Becoming Quite Colonial: The Archaeology of the Campaign

A Research Strategy

Jonathan Carpenter

Version 1.3

26 July 2012 2 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Revision Date Comments 0.9 28 October Forwarded to ANU for PhD application. 2012 1.0 7 May 2012 Forwarded to the RPMT for consultation. 1.1 21 June 2012 Added cover page, and frontispiece with revisions and contents; expanded Section 3.0 Implementation including developing stages of investigation, Section 5.0 Research Outputs, Section 6.0 Personnel; added appendix for site records. Forwarded to DOC for permit application. 1.2 19 July 2012 Expanded Section 3.0 including stages of investigation and references for battlefield archaeology. Forwarded to HPT for authority application. 1.3 26 July 2012 Revised Section 1.0 and 2.0; added material from British camps report.

Cover Image: Ruapekapeka, 1846. NZ. Painting by John Williams, 58th Regiment.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 3 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Contents_Toc330562475 Research Strategy ...... 1 Figures ...... 4 Tables ...... 4 1.0 Introduction ...... 5 2.0 Background ...... 7 2.1 Location ...... 7 2.2 History ...... 8 2.3 Sources ...... 11 3.0 Research Proposal ...... 17 3.1 Research Objectives ...... 18 3.2 Implementation ...... 19 3.2.1 Consultation, Permits and Authorities ...... 19 3.2.2 Fieldwork ...... 19 3.2.3 Stage 1 - Archaeological investigation of the British and allied Maori positions ...... 20 3.2.4 Stage 2 - Battlefield Archaeology Survey ...... 21 3.2.5 Stage 3 - Identification and testing of other Ruapekapeka Campaign sites ...... 22 4.0 Recording and Processing Methodology ...... 25 4.1 Feature Recording ...... 25 4.2 Expected Features ...... 25 4.3 Finds Processing ...... 26 4.4 Analysis ...... 26 4.5 Curation...... 26 5.0 Research Outputs, Reporting and Communications ...... 26 6.0 Personnel and Funding ...... 26 6.1 Principal Investigator and Support/Supervision ...... 26 6.2 Funding ...... 27 7.0 Timeframe ...... 27 8.0 References ...... 27 Appendix A – Site Record Forms ...... 30

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 4 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figures Figure 1: Ruapekapeka Pa and battlefield...... 10 Figure 2: Plan of Kawiti’s Pah, , showing British and Maori positions (bottom of image; K is the military (army) camp, L is the navy camp, G is Waka Nene’s stockade, N is a whare occupied by East India Company midshipmen). Illustrated London News Vol. 9 1846...... 12 Figure 3: Ruapekapeka. Taken on 11 January 1846. Painting by George Hyde Park, 58th Regiment showing features of the British and Maori camps...... 12 Figure 4: Ruapekapeka. Taken on 11 January 1846. Painting by George Hyde Park, 58th Regiment. .. 13 Figure 5: Ruapekapeka. NZ. Painting by John Williams, 58th Regiment...... 13 Figure 6: Ruapekapeka. The bombardment, 1846. Painting by Cyprian Bridge or John Williams, 58th Regiment...... 14 Figure 7: Ruapekapeka. NZ. Painting by John Williams, 58th Regiment...... 14 Figure 8: The Pah at Ruapekapeka in Flames - From the 32 pdr Stockade. 12 Jany 1846. Painting by Cyprian Bridge, 58th Regiment...... 15 Figure 9: Nops campaign map of 1846, showing British and Maori positions in the southern ...... 15 Figure 10: British camp and the approximate location of features identified in primary sources...... 16 Figure 11: Ruapekapeka Pa and Battlefield from the air...... 16 Figure 12: Geophysical anomalies in the vicinity of the main British camp (Geometria 2007)...... 23 Figure 13: Potential investigation areas at the main British camp...... 24

Tables Table 1: Stages of investigation and Section 18 HPA authority applications...... 20

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 5 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

1.0 Introduction In late December 1846, British forces and allied Maori established several positions facing Ruapekapeka Pa near Kawakawa in the southern Bay of Islands. These positions were established in advance of the attack on the fortification constructed by and his allies in the preceding months. The battle at Ruapekapeka, which culminated in a fierce skirmish behind the pa before the British secured the position on 11 January 1846. It would be the final engagement of the first of the New Zealand Wars1, which began with Hone Heke’s fourth assault on the flagstaff at Kororareka and the subsequent razing of Kororareka/Russell on 11 March 1845.

The British forces deployed in the campaign numbered approximately 1200 men including British Army regulars of the 58th, and 99th Regiments, marines of the Royal Navy and East India Company and a small settler militia largely made of volunteers from but including several African Americans who had presumably arrived on whaling ships putting in to the Bay of Islands. The Maori allies numbered around 400 and came from a number of different /hapu from across Taitokerau or Northland, under the putative command of Chief Tamati Waka Nene. A similar number of Maori fought under Kawiti and his ally Hone Heke, who arrived to reinforce Ruapekapeka shortly before the pa was breached.

