Archaeological Assessment of Southern Extension of Runway for Wellington International Airport Ltd (WIAL)

Home , Maupuia, Miramar Peninsula, Rongotai

Archaeological assessment of southern extension of runway for Wellington International Airport Ltd (WIAL)

Kevin L. Jones Kevin L. Jones Archaeologist Ltd 6/13 Leeds Street WELLINGTON 6011 [email protected]

Wellington 13 May 2015

Frontispiece.

WIAL from the north-east. The runway extension will be at the right of this picture and extend out to the south. Source: WIAL.

INTRODUCTION

1. This archaeological assessment has been commissioned by Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL). The purpose of this assessment is to determine the archaeological significance and effects arising as a result of the proposed runway extension reclamation activity on any known or potential sites of archaeological value, or within the immediate surrounding area.

2. The site area to be reclaimed is at the south end of Wellington International Airport on the south of the Miramar Peninsula. The area to be reclaimed is approximately 11 ha and will extend 350 m south from the current southern boundary. There will be a temporary haulage road to carry fill and also the removal of a small hillock to the south-east of the current airport runway (Fig. 1) to allow for additional airport car parking, while some of the existing car parking will be occupied with construction lay down areas.

3. The legal description of the airport land is:

4. Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 78304 and 5. Section 1-3 Survey Office Plan 37422 and 6. Section 3 Survey Office Plan 38205.

7. The grid reference for a point at the northern part of the reclamation is NZTM E1751128 N5422274.

8. This report is an archaeological assessment for an authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) and an assessment for any pertinent consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

9. It is noted that this assessment does not cover Maori values or wahi tapu which is the subject of separate consultation.

10. WIAL have received a cultural impact assessment (CIA) from Raukura Consultants (2014). This contains substantial references to the history and archaeology of the wider Miramar Peninsula and the significance of its setting in Cook Strait.

Setting

11. As noted the site area to be reclaimed lies at the south end of the WIAL runway. It is entirely sea bed south of the existing reclaimed area. The present reclaimed land area was filled in 1959 with some four million cubic yards of fill and incorporated the small point then known as Moa Point (Old Moa Point). It is noted that Old Moa Point received its name after moa bones were found and recorded by Crawford (1872) in that vicinity. The general alignment of this Old Moa Point was on the line of the concrete mole which extends out south-west from the southern part of the 1959 reclamation.

12. The main land uses and buildings in the immediate area of the proposed runway extension include:

a. The airport itself to the north which includes the runway, car parking, hangars and other large buildings; b. A coastal edge and small bay extending east toward Old Moa Point which includes a beach, rocky outcrops and low vegetation up to Moa Point Road; c. Moa Point sewerage treatment plant and large utilitarian structures on the lower slopes of the south coast escarpment immediately east of the airport.

13. The area to the west and south of the proposed runway extension is the open water of Lyall Bay and Cook Strait.

14. There is a network of roads in the surrounding area, and urban and residential development.

15. A small hillock which lies west of Stewart Duff Drive and between the WIAL land and the WCC sewage works is covered in bare rock, grass/sedge, gorse and wind-stunted pines.

Statutory definitions and protection of archaeological sites

16. There are two main pieces of legislation in New Zealand that control work affecting archaeological sites. These are the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and the Resource Management Act 1991 .

17. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga administers the HNZPTA. The HNZPTA contains a consent (authority) process for any work affecting archaeological sites, where an archaeological site is defined in s. 6 as:

a. subject to section 42(3),—

18. any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that—

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and (ii) (ii ) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and

(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)

19. Under s. 42, Archaeological sites not to be modified or destroyed.

20. Unless an authority is granted under section 48, 56(1)(b), or 62 in respect of an archaeological site, no person may modify or destroy, or cause to be modified or destroyed, the whole or any part of that site if that person knows, or ought reasonably to have suspected, that the site is an archaeological site.

21. In addition, any person who intends carrying out work that may damage, modify or destroy an archaeological site, or to investigate a site using invasive archaeological techniques, must first obtain an authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga . The process applies to sites on land of all tenure including public, private and designated land. The HNZPTA contains penalties for unauthorised site damage or destruction including criminal offences.

