ȱ the ȱ opportunity ȱ to ȱ make ȱ contacts ȱ within ȱ the ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ world, ȱ and ȱ establish ȱ himself ȱ as ȱ a ȱ respected ȱ member ȱ of ȱ both ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ȱ communities ȱ in ȱ
70 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

the ȱ King ȱ Country.
ȱ Surveying ȱ was ȱ a ȱ means ȱ through ȱ which ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ could ȱ interact ȱ with ȱ both ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ Europeans, ȱ positioning ȱ himself ȱ in ȱ the ȱ middle ȱ of ȱ these ȱ two ȱ social ȱ realms.
ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Fred ȱ Mace ȱ did ȱ not ȱ attain ȱ great ȱ recognition ȱ and ȱ fame ȱ during ȱ his ȱ lifetime, ȱ although ȱ he ȱ was ȱ credited ȱ with ȱ the ȱ “discovery” ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Waitomo ȱ Caves ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ in ȱ the ȱ late ȱ nineteenth ȱ century.
ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ an ȱ avid ȱ diarist ȱ and ȱ journal ȱ writer, ȱ and ȱ much ȱ of ȱ the ȱ information ȱ about ȱ his ȱ life ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ emanates ȱ from ȱ these ȱ personal ȱ accounts.
ȱ
He ȱ recorded ȱ many ȱ details ȱ about ȱ everyday ȱ interactions ȱ and ȱ life ȱ as ȱ a ȱ surveyor ȱ in ȱ New ȱ
Zealand, ȱ covering ȱ a ȱ period ȱ of ȱ almost ȱ 50 ȱ years ȱ from ȱ 1876 ȱ to ȱ 1921.
ȱ The ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ where ȱ Mace ȱ spent ȱ much ȱ of ȱ his ȱ life, ȱ was ȱ a ȱ guarded ȱ area ȱ usually ȱ out ȱ of ȱ bounds ȱ to ȱ
Europeans ȱ — ȱ especially ȱ surveyors.
ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ allowed ȱ access ȱ to ȱ the ȱ King ȱ
Country ȱ however, ȱ and ȱ lived ȱ within ȱ the ȱ realms ȱ of ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori Ȭ controlled ȱ “kingdom”, ȱ marrying ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ woman.
ȱ Mace ȱ therefore ȱ not ȱ only ȱ measured ȱ and ȱ created ȱ boundaries ȱ
(as ȱ a ȱ surveyor), ȱ he ȱ also ȱ pushed ȱ certain ȱ social ȱ boundaries, ȱ living ȱ his ȱ life ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundary ȱ between ȱ two ȱ distinct ȱ cultural ȱ worlds.
ȱ
Frederick ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ born ȱ in ȱ Weymouth, ȱ England, ȱ in ȱ 1848.
ȱ He ȱ was ȱ the ȱ son ȱ of ȱ
Septimus ȱ Mace ȱ (a ȱ draper) ȱ and ȱ Caroline ȱ Wallace.
ȱ At ȱ 15 ȱ Mace ȱ left ȱ school ȱ and ȱ became ȱ an ȱ apprentice ȱ sailor ȱ under ȱ John ȱ Temperley ȱ of ȱ London.
45 ȱ Mace ȱ then ȱ worked ȱ on ȱ a ȱ number ȱ of ȱ ships, ȱ travelling ȱ to ȱ India ȱ and ȱ then ȱ the ȱ penal ȱ settlement ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Andaman ȱ
Islands, ȱ with ȱ the ȱ East ȱ India ȱ Company.
ȱ Sometime ȱ between ȱ 1874 ȱ and ȱ 1875 ȱ he ȱ left ȱ the ȱ
Andaman ȱ Islands, ȱ and ȱ made ȱ his ȱ way ȱ to ȱ Australia.
ȱ From ȱ Melbourne ȱ Mace ȱ signed ȱ on ȱ to ȱ the ȱ
ȱ
, ȱ a ȱ settler ȱ ship ȱ which ȱ eventually ȱ arrived ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand, ȱ in ȱ
March ȱ 1876.
ȱ It ȱ was ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ that ȱ Mace ȱ then ȱ embarked ȱ on ȱ a ȱ long ȱ career ȱ as ȱ a ȱ surveyor, ȱ mostly ȱ working ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ and ȱ Waikato ȱ regions ȱ of ȱ the ȱ North ȱ
Island.
46 ȱ
The ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ at ȱ this ȱ time, ȱ was ȱ a ȱ guarded ȱ and ȱ clearly ȱ defined ȱ area ȱ under ȱ the ȱ control ȱ of ȱ the ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ King, ȱ and ȱ a ȱ unified ȱ bloc ȱ of ȱ Waikato ȱ tribes ȱ named ȱ the ȱ
.
