Māori- interactions: Anthracological analysis of an archaeological site at Cooks Beach (Pukaki), Coromandel Peninsula

Nikole Aimee Wills

A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology

University of Otago Dunedin,

December 2019

Abstract Charcoal is found throughout the archaeological record as a result of human activity. Anthracology, the analysis of charcoal, is a useful but often neglected branch of research that enables exploration of the dynamic relationship between humans and vegetation in the past. This study highlights the value of anthracological research in an investigation of anthropogenic vegetation change, and the differential selection and use of fuelwood at a stratified, well-dated Māori activity and horticultural site at Cooks Beach, Mercury Bay, on the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula. A taxonomic and dendrological analysis was completed on 1413 charcoal fragments from nine features. The analysis considered the potential impacts of assemblage formation processes and sample reliability, applied charcoal identifications and evaluation to paleoenvironmental reconstruction, and tested the Principle of Least Effort. This study of and dendrological features informs on vegetation change, use and management. The results were related to established models of anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand. These include a rapid landscape transformation model, in which drier lowland forests were largely cleared across New Zealand during an Initial Burn Period (IBP), and a Two-step model in which northern deforestation during the IBP was limited in effect and more profound later in the sequence. The interpretation of vegetation change from the Cooks Beach charcoal assemblage draws on elements of both models, where neither is sufficient alone to explain the evidence. This investigation illustrates the problems associated with the application of broad models of vegetation change to the diverse cultural- environmental landscape of New Zealand. It also elucidates Hauraki Māori cultural practices of land use and vegetation management in the past.

ii

Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Associate Professor Dr Ian Barber, who has been a great support throughout the process of writing this thesis and whose encouragement kept me going.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr Justin Maxwell who started me on the long journey to learning charcoal analysis, your patience and support was very much appreciated. Also to Rod Wallace who has helped me in my journey into anthracology, thanks for your assistance and support, I can only hope that with time my pattern recognition can compare.

Thanks to Richard Barker for all your help with the statistic elements of this thesis, I could not have got there without your help.

Thanks also to Phil Latham, for the laboratory support, Heather Sadler for support with IT, in the lab and all things inbetween, Sue Lang for general support, especially with all those times I locked myself out of the office, and Les O’Neill for help with images, I do not know how we would survive without you all.

Also I would like to thank Andrew Hoffmann who allowed me to work on the charcoal from this site.

To my fellow postgrads I am very thankful to be part of such a wonderful, supportive community. I particularly want to acknowledge Anne-Claire Mauger for translating an article from French to English for me. And all the lovely ladies I have had the pleasure to share an office with, there have been many interesting, and distracting conversations and I enjoyed every minute.

To my family, my parents who always believed in and supported me, and my sisters who are always a phone call away. And to my friends who are my Dunedin family, your support is so valuable to me.

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my husband Rimu Tane, who has kept me going through many rough times with unwavering support.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... ix Glossary ...... x 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research objective ...... 2 1.2 Thesis structure ...... 3 2 Environmental and cultural context ...... 5 2.1 Anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand ...... 5 2.2 Wild vegetation resources ...... 8 2.3 Landscape practices ...... 9 2.4 Study area ...... 10 2.4.1 Cooks Beach ...... 12 2.4.1.1 T11/2789 ...... 14 2.4.1.2 Vegetation history at Cooks Beach ...... 18 2.4.2 Cooks Beach/Mercury Bay cultural history ...... 19 2.4.2.1 Post-contact Mercury Bay ...... 20 3 Anthracology theory background ...... 23 3.1 Assemblage formation ...... 23 3.1.1 Process of charcoalification ...... 23 3.1.1.1 The physical impact of carbonisation...... 24 3.1.2 Influence of post-depositional processes ...... 25 3.1.2.1 Physical processes and soil compression ...... 26 3.1.2.2 State of prior to carbonisation ...... 26 3.1.2.3 Nature of the soil ...... 27 3.1.2.4 Archaeological recovery of material ...... 28 3.1.2.5 Screening charcoal ...... 28 3.1.3 Human bias ...... 29 3.1.3.1 Vegetation as a resource ...... 29 3.1.3.1.1 Resource selection ...... 30 3.1.3.2 Vegetation in a cultural landscape ...... 31 3.1.3.3 Anthropogenic landscape change ...... 33 3.2 Theory of identification ...... 33 3.2.1 Taxonomic identification ...... 33 iv

3.2.1.1 Reference material...... 34 3.2.2 Dendrological analysis ...... 35 3.2.3 Sampling ...... 36 3.2.3.1 Sub-sample context ...... 36 3.2.3.2 Optimal sub-sample size and diversity...... 36 3.2.3.3 Fragment size ...... 37 4 Methodology ...... 39 4.1 Recovery and processing of charcoal ...... 39 4.1.1 Sub-sampling ...... 39 4.2 Charcoal analysis ...... 40 4.2.1 Taxonomic identification ...... 40 4.2.1.1 Level of identification ...... 41 4.2.2 Dendrological analysis ...... 42 4.2.2.1 Bark and Pith ...... 43 4.2.2.2 Growth Ring Curvature ...... 43 4.2.2.3 Root charcoal...... 45 4.2.2.4 Radial and other cracks ...... 45 4.2.2.5 Vitrification ...... 46 4.2.2.6 Fungal decay ...... 46 4.3 Data recording and analysis ...... 47 5 Results ...... 49 5.1 Grouping of taxa ...... 49 5.2 Methodology and assemblage formation bias ...... 49 5.2.1 Sampling ...... 52 5.2.2 Preservation ...... 53 5.2.2.1 Degree of fragmentation...... 54 5.2.3 Identification ...... 59 5.2.3.1 Vitrification ...... 60 5.2.3.2 Wood calibre and identification of species ...... 61 5.2.4 Primary contexts ...... 63 5.3 Summary of taxonomic analysis ...... 63 5.4 Clearance activities ...... 66 5.4.1 Initial clearance...... 66 5.4.2 Clearance for horticulture ...... 67 5.5 Anthropogenic Vegetation change ...... 68 5.6 Vegetation as a resource ...... 70

v

5.6.1 State of wood ...... 71 6 Discussion ...... 75 6.1 Anthracology methodology ...... 75 6.1.1 Impact of assemblage formation processes ...... 75 6.2 Paleoenvironmental and Archaeobotanical interpretations ...... 78 6.2.1 Clearance activities ...... 78 6.2.2 Anthropogenic vegetation change ...... 79 6.2.3 Use and management of vegetation ...... 81 7 Conclusion ...... 84 7.1 The value of anthracological research ...... 85 Bibliography ...... 86 Appendix A: Identification key ...... 123 Appendix B: Raw data ...... 132