22. Authority means an authority granted by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga under sections 48, 56, or 62 to undertake an activity that will or may modify or destroy 1 or more archaeological sites.

23. There are three types of authority:

a. To undertake an activity that will destroy or modify sites within a specified area of land b. Similar to above except that the effects on sites will be no more than minor as set out in s. 47 (5) c. To undertake a scientific investigation.

24. S. 47 (5) (the minor effects clause) states that in the case of an application made under section 44(b), without limiting the matters that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga may have regard to for the purpose of determining whether an application meets the requirements of subsection (1)(a)(ii) of this section, it must have regard to—

a. the significance of a site or sites in relation to evidence of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand; and b. the extent to which the proposed activity will modify or destroy the site or sites.

25. HNZPT may return an application for an authority that is deficient in documentation.

26. The archaeological authority process applies to all sites that fit the HNZTPA 2014 definition, regardless of whether:

a. The site is recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association Archsite (on-line Site Recording Scheme) or listed by HNZ, b. The site only becomes known about as a result of ground disturbance, and/ or

c. The activity is permitted under a district or regional plan, or a resource or building consent has been granted.

27. This assessment covers the strict statutory criterion as to whether or not there is reasonable cause to suspect that there is an archaeological site or sites on the development land at the proposed runway extension at WIAL.

28. To achieve the purpose of the RMA, matters of national importance are provided for including the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development (section 6f).

29. Historic heritage is there defined as those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand's history and cultures, derived from archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scientific, or technological qualities.

30. Historic heritage includes:

a) historic sites, structures, places, and areas; b) archaeological sites; c) sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu; d) surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources (RMA section 2).

31. These categories are not mutually exclusive and some archaeological sites may include above ground structures or may also be places that are of significance to Maori.

32. Any resource consent application is required to include an assessment of effects to address cultural and historical matters (RMA 4th Schedule and an RMA plan or statement assessment criteria).

33. This report does not deal directly with the question of wahi tapu which is a matter for advice from the relevant trustees of the Port Nicholson Settlement Trust.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

34. This section of the report will set out:

a) a general statement as to the recorded history and events in the vicinity of the proposed runway extension that may have resulted in the creation of archaeological sites and features; b) a review of the older cadastral plans (SOs) which sometimes show archaeological sites c) the site inspections undertaken in the area, so as to describe and locate recorded sites, and also, importantly, to determine whether a lack of known sites is an actual absence of sites, or an absence of recording.

Documentary research

Scientific papers

35. Crawford (1872), the first owner of Watts Peninsula, now the Miramar area, wrote a paper in the Transactions of the NZ Institute concerning the natural history and archaeology of the peninsula. The paper includes a map of topographical features and archaeological sites (Fig.3). Unfortunately, it has no detailed descriptions of the archaeological sites marked on the map. The map indicates that there were ‘kitchen middens’ at the eastern end of Lyall Bay and moa bones, probably part of a moa-hunter midden, at Old Moa Point.

36. H.N. McLeod (1904), who appears to have owned land by the Miramar cutting, printed a postcard which shows sites based on his own observations. This shows middens and umu in the area near the Old Moa Point and his no. 20 on the postcard is an adze found at ‘Moa Point’ (Fig. 4).

37. Elsdon Best’s 1915 map of the Wellington country districts repeats the information given by Crawford. Adkin (1959: Map II) shows a Te Ranga (Tirangi?) hill where the current observation tower is located off Tirangi Road. It indicates that the bedrock exposed on the western secure perimeter is a remnant of the Rongotai ridge which curved northwards to Maupuia.

38. Given these records made by Crawford and McLeod, there cannot be much doubt that these sites existed. However they have long been buried by the airport development, or destroyed as a result of the strong coastal processes in the area. However, surrounding the airport, fragments of the original hill surfaces or bedrock with remnants of these sites could remain which will be discussed further below.