ȱ The ȱ
ȱ movement ȱ had ȱ its ȱ roots ȱ in ȱ the ȱ land ȱ confiscations ȱ of ȱ the ȱ
1850s, ȱ when ȱ much ȱ of ȱ the ȱ highly ȱ arable ȱ land ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Waikato ȱ was ȱ forcibly ȱ confiscated ȱ by ȱ the ȱ British ȱ Crown.
ȱ This ȱ crisis ȱ prompted ȱ a ȱ meeting ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ tribes ȱ in ȱ the ȱ area, ȱ and ȱ at ȱ an ȱ 1858 ȱ
ȱ (meeting) ȱ in ȱ Ngaruawahia ȱ the ȱ Ngati ȱ Mahuta ȱ
ȱ (paramount ȱ leader) ȱ
Te ȱ Wherowhero ȱ was ȱ installed ȱ as ȱ the ȱ first ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ King, ȱ in ȱ an ȱ act ȱ intended ȱ to ȱ unite ȱ the ȱ various ȱ tribes ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Waikato ȱ against ȱ the ȱ Crown.
47 ȱ The ȱ
ȱ fought ȱ against ȱ the ȱ
Crown ȱ during ȱ the ȱ Waikato ȱ Wars ȱ of ȱ 1860s, ȱ eventually ȱ retreating ȱ into ȱ the ȱ tribal ȱ lands ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Ngati ȱ Maniapoto, 48 ȱ which ȱ later ȱ became ȱ known ȱ as ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ or ȱ
ȱ
49 ȱ
As ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ movement ȱ distinctly ȱ related ȱ to ȱ retaining ȱ control ȱ of ȱ tribal ȱ lands, ȱ the ȱ
ȱ was ȱ obviously ȱ anti Ȭ surveying.
ȱ Europeans ȱ were ȱ discouraged ȱ from ȱ crossing ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ boundaries, ȱ and ȱ border ȱ settlements ȱ such ȱ as ȱ Te ȱ Awamutu ȱ (on ȱ the ȱ
Crown’s ȱ side ȱ of ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ boundary), ȱ often ȱ resembled ȱ frontier ȱ settlements, ȱ where ȱ men ȱ armed ȱ with ȱ guns ȱ for ȱ protection ȱ and ȱ families ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ guarded ȱ block ȱ houses.
50 Survey ȱ parties ȱ who ȱ tried ȱ to ȱ cross ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ border ȱ often ȱ ran ȱ into ȱ trouble.
ȱ Forms ȱ of ȱ non Ȭ violent ȱ resistance ȱ were ȱ common; ȱ survey ȱ pegs ȱ were ȱ frequently ȱ pulled ȱ up ȱ by ȱ M ¬ ori, ȱ or ȱ trig ȱ stations ȱ demolished.
51 ȱ Occasionally ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ even ȱ taken ȱ hostage ȱ or ȱ killed, ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ noting ȱ one ȱ such ȱ occurrence ȱ in ȱ his ȱ 1878 ȱ diary: ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 71

‘[T]he ȱ natives ȱ shot ȱ a ȱ European ȱ McLean, ȱ belonging ȱ to ȱ a ȱ survey ȱ party ȱ on ȱ the ȱ Wamate ȱ
Plains.’ 52 ȱ Mace’s ȱ geographical ȱ location ȱ within ȱ the ȱ
ȱ
ȱ therefore ȱ added ȱ an ȱ extra ȱ dimension ȱ to ȱ the ȱ boundary ȱ trope ȱ that ȱ pervaded ȱ his ȱ life ȱ as ȱ a ȱ surveyor; ȱ as ȱ did ȱ his ȱ social ȱ position ȱ as ȱ a ȱ European ȱ man ȱ married ȱ to ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ woman.
ȱ Mace’s ȱ diaries ȱ show ȱ how ȱ he ȱ not ȱ only ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ and ȱ around ȱ the ȱ
ȱ (boundary ȱ line) ȱ of ȱ the ȱ
ȱ
; ȱ they ȱ also ȱ chart ȱ his ȱ movements ȱ in ȱ and ȱ out ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ European ȱ social ȱ worlds, ȱ constantly ȱ crossing ȱ between ȱ the ȱ two.
ȱ Significantly, ȱ as ȱ a ȱ European ȱ man ȱ living ȱ and ȱ working ȱ within ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ Mace ȱ had ȱ also ȱ crossed ȱ over ȱ one ȱ of ȱ the ȱ most ȱ rigidly ȱ defined ȱ
(and ȱ guarded) ȱ boundaries ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ — ȱ the ȱ
ȱ line.
ȱ
On ȱ a ȱ more ȱ ideological ȱ level, ȱ Mace ȱ also ȱ crossed ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ what ȱ was ȱ considered ȱ normal ȱ European ȱ behaviour ȱ for ȱ that ȱ time, ȱ marrying ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ woman ȱ and ȱ spending ȱ much ȱ of ȱ his ȱ later ȱ life ȱ in ȱ a ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ
¬
ȱ (village).