The main British encampment was located on a ridge approximately 1600 metres north of the pa, and facing it over a steep gully. Two smaller artillery positions were progressively established between it and the pa. Adjoining the British camp was a stockade established just prior to the arrival of the main British contingent by Maori under allied Chief Mohi Tawhai. The camp and forward positions were occupied for several weeks from late December 1845 as the British and allied Maori forces brought up their artillery from the ships stationed at the confluence of the Kawakawa and Karetu Rivers.

The pa was taken with the immediate loss of 12 British lives by early afternoon of the 11 January, following a day or coordinated, mass bombardment from the assembled British artillery. Within a day of taking it, the British had recorded the fortification in some detail, put it to the torch, buried their dead, abandoned their positions and decamped back to their ships on the Kawakawa River.

The British and the allied Maori camp received little attention in the primary and secondary accounts of the battle, focussing as they do on the cut and thrust of the military engagement and descriptions of Ruapekapeka itself. However this albeit very temporary settlement would have seen one of the most intensive cross-cultural encounters of the mid-19th century in New Zealand. More than a thousand British soldiers, marines, settler militia and sundry others, largely “fresh off the boat”, were forced to live under arms, in close contact with and depending on the good will of hundreds of Maori warriors whose on-going cooperation and support, given the traditionally fissile nature of Maori or war parties could not necessarily be guaranteed. The positions are illustrated in paintings by Cyprian Bridge, George Hyde Page and John Williams, and in an anonymous sketch published in British newspapers after the battle, which given an indication of their size, organisation and complexity.

1 Variously referred to as the Flagstaff War, the War in the North, the Northern War or the Northern Campaign of the .

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 6 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

The logistics of the wider campaign are also largely unexamined beyond the accounts of supplies moving back and forth between the Bay of Islands and the hinterland and the fact that the British were supplying the Maori allies with food in exchange for on-going support, at the same time as British troops were buying flour to make their daily bread from Nene.

The impact of the traditional seasonal gardening round on the Maori ability of Maori on both sidesto maintain a prolonged campaign has not been assessed. While the Ohaewai campaign in early winter of 1845 saw the Maori larder well-stocked, the early summer fight at Ruapekapeka saw the pataka of the pa bare, and the defenders apparently reduced to eating fern root. This, despite much of the ground within and surrounding the pa having been given over to potato gardens in the preceding months. The increasing desire of Maori on both sides of the conflict to return to their mahinga kai and prepare for the next season has been largely unremarked upon but may have been at least one reason for the cessation of hostilities after the battle, an extension of the seasonal exigencies of traditional Maori warfare into engagements with colonial forces.

The other sites associated with the Ruapekapeka campaign and the march from the Kawakawa River to Kawiti’s pa have received no attention from archaeologists or historians. A substantial camp was erected at the Kawakawa beachhead at the pa of Puketutu, an allied Maori chief. This camp is illustrated in two watercolours by Cyprian Bridge and on campaign maps produced by George Nops. This site was permanently garrisoned for five weeks by the British, and the pa was possibly built by Puketutu to aid the British rather than being a pre-existing settlement. It was still occupied several years later when touring parties started visiting Ruapekapeka on day or overnight trips from the Bay of Islands.

Neither has any attempt been made to relocate the several intermediary positions between Puketutu’s pa and Ruapekapeka, as illustrated in campaign maps prepared by Nops. Somewhere on the ridgelines between the Kawakawa River and Ruapekapeka were the other pa of Mohe Tawai, the British encampment at Waiomio, and several other marching camps, along with another staging post at the mouth of the Kawakawa River. Their ephemeral nature may make them difficult or impossible to identify on the ground but as yet no one has tried. One of the camps was largely destroyed shortly before Ruapekapeka was taken, when a conflagration initiated by F. McKillop’s misadventure brewing coffee burned 20 or 30 whare to the ground. If it were relocated this site would provide an opportunity to investigate a camp abandoned in mid-use rather than one more formally disestablished.

Following the battle, the British forces retired to the Bay of Islands and encamped at ’s property “Victoria” at Waitangi, and several weeks later moved to Te Wahapu near the Colonial capital . The Te Wahapu garrison remained until 1857 and at its peak numbered four hundred soldiers and their wives and families. The military settlement spread over several hundred metres of beach front and included a substantial house for the commander, officers and men’s quarters, houses for families, earthworks, parade ground and jetties. This force at Te Wahapu, New Zealand’s original peace keepers, took an active role in maintaining the tranquillity of the Bay of Islands, including mediating between feuding iwi/hapu and on at least one occasion directly preventing taua muru or traditional raiding parties from avenging themselves. Te Wahapu is suffering from on-going tidal erosion and a large number of houses now dot the flats where the British cantonment was

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 7 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

established however there is still ample undeveloped ground in private and public hands which might usefully be investigated.