Early SOs (survey plans) (Figs 5-8)

39. SO 11017 is a 1959 re-drawing of the 1872 country acres and shows no archaeological features (not in figures).

40. WNC SO 13870 1895 (Fig. 5) shows the taking of the sewer reserve. No archaeological features are indicated. The line of the 1895 sewer will intersect with the proposed fill service road.

41. WNC DP 2456 August 1911 (Fig. 6) shows Old Moa Point at lower right and no indication of archaeological sites. 42. WNC SO 18336 1927 (Fig. 7) showing the Lyall Bay area and many houses but no indication of archaeological sites. 43. WN SO 19628 September 1935 (Fig. 8), prepared to gazette the land for the airport, shows no features that could be archaeological sites.

44. Overall, the SOs show no traces of archaeological sites in the area of the airport runway or on the surrounding land. However, it should be noted that there are older landforms and surfaces in the immediate vicinity of the runway.

Shipwreck sites 45. There are several pre-1900 wrecks in the general vicinity of the entry to Wellington Harbour. Although, historically and in certain climatic conditions, Lyall Bay has been mistaken for the Wellington Harbour entrance, there are no recorded wrecks in the immediate vicinity of the area south of the current runway (see Wellington Dive Guide http://wdg.rexedra.gen.nz/ships/wrecks.htm ). 46. In 1841 the WINWICK during a strong southerly gale was totally wrecked at Lyall Bay (http://www.angelfire.com/az/nzgenweb/shipwreck.html). There appears to be no record of precisely where this very early wreck happened. The New Zealand Journal of 13 Dec 1841 records the Winwick as ‘on shore’ in Lyall’s Bay and also ‘an American vessel, name unknown, on shore near Watt’s farm’. Watt’s farm may refer to the Lyall Bay area. (See Google books https://books. google.co.nz/books?id=HXQ6AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=wreck+of+the +winwick&source=bl&ots=lqMn7uShKX&sig=rSzFhC53yfLjHneJh3dZvZhAczg&hl=e n&sa=X&ei=Yp4YVe3HN8fg8AWL8oBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=wreck %20of%20the%20winwick&f=true)

Archaeological sites in the vicinity (Fig. 9)

47. I have searched ARCHSITE (the online archaeological site recording scheme) for the environs of WIAL with the results shown in Figure 9. There is a number of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed reclamation but none on the reclamation area or ancillary roads. There is no archaeological record of the Crawford or McLeod moa-hunter sites.

48. R26/476. The former dangerous goods wharf which lies just north of the Troy Street roundabout on Cobham Drive. Now buried in reclamation.

49. There is a cluster of sites on the south end of the Miramar Peninsula including Rangitatau Pa (R27/55).

50. The only site on WIAL land is Maupuia Pa (R27/419), the subject of an assessment and authority in 2011 (see Jones 2011). The Maupuia pa area will not be used for fill under the current proposals.

51. Given that the line of the sewer main was established in 1895, this is defined as an archaeological site in the area.

52. Being pre-1900 the current main sewer line may contain original elements such as brick vaulted or barrel drains and other features. The approximate alignment of the old sewer main to the sea outlet is shown in Figure 5.

Site inspection (Figs 10-18)

53. I visited the site area on 27 March 2015. The general site area is marked out on Figure 1 and includes the temporary service road to be formed on the western margin of the runway secure area from the Cairns Street and Bridge Street corner to where it will re- join Moa Point Road at the eastern end of Lyall Bay. At the line of the concrete mole, the service road will rise to the level of the runway and cross the underpass roadway to give access to the area to be re-claimed (see Fig. 10).

