traditional knowledge conference 2008 te tatau pounamu

succession to land interests employed by the Māori Land Court has itself been criticized fordegenerating the rights associated with ahi kā. Perspectives of current generations recognize those oftheir kin (although relatively far removed) who keep the ancestral flame burning on behalf of those wholive away from the land, and have been doing so for some time. Therefore, the definition of ahi kā hasexpanded, and acknowledges that genealogical ties, no matter how distant, can act as a conduit to theancestral flame for Māori urban dwellers. A waiata-ā-ringa (action song), presented by the AoteaUtanganui group at the Te Matatini National Kapahaka Festival in 2005 concurs with this view that theahi kā is now considered to be the people who maintain the marae (traditional gathering place) onbehalf of affiliated whānau and hapū members:Manaaki mai te tangataCaring for the peopleKia ora mai te wairuaLifts the spiritTiaki mai te tangataLooking after the peopleArā ko te tohu o te ahi kāThis is the sign of the ahi kāKa kite atu ai i ngā mahi neiYou have experienced the labour and sweatHe taonga tuku iho i ngā mātua To maintain the treasures handed on from eldersE mārama nei koe me whakapupuri You understand that you must take hold of these thingsKia hurihia koe hei hunga ahi kā To earn the right to be ahi kā. (Apou, 2003)It became quite clear that criteria for inclusion in the He Morehu Tangata research project wouldneed to include one’s connection to the land (around Rānana) through occupation. In other words, kuiaand koroheke participants needed to have lived on the land at some point in their lives. In a sense, theancient custom of ahi kā was being revisited and applied. There were some exceptions however, wherewhakapapa was not a key determinant for inclusion. Such cases concerned whāngai (foster child; fosterchildren) who felt that their foster whakapapa or whānau and their sense of ahi kā or personalconnectivity between themselves and the land were sufficient.An interview schedule was developed to help guide the interviews with kuia and korohekeparticipants. Questions within the interview schedule needed to remain relevant for the participant beinginterviewed; it became apparent that each participant would be classified, using three considerations:whether the participant identified as Ngāti Ruaka/Ngāti Hine;whether the participant had been raised in Rānana; andwhether the participant was resident in Rānana. (Tinirau et al., 2007)The classification is illustrated in Figure 1 below:Uri (descendant) of (through selfidentification)Ngāti Ruaka/NgātiHineRaised inRānanaNot Raised inRānanaConnection to (but not uri of)Ngāti Ruaka/Ngāti HineRaised inRānanaNot Raised inRānanaResident inRānana A1 A3 B1 B3NotResident inRānanaA2 A4 B2 B4Figure 1: Classification of research participants.Guide to selecting the relevant interview schedule, based on a participant’s whakapapa (through selfidentification)and connection, the place where the participant was raised, and their place of residence299