The archaeological investigation of this particular and peculiar sort of institutional colonial community, in the form of multi-ethnic military camps housing troops from across the British Empire and Maori warriors from across the northern part of New Zealand, may provide new perspectives on colonial expansion and development of local identities not strictly “British” or completely Maori. This may be compared with the missions, sealing and whaling camps and settler communities which form the bulk of previously investigated site from the early to mid-19th century in New Zealand.

The battle at Ruapekapeka and those which preceded it could not have been fought without the opposing force being brought to bear by the effort of heaving on digging sticks and hauling materiel across inhospitable terrain. In those quieter moments between shots fired and lives lost, warrior, redcoat and settler needed to be fed, watered and sheltered. They engaged with the task of building their “warries”, sweating over ox carts, manning midnight piquets in the rain, visiting the latrine, and a thousand other similar acts of mundane humanity. Of an evening they settled down to smoke, sing and drink together, sometimes joined by those who opposed them during the day, come to visit friends and family on the other side of the conflict. Ruapekapeka veteran F. McKillop describes what may be conceived as a process of pakeha ethnogenesis2 through participation in the Ruapekapeka campaign, and which might be archaeologically observable:

“…we…had become quite colonial—an expression very common both in New South Wales and New Zealand, and means that we had learned how to sleep in the bush with a blanket round us, smoke a pipe before breakfast, dispense entirely with shaving and very nearly with washing, cook our own dinners, wash our clothes, occasionally sit over a damp wood fire without crying (a feat which, by-the-bye, takes a few days to learn), build a ware or hut, paddle a canoe without upsetting, and say Cawpie the maori, " very good the native!"— with which accomplishments, we were supposed to be quite eligible for the colony.”

This proposal suggests that the lens of archaeology may be applied to the physical remnant of those many small acts of “becoming quite colonial” which, as well as the blood and thunder, deserve remembering.

2.0 Background

2.1 Location Ruapekapeka Pa and the associated battlefield are located at Ruapekapeka, south east of Kawakawa. The known features of the battleground are Ruapekapeka Pa itself (recorded archaeological site Q06/139), the remains of a British artillery position (also recorded as part of Q06/139), and part of the area which contained the main British and allied Maori camp (Q06/565). The pa and two British positions are located on the Ruapekapeka Historic Reserve managed by the Department of Conservation and the Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust. The Timperley’s bush scenic reserve immediately south west of the pa may have been part of the battlefield, and parts of the British and

2 After B. Voss, 2008: 1, ethnogenesis here refers to the birthing of new cultural identities.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 8 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

allied Maori camps may be present on the edge of the Hukerenui Forest to the west of the northern end of the Ruapekapeka reserve.

Other parts of the battlefield including the balance of the main camp, the location of a second forward position, and areas where skirmishing is known to have occurred are on neighbouring private land. Other sites including several marching camps associated with the campaign may still exist between Ruapekapeka and the Kawakawa River and are also likely to be on private land.

2.2 History It is not the intention here to provide more than a brief overview of events associated with the battle.

The key events relating to the Ruapekapeka Campaign start with the construction of the pa by Te Ruki Kawiti in the winter and spring of 1845, following the disastrous British defeat at in July. Kawiti and his allies established an undefended village or kainga (or perhaps re-occupied an old settlement) at the rear of what would become the pa, according to customs requiring the tapu act of pa construction to be separate from everyday activities until the tapu was lifted at the completion of the fortification. The pa was of a large size and novel construction but included features that had been used and refined in earlier battles, including traversed ditches and rifle trenches, bastions for enfilading fire, tunnels and covered ways providing safe access between the defences, and camouflaged, bomb proof bunkers.

In December of 1845, Colonel Despard was ordered to march on the pa by the newly minted Governor, . This required an arduous, staged march over several weeks, along two separate routes from the beachhead on the Kawakawa River. Several depots or marching camps were established on the route to maintain lines of supply and Maori walking tracks were improved to allow the passage of teams of oxen pulling the heavy guns.

By the 30th of December the British and allied Maori forces has established their main camp, from which they began harassing the pa with bombardments from the 12, 18 and 32 pounder cannons, mortars and Congreve rockets. Over the next several days to forward positions closer to the pa were established in the midst of skirmishing with the Maori from the pa and artillery fire. With the arrival of the second 32 pounder, shot and shell, all the batteries opened up in concert on the 10th of January, breaching the pa in two places while the Maori under Kawiti took refuge in the bombproof bunkers of the pa or in the bush behind. Early on the morning of the 11th of January, possibly while Christian services were being held behind the pa, an allied Maori-led probe of the partially breached defences on the north east side of the fortification found the pa almost empty, and British and Maori stormed the pa.