ȱ Mace’s ȱ many ȱ different ȱ relationships ȱ with ȱ people ȱ who ȱ fell ȱ into ȱ the ȱ category ȱ of ȱ the ȱ ‘Other’ ȱ (Andaman ȱ Island ȱ prisoners, ȱ rebels, ȱ resister ȱ to ȱ British ȱ rule, ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ so ȱ on) ȱ also ȱ show ȱ that ȱ he ȱ was ȱ a ȱ man ȱ who ȱ was ȱ not ȱ afraid ȱ to ȱ push ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ English ȱ society ȱ and ȱ what ȱ were ȱ considered ȱ acceptable ȱ social ȱ relations.
ȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Fred ȱ Mace’s ȱ early ȱ life ȱ was ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ his ȱ movement ȱ and ȱ transience.
ȱ As ȱ a ȱ young ȱ man ȱ he ȱ travelled ȱ extensively ȱ as ȱ a ȱ sailor.
ȱ His ȱ surveying ȱ career ȱ similarly ȱ meant ȱ that ȱ he ȱ was ȱ constantly ȱ on ȱ the ȱ move, ȱ and ȱ never ȱ anchored ȱ to ȱ one ȱ particular ȱ place ȱ for ȱ an ȱ extended ȱ period ȱ of ȱ time.
ȱ Byrnes ȱ has ȱ written ȱ that ȱ surveying ȱ was ȱ a ȱ colonial ȱ means ȱ of ȱ pacifying ȱ or ȱ domesticating ȱ the ȱ land.
53 ȱ Ironically, ȱ surveyors ȱ often ȱ found ȱ that ȱ they ȱ were ȱ anything ȱ but ȱ domesticated ȱ themselves, ȱ having ȱ little ȱ or ȱ no ȱ time ȱ to ȱ settle ȱ down ȱ or ȱ establish ȱ roots ȱ in ȱ one ȱ particular ȱ location.
ȱ
Arriving ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ in ȱ 1876 ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ very ȱ much ȱ an ȱ outsider.
ȱ During ȱ this ȱ period ȱ he ȱ was ȱ more ȱ of ȱ an ȱ observer ȱ (rather ȱ than ȱ a ȱ participant) ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ life.
ȱ As ȱ Mace ȱ gradually ȱ made ȱ more ȱ contacts ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand, ȱ however, ȱ he ȱ was ȱ able ȱ to ȱ make ȱ the ȱ transition ȱ from ȱ outsider ȱ to ȱ insider.
ȱ Befriending ȱ influential ȱ people ȱ within ȱ the ȱ King ȱ
Country, ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ also ȱ exposed ȱ to ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ ways ȱ of ȱ life ȱ and ȱ able ȱ to ȱ enter ȱ certain ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ communities.
ȱ It ȱ is ȱ ironic ȱ that ȱ is ȱ was ȱ Mace’s ȱ job ȱ as ȱ a ȱ surveyor ȱ (the ȱ epitome ȱ of ȱ empire ȱ and ȱ expansion) ȱ that ȱ led ȱ him ȱ to ȱ be ȱ connected ȱ to ȱ the ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ community ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ
Country.
ȱ By ȱ the ȱ 1890s ȱ Mace ȱ had ȱ settled ȱ in ȱ Otorohanga ȱ and ȱ was ȱ anchored ȱ to ȱ one ȱ particular ȱ location.
ȱ Socially, ȱ however, ȱ he ȱ had ȱ crossed ȱ into ȱ an ȱ important ȱ position, ȱ as ȱ an ȱ accepted ȱ and ȱ acknowledged ȱ member ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Otorohanga ȱ community ȱ (to ȱ both ȱ
M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ ).
ȱ He ȱ was ȱ a ȱ member ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Native ȱ Town ȱ Council, ȱ represented ȱ
M ¬ ori ȱ at ȱ Native ȱ Land ȱ Court ȱ hearings, ȱ and ȱ was ȱ even ȱ called ȱ upon ȱ as ȱ a ȱ court ȱ translator.
54 ȱ
The ȱ surveying ȱ practices ȱ of ȱ creating ȱ boundaries, ȱ defining ȱ partitions, ȱ and ȱ imposing ȱ order ȱ on ȱ the ȱ land ȱ were ȱ an ȱ important ȱ aspect ȱ of ȱ Fred ȱ Mace’s ȱ character.
ȱ In ȱ his ȱ professional ȱ life ȱ this ȱ is ȱ what ȱ he ȱ was ȱ associated ȱ with, ȱ and ȱ what ȱ he ȱ spent ȱ much ȱ of ȱ his ȱ time ȱ doing.