vi

List of Figures Figure 1: Change in New Zealand vegetation cover through time, (A) c.3000 years B.P. (B) c. 1840-1860 (From McGlone 1989:118-119)...... 7 Figure 2: Location map of the Coromandel Peninsula and areas references in text...... 11 Figure 3: Location of Cooks Beach and site T11/2789 (Hoffmann 2017: fig. 1)...... 12 Figure 4: Distribution of archaeological sites at Cooks Beach, map generated on Archsite (New Zealand Archaeological Association 2009)...... 14 Figure 5: Cooks Beach site plan and location of charcoal samples used in analysis. (modified from Maxwell et al. 2017, Figure 2)...... 15 Figure 6: Phases of occupation at Cooks Beach (modified from Maxwell et al. 2017, Figure 12)...... 15 Figure 7: Radiocarbon curves for charcoal samples used in this thesis, calibrated in Oxcal (Ramsey 2009) using the SHCal 13 calibration curve (Hogg et al. 2013) ...... 17 Figure 8: Stratigraphic profile of relationship between F46 and F97, soil descriptions follow McLaren & Cameron 1996...... 17 Figure 9: Historic map of Mercury Bay with highlighted section showing vegetation of Cooks Beach (‘Cooks Bay’) in 1852 (Drury 1857)...... 19 Figure 10: Interaction between environmental and cultural factors in fuelwood gathering and consumption, (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010, fig. 4)...... 30 Figure 11: Reference collection examples of twigs identified as Lepstospermum scoparium, Kunzea ericoides, and , 5x magnification...... 42 Figure 12: Examples of bark and pith charcoal, transverse plane, 5x magnification. (A) Hebe spp. from I2 midden, (B) Coriaria arborea from F53, (C) Hebe spp. from D6...... 43 Figure 13: Test card for growth ring curvature categories (from Marguerie and Hunot 2007, fig 3)...... 44 Figure 14: Examples of growth ring curvature observed in analysis, transverse plane, 10x magnification. Weak growth ring curvature: (A) Agathis australis from F46, (B) Avicennia marina var australisica from D6. Moderate growth ring curvature: (C) Coprosma spp. from D6, (D) Dodonaea viscosa from F97. Strong growth ring curvature (E) Myrtaceae spp. from I2, (F) Hebe spp. from F53...... 44 Figure 15: Examples of root charcoal observed in analysis, transverse plane, 10x magnification (A) Agathis australis from D6, (B) Prumnopitys taxifolia from F46...... 45 Figure 16: Examples of radial and other cracks observed in analysis, transverse plane, 5x magnification. (A) Avicennia marina var australisica from F24, (B) Dacrycarpus Dacrydioides from D6...... 45 Figure 17: Examples vitrification observed in analysis, Transverse plane, 5x magnification. Level 1: (A) Agathis australis from F46, (B) Prumnopitys taxifolia from F97. Level 2: (C) Leptospermum scoparium from D6, (D) from Tr 3. Level 3: (E) Angiosperm from I2, (F) Indeterminate from Tr 3...... 46 Figure 18: Examples fungal decay feature observed in analysis, transverse plane, 20x magnification. (A) Fungal hyphae, Avicennia marina var australsica from D6 (B) Cellular collapse, Agathis australis from F46...... 47 Figure 19: Extrapolated rarefaction curves for samples, graphed by burn phase association. (A) IBP, (B) EHP, (C), LHP, (D), HP...... 52 Figure 20: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in Tr3...... 55 Figure 21: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F46...... 55 Figure 22: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F72...... 56 vii

Figure 23: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F68...... 56 Figure 24: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in D6...... 57 Figure 25: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in I2...... 57 Figure 26: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F97...... 58 Figure 27: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F24...... 58 Figure 28: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F53...... 59 Figure 29: Examples of unidentified charcoal with level 3 vitrification, transverse plane, 5x maginification (A) Angiosperm from F24, (B) Angiosperm from F68...... 61 Figure 30: Example of small diameter unidentfiied Myrtaceae fragments., transverse plane, 5x magnification (A) Myrtaceae spp. from F53, (B) Myrtaceae spp. from D6...... 61 Figure 31: Percentage cluster graphs of dendrological features identifying small diameter wood in unidentified Myrtaceae fragments A) Growth ring curvature, n=124. B) Presence or absence of pith in strongly curved fragments, n=59...... 62 Figure 32: Percentage cluster graph of Myrtaceae species across the samples, n=399 ...... 63 Figure 33: Anthracology spectrum for Cooks Beach charcoal, n=1413...... 65 Figure 34: Percentage cluster graphs showing dendrological features associated with interpretation of Tr 3 charcoal. (A) Growth ring curvature excluded indeterminate curvature category, n=196. (B) Cellular collapse, n=250 ...... 67 Figure 35: Percentage cluster graph of proportions of ecological groups in the samples sorted by chronological grouping A) EHP, n=488. B) LHP, n=465...... 68 Figure 36: Anthracology spectrum for the secondary context in the horticultural period, n=953 ...... 69 Figure 37: Cluster bar graph of physiognomy in secondary context horticultural samples, n=953...... 70 Figure 38: Examples of decay features observed on A. australis fragments (A) Insect bore hole on radial plane from F46, 20x magnification (B) Cellular collapse from F46, transverse plane, 5x magnification...... 72 Figure 39: Cluster bar chart of percentage of vitrification present on fragments identified to taxa, less than 2% grouped as other, n= 1413...... 74 Figure 40: Decay features observed on Avicennia marina var australisca (A) Radial cracks, fungal hyphae and level 1 vitrification, transverse plane, 10x magnification (B) Level 2 vitrification, transverse plane, 5x magnification...... 74

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Archaeological sites located in the area of Cooks Beach...... 13 Table 2: Samples used in charcoal analysis...... 16 Table 3: Classification of taxa used in in this analysis...... 50 Table 4: Fragment/preservation index for contexts sampled, n=1413...... 54 Table 5: Dendrological features on unidentified charcoal in the T11/2789 assemblage, n=249...... 60 Table 6: Myrtaceae family identification from total assemblage, n=399...... 62 Table 7: Species of root charcoal identified, n=65...... 67 Table 8: Number of non-root fragments identified to species with decay features from the horticulture phase, n=858...... 71 Table 9: Count, growth ring curvature and presence of modification to cellular structure in non-root Agathis australis charcoal from the horticultural phase, n=101...... 72 Table 10: Count, growth ring curvature and presence of modification to cellular structure in Avicennia marina var australasica charcoal from the horticultural phase, n=144...... 73

ix

Glossary Definitions follow standard authorities (Best 1910,1924,1941; Hiroa 1950; Ryan 2012; Moorefield 2019). Māori word Definition Ahi kā To keep the home fires burning, right of occupation Hapū Kinship group, subtribe- section of a large kinship group and the primary political unit in traditional Māori society Iwi Extended kinship group, tribe- often refers to a large group of people descended from a common ancestor and associated with a distinct territory Kāinga Home, permanent settlement area Mahinga kai Resource/food sourcing practices and places, gardening and cultivation Mātaurangi Māori Māori traditional knowledge Mauri Life principle, life force, vital essence, special nature, a material symbol of a life principle, source of emotions- the essential quality and vitality of being or entity. Also used for a physical object, individual, ecosystem or social group in which this essence is located Pā Fortified village, fort Rohe Boundary, district, region, territory, area, border (of land) Te reo Māori Māori language Tohu Sign Waka Canoe Whakapapa Genealogy, lineage, descent Whanau Extended family, family group- the primary economic unit of traditional Māori society

x

1 Introduction When Polynesians first arrived in New Zealand c. AD 1300, they were greeted with a unique landscape and resources different from those in their tropical homeland, including continental rocks, and native cool temperate fauna and flora (Anderson 2015, 2016; Holdaway et al. 2019; Jacomb et al. 2014; Wilmshurst et al. 2008, 2011). Throughout history natural resources were important to the practical and spiritual survival of the Māori people who saw themselves intrinsically connected with the natural world around them (Firth 1929; Hiroa 1950; Salmond 2017). The use and adaption of natural resources are reflected in the archaeological record, of which charcoal comprises a significant portion in the form of macro- botanical remains (Bryant 1989; Ludemann & Nelle 2017; Pearsall 2000, 2019; Robin et al. 2015; Smart & Hoffman 1988). Anthracology, the microscopic identification and analysis of charcoal, allows for the reconstruction of patterns of vegetation use and change over time to explore the use of wild vegetation resources within a cultural context (Asouti 2001; Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal 1992; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