The subsequent raising of the alarm by the defenders led to a short, sharp confrontation at the rear of Ruapekapeka, with ambushes from prepared positions and a running battle over several miles to the south of the pa once it became obvious that the pa was lost to the British. Following the battle, the pa was razed on the 12th of January and the British forces had abandoned the area and returned to Kawakawa by the 13th, after burying the British dead in a mass grave, along with several Maori casualties. A somewhat uneasy peace established between the combatants and for many years the Ruapekapeka area saw little activity apart from the occasional tourist taking a one or two day tour of the northern campaign sites from the Bay of Islands (often accompanied by veterans) and probably

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 9 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

itinerant visits and use by local Maori. European settlement of the area began in the 1870s, and the main British camp was subsequently ploughed and planted in potatoes.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 10 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 1: Ruapekapeka Pa and battlefield.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 11 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

2.3 Sources The major primary sources are the papers of Governor Grey (Auckland Public Library) and despatches of Colonel Despard (1846), the diary of Major Cyprian Bridge (Alexander Turnbull Library), and the accounts of F. McKillop (1849) and A. Whisker (Auckland Museum Library). The received secondary account of the campaign is J. Cowan (1922) and is based on published and unpublished accounts and interviews with surviving veterans. J. Belich (1986) is the acclaimed revision, and C. Pugsley (1991) contra Belich reviews and revises the revision. R. Johnson has prepared a thorough account of the Northern War for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust (2006) based in part on his 1995 MA thesis and more recent oral/tribal history research for claimants.

A number of different maps of the pa exist including a folk map drawn by a Maori informant and published before the battle, the plan prepared by Mr Nops and Mr Groves of the HMS Racehorse immediately after the battle, another plan drawn by C. Heaphy, and the Topham map, a compilation of drawings by Marlow, Leeds and De Moulin of the East India Company ship Elphinestone. A sketh of the battlefield published in the Illustrated London News was probably forwarded by Midshipman Pengelley, also of the Elphinestone. Six years after the battle, Col. Wynyard built a scale model of the pa, which currently resides in the Auckland Museum.

Ruapekapeka was first recorded as an archaeological feature in 1973 by J. Davidson of the Auckland Institute and Museum. In 1984 at the behest of the then Department of Lands and Survey, J. Leatherby and P. Morgan undertook a detailed plane table and alidade survey of the pa, and also surveyed the main forward British position. This provided the first detailed archaeological recording of the remaining earthworks. T. In 2005 Geometria Ltd undertook a terrestrial laser scan survey of the pa, and topographic and geophysical survey of the British positions.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 12 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 2: Plan of Kawiti’s Pah, New Zealand, showing British and Maori positions (bottom of image; K is the military (army) camp, L is the navy camp, G is Waka Nene’s stockade, N is a whare occupied by East India Company midshipmen). Illustrated London News Vol. 9 1846.

Figure 3: Ruapekapeka. Taken on 11 January 1846. Painting by George Hyde Park, 58th Regiment showing features of the British and Maori camps.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 13 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 4: Ruapekapeka. Taken on 11 January 1846. Painting by George Hyde Park, 58th Regiment.

Figure 5: Ruapekapeka. NZ. Painting by John Williams, 58th Regiment.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 14 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 6: Ruapekapeka. The bombardment, 1846. Painting by Cyprian Bridge or John Williams, 58th Regiment.

Figure 7: Ruapekapeka. NZ. Painting by John Williams, 58th Regiment.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 15 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 8: The Pah at Ruapekapeka in Flames - From the 32 pdr Stockade. 12 Jany 1846. Painting by Cyprian Bridge, 58th Regiment.

Figure 9: Nops campaign map of 1846, showing British and Maori positions in the southern Bay of Islands.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 16 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Ruapekapeka Pa

Nene’s Pa

British forward position Navy camp

Army camp and batteries

Figure 10: British camp and the approximate location of features identified in primary sources.

Ruapekapeka Pa

British forward positions

Reserve boundary Nene’s Pa

Army camp and Navy camp batteries

Figure 11: Ruapekapeka Pa and Battlefield from the air.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 17 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

3.0 Research Proposal This research proposal has been prepared to guide the proposed investigation of archaeological sites associated with the Ruapekapeka campaign and battlefield of 1845-46. While Ruapekapeka Pa itself is the key component of the battlefield and was the focus of the military campaign, the research outlined here does not propose invasive investigation of the pa. Rather it concerns itself with the positions of the British and Maori combatants beyond the pa, and the wider battlefield and campaign landscape.

Although Ruapekapeka Pa and the campaign are well known from historic accounts and the impressive surface archaeology of the fortification itself, almost no attention has been paid to the main British and allied Maori encampment and forward positions, the battle and campaign landscape or their archaeological potential. Other sites associated with the Ruapekapeka campaign have not been recorded in detail yet alone investigated, including the marching camps and allied Maori pa, or the post-war British military cantonment established at Te Wahapu in the Bay of Islands.

Geophysical subsurface surveys of British positions at Ruapekapeka in 2005 (Geometria 2006) and research by the author of this proposal suggests that features amenable to archaeological investigation are present on the battlefield reserve managed by the Department of Conservation, and are likely to exist on neighbouring private land, and across the broader conflict landscape.

This proposal suggests that in the course of the Northern War of 1845-46, the practice of living and fighting together and with each other forged new identities for both Maori and British combatants that are reflected in the archaeology of the Ruapekapeka campaign and battlefield. The implication is that the material culture and social organisation of the combatants, following practices which would have been recognisably normal or traditional to those involved, actually reflects a process of ethnogenesis whereby new cultural identities were being formed. This idea is encapsulated in the 1849 reminiscences of Ruapekapeka veteran F. McKillop to the effect that he and his comrades were “becoming quite colonial” through the daily privations and practices of life on campaign in a new land.