ȱ Yet, ȱ almost ȱ in ȱ direct ȱ opposition ȱ to ȱ this, ȱ Mace’s ȱ personal ȱ life ȱ was ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ a ȱ type ȱ of ȱ disorder ȱ – ȱ constantly ȱ breaking ȱ or ȱ bending ȱ established ȱ rules ȱ and ȱ boundaries.
ȱ Mace ȱ himself ȱ was ȱ situated ȱ on ȱ a ȱ juncture: ȱ his ȱ professional ȱ and ȱ personal ȱ personas ȱ were ȱ almost ȱ binary ȱ opposites.
ȱ
From ȱ Mace’s ȱ early ȱ life ȱ in ȱ the ȱ Andaman ȱ Islands ȱ and ȱ India ȱ until ȱ his ȱ death ȱ in ȱ
Otorohanga, ȱ he ȱ frequently ȱ associated ȱ with ȱ people ȱ who ȱ resisted ȱ European ȱ rule.
ȱ
72 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

Whilst ȱ working ȱ in ȱ the ȱ Andaman ȱ Islands ȱ as ȱ a ȱ young ȱ man, ȱ Mace ȱ befriended ȱ imprisoned ȱ Indian ȱ rebels; ȱ men ȱ who ȱ had ȱ mutinied ȱ against ȱ the ȱ very ȱ colonial ȱ structures ȱ and ȱ discourses ȱ of ȱ which ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ a ȱ part.
55 ȱ Later, ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand, ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ also ȱ able ȱ to ȱ form ȱ long Ȭ lasting ȱ relationships ȱ with ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ who ȱ belonged ȱ to ȱ the ȱ strongly ȱ anti Ȭ imperial ȱ
ȱ movement.
ȱ He ȱ was ȱ even ȱ able ȱ to ȱ interact ȱ with ȱ staunch ȱ proponents ȱ of ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ nationalism ȱ such ȱ as ȱ King ȱ Tawhiao ȱ and ȱ Te ȱ Kooti.
56 ȱ Marrying ȱ a ȱ
M ¬ ori ȱ woman ȱ and ȱ settling ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country ȱ also ȱ reinforced ȱ the ȱ ease ȱ with ȱ which ȱ
Mace ȱ crossed ȱ certain ȱ social ȱ and ȱ cultural ȱ boundaries.
ȱ
The ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ a ȱ surveyor ȱ — ȱ the ȱ epitome ȱ of ȱ colonial ȱ rule ȱ and ȱ structure ȱ — ȱ seems ȱ not ȱ to ȱ have ȱ interfered ȱ with ȱ his ȱ social ȱ relationships.
ȱ If ȱ anything, ȱ his ȱ ability ȱ to ȱ cross ȱ easily ȱ between ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ worlds ȱ appears ȱ to ȱ have ȱ been ȱ an ȱ asset ȱ – ȱ both ȱ European ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ trusting ȱ him ȱ and ȱ utilizing ȱ his ȱ survey ȱ and ȱ communication ȱ skills.
ȱ Mace ȱ often ȱ noted ȱ occasions ȱ when ȱ his ȱ translation ȱ skills ȱ were ȱ called ȱ upon, ȱ an ȱ example ȱ diary ȱ entry ȱ reads: ȱ “Went ȱ to ȱ the ȱ office ȱ making ȱ tracings ȱ and ȱ subs ȱ and ȱ copying ȱ Petitions ȱ to ȱ send ȱ with ȱ them ȱ to ȱ Native ȱ Minister, ȱ also ȱ letter ȱ in ȱ Maori ȱ to ȱ him ȱ for ȱ the ȱ natives….” 57 This ȱ reinforces ȱ Giselle ȱ Byrnes ȇȱ assertions ȱ that ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ not ȱ only ȱ concerned ȱ with ȱ physical ȱ boundaries, ȱ located ȱ on ȱ the ȱ land; ȱ they ȱ were ȱ also ȱ intimately ȱ linked ȱ to ȱ concepts ȱ of ȱ cultural ȱ boundaries: ȱ ȱ
The ȱ challenges ȱ presented ȱ to ȱ colonial ȱ surveyors ȱ by ȱ physical ȱ boundaries ȱ found ȱ parallel ȱ in ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ cultural ȱ difference.
ȱ In ȱ attempting ȱ to ȱ extend ȱ the ȱ space ȱ and ȱ hegemony ȱ of ȱ the ȱ settler ȱ community ȱ surveyors ȱ were ȱ also ȱ challenging ȱ and ȱ testing ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ cultural ȱ cooperation.
58 ȱ ȱ
Nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ surveyors ȱ such ȱ as ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ showed ȱ that ȱ boundaries ȱ were ȱ often ȱ sites ȱ where ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ȱ and ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ came ȱ together.
