Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: Archaeological Desktop Study

Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

report to The New Zealand Transport Agency and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust

Matthew Campbell Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

report to The New Zealand Transport Agency and The New Zealand Historic Places Trust

Prepared by: Matthew Campbell

Reviewed by: Date: 15 June 2012 Louise Furey Reference: 2011/96

CFG Heritage Ltd. P.O. Box 10 015 Dominion Road Auckland 1024 ph. (09) 309 2426 [email protected] Th is report is provided electronically Plesae consider the environment before printing

Hard copy distribution

New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Tauranga New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland New Zealand Transport Agency, Hamilton OPUS International Consultants, Tauranga CFG Heritage Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Ngāti Haua New Zealand Archaeological Association Central File University of Auckland Library University of Otago Anthropology Department Library Auckland Museum Library iii

Contents

 The study area   Pre-European Mori horticulture   Soils   Pre-European Mori site distribution   Excavated sites in the Waikato Basin   Aerial photography   LINZ maps and plans   Assessment of the data   Soils and horticulture   The archaeological landscape   Assessment and recommendations   Conclusion  Acknowledgements  References  iv

Figures

Cover photo. Excavation of garden soils, sand-fi lled hollows and borrow pits. 1. Th e study area. 4 2. A large, mostly undisturbed borrow pit at site S15/27. 8 3. Large-scale landscape features of the Waikato basin. 10 4. Schematic diagram of main landscape units and associated soils series. 11 5. DSIR (1954) soil series within the study area. 13 6. McLeod (1984) soil series within the study area. 14 7. Pre-European Māori archaeological sites recorded within the Waikato basin. 19 8. Distribution of recorded sites within the study area, labelled by site number. 23 9. Record type and accuracy for sites within the study area. 27 10. Location and extents of sites within the Cambridge Plan Change 66 area. 28 11. Recorded location of S15/372 and adjacent sites. 30 12. Pre-European Māori hash fi le sites recorded within the study area. 32 13. Sites mentioned in the text. 35 14. Sand-fi lled hollows exposed in plan and partly excavated at S14/198 near Taupiri. 39 15. Borrow pit excavated in cross-section at S14/198 near Taupiri. 40 16. Extent of aerial photo coverage for SN266/833–835 within the study area. 42 17. Detail from SN266/834/57 showing sites S15/25–27 and S15/372–373. 43 18. Tape and compass map of S15/25 made by Edson for the 1976 site record. 44 19. Detail from SN266/834/53 showing pā S15/19 and S15/65 with associated pits. 45 20. Borrow pits and possible borrow pit and pit clusters mapped against soil type. 47 22. Detail of DP 127 showing areas under manuka scrub in 1880. 49 21. Detail of SO 97 3 showing the “Native Cultivation” east of Swayne Road. 49

Tables

Table 1. Comparison with LRI and McLeod’s soil classiﬁ cations. 15 Table 2. Numbers of sites in the study area and the Waikato basin. 18 Table 3. Summary of pre-European Māori sites recorded in the study area. 24 Table 4. Distribution of sites in the study area by DSIR soils type. 29 Table 5. Distribution of sites in the study area by McLeod soils types. 29 Table 6. Pre-European Māori hash ﬁ le sites recorded within the study area. 31 Table 7. Borrow pits recorded from aerial photos located on DSIR soils. 46 Table 8. Borrow pits recorded from aerial photos located on McLeod’s soils. 46 Table 9. LINZ plans containing information of relevance. 48 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

In partial mitigation of the eff ects of the Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway on historic heritage, following the Decision of the Commissioners in the Resource Consents Hearing and in consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (HPT), the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has commissioned a desktop study of the pre-European Māori archaeology of that part of the Waikato Basin within 3 km of the expressway designation. Th is study area lies partly in Waikato District and partly in Waipa District (Figure 1). Th e relevant condition in the Decision is: 12.3 Prior to the construction the NZTA shall commission a suitably qualifi ed archaeologist to undertake a desktop study to review the archaeological values of the Middle Waikato Basin (comprising an area between the Waikato River and a line 3kms north of the designated alignment of the Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway). Th e desktop study area shall include, but not be limited to, study of pre-European Maori garden sites characterized by the presence of Tamahere loam and borrow pits. Th e purpose of the study is to: 1) Identify sites with potential high archaeological and heritage landscape values. 2) Make recommendations for the management of the remaining sites, with particular emphasis on sites with high values. Th e study shall be conducted under the direction of the NZTA in consultation with the NZHPT and Waikato Tainui. Th is study centres around made garden soils, a specifi c site type that is common in, but not exclusive to, the Waikato Basin, and extends to all pre-European Māori sites. It does not include European sites except within or close to the bypass designation, data which will further inform the project archaeological assessment to be lodged as part of the Historic Places Act 1993 authority application process. Th is study is limited to a desktop appraisal only – it is not a full archaeological assessment, it cannot be used to support applications for archaeological authorities and would not be accepted by HPT for this purpose.

Projected outcomes

Th e research has two primary objectives: fi rstly, to identify sites with potential high archaeological and heritage landscape values within the study area and secondly, to provide recommendations for the management of these sites. In addition, this research will inform future investigations associated with this project as well as providing a baseline for future research in the Waikato Basin. In order to provide a wider context, and because of the paucity of archaeological research (in quantity, though not necessarily in quality) in the Waikato generally, consideration is given to the archaeology of the Waikato Basin as a whole. Th e research will treat the study area as an archaeological landscape, assessing the relationships between individual sites and the nature of pre-European Māori settlement in the area. As it is a desktop study it cannot be expected to make any defi nitive statements but will instead provide models that can be tested through archaeological fi eld work. Criteria for assessment are limited because this study lacks a fi eldwork component. Both individual sites and the wider archaeological landscape of the study area must be assessed. Relevant criteria, condensed from the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Guidelines for Writing Archaeological Assessments, can be summarised as: 2 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

a. the importance of garden soil sites in the pre-European Māori settlement of the Waikato Basin, including their status as locally early sites; b. the potential of the site or archaeological landscape “through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand” (Historic Places Act 1993, the wording is unchanged in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill); c. the potential of the site or archaeological landscape to provide a public amenity through interpretation, education or the dissemination of knowledge through research. Th e primary data sources used here are soil types, the recorded archaeology of the study area and the Waikato Basin and various map sources including aerial photographs. Various written records that will be relevant to the archaeology of the Waikato Basin have not been accessed, particularly local histories, traditional Māori histories and the records of the Land Courts, all of which will contain very speciﬁ c information about pre-European Māori occupation. A potentially important source of archaeological data that has not been accessed is the records of the Waikato Archaeology Group and the Waikato Museum. Any future research should take these records into account. Matthew Campbell 3 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 The study area

Th e study area extends 3 km from the Cambridge Section designation and was determined by buff ering the designation by 3 km in MapInfo (Figure 1). Th e southern boundary is the Waikato River and the eastern boundary was extended to Lake Karapiro and the Karapiro Dam. Most of the area is entirely within the alluvial plain of the Waikato Basin but to the east takes in a part of the Mangakawa Hills that separate the Waikato from the Hauraki Basin (McCraw 2011: 7). Other than the Waikato River there are two main watercourses in the study area: the Karapiro Stream rising in the hills north of Lake Karapiro and fl owing west to join the Waikato River at Cambridge; and the Mangaone Stream that drains the plain north of Cambridge and runs north west along a palaeochannel of the Waikato River (McCraw 2011: 33) to join the river at Hamilton. Th e Waikato has cut a channel in places over 20 m deep, often paralleled by a series of river terraces. Th e plain is relatively fl at with low hills on older soils, rising quite steeply at its eastern margin to the surrounding hills. Most of the plain is productive agricultural land with dairying the predominant industry. Cambridge is the largest town in the study area: other localities include Hautapu, centred on the dairy factory of the same name; and the village of Bruntwood. Th e area is well served by transport infrastructure including State Highway 1 that runs from Hamilton though the study area and on to Tirau and Putaruru, and Highway 1B runs from Cambridge to Taupiri and currently acts as a bypass for Hamilton. A branch rail line runs from Cambridge through Hautapu to Ruakura near Hamilton but since 1999 has been closed between Cambridge and Hautapu. 4 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

Lake Karapiro

Stream

Road Road 1

akawa akawa

Omaung Omaung

Karapiro

Stream Designation

a a d d l l d d R R i i o o a a K K t S St

d d

a a

o o R d ad R ooaa ooad

t R R Road Thornton Watkins r Watkins cou

Fen

d d a a

o o R R e e n n y y a a w w S ag S Z

i i

Cambridge

Z Z Expressway Expressway

Hauptapu

d a ad o o R R

n n o o n

n a H Hann

River River

Mangaone

d d a a o o R R e e k a ak e e P P 1B

d District aad

RRo

Waipa R

RRo Waipa District

Bruntwood District Bruntwood d d a a o o R R t t s s e e r r r r o o F F

s n Waikato r

r a uur

k c

a c

Waikato District a

Cambridge R R o o a a e e d d b b m m c c o o s s i i D D

Waikato

d o a

o R

1 R n

n u D

d k a a

o o R

R o

w H

o o

r r

c ca

n n 2

e e P P N kilometres 0

1. The study area. Matthew Campbell 5 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 Pre-European MĀori horticulture

As this study centres around made garden soils it is necessary to outline pre-European Māori horticultural practices, particularly as they relate to the Waikato Basin. Th e origin of the Māori lies in tropical Polynesia and their tropical crops are not generally well suited to temperate New Zealand. Few native plants seem to have been gardened, or perhaps at best actively tended or encouraged, by Māori: karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus) was important for its berries and groves of karaka often mark pre-European Māori occupation sites though whether these groves were deliberately planted or whether the trees were the result of bringing seeds on site isn’t clear; tī kōuka (cabbage tree, Cordyline australis) was harvested for its sweet rhizomes, and was particularly important in the South Island, while a cultivar of C. australis, tī para, was developed in the upper North island; aruhe (bracken, Pteridium esculentum) was often the fi rst plant to colonise burnt forests or abandoned gardens and aruhe lands could be kept open by burning, with the rhizomes providing an important source of carbohydrate. Of the many tropical Polynesian crops only six are known to have been grown in New Zealand: ti pore (Cordyline fruticosa) was also exploited for its sweet roots and was probably confi ned to Northland; aute (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera) was used to make tapa bark-cloth and seems never to have thrived in New Zealand; uwhi (yam, Dioscorea spp.) is little known and was probably a marginal crop at best and quickly replaced by white potato in the historic period; hue (gourd, Lagenaria siceraria) was primarily grown for its gourds which were used as water containers though immature fruits were eaten; taro (Colocasia esculenta), of which there were many named varieties, was a more important crop which preferred damp conditions and provided both a starchy tuber, at least in the northern North island, and edible leaves. However, it is kumara (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas) that was the primary Māori cultigen, providing a starchy tuber that was a staple of their diet. Th ough frost tender it could grow in a wider range of conditions than taro or uwhi and matured more quickly. It grew as far south as Banks Peninsula. It preferred a well-drained sandy loam though granular loams and clays were extensively gardened in the North Island. Soil temperature may have been a more important limiting factor than soil type, with kumara only surviving in soil over 12°C and only growing in soil over 15°. Burtensaw et al.’s (2001) experimental kumara plots in the Cook Straight region showed that ‘traditional’ varieties grew well this far south, though some cultivars cropped better than others. Early European observers noted the neatness of kumara gardens, which were kept weed-free with caterpillars removed by hand. Th e crop was carefully dug when mature in the autumn, sorted and hardened off before being stored in kete in either semi-subterranean storage pits (rua), which are a common archaeological feature, or above- ground storehouses (pātaka or whata) (Furey 2006).

Made soils

Th e details of horticultural systems will have varied according to local practices and local soil and temperature conditions. Th is is evident in the Waikato, where soil modiﬁ cation was a common practice. Modiﬁ ed soils, referred to here as made soils, often referred to as plaggen soils, among other names (Gumbley et al. 2003: 6), have long been recognised in the New Zealand context. Well over a century ago Colenso (1880: 8), discussing pre-European kumara cultivations, said that: a dry and light sandy, or rather gravelly soil, was selected; and if it were not so naturally, it would be sure to become such, as every year they laboriously carried 6 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

on to it many a weary back-load of fi ne gravel, obtained from pits or river beds in the neighbourhood, and borne away in large and peculiarly close-woven baskets specially prepared for that purpose only. Rev. William Yate had noted the addition of sand or gravel to soils in the Bay of Islands to provide improved growing conditions for kumara as early as 1835 (cited in Walton 1982: 16). Archdeacon Walsh (1902: 14) noted that “In Waikato the clay land was often treated … with sand from the pumice plains, where the pits from which the supply was procured are still to be seen”, but he noted that this was based on traditional knowledge as “the old customs have long passed away” (1902: 12). Initially further research on such soils was undertaken by soil scientists. Rigg and Bruce (1923) described made soils on the Waimea Plains, noting that they were better drained than the surrounding soils. Th ey also noted a high proportion of charcoal in the soils, which to them indicated that wood had been bought on site for burning. In the Waikato made soils were recognised and mapped by soil scientists in the 1930s (Grange et al. 1939) though not within the study area. Taylor (1958) in his overview of soil science and New Zealand prehistory noted that, in general, most New Zealand soils were unsuited to Māori cultivation methods – they are either too poorly drained, too infertile or too cold. Th e addition of charcoal and sands and gravels was one method adopted by pre-European Māori to overcome these limitations. Made soils are found in several parts of the North Island and upper South Island, but it was the soils along the banks of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers that attracted his attention. Th e map he made of the distribution of made soils in the Waikato has served archaeologists well in the intervening half century. Archaeologists have built on this early work of soil scientists, particularly in trying to understand the way in which made soils aff ected Māori horticulture, as well as how they tie in to settlement patterns and subsistence activities more generally. Challis (1976) closely examined made soils at site N26/801 at Motueka, not far from the soils examined by Rigg and Bruce. Th e natural soils are poorly drained and regarded as near the climatic limit of kumara cultivation (though see Burtenshaw et al. 2001). Th ere was a borrow pit immediately adjacent to the made soils, which contained added sands and gravels less than 70 mm in diameter. Soils temperature measurements during the planting season showed that modifi ed soils were always warmer than unmodifi ed soils and reached optimum temperatures up to 11 days earlier. McFadgen (1980) also examined soils in the upper South Island and lower North Island and noted variation in the amount and type of inclusions. Sands and gravels could range from coarse sands to gravels up to 100 mm in diameter. Most of McFadgen’s soils appeared to be unploughed, probably a rare occurrence as soils attractive to Māori would be equally attractive to mechanised European farmers (certainly the made soils of the Waikato basin appear to have been heavily ploughed). Th e degree of mixing of gravels varied, with some still sitting at the surface as a sheet mulch. Some grounds remained hummocky, which McFadgen thought was a remnant of the original kumara growing mounds. Shell and charcoal were also commonly observed mixed into the soils. Made soils are also known from the Bay of Islands, the Waikato West Coast (Walton 1983), North Taranaki (Buist 1964: 24; Walton 1984), South Taranaki (Walton and Cassels 1992), the Whangaehu River (Walton 1982: 16) and Kaiapoi (Trotter and McCulloch 2001). Th ey are also found along the Waikato and Waipa Rivers north and south of the Waikato Basin. 1 Sites recorded in the New Zealand Archaeological Association site fi le, available online at www.archsite.org, are numbered according to which topographical map sheet they are located in. With the change from the imperial 1:63360 scale NZMS 1 series to the metric 1:50000 scale NZMS 260 in the 1980s all sites were renumbered. While many were originally reported under their NZMS 1 numbers, all sites are referred to in this report under their NZMS 260 numbers which continue to be used even though a new set of map sheets, the Topo50 series, has now been produced. Matthew Campbell 7 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Walton (1982) assessed the ethnographic basis for interpreting made soils as kumara soils. He noted that much of the ethnographic information, which had generally been treated as authori- tative, repeated earlier sources. For instance, Walsh (1902: 14, quoted above) described sands and gravel being added to the “clay land” of the Waikato, whereas these soils are not clays but relatively light and fertile loams – Walsh is parroting Yate who, in 1835, described the addition of “sand or small gravel … [to] clayey soil” (quoted in Walton 1982: 17). Walton concluded that sands and gravels were added to kumara soils and, interestingly, taro soils to improve growing conditions, but that the details of the ethnographic accounts were generally unreliable. Th ere seems to be considerable variation in made soils based on the local availability of sands and gravels. Soils near Waverley (Walton and Cassels 1992) and near Aotea Harbour (Walton 1983) were created on volcanic tephras that mantled underlying dunes, the sand from which was the source of quarried material. Th ese tephras are friable, well drained soils, already suitable for kumara cultivation. Th e purpose of adding sand appears not to have been to bring clay soils into production, but to enhance the properties of good soils. Waikato Basin made soils, where they have been examined archaeologically (Section 5), are similar. Th e Horotiu soils that are enhanced with sands and gravels (Section 3) are already friable, well-drained and eminently suitable for kumara cultivation with the main limiting factor probably ground temperature (see below). Conversely, Peters (1971) reports the addition of beach sands and pebbles, charcoal and shell to clay soils on Moturua Island in the Bay of Islands, where presumably poor soils were being bought into production. Peters does not say what crops he thought were being grown, and taro is a possibility here as well as kumara. Walter et al. (2011) describe two layers of shell mulch at Cook’s Cove, Tolaga Bay which they attribute to pre-European Māori horticulture. Th is is worth repeating in some detail as it demonstrates the place of horticultural soil modifi cation in a well-documented sequence of occupation. Th e fi rst occupation at Cook’s Cove dates to the 14th century AD while the shell mulches date to the 16th–18th centuries. Th ese represent a response to changing environments. Hunting of moa and seals was evident in the fi rst occupations although slopewash and microfossil evidence showed that gardening had also taken place. Later subsistence was centred on marine, particularly shellfi sh resources while horticulture continued on the slopes above the site. Th e shell mulches represent a move to “the open, dispersed, horticultural settlement pattern in the valley that was described by [Captain James] Cook” in 1769 (Walter et al. 2011: 23). Although the Waikato sequence diff ers from the East Coast sequence, Walter et al.’s analysis shows that gardening does not exist in a temporal or spatial vacuum but must be understood in context. Made soils in the Inland Waikato fi rst received archaeological attention when Law (1968a) examined soils in the Lower Waikato Basin near Huntly, and Pick (1968b) discussed the distribution of borrow pits (which he referred to as gravel quarries) in the Waikato, noting that they were clearly visible on aerial photos (Figure 20, see also Section 6). Cassels (1972a: 224), in his model of pre-European settlement in the Waikato, discussed in greater detail in Section 9, noted the association of pā with made soils. Clarke (1977) examined the ethnographic basis of made soils in the Waikato, noting that this evidence is often late and derivative. Th e Reverend William Williams (Journal 3 January 1834, quoted in Clarke 1977: 209) wrote that: the banks on either side of the river for about fourteen miles from Ngaruawahia pā are lined with cultivations for nearly the whole distance, though for the most part they have few inhabit- ants except in the planting season. What crops were grown in 1834 is not, unfortunately, recorded. Ensign Best, G.F. Angas and others in the 1840s recorded that kumara was still grown extensively, alongside corn and white potato. Angas (quoted in Clarke 1977: 212) described: 8 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study large piles of bushes in stacks amongst the kumara grounds through which we passed; they were used for sheltering the tender plants when young. Great care is required in rearing this precious vegetable owing to its susceptibility to frosts and severe winds. Here, archaeological investigation of these soils in the Waikato Basin rested until the advent of commercial mitigation archaeology in the late 1990s, discussed in Section 5.