The broad objective of the proposed research will be to identify and investigate archaeological sites and features associated with the Ruapekapeka campaign and Northern War. The research will contain an element of historic research focussing on primary accounts of the campaign containing descriptions of features, activities and actions and individuals which may be amenable to archaeological investigation. Comparable historic, archaeological and anthropological research on similar conflicts, communities and colonial experiences i.e. colonial/military/institutional and/or short term occupations and/or multi-ethnic, communities undergoing colonisation will be reviewed.

A battlefield or conflict archaeology approach to the physical features present will combine a wide ranging assessment of the campaign/battle landscape followed by geophysical survey and detailed mapping of features and artefacts on DOC land. More traditional archaeological investigation will begin by testing geophysical anomalies identified in 2005, followed by larger scale areal investigation of the sites, and subsequent analysis. Mapping and investigation will extend to neighbouring private land if individual owners allow.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 18 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Due to the nature of the sites and research questions, the full support and involvement of the Tangata Whenua of Ruapekapeka, as represented by the Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust will be essential, as will the support of the Department of Conservation who manage Ruapekapeka as a National Icon site, the highest level of acknowledgement for heritage places managed by DOC.

3.1 Research Objectives The main research objective will be to investigate the British and Maori positions (excluding the pa itself) to address issues around the social organisation of the forces, life and the logistics of campaign, and wider questions around the role of warfare in the process of colonisation and culture change.

A secondary goal would be to determine the extent of the Ruapekapeka battlefield and campaign landscape beyond the known/recorded archaeological sites, on the basis of historic research and archaeological investigation, making use of battlefield archaeology techniques.

Specific goals include:

• Gaining a greater understanding of the battle of Ruapekapeka and the wider campaign landscape from the Kawakawa River to Ruapekapeka and beyond. • Using “Battlefield Archaeology” techniques in use in the USA and Europe to determine full extent of the battlefield and identify areas where specific engagements occurred. • Developing techniques for use on camps and other sites of an ephemeral or otherwise short term nature, i.e. those without obvious earthworks, occupied for days or weeks, with relatively small archaeological footprint. • Investigating life on campaign in the 1840s for combatants and camp followers, including the social organisation of encampments, the logistics of the campaign, and the relationship between British and Maori allies as reflected in the material cultural. • Using the results of this investigation to advocate for greater protection of parts of the battlefield and campaign not already contained within the Ruapekapeka Pa Historic Reserve. • Developing methods and relationships that can be applied to the management and investigation of other NZ Wars sites in Northland and beyond; to lead by example. • Raising the profile of Ruapekapeka and the RPMT through regular press releases detailing results and progress, open days where visitors can observe/get involved with archaeological investigations, and give public presentations and talks to local audiences at schools, marae and other venues.

This research falls under a number of themes identified by the Historic Places Trust in their proposed national research framework for archaeology (Grieg 2007). The project will improve our understanding of a significant cultural landscape and make use of a suite of techniques suitable for historic period battlefields and other ephemeral sites and which can be applied to similar sites and landscapes (Theme: Sense of place and Improvement and innovation in methodology), use archaeological evidence to better understand the development of Maori and Pakeha identity through conflict (Theme: The archaeology of identity), investigate methods to manage and protect archaeological heritage, engage iwi/hapu in archaeological research, and encourage archaeological education in schools (Theme: Archaeology in New Zealand today) (Grieg 2007: 20-23).

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 19 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

3.2 Implementation The research will make use of traditional archaeological methods to investigate archaeological features, along with a suite of techniques associated with the practice of Battlefield Archaeology used to identify and investigate key areas of battle action.

A staged approach will be taken to consultation with affected parties and applications for legal authority to investigate the Ruapekapeka campaign sites, and the investigation itself.

The proposed investigation will require consultation with the Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust, Department of Conservation, Historic Places Trust and private land owners. Contact will also be made with the NZ Defence Forces and NZ Police as the descendant organisations of the British military and colonial militia.

Formal permission will be required from the Historic Places Trust via an archaeological authority, before any excavation may occur. A permit will be required from Department of Conservation through its permit process for any investigation on public conservation land managed by the Department. Any investigation on private land will require landowner permission and an associated archaeological authority over and above those granted for conservation land.

3.2.1 Consultation, Permits and Authorities Consultation will be undertaken with the Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust and Department of Conservation. The former is the accepted party representing the Tangata Whenua of Ruapekapeka while the latter is the land manager of the Ruapekapeka Historic Reserve and adjacent public conservation land, on behalf of the Crown. Consultation and applications to excavate will be undertaken as follows:

1) Consultation with RPMT and Department of Conservation.

2) Application for collections permit from Department of Conservation for investigations on the Ruapekapeka Historic Reserve, contingent on excavation not occurring until an archaeological authority has been granted.

