What does “the same” assume?
Two texts, one signing. Ākonga put the phrase “the same document” on trial: line by line, does te Tiriti say what the English text says? The verdict has to cite both texts.
- Word on trial: “the same” — can two texts that differ be one agreement?
- Evidence it produces: A verdict on “the same”, citing a line from each text
- What actually differs: Activities 1, 3, 5 and the exit. This route lays a charge, agrees a standard of proof, cross-examines each word and runs a substitution test, then delivers a verdict and bounds it. The Source-First Inquiry route builds outward from provenance instead. Shared by both, openly: the Do Now, the provenance work on Sources A–C, and the 1975 statute reading — those belong to any honest treatment of these texts.
🕘 Lesson at a Glance | Te Hōtaka
Lesson Overview | Tirohanga Whānui
Ākonga are not told that the two texts of te Tiriti differ — they find the differences themselves, word by word, in verbatim excerpts from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Then they read the Act’s own preamble and discover that Parliament conceded the difference in statute. This route runs that finding as a trial: a word is charged, exhibits are entered and cross-examined, a standard of proof is agreed in advance, and a verdict is delivered and then bounded. The Source-First Inquiry route works the same three sources by a different move — building an inquiry from provenance outward. Both quote exactly and stop where the evidence stops.
Learning Intentions | Ngā Whāinga Ako
- Read both texts of te Tiriti as separate primary sources.
- Compare the exact words each text uses for the same article.
- Distinguish what the words establish from what only further evidence about 1840 could establish.
⚡ Do Now · What does “the same” assume?
⏱ 5 minPut this claim on the board as a claim to test, not as a fact:
“In 1840, Māori and the Crown signed the same agreement at Waitangi.”
Run it
- Notice (1 min): underline the word carrying the biggest hidden assumption.
- Specify (2 min): write one thing you would need to check before “the same” could be judged.
- Evidence (2 min): name the kind of source that could settle it.
Activity 1 · Name the Defendant
⏱ 10 minWhat it is: this route puts a word on trial, so the first job is to say exactly which word, what it is charged with asserting, and what would count as proof. Four working concepts give ākonga the precision to do that before touching the sources.
Run it
- Lay the charge (3 min): the Do Now claim rests on one word — “the same”. Write the charge against it in a sentence: what does that word assert about the two texts, and what would have to be true of them for it to hold?
- Name the defendants (4 min): two words carry the weight in Article 1 — kāwanatanga in one text, “Sovereignty” in the other. For each, write what it would have to mean for “the same” to survive.
- Agree the standard of proof (3 min): decide as a class what will count today — a dictionary gloss, an exact quotation, both texts side by side, or a later authority. Write the standard on the board. You will be held to it in Activity 5, including when it is inconvenient.
🪶 Cultural integrity: the meanings of kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga in 1840 are examined by iwi, scholars, and the Waitangi Tribunal — this lesson does not settle them, and neither should the classroom. Do not ask Māori ākonga to arbitrate what rangatira meant, and do not present any single translation as the answer.
Activity 2 · Provenance Before Content
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga read around all three sources before reading through them — and meet a provenance twist: an 1840 text reproduced inside a 1975 statute.
Run it
- Label (6 min): complete the provenance grid for Sources A–C, recording both creation and reproduction dates where they differ.
- Predict (4 min): before the word-work, predict one strength and one limit each source carries because of its provenance.
- Check (5 min): skim each source card and adjust the predictions. Note the orthography flag on Source A — the 1840 spelling is the document, not an error.
Activity 3 · Cross-Examine Each Word
⏱ 25 minWhat it is: the core evidence work. Article by article, ākonga enter the exact phrase from each text as an exhibit, then cross-examine it: what work does this word do, what does it leave untouched, and who gains under each reading? Quotation first, always — no paraphrase, no memory — but quotation is where this route starts, not where it stops.
Run it
- Article 1 — enter, then examine (8 min): copy the phrase for what is given to the Queen from each text, exactly. Then cross-examine both: what power does each word hand over, and what does each leave in someone else’s hands?
- Article 2 — enter, then examine (8 min): same discipline for what is protected, and to whom. Then the decisive question: under each text’s wording, who decides whether land is sold?
- Article 3 — enter, then examine (4 min): copy both phrases for what Māori receive. Is what is granted the same thing in both texts, or two different things wearing one number?
- The substitution test (5 min): pick one row. Write what the English text would have had to say to match the te reo text, and what the te reo text would have had to say to match the English. The words you have to add are the finding. Name them as words, not yet as intentions.
Board the key finding, in their words: the te reo text gives te Kawanatanga katoa and guarantees te tino rangatiratanga; the English text takes “all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” and guarantees “full exclusive and undisturbed possession”. Ākonga should arrive at this from the table, not from the teacher.