2. A large, mostly undisturbed borrow pit at site S15/27. Photo David Lowe. Matthew Campbell 9 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 Soils

Soils are clearly of vital importance to any horticultural society. Pre-European Māori horticulture centred around kumara, a tropical crop that originated in South America and was imported into New Zealand via tropical Polynesia. Kumara grows well in the warmer parts of the North Island but cannot be overwintered in the ground. Th e main adaptation Māori made to conserve kumara through the winter was to develop storage techniques, either in above-ground structures, or subterranean or semi-subterranean roofed pits, which provided a controlled, stable environment. Th e other important adaptation to the temperate New Zealand climate was to modify the soil to increase soil heat retention and lengthen the eff ective growing season, particularly in marginal climates. Th e Waikato Basin is an inland site; compared to coastal locations, where the sea moderates temperature extremes, it can certainly be regarded as a more diffi cult location for kumara growing, though not necessarily marginal. Hamilton average 63 days of frost per annum between March and November, compared to 10 days in Auckland between May and September. Mean monthly temperatures are comparable to Auckland’s during summer (about 1°C cooler) but Hamilton becomes colder than Auckland from mid-autumn and doesn’t become as warm again until November (data from http://niwa.co.nz, accessed 12 February 2012). Th is shortened growing season means that soil modifi cation to increase heat retention and lengthen the eff ective growing season may have been critical to crop success in the Waikato Basin. Some soil types in the basin are ideally suited to these horticultural practices. Underlying the modern landscape of the basin is an older landscape of layered tephras dating back a million years or so, including the 1–3 m thick Hamilton Ash dating to 80–125,000 years ago, with various more recent mixed tephras roughly 0.5 m thick overlying it. Th is older landscape remains visible on the surface today as low rolling hills, the so-called ‘Hamilton hills’ (Lowe 2010a). Th is landscape is partly buried by the Hinuera formation, a coarse volcanic alluvium depos- ited by the ancestral Waipa and Waikato Rivers and derived from catchments in the central North Island around 100,000 to 22,000 years ago. Th ese form a relatively fl at plain. Around 22,000 years ago the Waikato, which had previously fl owed into the Hauraki Basin via the Hinuera Valley (near Karapiro), switched to the Waikato Basin. Before around 17,000 years ago, when it settled into its current channel, the Waikato fl owed through numerous failed channels forming the low terraces of the Hinuera surface. Since then numerous shallow tephras have blanketed the Hinuera surface forming modern topsoils. Th e palaeochannels of the Waikato tend to form poorly drained swampy soils while the terraces above the channels form the well- drained soils (Horotiu soils) that were the primary focus of Māori gardening. Extensive peat bogs also developed on the Hinuera formation when rainfall increased around 13,000 years ago (Figure 3) (Lowe 2010a). Th ese bogs are not located within the study area but were an integral feature of the pre-European landscape. Th e following discussion of soils within the study area is taken primarily from DSIR (1954), McLeod (1984) and Lowe (2010a) and, from an archaeological perspective, Gumbley at al. (2003). All Land Resource Inventory (LRI) data in the study area is derived ultimately from DSIR (1954) and were obtained in digital format from Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. Soil series and descriptions used in this section are primarily taken from McLeod (1984), as his report includes a fi nely detailed map covering most of the study area, supplemented by DSIR (1954). Descriptions of native vegetation are taken from DSIR (1954) and are of interest as they refer to “the vegetation which, as far as could be determined, covered the soils in pre-European times” (DSIR 1954: 52). Descriptions such as “manuka scrub” can often be taken to indicate pre-European Māori disturbance as manuka indicates the land was previously cleared and has 10 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

3. Large-scale landscape features of the Waikato basin (from Lowe 2010a: 2). Matthew Campbell 11 CFG Heritage Ltd.

4. Schematic diagram of main landscape units and associated soils series (from Lowe 2010a: 5). now begun to revert to forest, with manuka an early stage in the succession. However, these vegetation descriptions are only general, applying to all soils of that type throughout the North Island and so can only be taken as indicative at best at the local level analysed in this project. McLeod’s (1984) soil map is at a much fi ner scale and his soil descriptions are also more fi ne- grained than the DSIR descriptions, though he doesn’t address pre-European vegetation. As an example, the DSIR description for Esk sands (Soil type 1b) applies to a very broad category and takes no account of local variation. McLeod subdivides the Esk sands in his study area into: Waikato W, silts and fi ne sands; Waikato Ws, sands and gravelly sands; and Tamahere THw, Māori made soils on Waikato sands (see fuller discussion, below, and Table 1, which cross- references the DSIR and McLeod soils descriptions). It is his identifi cation of Tamahere soils in particular that is of interest to this project as these soils are the made soils described in the previous section. Unfortunately, McLeod’s mapped data only extends as far east as Cambridge, a little over half the study area. Where available, his soil types and descriptions are used in preference to the DSIR soil types (Figure 6). His map data within the study area was digitised into the project GIS from a large scale photocopy. Image registration was generally well within a 50 m accuracy. McLeod has drawn soils boundaries with considerable precision and so we have digitised them with equal precision but a certain degree of spurious accuracy is probably inherent in the digitised data.2

Soil descriptions

Th e following descriptions are taken from DSIR (1954) supplemented by McLeod’s (1984) descriptions. Only soils and variants within the study area are discussed.

2 McLeod’s soil map forms the basis for the Landcare Research online S-maps soils maps for the Waikato but the soil classiﬁ cations have now been changed. McLeod’s soil names are retained here as these are the names archaeologists are familiar with, however Table 1 includes these new classiﬁ cations. 12 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

Hamilton clay loams 83 are semimature brown loams derived from Hamilton Ash, a Pleistocene tephra dating between 80,000 and 3125,000 years ago. Th ese are the underlying soils of the basin that are covered at lower elevations by the Hinuera surface. Th ey are mod- erately well drained soils of low hills. McLeod subdivides them quite extensively but only his Kainui soils KN1 are found in the study area. Th ey are unlikely to have been gardened but the native vegetation is described as manuka scrub which indicates pre-European Māori disturbance to the primary forest. Ohaupo silt loams 59 are immature yellow–brown loams derived from Mairoa Ash. Th ey are well drained soils of rolling foothills. Like the Hamilton loams, they are unlikely to have been gardened but the native vegetation is described as manuka scrub. Th ese are found in the low hills in the east of the study area outside the area mapped by McLeod. Th e Horotiu sandy loams 48a are the main soils on which pre-European Māori garden sites are recorded. Th ese are well drained soils derived from late Pleistocene (around 25,000 years old) rhyolitic alluviums (the Hinuera formation) mantled with several recent tephras, found on the lower terraces of the Waikato River. McLeod subdivides the Horotiu soils into: Horotiu coarse sandy loam HS; Horotiu sandy loam H; Horotiu silt loam Hy; and his map, though not his text, also includes Hg which is presumed to be a gravelly variant of Horotiu. Horotiu soils are the major soil type in the study area and it is on these soils that most pre-European Māori gardens are found. Pits, known as borrow pits, often several meters wide and up to two metres deep, were dug to mine the Hinuera sands and gravels beneath the Horotiu tephras, and these sands and gravels were then added to the topsoil creating distinctive garden soils that are easily recognised archaeologically. Borrow pits survive in large numbers across the modern agricultural landscape. McLeod identifi ed these as Tamahere soils TH. Th e Horotiu–Te Kowhai complex 48b are essentially Horotiu sandy loams that were for- merly swampy, found in the palaeochannels of the Waikato River, though now drained for modern agriculture. Th ey would not generally have been suitable for kumara cultivation but may potentially have been used for taro cultivation, and swamps were also a source of wild resources such as fl ax, fi sh and birds. Th e native vegetation is described as manuka with patches of forest. McLeod subdivides them into: Bruntwood yellow brown loams B, which are imper- fectly drained; Te Kowhai silt loams, themselves subdivided into Te Kowhai silt loam T and Te Kowhai silt loam on pumice sand Ts; and Eureka sandy clay loam E. Te Kowhai and Eureka soils are poorly drained gley soils. Bruntwood soils are similar to Horotiu soils but are usually located at slightly lower elevations, intermediate between Horotiu and Te Kowhai soils, and the subsoil is less well drained than for Horotiu soils (Singleton 1991: 36). Some made soils are recorded on the Bruntwood soils, which are the best drained of these soils or even very occasionally Te Kowhai soils (Gumbley et al 2003: 23). Te Rapa peaty sands 105a and Kaipaki peaty loams 108a are both, as their name suggests, poorly to very poorly drained and would have been unsuitable for kumara cultivation though they might potentially have been used to grow taro. However, the native vegetation is described as kahikatea forest indicating that they had not been extensively exploited by pre-European Māori. McLeod subdivides these soil units quite extensively but only the Te Rapa TR and Kaipaki K soils are found in the study area. Esk sands 1b are recent alluvial deposits that occur throughout the North Island, including along the Waikato River. McLeod reclassifi es Esk sands as Waikato soils, yellow brown pumice soils derived from a massive fl ood containing Taupo pumice alluvium, about 1800 years old. Th ey are located along the low river terraces of the Waikato and are well to excessively well drained. McLeod subdivides them into Waikato silts and fi ne sands W and Waikato sands and gravelly silts Ws, along with Tamahere THw soils which are Māori garden soils consisting of gravels added to Waikato soils. Th ese soils were gardened directly (Tamahere THw soils), Matthew Campbell 13 CFG Heritage Ltd. N 2 kilometres Pa Pa/Maorihorticulture Maorihorticulture Midden Pit/Terrace Other 0 Sites and Patumahoe 82 hills soils hare 44e Horotiu sandy loam 48a Esk sands 1b Horotiu-Te Kowhai complex 48b Hamilton 83 and Ohaupo 59 soils Tauw Te Rapa 105a and Kaipaki 108a peats Soils Potentially gardened soils gardened Potentially Maori by Soils exploited potentially Maori Soils by less expolited

5. DSIR (1954) soil series within the study area. Land Resource Inventory data supplied by Landcare Research Ltd. 14 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study N 2 kilometres Pa Pa/Maorihorticulture Maorihorticulture Midden Pit/Terrace Other 0 Sites Horotiu H, Hg, Hs, Hy Waikato W, Ws Tamahere TH, THw Bruntwood B Te T, Ts, E, Hg Kowhai Low hill soils KN1, M, Ra Peat TR, K Potentially gardened soils gardened Potentially Maori Soils by poentially exploited Maori Soils by less expolited Soils

6. McLeod (1984) soil series within the study area. Matthew Campbell 15 CFG Heritage Ltd.

though they have little topsoil development due to their young age, and are also likely to have been a source of sand for adding to gardened Horotiu soils. Tauwhare sandy loams 44e and 44eH are podzolised soils of foothills and hills found in the east part of the study area, outside the area covered by McLeod. Th e native vegetation is described as manuka scrub but they are unlikely to have been gardened by pre-European Māori. Foothills are common locations for pā and one is located on Tauwhare soils in the east of the study area, which demonstrates uses for these soils other than horticultural. Patumahoe clay loams, which are also in the east of the study area outside the area covered by McLeod, had a native vegetation of broadleaf forest, indicating that they were not exploited by pre-European Māori, and would not have been well drained.

DSIR (LRI) classifi cations McLeod classifi cations S-map classifi cations* Soils of the low hills Hamilton clay loam 83 Kainui KN1 Kainui Soils of the Waikato fan Horotiu sandy loams 48a Horotiu H, Hg, Hs, Hy Otorohunga Tamahere TH Otorohunga (Sib 41) Horotiu–Te Kowhai complex 48b Bruntwood B Te Puninga Te Kowhai T, Ts Flaxton Eureka E Netherton Te Rapa peaty sand 105a Te Rapa TR Matakana Kaipaki peaty loam 108a Kaipaki K Kaipaki Soils of low terraces and gullies Esk sands 1b Waikato W, Ws Turangi Tamahere THw Turangi (Sib 37) McLeod’s soils not cross-referenced to DSIR soils in the study area Soils of the low hills – Rotokauri Ra Rotokauri Soils of the terrace scarps and gulley sides – Kirikiriroa KK Moeatoa Other DSIR soils not covered by McLeod in the study area Tauwhare sandy loams 44e, 44eH – Tauwhare Ohaupo silt loam 59 – Otorohunga Patumahoe clay loam 82 – * taken by reading them from the S-map online map on-screen. S-map classifi cations given here are at family level. Within each family are several sibs but only the sibs equivalent to Tamahere soils are given here.

Table 1. Comparison with LRI soil classifi cations (all from DSIR 1954) and McLeod’s (1984) classifi cations, ordered following McLeod’s physiographic arrangement. 16 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

McLeod also recognises some soils not covered by the DSIR classifi cations. Rotokauri soils are a colluvium derived from Hamilton soils and two tracts of soil in the study area classifi ed as Hamilton soils by the DSIR are reclassifi ed by McLeod as Rotokauri. Th e other soil in the study area is the Kirikiriroa complex, a soil of steep terrace scarps and gulley sides that is well drained. Th is is found along the length of the Mangaone stream and on small tributaries of the Waikato River. Th e soils of the low hills, which form the edge of the Waikato basin, within the study area would seem to have been occupied by pre-European Māori but they are unlikely to have been heavily gardened in preference to the ideal alluvial soils of the river terraces. Th e Ohaupo soils are well drained and may have been suitable for kumara gardening but no garden sites are recorded on them. Such soils may have been more suitable to constructing kumara storage pits, which are generally more likely to be found on elevated ground. Recorded site distributions and excavated sites are discussed in detail in Sections 4 and 5 but it can be noted here that a lack of recorded sites or obvious surface evidence of pre-European Māori occupation does not preclude Māori use of the areas underlain by these soils. Various wild resources such as birds, fl ax, wood, etc., would have been found here and the mobile nature of pre-European settlement would have meant that occupation sites would not have been limited by underlying soils type in the same way as gardens.

Pre-European Māori garden soils in the Waikato

Th e majority of gardens and associated borrow pits are found on the Horotiu soils and, to a lesser extent, the Waikato soils (Esk sands) – these are mapped as McLeod’s Tamahere soils, TH and THw, though as noted made soils also occur on Bruntwood and very occasionally Te Kowhai soils. Although Figure 6 shows a Māori horticultural site, S15/372, on Bruntwood soils, this is a mapping or recording error; the site’s recorded location is adjacent to a tract of Tamahere soils on which two borrow pits were visible in aerial photographs (Section 6) and this should be its correct location. Th e site record has been updated in ArchSite. Several garden sites including borrow pits have been excavated and these are discussed in greater detail in Section 5. Here garden sites are discussed in terms of soils properties. Most of this discussion is taken from Gumbley et al. (2003). Hinuera surface sands underlie the Horotiu soils and are extracted by digging pits referred to as borrow pits. Th ese can be several meters wide but are generally only 1–1.5 m deep as the most suitable sands occur in discrete layers within the Hinuera deposits. Waikato (Esk) sands may also be quarried, and sands may have been quarried from exposed deposits in stream and gulley banks. Modern agricultural practices have commonly resulted in the infi lling of many borrow pits and loss of this surface evidence of Māori gardening. Th e sands and gravels quarried for gardening were rarely transported more than 100 m from their source, meaning the presence of borrow pits is an excellent indication that modifi ed soils are present in the vicinity, and vice versa. Various authors have suggested that the addition of sand or other additives, such as charcoal or gravel, functioned to improve drainage, to retain heat and reduce the likelihood of frost damage, act as a mulch to improve friability and fertility, provide a disease-free growing medium, or improve aeration. Th ese would all be potentially useful adaptations for growing kumara in a temperate environment (Gumbley et al. 2003: 6; Furey 2006: 19). Th e recent soils of the Waikato Basin, the Horotiu and Te Kowhai soils, are allophanic. Such soils form from tephras under specifi c environmental conditions. Th ey are well-drained and generally fertile but tend to fi x phosphorus and to be low in potassium (Lowe 2010b). Potassium is obtained by burning the vegetation prior to garden development but the gardens Matthew Campbell 17 CFG Heritage Ltd. would have been abandoned as this source of potassium became depleted after a few years. It is not clear how the defi cit of phosphorus is made up. New gardens would then be cut out of the bush elsewhere and it would be several years before soil fertility recovered enough and enough woody vegetation grew up to be burnt and renew the cycle. Th is cycle of short term gardening followed by long term fallow and reversion to secondary growth is known as swidden (or slash-and-burn) agriculture. In tropical Polynesia fallow periods might be 10–15 years but by intensifying agricultural production through increasing labour inputs this period could be shortened (Kirch 1994). In New Zealand what little information there is on fallow periods has been summarised by Furey (2006: 18): cropping periods could be between one and three years or even six (though this was a later historic record) followed by between seven and 20 years of fallow, depending on how long it took for the vegetation to grow up. Th ese records were for coastal areas and it seems likely that the fallow period was in the higher end of the range in the cooler inland Waikato Basin. 18 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 Pre-European Mori site distribution

Th ere are 41 pre-European Māori archaeological sites recorded within the study area. Overall, within the Waikato Basin3 as deﬁ ned in Figure 7, there are 319 sites.4 Th is section examines the distribution of these sites with respect to each other and the general landform. Th e sites have been classiﬁ ed into six site types relevant to this project and these are tabulated for both the study area and the Waikato Basin in Table 2. Figure 7 shows the distribution of sites within the Waikato Basin while Figure 8 shows sites within the study area. It should be borne in mind that this section only discusses recorded sites and that there will be many more sites that have not been recorded. When discussing site locations it should also be remembered that many sites are not very accurately located – in theory all sites should be located to at least a 100 m map grid reference but experience shows that there are often considerable errors in site location, probably mostly due to recorder map-reading error. Th e advent of hand-held GPS units has meant that most sites recorded in recent years are well located, often to within ± 5 m.

Study area Waikato basin Māori horticultural 17 64 Pā 15 194 Pā / Māori horticultural 2 7 Midden 1 5 Pit / terrace 3 20 Other 3 29 Total 41 319

Table 2. Numbers of sites in the study area and the Waikato basin.