3) Application for authority to investigate archaeological features on the Ruapekapeka Historic Reserve from the Historic Places Trust.

4) Following research to identify associated sites and features on private land, consultation will be undertaken with land owners on those properties. Any sites with a Maori component away from the Ruapekapeka battlefield may require consultation with other groups representing Tangata Whenua.

5) Application for authority to investigate archaeological features on private land from the Historic Places Trust.

3.2.2 Fieldwork Fieldwork will be undertaken in several stages, starting with test excavations on public conservation land on the locations of the main British camp and forward British position, followed by more intensive excavation of features confirmed as being associated with the battle and campaign. Any work on campaign sites identified off public land will be contingent on consultation with the

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 20 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

landowner and subsequent archaeological authorities, and the need and ability to undertake more excavations to meet the objectives of the research.

Fieldwork may be undertaken in the following stages, under multiple archaeological authorities (Table 1) as follows:

1A) Small scale test excavations and areal excavation on the Ruapekapeka Pa Historic Reserve and neighbouring public conservation land focussing on features identified through geophysical subsurface survey to determine their association with the battle or otherwise, including testing features and areas which may contain the mass grave.

1B) Small scale test excavations and areal excavations on the private land adjacent to successful test excavations on public conservation land.

2A) Battlefield survey and artefact mapping and recovery on the Ruapekapeka Pa Historic Reserve.

2B) Battlefield survey on neighbouring private land.

3) Identification, mapping and small scale test excavations on private land to identify and record other battle and campaign sites and features.

Table 1: Stages of investigation and Section 18 HPA authority applications.

Stage Land Tenure HPA s18 Authority Sequence 1A Ruapekapeka battlefield excavation Public land Authority 1 1B Ruapekapeka battlefield excavation Private land Authority 2 2A Ruapekapeka battlefield survey Public Land Authority 2 2B Ruapekapeka battlefield survey Private land Authority 2 3 Ruapekapeka campaign sites Private land Authority 3

3.2.3 Stage 1 - Archaeological investigation of the British and allied Maori positions Standard archaeological techniques of stratigraphic excavation and recording will be used on archaeological features including:

• Archaeological investigation by testing features indicated by 2005-6 Geometria geophysical survey and other areas of interest on public conservation land to identify features associated with the battlefield (Stage 1A). • Archaeological investigation of features on public conservation land identified through testing, by larger scale areal investigation. • Archaeological investigation by testing and excavation of features on neighbouring private land where permission is provided (Stage 1B) • Identify features suggested by primary sources e.g. defensive ditch, allied Maori pa, tents and whares, along with likely but unattested features such as sutlers stores, corrals, magazines, latrines and rubbish pits. • Compare suggested likely arrangement of camp features based on other examples, with archaeological record.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 21 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

• Use historic research, geophysical survey and testing to identify the location of the mass grave containing British and Maori combatants.

3.2.4 Stage 2 - Battlefield Archaeology Survey Battlefield archaeology as a specific suite of methods to address the particularities of battlefields from an archaeological perspective has developed largely in the USA and Europe since the mid- 1980s. It has proved particularly amenable to modern and early modern battlefields where metal encampenage, artillery and small arms ordnance can be located through careful metal detection, mapped using precision surveying equipment, and recovered by small keyhole excavations. The methodology originally developed for use on the 1878 Little Big Horn battlefield site in the USA (Connor et. al. 1998; Fox 1993; Scott et.al. 1989) has been used successfully on numerous battlefields and associated sites from other colonial conflicts with Native Americans, the US Revolutionary War and Civil War, the US-Mexican War, and European battlefields from the late medieval period through to World War Two.

While the key features of the core battlefield are on public conservation land (main British camp, first forward position and pa), the second forward position and most of the peripheral parts of the battlefield are in private ownership. To properly apply the methods noted above will require surveying both the public conservation land and as much of the surrounding private land as possible.

The Ruapekapeka battlefield has been extensively fossicked, with many hundreds of musket balls and other artefacts contained within the Bert Timperley Collection, at the Whangarei Museum, alone. This collection is the type collection for Ruapekapeka and other NZ Wars battle sites, and for other colonial conflicts of the period. However it has never been fully catalogued, assessed or analysed. Anecdotally, other local landowners also have collections from Ruapekapeka and which may be able to be identified and assessed as a result of a public information campaign.