Charcoal has a long history of being used in archaeology for dating, with short-lived species and twigs providing a material with limited inbuilt age (time-lapse between wood growth and the age of event being dated) (Allen & Huebert 2014; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Scott & Damblon 2010). The value of charcoal goes beyond this. The influence of humans on and vice versa is an element of many cultures in the world and charcoal provides the opportunity to explore these themes (Asouti & Austin 2005; Goudie 2006; Miller 1985; Robin et al. 2015; Willcox 2002; Wright et al. 2015). The first studies of archaeological charcoal date back to the 19th century (e.g. Dangeard 1899 cited in Marguerie & Hunot 2007:1417; Unger 1846 cited in Ludemann & Nelle 2017:2). However, the first scientific publication in the field of anthracology was attributed to Salisbury and Jane (1940). This article was followed by a critique by Godwin and Tansley (1941), who highlighted concerns about taphonomy and representativeness. From the late 1960s, anthracology began to grow with increasing numbers of studies (e.g. Dimbleby 1967; Miller 1985; Tusenius 1989; Willcox 1974). By the 1990s, anthracological research was flourishing, especially from archaeobotanists trained at the University of Montpellier in France, now referred to as the “Montpellier School” of anthracological thought (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015). From the 1990s and into the 2000s research on charcoal covered intra-site studies as well as assemblage formation processes including human practices, the influence of combustion and taphonomic processes, and the development of a systematic methodology

1

(Chrzavzez et al. 2014; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Figueiral & Mosbrugger 2000; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

The formation of a charcoal assemblage is a complex process in which wood selected by people is burnt and deposited into the archaeological record, to be later excavated and analysed; each of these formation steps can inform and impact on the final interpretation (Scott 2010; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The goal of anthracology is to use charcoal as a proxy for paleoenvironmental and archaeobotanical reconstruction (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte- Sarout et al. 2015; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). Information is gained through taxonomic and dendrological analysis of charcoal remains within the context of the physical, environmental, and cultural setting (Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Scott 2010; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010; Wallace & Holdaway 2017).

New Zealand provides an interesting case study for anthracological research because there are clear environmental markers of the arrival of people identified in the evidence of widespread anthropogenic vegetation change (McGlone 1989; McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999; Ogden et al. 1998; Perry et al. 2012, 2014, 2015; Wyse et al. 2018). Anthracological research in New Zealand has focused on examining management of resources including evidence of agroforestry on the Chatham Islands (Maxwell 2015; Maxwell et al. 2016), taxonomic analysis of charcoal to reconstruct vegetation change and resources use (Allen 2015; Bickler et al. 2014; Davidson 2018; Gumbley et al. 2018; Harris & Campbell 2012; Hoffmann 2016; Holdaway et al. 2019; Judge et al. 2013; Moore 2015; Prebble et al. 2019; Wallace 2013, 2014, 2015a,b, 2016, 2018; Wallace & Holdaway 2017), and methodological considerations in terms of the use of curated assemblages (Allen 2015). While inferences have been made regarding aspects of dendrological morphology especially in relation to charcoal accumulation (Wallace & Holdaway 2017), there has been no systematic application of dendrological feature analysis to charcoal in New Zealand.

1.1 Research objective This thesis seeks to apply anthracological methodology through taxonomic and dendrological analysis of charcoal to explore the following research question:

- What can an anthracological assemblage from a well-dated, stratified archaeological site tell us about vegetation resource use and management?

Charcoal from a seasonal Māori gardening site at Cooks Beach on the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula was analysed to explore the research question. The charcoal assemblage from site T11/2789 at Cooks Beach provides a well preserved, securely stratified 2 and dated charcoal assemblage from an area associated with limited activity. It has been suggested that in the New Zealand context it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the activity associated with the accumulation of charcoal (Wallace & Holdaway 2017:28). It is also important to ensure that the charcoal assemblage is sufficiently large and from secure contexts within the site to ensure reliability of paleoenvironmental reconstructions (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The charcoal assemblage from T11/2789 meets these criteria. The following secondary research questions will guide the interpretation of the anthracological results:

- What is the nature of anthropogenic vegetation change through time at Cooks Beach? - Is there evidence of differential use or selection of vegetation as fuelwood at Cooks Beach?

1.2 Thesis structure Anthracology seeks to analyse charcoal from within a specific environment and culture. Therefore, chapter two will provide a broad outline of the New Zealand environmental setting and the cultural context concerning Māori views of vegetation and land-use. This thesis focuses on the era before sustained contact with Europeans, the timeframe of c. AD 1300- 1769. The cultural and environmental background will include ecological models of anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand and relevant Māori cultural concepts and land practices. A description of the study area will also include a site summary, and environmental and cultural history covering both Māori and European history in the area to give a summary of the site.

There is a wide body of literature associated with anthracological method which will be described in the third chapter. This chapter considers examples of case studies from around the world to illustrate how anthracology has been used to understand more about the dynamic relationship between people and vegetation. The theory behind identification and sampling will also be discussed, ultimately setting the theoretical background for the anthracological analysis employed.

The fourth chapter will describe the methodology employed in the analysis of the charcoal from Cook Beach. It provides the methodology for taxonomic identification and definitions for dendrological feature recording. It also discusses the quantitative measures employed in processing and interpreting the dataset.

The results of the taxonomic analysis will be described in chapter five, including interpretations of the statistical and descriptive analysis of the taxonomic identification and 3 dendrological features. Results are discussed based on the themes of methodology and potential bias, clearance activities, anthropogenic vegetation and vegetation resource use.

Finally, chapter six will discuss the results concerning the effectiveness of methodology and sample reliability for analysis. It will also describe the site-specific evidence of anthropogenic vegetation change and management/use of vegetation resources, addressing the two minor research questions. Results from Cooks Beach will be compared to ecological models of vegetation change in New Zealand and the implication of socio-cultural practices on anthracological evidence. These points will then be summarised in the context of the major research question and to highlight to the usefulness of charcoal as a proxy to understand more about people in the past.

The concluding chapter highlights key elements of this research and proposes future prospects that could be expanded on in the application of anthracological research to New Zealand archaeological sites.