54. In the past, a ridge seems to have extended south-east from the small hillock on which the control tower and Tirangi Road are located (see older aerial photograph in Fig. 2). This ridge joined on to the ridge running south from Maupuia pa and the Miramar cutting. There are lengthy sections of bedrock exposed on the western edge of the runway secure area on the line of the proposed temporary service road and at the boundaries of some of the eastern house sections of Bridge Street (Figs 11-13). I closely examined the ‘soils‘ exposed on the top of the bedrock to see if they were older soils that might have formed a surface prior to 1900. An old soil would have a clear topsoil and a subsoil grading to weathered greywacke (sandstone). In such a soil it would be possible to find traces of archaeological sites such as burnt stone (ovenstones), charcoal or midden shell fragments

55. The existing sections show some 40 cm of silty clay with many fragments of bedrock. There is brick in some of the silty clay and a limited development of topsoil. The surface of the bedrock is mostly only somewhat weathered and seems to exhibit the planes of a bulldozer having scraped them.

56. At the south-eastern end of Cairns Street is a small low hill which appears to be clay and sand fill with very limited topsoil development.

57. In my view, the exposed sections at Bridge Street do not show the original (pre-1900) soil profiles and there is little likelihood of archaeological sites still being retained on these bedrock surfaces.

58. As noted above the original 1895 sewer line angled across what is now the runway area from the north-east (i.e. on the old shoreline) to the roadway by the concrete mole at the south-west of the current runway (Fig. 14). This line must have been de-commissioned in 1959 and the line re-routed along the long straight of the Moa Point Road. It seems probable that the old sewer would have been demolished or crushed down when the runway was filled in 1959.

59. On the eastern side, the small hillock by Stewart Duff Drive (see Fig. 1) rises to about 25 m above the surrounding level ground (Figs 15 - 18). The total area of the hill will be

about 150 x 80 m. The south-west face is steep and has been scraped by a digger. Again, I was searching for evidence of older soil surfaces as described above. There is very limited topsoil development on the top of this face. The north and north-west face of the hill may be a natural slope and has stunted pines. There are no obvious signs of terraces on this face.

60. The south and south-east faces have low sedges and grass with many rabbit droppings and some gorse at the crest. Stewart Duff Drive cuts through the ridge that once connected this hill to the ridge where the WWCC sewage plant is located. There is some disturbance of the limited topsoil but I could find no trace of archaeological sites such as burnt stone (ovenstones), charcoal or midden shell fragments. This is consistent with my c. 1990 observations (see below) of the sewage plant ridge. The surface of the south-east slope has minor depressions and levelling but in my opinion this is probably caused by bulldozing in the course of preparing and stabilising the slope when Stewart Duff Drive was being cut.

61. In about 1990 I inspected the site of the proposed sewage works for the then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to determine if there were any particular features or remnants of archaeological significance associated with the line in particular. The surface of the ridge there was exposed bedrock with patches of gleyed sand and with a cover of sedges. There was no evidence of archaeological sites such as burnt stone, shell fragments or charcoal fragments.

EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT

62. As noted, the proposal is for a runway extension into Lyall Bay, and ancillary activities including the construction of a temporary service road to the west of the runway (connecting with Moa Point Road), and the removal of the hillock by Stewart Duff Drive. These activities, particularly those landward involve earthworks and disturbance which could adversely affect actual or potential sites of archaeological significance.

63. Although there are general references to archaeological sites (moa bones and middens ) in the isthmus by early observers Crawford and McLeod, there are no visible remnants or signs that these sites still exist. It is therefore very likely that they have been destroyed or buried at the latest by 1959 when the current runway was constructed, or by subsequent development and/or coastal processes that exist in this area. The small surviving areas of bedrock on the west of the secure area of the runway (at Bridge Street) have also been affected by development and there are no apparent older soils in which archaeological sites might be found.

64. There may be low-lying older surfaces below the level of the sections on the east of Bridge Street but these (if they exist) will not be affected by the temporary service road formation.

65. Where the temporary service road leaves Moa Point Road and rises to the level of the runway, it is possible that the 1895 sewer line may be encountered. However, it is likely to be more deeply buried than any of the new road and temporary road formations.

66. The surfaces of the small hillock by Stewart Duff Drive have all been heavily modified by bulldozing and digger scraping except possibly on the north-west face. Nevertheless, there is no reasonable cause to suspect that an archaeological site exists even on this north-west face.