Key elements of a battlefield investigation at Ruapekapeka would include:

• Military terrain analysis of the battlefield will be undertaken to identify key elements using KOCOA analysis (Key terrain features, Observations and Fields of Fire, Cover and Concealment Obstacles, Avenues of Approach and retreat). • Systematic, transect based and surveyed metal detection survey on public (Stage 2A) and private land (Stage 2B, where permission is granted) across accessible parts of the presumed battlefield to detect battle ordinance and identify skirmish positions. • Testing and recovery of small finds/ordinance as detected. This may include on-site recording, removal, analysis and reburial, or removal and curation of finds depending on circumstances. • Point-provenience mapping of finds via total station theodolite or differential GPS. • Analysis of ordinance and other finds to determine origin e.g. Maori, allied Maori, British Army regulars, navy or militia, deposition. • Use the results of the metal detecting and artefact recovery to identify the location of skirmishing and other activities. • Cataloguing and analysis of artefacts from Ruapekapeka in public and private collections. • Identify the archaeological battlefield pattern of military engagements in New Zealand in the 1840s based on Ruapekapeka, in order to seek that pattern in other battle landscapes.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 22 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

3.2.5 Stage 3 - Identification and testing of other Ruapekapeka Campaign sites • Historic research and reconnaissance survey and testing to identify other sites associated with the Ruapekapeka Campaign • Identification of known campaign sites (second forward position, marching camps, Puketutu’s pa) from historic research • Field survey of campaign trail/trails • Mapping and testing of sites where permission is provided by landowners

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 23 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 12: Geophysical anomalies in the vicinity of the main British camp (Geometria 2007).

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 24 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Figure 13: Potential investigation areas at the main British camp.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 25 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

4.0 Recording and Processing Methodology From the discussion above it should be obvious that a range of features may be encountered in the proposed investigation. The methodology outlined below is broad in order to account for a range of possible finds.

4.1 Feature Recording All features, profiles and layers will be recorded using a robotic total station theodolite tied to the NZ2000 map grid. Particularly significant features or details may be laser scanned.

Obvious 20th century features will be recorded as disturbances. A comprehensive photographic and measured drawing record of features, complex feature sets, stratigraphic profiles and other relevant information will be created.

Feature, layer, find acquisition, find discard and photographic information along with spatial data for those elements will be recorded in a Geographic Information System (GIS) or spatial database.

4.2 Expected Features The historical record of the battle, along with archaeological field observations and comparison with other similar sites provides an indication of the sorts of features which will be encountered. See Figure 1-8 for examples of historically attested features, and Figure 9-10 for where they could be located). These may include:

• Defensive earthworks • Postholes and stakeholes from whare, cooking shelters, palisades and other structures • Midden/faunal material • Rubbish pits • Latrines • Fire scoops and ovens • Drains and sumps. • Paths and tracks • Mass grave/graves • Artefacts including military materiel and ordinance, personal and domestic items, and possibly protected objects taonga tuturu as defined under the Protected Objects Act 1975.

Archaeological features will be excavated, sampled and analysed using standard techniques for the feature types encountered. A finds database will be created using standard categories for New Zealand archaeological sites along with special categories for military materiel, ordinance and encampenage as might be expected on a battlefield.

The Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust has, in the past, expressed a desire to identify the location of the mass grave so that it can be marked, protected, and reserved from culturally inappropriate or insensitive activities. If the Trust still desires this outcome, it would become a key goal of the research to identify likely locations where the grave may be, test those locations, and confirm or otherwise the exact location of the burial so that it may be appropriately commemorated.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 26 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

4.3 Finds Processing A field laboratory will be established on site to wash, sort, separate and catalogue finds and process data as they are collected. Finds excluding any special finds will be stored on-site until the conclusion of the investigation.

4.4 Analysis The bulk of the analysis and reporting will be undertaken in Whangarei and Canberra.

4.5 Curation Artefacts will analysed locally and upon completion of the investigation and may with the RPMT’s support be curated by Whangarei Museum or another appropriate local institution until such time as an appropriate repository is available closer to the battlefield.

5.0 Research Outputs, Reporting and Communications Outputs from the proposed research include:

1) Preliminary and final excavation reports as compliance with conditions on the archaeological authority/authorities granted by the Historic Places Trust.

2) Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a PhD at ANU.

3) At least six publications in archaeological, historical and or anthropological journals, and four conference presentations.

4) A project website will be established to provide updates on the project and access to resources and to act as a digital repository for data generated in the course of the excavation.

5) Feedback and advice to the Department of Conservation and the RPMT.

A communications plan will be prepared with the cooperation of DOC and the RPMT to cover press releases, public open days, school and community presentations. It is the author’s intention to provide regular feedback to the RPMT through attendance at RPMT Trust meetings to present progress and results, and opportunities to comment and critique findings, including formally as a part of the final PhD dissertation. An outreach programme to the local community will be developed including public lectures and school talks, and Trustees and members of the public will be invited to participate in archaeological fieldwork and open days.

6.0 Personnel and Funding

6.1 Principal Investigator and Support/Supervision Jonathan Carpenter will be the Principal Investigator for the project, and has been involved with the management of Ruapekapeka Pa and the battlefield for eight years. Jonathan has been employed as an archaeologist for 12 years and has worked in Northland for eight years. He has a close relationship with the Ruapekapeka Pa Management Trust and the Department of Conservation staff who are responsible for the pa, and was part of the DOC team which managed the historic reserve including a $500,000 redevelopment of facilities, four years

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 27 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Jonathan’s PhD will be supervised by Drs Geoff Clark and Stuart Bedford of ANU, and supported by other specialists as necessary. Dr Judith Littleton of the University of Auckland and Dr Marc Oxenham of ANU has been advised of the possibility of identifying the British graves and has indicated their willingness to provide support for that part of the project should it prove necessary.

