Polynesians possess oral traditions that reveal sophisticated understand-
ings of the world and of their place in it. These typically take the form of
an elaborate cosmogony beginning with the origin of the universe and the
primal parents, then continuing to trace the descent of living and nonliv-
ing, material and immaterial phenomena, including humans. 
Among New Zealand Mäori, such knowledge is encoded and recorded
in a mental construct called whakapapa (having an underlying meaning,
“to place in layers” [Williams 1975, 259]). In a commonly applied form,
that of recording human descent lines and relationships, whakapapa
functions as a genealogical table or family pedigree in which the lineages
connect each papa or layer (a metaphorical reference to each generation
of a family).
The extent to which this underlying theoretical rationale for human
whakapapa applies to the nonhuman has hitherto remained unexplored,
at least in the published literature. To understand the meaning of plant
and animal whakapapa requires knowledge of not only plant and animal
names but also their accompanying narratives. Typically, these take an
allegorical form in which explanatory theories as well as moral principles
are explicated. In its totality, Mäori use of whakapapa and narrative cre-
ates a “metaphysical gestalt” or whole, integrated pattern, for the oral
communication of knowledge (Hohepa, pers comm, 1996). 
Renewed interest in whakapapa in New Zealand arises directly from
recent worldwide controversy over the genetic modification (gm) of plants
and animals, and, in particular, of transgenic modifications involving the
1
The Contemporary Pacific, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2004, 1–28
© 2004 by University of Hawai‘i Press
Whakapapa as a Mäori Mental Construct:
Some Implications for the Debate over
Genetic Modification of Organisms
Mere Roberts, Brad Haami, Richard Benton, Terre Satterfield,
Melissa L Finucane, Mark Henare, and Manuka Henare
2 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
laboratory-based transfer of genes between different species, genera, or
even kingdoms, to create a genetically modified organism (gmo). Because
their creation is dependent on human intervention in order to overcome
the barriers that prevent such transfers by natural means, genetically mod-
ified organisms are regarded by many as “unnatural.” In New Zealand,
concerns expressed by the public in general and by Mäori in particular
led to the establishment in 2000 of a royal commission to enquire into
genetic modification and its place in New Zealand society. Major Mäori
concerns as identified by the commission were of a cultural as well as a
political nature, the latter pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi, an agree-
ment signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Mäori that provides,
in theory if not in practice, the basis for a partnership between signato-
ries. Analysis of cultural concerns (rcgm 2001) revealed several key val-
ues and beliefs that, in the view of many Mäori, are antithetical to genetic
modification. Foremost among these are whakapapa and the associated
metaphysical concepts of tapu—an intrinsic spiritual integrity and poten-
tiality for power of a thing, and mauri—the elemental energy or material
life force that constitutes the essential self or essence of a thing (Shirres
1997). A majority of submissions made at ten regional meetings argued
that humans’ mixing of genes between different species constituted an
unsanctioned interference with whakapapa as well as a violation of the
tapu and mauri of the organisms concerned. 
Recent legislation (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
1996) contains two sections that require scientists engaging in gm
research, particularly gmo development, to consult with Mäori to ascer-
tain potential risks and effects on their cultural beliefs and values, and on
their relationships with their ancestral lands, valued flora and fauna, and
other valued possessions (tangible and intangible). This requirement (in
part II, section 6 [d] of the act) seeks to give expression to the principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi (section 8 of the act). 
Because whakapapa is a key focus of many Mäori concerns about genet-
ically modified organisms, the purpose of this paper is to seek an under-
standing of the underlying principles that inform this mental construct.
Using the kümara (sweet potato) as a case study, we attempt to clarify the
rationale for the groupings and implied relationships included in this
whakapapa, and what those relationships might mean in terms of the
modern species concept and scientific classification of organisms. Our
intention is to further inform public discussion surrounding genetically
modified organisms as well as to provide decision makers with a better
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 3
understanding of a key Mäori cultural concept that is central to this
debate.
Cosmogonical Whakapapa
Cosmogonical whakapapa, often recited in the form of chants, describe
the origins of the universe from an ultimate cause. A Hawaiian creation
chant, the Kumulipo, describes this original source as Pö, a period of
intense darkness devoid of matter. This is followed by the emergence of
the earth from corals, after which, in an evolutionary sequence, come the
“lower” sea and land plants and animals, such as mosses and shellfish,
followed by “higher” creatures, for example, fishes, amphibians, birds,
and human-like creatures. The second half of the Kumulipo recounts the
genealogies of gods and humankind, proceeding through to a Hawaiian
royal family (Beckwith 1972). 
Mäori inherited a similar intellectual legacy from ancestors who arrived
in oceangoing canoes from an Eastern Polynesian homeland, thought by
anthropologists to be located in the Society, Austral, and Cook Island
groups. (It is also said by some tribes that they were always here, or came
by other means; see Orbell 1991, 29–30.) Cosmogonical accounts differ
between tribes. For example, some trace human descent from Tümatau-
enga, others from Täne (Shirres 1997, 36). However, while details differ,
they all share the basic form of a genealogical account rooted ultimately
in a common origin (see figure 1 for a generic overview, composed from
several sources). In certain tribes the ultimate origin is located in a super-
natural being called Io ( Jones 1960). Others simply cite an origin in Te
Kore or the formless void, within which mauri is located (Shirres 1997,
116–117). From there the cosmogony proceeds through space and time
until the emergence of Rangi-nui (Sky) and Papa-tü-ä-nuku (Earth). These
primal parents then produce many children, deified as atua or gods, who
in turn act as the progenitors and personifications of all known phenom-
ena, both living and nonliving. Important among these atua are:
Täne = god of forest trees, birds and insects, rocks and stones, and then,
in some tribal whakapapa, humans
Tangaroa = god of marine and freshwater fishes, reptiles, and other
creatures
Rongo = god of cultivated foods, and also the deity of peace
Haumia = god of uncultivated or wild foods
4 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
Tawhirimatea = god of winds, rain, and clouds
Tümatauenga = god of warfare, and in some whakapapa, progenitor 
of humans 
From Täne or Tümatauenga come many generations of mythical human
beings, who in turn give rise to a historical whakapapa recording the
names of the captains of the voyaging canoes that brought the ancestors
of the Mäori to New Zealand. Given the comparatively short period of
human settlement in this country (about 1,000 years), it is possible for
descendents alive today to recite from memory their whakapapa back to
a canoe ancestor and thence to the ultimate source. This ability reinforces
the importance of whakapapa as a way of knowing, of locating a person
or a thing in time and in space. Such knowledge extends to all other non-
human phenomena, so that to “know” something is to be able to locate
it within a whakapapa (Roberts and Wills 1998). 