4

2 Environmental and cultural context Anthracology aims to explore themes relating vegetation impact and change within specific cultural and environmental contexts. An understanding of the broader environmental and cultural factors sets the scene for paleoenvironmental and archaeobotanical interpretations. This chapter explores anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand during the Māori archaeological sequence and the use of vegetation as a resource. It gives insight into seasonal activities and cultural land-use practices relevant to the study area. Finally, the study area will be introduced, including details of the excavation and interpretation of site use, site chronology and context of the charcoal samples used in the analysis. So as not to interrupt the flow, in text definition of te reo Māori words are not given. A glossary has been provided at the beginning of this thesis instead.

2.1 Anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand Vegetation change is synonymous with the human history of New Zealand, particularly as a result of the introduction of fire into an ecosystem in which fire was infrequent (Ogden et al. 1998; Perry et al. 2014). Prior to the arrival of people, New Zealand was 85-90% forested (McGlone 1989; McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999; McWethy et al. 2009; Wardle 1991; Wilmshurst et al. 2008). This forest cover was comprised mainly of two forest types, beech (Fuscospora and Lophozonia spp.) and mixed conifer-broadleaf, with smaller areas of kauri (Agathis australis) dominated forests and distinct coastal forests in the far north (Dawson & Lucas 2011) (Figure 1A). After the arrival of people, fire was more frequent which profoundly impacted a landscape dominated by fire intolerant species (Ogden et al. 1998; Rogers et al. 2007; Wilmshurst et al. 2008). Fire is linked to clearance activities associated with wild plant management, preparation of cultivation lands, resource access, protection of settlement sites from surprise attacks and clearing areas for hunting (Abrahim et al. 2013; McGlone 1983; McGlone et al. 2005; Ogden et al. 2003). Anthropogenic vegetation change caused by fire is characterised archaeologically by increasing charcoal in the sediment, decreasing relative numbers of large forest taxa, and increasing relative numbers of seral and successional vegetation (McGlone 1989; McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999; McWethy et al. 2014; Ogden et al. 2003; Perry et al. 2012).

Following a forest clearance, vegetation undergoes a staged process of succession leading to the reestablishment of forest cover (Wardle 1991). The trajectory of succession begins with colonisation by light-demanding colonising species, followed by small-leaved, fast-growing and stress-tolerant shrubs and long-lived pioneer small creating a /scrubland (Bray

5 et al. 1999; Chazdon 2014; Wardle 1991). The scrub/shrubland acts as a nursery for the larger canopy and emergent species by protecting stress-intolerant seedlings (Wardle 1991). The seedlings of larger trees eventually grow up and form a young forest which causes a decrease in shade-intolerant early successional species. Eventually, when the canopy forms, shade- tolerant species grow in the understories and forest floor reforming a mature forest (Atkinson 2004; Bray et al. 1999; Wardle 1991).

Succession trajectories are not necessarily consistent in all forest. The loss of pollination and seed dispersal services or stock, impacts on soil nutrients, seed predation by introduced fauna, and the success of other competing species can cause arrested succession or alter the stable vegetation state (Anderson et al. 2011; Atkinson 2004; Bellingham et al. 2010; Clout & Hay 1989; Kelly et al. 2010; Leach 1980; McGlone et al. 2005, 2017; Ogden et al. 2006; Perry et al. 2010, 2015; Stubbs et al. 2012; Williams 2009; Wyse et al. 2018). Different species have different requirements for germination and regeneration. For example, conifer regeneration is sensitive to further disturbance and conifer species can be out-competed by fast-growing angiosperms which favour similar gaps for germination (McGlone et al. 2017; Ogden & Stewart 1995). Landscape disturbance can cause environmental filtering impacted by the type of disturbance. Fire disturbance favours fire-adapted species including Leptospermum and Kunzea species, and bracken fern (Pteridium esculentum) (Atkinson 2004; Bray et al. 1999; Kitzberger et al. 2016; McGlone 1983; McGlone et al. 2017; McWethy et al. 2013; Ogden et al. 1998; Perry et al. 2010, 2014). Repeated disturbance and arrested succession resulted in the loss of 40% of forest cover in New Zealand from the time of East Polynesian arrival through to the post-contact phase after the arrival of Europeans (McWethy et al. 2010; Perry et al. 2014). This large scale disturbance in turn impacted habitats and ecological niches causing slowed or arrested succession, resulting in stalled mid-successional community or early successional shrubland (Figure 1B) (Perry et al. 2015:1300). Much of the clearance was restricted to the leeward, dry lowland forest of the North and South Island and arable soil landscapes in northern and central North Island (McGlone 1983, 2001; McWethy et al. 2014; Perry et al. 2014; Wardle 1991; Weeks et al. 2013; Williams 2009).

6

A B

Figure 1: Change in New Zealand vegetation cover through time, (A) c.3000 years B.P. (B) c. 1840-1860 (From McGlone 1989:118-119). The nature of anthropogenic vegetation change in New Zealand prior to the arrival of Europeans is traditionally thought to have been a rapid process in which the replacement of forest vegetation with scrub/shrub occurred early in the Māori archaeological sequence, referred to as the Initial Burn Period (IBP) AD c. 1250-1600 (Anderson 1997; McGlone 2001; McGlone et al. 2005; McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999; McWethy et al. 2009; Perry et al. 2012). This rapid landscape transformation model suggests that clearance of virgin forest occurred during the initial occupation of an area, with subsequent fires maintained shrubland vegetation or clearance (McGlone 1983; McGlone et al. 2005; McGlone & Wilmshurst 1999; Rogers 1994; Wardle 1991). Anthracology and palynology have been used to link the IBP to early dating south Island sites including Shag River Mouth (Allen 2015), Hawksburn (Deng et al. n.d. cited in Williams 2009:176), and through the drier areas of central Otago and Canterbury (McWethy et al. 2009, 2010).

The universal application of the rapid landscape transformation model has been questioned, especially in western and northern regions. The New Zealand climate and vegetation is variable across the mainland islands, causing differences in the fire-feedback between locations depending on rainfall and temperature in particular (Perry et al. 2014). Newnham et al. (2018) proposed a two-step model to account for vegetation change in northern New Zealand, based on a lake core from Lake Pupuke, with minimal IBP clearance evidence and more intensive modification occurring later in the cultural sequence. From a coastal site in northern Taranaki, on the west coast of the North Island, Wilmshurst et al. (2004) found a similar pattern of small scale anthropogenic disturbances preceding a major clearance activity. 7

In lake cores from northern New Zealand a similar two-step pattern was observed at Ngatu but not at Rotorua leading Dahl to conclude that there was regional variation in landscape modification processes (2018). It has been suggested that the two-step model is linked to climate factors including higher rainfall levels and intensification of horticulture in warmer areas following the major climatic change post AD 1450 (referred to as the Little Ice Age) which caused the abandonment of marginal horticultural areas to the South and increasing population and horticulture intensity in the northern regions (Anderson 1997, 2016; Barber 2010; Dahl 2018; Newnham et al. 2018).