ȱ Boundaries ȱ
‘provided ȱ space ȱ for ȱ communication’ 59 ȱ – ȱ they ȱ were ȱ important ȱ zones ȱ of ȱ interaction.
ȱ As ȱ a ȱ surveyor ȱ Mace ȱ was ȱ especially ȱ implicated ȱ in ȱ this ȱ kind ȱ of ȱ interaction ȱ – ȱ he ȱ literally ȱ occupied ȱ the ȱ middle ȱ ground ȱ between ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ and ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ , ȱ and ȱ was ȱ useful ȱ to ȱ both ȱ sides.
ȱ
As ȱ Martin ȱ Heidegger ȱ has ȱ pointed ȱ out, ȱ boundaries ȱ are ȱ not ȱ just ȱ points ȱ of ȱ departure.
ȱ They ȱ can ȱ equally ȱ be ȱ viewed ȱ as ȱ arrival ȱ points: ȱ ȱ
A ȱ boundary ȱ is ȱ not ȱ that ȱ at ȱ which ȱ something ȱ stops ȱ but, ȱ as ȱ the ȱ Greeks ȱ recognized, ȱ the ȱ boundary ȱ is ȱ that ȱ from ȱ which ȱ something ȱ begins ȱ its ȱ presencing.
ȱ That ȱ is ȱ why ȱ the ȱ concept ȱ is ȱ that ȱ of ȱ horismos, ȱ that ȱ is, ȱ the ȱ horizon, ȱ the ȱ boundary.
60 ȱ ȱ
Heidegger’s ȱ idea ȱ of ȱ the ȱ horizon ȱ therefore ȱ relates ȱ to ȱ concepts ȱ of ȱ bridging ȱ and ȱ continuity.
ȱ Bridges ȱ span ȱ between ȱ two ȱ opposing ȱ grounds, ȱ providing ȱ access ȱ to ȱ either ȱ side.
ȱ The ȱ concept ȱ of ȱ the ȱ bridge ȱ is ȱ therefore ȱ a ȱ useful ȱ metaphor ȱ for ȱ thinking ȱ about ȱ people ȱ who ȱ occupy ȱ the ȱ ‘”middle ȱ ground”, ȱ or ȱ frequently ȱ cross ȱ boundaries.
ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ appears ȱ to ȱ have ȱ crossed ȱ many ȱ boundaries ȱ (or ȱ bridges) ȱ during ȱ his ȱ life, ȱ often ȱ moving ȱ between ȱ different ȱ physical ȱ and ȱ cultural ȱ worlds.
ȱȱ
As ȱ a ȱ boundary Ȭ man ȱ (a ȱ P ¬ keh ¬ȱ surveyor ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country), ȱ Fred ȱ Mace’s ȱ life ȱ was ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ many ȱ different ȱ kinds ȱ of ȱ boundaries ȱ and ȱ boundary Ȭ crossings.
ȱ
Mace’s ȱ position ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ enforces ȱ the ȱ fact ȱ that ȱ he ȱ possessed ȱ the ȱ ability ȱ to ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 73

adapt ȱ to ȱ divergent ȱ situations ȱ and ȱ diverse ȱ peoples, ȱ and ȱ to ȱ traverse ȱ many ȱ different ȱ social, ȱ cultural ȱ and ȱ physical ȱ boundaries.
ȱ ȱ
Surveyors ȱ were ȱ men ȱ who ȱ lived ȱ their ȱ lives ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries.
ȱ As ȱ Europeans ȱ they ȱ belonged ȱ to ȱ a ȱ society ȱ which ȱ valued ȱ partibility, ȱ demarcation ȱ and ȱ rank.
ȱ As ȱ land ȱ surveyors ȱ they ȱ were ȱ also ȱ advocates ȱ of ȱ individualism, ȱ and ȱ progression ȱ — ȱ endorsing ȱ the ȱ view ȱ that ȱ land ȱ had ȱ to ȱ be ȱ individually ȱ owned ȱ and ȱ moulded, ȱ if ȱ it ȱ were ȱ to ȱ be ȱ a ȱ productive ȱ part ȱ of ȱ the ȱ capitalist ȱ system.
ȱ Yet ȱ in ȱ reality ȱ surveyors’ ȱ public ȱ and ȱ private ȱ lives ȱ could ȱ not ȱ be ȱ so ȱ easily ȱ (and ȱ arbitrarily) ȱ separated, ȱ and ȱ as ȱ social ȱ beings ȱ many ȱ surveyors ȱ lived ȱ their ȱ lives ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ life.
ȱ Culturally, ȱ surveyors ȱ also ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ caught ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ of ȱ two ȱ opposing ȱ worlds.