Two important points emerge from this conceptualization of an all-
embracing whakapapa of the universe. First, there is no disjunction
between the spiritual and material worlds. Insects and humans, fish and
ferns, stars and stones all descend from the spiritual realm of the atua, and
thus all possess spiritual qualities (such as mauri) in addition to their own
unique material attributes. This dual inheritance applies to all things and,
in this context, establishes and emphasizes complementary relationships,
rather than the oppositional ones that exist between more modern juxta-
positions, such as the “natural and the supernatural,” the “living and the
nonliving,” and the “nature–culture” divide. Second, conceiving of impor-
tant phenomena as godlike beings endowed with superhuman attributes
emphasizes to humans the fact that their environment and its resources
are both ancestors and kin. This aspect is given added emphasis in those
tribal whakapapa that trace human descent from Täne. In these accounts,
humans are the teina (junior) members of the family. Thus it can be argued
that, rather than a relationship of unrestrained exploitation of one’s tua-
kana (senior) kin, a relationship based on respect and reciprocity is oblig-
atory (Roberts and others 1995). 
Classification
Throughout history, various criteria have been used as a basis for classi-
fying all living things. As a guide to grouping like with like, biologists
including Aristotle (384–322 bc) relied on morphological similarities,
Figure 1. A whakapapa of the children of Rangi-nui and Papa-tü-ä-nuku.
Source: Adapted and much abbreviated from Best 1982; 1995.
Rangi-nui = Papa-tii-a-nuku 
Uru-te-ngangana Tawhirimatea Haumia Rongo Tane-matua Tangaroa 
heavenly bodies wild foods cultivated foods forest trees winds 
ram 
clouds 
peace forest bi rds 
forest insects 
rocks & stones 
T u-te-wehiwehi Tinirau 
I 
I 
Tane = Hine-ahu-one 
First Woman 
Hine-titama 
Dawn Maiden 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Humankind 
reptiles fishes 
Tiimatauenga Riiaumoko 
warfare earthquakes 
volcanoes 
6 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
complemented by anatomy and embryology. An important contribution
to the science of classification was made by Linnaeus (1707–1778), who
created a system whereby each organism is given two names, the first
being the name of the genus and the second the name of the species; for
example, Ipomea batatas is the binomial of the kümara. Linnaeus also
arranged the various taxa (categories or groupings of like organisms) as
a hierarchy, from the smallest or lowest level (the species) through genus,
family, order, class, and phylum to the highest, most all-encompassing
taxon, the kingdom. This method of classification or taxonomy is now the
universally accepted scientific system. A second major contribution was
made by Charles Darwin (1809–1882), who in his famous book The Ori-
gin of Species provided both evidence and argument that “the innumer-
able species, genera and families . . . are all descended, each within its own
class or group, from common parents” (1899, 379). Since Darwin, the
goal of biologists has been to create a taxonomy that reflects evolutionary
history or phylogeny (from the Greek phylon [meaning tribe] + genesis),
and therefore represents a “natural” rather than an artificial construct.
All modern phylogenies are thus based on acceptance of the theory of
evolution, implying the descent (by natural selection) of all living organ-
isms from a common ancestor. Evidence for determining lines of descent
and relationships, which was until recently based on comparative mor-
phology, anatomy, embryology, and paleontology (fossil evidence), is
today increasingly informed by molecular biology, especially genetics. A
species, regarded by taxonomists as the most basic and only “real” or
“natural” taxon, is currently defined as a population of individuals shar-
ing a common gene pool, in theory capable of interbreeding only with
each other, and hence reproductively isolated from all other species. Rela-
tionships within and between species are now increasingly determined by
the number of shared homologous or “like” sequences in their dna, the
number of shared amino acid sequences in their proteins, or both of these
measures. Gene technology thus enables identification of actual rather
than inferred relationships, which in turn allows the construction of accu-
rate biological “family trees” or phylogenies. So, as Darwin predicted,
“our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealo-
gies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creation”
(1899, 401).
According to many cognitive psychologists and anthropologists, the
ability to make sense of the world by classifying its various components
(such as plants and animals) is thought to be an inherent property of the
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 7
human mind (see, eg, Atran 1993). Among traditional societies dependent
on these and other environmental resources for survival, this ability has
obvious advantages. Their classifications of plants and animals, known as
“folk taxonomies,” form the subject of a branch of systematics (the sci-
ence of classification) called ethnobiology. Of interest to ethnobiologists is
the nature and extent of the knowledge incorporated into a particular folk
taxonomy, including its underlying framework or rationale. Researchers in
this area such as Brent Berlin (1992) and Scott Atran (1993) have argued
that innate pattern-recognition ability is based largely on visual detection
of similarities and differences. In Berlin’s words, “when human beings
function as ethnobiologists . . . they do not construct order, they discern
it” (1992, 8–9). Concomitant with the capacity to recognize morpholog-
ical resemblances is the ability to perceive distances or gaps between two
or more groups of organisms. Thus “gaps are perceptually recognised dis-
continuities . . . the smaller the gap between two groups (ie, the greater
the similarity) the closer they will be placed in a system of classification”
(Berlin 1992, 83). But cultural relativists argue that nature is a continuum
made discontinuous only by taxonomists using certain culturally selected
criteria (Berlin 1992, 11). According to this theory, species are products
of the human mind, comparable to other social or culturally constructed
frameworks. 
Some support for the cultural relativists’ perspective is provided by the
utilitarian hypothesis, which emphasizes that usefulness and significance
are of primary importance in the selection of what is included in a par-
ticular classification (Hunn 1982, 835). Others, including Ralph Bulmer
(1970), have extended these hypotheses by suggesting that questions of
“cultural cosmology” must also be considered when attempting to under-
stand the rationale for a particular folk taxonomy, particularly with regard
to the special status given some plants or animals.
Before attempting an analysis of the function(s) of whakapapa and its
underlying rationale, including the degree to which it might serve as a
“folk taxonomy,” it is appropriate to mention several constraints on this
research. These include the fact that in the published literature only frag-
ments exist of what was known to be a vast collection of Mäori mätau-
ranga (knowledge) of plants and animals; that the meanings of many
names in the remaining whakapapa have been lost; and that few living
experts have a detailed understanding of this particular form of mätau-
ranga of natural resources, including plant and animal life cycles, seasonal
biology, habitat, ecosystem, and astronomical relationships. Our choice
8 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
of the kümara as a case study was influenced by the fact that it is reason-
ably well recorded in the literature, and considerable knowledge about it,
including its cultural symbolism and importance, remains extant among
many Mäori. 
Case Study: Whakapapa of the Ku¯mara
Several scientific theories have sought to explain the arrival of the kümara
in Eastern Polynesia from South America (Yen 1974; Handy and Handy
1991), and its distribution further west and eventually south to New Zea-
land. Mäori traditions about this important food source also provide a
number of accounts as to its origins, handed down in the form of narra-
tive and whakapapa. While accounts vary, all name Rongo as the origin
and personification of the kümara. One example, recorded by W E Gud-
geon (1905), identifies Rongo as the third child of Rangi-nui and Papa-tü-
ä-nuku, and the progenitor not only of cultivated foods such as kümara
and taro (Colocasia esculenta), but also of other vine-like plants such as
aka, pöhue, and pikiarero (figure 2). Of these, aka is the most inclusive
category in that it denotes vines, roots, and climbers, especially rätä
(Metrosideros spp). Pöhue is applied to a more restricted group of vine-
like plants including Calystegia spp, the bindweed or convolvulus; Mueh-
lenbeckia complexa; Passiflora tetrandra (the native passionfruit); and
Clematis spp (Williams 1975, 287). All but some rätä have white flowers.