2.2 Wild vegetation resources Forest vegetation provided a wealth of resources utilised by the Māori which indicates an understanding of properties of the wild vegetation resources available. Specific timbers were utilised for particular purpose. Totara (Podocarpus totara) and kauri (Agathis australis) were valuable waka building timber owing to their strength and durability, whereas straight-grained and light kanuka (Kunzea spp.) and tawa (Belischmedia tawa) were used as bird spears (Best 1925, 1941; Clarke 2007; Wallace & Irwin 2004). Vegetation was also an important component in subsistence, including berries such as tawa, hinau (), and karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus), and roots from bracken fern and tī (Cordyline spp.) (Anderson 1997; Best 1942; Colenso 1865, 1880; Leach 2003; Leach & Stowe 2005; McGlone 1983; McGlone et al. 2005; Sutton 1986). Dyes, medicines and fibres for textiles were manufactured from specific vegetation and parts of plants including leaves and bark (Best 1904, 1924, 1941; Colenso 1865; Dieffenbach 1843; Firth 1929; Goldie 1904). The various uses of vegetation resources showed an inherent understanding of the properties of vegetation which is a key part of mātauranga Māori (Harmsworth et al. 2016; Hiroa 1950; Kumar 2010).

To make the most of the available resources Māori moved around their rohe hunting, resource gathering, and gardening based on the seasonality of the desired resources, a practice referred to as mahinga kai (Asher & Naulls 1987; Kumar 2010). Māori foraged for vegetation resources including flax, berries and wood in forested or shrubland areas, gathered marine resources including shellfish and fish in coastal areas and sought lithic material by exchange or collection from specific sources (Anderson 1998; Firth 1929; Phillips 2017). Mahinga kai activities were dictated by season and forest vegetation acted as a calendar of sorts with flowering being a tohu indicating that it was time for particular activities such as planting or fishing (Clarke 2007; Firth 1929). For example, the flowering of the kowhai (Sophora spp.) and the kōnini (Fuchsia excorticate) indicate that it is time to plant kūmara (Ipomoea batatas) 8

(Clarke 2007; Colenso 1881 cited in Vennell, 2019:42). The flowering of the hinau and tawari (Ixerba brexioides) indicated it was time to burn off the bracken ready to harvest the roots but once the rata (, M. umbrellata, or M. barteletii) flowers it is too late and the bracken roots will be of lesser quality (Best 1942). Hapū and whānau groups used mahinga kai practices to not only gather necessary resources but also as part of ahi kā, which requires continuous occupation or regular visitation to maintain rights over an area or resource (Asher & Naulls 1987; Boast et al. 1999; Kumar 2010; Phillips 2017; Salmond 2017; Smith 1942). Maintaining ahi kā also reinforced a connection to whakapapa and important spiritual connections to the natural world, intrinsically linking the customary practices with spiritual well-being, so as to respect the environment and protect the mauri of all things within the rohe (Clarke 2007; Firth 1929; Harmsworth et al. 2016; Hiroa 1950; Kumar 2010; Mead 2016)

2.3 Landscape practices Mahinga kai and ahi kā practices created seasonal sites which were used as part of the cyclical movement necessary for subsistence and socio-political control of available resources and helped to conserve land for later use (Salmond 2017). Māori cultivation of kūmara is a good example of the cyclical nature of landscape practices and land-use. Kūmara is best grown in light and porous sandy or gravelly loams which maximise drainage (Barber 2010; Furey 2006; Leach 1984). Māori gardens were in areas close to a river, coastal locations, or close to kāinga and pā sites, usually on north-facing slopes (Barber 1989; Furey 2006; Roskruge 2011). Māori practised a “slash and burn” technique of land clearance (Best 1931; Firth 1929; Furey 2006; Leach 1984; Shortland 1856). This method involved the preparing of gardening plots by slashing the existing vegetation on a plot and burning the refuse. Shortland described this process as follows:

“Suppose a wood is the spot selected – the first work is to cut down all the small trees and brushwood, after which the larger trees are felled, till a sufficient space has been cleared. This is done in July. The trees and branches are left to lie on the ground till January or February of the year following, at which time, having become dry, they are set on fire. Nothing more is done till the following September, which the larger logs, only partly consumed by the fire, are split up into small pieces, gathered into heaps and burnt” (Shortland 1856:203).

The surface charcoal is turned into the soil along with the inclusion of material from nearby borrow pits, and the remaining rubbish cleared off to create gardening plots. After two to

9 three years of use a gardening area was left for a period until the succession process re- established vegetation on the ground, which could take anywhere between six to 25 years depending on the regrowth of vegetation (Best 1931; Furey 2006; Leach 1980, 1984; Phillips 2000; Simmons 1975; Taylor 1855). The rotation process helped to preserve the fertility of traditional gardening areas to ensure use for future generations (Best 1931; Clarke 2007; Roskruge 2011; Shortland 1856). During periods of fallow, bracken was harvested from horticultural land as this early pioneer species was quick to recolonise areas of cleared land (McGlone et al. 2005). The length of the fallow period needed to be long enough that the vegetation succession had progressed to the point of smothering the light-demanding bracken with easily cleared shrubland (Leach 1980, 2005). While one area of gardening land was in fallow another could be used for cultivation. This process ensured that nitrogen-fixing species including tutu (Coriaria arborea) could help to restore the fertility of the soil. It resulted in pocket clearance of parts of landscapes which were continually in a state of regeneration, arrested succession or fresh clearance through re-burning of the same patch. Examples of pocket clearance for cultivation in the region of the study site include the Hauraki plains and Ahuahu, an offshore island from the Coromandel Peninsula, in which pocket clearance of vegetation was part of a dispersed socio-economic model to manage environmental change (Holdaway et al. 2018:29; Phillips 2000, 2017).

2.4 Study area This thesis seeks to explore the application of anthracological methodology to New Zealand through the analysis of charcoal from site T11/2789 located at Cooks Beach in Mercury Bay on the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula within the Hauraki region (Figure 3). It is located within the Tairua ecological district which is favourable for cultivation and seasonal activities owing to the warm, dry summer summers and mild winters (Kessels & Associates 2010). The average annual temperature is 15.2℃, ranging from 28.5℃ at its hottest and -2℃ at its coldest (Chappell 2014; Kessels & Associates 2010). It is a high rainfall area with an average annual rainfall of 1600-2400mm, up to 3000mm (Chappell 2014). In coastal and lowland forest the pre-human vegetation is largely mixed conifer broadleaved lowland and coastal forest, with likely dense vegetation to the water’s edge (Byrami et al. 2002; Wardle 1991).

