The epidemiology of attacks on statues: New Zealand as a case study

Objectives We aimed to describe the epidemiology of statue attacks along with statue representativeness relative to modern day demographics in one case study country: New Zealand. Methods We performed Internet searches for the existence of outdoor statues of named individuals and historical attacks in New Zealand (NZ), combined a national survey with field visits to all identified statues to examine for injuries and repairs. Results Of the 123 statues identified, nearly a quarter (n = 28, 23%) had been attacked at least once (total of 45 separate attack events), with the number of attacks increasing from the 1990s. Attacks involved paint/graffiti (14% of all statues at least once), nose removal/damage (7%), decapitation (5%), and total destruction (2%). The risk of attack was relatively higher for statues of royalty (50%), military personnel (33%), explorers (29%), and politicians (25%), compared to other reasons for fame (eg, 0% for sports players). Statue subjects involved in colonialism or direct harm to Māori (Indigenous population), had 6.61 (95%CI: 2.30 to 19.9) greater odds (adjusted odds ratio) of being attacked than other subjects. Most of the statue subjects were of men (87%) and Europeans (93%). Other ethnicities were 6% Māori (comprising 15% of the population) and 1% each for Asian and Pacific peoples, who comprise 12% and 7% of the population respectively. Conclusions This national survey found an association between statue attacks and the role of statue subjects in colonialism or direct harm to the Indigenous population. Furthermore, the demography of the statue subjects may represent historical and current social power relationships—with under-representation of women and non-European ethnic groups.

This extra strategy identified no new statues (out of the 16 statues in Auckland), giving us some confidence that the original strategy was fairly sensitive. Furthermore, Papers Past appeared to typically have multiple newspaper items that documented the same statue unveilingsuggesting that this was a relatively sensitive mechanism for statue identification. Nevertheless, subsequent to the original searches, we did incidentally locate six additional statues as a result of both further internet searches (n=3), and field work (n=3) up to the last inclusion date (13 April 2019 when the statue of Lithgow was unveiled). This suggested our initial search strategy was no more than 94% sensitive (116/123).
Statue attack data: Identifying a statue as per the above search strategies frequently revealed historical information about attacks on the statue. But we also performed additional searches in Papers Past and with search terms including the words: statue and vandalism; statue and paint and damage; statue decapitation. Similarly for Google searches: Zealand and statue and decapitation/graffiti/stolen/broken.

Field data:
Site visits to all the statues that were still outdoors were conducted between September 2018 and August 2019. Photographs were taken of the setting and from all sides of the statues (including of any associated plaques or information boards). In particular, evidence for past and current injuries (including attacks with paint) were closely looked for eg, in nostrils and ear canalswhere removal of paint is more difficult.
Data coding and analysis: Data from internet searches and field visits were collated in an Excel file and analysed. The denominator used was for all statues unveiled at any time up to the last inclusion date (13 April 2019). This therefore included all those subsequently destroyed (n=3), stolen (n=1), or moved from outdoors and into interior settings (n=14). When a stolen statue was replaced (n=1) this was included as a new statue in the denominator.
We defined statue attacks as being where there was documentation of a historical attack (eg, in Papers Past or in online media reports) or from our field observations of obvious repairs or selected missing body parts (eg, noses), paint remnants, or graffiti. Not included were minor embellishments such as the addition of lipstick to the statues' lips, application of chewing gum, clothing added to the statue or having traffic cones placed on their heads. We also excluded damage that was unintentional eg, the multiple statues damaged by the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and statues destroyed by fungal infection (eg, George Grey in Greytown). a non-foundational religious figure  3.
part of the modern era (from Tasman's first visit in 1642 AD)


Generic figures: eg, many generic soldier figures on war memorials around NZ (eg, "Trooper Mackenzie" (Fairlie)); "Art Deco Woman" (Napier); "Barry" (Katikati); Rangatira (Waihi); the statue at the grave of Harry Holland (Wellington) which is a figurative one of a young man.   [20]. His military rank status was not identified in our literature search, but we consider it likely to be at least officer level equivalency given his status as a chief. He was also involved in land disputes with other Māori tribes [20]. She was Queen and was symbolic of the British colonial empire. In particular, she was Queen during the NZ Wars and during a period when the Treaty of Waitangi was dishonoured by the Crown [23]. Her deficient role is given emphasis as she (as the Crown) was the direct Treaty partner with Māori in NZ. Indeed, during her reign in 1882 and 1884 deputations of Māori travelled to England to take petitions based on the Treaty to the British monarch and the British Government [19]. See under George V as per the military status of Royalty.

Wakefield, Edward Gibbon
A founder of the European colonisation of NZ He was a strong promoter of colonisation of NZ and in general, with an actual "colonisation theory" [24]. Another aspect of his history was that he was imprisoned (in England) for abducting a 15-year-old schoolgirl [24].

Young, Nick (Nicholas)
First person on Cook's ship to sight NZ He was part of Captain Cook's crew (part of the Royal Navy) when some local Māori were killed by this crew at the time of Cook's visit to Gisborne. This European contact also symbolises the start of the loss of Māori land to Europeans in the subsequent century and longer.  [15] Probably related to loss of Māori land and his involvement in the NZ Wars against Māori [15] (see Table S3 Possibly relating to his role of a promoter of colonisation (see Table S3), (with this more likely than his imprisonment for child abduction)