The name pikiarero refers to both the large flowered Clematis paniculata
and the smaller flowered C forsteri (Beever 1991), although Murdoch
Riley’s Maori Healing and Herbal applies puawänanga or pöänanga to the
former and pikiarero to the latter (1997, 333, 367). Clematis is an impor-
tant seasonal indicator for Mäori: the appearance of its white flowers in
spring signals the migration of eels (Anguilla spp) up rivers to spawn.
A second tribal whakapapa comes from the Ngati Maru people of
Thames /Coromandel (figure 3). The names were translated as follows: 
Rongo-mata-aka-whau = Rongo, personification of the many vines
that clasp or bind
Otaota = herbs
Täroa, Tämau, and Tahua = other kinds of bindweed
Aka-pöhuehue = Calystegia sepium (bindweed or convolvulus)
Täwhiwhi = weeds
Aka-täwhiwhi = Metrosideros fulgens (rätä vine)
Pikiarero = Clematis forsteri 
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 9
Henry Williams’s 1975 Dictionary of the Maori Language provides differ-
ent translations for some of these words, but this should not imply that
those given in the 1907 translation are incorrect. They are: 
Täroa = self-sown potato
Otaota = vegetation, weeds, litter
Tämau = to fasten
Tahua = heap, or sandhill
Täwhiwhi = Parsonsia heterophylla (native jasmine) 
Applying the second set of translations to the whakapapa shown in
figure 3 might indicate the inclusion of not only the kümara but also the
potato (the latter introduced by Cook in 1769 and quickly adopted by
Mäori), along with other things characteristic of kümara mounds, which
Figure 2. A whakapapa of Rongo-mata-kawui (Rongo of the shrunken face).
Source: Gudgeon 1905.
Figure 3. A whakapapa of Rongo-mata-aka-whau (Rongo of the many vines
that clasp or bind).
Source: Paraone 1907.
10 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
typically incorporated sand or gravel, and the associated weeds (aka-
pöhuehue or bindweed). Also included are three different kinds of vines
(clematis, rätä, and jasmine). 
Despite incomplete knowledge of the meanings of all names, it seems
clear that these two whakapapa function as a folk taxonomy in that both
incorporate two major kinds of plants. The first consists of the root crops
and contains two distinct “folk generics” (Berlin 1992, 21–24): kümara
and taro. Of kümara, Mäori knew at least eighty-two named varieties, of
which only three survive today. Similarly, there were at least twenty dif-
ferent named varieties of taro (Best 1976 [1925]). Of interest in these two
whakapapa is the absence of the third major root crop, uwhi or yam
(Dioscorea spp), which arrived with the kümara and taro in the founding
canoes. Yams are thought to have marginally survived only in the warmer
and more sheltered regions of the North Island (Leach 1984); their absence
might indicate that they were never grown in the tribal areas from which
these whakapapa originated, or that they became extinct there and thus
over time were lost from memory and from the whakapapa.
The second kind, the vines, appears to consist of two subgroups: “aka,”
the more inclusive word used for roots, vine-like plants, and climbers
(lianes); and “pöhue,” a name restricted to Calystegia spp possibly because
of their close resemblance to the kümara plant (an observation supported
by the narrative of Marama, referred to later). Aka and pöhue, like kümara
and taro, might also qualify as “folk generics.” This categorization pre-
sumes that the genus is the most immediately recognizable biological cat-
egory or taxon, by virtue of its particular and unique configuration,
including morphological, behavioral, and ecological features. (Atran has
suggested “folk” genus and species be combined into a single “generic-
specieme,” as in many cases the genus is represented by only one species,
and because it is often difficult or impossible for anyone except an expert
to accurately distinguish species within a genus [1993, 5, 6]). Inclusion of
root crops and vines in the same whakapapa appears to be explained by
the strong morphological similarity between the extended vine-like
branches of the kümara plant and the other vines or climbers, and possi-
bly also the fact that white flowers are prevalent among them all. 
A third composite whakapapa is illustrated in figure 4. It combines
information from several tribal areas on the East Coast of the North
Island including Whanau a Apanui (Delamare, pers comm, 1999); Ngati
Awa and Tühoe (Best 1977 [1925]). Mäori names of the insect pests are
taken from David Millar’s Common Insects in New Zealand (1971).
This whakapapa includes the uwhi. In addition, a fourth food plant that
F
ig
u
r
e 
4.
A
 c
om
po
si
te
 w
ha
ka
pa
pa
 o
f 
R
on
go
.
So
ur
ce
: 
B
es
t 
19
08
; 1
97
7;
 M
ill
er
 1
97
1;
 a
nd
 D
el
am
ar
e 
pe
rs
 c
om
m
 1
99
9.
12 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
came in the ancestral canoes, namely the hue or bottle gourd (Lagenaria
siceraria), which like the kümara is thought to have originated in South
America (Whistler 1991, 52), may be represented in this whakapapa. If
köhuehue, which translates as “fat,” refers to the gourd, Hine-te-köhue-
hue could be the personification of the hue. Tï-tara (literally, “framework
of sticks”) might then refer to the structure on which the vines and fruits
(gourds) were grown (Williams 1975, 424). Some support for this sugges-
tion is provided by comparative linguistics. In Western Polynesia, reflexes
of the (reconstructed) Proto-Polynesian word “*fue” (from which the
Mäori word “hue” is derived) denote creeping, vine-like plants of the con-
volvulus and other families, but in Eastern Polynesia (from Hawai‘i to
New Zealand) they refer primarily to the bottle gourd. Hue has morpho-
logical similarities to kümara and most other plants included in this
whakapapa in that it is a vine-like climber with white flowers. Perhaps for
these reasons the Hawaiians included both kümara and hue under Lono
(= Rongo [Handy and Handy 1991, 16]). But there are important differ-
ences. Unlike the vegetatively propagated root crops, hue grows from seed.
This fact and the importance of the hue as a food crop and container for
multiple purposes may have provided a reason for some tribes to discern
a separate descent from Täne via Pü-te-hue [Best 1976, 245]); its own ori-
gin stories (Orbell 1985, 116); and an explanation of how the different
shaped varieties of hue came to be (Reedy 1997, 93–97). 