Māori occupation of the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula has been radiocarbon-dated to the beginning of the New Zealand archaeological sequence, c. AD 1250-1400 (Davidson 2018; Furey et al. 2008; Harris & Campbell 2012; Hoffmann 2016;2017; Maxwell 2016). Early occupation of the area was concentrated in coastal locations and near stream and river 10 mouths, with an abundance of sites along the coastline (Buist 1965; Davidson 1979; Easdale & Jacomb 1982). Occupation in and around Mercury Bay is consistent throughout the Māori archaeological sequence through to 1769 (Davidson 2018). Mercury Bay has a diverse range of sites including seasonal camps, lithic making areas, gardening areas and fortified pā sites (Bellwood 1969; Davidson 1979, 2018; Easdale & Jacomb 1982; Furey 2002, 2003a,b; Furey et al. 2008; Harris & Campbell 2012; Judge et al. 2013; Moore 2015). Notable areas include Opito Bay, where Sarahs Gully, Cross Creek and Skippers ridge are located, Hahei, Hot water beach, Whitianga, and Cooks Beach (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Location map of the Coromandel Peninsula and areas references in text. Activity in Mercury Bay is often associated with mahinga kai practices, with hapū and whanau groups moving to migrate in and out of the bay for various practice including gardening, resource gathering, and hunting, as well as maintaining ahi kā (Ellis 2001). More permanent settlement is noted at various pā and kāinga sites around the Bay as well (Ellis 2001; Kelly 1999; Waitangi Tribunal 2017). The resources provided within the bay were

11 accessed primarily by Ngāti Hei but also hapū affiliated with other iwi groups, as was common practice in the Hauraki region where different iwi maintained areas within similar boundaries (Tūroa 1997).

2.4.1 Cooks Beach Cooks Beach is a relatively sheltered crescent shaped beach in the south of Mercury Bay (Figure 3), a headland at the western end and the mouth of the Purangi river at the eastern end (Dahm 2011; Dahm & Munro 2002; Easdale & Jacomb 1982; Graeme et al. 2010). The sandy beach fronts a Holocene dune barrier system which shelters the Purangi estuary behind (Dahm 2011; Dahm & Munro 2002; Graeme et al. 2010). The eastern end of Cooks Beach has a dynamic shoreline which may be caused by the ebb-tidal delta (Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd et al. 2006; Dahm & Munro 2002). To the south, there are gentle slopes which feature rhyolite domes with obsidian in proximity to the domes (Moore 1983). The soil of Cooks Beach includes light, friable and free-draining loams which are highly suited to the cultivation of kūmara (Furey 2006). Gardening had likely ceased at Cooks Beach before the arrival of Europeans due to increasing warfare (Maxwell et al. 2017), but according to traditional history, Cooks Beach was still used as a seasonal mahinga kai site outside of periods of conflict (Hoffmann 2010).

Figure 3: Location of Cooks Beach and site T11/2789 (Hoffmann 2017: fig. 1).

12

The thirty archaeological sites identified at Cooks Beach includes middens, modified soils, terraces, storage pits, and stone quarrying and working areas. Table 1 summarises these archaeological sites from information on the New Zealand Archaeological Association online database and site recording scheme, Archsite (2009).

Table 1: Archaeological sites located in the area of Cooks Beach.

Site Major archaeological features identified Site type T11/508 Midden, Working area/flaking floor Working area T11/593 Midden Midden/Oven T11/594 Midden Midden/Oven T11/2789 Midden, Pit – bell, Soil – garden, Pit – rectangular Māori horticulture T11/1014 Midden, Quarry – chert, Soil – garden Source site T11/145 Midden, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/144 Midden, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/143 Midden, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/889 Midden Midden/Oven T11/888 Midden, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/490 Midden Midden/Oven T11/77 Midden Midden/Oven T11/928 Midden, Pit – bell, Pit – cave, Pit – rectangular, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/1050 Depression, Midden Pit/Terrace T11/911 Midden Midden/Oven T11/78 Quarry – obsidian, Working area/flaking floor Source Site T11/945 Midden Midden/Oven T11/944 Midden Midden/Oven T11/611 Midden Midden/Oven T11/615 Midden Midden/Oven T11/92 Midden Midden/Oven T11/503 Midden Midden/Oven T11/786 Midden, Oven Midden/Oven T11/787 Midden Midden/Oven T11/2824 Midden Midden/Oven T11/143 Midden, Terrace Pit/Terrace T11/2790 Midden, Soil – gardening Māori horticulture T11/610 Midden Midden/Oven T11/2814 Midden Midden/Oven T11/2820 Midden Midden/Oven

Many of the sites identified are near the Purangi River, which was intensively used by Māori throughout history as a mahinga kai for gardening, fishing, shellfish gathering and resource collection (Hoffmann 2010, 2015, 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017; Sewell 2002, 2003; Simmons 2002). Figure 4 shows the distribution of archaeological sites across Cooks Beach. Unlike

13 other beaches around Mercury Bay, there is limited archaeological evidence identified on the front beach (Easdale & Jacomb 1982). Two small middens identified by Sewell appeared more likely to be part of a larger site lost to erosion (Sewell 2003).

Figure 4: Distribution of archaeological sites at Cooks Beach, map generated on Archsite (New Zealand Archaeological Association 2009).

2.4.1.1 T11/2789 Charcoal analysed for this study comes from site T11/2789, located on the Cooks Beach dune plain system adjacent to the Purangi River. It is one of several sites within an area of extensively modified soil located on the 13ha dune plain. Extensive soil modification has been identified within the dune plain system including T11/2789 as well as T11/1014, T11/1051, T11/2790, T11/594 (Hoffmann 2010, 2015, 2017). A lack of sterile layers has been linked to deep mixing over the horticultural phase (Hoffmann 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017). Discrete archaeological features identified at T11/2789 include midden deposits and storage pits as well as horticultural features including planting and borrow pits (Hoffmann 2017).

Excavation of T11/2789 was completed in 2015 as part of a wider project required pursuant to an authority granted under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga act 2014 to mitigate effects of housing development. The site was excavated in trenches aligned to the dune ridge and in two grid areas at the centre rear of the dune plain (area A) and the eastern end (area B) (Hoffmann 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017)(Figure 5).

14

Figure 5: Cooks Beach site plan and location of charcoal samples used in analysis. (modified from Maxwell et al. 2017, Figure 2). Faunal analysis of midden contents showed an overwhelming dominance of cockle (Austrovenus stuchburyi) and pipi (Paphies australis), and only a small quantity of fishbone (Hoffmann 2017). Eighty-nine obsidian artefacts were also recovered, largely from the midden features in area A and B and were primarily from Cooks Beach (77.5%) or the nearby source at Hahei (Maxwell et al. 2017). Twenty-eight dates were obtained from charcoal samples across the site suggest that there was an initial burn period (IBP) in the 14th century and later burn phases associated with horticultural phase (HP) of site use (Hoffmann 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017). Figure 6 shows the proposed chronology of the site as reported in Maxwell et al. (2017), indicating the phases in which seasonal use of the site related to key events in Māori archaeology.

Figure 6: Phases of occupation at Cooks Beach (modified from Maxwell et al. 2017, Figure 12).

15

A total of nine charcoal samples were analysed from six secondary contexts, two primary contexts and one scattered deposit (Table 2). The charcoal analysis focused primarily on Area B of the excavation where samples were chosen based on stratigraphic relationships and radiocarbon dating. Area B was the focus of the anthracological study as it had abundant charcoal from discrete, securely dated contexts. Additional charcoal samples were looked at from Area A to provide supporting evidence based on radiocarbon dating.

Table 2: Samples used in charcoal analysis.