Activity 4 · The 1975 Move
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga read Source C — the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 — and discover their Activity 3 finding written into law: “the text of the Treaty in the English language differs from the text of the Treaty in the Maori language”.
Run it
- Quote (3 min): find and copy the clause that states the relationship between the two texts.
- Infer (5 min): Parliament created a tribunal to determine the Treaty’s “meaning and effect”. What does needing such a body concede about the texts on their own?
- Interrogate (5 min): “the principles of the Treaty” appears in Source C but in neither text. Whose words are the “principles”, and what problem are they trying to solve?
- Rank (2 min): which is stronger evidence that the difference matters — a historian saying so, or a statute built on it? Defend the answer.
Activity 5 · Verdict — and the Limit of the Verdict
⏱ 15 minWhat it is: ākonga return to the charge with the evidence in hand, deliver a verdict against the standard of proof they set in Activity 1, and then state plainly what that verdict does not decide.
Run it
- Deliver the verdict (5 min): write one sentence on the charge against “the same”, citing one exact line from each text. A verdict that quotes only one text is not returned — send it back. Check it against the standard of proof on the board, not against what feels right.
- Bound the verdict (3 min): write one sentence on what this verdict does not decide. What rangatira understood in 1840, and what anyone intended, are not on today’s evidence. A verdict that overreaches its exhibits is overturned on appeal.
- Lodge the appeal (7 min): a verdict on the words is not a verdict on what followed. Write one researchable question about which text’s terms were acted on — in land dealings, in law, in political representation. Keep it; it is the brief the unit takes forward.
Exit · Verdict, Limit, Appeal
⏱ 5 min- Verdict: one sentence on whether the two texts say the same thing, quoting at least one exact phrase from each.
- Limit: one sentence saying what today’s sources cannot establish about 1840.
- Appeal: one question about what happened when the two texts met land, law, or politics.
🎯 Curriculum Links | Te Hononga ki te Marautanga
Prior-learning anchor used at Years 9–10 depth: ākonga meet the main articles in both texts, verbatim, and analyse the differences as historians.
Main articles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi | te Tiriti o Waitangi
📦 Materials & Resources
- Ngā Tuhinga e Rua Source Lab — one per ākonga.
- Highlighters in three colours: exact quotation, shift between texts, limit.
- Board or shared display for the Do Now claim and the Activity 3 key finding.
- Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (Schedule 1 carries both full texts) for teacher preview or connected-device extension.
- Waitangi Tribunal: the Māori and English versions and Te Aka Māori Dictionary for teacher preparation on interpretation.
📊 Assessment Framework
This lesson uses formative evidence only.
- LI 1: Activity 2 provenance grid records creation and reproduction dates separately for Sources A and B.
- LI 2: Activity 3 comparison table quotes exact phrases from both texts for all three articles.
- LI 3: the exit slip separates a quoted claim about the words from a stated limit about 1840 understandings.
🚀 Extension Activity
Two directions, both source-first:
- The preambles: the handout prints only the articles. Open Schedule 1, read both opening sections, and find one further word-level difference worth investigating.
- Across the documents: Lesson 1’s source lab quoted He Whakaputanga (1835): “Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua”. Article 1 of te Tiriti (1840) uses te Kawanatanga katoa. Describe the word difference precisely, then write down what evidence a historian would need before claiming the choice was deliberate.
🔗 Unit Progression | Te Ara o Ngā Akoranga
Lesson 1 established that authority did not begin with Crown institutions, and that claims must carry their scope. Today ākonga hold the exact words of both Tiriti texts and a statutory concession that the texts differ. The next inquiry follows the enforcement question their exit slips have raised: raupatu, land law, the franchise, and which text’s terms were acted on — arriving back at Lesson 1’s anchor about representation. That inquiry is now built: Lesson 3: Te Raupatu ā-Ture reads the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 with today's method. Revisit Lesson 1 if the provenance-first method needs re-grounding.
📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot
Paearu Angitu | Success Criteria
- I can quote the exact phrase each text uses for each article.
- I can record both the creation and the reproduction history of a source.
- I can state what the words establish and what they cannot establish about 1840.
Differentiation for this lesson
Inclusion guidance
- Reading load: split the pairs — one reads the te reo articles aloud, one reads the English; swap for the second pass. Speakers of te reo should not be conscripted as class translators.
- Language support: Article 3 is the shortest row — start there so every ākonga lands one complete comparison early.
- Executive function: release the comparison table one article at a time; the scope test opens only after all three rows hold quotations.
- Extension: require the He Whakaputanga cross-document comparison from the extension panel, with its evidence-needed sentence.
- Cultural safety: some ākonga whakapapa to signatories. Offer the option to work analytically without personal disclosure, and never ask Māori ākonga to resolve what rangatira intended.