As is common with archaeological research, experienced archaeologists and students will be invited to participate in the fieldwork as volunteers.

6.2 Funding The principal investigator is in receipt of an Australian Postgraduate Award including ANUE tuition fees and a stipend for three years, along with departmental research and University dissertation production funding. Other local and international sources of funding will be sought to cover research expenses as necessary.

7.0 Timeframe May 2012 Research strategy to RPMT for approval/Comment

May-July 2012 HPT Authority and DOC permit applications

August 2012 Official enrolment at ANU

October 2012 Initial testing on British lines

2013-2014 Consultation with private landowners and investigation of battlefield

2015-2016 Analysis and dissertation preparation

2016 Dissertation submission/final reporting to HPT

8.0 References Anon., 1846. Plan of Kawiti’s Pah, New Zealand in The War in New Zealand. Illustrated London News Volume 9 Page 4, 1846.

Armstrong, D., V. O’Malley and B. Stirling, 2008. Northland Research Programme. Northland Language, Culture and Education. Part Two: Wahi Tapu, Taonga and Te Reo Maori. A report commissioned by the Crown Forest Rental Trust. History Works, Wellington.

Ballara, A., 2003. Taua. Musket Wars', 'Land Wars' or Tikanga?: Warfare in Maori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century. Penguin, Auckland.

Conner, M., and D. D. Scott, 1998. Metal Detector Use in Archaeology: An Introduction. Historical Archaeology, 32(4): 76-85.

Cowan., J., 1922. The New Zealand Wars. A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period. W.A.G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.

Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict. Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1986.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 28 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Blackley, R., 1984. Lance-Sergeant John Williams. Military Topographer Of The Northern War. Art New Zealand No 32, 1984.

Bridge, C., 1847. 'Diary of Major C. Bridge 1845-1846. Typed copy of MS 35 held by the Auckland Museum. Copy on file at the Department of Conservation, Whangarei.

Despard, H., ‘Narrative of an Expedition into the Interior of New Zealand, during the months of June and July, 1845, with some account of the attack on the Native fortress of OhHaiowai, on the 1st of July, by the Troops under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Despard, 99th Regiment, acting as Colonel on the staff’, pp. 567-582, in Colburn's United Service Magazine and Naval and Military Journal, No. 213-6, August -November 1846. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.

Ferrar, H. T., and G. E. Harris, 1922. Geological Map of the Hukerenui Survey District. NZ Geological Survey, Wellington.

Fox, R. A., 1993. Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle : The Little Big Horn Reexamined, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Geometria, 2006. Ruapekapeka Pa Historic Reserve. Report on Geophysical and Topographic Surveys. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Whangarei Area Office.

Grieg, K., 2007. National Research Framework: Discussion Paper. Unpublished report prepared for the NZ Historic Places Trust. InSitu Heritage Ltd, Wellington.

Johnson, R., A History of Intercultural Encounter in the Northern War, 1844–1846. MA thesis, History Department, University of Auckland.

Low., C. R., 1865. A History of the Indian Navy. 1613-1863. Richard Bentley and Son, London.

McKillop, H. F., 1849. Reminiscences of Twelve Months' in New Zealand [Fac. ed. Capper, 1973].

Malone, R. E., 1854. Three Years Cruise in the Australasian Colonies. Richard Bentley, London.

Mundy, G., 1852. Our Antipodes or Residence and Rambles in the Australasian Colonies with a Glimpse of the Goldfields. Richard Bentley, London.

Nops, G., D. 1846. Plan of the road taken by the combined forces on their march to attack the rebel chief Kawiti, Decr & Jany 1845 & 1846. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, Ref. E-320-f.

Page, G. H. 1846. Ruapekapeka. Taken on the 11th Jany, 1846. . Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington B-081-005.

Pugsley, C., Walking Heke's War: The Battle for Ruapekapeka - Victory or Defeat? New Zealand Defence Quarterly, 4, Autumn 1994.

Conner, M., and D. D. Scott, 1998. Metal Detector Use in Archaeology: An Introduction. Historical Archaeology, 32(4): 76-85.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 29 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Scott, D. D., R. A. Fox, Jr., M. A. Connor, and D. Harmon, 1989. Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Whisker, A., ‘Memorandum Book’, MSS 327. Auckland Museum Library. Copy on file at the Department of Conservation, Whangarei.

Voss, B. L., 2008. The Archaeology of Ethnogenisis. Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Williams, J., 1846. Ruapekapeka. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, Ref. A-079-030.

Williams, J., D., 1846. Ruapekapeka from the camp. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, Ref E- 320-f-011.

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx 30 – Ruapekapeka Campaign Archaeological Project. Research Strategy Version 1.2

Appendix A – Site Record Forms

File ref.: C:\Users\Jono\Documents\PhD\Research_Strategies\20120621_Research Strategy_V1.2.docx