The Role of Narrative
In all societies, particularly those with a strong oral tradition, narrative
discourse plays a major role in transmitting knowledge. Patu Hohepa
described Mäori narrative as providing the “flesh” (meaning) to the
“bones” of a particular discourse (pers comm, 1996). This is true of the
whakapapa of the kümara, which includes entities whose presence gains
intelligibility only by way of the accompanying narrative. One version of
a kümara narrative presented here with reference to figure 4 begins with
Uru-te-ngangana, tutelary deity of celestial bodies including stars. Also of
importance to this story is Whänui (the star Vega), who is the elder
brother of Rongo-mäui, a small star close to Whänui. Rongo-mäui’s wife
Pani-tinaku (tinaku = to germinate, sprout, conceive) was the foster
mother of the five Mäui brothers, who were fishermen. (One of these, the
well-known Polynesian hero Mäui-tikitiki, fished up the North Island of
New Zealand.) When the brothers reproached Rongo-mäui for his indo-
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 13
lence in failing to procure food supplies, he set off to obtain the celestial
kümara held in the care of Whänui. When Rongo-mäui ascended to the
heavens and asked his brother Whänui for the precious food, Whänui
refused. So Rongo-mäui descended out of sight, then crept back and stole
the celestial kümara and brought them back to earth. By this act, theft also
entered the world. Rongo-mäui, who carried the tubers in his scrotum,
then impregnated his wife Pani and told her to go to the Wai o Mona-Ariki
(the waters or stream of Mona-Ariki) and give birth to their offspring, the
earthly form of the kümara. (The underwater birth of the kümara is 
“re-enacted” in the practice of placing stored tubers in water to stimulate
the sprouting of shoots prior to planting.) Pani’s children—Nehutai, Pätea,
Waihä, Pio, Matatü, Päuärangi, Toroa-mähoe, Anurangi, and Aka-kura—
are all different varieties of kümara. 
Rongo-mäui then told Pani to cook this food in order to remove the
tapu inherited by their celestial origin from atua. Her foster sons, the Mäui
brothers, partook of her cooked kümara and, preferring it to fish, asked
Pani how she had obtained it. Pani was silent, so Mäui-tikitiki followed
her during the night and watched as she gave birth to more kümara, then
informed his brothers they were being fed on the impurities of Pani. This
troubled them and caused them to migrate to far-off lands. Some came to
New Zealand to settle.
When Pani realized she had been observed giving birth to the kümara,
she fled in shame down to Mataora (an underworld located in the ances-
tral homeland), taking along her youngest daughter Hine-mata-iti, who
became the ancestor of the kiore (Rattus exulans or Pacific rat). These
small, nocturnal creatures still follow the ways of their ancestor Rongo-
mäui by stealing the kümara offspring of Pani while they are in under-
ground storage pits during the winter. 
When Whänui looked down and saw men busy attending to their
kümara plantations, he realized that Rongo-mäui had stolen some of his
tubers and was angry, because they were intended as food of the atua. He
therefore sent for Nuhe, Toronü, and Moka, three ancestors who live in
the sky, and asked them for help in punishing Rongo for his theft of the
kümara. And so anuhe (who bears the tattoo marks of Nuhe on his sides),
toronü (also known as torongü), and moka descended from the heavens
to attack the leaves of the kümara crop. Every summer they continue to
rain down from the sky with their sudden appearance in great numbers on
damp nights (Best 1908, 238, 241, 256; Miller 1971, 11–13). These cater-
pillars (Agrius convolvuli), which feed on the leaves of the kümara on
14 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
summer nights, were a well-known scourge to Mäori, who had many dif-
ferent names for each state of the life cycles (Miller 1971, 11–13). 
Mätauranga Provided by the Narrative
Mäori mätauranga (knowledge) of seasonal cycles essential to the success-
ful cultivation of the kümara is evidenced by the inclusion of the star
Whänui in this whakapapa, and by the status given him in the narrative.
Despite his anger at the theft of his celestial tubers, Whänui continues to
look after the earthly descendents. His rising in the morning above the
eastern horizon during autumn signals the time for the kümara harvest,
an important occasion in the Mäori economic cycle and one greeted with
considerable ritual. Habitat and ecosystem relationships observed between
the kümara, its predator the kiore, and the insect pests anuhe, torongü,
and moka, would appear to provide the rationale for the inclusion of oth-
erwise unrelated folk generics in this whakapapa, while the narrative
account provides the culturally appropriate explanations for these rela-
tionships. The ecosystem relationship between the kiore and the kümara
is depicted in the whakapapa through lineages linking them by descent
from Pani. It is then explained metaphorically in the narrative by Pani’s
flight to the underworld (a place of darkness) where her daughter Hine-
mata-iti (Hine of the small face) gives birth to Kiore. This particular name
of Hine, an apparent reference to the physical features of the kiore, is also
given to a small star near Whänui (which is sometimes difficult to see).
This close astronomical relationship may be a reflection of their tuakana–
teina relationship as described in the narrative (Delamare, pers comm,
1999).
Kiore are also shown in the whakapapa as closely related by descent to
the uwhi and (if this interpretation is correct) to the hue, both of which are
eaten by kiore. In folk taxonomic terms this particular line of descent and
grouping might be described as “the plants that are devoured by rats.” It
is notable that Mäori distinguished the caterpillar pests, which are diurnal
and consume leaves rather than tubers, by providing them with a lineage
separate from the other organisms in this whakapapa. That Mäori also
had detailed knowledge of the life cycles, behavior, and habitat of both the
kiore and these caterpillars has been recorded by Brad Haami (1994) and
David Miller (1971), respectively. 
Recognition of the distinctive “folk generic” status of taro based on its
morphological distinctiveness from the vine-like plants and method of
cultivation no doubt accounts for its separate descent line (see figure 4).
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 15
But it may also reflect the ancestral status of taro in Eastern Polynesia,
where it was more important than the kümara (Handy and Handy 1991,
14–16). 
These whakapapa clearly act at one level as folk taxonomies of the root
crops and of vine-like species morphologically similar to kümara. They
also contain a wealth of information about the biology and habitat of the
kümara, including predator, pests, and an environmental indicator of its
time of harvest. A “genealogical” framework then acts as a convenient
mnemonic for the storage and recollection of this knowledge. 
Moral Imperatives Provided by the Narrative
Traditional narratives include among their several functions that of impart-
ing moral rules or guidance. One analysis of the similarities and differ-
ences between indigenous knowledge systems and modern or “western”
science notes that while science purports to be value free, indigenous
knowledge systems, being typically rich in narratives, are deliberately
value-laden. That is, in addition to providing knowledge about the world,
they also seek to provide moral rules and ethical guidelines that dictate
proper conduct toward one another and one’s environment (Roberts 1998,
66, 67). 
But deeper layers of meaning can also be embedded in narratives. As the
example outlined above demonstrates, they may seek to ascribe origins,
explain relationships, and tell why things came to be the way they are.
Such explanations provide an opportunity to establish or reinforce tikanga
and ritenga (the ethical values and the rules for proper conduct). Within
this particular narrative are several moral lessons about the consequences
of right or wrong actions. These include the theft committed by Rongo (an
act punished by the advent of insect and rat pests) and the spying of the
Mäui brothers on Pani (an act which forced them to emigrate). On the
other hand, Rongo rightly observed the correct ritual of tapu removal by
cooking the celestial tubers, thus making this food available to humans.