67. Shipwrecks

68. There is no reasonable cause to suspect that archaeological sites in the form of a pre- 1900 shipwreck or shipwrecks exist on the Lyall Bay seabed in the vicinity of the proposed runway extension.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUES

69. This analysis follows the Historic Places Trust archaeological guidelines series no. 2 . This analysis covers all the historically known archaeological sites in the proposed WIAL runway extension area, which in this case relates only to the moa hunter sites and middens.

Condition The moa hunter sites more than likely been destroyed. The 1895 sewer line may exist in crushed down form. Unusual, rare or NA unique? Information potential NA Amenity value NA Cultural associations The record of the moa hunter sites has high cultural associations but it is extremely unlikely that such sites exist.

70. In terms of the RMA, it is usually accepted that this Act may be supplemented by the criteria of significance in s. 66 (3) of the Heritage New Zealand Act 2014, viz.:

a. the extent to which the place reflects important or representative aspects of New Zealand history: b. the association of the place with events, persons, or ideas of importance in New Zealand history: c. the potential of the place to provide knowledge of New Zealand history: d. the importance of the place to tangata whenua: e. the community association with, or public esteem for, the place: f. the potential of the place for public education: g. the technical accomplishment, value, or design of the place: h. the symbolic or commemorative value of the place:

i. the importance of identifying historic places known to date from an early period of New Zealand settlement: j. the importance of identifying rare types of historic places: k. the extent to which the place forms part of a wider historical and cultural area.

71. Of these, the of the site area at WIAL fulfill the following:

Criterion Discussion Important or NA representative Association with events, NA persons Provide knowledge NA Importance to tangata The record of the moa hunter sites has high cultural associations whenua but it is extremely unlikely that such sites still exist. Public esteem NA Public education Minor Technical NA accomplishments Symbolic, NA commemorative Early site The record of the moa hunter sites indicates early sites but it is unlikely that such sites exist. Rare type The record of the moa hunter sites indicates rare types but as noted above it is extremely unlikely that such sites exist. Part of wider area NA

SCOPE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS NEEDED

72. No further archaeological investigations are considered to be necessary.

73. However, as indicated by Raukura Consultants (2104) an unanticipated discovery protocol should be adopted. An example is that adopted by the N.Z. Transport Agency (see Appendix 1)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

74. Using the statutory definition (s. 6, s. 42) of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 there is no reasonable cause to suspect that archaeological sites will be modified or destroyed by the proposed southern extension of the Wellington International Airport runway.

75. The moa-hunter sites recorded by Crawford and McLeod are unlikely still to exist but their associative values indicating the earliest human occupation of Aotaeroa New Zealand have value under the Resource Management Act 1991. 76. For the purposes of the associative and broader tangata values under the Resource Management Act 1991, the Raukura Consultants (2014) report to WIAL provides a full account. 77. An unanticipated or accidental discovery protocol should generally be adopted similar to that used by the N.Z. Transport Agency, an example is in Appendix 1. 78. Kevin L. Jones Archaeologist Ltd may be entered as the archaeologist under the accidental discovery protocol.

APPENDIX 1. Unanticipated or accidental discovery protocol (source N.Z.T.A.).

Minimum Standard Z/22 - Accidental Discovery Procedures

1 Purpose This specification sets out the particular procedures that the Client and its consultants and contractors will follow in the event that an archaeological site, Koiwi or Taonga is accidentally discovered during investigation, construction and/or maintenance of the State highway network. This minimum standard shall apply to all activities unless superseded by provisions in the Scope section of the contract. These procedures reflect the minimum requirements of the Client in accordance with statutory obligations under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014and the Protected Objects Act 1975. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has endorsed the procedures as an agreed protocol for State highway activities. These procedures are designed to recognise and provide for the relationship of M āori in regard to their land, water, sites, waahi tapu and other Taonga. Words marked in bold are defined in Clause 1 of NZTA Standard Specification for Contract Management.