Sites with the wider Waikato Basin

Th e distinctive site type within the basin is the Māori horticultural site which consists of made soils often associated with borrow pits. As noted in the previous section, this site type is depend- ent on the underlying soil type and the distribution of recorded sites with respect to the relevant soils is shown in Figure 7. Well over half the sites recorded within the basin are pā (63%), with horticultural sites the next most common category (21% – seven sites are recorded as both). Th ese sites are not evenly distributed throughout the basin. Many are clustered along the Waikato River, for two main reasons: the river would have been a major focus of pre-European Māori occupation; and land close to the river has been the major focus of archaeological site

3 Defi ned as extending south to the ridge between the Mangapiko Stream and the Puniu River, following McCraw (2011). Th e Mangapiko Valley is the furthest south of the Waikato River palaeochannels, and hence the southern limit of the Hinuera surface, and soils diff er in the adjoining Waipa basin to the south. Th e Waikato Basin is also referred to as the Middle Waikato Basin or Hamilton Basin (McCraw 2011: 7). Th e basin as shown in Figure 7 includes the low foothills in some places. Th e term Waikato Basin means diff erent things to geophysicists, geographers and archaeologists and as a cultural unit might be considered to extend beyond the boundaries given here 4 At the time the data was accessed in December 2011. It is probable that more have been recorded since, including within the study area (see also Section 6, where 213 sites were recorded in ArchSite from aerial photos). Matthew Campbell 19 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Soils Horotiu Esk Horotiu-Te Kowhai Sites N Maorihorticulture Pa Pa/Maorihorticulture Swamp pa Midden Pit/Terrace 0 5 Leahy and Walsh’s survey area Other kilometres

7. Pre-European Māori archaeological sites recorded within the Waikato basin mapped with respect to DSIR soils. Sites outside the basin (in grey) have not been classifi ed by type or period. 20 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

recording, in part because it is also a major focus of historic period occupation, and ongoing development triggers archaeological assessments that record new sites. Pā are found throughout the basin but many of these sites were recorded from aerial photos by Steve Edson of the Waikato Museum and have never been visited by an archaeologist, or at least the site record has never been updated. Boubée and Dymock (1978) describe several pā sites in some detail so it seems probable that Waikato Museum fi les contain material that does not form part of the NZAA site record. Over large areas south of the river pā are virtu- ally the only recorded site type, indicating that no on-ground archaeological survey has taken place. Th ere will be very little development pressure throughout much of the basin and the only reason for archaeological survey and recording would have been as a research project. Th e only such project that has been undertaken over any wide area in the basin is that of Morgan (1968) along the Waikato River, although small scale surveys have been undertaken, such as that of the Waikato Archaeological Group in the 1960s that recorded several swamp pā (Pick 1968a). A more recent survey within the study area for the proposed Cambridge North plan change (Gumbley 2009a) is considered below. Much of the archaeology in this area, then, remains unrecorded and what is recorded is biased towards pā. Th is makes it very diffi cult if not impos- sible to say anything particularly meaningful about pre-European Māori use of this landscape as the full range of site types that detail this use is not recorded. Most pā south of the river, other than those adjacent to the river itself, are located either on stream and river banks or on lake sides. Th e former will probably be headland pā, though the headlands in question may not be particularly high, while the latter will be swamp pā, two of which have been excavated and are considered in greater detail in the next section. Pā locations, and the locations of the few other site types recorded here, correlate closely with Horotiu soils. No Māori horticulture sites are recorded in this area although they would be expected on Horotiu soils. Th e numerous pā recorded by Edson would have been sited to protect this prime resource. Pā at the margins of the basin are probably located on the low foothills and will have been sited with respect to factors other than protecting prime garden sites. Without a more complete assessment of these sites and a programme of fi eld visits it isn’t possible to take this analysis any further. Figure 7 distinguishes swamp pā, a distinct site type that has been central to discussions of the archaeology of the Waikato Basin, and discussed in more detail in Section 5. Horticultural sites cluster within the Horotiu and Esk soils, which is what is expected (Gumbley et al. 2003). Seven appear not to be located on suitable DSIR soils (Horotiu, Esk and Te Kowhai–Horotiu complex soils are mapped in Figure 7, but the latter was probably only rarely gardened) but this is due to the limits of mapping accuracy – these are all very close to Horotiu or Esk soils and should almost certainly be located on them. Five are located on DSIR Horotiu–Te Kowhai complex soils but three of these are probably not well mapped and should be located on Horotiu soils. Two, S14/185, made soil, and S14/201, borrow pits, are recorded in Horotiu–Te Kowhai soils in northern Hamilton. Both these sites have been excavated and are known to have been on Horotiu soils (Gumbley et al. 2003). Although Gumbley et al. (2003) note that made soils are known from Bruntwood and even Te Kowhai soils, the only confi rmed archaeological examples are S14/222, excavated by Hoff mann (2011) and two sites, S14/324 and S14/424, recorded by Gumbley (2009a) north of Cambridge. Th ere are large tracts of Horotiu soils with no horticultural sites recorded, although they would be expected. As noted, the numerous pā here probably defended prime garden sites. Near Gordonton two pā are recorded along the Komakorau Stream associated with borrow pits and, in one case, garden soils (McLeod’s 1984 map shows Tamahere soils at both sites). Th ese are the only two horticultural sites recorded at any distance from the river but they would be expected along other stream banks and associated with many of the pā recorded by Edson. In Matthew Campbell 21 CFG Heritage Ltd.

summary, horticultural sites in the form of made soils and borrow pits, correlate very closely with soil type although it is not known how extensive horticultural sites are on these soils. Th irty-eight pit / terrace sites are recorded, many of them south of the river and very few of them close by horticultural sites. Pits are used for storing kumara, the produce of horticulture, and their presence strongly implies kumara cultivation nearby. Although kumara could have been bought in from elsewhere for storage it was unlikely to have been carried far other than by canoe. Pits and terraces are recorded as small scale alterations to the landform – they show up better on sloping ground and are also less likely to have been ploughed out on steeper ground. Given the extent to which substantial borrow pits may be ploughed out at heavily cultivated sites near the river it is not surprising that smaller storage pits do not survive as surface features and are only rarely recorded in excavations (see Section 5). Th e emphasis on horticulture in this project refl ects the view that the settlement of the inland Waikato was dependant on the exploitation of Horotiu and other suitable soils (it might also refl ect a self-reinforcing bias in recording and explanation by archaeologists, who often fi nd what they expect to fi nd). If pre- European Māori occupation followed the pattern that this implies, then storage pits should be much more common archaeological features than they appear to be. Th e lack of pits is either an artefact of recording, because archaeologists have not systematically looked in the right place or surface evidence of pits has been destroyed by modern agricultural practices; or horticulture is less important than we assume and there really are not many pits. Th e latter seems unlikely. Five middens are recorded in the basin; although several other sites may have a midden component recorded but this cannot be determined without an assessment of all site records. Middens are food and cooking waste and usually considered as a coastal site type where they will typically consist largely of marine shell dumps with minor components of fi sh, bird or mammal bone, oven stones, charcoal, fl ake stone tools and occasionally more formal artefacts, often with intact earth ovens cut into them or in the soils below them. As there are only fi ve middens, the site record for each was assessed. In each case the middens are not shell dumps but oven scoops (recorded as hangi). S14/40 was recorded in the early 1960s while S14/110, S14/111, S15/304 (in the study area) and S15/307 were recorded in the mid-1980s. S15/307 is recorded as containing some freshwater mussel (kakahi, Hyridella menziesi) shell while a recent reassessment of S14/111 recorded some scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) shell. Th e latter indicates connections to marine environments. Earth ovens have also been found as components of several sites that have been investigated in mitigation of development-led site destruction; these are discussed in more detail in the next section. Horotiu soils are mildly acidic with a pH of around 6 but this is hardly enough to account for a lack of shell middens. Kakahi would have been readily available in many places and, while it does not generally survive well in archaeological contexts (Campbell 2005), kakahi middens should be fairly obvious if they were common. Marine shell is less likely as it would be more effi cient to transport just the preserved meat to inland sites and discard the heavier shell component. It seems likely that many coastal middens represent shellfi sh, and fi sh, preservation (Campbell et al. 2003) and although this has not been explored archaeologically, shellfi sh could easily have been preserved for transport to inland sites like the Waikato. Some investigation reports that have been accessed for this project do record midden as a component of the site: Mangaharakeke Pā (S14/18) contains three relatively small patches of marine shell; investigations Kirikiriroa Pā (S14/39) found kakahi and marine shell in probable earth ovens; ‘scraps’ of kakahi were found in and around an earth oven at S14/121 at Ngaruawahia (Hooker 1999). Midden is probably a more common component of sites than the record currently indicates. Twenty-nine sites are classifi ed as other: these are mostly artefact fi nd-spots or burials, though two are possible eel weirs and one has such an ambiguous description that it isn’t clear 22 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

what, if anything, it is. Two sites recorded as an occupation and a habitation have been classifi ed here as pā, for convenience, though a careful examination of the record by Owen Wilkes showed that one was probably not a pā while the other was uncertain. Th ere are three large areas with few or no sites recorded in them: one in the north of the basin, one around Temple View and one south of Cambridge. Th ese equate to the Komakorau, Rukuhuia and Moanatuatua Bogs respectively (Figure 3). Th ese bogs are now drained and are productive farmland but would not have been heavily occupied by pre-European Māori. Th ey would have been important sources of resources such as fl ax, birds, fi sh and shellfi sh, and taro could have been grown on their margins (Campbell and Harris 2011). Th ere are also several well-known swamp and lake-side pā on the margins of these bogs, generally within a kilometre or so of cultivable Horotiu soils (Pick 1968a recorded eight; Barr 1989 later recorded 15). Two of these have been excavated: site S15/9 at Lake Ngaroto, which is one of six pā and occupations on or near the lake with a pit site 1.2 km to the north east; and site S15/18 at Lake Mangakaware, one of three swamp pā with a borrow pit from which soils was taken to build up the pā nearby (these excavations are described in Section 5). Many sites in the Waikato Basin have been recorded as part of assessments of development eff ects within clearly defi ned areas while others have been recorded on an ad hoc basis. Morgan’s (1968) survey of sites along the banks of the river between Ngaruawahia and Cambridge, including many within the study area, where he recorded new sites, visited sites previously only recorded from aerial photos and updated the records of previously recorded sites is an exception. Th e other exception is Leahy and Walsh’s (1980) survey of sites along the Puniu River but most of their survey area lies just south and east of the study area. Th e density of sites they recorded is indicative of what might be expected elsewhere in the Waikato Basin, and the density of recorded sites to the north and west of their survey area indicates that these areas may also have been intensively surveyed – if so, no reports for this work have been accessed. Part of their study area is highlighted in Figure 7 in the south of the map. Elsewhere the only sites recorded are pā, presumably by Edson from aerial photos and many have never been visited by an archaeologist – Leahy and Walsh’s (1980) visits to these sites are an exception. No assessment of the valid- ity and accuracy of individual site records has been made for sites in the wider basin, but this assessment has been undertaken for sites in the study area.

Sites within the study area

Th e 41 recorded sites within the study area were evaluated to determine how accurately they were recorded (Figure 9) although this evaluation was not undertaken for all sites in the basin. Most of the pā (14 of 17) were originally recorded by Edson from aerial photos, as were two pit and terrace sites and a borrow pit site (a total of 17 sites). Only six of these sites have been subsequently visited. Any sites recorded prior to 1985, including all the sites recorded by Edson, were located on 100 yard grid references on the NZMS1 1:63,360 topographical map sheets – these have an Imperial site number in Table 3. When the NZMS260 1:50,000 map sheets were bought out in the 1980s these grid references were reprojected to the new metric grid which potentially results in errors of up to 200 m in site location. Sites that were visited after 1985 (none were recorded, or visited, between 1979 and 1985) will have been located on 100 m grid references and can be regarded as accurate to 100 m (this assumes that the site recorder has read the map correctly). Th e New Zealand Archaeological Association recently undertook an upgrade of recorded sites in Waikato and Waipa Districts (Coster 2008). Coster also assessed the accuracy of the records for the upgrade, and sites that had been visited recently, were clearly visible on aerial photos, or were ﬁ nd spots or hearsay sites were not visited. However, site visits did not take Matthew Campbell 23 CFG Heritage Ltd. 9 T15/4 T15/49 3 1 0 4 T15/4 T15/43 T15/9 T15/91 T15/4 T15/40 T15/9 T15/94 1 T15/4 T15/41 6 9 6 / S15 S15/66 T15/1 T15/19 9 S15/46 S15/469 4 6 8 4 3 1 / / S15/324 S15/324 S15 S15/44 7 S15 S15/36 S15/420 S15/420 S15/46 S15/468 S15/42 S15/421 3 3 4 / S15/422 S15/422 S15/42 S15/427 5 S15 S15/43 S15/42 S15/423 S15/42 S15/425 6 8 S15/470 S15/470 S15/449 S15/449 2 4 / S15/42 S15/426 S15/42 S15/428 S15/424 S15/424 S15 S15/42 S15/69 S15/69 4 3 S15/41 S15/414 S15/68 S15/41 S15/305 S15/305 3 S15/30 S15/303 2 S15/304 S15/304 3 S15/27 S15/27 S15/30 S15/302 S15/37 S15/373 N 1 S15/26 S15/26 S15/30 S15/301 S15/372 S15/372 2 5 3 / S15/25 S15/35 S15 S15/300 kilometres Pa Maorihorticulture Pa/Maorihorticulture Midden Pit/Terrace Other 0 Sites

8. Distribution of recorded sites within the study area, labelled by site number. 24 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study pre 1980 pre 1980 pre 1980 pre 1980 pre 1980 aerial photo map grid, aerial photo map grid, visit map grid aerial photo map grid, aerial photo map grid,

aerial photo map grid,

hearsay unknown

visit map grid

Pā 1979 1986 upgrade upgrade horticulture Māori

Pā 1979 1986 upgrade upgrade

Other 1986 horticulture 1976 1996 visit map grid oor/ oor/ Pit/Terrace 1986 Site featuresSite Mapped as First record Last update Record type Accuracy Terrace Terrace

verse, Bank transverse

Ditch - defensive Pā 1977 Ditch Borrow Ditch pit, - Pā/Māori 1977 Artefact - adze, Scarp, Borrow pit

oor. Undefended site in area site Undefended of oor. Pit, site, Soil - made, ed on irty-three borrow pits, identifi Borrow pit house fl house S15/301 human of Site remains, recorded from Burial extensive horticultural soils S15/69 S15/69 Pā N65/125 S15/300 Five pits, possible terrace and possible House fl Terrace, hearsay S15/302 bank with Pā site transverse ditch, ditch and Ditch, Ditch - trans- Pā 1986 S15/66 N65/122 S15/68 Features Pā site. include linear banks, N65/124 Pā Bank Depres- (earth), Pā 1979 depressions and possible scarped bank Ditch sion, - defensive aerial and 1996 1943 photos S15/35 S15/35 N65/67 S15/36 with Pā site central platformone (tihi), N65/68 Scarp, Pit, Platform, Pā recorded Pā site, via aerial 1943 photos. ed Unclassifi and terraces pit 1977 Pā 1977 S15/42 S15/42 N65/74 river One or two Pā site. transverse ditches S15/43 Pā N65/75 Ditch - transverse Pā defending a small promontory overlooking 1978 1985 visit grid map S15/44 S15/44 Pā N65/76 S15/25 S15/25 N65/45 with Pā site features including ditch, S15/26 N65/46 Bank Terrace, (earth), Pā with site Pa ditch and bank, artefactsS15/27 N65/47 Th Ditch, Bank, Burial, Pā bank, scarps and terraces 1976 recovered from scoop, two burials re- 1986 1976 covered, patches charcoal-rich of soil Artefact visit 1996 GPS visit map grid Nzaa_id Imperial Description ArchSite. from derived data area, study in the recorded sites 3. Summary Māori of pre-European Table Matthew Campbell 25 CFG Heritage Ltd. horticulture horticulture horticulture horticulture Māori 2007 visit GPS Māori 2009 visit GPS Māori 2009 visit GPS 1985 1985 horticulture upgrade upgrade Other 1986 hearsay unknown horticulture horticulture horticulture Site featuresSite Mapped as First record Last update Record type Accuracy Soil - garden, Māori 1996 visit map grid Artefact Pā garden Borrow pit Borrow pit Borrow pit, Soil - garden horticulture Māori garden horticulture 2009 visit garden horticulture GPS Borrow pit Borrow pit

Borrow pit garden horticulture - garden ed Borrow pit, Soil - Māori 1993 2009 visit GPS ndspot ed artefact fi irteen borrow pits and several Borrow pit, Soil Māori 2009 visit GPS Pā S15/303 S15/303 S15/304 Unspecifi S15/305 S15/324 Small oven scoop in surface sand, of re- Oven (intact), S15/372 vealed by bulldozing. Contained charcoal Midden Ovenstones Borrow and pits associated and small modifi burnt oven stones 1986 Borrow pits/soils visit map grid Nzaa_id Imperial Description 3. continued… Table garden soil garden S15/373 S15/373 S15/414 borrow pits identifed using Ten 1943 Soil - garden, Borrow pits aerial garden photo, soils Māori 1996 visit map grid S15/420 soil S15/421 S15/422 Borrow pit Tamahere S15/423 Borrow and pit associated soil Tamahere Borrow Pit, pit, Soil - Māori S15/424 borrow Four and pits associated 2009 S15/425 Th Borrow and pit associated garden soil Borrow pit, Soil - Borrow Soil pit, - visit Māori Māori Borrow pit GPS 2009 associated areas loam Tamahere of 2009 - garden visit visit GPS GPS S15/426 Borrow pit S15/427 soil borrow pits and associated Two garden Borrow pit, Soil Māori 2009 visit GPS 26 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study Pit/Terrace 1977 aerial photo map grid, pre 1980 Pit/Terrace 1977 upgrade upgrade Māori 2010 visit screen on Other 2011 visit GPS Pā/Māori 1977 upgrade upgrade 2009 visit GPS 1977 1977 1977 upgrade upgrade upgrade upgrade 1976 1976 1977 upgrade upgrade upgrade upgrade horticul ture horticulture horticulture Borrow pit Pit Site featuresSite Mapped as First record Last update Record type Accuracy Borrow pit Borrow pit Pā Pā Māori garden horticulture Pā Pā garden horticulture Borrow Soil pit, - Māori 2010 visit screen on T15/43 T15/43 N66/64 Pā T15/49 N66/70 Pits T15/91 Pā N66/119 T15/94 N66/122 Pā/borrow pits S15/468 S15/469 Borrow and pits made soil Borrow pits squarish-rectangular pit S15/470 squarish-rectangular T15/19 N66/28 Pā Pā T15/40 N66/61 T15/41 A single burial, prone possible within a Burial N66/62 Borrow pits S15/428 S15/428 S15/449 Borrow and pit associated garden soil Borrow Soil pit, - Borrow pits Māori 2009 visit GPS Nzaa_id Imperial Description 3. continued… Table Matthew Campbell 27 CFG Heritage Ltd. 9 T15/4 T15/49 3 1 0 4 T15/4 T15/43 T15/9 T15/91 T15/4 T15/40 T15/9 T15/94 1 T15/4 T15/41 6 9 6 / S15 S15/66 T15/1 T15/19 9 S15/46 S15/469 4 6 8 4 3 1 / / S15/324 S15/324 S15 S15/44 7 S15 S15/36 S15/420 S15/420 S15/46 S15/468 S15/42 S15/421 3 3 4 / S15/422 S15/422 S15/42 S15/427 5 S15 S15/43 S15/42 S15/423 S15/42 S15/425 6 8 S15/470 S15/470 S15/449 S15/449 2 4 / S15/42 S15/426 S15/42 S15/428 S15/424 S15/424 S15 S15/42 S15/69 S15/69 4 3 S15/41 S15/414 S15/68 S15/41 S15/305 S15/305 3 S15/30 S15/303 2 S15/304 S15/304 3 S15/27 S15/27 S15/30 S15/302 N S15/37 S15/373 1 S15/26 S15/26 S15/30 S15/301 S15/372 S15/372 2 5 3 / S15/25 S15/35 S15 S15/300 kilometres visit, GPS visit, map grid visit, on screen site upgrade aerial photo, map grid hearsay, unknown 0 Site record type and accuracy