Other traditional narratives relate a different, earthly origin for the
kümara by recounting its importation to New Zealand from Eastern Poly-
nesia. One of these stories (briefly mentioned earlier) tells how Marama,
junior wife of Hoturoa, the captain of the Tainui canoe, brought with her
several precious plants from the homeland. Because she engaged in
immoral behavior with a slave shortly after her arrival, when she planted
her kümara they turned into the pöhue or bindweed (Calystegia sepium).
This weed is a scourge of the kümara garden, strangling and smothering
16 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
the plants, while its roots, inferior in size and bitter in flavor, have a purga-
tive effect when eaten. Similarly, Marama’s hue seeds turned into mäwhai
(Cassytha paniculata), a vine-like plant that smothers low vegetation and
has small spiny fruits. Her aute (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera,
from which tapa cloth was made) grew into the endemic whau tree (Ente-
lea arborescens), whose bark is used to make an inferior substitute for
tapa. In contrast, the kümara, taro, and hue plants brought by Hoturoa’s
senior wife, Whakaotirangi, all flourished because she did not commit
any moral indiscretion and she observed the correct protocol on arrival
by planting them in soil brought from the homeland (Jones and Biggs
1995, 52; Orbell 1985, 46–47).
Discussion
As a case study, the whakapapa of the kümara enables us to make some
preliminary generalizations as to the major characteristics and functions
of this construct in traditional Mäori society, and to ask whether and how
these might inform contemporary debates about genetically modified
organisms. What seems clear from the above is that whakapapa provides
a cognitive template of great utility in an oral society. To this template are
added layers of information and meaning in the form of mätauranga of
plant and animal names, biology, and ecosystem relationships with ani-
mate as well as inanimate things. Further layers of meaning are provided
by accompanying narratives, which not only provide explanations for why
things came to be the way they are, but also moral guidelines for correct
conduct. Whakapapa thus enable a wealth of knowledge to be conve-
niently situated, memorized, recalled, and transmitted. Collectively, this
information provides the necessary sources of meaning and understanding
required for a variety of different purposes. In what follows, we first dis-
cuss the several functions whakapapa appear to have played in traditional
society. Following that, we ask how might the knowledge they contain,
including that within their accompanying narratives, inform the debate
on genetic modification.
Whakapapa as Folk Taxonomy
As the most prized cultivated food crop of Mäori, the kümara is elevated
to a status whereby it is personified as Rongo, the central focus of the wha-
kapapa in figure 4. All other things within this realm, terrestrial and celes-
tial, are in some way associated with the kümara in terms of origin, mor-
phology, or biology (including habitat and seasonal cycle). This strongly
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 17
suggests an underlying utilitarian rationale for the creation of the whaka-
papa of Rongo, which is not surprising, given the considerable effort that
had to be expended by each tribe to ensure the kümara’s survival in a mar-
ginal habitat, well south of its usual, more tropical distribution. 
Raymond Firth applied the term “economic lore” to such pragmatic
knowledge of natural resources, yet he did not posit a solely utilitarian
explanation: 
Knowledge is the essential preliminary to effective use. The Mäori of olden
times were remarkably well-versed in all matters pertaining to their natural
surroundings. The term “economic lore” may be used to denote this knowl-
edge as applied to the solution of his economic problems . . . [Further,] it is
doubtful if this interest of the Mäori in his surroundings was solely a matter of
economic or practical utility. [While] it is unquestionable that the greater part
of the fund of information pertaining to birds, plants and minerals was accu-
mulated directly on this basis of economic interest . . . at the same time it is not
inconsistent with a certain desire to obtain knowledge for its own sake, to
observe and describe with accuracy, and with the object of better classification.
(1973, 58–60) 
Support for a utilitarian hypothesis is provided by whakapapa of two
other root crops traditionally important to Mäori: aruhe (the rhizome of
Pteridium esculentum or bracken fern) and tï or cabbage tree (Cordyline
spp), which ranges in size from a shrub to a palm-like tree. One species,
tï pore (C fructicosa) was transported to New Zealand in the ancestral
canoes along with the above-mentioned root crops, while five other
species are endemic. Both aruhe and the native tï grew wild, but they were
also semicultivated—aruhe by burning off regenerating forest cover at
regular intervals to encourage its growth, and tï by cutting and replant-
ing the stems, which, along with the rhizomes, were harvested and eaten.
Both were important year-round sources of starch, particularly in south-
ern latitudes where kümara, taro, and uwhi could not be grown, and dur-
ing winter, the traditional time of warfare. Indeed, aruhe was regarded as
“te tütanga të unuhia” (the staple that can never fail) until its eventual
replacement by the European-introduced potato (Hiroa 1950, 93). 
Neither aruhe nor tï is included in the whakapapa of the kümara, and
several reasons can be advanced for their absence. First, they are both
morphologically distinct from the other plants in this whakapapa, and
unlike the cultivated root crops, neither were dependent on vegetative
propagation, being first and foremost “wild” foods. But it may have been
the association of aruhe with war that provided a more important cultural
rational for their exclusion. Cultivation of kümara was so intensive and
18 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
laden with ritual that it was necessarily a peacetime activity; thus, Rongo
was also regarded as atua of peace. Aruhe, on the other hand, was
regarded as one of the children of Tümatauenga, the tutelary deity of war-
fare, and thus was incompatible with the children of Rongo. Therefore,
aruhe was never stored or cooked with kümara (Andersen 2000, 5; Riley
1997, 249, 391). It may be for all of these reasons that aruhe was excluded
from the realm of Rongo and placed instead in the realm of Haumia-
tiketike, another child of Rangi-nui and Papa-tü-ä-nuku. Oral tradition
records Haumia as having at one time clung to the back of the Sky-father
as hair. But when the parents were separated, he hid in the bosom of the
Earth-mother. However, the hair of Haumia remained visible as fronds
of the bracken fern, and it is by this means that aruhe is discovered by
humans, dug up, and eaten (Riley 1997, 389). 
As for the origins of tï, one whakapapa of this plant has been described
and explained in considerable detail by Philip Simpson (2000), based on
information provided by Hohepa Delamare. This extraordinary genealogy
traces an origin (from several children of Rangi-nui and Papa-tü-ä-nuku,
including Haumia) and descent including at least fifteen generations, most
of which occur in the celestial realm. It is here that all the important mor-
phological, anatomical, reproductive, ecological, medical, and nutritive
attributes of the earthly tï are imparted and fixed in this plant and its
descendents.
All three whakapapa—of kümara, aruhe, and tï—demonstrate the
importance of pragmatic as well as cultural considerations in their cre-
ation. Another illustration can be found in Hawaiian cosmological gene-
alogies, where, from a solely genetic or biological point of view, groupings
appear strikingly capricious. Here the Sky-father (Wäkea) and Earth-
mother (Papa) produce four children. Käne (Täne), the firstborn primary
deity, gives rise to taro (the most highly valued food, reserved for chiefs),
sugarcane, bamboo, and then humans. Kanaloa (Tangaroa) produces the
banana and marine life; Kü (Tü) the coconut and breadfruit; and Lono
(Rongo) the kümara, gourd, and pig (Handy and Handy 1991, 15). 