2 General Procedures Following the Accidental Discovery of Possible Archaeological Sites, Koiwi or Taonga

1. Immediately following the discovery of material that could be an archaeological site, Koiwi and/or Taonga, the Consultant shall require the Contractor to cease all work in the discovery area and immediately advise the Consultant of the discovery. 2. The Consultant shall then notify the following people of the discovery: · The Project Manager (or other nominated Client representatives). If a project archaeologist is not nominated in the contract documents, the Client will appoint a qualified archaeologist to ensure all archaeological sites and Taonga Tuturu are dealt with appropriately; · The Project Archaeologist, if nominated in the contract documents; · Identified M āori stakeholders; · The Regional Archaeologist at NZHPT; and · The New Zealand Police if any Koiwi are uncovered. This is a requirement of the Coroners Act 1988. 3. The Consultant shall require the Contractor to secure the discovery area, ensuring the area (and any objects contained within) remains undisturbed and meets health and safety requirements. 4. The Consultant shall ensure that either themselves or the Contractor, as appropriate, are available to meet and guide the Project Archaeologist, New Zealand Police and the identified M āori stakeholders to the discovery area. The Contractor and Consultant will assist with any reasonable requests that any of these people may make. 5. The Consultant shall ensure that no information is released to the media except

as authorised by the Client, in consultation with the identified M āori stakeholders. 6. In the event the discovery area is found to contain an archaeological site, an archaeological authority must be obtained from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Koiwi that are part of an archaeological site can only be removed if an archaeological authority has been obtained. All requirements in relation to the authority will be instructed as a variation to the contract. 7. When the archaeological authority has been granted, the Consultant shall ensure the Contractor undertakes all subsequent works in accordance with the conditions of this authority. 8. The Consultant shall ensure that work in the discovery area does not recommence until authorised by the Client, to ensure that all statutory and cultural requirements have been met. 9. The Consultant shall ensure work recommences in the shortest possible time, while ensuring that any possible archaeological sites, Koiwi or Taonga are protected until as much information as practicable is obtained and a decision is made regarding their appropriate management. This may include obtaining an archaeological authority where necessary.

3 Further Procedures in the Event that Koiwi are Discovered

1. As soon as practicable after the Consultant has given notice to identified M āori stakeholders that Koiwi have been discovered, the Consultant shall invite the identified M āori stakeholders to inspect the site and advise the Client whether they wish to undertake any cultural ceremonies at the site. 2. If identified M āori stakeholders wish to undertake such ceremonies, the Consultant shall make the necessary arrangements for these ceremonies as soon as practicable. 3. Once these ceremonies are completed, the Consultant shall arrange for the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the New Zealand Police and the identified M āori stakeholders, to inspect the skeletal remains. 4. The Project Archaeologist will record details of the Koiwi, the site of discovery, and any other relevant facts, and these records will be made available to the New Zealand Police and/or the identified M āori stakeholders. 5. If the Koiwi are M āori, and the New Zealand Police and/or Coroner have no uncertainty or suspicion about the Koiwi, the Consultant shall arrange for the identified M āori stakeholders representative and Kaumatua to gather up the Koiwi and remove them from the site, or if they decline, arrange for the New Zealand Police and/or Coroner to do so. 6. In the event that the New Zealand Police and/or Coroner have any uncertainty or suspicion about the Koiwi, they are responsible for making any records they require and for any Koiwi that they remove from the site. 7. If the Koiwi are M āori and the New Zealand Police and/or Coroner remove only part of the Koiwi, the provisions of Section 3 (5) above will apply. 8. If the Koiwi are non-Māori, the New Zealand Police and/or Coroner will be responsible for removing any remaining exposed Koiwi.

4 Custody of Taonga (Excluding Koiwi) or Material Found at an Archaeological Site

1. The Project Archaeologist will have initial control of, and responsibility for, all material contained in the discovery area. 2. The Consultant shall ensure no objects are removed from the site until it has been determined, in consultation between the Project Archaeologist and the identified M āori stakeholders, whether it is associated with an archaeological site or the object is Taonga (be it Taonga Tuturu or otherwise). 3. If the object is of M āori origin and found in an archaeological site and/or is a Taonga Tuturu, the Project Archaeologist will record the object and notify the Ministry for Culture and Heritage of the finding as required under the Protected Objects Act 1975. The Project Archaeologist will then hand the material to the local public museum for the Maori Land Court to make a determination on ownership. If the object is European in origin the Consultant shall deliver any such object to the Client so that the legal right to ownership can be determined. 4. If the object is a Taonga and less than 50 years old, (ie not Taonga Tuturu), the Consultant shall invite the identified M āori stakeholders to remove the Taonga from the site.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Mary O’Keeffe of Heritage Solutions for access to the early deposited plans (DPs).