9. Record type and accuracy for sites within the study area. 28 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

place in Waipa District, although S15/25 was fi eld checked – it was the only site in the study area visited during the upgrade. Other sites were recorded from georeferenced aerial photos and may be considered accurate to 15 m or less. After 2007 all sites have been located by handheld GPS, generally accurate to ±10 m or better; two have been located ‘on screen’ in the ArchSite web interface, which is more accurate than a 100 m grid reference but probably less accurate than handheld GPS. Two sites, a burial and a fi ndspot for an unspecifi ed artefact, were recorded from hearsay and their accuracy of location is not known. Site location are shown in Figure 9 and Table 3. Within the limits of these locational accuracies the distribution of sites at the fi ner scale of the study area is similar to that of the wider Waikato Basin. Recorded sites are clustered along the river with one pā recorded in the foothills of the Eastern Ranges in the east of the study area and one in the west on low hills of Hamilton soils. Th e main exception is a cluster of sites just north of Cambridge which were recorded by Gumbley in 2009 as an assessment of archaeological values related to Plan Change 66 (Gumbley 2009a) (one site in this cluster was recorded by Ritchie in 1993 and one by Mallows in 2009 and another around 2 km further to the west was also recorded by Mallows in 2007). On the basis of aerial photos, fi eld inspection and auger tests, Gumbley recorded ten sites, including nine tracts of Tamahere soils on the tops of the low ridges where Horotiu soils are located, though in S14/324 and S14/424 the made soils continued into the Bruntwood soils on the shallow slopes below these ridges. Th e sites contained between one and 13 borrow pits and six of the ten were assessed as being in good condition. His assessment shows up the limitations of recording archaeology as a series of discrete sites – this cluster of ‘sites’ really forms part of a much wider archaeological landscape of interconnected features, gardens and occupations and would certainly be much more extensive if similar research were undertaken across the rest of the study area for this project. Figure 10 reproduces Gumbley’s Figure 33 showing the extents of the sites. Th e attribution of each set of features to as specifi c site is in many ways a management convenience – the sets of features appear discrete but the landscape is continuous. Th is

KN1 KN1 H TH B T

10. Location N and extents of T sites within the B TH Cambridge Plan Change 66 area, from (Gumbley 0 250 metres 2009a: Figure 33). Matthew Campbell 29 CFG Heritage Ltd. landscape approach to the archaeology of the study area and wider Waikato Basin is discussed in Section 8. Th e distributions of sites by soil type are shown for DSIR and McLeod soils in Table 4 and Table 5. Th ree sites within Cambridge, where DSIR soils are not mapped, would almost certainly have been on Esk or Horotiu soils. Only 29 of the sites in the study area fall within the area mapped by McLeod. Sites are almost all found on DSIR Horotiu soils, with all horticultural sites found here and only four sites on other soils, including two pā on hill soils. Th e assessment of soils in the previous section showed that Hamilton soils would have been commonly exploited by pre- European Māori (though not for gardening) especially as these occur as low-lying hills sur- rounded by Hinuera surface soils, whereas Tauwhare soils would have been less likely to be exploited though pā are located on them. Th ese assessments are, of course, generalisations to which there are bound to be exceptions, and only a close investigation of each site could provide an assessment of local conditions and patterns of occupation. When sites are mapped against McLeod’s soils the same pattern is shown; although when Tamahere soils are mapped the pattern of horticultural sites being found on made soils is very much clearer. Of the eight horticultural sites not located on Horotiu Tamahere TH soils, ﬁ ve were among those recorded by Gumbley (2009a), three of which were shown to be on Tamahere soils when augered while two were borrow pit sites on Horotiu soils located very close to made soils. Two other sites are recorded as borrow pits on Horotiu soils, although S15/414 is located about 2 km from any recorded Tamahere soils, while S15/372 is recorded on Bruntwood soils. Th is site is recorded as two borrow pits and is located immediately next to a tract of Tamahere soil. Th is is another example of the apparent inaccuracy of site location that can arise from the use of 100 m grid references combined with recorder error. Gumbley has mapped this site and

Māori Pā Pā/Māori Midden Pit/Terrace Other horticulture horticulture Horotiu 17 10 2 1 2 2 Esk 1 1 Hamilton 1 Tauwhare 1

Table 4. Distribution of sites in the study area by DSIR soils type (n = 38).

Māori Pā Midden Other horticulture Horotiu 7 1 Waikato 3 1 Tamahere TH) 8 ( 2 1 Bruntwood 1 Te Kowhai 1 1 Low hills 1 Kirikiriroa 1 Peat 1

Table 5. Distribution of sites in the study area by McLeod soils types where sites fall within the area mapped by McLeod (n = 29). 30 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study 4 30 / 15 S15/304 S 2 30 / 15 S15/302 S 7 S15/27 S15/2 S15/26 S15/26 3 37 / 15 S S15/373 5

S15/2 S15/25 N 250 metres Pa Maorihorticulture Midden Other 2 0 37 / Sites 15 S S15/372 1 30 / 15 S S15/301 Horotiu H Tamahere TH Waikato Ws Bruntwood B Te Kowhai T Low hill soils Ra Potntially gardened soils gardened Potntially Maori by Soils exploited potentially Soils

11. Recorded location of S15/372 and adjacent sites mapped with respect to McLeod’s soil categories and Gumbley’s tracing of an aerial photograph showing borrow pits and pā. Matthew Campbell 31 CFG Heritage Ltd.

several others from an aerial photograph that clearly showed borrow pits and pā – his plan was georegistered in the project GIS. Some of the clusters of pits in this landscape were up to 500 m across, clearly much larger than a dot on a map (Figure 11). S15/372, S15/373 and S15/27, as mapped by Gumbley, all correspond closely to tracts of Tamahere soils as mapped by McLeod – S15/372 is not, in fact, located on Bruntwood soils at all. Made soils will rarely be located far from borrow pits as any added sands and gravels would have to be transported by hand. Pits and soils tend to be found with 100 m of each other at most. Th ere are large areas of Tamahere soils that have no recorded sites, although they are by deﬁ nition archaeological sites. Gumbley’s (2009a) assessment of the Cambridge North Plan Change 66 showed that Tamahere soils were not continuous across the area mapped by McLeod so it would not be appropriate to map sites based on McLeod’s data alone.

Th e “hash” ﬁle

While he was New Zealand Archaeological Association Filekeeper for the Waikato, Owen Wilkes recorded a series of sites that were uncertain for a number of reasons: for instance their location was not clear or their veracity as sites was in some way ambiguous. Th ese sites were not entered in the NZAA site fi le but kept in a separate fi le that he called the hash fi le. Th is used the same numbering system as the offi cial fi le, prefi xed by a #. Several hash fi le sites are located within the study area. Wilkes recorded their presumed location by plotting them onto NZMS260 topo map sheets. Th e hash fi le records were examined and any pre-European Māori sites were plotted off the map sheets into the project GIS. Th e locations of hash fi le sites are shown in Figure 12 and brief descriptions taken from the fi le are given in Table 6. Wilkes intended to follow up these records with further research and fi eld visits, and indeed several hash fi le sites have been verifi ed and moved into the NZAA site fi le. Th e sites listed in Table 6 have not been verifi ed and little can be said about some of them as Wilkes’ notes are rather vague. S15/#386 is probably a pā, with part of a rectangular ditch visible and numerous borrow pits in the vicinity on the aerial photo (newly recorded as S15/548, S15/554 and S15/555, see Section 6). S15/479 is less convincing as a pā. Without further research these sites must remain conjectural but one, T15/#21, the possible site of a lookout with posts and a ditch called Paepae Whakarei, is within the designation and will need to be investigated. Wilkes

Id Description (adapted from Wilkes) S15/#76 Swamp containing wood and stone artefacts, reported by Doug Pick in 1969 S15/#304 “See index to Kelley’s Tainui” S15/#307 Not clear what Wilkes was recording here S15/#384 Arikura. Historic kainga? S15/#386 Possible pā, see aerial photo 835/56 S15/#414 Eel weir half a mile long S15/#479 Appears to be a headland pā, see aerial photos 835/60-61 S15/#480 Pā suspected by Edson, no surface evidence S15/#527 Cambridge landing – is this historic or pre-European? T15/#21 Possible site of Paepae Whakarei, lookout T15/#55 Two possible pā sites on aerial photo 697/3 T15/#117 No notes, only a photo of what might be borrow pits

Table 6. Pre-European Māori hash fi le sites recorded within the study area. 32 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study 7 T15/#11 T15/#117 5 T15/#55 T15/#5 1 T15/#21 T15/#2 7 #504 7 / #30 4 / #52 S15 S15/#504 / #41 S15/#307 S15 / S15 S15/#527 S15/#414 S15 9 0 6 #47 #48 / #7 / / S15/#479 S15 15 S15/#480 S15 S15/#76 S 4 #38 / S15 S15/#384 6 #38 / S15 S15/#386 2 N kilometres 0

12. Pre-European Māori hash fi le sites recorded within the study area. Matthew Campbell 33 CFG Heritage Ltd. thought the summit of this hill was too large to be a site but this could only be determined by subsurface investigation. In the main the hash sites are discussed here as they add to the picture of pre-European Māori occupation of the Waikato, despite their provisional nature. Little should be read into them however without additional research. 34 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 Excavated sites in the Waikato Basin

Although four sites have been investigated through archaeological excavation in the study area, several more in the Waikato Basin have also been investigated. Th ese are all discussed in this section as they provide a wider context to the sites in the study area. Gumbley (2011a) states “confi dently … that the archaeology of the inland Waikato Basins is not well understood.” Th ere has been no substantial overview of the area since Cassels’ work in the early 1970s (1972b, 1972a), and very little concerted investigation between then and the advent of heritage management and commercial mitigation archaeology in the late 1990s. Th is report is not intended to provide an up-to-date overview but hopefully will serve as a basis for future research and analysis. Th ere have been two kinds of archaeological investigation in the Waikato Basin (as there have been throughout New Zealand): research oriented investigations conducted by universities or, less commonly, museums; and development-led mitigation excavations. Reporting on these projects is often patchy, with investigations often going unreported and with mitigation excavations often not containing the same level of analysis and discussion as research publications. Research excavations tend to be published in academic journals or stand-alone monographs while, with a few notable exceptions, mitigation excavation reports are confi ned to the ‘grey lit- erature’ of limited circulation reports. Most of these are now available on request from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (HPT) who have digitised them and have a catalogue published on their web site. Th is database has been accessed for this project but it is incomplete and there may be relevant reports that have not been obtained from HPT. Th e following discussion is broken down into two sections: research investigations and mitigation investigations. Research investigations are targeted at answering particular research questions or exploring particular site types chosen by the researcher, while mitigation excavations are located where sites are under threat and the archaeologist has considerably less choice about where and what to excavate. Th is has its advantages however. eTh sand-fi lled hollows that have formed the focus of research into horticulture in the Waikato (see below ) would probably never have been targeted by institutional archaeologists as they are not visible on the surface; they were fi rst found during mitigation excavations (Gumbley et al. 2003). Our archaeological knowledge of gardening in the Waikato derives almost entirely from mitigation excavations but the scattered data needs some analysis, which this project begins but by no means completes.

Research investigations

Research investigations in the Waikato Basin are surprisingly few. Th is is in large part because pre-European Māori were largely coastally-oriented in both their settlement patterns and their economy. Institutional archaeologists have tended to focus on coastal sites. Inland settlement in places like the Waikato Basin or the Rotorua Lakes was a later occurrence and has not been closely examined. Understanding how a coastally-oriented people adapted to inland environments is a potentially fruitful research topic, a point I will return to in the conclusion. Two swamp pā sites were investigated in the late 1960s; S15/18, Lake Mangakaware (Bellwood 1978) and S15/9, Lake Ngaroto (Shawcross 1968). Pā are defensive settlements that usually rely on a hill top location augmented with earth ditches, banks and wooden palisades to prevent easy access and defend against attack. Swamp pā rely on the general swampy sur- roundings to deter access and are built on low mounds, often built up artiﬁ cially. Swamp pā are known from the Hauraki Plains (particularly Oruarangi, Furey 1996), Bay of Plenty, Hawkes Matthew Campbell 35 CFG Heritage Ltd.

S14/158 S14/198

S14/212 S14/103 S14/211 S14/110 S14/121 S14/242 S14/195 S14/194 S14/13, Te Rapa Pa S14/203 S14/18, Mangaharakeke Pa S14/222 S14/111 S14/165 S14/89, Pukete S14/185 S14/201 S14/5, Lake Rotokauri S14/23, Chartwell Crescent S14/63 S14/38 S14/39, Kirikiriroa Pa

S14/46, Tamahere Pa

S14/43, 131 T14/92, Te Miro

S15/414 S15/304 S15/324 S15/422 S15/13 S15/12, Lake Maratoto S15/66 S15/307

S15/18, Lake Mangakaware S15/9, Lake Ngaroto S15/46 S15/7, Steigh’s Pa S15/6 S15/308, 309

Sites N Maorihorticulture Pa Pa/Maorihorticulture Swamp pa Midden Pit/Terrace 0 5 Other kilometres

13. Sites mentioned in the text. 36 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

Bay and Horowhenua (Shawcross 1968) as well as the Waikato Basin. Th ese sites are usually built up from layers of imported soils and midden on areas that are already slightly elevated above the surrounding swamp. Th e biodiversity of swamps would have been an important attraction to settlement and may have facilitated year-round occupation. Swamp pā would have functioned somewhat diff erently to hill-top pā – for overviews of swamp pā see Furey (1996) and Phillips (2000). Excavations at Lake Ngaroto revealed that prior to modern drainage systems the pā was built up on an island on a natural rise in the lake fl oor, possibly aided by damming the outlet (Law 1968b). A mound was built up artifi cially by about 2 m from layers of Hamilton clay and Hinuera sands, with lenses of midden, charcoal and burnt soils (“ashy humus”) throughout. Structures excavated included heavy posts that may have been either palisades or reinforcing for the mound, possible lightly-framed houses, earth ovens and drains, but no rectangular storage pits. Artefacts included stone adzes, a needle and a bird spear point as well as an iron adze and a clay pipe bowl indicating occupation perhaps until the confi scation of the 1860s. Faunal remains, not formally analysed, included kakahi (freshwater mussel, Hyridella menziesi) but no eels (Anguilla sp.) with bone of dog, rat and pig. Shark and/or ray vertebrae were “well represented” indicating links with costal sites, probably either approximately 35 km as the crow fl ies to Kahwia and Raglan or roughly 130 km to the Waikato Heads by canoe. Th e Lake Mangakaware site was fi rst excavated by Peters, and then by Bellwood in 1968 and 1969 (Bellwood 1978; Peters 1971). Th e mound had a similar construction to Ngaroto with at least four phases of fl oors, but was built on the lake edge rather than in it. Th ere was clear evidence of a double line of palisades, well preserved in the swamp conditions, though some had been removed. Th ere was evidence of burnt human bone and, along with the removal of palisades, Bellwood speculatively interprets this as the result of an attack on the pā. A large area in the centre of the site was built up of layers of clean sand and dark midden soils but was clear of structures – it was interpreted as a marae atea. Elsewhere houses were built on consecutive fl oor levels as the mound was built up and were accompanied by earth ovens. One large structure was interpreted as a wharepuni with two internal hearths. Trench E contained an internal palisaded area and probable drying racks. Few kakahi were found due to the acidic soils – these shells do not generally survive well in archaeological sites (Campbell 2005). Pipi (Paphies australis) and occasional cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi) and scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) were also found. Given that the shells were transported whole rather than just the meat this indicates canoe transport up the Waikato River rather than being carried overland. Small amounts of dog, bird and fi sh bone were also found, including 13 shark/ray vertebrae. Several artefacts, including adzes, net weights, a bird spear, pendants, grinders and wooden artefacts were found in the excavation. Of greater interest was the range of artefacts recovered from the lake bed, including beaters, a weaving stick, garden tools of various kinds, adze handles, paddles, bowls, tops, weapons including a fi nely carved taiaha, and structural timbers. Bellwood (Bellwood 1978: 68) interpreted the site as occupied year-round with some families moving out to their cultivations and resource exploitation areas in summer. Th e swamp pā at Rotokauri, S14/5, was apparently excavated by Ken Gorbey or Neil Laurie (Bellwood 1978: 20) but seems not to have been reported. Th e site record contains a grid plan drawn up by Laurie showing, presumably, extant palisades and a note from Gorbey (email to John Coster 27 April 2007) that the excavation took place. Pick (1968a) report that Steigh’s Pā, S15/7, at Lake Nagroto was excavated: “test excavations by the Waikato Archaeological Group clearly show no break in colour or consistency of the deposit [to a depth of about 5’], which suggests long and continuous occupation; no evidence was found of added soils from outside the mound.” Matthew Campbell 37 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Barr (1989) collated the information available on the 15 swamp pā recorded in the then Waipa County, based partly on Boubée and Dymock’s (1978) assessment, which was a planning document for Waipa County Council, and partly on her own fi eld survey. Th e pā were in variable condition but she noted at the time that threats, including farming activities and falling water tables, were causing considerable damage. Some were densely vegetated and were not visited and two appear not to have been visited since being recorded by Edson from aerial photos. Th ese sites are all shown in Figures 7 and 13 as swamp pā. Although they are all located on lake edges close inspection may reveal that some are not pā or substantial occupation sites, for instance S15/6 and S15/12 (Lake Marototo) are described as probably a fi shing camps and Wilkes reclassifi ed S15/46 as a habitation site though it was so damaged by ploughing that this cannot be certain. Boubée and Dymock’s (1978) assessment was based on fi les held by the Waikato Art Museum (these would have included fi les from the Waikato Archaeology Group which was, by then, based at the museum) and the Waipa County Offi ce. It isn’t evident that Boubée and Dymock visited the sites themselves though some are well described. Many had visible palisades in the 1970s but these were already deteriorating due to dropping water levels. Another important wet site excavated in the Waikato was the Te Miro site, T14/92. Although this lies in the Mangakawa Hills to the west of the Waikato Basin, and is a mid–late 19th century Māori site it is worth mentioning. Th e site included a wooden causeway and artefacts of both pre-European and European forms (Edson 1979). It provides comparison to Mangakaware and Ngaroto, and evidence of both continuity and change in Māori material culture in the 19th century. In 1978 a wooden carving, probably a paepae or front board on the fl oor of a raised storehouse, was recovered from the base of a newly drained gulley at Chartwell Crescent in Hamilton (site S14/23, Williams 1978). Subsequent excavations revealed several digging implements and lash- ing materials. Th e excavators interpreted the site as a deliberate burial of the paepae. A wooden carving was discovered in the spoil heap of drainage clearance operations at Pukete in 1983 (site S14/89, Edson 1983) was excavated and conserved by the Waikato Museum. Both these sites were accidental fi nds as the result of drainage operations and indicate that further unidentifi ed swamp sites may survive throughout the Waikato

Mitigation excavations

Mitigation excavations in the Waikato Basin have ranged more widely than research investigations although they may not have had the opportunity to investigate such prestigious sites as swamp pā. In general, sites excavated can be categorised into pā and horticultural sites, although most pā have horticultural features associated with them. Th e only archaeological investigation known that does not ﬁ t these categories is that of a small waka tiwai (canoe) found on the bed of the Waikato River in Hamilton (Dodd 2005). Th e origin and date of this waka is unknown, it could be from the historic period, but it does reinforce the central importance of the river in the pre-European history of the Waikato Basin.