ȱ As ȱ Europeans, ȱ they ȱ were ȱ obliged ȱ to ȱ show ȱ loyalty ȱ towards ȱ the ȱ colonial ȱ government; ȱ yet ȱ much ȱ of ȱ their ȱ day Ȭ to Ȭ day ȱ experience ȱ was ȱ intimately ȱ linked ȱ to ȱ working ȱ alongside ȱ M ¬ ori.
ȱ
Surveyors ȱ such ȱ as ȱ Fred ȱ Mace, ȱ who ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ lived ȱ their ȱ lives ȱ on ȱ the ȱ boundaries ȱ in ȱ almost ȱ every ȱ way.
ȱ As ȱ a ȱ non Ȭ M ¬ ori ȱ within ȱ a ȱ bounded ȱ and ȱ clearly ȱ bordered ȱ M ¬ ori ȱ kingdom, ȱ Mace ȱ had ȱ to ȱ contend ȱ with ȱ a ȱ myriad ȱ of ȱ different ȱ boundaries; ȱ boundaries ȱ that ȱ were ȱ cultural, ȱ social, ȱ and ȱ political, ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ physical.
ȱ
Mace, ȱ however, ȱ did ȱ not ȱ view ȱ such ȱ a ȱ borderline ȱ existence ȱ as ȱ problematic.
ȱ He ȱ was ȱ able ȱ to ȱ successfully ȱ traverse ȱ between ȱ different ȱ social ȱ and ȱ cultural ȱ situations, ȱ forming ȱ relationships ȱ with ȱ people ȱ otherwise ȱ marginalized ȱ in ȱ colonial ȱ society.
ȱ This ȱ was ȱ indicative ȱ of ȱ the ȱ ease ȱ with ȱ which ȱ certain ȱ surveyors ȱ crossed ȱ social ȱ and ȱ cultural ȱ boundaries.
ȱ While ȱ it ȱ may ȱ appear ȱ that ȱ nineteenth ȱ century ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ was ȱ characterised ȱ by ȱ a ȱ sharp ȱ ethnic ȱ divide, ȱ surveyors, ȱ who ȱ were ȱ charged ȱ with ȱ the ȱ job ȱ of ȱ defining ȱ land Ȭ boundaries, ȱ of ȱ making ȱ this ȱ cultural ȱ divide ȱ physical, ȱ often ȱ found ȱ themselves ȱ on ȱ or ȱ between ȱ these ȱ boundaries.
ȱ
74 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

ȱ
1 ȱ Jean ȱ and ȱ John ȱ Comaroff, ȱ Ethnography ȱ and ȱ the ȱ Historical ȱ Imagination , ȱ Boulder, ȱ San ȱ Francisco, ȱ Oxford: ȱ
Westview ȱ Press, ȱ 1992, ȱ p.186.
ȱ
2 ȱ Miles ȱ Fairburn, ȱ Nearly ȱ Out ȱ of ȱ Heart ȱ & ȱ Hope.
ȱ The ȱ Puzzle ȱ of ȱ a ȱ Colonial ȱ Labourer ȇ s ȱ Diary, ȱ Auckland: ȱ
Auckland ȱ University ȱ Press, ȱ 1995, ȱ p.164.
ȱȱ
3 ȱ Comaroff ȱ and ȱ Comaroff, ȱ p.187.
ȱȱ
4 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.188.
ȱ
5 ȱ M.
ȱ Marsden ȱ and ȱ T.
ȱ A.
ȱ Henare, ȱ Kaitiakitanga: ȱ A ȱ Definitive ȱ Introduction ȱ to ȱ the ȱ Holistic ȱ World ȱ View ȱ of ȱ the ȱ
Maori .
ȱ Wellington: ȱ Ministry ȱ for ȱ the ȱ Environment, ȱ 1992, ȱ p.3.
ȱ
6 ȱ J.
ȱ A.
ȱ McRae, ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ Institute ȱ of ȱ Surveyors ȱ 1888 ȱ – ȱ 1988 , ȱ New ȱ Zealand: ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ Institute ȱ of ȱ
Surveyors,1989, ȱ p.2.
ȱȱ
7 ȱ Giselle ȱ Byrnes, ȱ Boundary ȱ Markers.
ȱ Land ȱ Surveying ȱ and ȱ the ȱ Colonisation ȱ of ȱ New ȱ Zealand , ȱ Wellington: ȱ
Bridget ȱ Williams ȱ Books, ȱ 2001, ȱ p.17.
ȱ
8 ȱ Raymond ȱ Firth, ȱ Economics ȱ of ȱ the ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ Maori , ȱ Wellington: ȱ A.
ȱ R.
ȱ Shearer, ȱ Government ȱ Printer, ȱ
1972, ȱ pp.378–380.
ȱȱ
9 ȱ ibid., ȱ pp.374
Ȭ 7.
ȱ
10 ȱ ibid., ȱ p383.