Context Sample name Sample Location Phase Secondary Feature 46 Midden Area M EHP Feature 68 Midden fill in planting pit Area I2 EHP Feature 72 Midden fill in planting pit Area N EHP Feature 97 Midden Area O LHP D6 Surface midden Area A LHP I2 Surface midden Area I2 LHP Primary Feature 53 Fire scoop Area I2 HP Feature 24 Fire scoop Area E7 HP Scattered deposit Trench 3 IBP

Radiocarbon dates were calibrated using Oxcal v4.3.2 (Hogg et al. 2013; Ramsey 2009). indicate that three of the secondary features, F46, F72 and F68 most likely predate the other three secondary features, D6, I2 and F97. The stratigraphic profile shows that F46 is below to the Ap horizon (as defined in McLaren and Cameron 1996), whereas F97 is within in it, suggesting that burn events associated with F97 postdates F46 and earlier planting pits including F86 (Figure 8). It is also noted in the report that F68 planting pit and subsequent midden in fill is below the Ap horizon underneath midden I2 (Hoffman 2017:Appendix A:50). The profiles and dates are not interpreted as being indicative of discrete occupation phases, instead they are interpreted as providing a loose chronological distinction between site activity early (EHP) and late (LHP) in the horticultural sequence. Radiocarbon dates from the

16 primary contexts, however, do not fit the model and are referred to as broadly occurring within the horticultural phase in the analysis (HP).

Figure 7: Radiocarbon curves for charcoal samples used in this thesis, calibrated in Oxcal (Ramsey 2009) using the SHCal 13 calibration curve (Hogg et al. 2013)

Figure 8: Stratigraphic profile of relationship between F46 and F97, soil descriptions follow McLaren & Cameron 1996. 17

2.4.1.2 Vegetation history at Cooks Beach Prior to the arrival of humans, the vegetation at Cooks Beach was a mixed conifer-broadleaf forest containing dune forest/coastal species and lowland vegetation, featuring kauri, kahikatea and rimu (Maxwell et al. 2017). Coastal and dune forest taxa on the Coromandel are generally pohutukawa dominated conifer broad-leaved forest, which is categorised as having pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) and puriri (Vitex lucens) canopy with a sub-canopy of karaka, akeake (Dodonaea viscosa), ngaio (Myoporum laetum), kawakawa (Macropiper excelsum), titoki (Alectryon excelsus), nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida), kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile), and mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) (Cockayne 1911; Humphreys & Tyler 1990). Further from the coast puriri, karaka and kohekohe become more dominant as do conifers including kahikatea, matai (Prumnopitys taxifolia), totara, tanekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides) and rimu (Cockayne 1911; Kessels & Associates 2010). The Purangi estuary at the Eastern end of Cooks Beach supported a largely monospecific mangrove forest with some additional estuary grasses and small shrubs (Graeme 2012).

Initial charcoal identification was completed by Rod Wallace (2015b), looking at small sub- samples from across the site from bulk soil and midden samples. Wallace reports a limited range of species and dominance of successional and scrub/shrubland taxa, particularly manuka. These findings support historic record accounts of scrub/shrubland vegetation dominated by manuka, kanuka and seral shrubs including karamu (Coprosma robusta), mingimingi (Coprosma propinqua), tutu and bracken fern (Cockayne 1911; Wardle 1991). In his early account of Cooks Beach Captain James Cook described the hills surrounding the beach as “barren, and for the most part destitute of wood, or any other signs of fertility” (Beaglehole 1968:197). An 1857 survey map by Captain Drury also indicates that the landscape of Cooks Beach had been converted to flax and shrubland (Figure 9). Thomas Sheppard, the agricultural superintendent to the New Zealand Company, observed the coastline in 1825, describing a “good variety of ornamental trees and shrubs” at Cooks Beach, likely referring to the successional scrubland vegetation which is typically small trees and shrubs (Sheppard 1825:29 transcribed in McDonnell 2018:62).

Modern day Cooks Beach, like most of the East Coast of the Coromandel has pockets of fragmented coastal and semi-coastal lowland forest, but large-scale modification throughout Māori and European occupation of the area has left limited remnants (Graeme et al. 2010; Kessels & Associates 2010). The Purangi estuary also retains some mangrove fringe and pohutukawa lined shores which reflect the remnants of the original vegetation (Crisp et al. 1990; Graeme 2012). 18

Figure 9: Historic map of Mercury Bay with highlighted section showing vegetation of Cooks Beach (‘Cooks Bay’) in 1852 (Drury 1857).

2.4.2 Cooks Beach/Mercury Bay cultural history Māori tradition speaks of the journey of the Te Awara waka from Hawaiki, said to be one of the first waka to arrive in New Zealand (Monin 2001; Taylor 1855; Tūroa & Royal 2000). Some people on the Te Arawa disembarked early at Moehau, led by Tūhoromatakakā and Hei, and established themselves in Hauraki as the two Arawa ancestral lines Ngāti Harere and Ngāti Hei (Monin 2001; Tūroa & Royal 2000). Ngāti Hei and Ngāti Hurere controlled much of the east coast of the Coromandel and many offshore islands during the early phase of Māori history (Tūroa & Royal 2000). This area of control included Mercury Bay, named Te Whanganui o Hei, or the great Bay of Hei, which was once considered to be the “food basket of the 23 hapū of Ngāti Hei” (Waitangi Tribunal 2017:15). The Ngāti Hei, a seafaring people, had a network of kāinga and pā sites supported by seasonal activity areas both on the

19 mainland and offshore islands for hunting, gardening, and food gathering (Phillips 1995; Tūroa & Royal 2000).

Ngāti Hei and Ngāti Harere did not maintain a monopoly of the Coromandel East coast and post c. AD 1500 there are accounts of other iwi groups co-existing peacefully in the area, a common occurrence in the Hauraki region where hāpu from different iwi often lived within proximity to one and other (Tūroa 1997). However, inter-tribal relations were not always peaceful; the territory of Ngāti Hei and Ngāti Harere was resource-rich, making them vulnerable to attack. Conflict with the Tainui tribes, particularly the Marutūahu federated tribes, led eventually to the destruction of Ngāti Harere around the early 18th century. Ngāti Hei was also embattled by the Marutūāhu but managed to maintain a small area of coastal territory in Mercury Bay and the offshore islands (Monin 2001; Tūroa 1997; Tūroa & Royal 2000). Captain Cook arrived at Mercury Bay on the 4th of November 1769 to observe the transit of Mercury, naming the Bay after the event (Beaglehole 1968). He made landfall at the mouth of the Pūrangi River, at Cooks Beach. Cook interacted with Māori from several iwi groups in his time at Mercury Bay including Ngāti Hei and Tainui descended from Te Uri o Pou who were reportedly camped at the mouth of the Purangi river to gather food resources and visit their lands (Salmond 1992, 2017). Cook’s accounts of the people at Mercury Bay detail an embattled people, often harassed by neighbouring groups (Beaglehole 1968; Tūroa 1997).