Pā

Swamp pā are a very specifi c site type and diff er from the more usual hill-top pā in several important ways: they utilise diff erent defensive techniques, specifi cally relying on diffi culty of access through swampy ground rather than up steep slopes; they are often artifi cially built up above ground level; and they are located in very diff erent environments, implying that they 38 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

were sited to protect a diff erent range of resources. Th e Lake Ngaroto and Lake Mangakaware excavations focussed on the material culture that was preserved in the damp environments, but wooden and fi bre artefacts do not preserve so well on hill-top pā. Th ese two investigations were University-led research projects, while other pā investigations in the Waikato Basin have tended to be in mitigation of development-led eff ects and have tried to avoid as much as possible any damage to these signifi cant sites. Th e Waikato Archaeological Group, formed in 1960, undertook two brief archaeological excavations on pā in the early 1960s. A small excavation at Tamahere Pā, S14/46, revealed a palisade, earth ovens and house fl oors (Hunt 1961: 145; Wilkes 1997). Hunt implies that this is a historic site associated with Wiremu Tamehana who signed the peace with General Carey here in 1865, but no historic material was found. Te Rapa Pā, S14/13, was also excavated by the Waikato Group (Hunt 1962; Law 1969: 171; Wilkes 1997: 145). Several bell-shaped rua and a line of palisades are described by Hunt, along with a few fl akes of obsidian, some kokowai and a few kakahi shells in the base of a rua. Th ese two excavations appear to have been quite substantial but only cursorily reported. Kirikiriroa Pā (S14/39) in Hamilton has been closely monitored in the last decade (Hoff mann 2008; Simmons 2002, 2003a, 2005, 2010b, 2010a). Th is site occupies a city block in central Hamilton and is considered the most signifi cant pā in the city, though now almost entirely covered over (Simmons 2010a: 11). Piecemeal redevelopment has resulted in several small-scale investigations in recent years. Th e pā was visited by Hochstetter in 1859 who said that “On the upper river terrace are the plantations of the natives” (quoted in Hoff mann 2008). Hoff mann’s excavation recorded a borrow pit 3 m long and 1 m deep and another probable borrow pit on this terrace. Simmons (2005) found fi ve borrow pits and two sand-fi lled hollows in one part of the site and later (2002, 2010b) found some truncated features that she interpreted as sand- fi lled hollows5 though they were badly damaged and their fi ll included charcoal and organic material. She proposed that this was the result of local soils and past land use. She also found two features that might have been earth ovens, both containing kakahi shell and one containing marine shell. Other investigations have failed to locate pre-European Māori material, although features and artefacts relating to 19th century European occupation have been found (Simmons 2003a). Gumbley (2001) recorded damage from an access track to Mangaharakeke Pā (S14/18) at Te Rapa. Terrace and ditch construction and buildup of lenses of charcoal stained soil were apparent but little further analysis was undertaken. Th e ditch was rather shallow but Gumbley identifi ed it as a defensive structure. At Miropiko Pā (S14/38) in Hamilton on the east bank of the Waikato River, Simmons (2003b) found charcoal and kakahi shell in the foundation postholes of a new house. Mallows (2009) undertook a limited research-oriented excavation to identify the extent of a pā, S15/66, within the Cambridge Section designation. Non-intrusive geophysical survey identifi ed an anomaly that was assumed to be the defensive ditch of the pā, now infi lled by modern agricultural activity. A 22 m long excavation trench, 1.5 m wide, revealed a double ditch with internal bank and a probable palisade posthole, with several postholes outside the defended area. Th ree radiocarbon dates were obtained: a posthole outside the defences date to AD 1500–1640 at 95% confi dence interval while samples from each ditch were somewhat later, between AD 1650 and 1900. Th ese date when the ditches ceased to be maintained rather than when they were built, and a date earlier in the given ranges seems more likely.

5 Her terminology was ‘puke’ or ‘tupuke’ but, for reasons discussed in the conclusion to this report, these terms are considered inappropriate. She had previously referred to these features as “planting hollows” (Simmons 2005: 5). Matthew Campbell 39 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Th e only excavations on pā in the Waikato Basin that have identifi ed defensive features, that is, the diagnostic features that defi ne pā as such, were at S15/66, although Gumbley identifi ed the defensive ditch of Mangaharakeke in a damaged exposure. Th e only useful dates from pā are from Mangakaware, discussed in Section 10, though the reliability of even these is questionable.

Garden sites

Excavations at two sites in Hamilton on the banks of the Kirikiriroa Stream, a tributary of the Waikato River, were the fi rst to reveal the sand-fi lled hollows associated with Tamahere soils that have since come to be interpreted as the bases of puke or kumara growing mounds (Gumbley and Higham 2000; Gumbley et al. 2003). Th ese features have since been found at a number of sites such as S14/165 at Horsham (Simmons 2008a) and S14/158 and S14/198 near Taupiri (Campbell and Harris 2011), but not all investigations of Tamahere soils or borrow pits reveal sand-fi lled hollows. Prince (2008), for instance, specifi cally looked for sand-fi lled hollows at S14/125 just south of Ngaruawahia on the basis of Gumbley and Higham’s and Simmons’ results, but did not fi nd them, although there were numerous borrow pits on the property which remain visible on Google Earth. At S14/198 Campbell and Harris (2011) noted that the soils adjacent to borrow pits contained added sands but that the sites had been ploughed and any shallow subsurface features such as sand-fi lled hollows had been ploughed out. Some hollows were found preserved in a low area where plough soil had been pushed over them so it seems probable that they had been more extensively distributed over the site. At both S14/158 and S14/198 excavated hollows revealed the marks of digging sticks. At Kirikiriroa Pā (Simmons 2010b, discussed above) some ambiguous features were interpreted as sand-fi lled hollows, but there were also less ambiguous borrow pits. Site S14/121 is recorded on either side of a stream near Ngaruawahia (Hooker 1999, 2000). Borrow pits were recorded in the part of the site not aff ected by development but Hooker noted that the natural presence of gravels in the topsoil made identifi cation of made soils ambiguous at best. He noted charcoals in soils on the higher parts of the lower terrace which he considered

14. Sand-fi lled hollows exposed in plan and partly excavated at S14/198 near Taupiri (see also cover photo). 40 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

15. Borrow pit excavated in cross- section at S14/198 near Taupiri.

a better indication of gardening. At S14/198 near Taupiri Campbell and Harris (2011) also noted that the natural pumice gravel layer was very close to the surface in places making it diffi - cult to say whether sands had been added to the soils, which had subsequently been ploughed. At S14/203 near Horotiu Gumbley and Higham (1999) found borrow pits and modifi ed soils defi ning a garden area of around 3.5 ha, but no sand-fi lled hollows. Th e underlying soils were Te Kowhai soils which are poorly drained, and they found three drains that led from the garden soils to a nearby gulley. Hoff mann (2011) found modifi ed soils at S14/222 on Horotiu, Bruntwood and Te Kowhai soils although sand-fi lled hollows were only located on Horotiu soils. One borrow pit was excavated and no drains were found Surveys by Campbell and Hoff mann (2009) and by Campbell and Harris (2010) surveyed several tracts of gardened soils at Horotiu (S14/194 and S14/195), at the other end of the Ngaruawahia Section of the Waikato Expressway from the Taupiri Link (Campbell and Harris 2011), which have since been investigated although only a preliminary report is available (Gumbley and Hoff mann 2011). Sand-fi lled hollows and borrow pits were found at S14/194. Limited investigation of the site to the north revealed that horticultural features extend for some distance (Mallows 2011) – these have been recorded as S14/242 but are really the same site. S14/195 had been adversely aff ected by extensive historic period cultivation but two rectangular and two bell-shaped kumara storage pits and several smaller bin pits and seven borrow pits and several charcoal-fi lled earth ovens were found along with sand-fi lled basins. Th e inves- tigators, in their preliminary report, did not identify these as the bases of the sand-fi lled hollows described from other sites, and have not yet off ered an alternative explanation for them. Hoff mann (2011) carried out several further analyses of the sand-fi lled hollows he excavated at S14/222 at Horotiu. Particle size analysis compared the sands in the sand-fi lled hollows to the underlying Hinuera surface sands and found them to be the same, that is, the sand in the sand-fi lled hollows remained as it had been when it was borrowed and had no further additives. Analysis of charcoals showed that the environment was dominated by matai and broadleaf species. Th e analyst, Rod Wallace of the University of Auckland, proposed that these may be from dead stumps from former forest clearance, but Hoff mann interpreted them as a direct result of forest clearance to form gardens. Two radiocarbon dates on matai seeds from two of Matthew Campbell 41 CFG Heritage Ltd.

the sand-fi lled hollows were almost identical: AD 1490–1650/1660 at 95% confi dence interval. Microfossil analysis of the fi ll of two sand-fi lled hollows showed high numbers of kumara starch grains and a single, well-preserved yam starch grain. Hoff mann had considered it likely that taro may have been grown on the Te Kowhai soils but no microfossil evidence was found. At the Taupiri Link sites matai and broadleaf species predominated at S14/198 while small shrubs indicating secondary growth predominated at S14/158 (Campbell and Harris 2011). Th e radiocarbon date from S14/198 was AD 1505–1670 at 95% confi dence interval, the same as Hoff mann’s dates, for which the calibration curve gives two peaks. S14/158 dated to AD 1500–1810 with three peaks in the calibration curve. Campbell and Harris proposed that a date for S14/158 in the third peak at AD 1720–1810 was unlikely; and that, on the basis of the dif- ference in charcoals, which refl ect the surrounding vegetation, S14/198 was an earlier site cut out of virgin forest in the 16th century while S14/158 was a later site cut into secondary growth representing later phase of occupation or re-occupation of the area in the 17th century. On the basis of only two dates this is more a model for future research to test than a fi rm conclusion, but the conclusions are very similar to Hoff mann’s. No other garden sites have been radiocarbon dated but further research would be able to extend or modify this model. Microfossil analysis at both Taupiri sites showed kumara starch from the sand-fi lled hollows, which is what was expected, and also taro starch: this was expected at S14/158 as the site was on a damp lower river terrace but was not expected at S14/198. Along with Hoff mann’s fi nding of yam starch this calls into question the simplistic interpretation of these features as the bases of kumara planting mounds (puke), a point that I return to in the conclusion. Gardened soils have also been identifi ed at S14/189 in Hamilton (Simmons 2008b) and disturbed garden soils were found at S14/103 River Road between Horotiu and Ngaruawahia (Simmons 2006b). As mentioned previously, auger testing of the Cambridge Plan Area 66 revealed several tracts of gardened soils associated with borrow pits (Gumbley 2009a). Gumbley (2009b) excavated a single borrow pit at S15/422, one of the sites in this cluster. Th ere has been some emphasis on sand-fi lled hollows in recent excavations in the basin but it is evident that not all garden soils contain these; notwithstanding that these hollows can be ploughed out, it appears that simple mixing into the soil of sands and gravels was a more common practice. Gumbley (2011b) found four, or possibly fi ve, kumara storage pits, three of which inter- cut each other, at S14/63 in Hamilton. Th e Horotiu topsoils here had been truncated and it could not be determined if the area had been gardened. Th ese are the only kumara storage pits reported from mitigation excavations in the Waikato Basin and none were found at Ngaroto or Mangakaware. Bellwood (1978) identifi ed raised storage structures at Mangakaware and, although these are notoriously diffi cult to identify conclusively, it makes sense not to use subsurface storage in such a low-lying, damp environment. Storage pits can be identifi ed on aerial photographs (e.g., Figure 19) but in the context of an archaeology of horticulture, facilities for storing horticultural produce are very much under-represented in the record. Th e reasons for this aren’t clear: kumara horticulture may have been less important than archaeologists believe; storage may have been in above-ground structures; or storage features may have taken place at some distance from gardens and these sites have not been recognised by archaeologists or have not been investigated. Other pre-European Māori features found during excavation have been limited. Bedford (1994) found several earth ovens near Tamahere from which charcoal of broadleaf forest species was revealed, along with karaka kernels. Th e site has not been dated and seems not to have been recorded as a site in the New Zealand Archaeological association site fi le but there are defi nite similarities to the charcoal analyses reported by Hofmann (2011) and Campbell and Harris (2011). Simmons (2006a) reported some marine shell midden with occasional kakahi in utilities trenches at Ngaruawahia S14/31. 42 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 Aerial photography

Aerial photographs are particularly useful to archaeologists for a number of reasons, particularly because they can reveal features that do not show up from the ground, and early photographs show features that are no longer visible on the ground. Aerial photography has been used in New Zealand for more than 70 years and there have been considerable changes to the land surface in the intervening period, particularly in a productive agricultural region like the Waikato where ploughing has obscured much surface evidence of features like borrow pits, though they will survive as subsurface features. When aerial photographs are taken on sunny days with a low sun angle, either in winter or toward the start or end of the day, subtle surface features are exaggerated by shadow and show up well. Th e earliest aerial photographs of the study area date to 1939 but the best early photos date to 1943. Th e 1939 runs were shot on 1 April in very even light conditions while the 1943 runs were shot on 14 June between 1 pm and 2.45 pm at 11,000 ft. Th e winter sun is relatively low in the sky and provides strong shadows and good contrast, showing up ground relief clearly. Archaeological features such as pā, pits and borrow pits are easily seen. Th e runs that cover the study area are SN266/833/53–64, 834/54–66 and 835/54–63. Th ese do not run to the east end of the study area but do cover most of it (Figure 16). Run SN266/832 would also cover the north of the study area and SN266/836 the south, but these overlap with the runs listed above. Th e aerial photos used for this project are held in hard copy by the University of Waikato Library. Th ey were examined under a magnifying lens, but not with a stereoscope as it was felt this would be very time consuming and unlikely to result in signiﬁ cant extra information. Th e aerials were all scanned at 600 dpi on a ﬂ atbed scanner and geo-registered in the project GIS. Due to past storage they were all warped to a minor degree which has introduced some distortion into the scans. Combined with parallax distortion this has resulted in inaccuracies in the geo-registration but more sophisticated orthoimage techniques were not employed to correct

833/63 833/64

833/53 833/61

834/54 834/66

16. Extent of aerial photo N 835/54 coverage for 835/63 SN266/833–835 within the study area; the photos at each end of 0 2 each run are kilometres numbered. Matthew Campbell 43 CFG Heritage Ltd. the distortion in the images. Points toward the central part of the image were used to georefer- ence the image as it was assumed there would be less distortion here and consecutive photos overlapped at their edges (Figure 16). Most distortion from warping, which is along the long edge of the photo, occurs east–west resulting in inaccuracies of up to 100 m at the edges of the image. In the centre of the image where warping and parallax eff ects are less inaccuracies are more in the order of 20 m or less. Th e level of detail that is available from good quality aerial photos is shown in Figure 17 and Figure 19. Figure 17, a detail from SN266/834/57, shows sites S15/25, S15/26, S15/27, S15/372 and S15/373, the sites mapped off the same aerial image by Gumbley and shown in Figure 11. Th e three sets of borrow pits are clearly visible and the two pā can also be seen but not with any great clarity. In fact none of the pā within the study area show up particularly well in these aerial photos, mostly because they are covered in vegetation. S15/25, a pā named Pukeroro West, is visible but the aerial photo is best interpreted with reference to the tape and compass map of the pā made by Edson when he recorded the site in 1976 (Figure 18) – this and S15/26, Pukeroro East, are two of the few sites in the Waikato Basin he located off aerial photos that he visited. Sites S15/26, the pā, S15/27 and S15/372 are visible on recent Google Earth images but S15/373 was not (Figure 2 shows one of these pits from S15/27). Figure 19, a detail from SN266/834/53, shows two pā located just to the west of the study area that have very good visibility in the aerial photo. Th ese are S15/19 to the north and S15/65 to the south (Figure 5 and Figure 6), originally recorded as a single site in 1968 but S15/65 was recorded as a separate site by Edson in 1980. Th e site records say that house construction and cropping have damaged both pā. Clearly visible in the aerial photo are rectangular storage pits within the defensive ditches and borrow pits to the north and east. Th e pits in S15/65 are less visible and the site had probably been ploughed at least once by 1943 but S15/19 is in very good

17. Detail from SN266/834/57 showing sites S15/25, S15/26, S15/27, S15/372 and S15/373, the sites mapped by Gumbley and shown in Figure 11. No scale. 44 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

18. Tape and compass map of S15/25 made by Edson for the 1976 site record. condition. Th e borrow pits north of S15/19 are recorded as part of the site while those to the east were recorded from the aerial photo as part of this project. Borrow pits within the study area were equally visible on the aerial photos. Once the aerial photos were scanned the hard copies were examined with a magnifying lens and any visible Matthew Campbell 45 CFG Heritage Ltd.