Whakapapa as Phylogeny
Modern classifications based on the underlying concept of phylogeny or
evolutionary history aim first to name and assign all living things to a
species, regardless of their cultural importance or utility. Second, they sys-
tematically group species into more inclusive, higher taxonomic catego-
ries, culminating in a kingdom. Third, they attempt to reflect the phylog-
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 19
eny of all organisms so that, ideally, members of a kingdom are genetically
related and can trace descent from a single common ancestor. (Note that
differences of opinion exist among proponents of cladistics, which empha-
sizes genetic relatedness as being of primary importance in classifying
organisms, and phenetics, whose supporters argue that a “good” taxon-
omy should incorporate the greatest amount of biological—including eco-
logical—information, and thus serve a more utilitarian purpose.) 
Similarities and differences between Mäori and modern scientific sys-
tems of classification in terms of the above aims are both demonstrated in
figure 4. The ability of Mäori to perceive underlying patterns in nature and
to group these into the most intuitive and basic of all classifications—that
is, the “folk genus” of Berlin (1992), or “generic-specieme” of Atran (1993)
—is clearly present. Kümara, taro, uwhi, kiore, pöhue, and aka all appear
to be such taxonomic categories. Extension of this ability to distinguish
species at the subgeneric level is also evidenced by Mäori recognition of
two closely related plant species, pikiarero (white clematis) and arero-tani-
wha (purple clematis), and of the three caterpillars anuhe, torongü, and
moka—although science recognizes only one extant insect species that
consume the kümara leaves: Agrius convolvuli (Scott and Emberson 1999;
formerly Sphinx convolvuli [Millar 1971]). But a major difference between
the systems occurs above the level of “folk genus” in that higher order tax-
onomic categories such as family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom are
absent from these whakapapa. Any superficial similarity between Rongo
and the other environmental realms (such as Täne, Tangaroa, and Hau-
mia) and the kingdom taxon must be dismissed on the basis that modern
classifications require all organisms to be descended from only one com-
mon ancestor at the kingdom level; in other words, the phylogenetic basis
of modern scientific classifications does not provide for multiple mem-
bership in several kingdoms. In contrast, membership in the realms con-
structed around the children of Rangi and Papa is not exclusive. “Kinds”
of organisms, for example, “plants” or “insects,” can claim membership
in more than one realm, as do the plant, insect, and other animal species
found within Täne, Tangaroa, Rongo, and Haumia. Furthermore, as fig-
ure 4 demonstrates, membership may extend to nonliving entities, such
as the star Whänui. (In a study of the classification of aquatic animals in
Waya Island, in the Yasawa Group in Fiji, Andrew Pawley also noted,
“Above the genus and species level . . . folk and scientific classifications
have major differences” [1994, 88].)
With regard to the third aim of scientifically based classifications, obvi-
20 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
ous—but analogous—similarities exist between phylogeny and whaka-
papa. Both are concerned with understanding origins, descent lineages,
and relationships. Among Mäori, this is most clearly demonstrated in
human whakapapa, as one’s personal identity and place in society is tra-
ditionally reliant on possession of knowledge of genealogical links to one’s
ancestors and living relations. 
Given the above, it would seem that a more accurate interpretation of
Rongo is as an environmental realm representing the ecosystem of impor-
tant cultivated foods; that is, it includes those other living and nonliving
entities that have some historical and /or extant association with the
kümara. In positing the importance of ecosystem relationships as provid-
ing the logic for this whakapapa, we depart from a second claim by Paw-
ley, that “the higher the level . . . the less natural [in terms of morphol-
ogy, behavior or ecological adaptation] the categories” (1994, 88). On the
other hand, we find agreement with Atran’s statement concerning the cri-
teria for “life-form” status: “Size alone may not be as important as a place
in human ecology; that is, the life-form divisions seem to be made on the
basis of those habits of life that determine the place of each being in that
local environment pertaining to man’s everyday life” (1993, 37).
In sum, there are some intriguing similarities and differences between
plant /animal and human whakapapa and modern scientific classifications
based on the concept of phylogeny. All three share a similar concern with
attempting to identify descent from a common ancestor (or ancestors). But
human whakapapa involve only a single species and therefore are more
closely allied in terms of their underlying philosophy to modern phyloge-
netic classifications in their presumption of relationships based on genet-
ically inherited characteristics; thus both can lay claim to being genealo-
gies. This presumption of genetic relationships (increasingly confirmed by
modern genetics for human as well as nonhuman genealogies) differs from
what we believe to be the underlying rationale of those plant and animal
whakapapa exemplified by that of the kümara. Here there is a similar
emphasis on identification of relationships, but these are based on spatial
and temporal associations (which may include both inanimate and ani-
mate things) as well as morphological resemblances (which may include
quite different species). Another distinguishing aspect (not covered here
due to space considerations, because it requires a comparative analysis) is
that all plant and animal whakapapa are specific to place, and will there-
fore vary from region to region depending on, among other things, climate
and biophysical resources. For all of these reasons, few nonhuman
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 21
whakapapa can claim to be genealogies in the sense that all of the things
they encompass possess a closely shared genetic inheritance. (Exceptions
include the whakapapa of an important resource involving only one genus
or species, such as the tuna [eel].) 
Instead, the primary purpose of plant and animal whakapapa such as
that depicted in figure 4 appears to be that of making sense of the sur-
rounding environment by functioning both as a “folk taxonomy” of
important resources, and as a “mind map” of a particular ecosystem. 
How Might Knowledge of Whakapapa and Narratives 
Inform the GMO Debate?
It has been said that Mäori are a people who walk backwards into the
future, a reference to the importance placed on seeking guidance for
future actions from the wisdom of the past deeds of ancestors and myth-
ical heroes. It is therefore of interest to reflect on the knowledge embed-
ded in whakapapa and their accompanying narratives in an attempt to
draw some conclusions of relevance to contemporary concerns about
genetically modified organisms. 
One conclusion explicit in the kümara narrative is that Rongo-mäui was
a risk taker. Strict social constraints were imposed on tëina (in this case
Rongo-mäui) in interactions with tuäkana (in this case Whänui) in that
junior relations are supposed to show the utmost respect to senior family
members. Yet Rongo-mäui flouts these rules and engages in disrespectful
conduct by stealing Whänui’s tubers. He then further insults the mana of
Whänui by cooking the kümara in order to lift their celestial tapu so that
humans may eat them. In traditional Mäori society, such transgressions
invite a reciprocal response in order to restore balance, in this case, to
reassert the mana of Whänui. However, although Rongo-mäui’s wrong-
doing does not go completely unpunished, it could be argued that the
eventual benefits (a valuable new food crop) outweigh both the risk and
the subsequent penalty. 
Similar messages are inherent in the actions of the Mäui brothers who,
because they spy on Pani in an attempt to discover the procreative source
of the kümara, are then forced to depart for foreign lands. Numerous
other stories about the youngest Mäui brother, the celebrated Mäui-potiki,
tell of how he also defies social rules of conduct in order to provide some
new innovations for humankind (Grey 1885). Thus the Mäui stories also
highlight two recurring themes in Mäori traditions: that of a younger per-
son seeking to outsmart an elder, and that of a trickster /hero who under-
22 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
takes dangerous missions on behalf of his people in order to bring new
knowledge or technology into the world.