REFERENCES

Adkin, G.L. 1959. The Great Harbour of Tara: Traditional Maori Place-names and Sites of Wellington Harbour and Environs. http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/The_Great_Harbour_of_Tara.html?id=NW2yAA AAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

Best, E. 1923. Miramar Island and its history …. Journal of the Polynesian Society 54: 779-791. (Variously published)

Crawford. J.C. 1872. Notes on Miramar Peninsula, Wellington Harbour . Transactions of the New Zealand Institute 5: 396- 400.

Jones, Kevin L. 2011. Archaeological assessment of Maupuia Pa (R27/419), Miramar Peninsula, Wellington, for Wellington International Airport Ltd.

McLeod, H.N. 1904. The site of Maupuia Pa, Miramar. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 37: 171-173.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust 2006. Guidelines for Writing Archaeological Assessments . (Archaeological Guidelines Series No. 2.) Wellington, New Zealand Historic Places Trust. http://www.historic.org.nz/ en/ ProtectingOurHeritage/Archaeology/ Arch_Guidelines.aspx#assessment

Raukura Consultants Ltd 2014. Cultural values report. Wellington Airport Limited – South Runway extension.

FIGURES

Fig. 1. Locality plan and route of service roads for fill (in red outline). Bedrock exposed by Bridge St indicated in black. The green line is the route of the 1895 sewer line.

Fig. 2. Whites Aviation (?) aerial photograph c. 1941 showing in the distance the eastern sweep of Lyall Bay, Old Moa Point, and the seabed that was reclaimed in 1959. The Rongotai ridge cut for the 1959 extension also shows at centre left.

Fig. 3. Crawford’s TNZI 1872 map. ‘A’ and ‘B’ mark the positions of moa bones and ovens in the area of the WIAL runway. The Old Moa Point is near the southernmost ‘A’. The small hillock depicted to the south of that ‘A’ is part of the ridge on which the WCC sewage plant is sited.

Fig. 4 . The remarkable H.N. McLeod postcard of Miramar (Te Motu Kairangi) showing location of pa and middens.

Fig. 5 . WNC SO 13870 1895 showing the taking of the sewer reserve. No archaeological features are indicated.

Fig. 6 . WNC DP 2456 August 1911 showing Old Moa Point at lower right and no indication of archaeological sites.

Fig. 7 . WNC SO 18336 1927 showing the Lyall Bay area and many houses but no indication of archaeological sites.

Fig. 8 . WN SO 19628 September 1935, prepared to gazette the land for the airport, shows no features that could be archaeological sites.

Fig. 9 . Archsite screenshot showing recording archaeological sites in the vicinity if WIAL.

Fig. 10 . View from the small hillock off Stewart Duff Drive south over the reclamation area.

Fig. 11 . Exposed bedrock east of Bridge Street near the secure perimeter.

Fig. 12 . Fill with brick placed over bedrock (detail of area shown in Fig. 11).

Fig. 13 . Detail of bedrock against the secure perimeter on the line of the service road running parallel to Bridge Street.

Fig. 14 . View from the original Old Moa Point. The western entry to the subway road showing the concrete encased sewage line (c. 1959). The original 1895 sewage line will have been demolished from about this point back under the airport reclamation. The small hillock by Stewart Duff drive is prominent right of centre.

Fig. 15 . The small hillock by Stewart Duff Drive from the south-west.

Fig. 16 . Crest of the small hillock from the south-west showing lack of topsoil.

Fig. 17 . Small hillock from the north.

Fig. 18 . Small hillock from the south-east.