19. Detail from SN266/834/53 showing pā S15/19 and S15/65 with associated storage pits and borrow pits, just west of the study area. No scale.

borrow pits or other archaeological features were marked on a printout of the photo for later digitisation into the project GIS. Most of these features are also clearly visible on the scanned copies but these features showed up in better detail on the hard copies. Also recorded were possible borrow pits or clusters of pits: these were often single isolated features that looked like borrow pits but might be farm features; very faint features that may be the ploughed remnants of borrow pits; sets of circular features visible in newly ploughed, ungrassed paddocks; or lines of pits that may be the remnants of lines of trees. Where clusters of pits are visible these may be considered unequivocal archaeological sites. One thousand and forty-one borrow pits and possible pits or pit clusters were recorded, although many of these were already part of recorded sites. Clusters of pits that were more than 100 m apart were recorded as separate sites, resulting in a total of 213 newly recorded sites in the New Zealand Archaeological Association site fi le (www.archsite.org.nz). Intensive fi eld inspection would, almost certainly, reveal that many of these new sites, recorded as separate here, are parts of continuous tracts of garden soils and borrow pits but, in the absence of the opportunity to inspect the sites, a 100 m separation is reasonable. Less than half these were located in the study area: 489 borrow pits and 20 possible pits or pit clusters. Not all these features were located on mapped soils but Table 7 and Table 8 list the numbers of pits and possible pits by soil type for DSIR soils and McLeod’s soils while Figure 20 maps the features against soils types. Not surprisingly, the great majority of pits are found on Horotiu soils and, where McLeod has distinguished Tamahere soils, more are found on these soils than on unmodifi ed Horotiu soils. Pits could be found just outside the edges of modifi ed soils and still be associated with those soils, but there are also several clusters of pits on Horotiu soils that have not been mapped as Tamahere soils – this indicates that Tamahere soils are probably more extensive than mapped by McLeod. Some borrow pits are found on Bruntwood soils. In some cases these are probably on Horotiu or Tamahere soils and are only located on Bruntwood soils due to imprecision in the maps. However there is one cluster about 2 km west of Cambridge (newly recorded as site S15/566) and two others in the far west of the study area (S15/594 and S15/595) that are clearly located on soils mapped by McLeod as Bruntwood. Some are located on Te Kowhai and low hill soils but these are all very close to Tamahere or Horotiu soils and are probably actually on these soils. Th ere is a greater proportion of possible pits on Te Kowhai and low hill soils, which indicates that some of these at least are probably 46 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

not archaeological features. Despite this, possible pits were mapped in the project GIS although none have been recorded in the NZAA site ﬁ le. Many borrow pits are close to the Waikato River while others cluster close to the Karapiro Stream, and there are smaller clusters along the Mangaone Stream. Th e river would have been a major thoroughfare for pre-European Māori and a major focus of occupation. Some models of the settlement of the Waikato Basin are discussed in Section 9 but the river is central to all of them. Th ere is a substantial series of clusters in the area north of Cambridge away from any major water sources and other smaller clusters are also at a distance from streams. Proximity to water was clearly desirable but not essential – water was probably more necessary for settlement than for gardening.

Pit Possible Horotiu 435 18 Esk 31 Te Kowhai 2

Table 7. Borrow pits recorded from aerial photos within the study area located on DSIR soils.

Pit Possible Horotiu 111 6 Tamahere (TH) 211 4 Waikato 14 Tamahere (THw) 13 Bruntwood 16 2 Te Kowhai 13 5 Low hills 1 1

Table 8. Borrow pits recorded from aerial photos within the study area located on McLeod’s soils. Matthew Campbell 47 CFG Heritage Ltd. DSIR soil types McLeod soil types McLeod DSIR soil types 2 extent of aerial coverage N kilometres Borrow pit Possible pit or cluster 0 Horotiu Waikato / Esk Tamahere Bruntwood Te Kowhai Low hill soils Peat Hills soils Potentially gardened soils gardened Potentially Maori by Soils exploited potentially Maori Soils by not expolited Soils

20. Borrow pits and possible borrow pit and pit clusters mapped against soil types; to the east of the dashed line are McLeod’s soils, to the west DSIR soils. 48 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 LINZ maps and plans

Old maps and plans dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries often contain a considerable amount of information that is directly relevant to pre-European Māori archaeology. Very often they show pā, kainga and cultivations which are often mapped with some accuracy. Th ey also provide ‘incidental’ information, such as the vegetation over large areas, which is indicative of past land use: patches of manuka scrub on otherwise productive soils, for instance, indicates past gardens returning to forest; while areas of kahikatea or kauri, mapped for their potential for the timber industry, indicate that the area was not highly exploited by Māori. Th ese plans are available online from the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) online cadastral database or through QuickMap software. A search revealed 49 19th and early 20th century plans covering the study area and, following an assessment of their utility to the project, 24 of these were georegistered in the project GIS. Unfortunately there is very little of the types of information listed above in these plans – most were considered relevant to potential 19th century European archaeology, which is outside the scope of the project but is important in the context of the Expressway construction. Table 9 lists the few plans that contained any information.

ID Date Information DP 127 1880 ti tree and unspeciﬁ ed vegetation SO 97 1 ~1864 swamp, forest, timber reserve SO 97 3 ~1864 Native Cultivation. Unspeciﬁ ed bush SO 97 4 ~1864 swamps SO 1387 ? swamps

Table 9. LINZ plans containing information of relevance.

Th e only plan that contained anything directly relevant to this project was SO 97 3, which showed “Native Cultivation” east of Swayne Road and south of the Mangaone Stream (Figure 21). Th is plan shows lots allocated to military settlers and so dates to soon after the Waikato campaigns of 1863–64, as do the others in the SO 97 series. Th e cultivations probably date to the period of the war and would have been abandoned with the conﬁ scation of Waikato Tainui lands in 1864. Th ey appear to be outlined in the plan as a square about 220 m on each side. Quite possibly they relate to site S15/478 just to the south, a site containing seven borrow pits newly recorded from aerial photography located just to the south within the designation. Th is implies that traditional horticultural practices may have continued well into the 19th century in the Waikato Basin. However, it isn’t clear what crops were being grown – if European crops such as maize or white potato were being cultivated there may have been less need to modify the soils. McLeod’s soil map barely extends onto this area but does indicate that the soils here were Bruntwood soils while the DSIR soils are recorded as Horotiu soils. Th e area of bush to the east, while not described on the plan in detail, largely coincides with an area of Horotiu–Te Kowhai Complex soils. Th is conﬁ rms that these soils were not heavily exploited by pre-European Māori although they would have provided other resources than horticultural. Th e ti tree (manuka) and other trees in DP127, dating to 1880, are on Te Kowhai and Rotokauri (low hill) soils on either side of Pencarrow Road, again indicating that these soils were not heavily exploited (Figure 22). Th e area with scrub on it is immediately north of tracts Matthew Campbell 49 CFG Heritage Ltd.

21. Detail of SO 97 3 showing the “Native Cultivation” N east of Swayne Road, outlined in green, in relation to borrow pits recorded 0 1 from aerial kilometre photographs.

TTHH T

KNKN11

KKKK

B H T T

T B

B T RRaa H B B H 22. Detail of N DP 127 showing areas under T B manuka scrub in 1880 immediately H north of Horotiu 0 250 TH and Tamahere metres B soils. 50 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

of Horotiu, Tamahere and Bruntwood soils. It may be presumed that this area was cleared prior to 1880, and probably by pre-European (or at least pre-1864) Māori. No borrow pits were observed from aerial photos close to this area – there are some about 250 m south of the southern point of the surveyed Lot. Without borrow pits and soil modifi cations there is no direct evidence that these Horotiu soils were gardened but the lack of woody vegetation is strong indirect evidence. Th ere is an extensive tract of Horotiu soils part of which covers the north of the surveyed lots and is covered in manuka. Not all Horotiu soils, then were equally exploited. Manuka indicates secondary growth forest as it rapidly colonises areas that have been cleared of vegetation and then abandoned. It would be diffi cult to build too many models on this one example but two possibilities are evident that could be tested with further research: fi rstly that tracts of Horotiu soils were more heavily exploited the closer they were to watercourses; secondly that the great majority of Horotiu soils were exploited in pre-European times but some, like the tract to south of Figure 22, were exploited immediately prior to the Waikato campaigns and subsequent confi scation, while others such as the tract to the north of Figure 22 had not been exploited for some time and so had begun to revert to manuka scrub. Overall the 19th century maps and plans did not contain as much information on pre- European Māori occupation for the study area as might have been hoped. Th ey often showed early historic houses and homesteads as well as ditch and bank fences, which are also archaeological sites but which lie outside the scope of this project. Nor is it clear that the indirect evidence of Māori gardening dates to the pre-European era, defi ned as pre-1769. Given that Europeans were scarce in the Waikato until after 1864 and that Māori agricultural practices may have remained largely traditional until this time, though adapted to European crops, much of what appears pre-European may belong to the historic period. Matthew Campbell 51 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 Assessment of the data

A variety of data sources have been used for this project in the hopes that between them they will give a far more rounded picture of the pre-European Māori occupation of the Waikato Basin and the study area than any one could on its own. For soils, aerial photographs and old maps and plans the analysis has been restricted to the study area but there are only a few sites recorded in the study area and even less substantive investigations, so the analysis was extended to the wider Waikato Basin on the assumption that broad patterns observable here will be applicable to the study area. Th ere has been no ﬁ eldwork component to this study and in general ﬁ eldwork provides the strongest dataset. Even so, the various sources of data used here need to be assessed for their contribution to the project.

Accuracy

Accuracy and precision of data are of diff erent importance at diff erent scales. At the wider scale of the Waikato Basin high precision is of much less relevance than it is when mapping an excavation. When attempting to relocate sites within the study area a 100 m grid reference may not be very accurate if the site is only a 5 m borrow pit, but sites recorded with modern handheld GPS receivers should be easier to relocate. When examining the locations of sites relative to mapped soils, the accuracy of both site location and soil maps becomes an issue. Nearly all horticultural sites that appear to be located on Bruntwood or Te Kowhai soils were very close to Horotiu soils and are most likely to be located on these soils. Soil scientists map soils at a level of accuracy that is not always suitable for archaeology, and they do not do so primarily in order to aid archaeologists undertaking desktop studies. Aerial photos have their own sources of inaccuracy due to parallax eff ects and, in the case of the photos used for this project, distortion through bending of the physical photo itself. Th ese eff ects are much less toward the centre of the photo and adjacent photos have enough overlap that the centres can be used and still cover the entire study area. Early maps and plans are often among the most accurate data source with surveyors taking great pride in their work and producing highly detailed and stylishly embellished plans. Th ere are probably sources of error in the digital reproductions of maps and plans that were used for this project, particularly due to distortions of the originals from long term storage and in the original scanning process but most well-drawn plans can be very accurately georegistered into modern cadastral data. Mapping of data has been a primary focus of analysis in this project. Overall the geographic data can be regarded as accurate, with sources of inaccuracy easily understood and compensated for. Th e other kind of accuracy that concerns us is the accuracy of the data itself. Th ere is no reason to think that professional soils scientists, surveyors or archaeologists do not collect accurate data – in fact when Wilkes collected potentially inaccurate data he recorded in the ‘hash’ fi le rather than the NZAA site fi le. A perennial problem for archaeologists is what data to collect. Data collection relies on the research questions that archaeologist take with them into the fi eld and often similar sites may have diff erent data collected that is not strictly comparable. Most recent work on made soils has developed out of Gumbley et al.’s (2003) and has been con- cerned to understand the extent of these soils, their variability, what crops were grown and how, their antiquity and their environment. Comparable data has been collected, but if researchers were to return to swamp pā they would doubtless collect very diff erent data to that collected by Shawcross or Bellwood in the 1960s – in fact those two researchers themselves had diff ering research interests and collected diff erent data. Even so, useful and informative comparisons can 52 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study be made. Perhaps the biggest diff erences are the uses to which that data is put, as the discussion of Cassels’ (1972b, 1972a) model in the next section shows. New data can always refi ne or overturn existing models, but new theoretical approaches often have the greatest eff ect.

Utility

Th e various data sources used for this project have provided several diff erent kinds of data. Central to the discussion have been gardening and garden soils. Th ese have been recorded and excavated by archaeologists, but the recognition of made soils dates back to the work of soil scientists in the early 20th century (Grange et al. 1939) and McLeod’s (1984) characterisa- tion of made soils in the Waikato Basin as Tamahere soils has provided a baseline from which archaeologists have subsequently worked. McLeod’s soil map only extends as far as Cambridge so the DSIR (1954) data had to be used in the eastern part of the study area. When assessing the wider Waikato basin outside the study area DSIR data also had to be used as we only digitised McLeod’s data within the study area.6 McLeod’s data is much fi ner-grained: both in his subdivisions of soil types, which are specifi cally relevant to the Waikato Basin rather than island-wide generalisations; and in his precision of mapping. Th is is more useful when examining the environments of diff erent sites but at the wider scale of the Waikato Basin the DSIR data is just as useful. Archaeologists have worked off McLeod’s maps of Tamahere soils but it is evident that not all made soils were mapped by McLeod, especially at the fi ne-grained scale that archaeologists work at. Th e examination of aerial photographs has shown that borrow pits are in general well-correlated with these soils, but some are clearly visible away from mapped Tamahere soils. It must be assumed that made soils will be associated with these pits. Th ere are also tracts of Tamahere soils with no borrow pits associated with them. Again, it must be assumed that made soils contain material borrowed from the lower soils levels of the Hinuera surface, and that these borrows will be very close by. In these areas borrow pits may have been ploughed out or otherwise fi lled in by 1943, the date of the aerial photography, or perhaps pumice sands and gravels were borrowed from exposures in stream banks. Th e record of recorded sites in the Waikato Basin and the study area is rather patchy. Without having examined every site record it is assumed that most sites were recorded by Edson from aerial photographs and have never been visited by an archaeologist. Th e density of sites recorded by Leahy and Walsh (1980) just south of the basin, where they did visit sites recorded by Edson, indicates that similar site densities might be expected in the study area. However, their survey area was outside the area of the Hinuera surface and this might be expected to have a considerable eff ect on site types and site distributions. Made soils and borrow pits will largely, if not entirely, be restricted to the Horotiu and related soils of the Waikato Basin, as well as the Lower Waikato Basin north of the Taupiri Gorge and the narrower reaches of the upper Waikato River. Aerial photographs recorded 1041 borrow pits in or around the study area, some of which were already recorded in the NZAA site fi le, while 213 new borrow pit sites were recorded. A glance at the extent of Horotiu soils throughout the basin in Figure 7 indicates that we could extrapolate this to 5000 or more borrow pits in the basin that could be recorded from aerial photographs, amounting to perhaps 1000 sites. Given that only 341 sites were recorded in the basin prior to this project this represents a considerable change in site types and distributions. Other site types such as occupation sites, pits, terraces and middens

6 Large amounts of soils data, including McLeod’s, have been digitized by Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua and can be freely explored on line (http://smap.landcareresearch.co.nz/home) but are not yet available for download. Matthew Campbell 53 CFG Heritage Ltd.

remain under-represented. In the end there is no substitute for intensive on-the-ground survey, informed by soils maps and aerial photography. Th e record of excavated sites in the Waikato is also rather patchy. Th ere have been few excavations and very few large areal excavations; many of the investigations discussed in Section 5 were very small in scale, were in areas already modifi ed by historic building in Hamilton (such as Kirikiriroa Pā) or were monitoring of minor earthworks. Th e excavations at Ngaroto and Mangakaware in the 1960s diff ered markedly in nature and intent from the excavations of garden sites (or horticultural landscapes) since the late 1990s. No horticultural landscapes have been excavated near the swamp pā sites, although both are within 1 km of Horotiu soils and a relationship between them would seem highly likely. Th e relationship between the horticultural landscapes that have been excavated and nearby pā sites remains unexplored as most analysis has centred on an exploratory investigation of what characterises these sites and how they operated agronomically. Th e recognition of the archaeological importance of these sites is perhaps somewhat belated but recent excavations and analyses have begun to address this (Gumbley et al. 2003; Gumbley and Hoff mann 2011; Hoff mann 2011; Campbell and Harris 2011). Most excavation reports are found in what is known, often disparagingly, as the grey litera- ture: theses and reports of limited distribution. Fortunately the Historic Places Trust receives a copy of all recent excavation reports and these have all been scanned and are available in digital format on request. Th ese are of varying quality and the sites described yielded varying levels and amounts of data but there is a large and growing corpus of reports and between them they can be used to paint a detailed picture of many aspects of the pre-European archaeology of the Waikato. Aerial photographs have long been employed by archaeologists to locate sites. Earthwork sites such as pā or borrow pits in particular show up very well in good light conditions, that is, the high contrast shadows aff orded by the sun being low in the sky. Edson used these photos to record many of the pā that are in the NZAA site fi le in the Waikato Basin and this project has continued this type of work by recording borrow pits. Th is is no substitute for fi eld recording, though many earthworks features have been fi lled over or destroyed since the photos were taken in 1943 and so there may be no visible surface evidence remaining. Also aerial photos will not show up garden soils or subtle features such as terraces or kumara storage pits that have been obscured by the plough, and they will not show up middens. All these site types remain under- represented in the basin. Taken together all these data sources provide a much fuller, though still incomplete, picture of the pre-European archaeology of the Waikato basin and in particular of the study area, which will be discussed in Section 10 under the heading of the archaeological landscape. One data source that did not provide as much information as hoped was old maps and plans. Archaeologists have long realised that these plans contain a great deal of highly relevant information, such the location of pā, gardens, houses and the names of occupants, and also incidental information such as vegetation types. Th e plans accessed for the study area, however, contained very little useful information. Th is may be because they all post-date the Waikato campaigns of 1863–64 and subsequent confi scation, and so information about Māori occupation may have had little relevance. Also, the Waikato Basin and the study area had been heavily modifi ed by several centuries of pre-European horticulture and settlement and there may have been little incentive for surveyors to record vegetation types of little economic importance, such as non-exploitable timber forest. 54 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 Soils and horticulture