ȱ
11 ȱ Evelyn ȱ Stokes, ȱ Maori ȱ Customary ȱ Land ȱ Tenure , ȱ Hamilton: ȱ Department ȱ of ȱ Geography, ȱ University ȱ of ȱ
Waikato, ȱ 1997, ȱ p.66; ȱ I.H.
ȱ Kawharu, ȱ Maori ȱ Land ȱ Tenure.
ȱ Studies ȱ of ȱ a ȱ Changing ȱ Institution, ȱ Oxford: ȱ
Clarendon ȱ Press, ȱ 1977, ȱ p.2.
ȱ
12 ȱ Joan ȱ Metge ȱ cited ȱ in ȱ Evelyn ȱ Stokes, ȱ Maori ȱ Customary ȱ Land ȱ Tenure , ȱ Hamilton: ȱ Department ȱ of ȱ
Geography, ȱ University ȱ of ȱ Waikato, ȱ 1997, ȱ p.75.
ȱ
13 ȱ Kawharu, ȱ p.41
ȱ and ȱ pp.60
Ȭ 66.
ȱ
14 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.60.
ȱ
15 ȱ Marsden, ȱ p.18.
ȱ
16 ȱ ibid., ȱ pp.18
Ȭ 20.
ȱ
17 ȱ Stokes, ȱ p.61.
ȱ
18 ȱ Te ȱ Aue ȱ Davis, ȱ T.
ȱ O ȇ Regan ȱ and ȱ J.
ȱ Wilson, ȱ Nga ȱ Tohu ȱ Pumahara ȱ The ȱ Survey ȱ Pegs ȱ of ȱ The ȱ Past.
ȱ
Understanding ȱ Maori ȱ Place ȱ Names , ȱ Christchurch: ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ Geographic ȱ Board, ȱ 1990, ȱ p.5.
ȱ
19 ȱ Byrnes, ȱ p.10.
ȱ
20 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.15.
ȱ
21 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.77.
ȱ
22 ȱ Mary ȱ Louise ȱ Pratt, ȱ Imperial ȱ Eyes.
ȱ Travel ȱ Writing ȱ and ȱ Transculturation, ȱ London ȱ & ȱ New ȱ York: ȱ
Routledge, ȱ 1992, ȱ p.202..
ȱ
23 ȱ MacRae, ȱ p.6.
ȱ
24 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.6.
ȱȱ
25 ȱ Isabel ȱ Hofmeyr, ȱ We ȱ Spend ȱ Our ȱ Years ȱ as ȱ a ȱ Tale ȱ that ȱ is ȱ Told: ȱ Oral ȱ Historical ȱ Narrative ȱ in ȱ a ȱ South ȱ African ȱ
Chiefdom , ȱ Portsmouth: ȱ Heinemann; ȱ Johannesburg: ȱ University ȱ of ȱ Witwatersrand ȱ Press; ȱ London: ȱ James ȱ
Currey, ȱ 1993, ȱ p.72.
ȱ
26 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.72.
ȱ
27 ȱ Nola ȱ Easdale, ȱ Kairuri: ȱ The ȱ Measurer ȱ of ȱ Land: ȱ The ȱ Life ȱ of ȱ the ȱ 19th ȱ Century ȱ Surveyor ȱ Pictured ȱ in ȱ His ȱ Art ȱ and ȱ Writing , ȱ Petone: ȱ Highgate/Price ȱ Milburn, ȱ 1988, ȱ p.16.
ȱ
28 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.19.
ȱ
29 ȱ Hofmeyr, ȱ p.73.
ȱ
30 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.73.
ȱ
31 ȱ Easdale, ȱ p.15.
ȱ
32 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.15.
ȱȱ
33 ȱ Byrnes, ȱ pp.22
Ȭ 23.
ȱ
34 ȱ Hofmeyr, ȱ p.73.
ȱ
35 ȱ Fred ȱ Mace, ȱ journal ȱ entry ȱ 22/9/1878, ȱ cited ȱ in ȱ Tracy ȱ Anderson , ȱ ‘ Boundary ȱ Crossings: ȱ Fred ȱ Mace ȱ and ȱ
Surveying ȱ in ȱ the ȱ King ȱ Country, ȱ 1876 ȱ – ȱ 1921’, ȱ Masters ȱ Thesis, ȱ The ȱ University ȱ of ȱ Auckland, ȱ 2003.
ȱ p.50.
ȱ
36 ȱ Two ȱ notable ȱ examples ȱ are: ȱ S.
ȱ Percy ȱ Smith, ȱ An ȱ 1858 ȱ Journey ȱ into ȱ the ȱ Interior .
ȱ The ȱ Diary ȱ of ȱ S.
ȱ Percy ȱ
Smith ȱ Describing ȱ a ȱ Journey ȱ From ȱ Taranaki ȱ to ȱ the ȱ Taupo ȱ and ȱ Rotorua ȱ Districts.
