Somebody in this family sat down with a pen and wrote sixty-four pages of history for a relative, by hand, and he never once made it flatter.
Every family historian faces the same small temptations, over and over. Two names that are probably the same person. A gap you could bridge with a guess nobody would ever catch. An ancestor who behaved badly. A famous name you could attach yourself to with one line and no evidence.
He was offered all four. He refused all four. Here is the count.
One
On page 8 he drew a chart with two men called Kupapa on it, and two called Iri Hau, and he could not tell whether each pair was one person or two.
He labelled them A1 and A2, B1 and B2. And then he wrote a note on his own chart:
> "There is the possibility that the persons Kupapa (A1) and Kupapa (A2) as being the same person." > "There is also the possibility that Iri Hau (B1) and Iro Hau (B2) as being the same person."
Nobody would have known. He wrote it down anyway.
Two
On page 19, beside Kupe, he wrote four short lines:
> "(your ancestor.) VIA N. TOA. NOT SHOWN. to Hika-Mapu. Folio (A)."
He knew the descent from Kupe to Hika Mapu ran through Ngāti Toa. He knew it well enough to name the route in the margin.
And he did not draw the line.
He wrote down where it went and then left the space empty, because he could not draw it properly, and an empty space you have labelled honestly is worth more than a line you have guessed.
Three
On page 27, writing about the Bramble Bush migration of 1822, he came to a stretch of history he could not tie to his own people, and he stopped:
> "...as no mention is made of any of the immediate ancestors of this writer, [I do] not write about > this part of families history, and leave those who wish to know more to read Percy Smith's book."
He gave the page numbers. Pages 383 to 392. He told his reader where to go and check him.
Four
On page 30, of a chief named Ngātata i te Rangi, he wrote that the man was closely related to Pomare and probably also closely related to Hika Mapu's family.
Probably. One word, and it costs him a connection he clearly wanted.
Five
On page 170 he drew a chart of Ngāti Toa descent, and beside two of the names, Hotu Hope and Hine Ihi, he wrote:
> "Ngāti Toa do not record these two persons as their ancestors."
He drew them in. And then he wrote down that the iwi itself does not accept them. He did not delete them and he did not assert them. He left both facts on the page and let the reader decide.
Six
On page 188, quoting a Nelson Land Court minute book that described Ropoama Te One as the paramount man and the largest landowner, he added his own note in brackets:
> "It would seem that these two chiefs and others would have been the principal chiefs who led the > above invasion. Not Ropoama, who would have been a junior chief at the time."
He corrected his own ancestor downward.
The court record made Ropoama sound bigger than he was on the day, and the compiler would not take it. He added that Ropoama became the most powerful chief in Queen Charlotte Sounds later, after the others died, which is true, and which is a smaller and better claim.
Seven
And then the one that cost him something.
On page 218, writing about what his own people did to Moriori in 1835, he had every excuse available. He was writing his family's history for his family. He could have written the arrival and stopped.
He wrote this:
> "There can be no excuses made for the actions of the Ngāti Tama people, and also of the Ngāti > Mutunga people, in the way in which they behaved in this so-called conquest over the Moriori people > for their lands, and this includes the families of Pomare and other relations of Hika Mapu."
And this includes. He named his own. In his own genealogy. In the document he was making as a gift.
Then on another page he stopped himself: It is too involved for me to record the outrageous outcome of the Moriori people during this invasion. He would not make a spectacle of it either.
And the same man wrote this
He also recorded, of Te Rauparaha, the most famous name his family has:
> "Te Rauparaha is known to have cherished the hope that Te Pehi might fall in the assault, and by his > death rid him of a powerful rival in the councils of the tribe."
A descendant of Ngāti Toa, writing down that Ngāti Toa's great leader hoped his own senior chief would die in a battle.
And of Te Wherowhero, the enemy commander who had come to destroy them, he wrote that the man stood alone in an open field and fought like a true rangatira, and that many took up his challenge and paid dearly for their temerity.
He would not flatter his own and he would not diminish the other side. That is the same discipline pointed in both directions, which is the only kind that means anything.
What he chose to hand over
At the end of the contents, he explains what the manuscript was supposed to be. It was going to be proof read by a newspaper film critic he had written books with, and a librarian he had written articles with, and then it was going to be typed and printed properly.
And then he changed his mind:
> "However, I am giving you this, the only copy, in my own free hand, which will contain much more > mana to yourself."
He struck out the words "the only" and wrote them again.
He had the option of print. Print is neater, print is permanent, print can be copied. He chose to hand over handwriting, on purpose, because handwriting carries the person in it.
The signature is on page 13. The bibliography is on page 1 and it names the Māori Land Court at Christchurch, Te Maire Tau, Terry Ryan of the Ngāi Tahu Trust Board, Te Puni Kōkiri at Blenheim, the Canterbury Museum, and the National Archives at Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland.
He closes that page in his own hand:
> KA PAI! E TIKA RAA HOKI! KATOA TAHI.
Why this is the most important story in the folder
Because a hundred years later, his descendants set themselves a rule for how to handle his work. Never write it down as proven if it is only held. Say which kind of knowing a thing rests on and then stop talking. Flag what you cannot draw rather than drawing it.
They thought they were imposing a modern standard on an old document.
They were not. He set it first, seven times, in his own hand, before anybody asked him to.
The honesty came down the line with the names.
Where this comes from
Pages 1, 4, 8, 13, 19, 27, 28, 30, 170, 188 and 218 of the sixty-four page whakapapa manuscript held by Karen Philips, read from the original photographs on 20 and 21 August 2026. Every quotation above is the compiler's own wording, read off the page.
One thing about him is still open and it is recorded rather than smoothed. Page 27 reads "continuing with this part of the history of your ancestors George", which sounds like a man writing to George Henare rather than as him. On page 188 his bracketed comments are signed with an initial and the surname HENARE, and the initial is cut off by the edge of the photograph. If it is T, it is Teoti Eruera Henare himself. If it is J, it is another Henare writing for him.
That needs the original page, not a photograph. The whakapapa is unaffected either way. Only the name of the hand is open, and it would be against everything above to guess it.
◆