Th e assessment of the archaeology of the study area has focussed heavily on soils, which is true also of most recent archaeological research in the Waikato Basin: research into Māori gardening naturally focuses directly on soils and environment, although the major lake pā excavations at Ngaroto and Mangakaware less directly depended on soils and geography. Th is focus on soils has been at the expense of other factors, such as the river, communications and resources other than horticultural resources. Some attempt will be made to address this in the next section. Th is section summarises the discussion of soils and horticulture and formulates some research questions arising out of this summary. It seems clear that the various groups of sand-fi lled hollows recently investigated in the Waikato Basin (Gumbley et al. 2003; Campbell and Harris 2011; Hoff mann 2011) represent pre-European Māori gardening. Gumbley et al. propose that the hollows are “the ‘scalped’ remains of puke” and provide a ‘speculative’ reconstruction (2003: Figure 3). Th ey make it clear that these features are “interpreted as the remains of kumara growing mounds or puke” (2003: 25, my emphasis) but since then it seems to have become a received wisdom that they are puke (e.g., Simmons 2008a; Prince 2008). Th is received wisdom is questionable. Firstly, there is the logical inconsistency of excavating a hollow and describing it as a mound. While many of these hollows may well be the bases of puke this is only an interpretation – the mounded part of these features have not been identifi ed archaeologically. Th e presence of kumara starch from the sandy fi ll of these hollows at Taupiri and Horotiu (Campbell and Harris 2011; Hoff mann 2011) is a strong indication of they may well be the bases of puke – kumara is usually grown on mounds (Furey 2006:11). However, taro starch was also found at Taupiri (Campbell and Harris 2011), and taro is not grown on mounds. Kumara requires a well- drained soil as it is prone to rot, while taro requires a moist soil and is often grown in swamp conditions in prepared beds (Furey 2006: 13). Taro starch indicates that some of these hollows were probably not the bases of puke. Taro starch might be expected in the fi ll of the hollows in S14/158, which was located on the lower terrace of the Komokorau Stream and was a damper environment, but it would not be expected on the upper terrace at S14/198. It seems likely that these features, which are just the lower remnant of an originally deeper feature, may have more than one function. Preparation of garden beds for kumara and taro may leave archaeologically similar signatures. Monkhouse (quoted in Furey 2006: 13) described taro being planted in “circular concaves” which could well describe these features. Walton (1982), in his review of the ethnographic sources regarding made soils, concluded that taro was one of the crops grown on them. Until their function, or range of functions, is better understood it would seem better to continue to describe them by the functionally neutral term “sand-fi lled hollows.” Recalling Reverend Williams (Journal 3 Januaray 1834, quoted in Clarke 1977: 209) description that: “the banks on either side of the river for about fourteen miles from Ngaruawahia pā are lined with cultivations for nearly the whole distance”, there are two implications. Even allowing for some exaggeration on Williams’ part, one is that not all cultivations were on made soils. Waikato (Esk) and Horotiu soils predominate along the river terraces and these appear to have been gardened without the addition of Hinuera surface sands. At Waverley, Walton and Cassels (1992) excavated made soils that had not had their internal stratigraphy destroyed by the plough. Th ey also excavated adjacent soils that did not contain added sands and observed that the interface between the topsoil and the subsoil indicated disturbance from gardening in the past. Given that sand and gravels are added to soils in the Waikato that are already highly suitable for kumara cultivation, to enhance existing properties, there may have been many hec- Matthew Campbell 55 CFG Heritage Ltd. tares of Horotiu, as well as Bruntwood and Te Kowhai, soils that were gardened but for which no evidence survives. Th e other implication of the Williams quote, again allowing for exaggeration, is that for the amount of cultivation he describes, fallow periods must have been quite short, certainly less than the 10 or more years that might be assumed in a marginal climate. In tropical Polynesia Kirch (1994) noted that fallow periods can be shortened by increasing labour inputs, a process of intensifi cation. Certainly quarrying and transporting sands and gravels would have been very labour intensive with wooden tools and woven baskets. Whether these increased labour inputs could have served to shorten the fallow is not clear, but it is another possible reason for made soils that might be amenable to research. Th e addition of sands and gravels to soils, or other additives such as charcoal or shell, may have functioned to improve drainage or retain heat, act as a mulch or improve aeration (Furey 2006: 19). To this list of possible benefi ts must be added a reduction in fallow periods. Apart from Challis’ (1976) work at Motueka, where he measured soil temperatures during the planting season, no experimental work on garden soils has been carried out (Burtenshaw et al. 2001 made new experimental gardens rather than investigate pre-European soils). Certainly it seems reasonable to suppose that there must have been some pay-off for the extra labour involved. Digging hollows and fi lling them with sand, and perhaps mounding the sand up above the surrounding ground level, is a very specifi c type of soil preparation – it is more than digging material into the soil or mulching it onto the surface. Th e reasons for doing so are not really understood but, as Furey (2006: 19) points out, “archaeologists should … beware of simplistic, universal interpretations of the evidence.” At present we lack the analytical tools to defi nitively distinguish between kumara puke, taro ‘concaves’ and other possible functions of these features. Further investigation and analysis of these features is required before we can make any reasonable interpretations about the range of crops grown in or on them and how they functioned agronomically. Several research topics arise from the consideration of soils and horticulture in the Waikato Basin, among them: • What was the range and extent of gardened soils, and not just made soils? • What was the function or range of functions of adding sands and gravels to soils? • What was the function or range of functions of the sand-fi lled hollows? • Do garden soils represent the fi rst settlement of the Waikato Basin, or of areas within the basin? • Were gardens used only once or were they returned to more than once, and at what intervals? • In what ways are the made soils of the Waikato unique, and what general characteristics do they share with other made soils in New Zealand? • What is the association between soils and non-horticultural activities • Why are certain sites types, such as storage sites, occupation sites and middens, under- represented in the archaeological record? Th ese topics can all benefi t from taking a landscape approach to analysis, placing the fi ndings within the wider Waikato Basin and assessing the spatial and temporal relationships between sites, soils and natural features. 56 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

 The archaeological landscape

Th is section begins the process of putting all the types of data discussed in previous sections together in an attempt to formulate a model of pre-European Māori occupation of the Waikato Basin. Th is model, of a kind known as an archaeological landscape, is necessarily preliminary as it relies on a desktop assessment. Its primary intention is to provide a basis for future research that may further develop, or refute, the landscape analysis.

Previous models of Waikato prehistory

Th ere is only one previous comprehensive previous model of Waikato prehistory, that of Cassels (1972b, 1972a) which was, it must be said, very much of its time. Cassels undertook a “locational analysis”, a fairly fi ne-grained assessment of the local environment and its resource zones, such as well-drained land suitable for horticulture, poorly drained swamps, navigable rivers etc. Th is focus on environment, which was a common approach at that time, has been criticised as being ‘environmentally deterministic’ at the expense of other, cultural factors. His model doesn’t take into account the mobility of pre-European Māori settlement that is generally assumed by archaeologists and frequently backed up by traditional accounts. Groups had rights to resources well outside their local territories, based on wide ranging kinship ties, rather than what was available to them within a defendable radius from pā sites. Cassels treats pā as ‘central places’, primarily defensive in nature, with a one-to-one correspondence between sites and territorial groups. It is highly unlikely, however, that pā were all occupied contemporaneously, or that they were occupied continuously. Rather, they functioned as refuges in times of confl ict and acted as political statements and monuments, advertising and reinforcing chiefl y and group idntities. Pā were not static sites located with respect to particular resources, but entities whose function and use was fl exible and fl uid, responsive to social and political situations, and they were frequently remodelled and rebuilt (see, for instance, Sutton et al. 2003: Chapter 16). Cassels (1972a: 230) proposed that swamp and lake pā were the earliest sites settled in the Waikato and that settlement spread out from there to the wider lands of the basin. Th e locations of swamp pā were environmentally generalised, with several productive resource zones within easy reach, though kumara cultivation lands were not predominant. Late settlement sites were in general more specialised, with an increasing emphasis on kumara horticulture. Th is aspect of the model certainly no longer holds up. Shawcross (1968: 22) proposed for Ngaroto, on the assumption that the mound was built of occupation debris and that occupation had been continuous, a founding date of around AD 1650. Th e site has not been reliably radiocarbon dated: the New Zealand radiocarbon database http://www.waikato.ac.nz/nzcd/index.html, accessed 23 March 2012) lists three very varied dates for Ngaroto, taken on unspecifi ed woods and charcoals. Th ese must be rejected due to the potential for inbuilt age. Bellwood (1978: 70) ran six radiocarbon dates for Lake Mangakaware, four of which must similarly be rejected. Two dates on tree fern wall posts may be considered fairly reliable. Th ese have been recalibrated: NZ1125 (280±76 BP) AD 1460–1820 at 85.7% confi dence; NZ1678 (232±38 BP) AD 1630–1820 at 87.1% confi dence. Bellwood concluded that dates of 1450–1750 were the “outside limits for the date of occupation.” Th is is very similar to Shawcross’s estimate for Ngaroto and also similar to the dates obtained for gardened sites at Taupiri and Horotiu (Campbell and Harris 2011; Hoff mann 2011). Given the wide margin of error for NZ1125 Lake Mangakaware may be a later occupation than Taupiri or Horotiu but there is really too little reliable data to make any defi nitive statement. Th is is an important question, however: if these swamp pā and garden sites Matthew Campbell 57 CFG Heritage Ltd. were all occupied contemporaneously, and they are the earliest evidence of concerted occupation in the Waikato Basin, the settlement of the basin was rapid and widespread; if Horotiu and Taupiri predate the swamp pā, then the latter must be regarded as less desirable occupation areas rather than more. Either way, Cassels’ model has not held up. Th is is not to completely dismiss Cassels’ work though as Gumbley (2011a: 1) puts it, “time has not been kind to [it].” Cassels does acknowledge that mobility was important in the late period, though he failed to incorporate mobility into his static locational model, and he also acknowledged the association of pā with horticultural soils. Pā cluster near waterways as there are few defensible hills in the Waikato Basin, but there is also very little surface evidence for many sites due largely to historic period ploughing. Th e location of pā with respect to other sites and evidences of human occupation is just as important as their location with respect to environmental factors.

Landscape

Th e landscape approach to Waikato prehistory seeks to locate archaeological sites within both culture and environment. Cassells (1972b: fn. 1) wrote: “Th e environment (man’s environment) is not constant. It changes itself, man changes it, it changes man.” Th e landscape approach takes this idea out of the footnotes and makes it a central part of the analysis. It could be reformu- lated: ‘Environment and culture are not constant. Culture adapts to environment, environment adapts to culture.’ Beyond this, a successful landscape analysis seeks to break down the artifi cial distinction between culture and nature, and view them as two faces, though perhaps the most important, of a many-faceted system. One question immediately springs to mind: what is the appropriate scale of the landscape? Th is project has centred on a specifi c study area defi ned by a roading project, but this hardly equates to a cohesive landscape that pre-European Māori would have lived in. Soils types and site types have been examined in some detail in the study area but in order to put it in context the wider Waikato Basin has been a secondary focus. Landscape analyses can take place at the scale of a single site but the scale of analysis selected for this project is the basin. Th e borders of this landscape are porous of course and wider connections are apparent. Th e Waikato Basin is continuous with the Waipa and Hauraki Basins and directly connected to the Lower Waikato basin (McCraw 2011), and really is defi ned on geomorphological rather than archaeological or cultural criteria. Wider connections are immediately apparent archaeologically, with marine shell found at Ngaroto, Mangakaware, Kirikiriroa and other sites. Th ese presumably came from the Waikato West Coast, probably by canoe up the river. Th ere are traditional and iwi connections between the Waikato West Coast and the Waikato Basin and as far as the Bay of Plenty and Tāmaki (Auckland) (Phillips 1989; Jones 1995) and, although traditional histories are an important aspect of any landscape analysis in New Zealand and the Pacifi c (Campbell 2008), these have not been accessed for this project. Th e traditional origins of Waikato Māori stretch back to Hawaiiki through, principally, the Tainui waka, and the tropical Central–East Polynesian origins of Māori are an important factor in the archaeological understanding of pre-European Māori. Landscape analysis must bear all these factors of scale in mind but the Waikato Basin is a coherent geographical region that will serve this project. Th at said, there is a shortage of data on which to base a full analysis: the date of fi rst occupation of the Waikato Basin is not certain. Dates from Mangakaware, Taupiri and Horotiu indicate a 16th century date for fi rst occupation, some two centuries or more after the colonisation of New Zealand, and the evidence from Taupiri and Horotiu is that these were the fi rst occupations in these particular areas. With so little data it is risky to generalise this pattern to the wider basin and future excavations may reveal earlier sites. It seems likely that people 58 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

moved through the basin from an early date to exploit forest resources or to access areas further inland. Site T16/1 near Tokoroa, although undated, is clearly an early site, with an earth oven containing moa bone and evidence of structural postholes (Cook and Green 1962; Law 1973). Th is site could have been accessed from either the Waikato or Hauraki Basins. At least one triangular-sectioned argillite adze of Type 4 from Maungatautiri, indicative of an early style, is in the Auckland Museum collections (Louise Furey pers. comm 2012). Th is probably pre-dates the 16th century but is not evidence specifi cally of occupation, as opposed to visiting. Conversely, Moore (2011) noted that the distribution of obsidian in early sites on the Waikato–King Country coastline, while involving transport from several east coast sites to the west coast, probably skirted the Waikato Basin. Th e basin and river may have facilitated north–south movement but not east–west. Certainly Cassels’ model of early settlement based on swamp pā is not tenable, but we are not yet able to formulate an alternative as we have too few dated sites and they are too few in kind. Th e landscape analysis here consists of a series of models of settlement and occupation. Th ese models could be tested through further research. One model that has been avoided here is a predictive model. It is fairly clear that soil types correlate with landform, that is, lower lying soils are Bruntwood or Te Kowhai soils while the higher soils were the Horotiu soils preferred for gardening. Made Tamahere soils occur almost exclusively on Horotiu parent soils, generally closer to watercourses. Borrow pits, of course, correlate closely with Tamahere soils, as is evident from the pits recorded from aerial photos. Pā tend to be located close to watercourses though there are some notable examples on Hamilton hill soils. Very few sites are located within the now-drained bogs, despite the presence of the well-discussed swamp pā. Th ese patterns can easily be generalised across the whole basin but the underrepresentation of occupation sites, storage sites and middens makes prediction prob- lematic, particularly as there is a tendency to look for what the model predicts, i.e., what we already know, rather than for what it leaves out. More important than developing a predictive model is to fi ll in the blanks in the record of sites types and site distributions. Predictive models can be a very useful guide to assist the planning of future roading and development projects in the Waikato Basin, but given the gaps in the data there is a danger at this stage that such a model may be a very poor guide. Reliance on a faulty predictive model may do more harm than good. Th e salient landscape feature would have been the river while other important landscape features would have been the surrounding hills, which remained largely forested at the time of European arrival and were probably not heavily exploited. Soil types would have been a more subtle landscape feature but one we can assume horticultural Māori understood well. Two important details have emerged from recent archaeological investigations into garden soils: that these gardens were cut into primary forest; and that they are as early or earlier than other sites in the Waikato Basin although, as noted, we really only have two dates from Mangakaware with which to make comparisons. Even so, the garden soils represent the fi rst occupation (as opposed to travelling through or exploiting, for instance, forest resources) at Taupiri on the banks of the Komokorau Stream (S14/158 and S14/198) and at Horotiu on an upper terrace of the Waikato (S14/222). A useful research topic would be to establish whether they were gardened only once or whether, as evidence form S14/158 indicates, they were later returned to.

Model 1: Simultaneous settlement

In this model we accept that the dates for Mangakaware are the same as for Taupiri and Horotiu, and that Shawcross’s estimate for Ngaroto is fair. Settlement occurred in the Waikato Basin Matthew Campbell 59 CFG Heritage Ltd.

everywhere at the same time, in the 16th century. Th is is simultaneous on an archaeological timescale: within a generation. It is unlikely that enough people would initially have migrated to the basin to produce the landscape as it was when Europeans arrived within a single generation. Settlement may have occurred in local pockets and spread out from there to form a ‘joined-up’ settlement pattern, but neither horticulture nor exploitation of swamp and other wild resources were the sole central focus of the economy.

Model 2: Simultaneous settlement along the river

In this model the river was the main focus of early settlement in the 16th century and in this instance horticulture is central to the economy. It was the practice of altering soils with the addition of sands and gravels that allowed Māori to settle in the less optimal climate of the Waikato Basin. In evolutionary terms, their culture was pre-adapted to gardening in the Waikato. From here settlement spread across the Horotiu soils away from the river, for instance in the study area to the Mangaone Stream and then to the garden sites north of Cambridge recorded by Gumbley. At some stage in the 17th century settlement extended to the swamp pā as good horticultural lands along the river were claimed and competition for resources increased.

Model 3: Gradual settlement

In this model settlement emerged gradually, extending up the river and its tributaries one occupation at a time, with small groups ﬁ ssioning and leap-frogging ahead before settlement moved out to the soils away from the river and to the swamps.

Research questions

Several research questions emerge out of these models. Firstly, there has been very little close investigation of some important site types: pā, occupations sites and storage pit sites. Th e absence of the latter is odd as, if horticulture was central to the economy of the basin then kumara storage would have been vitally important. Th is is an important consideration archaeologically as it seems that the soils of the river terraces, where most modern development takes place and hence where mitigation excavation takes place, were not used for kumara storage. Where, then, were these sites, or was storage largely in above-ground structures (pataka)? Understanding the relationship between gardens and storage sites is an important aspect of understanding the landscape and how it was conceptualised and used by pre-European Māori. Related to this is the relationship between pā, occupation sites and other site types. It is no longer tenable to defi ne territories based around pā as a central place – mobility, as has been mentioned, is regarded as an important aspect of the economy and territories were not the sole domain of tightly defi ned groups. People had rights to resources in widely-spaced places. Even so, there were territories (rohe) and these were the centre of communities (communities are another useful scale of analysis for landscapes). Communities are diffi cult to defi ne archaeologically as there are numerous factors that determine their territories, many of which are not visible archaeologically: kinship relations, historical circumstances. Even so, each community would have had access to a range of resources some at least of which are archaeologically visible as a range of site types: gardens, storage sites, occupation sites and probably pā. Th ese will have a variety of relationships to landform, soils, the river and, importantly, each other, that at present are not well understood. 60 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

Related to this is the need to obtain a larger dated sample. If settlement was gradual then garden sites upriver, within the study area, will be later than those at Taupiri and Horotiu, and garden sites at a distance from the river will be later than those on it. Th e sequence may not be easy to tease out even with a larger sample, but it is important to come to some understanding of the speed and direction of settlement as this is central to an understanding of how a coastally oriented people came to occupy this inland area. Related to this topic is that of wider connections and, in fact, the origin of the Waikato people. Th e latter topic can probably not be answered archaeologically and remains the domain of traditional histories, though the potential for traditional history and archaeology to inform each other remains unexploited (Campbell 2008). Traditional histories of Waikato Tainui (Phillips 1989; Jones 1995) are an important data source that has not been accessed for this project. More amenable to archaeology is the question of wider connections, of which the presence of marine shell in land sites is one example. Research questions relating to the archaeological landscape that arise out of this project can be summarised as: • What is the range of site types in the Waikato Basin and how might they be investigated or, in fact, recorded in the ﬁ rst place? • Following from the research topics proposed in the previous section, what was the role of soils in the settlement of the Waikato Basin? And what was their role in the horticultural system? • How did coastally-oriented pre-European Māori adapt their culture and economy to the Waikato Basin? • What was the place of the Waikato Basin within wider landscapes in the northern North Island, including links to Tāmaki, the Waikato West Coast, Hauraki and the Bay of Plenty? Matthew Campbell 61 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 Assessment and recommendations

An important projected outcome of the project was to assess the sites and the landscape following a limited range of criteria adapted to the desktop analysis. Th e fi rst of these was ‘the importance of garden soil sites in the pre-European Māori settlement of the Waikato Basin, including their status as locally early sites.’ It seems clear that horticulture was probably central to the settlement of the basin: even under the simultaneous settlement model horticulture is important but supplemented by other resources. Under the other two models proposed horticulture, in particular the techniques of modifying soils to improve their properties, was central to Māori settlement of the Waikato. Th e second criterion for assessment was ‘the potential of the site or archaeological landscape “through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand.”’ Th e models and research questions outlined in the previous two sections outline some of the ways by which archaeology can contribute not just to the history of the Waikato but to the country as a whole. Questions of human adaptability and technological development have a wider relevance at a general anthropological level of the study of humanity and its cultures and societies. Finally, ‘the potential of the site or archaeological landscape to provide a public amenity through interpretation, education or the dissemination of knowledge through research’ is less easy to assess. Visible earthworks sites like pā or borrow pits are certainly able to be interpreted to the public, but garden soils are not visible and can only become a public amenity through dissemination of archaeological research. Th is is not to imply that either they be disregarded as out-of-sight, out-of-mind, or that they be turned over wholesale to developers and archaeologists. Th ey are an important evidence of history and need not be visible to be appreciated. Specifi c management objectives and strategies for such sites, however, are less obvious but some general management recommendations can be made. In general terms of major development projects, plan changes and other RMA processes, areas of garden soils can potentially be avoided based on the information presented here. However, as noted already, there is not yet suffi cient data on which to base a comprehensive and useful predictive model. Any such planning would need to be followed up with comprehensive fi eld work and site recording. Where sites cannot be avoided, development can provide an opportunity to address the research questions identifi ed in this report through the appropriate HPT processes. Th is report will also inform fi eld recording projects by identifying areas likely to contain archaeological sites, but it must be remembered that pit storage sites, occupation sites and middens all appear to be currently underrepresented in the record and this report cannot provide a guide to locating such sites. It is diffi cult to make concrete recommendations regarding the management of these sites. Th is report was commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Within the Cambridge Section designation the management strategy is to destroy the sites following archaeological investigation. Th is includes some borrow pits and tracts of Tamahere soils north of Cambridge and some extensive tracts of Horotiu soils to the west. Th is provides an ideal opportunity to build on current knowledge of garden soils through a carefully designed research strategy. Important questions that can be addressed at this stage include: • further investigation of sand-fi lled hollows, should any be located, to explore how they were made, how they were used, what eff ect they have on the growth of crops and what eff ect they have on soil fertility; • examination of these questions might help frame future experimental gardening research; 62 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

• Further investigation of Tamahere soils to determine their extent, range and degree of mixing of sands and gravels, and how extensive they are without the presence of sand- fi lled hollows; • To what extent were Horotiu soils gardened without modifi cation through the addition of sands and gravels? • whether gardens consistently represent the initial settlement, as opposed to visiting, of the Waikato basin; and • the way in which the swidden system operated, i.e., for how long were gardens used, how often were they re-used and at what intervals? On the other hand, NZTA have no responsibility outside the designation and management becomes the responsibility of a mosaic of agencies (HPT, Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council) and landowners. One of these agencies, HPT, was instrumental in developing this project, which is conceived as partial mitigation of the eff ects of expressway development on historic and archaeological heritage. Any programme of management of sites outside the designation should therefore be initiated by HPT. Given that this is a desktop study and no fi eld work has been undertaken, the current condition and extent of the sites is unknown. It is not therefore possible to make concrete recommendations for their management. One of the fi rst tasks that should be undertaken in any management programme is to accurately record and assess the sites through a programme of fi eldwork. Alongside this further investigation of recent aerial photos would reveal how many borrow pits recorded from the 1943 aerials have survived. It is neither feasible nor reasonable to actively manage all sites, including the 489 borrow pits recorded of aerial photos, within the study area. Recording of sites in the NZAA site fi le means they have been identifi ed and any major development will trigger Historic Places Act processes, followed by archaeological mitigation investigations. Th e research questions outlined above may be addressed or new ones formulated, dependant on the state of archaeological knowledge at that time. In the meantime current agricultural practices can be expected to continue, which will result in small-scale wear and tear on surface features. Some groups of sites can be identifi ed that form an easily interpreted set of inter-related features, such as the pā and borrow pits (S15/25, S15/26, S15/372, S15/373 and S15/27 shown in Figure 11; a well-preserved borrow pit from S15/27 is shown in Figure 2) at Hooker Road, that may be taken to represent the wider archaeological landscape. Th ese sites are visible in Google Maps and appear well-preserved (other borrow pits are also visible in the wider vicinity, even in cultivated paddocks, indicating that many pits recorded from the 1943 aerial photos may survive). Developing a comprehensive management plan for such a set of sites should be a priority. Such a management regime would require consultation and cooperation with private landowners. Fifteen pā are recorded in the study area. Pā may, a priori, be regarded as sites of signifi cance and in general would be saved from any major eff ects resulting from most future development. Most of these would appear to be on privately-owned agricultural land. Pā can be passively managed by proposing that suitable buff er zones be set around the sites and features such as fencing or tree planting, or activities such as cultivation, not take place within the buff er zone. Th e details of such management regimes can only be outlined following fi led assessment and consultation with landowners. Given the lack of midden sites and storage and occupation sites within the study area, an within the Waikato Basin in general, a programme of fi eldwork to establish the presence of such sites, or to explain their seeming absence, would be potentially productive. As new sites and site types are recoded, management priorities may be adjusted. All management plans and policies should be developed in consultation with tangata whenua, District Councils, landowners and other aff ected parties. Matthew Campbell 63 CFG Heritage Ltd.

 Conclusion

Soils and horticulture would appear to be central to the settlement of the Waikato, though quite how they functioned within the social and political system is not currently clear. Certainly they have been central to recent archaeological investigation, which has nearly all been development driven mitigation rather than purely research focussed. Despite having limited choice in what and where they can excavate, the archaeological discovery and exploration of sand-ﬁ lled hollows has allowed part of an important historical story to be told. Th ere is, however, a great deal more of the story to be uncovered. Much of this will involve a continued focus on made soils, but future research must also widen its focus to the full range of soils and site types. Th ere are many unanswered questions regarding the nature of initial settlement in the Waikato and the role that horticulture played. Further research and constructive debate will help address these issues.

Acknowledgements

Karolyn Buhring and Raj Rajogopal of NZTA oversaw this project. Chris Mallows and Jeremy Gibbons of OPUS International Consultants provided support. Karaitiana Tamatea of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and Rangitionga Kaukau of Ngāti Haua provided commentary from a tangata whenua perspective. Jaden Harris undertook several aspects of the background research. John Robson, Map Librarian at the University of Waikato, was most helpful in allowing me to access the collections of aerial photos. Warren Gumbley and David Lowe generously provided data and assistance. Rick McGovern-Wilson from Th e New Zealand Historic Places Trust commented on and helped develop the project methodology and Kiri Peterson promptly provided digital reports. Louise Furey of the Auckland War Memorial Museum provided a comprehensive review of the ﬁ rst draft of this report. 64 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

References

Barr, C.E. 1989. An ecological approach to the management of wet archaeological sites in New Zealand. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland. Bedford, S. 1994. Tamahere Diversion SH1: a report on the archaeological monitoring of earthworks associated with highway construction. Unpublished report to the Treaty Policy Unit of the Ngati Haua Trust and Transit New Zealand. Bellwood, P. 1978. Archaeological research at Lake Mangakaware, Waikato, 1968–1970. Otago University Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 12. Boubée, J.A.T. and J. Dymock 1978. Sites of historical interest in the Waipa County. Unpublished report to Waipa County Council. Buist, A.G. 1964. Archaeology in North Taranaki, New Zealand. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph, 3. New Zealand Archaeological Association, Wellington. Burtenshaw, M., G. Harris, J. Davidson and F. Leach 2001. Experimental growing of pre- European cultivars of kūmara (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.) at the southern margins of Māori horticulture. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 23: 161–188. Campbell, M. 2005. Th e archaeology of kakahi (Hyridella menziesi). Archaeology in New Zealand 48(3): 101–112. Campbell, M. 2008. Th e historical archaeology of New Zealand’s prehistory. In G. Clark, B.F. Leach and S. O’Connor (eds) Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landcsapes: Papers in Honour of Atholl Anderson 339–350. ANU E Press, Canberra. Campbell, M. and A. Hoff mann 2009. Ngaruawahia bypass designation, Taupiri to Horotiu: archaeological assessment. Unpublished report to the New Zealand Transport Agency and Bloxam, Burnett & Olliver Ltd. Campbell, M. and J. Harris 2010. Simpson property (Allot 296 Komakorau Parish, Pt Allot 297 Komakorau Parish and Lot 1 DPS 25168), Horotiu: archaeological assessment. Unpublished report to Bloxam Burnett & Olliver and Th e New Zealand Transport Agency. Campbell, M. and J. Harris 2011. Th e Taupiri Link, S14/158 and S14/198. Unpublished report to Th e New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Bloxam Burnett & Olliver and Th e New Zealand Transport Agency. Campbell, M., S. Bickler and R. Clough 2003. Th e archaeology Omaha Sandspit, Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 25: 121–157. Cassels, R. 1972a. Human ecology in the prehistoric Waikato. Journal of the Polynesian Society 81(2): 196–247. Cassels, R. 1972b. Locational analysis of prehistoric settlement in New Zealand. Mankind 8: 212–222. Challis, A.J. 1976. Physical and chemical examination of a Maori gravel soil near Motueka, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science 19(3): 249–254. Clarke, A. 1977. Maori modifi ed soils of the upper Waiakto. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 20(4): 204–222. Colenso, W. 1880. On the vegetable foods of the Ancient New Zealanders before Cook’s visit. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 13: 3–38. Cook, R. and R. Green 1962. An inland Archaic site. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 5(1): 30–32. Coster, J. 2008. NZAA site recording scheme upgrade project: Waikato Distrcit Council: fi nal report. Unpublished report to the New Zealand Archaeological Association. Matthew Campbell 65 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Dodd, A. 2005. A waka tiwai from the Waikato River. Archaeology in New Zealand 48(2): 120–132. DSIR (New Zealand Department of Scientifi c and Industrial Research) 1954. General survey of the soils of North Island, New Zealand. Soil Bureau Bulletin (n.s.) 5. Edson, S. 1979. Historical archaeology in the Waikato: an interim report on the Te Miro project. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 22(2): 65–75. Edson, S. 1983. Miracles do happen! Th e recovery by instalments of the Pukete carving. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 26(4): 220–227. Furey, L. 1996. Oruarangi: the archaeology and material culture of a Hauraki pa. Bulletin of the Auckland Museum and Institute 17. Furey, L. 2006. Maori Gardening: An Archaeological Perspective. Science & Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation, Wellington. Grange, L.I., N.H. Taylor, C.F. Sutherland, J.K. Dixon, L. Hodgson, F.Y. Seelye, E. Kidson, L.M. Cranwell and P.W. Smallfi eld 1939. Soils and agriculture of part of Waipa County. New Zealand Department of Scientifi c and Industrial Research Bulletin 76. Gumbley, W. 2001. Report on the fi nal stage of development at Mangaharakeke Pa (S14/18), Te Rapa Dairy Factory, Hamilton. Gumbley, W. 2009a. Assessment of archaeological values: Cambridge North Stage 2 re-zoning (Plan Change 66). Gumbley, W. 2009b. Archaeological investigation of borrow pit 1, S15/422, at Cambridge, Waikato. Gumbley, W. 2011a. Huntly Section of the Waikato Expessway: assessment of archaeological values. Gumbley, W. 2011b. Report on archaeological monitoring of earthworks at 16 Kotahi Ave, Hamilton (S14/63). Gumbley, W. and T.F.G. Higham 1999. Archaeological investigation of a prehistoric garden (S14/203), Horotiu, Waikato, at the Te Rapa Dairy Factory 1997–1999. Gumbley, W. and T.F.G. Higham 2000. Archaeological investigation of prehistoric garden complexes aff ected by R1 & N1 arterial routes, Chartwell, Hamilton. Gumbley, W. and A. Hoff mann 2011. Interim report: investigations of S14/194 and Parts of S14/195, in relation to the Ngaruawahia Section of the Waikato Expressway. Gumbley, W., T.F.G. Higham and D.J. Lowe 2003. Prehistoric horticultural adaptation of soils in the Middle Waikato Basin: review and evidence from S14/201 and S14/185. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 25: 5–30. Hoff mann, A. 2008. Report on archaeological monitoring at 4 Bryce Street, Hamilton: S14/39, Kirikiriroa pa. Unpublished report to Tainui Group Holdings Ltd. Hoff mann, A. 2011. Archaeological investigation of S14/222 (modifi ed soils), Horotiu, Waikato: fi nal report. Unpublished report to Northgate Developments Ltd and NZHPT. Hooker, R.H. 1999. Report on archaeological monitoring, part site S14/121, Martin property, Hakarimata Road, Ngaruawahia. Unpublished report to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Hooker, R.H. 2000. Report on archaeological monitoring, part site S14/121, Mortimer property, Hakarimata Road, Ngaruawahia. Unpublished report to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Hunt, C.G. 1961. Tamahere Pa. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 4(2): 9–12. Hunt, C.G. 1962. Te Rapa Pa. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 5(1): 35–37. Jones, P.T.H. 1995. Nga Iwi o Tainui: Th e Traditional History of the Tainui People: Ngao Korero Tuku Iho a nga Tupuna. Auckland University Press, Auckland. 66 Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway: archaeological desktop study

Kirch, P.V. 1994. Th e Wet and the Dry: Irrigation and Agricultural Intensifi cation in Polynesia. Th e University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Law, G. 1968a. Maori soils in the Lower Waikato. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 11(2): 67–75. Law, G. 1968b. Report on the natural foundations of the Ngaroto site. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 11(1): 35–39. Law, G. 1969. A review of sites excavated in the Northern North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 12(3): 164–177. Law, G. 1973. Tokoroa Moa-hunter site, N75/1. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 16(4): 150–164. Leahy, A. and W. Walsh 1980. Archaeological site survey report, Lower Puniu River survey, Te Awamutu, 1980. Lowe, D.J. 2010a. Introduction to the landscapes and soils of the Hamilton Basin. In D.J. Lowe, V.E. Neall, M. Hedley, B. Clothier and A. Mackay (eds) Guidebook for pre-conference North Island, New Zealand ‘Volcanoes to Oceans’ fi eld tour (27-30 July) 1.24–1.61. Massey University, Palmerston North. Lowe, D.J. 2010b. Quaternary volcanism, tephras, and tephra-derived soils in New Zealand: an introductory review. In D.J. Lowe, V.E. Neall, M. Hedley, B. Clothier and A. Mackay (eds) Guidebook for pre-conference North Island, New Zealand ‘Volcanoes to Oceans’ fi eld tour (27- 30 July) 17–29. Massey University, Palmerston North. Mallows, C. 2009. Section 18 archaeological investigation of pa (S15/66) along the proposed alignment of the Cambrdge Bypass. Unpublished report to New Zealand Transport Agency. Mallows, C. 2011. S18 archaeological investigation at Pt Lots 3 / 4 DPS 25169, River Road, Horotiu. Unpublished report to Simpson Farms and CKL. McCraw, J. 2011. Th e wandering river: landforms and geological history of the Hamilton Basin. Geoscience Society of New Zealand Guidebook 16. McFadgen, B.G. 1980. Maori plaggen soils in New Zealand, their origin and preoperties. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 10(1): 3–19. McLeod, M. 1984. Soils of the Waikato Lowlands. Soil Bureau District Offi ce Report HN 11. Moore, P.R. 2011. Cultural distribution of obsidian along the Waikato–King Country coastline, North Island, New Zealand. Journal of Pacifi c Archaeology 2(1): 29–39. Morgan, P.R. 1968. Site survey of the Waikato River Bank from Ngaruawahia to Cambridge. Peters, K. 1971. Excavations at Lake Mangakaware, Site 1, N65/28. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 14(3): 127–140. Phillips, C. 2000. Waihou Journeys: Th e Archaeology of 400 Years of Maori Settlement. Auckland University Press, Auckland. Phillips, F.L. 1989. Nga Tohu a Tainui: Landmarks of Tainui: A Geographical Record of Tainui Traditional History. Tohu Publishers, Otorohanga. Pick, D. 1968a. Waikato swamp and island pa. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 11(1): 30–34. Pick, D. 1968b. Gravel quarries in the Waikato. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 11(3): 111–114. Prince, D. 2008. Archaeological investigation of Perjuli Developments Ltd Property, Ngaruawahia (NZHPT authority 2008/346). Unpublished report to Boff a Miskell Ltd. Rigg, T. and J.A. Bruce 1923. Th e Maori gravel soils of Waimea West, Nelson, New Zealand. Journal of the Polynesian Society 32(2): 85–93. Shawcross, W. 1968. Th e Ngaroto site. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 11(1): 2–29. Matthew Campbell 67 CFG Heritage Ltd.

Simmons, A. 2002. Summary Report outlining Archaeological Work and Preliminary Results for Part of Kirikiriroa Pa S14/39 Hamilton. Simmons, A. 2003a. Report on Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery at 4 Bryce Street Hamilton Kirikiriroa Pa - S14/39. Unpublished report to Tainui Group Holdings. Simmons, A. 2003b. Report on archaeological work carried out at 345 River Road Miropiko Pa (S14/38). Unpublished report to Antanas Procuta Ltd. Simmons, A. 2005. Summary of archaeological work carried out on part of S14/39, Kirikiriroa Pa, Hamilton. Unpublished report to Roydon Hooker, Araldon Holdings Ltd. Simmons, A. 2006a. Report on archaeological monitoring work associated with the point light- ing project, Ngarauwahia. Unpublished report to Waikati District Council. Simmons, A. 2006b. Report on archaeological monitoring and recording of archaeological data contained in drainage and wastewater trenches at 7C Driver Road, Waikati District. Unpublished report to JE Burton and RM Ashton. Simmons, A. 2008a. Archaeological monitoring of earthworks at Riverton Estate. Unpublished report to Yuan Cheng International Investments Ltd. Simmons, A. 2008b. Archaeological monitoring of excavations at Featherstone Park, S14/189, Te Totara Papakainga, Sylvester Road, Hamilton. Unpublished report to Hamilton City Council. Simmons, A. 2010a. Report on archaeological monitoring of slip stabilization at the Hamilton City Council Kirikiriroa Reserve. Unpublished report to Tonkin & Taylor. Simmons, A. 2010b. Report on archaeological work carried out on part of S14/ 39 Kirikiriroa Pa in association with Araldon Holdings Construction Projects, Hamilton. Unpublished report to Roydon Hooker, Araldon Holdings Ltd. Sutton, D., L. Furey and Y. Marshall 2003. Th e Archaeology of Pouerua. Auckland University Press, Auckland. Taylor, N.H. 1958. Soil science and New Zealand prehistory. New Zealand Science Review 16: 71–79. Trotter, M. and B. McCulloch 2001. Once were borrowers. Archaeology in New Zealand 44(3): 206–214. Walsh, A. 1902. Th e cultivation and teatment of the kumara by the primitive Maoris. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 35: 12–24. Walter, R., C. Jacomb and E. Brooks 2011. Excavations at Cook’s Cove, Tolaga Bay, New Zealand. Journal of Paciﬁ c Archaeology 2(1): 1–28. Walton, T. 1982. Rethinking made soils. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 25(1): 16–29. Walton, T. 1983. Made soils in the vicinity of Aotea Harbour. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 26(2): 86–93. Walton, T. 1984. Made soils in the Waitara River Valley, Taranaki. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 71(1): 563–63. Walton, T. and R. Cassels 1992. Borrow pits and made soils near Waverley, South Taranaki. Archaeology in New Zealand 35(3): 160–171. Wilkes, O. 1997. Archaeology in the Waikato: some history. Archaeology in New Zealand 40(2): 143–157. Williams, L. 1978. Report on excavations at site N56/25, Chartwell Crescent, Hamilton.