ȱ New ȱ Plymouth, ȱ Taranaki ȱ
Herald ȱ Coy ȱ Ltd, ȱ 1953; ȱ and ȱ John ȱ Rochfort, ȱ The ȱ Adventures ȱ of ȱ a ȱ Surveyor ȱ in ȱ New ȱ Zealand ȱ and ȱ the ȱ Australian ȱ
Gold ȱ Diggings .
ȱ London, ȱ David ȱ Bogue, ȱ 1853.
ȱȱ
37 ȱ Byrnes, ȱ p.10.
ȱ
Anderson/Living on the Boundaries 75

38 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.9.
ȱ
39 ȱ Easdale, ȱ p.144.
ȱȱ
40 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.15.
ȱ
41 ȱ Byrnes, ȱ p.125.
ȱ
42 ȱ Mackie, ȱ ‘Foreword’, ȱ in ȱ Easdale, ȱ p.7.
ȱ
43 ȱ Easdale, ȱ p.116.
ȱ
44 ȱ Smith ȱ cited ȱ in ȱ Easdale, ȱ p.116.
ȱ
45 ȱ Jack ȱ Corbett, ȱ ‘Former ȱ Sailor ȱ First ȱ European ȱ to ȱ Sail ȱ into ȱ Waitomo ȱ Caves’, ȱ Footprints ȱ of ȱ History.
ȱ
Journal ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Te ȱ Awamutu, ȱ Otorohanga ȱ and ȱ Te ȱ Kuiti ȱ Historical ȱ Societies ȱ and ȱ the ȱ Waitomo ȱ Caves ȱ Museum ȱ
Society , ȱ February ȱ 1994, ȱ 11, ȱ pp.
ȱ 255 Ȭ 7.
ȱ
51.
ȱ
46 ȱ Anderson, ȱ pp.
ȱ 29 Ȭ 99.
ȱ
47 ȱ L.
ȱ Cox, ȱ Kotahitanga: ȱ The ȱ Search ȱ for ȱ Maori ȱ Political ȱ Unity .
ȱ Auckland: ȱ Oxford ȱ University ȱ Press, ȱ 1993.
ȱ p.
ȱ
48 ȱ The ȱ King ȱ Country’s ȱ border ȱ stretched ȱ from ȱ Aotea ȱ Harbour ȱ to ȱ the ȱ Waikato ȱ River ȱ on ȱ the ȱ west ȱ coast, ȱ then ȱ followed ȱ the ȱ Waipa ȱ and ȱ Punui ȱ Rivers, ȱ near ȱ the ȱ township ȱ of ȱ Alexandra ȱ (Pirongia) ȱ eastwards.
ȱ It ȱ then ȱ headed ȱ south ȱ down ȱ the ȱ Waikato ȱ River, ȱ through ȱ Lake ȱ Taupo ȱ and ȱ Mount ȱ Ruapehu, ȱ before ȱ continuing ȱ west ȱ to ȱ rejoin ȱ the ȱ coast ȱ north ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Waitara ȱ River.
ȱ Anderson, ȱ p.12.
ȱ
49 ȱ Keith ȱ Sinclair, ȱ Kinds ȱ of ȱ Peace: ȱ Maori ȱ People ȱ after ȱ the ȱ Wars, ȱ 1870 ȱ – ȱ 85.
ȱ Auckland: ȱ Auckland ȱ University ȱ
Press, ȱ 1991.
ȱ p.39.
ȱ
50 ȱ ibid., ȱ pp ȱ 39 Ȭ 41.
ȱ
51 ȱ Anderson, ȱ p.
ȱ 47.
ȱ
52 ȱ Cited ȱ in ȱ Anderson, ȱ pp.
ȱ 46 Ȭ 47.
ȱ
53 ȱ Byrnes, ȱ p.125.
ȱ
54 ȱ Anderson, ȱ p.
ȱ 77.
ȱ
55 ȱ L.
ȱ P.
ȱ Marthur, ȱ History ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Andaman ȱ and ȱ Nicobar ȱ Islands ȱ (1756 ȱ – ȱ 1966) , ȱ New ȱ Delhi: ȱ Sterling ȱ
Publishers, ȱ 1968, ȱ p.68.
ȱ
56 ȱ ibid., ȱ pp.46
ȱ and ȱ 65.
ȱ
57 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.82.
ȱ
58 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.95.
ȱ
59 ȱ ibid., ȱ p.97.
ȱ
60 ȱ Martin ȱ Heidegger, ȱ ‘Building ȱ Dwelling ȱ Thinking’, ȱ Poetry, ȱ Language, ȱ Thought , ȱ translated ȱ by ȱ Albert ȱ
Hofstadter, ȱ New ȱ York: ȱ Harper ȱ and ȱ Row, ȱ 1975, ȱ p.154.
ȱ
76 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps