One year later...

Tu Tangata, Issue 20, 1 October 1984, Page 6

One year later...

Supplement to Report of the Clandon Park, Surrey, Meeting House. 7-6-75

Enquiries have continued both in New Zealand and overseas and a number of important facts have come to light to clarify some of the problems raised in the Report. These enquiries have been directed towards (1) positively establishing the identity of the Clandon Park meeting house, (2) detailing its historical background and the manner of transfer of ownership, (3) locating the present whereabouts of (a) missing carved panels, and (b) a set of documents detailing the carvings in the original structure. 1. Positive identification of the house as Hinemihi from Te Wairoa has been established through reference to official correspondence in the National Archives (Maori Affairs Dept Files, General Index 1891-2, MA-3-19). This correspondence also establishes that the house was alienated by purchase ( £ 50) and not by gift as claimed by Phillipps (1946) and others. 2. The date for the erection of Hinemihi is less sure but probably five or six years before the eruption (Dominion 17-5-35. This is from an interview with Aporo, son of Aporo Te Wharekaniwha who was responsible for building Hinemihi). The same source names Wero of Ngati Tarawhai as the carver. If this is correct the centenary of Hinemihi will fall in four-five years hence. 3. Records of the sale of the house in the National Archives specify 21 carved panels. My inspection of

the house in 1974 showed only 15 such panels including one which may not have belonged to the original house. The missing panels appear to be the three making up the doorway (pare and whakawaewae), and the lintel and three panels surrounding the window. These are clearly visible in photographs taken before the eruption. The pare or door-lintel is a particularly distinctive piece of carving and is illustrated in Hamilton’s Maori Art (p. 149 Plate XVIII Fig. 1). The National Museum holds another photograph obtained from England showing the same lintel set over a fireplace, but without date or record of its location. I have sent copies of this photograph to various institutions and persons in England in the hope of tracing its present whereabouts but so far without success. (See above) 4. The official correspondence involving the sale of Hinemihi revealed the existence of a set of documents of very considerable importance concerning the cultural context of the original house. R.D. Dansey, Rotorua Postmaster who negotiated the sale had the owners write down the names of each of the figures represented, and a short account of each, and numbers to correspond with numbers painted on the reverse of each carved panel, and a plan showing the correct position of the

carved panels. Despite the most thorough search of likely places in England by the County of Surrey Archivist, and in New Zealand by Mr Harry Dansey, these documents cannot be found. I am continuing my enquiries to locate both the missing panels, especially the pare, and the documents because of their importance to culture historians and their relevance should the house ever be restored to its original state. Such documentation would be hard to match for any of the older meeting houses in the country.

General comments

Since writing the Report it has become abundantly clear that Hinemihi will not be returned to New Zealand. On the other hand there is interest both here and in England in having the house renovated. I am informed by the Surrey County Archivist that the County Planning Department is considering listing the house as a “building of architectural or historic interest,” while the Department of Foreign Affairs are at present considering a request from contractors employed by the British National Trust for help in restoring the house. It is probable that the restoration envisaged by the contractors and the National Trust amounts to little more than conservation to protect the timbers. However its present condition as detailed in the Report is very far from satisfactory. It needs to be reerected under expert supervision. The approaching centenary (about 1980) of this historic old house is an appropriate occasion for undertaking this work.

If the missing panals cannot be found and returned to the house in time replacement parts will need to be considered. Other features such as the missing front wall and missing epaepa (wall posts) from the rear wall will also need to be considered.

The report of the English contractors shows little appreciation of the house as a cultural object with its own system of symbols, as distinct from a collection of carved posts and painted scroll designs to be restored. It is Hinemihi the house which should be our central concern the restoration of which includes the conservation of its decorative features. A true restoration programme would require the expertise of a recognised carver both for the reconstruction of the house and replacement of missing carved portions. It is unlikely the National Trust would put itself to such expense and the New Zealand Government would have to be asked to meet the greater part of the cost involved. Could an early approach be made to the Government through the Historic Places Trust while it is still considering the request for assistance from the English contractors? I hope so.

B. Kernot, 3rd June, 1976