Because the story of Marama’s serious transgression of social conduct,
outlined earlier, involves the transformation of one species into another,
it is of particular interest here. During the ongoing gmo debate, many
Mäori have voiced the opinion that transmutation of one species into
another (including humans into other animals) occurs only in the realm
of the atua. In other words, while it is possible for gods to perform such
actions, it is not appropriate for humans to attempt the same by moving
genes between species. However, Marama and her plants are located in
historical time. But it would be unwise to interpret this as evidence in sup-
port of transgenic modification. It seems more likely that this story simply
seeks to explain why and how Mäori were forced to adapt to local and
sometimes inferior plant species (pöhue, mäwhai, and whau) in place of
those (kümara, hue, and aute, respectively) brought from Eastern Polyne-
sia. All three narratives involving Rongo-mäui, Pani, and Marama sup-
port the comments made by Gregory Schrempp in his study of Mäori
cosmogony: “There are a number of stories dealing with the problem of
getting central cultural and ritual goods—such as the kümara, ritual
knowledge, and the gods themselves—to the new locale. The particularly
recurrent patterns in these stories are the tendency of these goods of
themselves to revert to their original home, and the overcoming of these
tendencies through combinations of theft, the use of certain rituals that
fix goods in new contexts, and appropriation of powers belonging to the
female line” (1992, 103).
One might therefore conclude from these stories that normally prohib-
ited actions are justifiable if the cause or purpose is correct (tika) or wor-
thy and the potential benefits appear to outweigh the risks. Furthermore,
although adherence to tikanga reduces the risks to both individuals and
society from abnormal behavior or wrongdoing, sometimes it is only
through deliberately flouting culturally embedded norms that important
and beneficial changes to society are brought about. However, in all activ-
ities involving risk taking, following proper process—including respecting
and adhering to appropriate tikanga and ritenga—provides an essential
safeguard particularly when embarking on a new venture. Rongo-mäui
took such precautions by ensuring that the tapu of the celestial kümara
was removed by cooking. This Mäori “precautionary principle” is often
expressed in the saying, “Kia tüpato”: Be careful.
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 23
Conclusion
This case study of the kümara demonstrates that whakapapa and narra-
tive serve important and legitimate cultural functions, such as making
sense of a complex world, imparting moral guidance concerning risk-tak-
ing activities and their consequences, and reaffirming deeply held cultural
beliefs. Because good risk management involves making decisions in which
societal values as well as biophysical knowledge must be considered, it
would seem important for all who engage in this debate to know more
about the whakapapa and narratives of plants and animals, and to discuss
how this knowledge might inform the genetic modification of organisms
in New Zealand. 
Because a major aim of this research is to enable all New Zealanders,
and in particular Mäori, to engage more fully in the gmo debate, we hope
to have demonstrated that an informed understanding of nonhuman wha-
kapapa and their narratives can make an important contribution to this
discussion. We also suggest that use of the same word for both human
and nonhuman whakapapa can be unhelpful to an understanding of the
implications of transgenic modification. For example, it is often claimed
by those opposed to genetically modified organisms that moving genes
between different species of plants and animals constitutes a violation of
whakapapa. When questioned further it is evident that many who advance
this claim assume—incorrectly—that nonhuman whakapapa are based on
the same underlying assumptions as human whakapapa, in other words,
that they all contain things that are closely related genetically. Yet as this
case study of the kümara demonstrates, one whakapapa can involve many,
quite different species of plants and animals, including insects and a rat.
This begs the question: is it or is it not acceptable to move genes between
the different species contained within this one whakapapa? We do not
presume to have the answer to this question, but our research suggests
that the conflation of attributes of human and nonhuman whakapapa is
one source of confusion in the discussion of the impacts of transgenic
modification.
It must also be noted that this paper deals almost exclusively with bio-
logically based information and argument. But as mentioned in the intro-
duction, Mäori concerns about genetic modification have not only a mate-
rial but also a spiritual basis, involving, for example, the concepts of tapu,
mana, and mauri. Because these beliefs are central to concerns about the
24 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
perceived adverse effects of transgenic modification, any informed consid-
eration of the impacts of genetic modification on whakapapa must take
them into consideration.
Our primary purpose has been to suggest that traditional whakapapa
and narrative-based knowledge has much to offer Mäori who are inter-
ested in understanding more about the genetic modification of plants and
animals and the potential effects this practice might have on Mäori cul-
tural values and beliefs. This knowledge should also be of interest to deci-
sion makers, who we suggest need to have an understanding of different
epistemologies and the criteria each use for justifying claims about the
rights and wrongs of this technology. Only with such understanding will
an informed conversation be possible. Narrative-based explanations as
well as empirical evidence are both important in reasoned debate in which
the merits of each can be assessed according to the function they are asked
to serve.
An equally important aim motivating this research on whakapapa is to
enable and encourage modern Mäori to learn about their rich scientific
heritage, including traditional ways of classifying and understanding the
world. Knowing about these whakapapa and narratives is surely sufficient
reward in itself.
* * *
This paper is publication No. 1 of research project UOA X0021 undertaken by
the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in association with Decision Research,
Eugene, Oregon, and the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Hawai‘i.
It is made possible by a grant from the New Zealand Foundation for Research,
Science, and Technology. The authors wish to thank the Mäori Advisory commit-
tee; Ewen Cameron, Curator of Botany at the Auckland Museum; and Wiremu
Kaa, St Johns Theological College, for their support and helpful comments.
Thanks also to three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Nga
mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. 
References
Andersen, Johannes C
1907 Maori Life in Ao-tea. Christchurch, nz: Whitcombe and Tombs.
Reprinted in Christchurch: Cadsonbury Publications, 2000.
Atran, Scott
1993 Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology
of Science. 1st paperback ed. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University
Press.
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 25
Beckwith, Martha, translator and editor 
1972 The Kumulipo: A Hawaiian Creation Chant. With a new foreword by
Katherine Luomala. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. First pub-
lished in 1951.
Beever, James
1991 A Dictionary of Maori Plant Names. Bulletin 20. 2nd rev ed. Auckland:
Auckland Botanical Society. First published as Bulletin 16, 1987.
Berlin, Brent
1992 Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants
and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, nj: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Best, Elsdon 
1908 Maori forest lore. Transactions of New Zealand Institute 41:231–285.
1976 Maori Agriculture. Dominion Museum Bulletin 9. Wellington, nz: A
R Shearer. Government Printer. First published in Wellington: Whit-
combe and Tombs, 1925.
1977 Whanui, Rongo-maui and Pani. In Tuhoe: The Children of the Mist,
825–833. 3rd ed. Memoirs of the Polynesian Society 6. Wellington: A
H & A W Reed. First published by the Board of Maori Ethnological
Research, 1925.
