Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning Intentions
- Analyse provenance and framing.
- Use sources for different evidential jobs.
- Write a claim with a clear scope and limit.
Decolonised Aotearoa History · Lesson 1 · Source analysis
He Wā o Mua Source Lab
Who governed before the Crown, and how far can these sources take our claim?
He Wā o Mua Source Lab
Governance · Provenance · Framing · Evidence and limits
Ingoa | Name:
Akomanga | Class:
Paearu Angitu | Success Criteria
- I identify creator, date, type, audience, and purpose.
- I use evidence from at least two source cards.
- I state what the evidence does not prove.
Kawa for this lab: analyse what published sources can support. Do not ask a classmate to speak for their iwi or use personal whakapapa as evidence. Evidence about northern rangatira and Te Whakaminenga must not be stretched to every iwi or hapū.
Te Huinga Mātāpuna | Source Set
Source A · Later interpretation
Rāwiri Taonui, “Tribal organisation”
Taonui explains that whānau, hapū, and iwi are connected through kinship and founding ancestors. The overview describes hapū as descent groups with collective responsibilities, and names ariki and rangatira among leadership roles.
“Traditionally, the main purposes of a hapū were to defend land, and to provide support for its members.”
Use this source for: a broad explanatory model of tribal organisation and the vocabulary needed to interpret other evidence.
Limit: an encyclopedia synthesis cannot show every iwi or hapū arrangement, and a publication date of 2005 is not evidence from the pre-Crown period.
Open the full Te Ara story ↗Source B · Primary evidence
He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, 1835
“Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua”
NZHistory explains that the document asserted sovereign power and authority in the land resided with Te Whakaminenga, and that foreigners could not make laws. The source is evidence of a constitutional assertion made through relationships among rangatira during a period of rapid contact and change.
Use this source for: evidence that northern rangatira asserted authority before Crown annexation.
Limit: this is not a census of every political system in Aotearoa. Its te reo Māori text, Busby’s English text, signatories, context, and later interpretation must be distinguished.
Open the document viewer ↗Source C · Later interpretation of the primary source
NZHistory, “He Whakaputanga — Declaration of Independence”
The article separates Busby’s imperial purpose from the intentions of rangatira. It explains that northern Māori had already met to manage relationships with Europeans and that later interpretations increasingly recognised cooperative decision-making and hapū autonomy.
Use this source for: historiography — how explanations of He Whakaputanga changed when Māori agency and forms of governance were taken seriously.
Limit: this is a 2026 synthesis, not the voice of every 1835 signatory. Follow its links and citations before treating an interpretation as settled.
Open the full NZHistory feature ↗1 · Provenance grid | Nō hea te mātāpuna?
| Source | Creator / date / type | Purpose or audience | Strength created by provenance | Limit created by provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ||||
| B | ||||
| C |
2 · Give each source a job
- Which source best establishes a broad model of tribal organisation? Why?
- Which source is direct evidence of an assertion of authority in 1835?
- Which source best reveals a change in historians’ framing? What changed?
3 · Scope test
Tick the strongest reach supported by the whole source set. Cross out reaches that overclaim. Add a note explaining your choice.
☐ One documentHe Whakaputanga, 1835
☐ Named signatoriesRangatira who signed
☐ Northern contextNgāpuhi / Te Whakaminenga
☐ All AotearoaEvery iwi and hapū
4 · Evidence-and-limit claim
Claim shape: The sources show… [scoped claim]. Source A establishes… while Source B… Source C helps interpret… This evidence does not prove…
5 · Bridge forward: authority and representation
Use today’s source set and the curriculum focus below. What forms of authority become politically invisible when property ownership and a centralised legislature determine who counts as represented?
Curriculum alignment | Hononga marautanga
This prior-learning anchor names the shift your final question begins to investigate:
Exclusion of most Māori men from the political system and voting due to the property-based franchise and Māori communal landholding practices. Traditional leadership structures based on mana and whakapapa were not incorporated into colonial governance frameworks, contributing to differing understandings and reduced representation.
Kaiako note | Before you teach
Resources already provided: this source set, provenance grid, scope test, claim frame, and writing spaces are the complete student packet for Lesson 1.
Read the complete linked sources, not just these student-facing extracts. Localise through established mana whenua relationships; do not invite an unplanned personal disclosure. The lesson’s assessment is historical method: provenance, triangulation, scope, and limits.