VALUABLE GREENSTONE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 92, 28 June 1946, Page 5

VALUABLE GREENSTONE

HISTORIC PATU POUNAMU

Question of ownership

An interesting Was heard at the recent sitting of the Native Land Court in Opotiki, before Judge Harvey,. when preliminary evidence was taken to enquire whether the patu pounamu in the possession of the Court is “Te Raumoa” and if so who are the owners. This beautiful greenstone is about eighteen inches long and six inches broad in the widest part, weighing about three pounds. Its historic value relates to the Maori people on both sides of the range, evidently having been handed by the Gisborne Maoris to the Whakatohea Tribe for a period. Judge Harvey said that patu could not belong to any particular person, but could only belong to a tribe. He said that if it was thought that the patu should go back to the Gisborne district it would be sent back there for further enquiries.

Mr Amoamo Teraiki identified the stone stating that he gave it to Te Raumoa when he Went to his house. It was decided by Te Raumoa that it should be brought to the section of his elders on his mother’s side. He claimed that it was the intention that the patu should be an absolute gift to the Whakatohea Tribe, to be given to the people as a whole. When the stone first came it waS kept at Omarumutu and then at Ohiwa. Witness said that his cousins, the Lawrences at Waiotahi were entitled to hold the stone. Witness then proceeded to trace family relationships and marriages which had taken place mentioning such names as Major General Beneavis, Jack Beneavis and the Lawrences. His people had given the stone the name of Te Raumoa, but he did not know what its real name was.

The Judge asked whether it was not a custom that these stones went back.

Witness said that that was not so where they were given as an absolute gift. The Judge asked how it could be given as an absolute gift when it was not known what its history or name was. He said/that on the other side of the ranges they were having an argument as to which one of two stone§ fhis one wa§ ; Mrs McKenzie, leader oi: fier people on the Gisborne side, said that the stone had often been mentioned in her family and how it came to the Whakatohea side. The patu was handed over to act as a sort of a bridge between the two sides, and according to the elders remained in the Lawrences care. Mrs- Lawrence cared for the patu for several years and as she got on in years she wished that it should be returned to its owners. She was afraid that when the elders passed over the children might think that they owned it. Whem-taungas such as that were giyelf to a tribe , there was always a day when they were"* handed back. At an unveiling ceremony the Whakatohea people had asked for a return of the patu and it was reported to the judge in Gisborne that there was no objection, but witness had objected to a second visit of the stone here. She wished to have it handed back to the judge in Gisborne to be heard there. There were two patus, and it was not known which was Which or how far back in history they went. Witness traced her own family history back a number of generations. The Judge said that it seerhed the patu was not rightly in Opotiki. It had been handed into the possession of the court in Gisborne and the Judge had been given 'to understand that there was no objection to its going back to the Amoamos, but apparently there was. The matter should have been settled where the patu was, and it would be sent back to Gisborne. The Judge likened it to a false start in a 100 yard race. The patu would go back to Gisborne and the race could start from there.