1982 Maori Religion and Mythology. Part II. Dominion Museum Bulletin
11. Wellington: P D Hasselberg, Government Printer. 
1995 Maori Religion and Mythology. Part I. Wellington: Museum of New
Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. First published as Dominion Museum
Bulletin 10, 1924.
Bulmer, Ralph
1970 Which Came First: The Chicken or the Egg-head? In Echanges et com-
munications: mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss, edited by Jean
Pouillon and Pierre Maranda, 1069–1091. The Hague: Mouton. 
Darwin, Charles
1899 The Origin of Species. 6th ed. London: John Murray. 
Delamare, Hohepa
1999 Personal communication to Brad Haami, 7 April. 
Diamond, Jared M
1966 Zoological Classification System of a Primitive People. Science 151:
1102–1104.
Firth, Raymond 
1972 Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington: A R Shearer, Gov-
ernment Printer.
Grey, Sir George
1885 Polynesian Mythology and Ancient Traditional History of the New
Zealand Race. 2nd ed, English and Mäori. Auckland: H Brett. 
26 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
Gudgeon, W E [Walter Edward]
1905 Maori Religion. Journal of the Polynesian Society 14:107–130.
Haami, Brad T 
1994 The Kiore Rat in Aotearoa: A Maori Perspective. In Science of the
Pacific Island Peoples, edited by John Morrison, Paul Geraghty, and
Linda Crowl, vol 3, 65–75. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, Univer-
sity of the South Pacific. 
Handy, E S Craighill, and Elizabeth Green Handy
1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment.
Bernice B. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Rev ed. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press. First published in 1972.
Hiroa, Te Rangi [Sir Peter Buck]
1950 The Coming of the Maori. 2nd ed. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs.
First published in 1949.
Hohepa, Patu 
1996 Personal communication to Mere Roberts, Auckland. 
Hunn, Eugene S
1982 The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification. American
Anthropologist 84:830–847.
Jones, Pei Te Hurinui
1960 King Potatau. Wellington: The Polynesian Society. 
Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, and Bruce Biggs 
1995 Nga Iwi o Tainui. Auckland: Auckland University Press. 
Leach, Helen 
1984 1,000 Years of Gardening in New Zealand. Wellington: A H & A W
Reed.
Miller, David
1971 Common Insects in New Zealand. Wellington: A H & A W Reed. 
Orbell, Margaret
1985 The Natural World of the Maori. Auckland: Williams Collins. 
1991 Hawaiki: A New Approach to Maori Tradition. Christchurch: Canter-
bury University Press. 
Paraone, Tiwai
1907 A Maori Cosmogony. Translated by Hare Hongi. Journal of the Poly-
nesian Society 16:109–119.
Pawley, Andrew 
1994 On the Classification of Marine Animals in Wayan. In Science of the
Pacific Island Peoples, edited by John Morrison, Paul Geraghty, and
Linda Crowl, vol 3, 87–107. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, Univer-
sity of the South Pacific. 
Reedy, Anaru, translator
1997 Ngä Körero a Pita Käpiti. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press. 
roberts and others • whakapapa and genetic engineering 27
Riley, Murdoch
1997 Maori Healing and Herbal. 2nd ed. Paraparaumu: Viking Sevenseas
NZ. First published in 1994.
Roberts, Mere
1998 Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science: Perspectives from the
Pacific. In Science and Technology, Education and Ethnicity: An Aotea-
roa /New Zealand Perspective, edited by Derek Hodson, 59–75. Royal
Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series 50. Wellington: Royal
Society of New Zealand. 
Roberts, Mere, Waerete Norman, Nganeko Minhinnick, Del Wihongi, and
Carmen Kirkwood
1995 Kaitiakitangata: Maori Perspectives on Conservation. Pacific Conser-
vation Biology 2 (1): 7–20.
Roberts, Mere, and Peter Wills
1998 Understanding Maori Epistemology: A Scientific Perspective. In Tribal
Epistemologies: Essays in the Philosophy of Anthropology, edited by
Helmut Wautischer, 43–77. Sydney: Ashgate Publishing. 
rcgm, Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
2001 Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Appendix
3: Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions from the Public, Section 4.
Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs. 
Schrempp, Gregory
1992 Magical Arrows: The Maori, the Greeks, and the Folklore of the Uni-
verse. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Scott, R[obert] R[oderic], and R[owan] M Emberson, compilers
1999 Handbook of New Zealand Insect Names: Common and Scientific
Names for Insects and Allied Organisms. Bulletin 12. Auckland: Ento-
mological Society of New Zealand.
Shirres, Michael P
1997 Te Tangata: The Human Person. Auckland: Accent Publications.
Simpson, Philip
2000 Dancing Leaves: The Story of New Zealand’s Cabbage Tree, Tï Köuka.
Christchurch: Canterbury University Press. 
Williams, Henry W
1975 A Dictionary of the Maori Language. Reprint of 7th ed. Wellington:
A R Shearer, Government Printer. 7th ed first published in 1971.
Whistler, W Arthur
1991 Polynesian Plant Introductions. In Islands, Plants and Polynesians,
edited by Paul Alan Cox and Sandra Anne Banack, 41–66. Portland,
or: Dioscorides Press. 
Yen, Douglas E
1974 The Sweet Potato and Oceania. Bernice P Bishop Museum Bulletin 236.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
28 the contemporary pacific • spring 2004
Abstract
The use of whakapapa by New Zealand Mäori is most commonly understood in
reference to human descent lines and relationships, where it functions as a fam-
ily tree or genealogy. But it also refers to an epistemological framework in which
perceived patterns and relationships in nature are located. These nonhuman wha-
kapapa contain information concerning an organism’s theorized origins from
supernatural beings, inferred descent lines, and morphological and ecological
relationships. In this context whakapapa appear to function at one level as a “folk
taxonomy,” in which morphology, utility, and cultural considerations all play an
important role. Such whakapapa also function as ecosystem maps of culturally
important resources. More information and meaning is provided by accompany-
ing narratives, which contain explanations for why things came to be the way
they are, as well as moral guidelines for correct conduct. 
Renewed interest in the whakapapa of plants and animals has arisen from con-
cerns raised by Mäori in regard to genetic modification, particularly the transfer
of genes between different species, as this concept is frequently invoked by those
who oppose transgenic biotechnology. Informed dialogue on this subject requires
an understanding of the structure and function of nonhuman as well as human
whakapapa and their underlying rationale, as well as the nature of the relation-
ships among the things included in nonhuman whakapapa. Of additional inter-
est and relevance is the relationship of whakapapa to modern scientific concepts
of taxonomy based on phylogeny and the species concept. 
In this paper we describe and interpret the whakapapa of an important food
plant, the sweet potato or kümara, in terms of its apparent functions and under-
lying rationale. We also discuss how the whakapapa and its associated narratives
might contribute to the current debate on genetically modified organisms in New
Zealand. 
keywords: whakapapa; folk taxonomy; ethnobiology; Mäori narratives; genet-
ically modified organisms; kümara (sweet potato).