The musket wars brought more strife to the Ngāti Hei and other iwi living on the East Coast of the Coromandel Peninsula. Raids by iwi such as Ngā Puhi were commonplace and populations in Mercury Bay and other areas dwindled (Ellis 2001; Monin 2001; Phillips 1995; Tūroa 1997; Tūroa & Royal 2000). Ernest Dieffenbach, a surgeon and naturalist for the New Zealand company, describes the number of Maori in the Mercury Bay area as having “greatly diminished in number in consequence of their late wars, especially those which waged with Nga poi in the Bay of Island” (Dieffenbach 1843:273–74). At this time it is thought that cultivation was more focused on the offshore islands with many coastal sites including Mercury Bay being abandoned from September as the population headed elsewhere for cultivation (Ellis 2001; Monin 2001; Phillips 1995).

2.4.2.1 Post-contact Mercury Bay In the post-contact period of its history, Mercury Bay was an economically prosperous area, which was owed to the natural resources, including timber, kauri gum and flax. Just as the Māori before them, European settlers identified much potential in the natural resources

20 available in the Bay. Dieffenbach suggested that Mercury Bay would be an advantageous spot for a shipbuilding yard as “other excellent timber, besides kauri spars, can be obtained, especially pohutakawa, perhaps the most durable timber that exists” (1843:273).

Europeans noted kauri as being a unique and economically valuable timber. Thomas Laslett, the admiralty timber inspector, described kauri timber “when used for masts, yard &c. is unrivalled in excellence, as it… possesses the requisite dimensions, lightness, elasticity, and strength” (1875:297). These qualities made kauri an ideal resource for shipbuilding at a time when large spars of durable wood were required for the British navy (Reed 1964). In addition to Kauri, other New Zealand timber were praised for their potential for shipbuilding. In his analysis of New Zealand timber potential, Laslett advocated for the potential of pohutakawa for shipbuilding, as well as rata and puriri.

Mercury Bay was an important location in the early timber trade, both for its provision of a safe export harbour and the ready access to timber in the surrounding hills. Charles Terry stated that “it is in the forest on the mountains between Coromandel Harbour and Mercury Bay that the finest and largest Kauri trees are found” (Terry 1842:41). As early as 1828, shipbuilding yards and repair slips were constructed in the Bay, and the first sawmill was opened in 1862 (Ellis 2001; McIntosh 1939; Riddle 1996). The land of Mercury Bay was sold off to timber merchants including Cooks Beach which was purchased by Gordon Davis Browne in 1837 but passed to Rudolph Dacre after Browne’s death to settle money owed. Dacre’s and later Browne’s grant encompassed much of the Cooks Beach area (Ellis 2001)

Timber was not the only resource associated with the kauri forests that was economically important. Kauri gum, the fossilised resin of the ancient kauri forests was also a highly prized commodity, occurring in deposits in areas of flat to rolling country (Clarkson et al. 2011). Gum from the watershed at Mercury Bay was highly sought after due to the brightness of colour making it more valuable than Northland gum (Clarkson et al. 2011; Ellis 2001; Riddle 1996).

The potential of flax plants also caught the attention of early European explorers. Botanist Sir Joseph Banks, on observing Maori use of flax, stated that it “excels most if not all that are put to the same uses in other countries.” (Banks 2008:21). He went on to suggest that “so useful a plant would doubtless be a great acquisition to England” (Banks 2008:22). Regarding naval equipment James Maria Matra proposed that “it would be of the greatest importance; a cable of the circumference of ten inches would be equal in strength to one of eighteen inches made

21 of European hemp. Our manufacturers are of the opinion that canvas made of it would be superior in strength and beauty to any canvas of our own country” (McNab 1908b:36).

By the early 20th century these industries had largely petered out. The flax industry came into competition with Indian hemp and closed in 1898, gum digging slowed by 1914 and by 1924 kauri milling had largely ceased (Ellis 2001). Farming and commercial fishing replaced timber, gum and flax as the main economic activities of Mercury Bay. However, the heyday of the early industries left a mark on the vegetation communities of the Coromandel Peninsula. It is estimated that the exploitation of natural resources by European industries destroyed over 60% of the remaining forest from the mid-19th to early 20th century (McGlone 1983). On the Coromandel Peninsula the kauri forests were reduced to 3% of the pre- European size (Jacobs 1992). Gum diggers had used fire to clear the landscape of dense undergrowth to identify potential deposits (Riddle 1996). This process destroyed regenerating growth and young saplings of forest giants such as kauri and rimu (Jacobs 1992). Reed (1972:32) describes the impact of fires lit by gum diggers as resulting in “scattered patches of scrub of varying height from a few inches to three feet or more, with an occasional clump of tall tea which had escaped all fires.”

Modern Mercury Bay features the township Whitianga and small beachfront communities at Cooks Beach, Ferry Landing, Flax Mill Bay, Hot Water Beach and Hahei (Dahm & Munro 2002; Kessels & Associates 2010). As a result of repeated burning episodes, much of the original forest has been replaced by exotic forest and scrub vegetation (Kessels & Associates 2010). Small remnants of original vegetation survive including isolated pohutukawa trees in coastal areas and pockets of forest in sheltered hillslopes and gullies that were more difficult to access in the days of kauri logging (Kessels & Associates 2010)

By considering the broader New Zealand vegetation environment and Māori cultural context, more can be understood about the complex process which brought charcoal from tree to the archaeological record. T11/2789 at Cooks Beach is an ideal site to explore the application of anthracological method owing to the availability of well preserved, securely dated and stratified contexts. Overall this site will provide a picture of vegetation change, use and management by Māori during seasonal occupation, showing the value of anthracology in archaeological research.

22

3 Anthracology theory background This chapter explores the theory behind the method used in this thesis. The influence of assemblage formation process and combustion and post-depositional bias and their potential impact on results will be explained. Human bias will be considered relative to what taxonomic patterning reveals about use of vegetation as a resource and its role in an anthropogenic landscape. The ideas associated with the charcoal identification process, sampling method and data processing are outlined and justified.

3.1 Assemblage formation Charcoal assemblages reflect a process of formation through cultural and natural mechanisms that result in material being brought to the site, burnt, preserved, and recovered for analysis (Smart & Hoffman 1988). Théry-Parisot et al. (2010:143) refer to four “filters” that influence this process: the human filter, the combustion filter, the filter of the depositional and post- depositional process and the archaeological/anthracological filter. As an ecofact, archaeological charcoal reflects a cultural process of landscape use and change dictated by a dynamic socio-economic interplay of cultural values and environmental abundance or limitations (Dufraisse 2011; Dufraisse et al. 2018; Picornell Gelabert et al. 2011; Picornell- Gelabert & Servera-Vives 2017). Anthracology aims to interpret this “human filter” to make meaningful inferences about the use of vegetation in societies in the past. Firstly, however, the potential influence of combustion and taphonomic processes should be considered. Secondly, the complexity associated with the human filter in terms of the relationship between ecology and culture must be understood to ensure that reliable interpretations are made from charcoal identification datasets.

3.1.1 Process of charcoalification The physical process of charcoal formation involves the carbonisation of organic material, mainly but not exclusively wood, in which there is insufficient oxygen for the process to result in complete combustion (Alperson-Afil 2012; Braadbaart et al. 2012; Braadbaart & Poole 2008; Dincauze 2000; Piqué 1999; Scott 2010; Smart & Hoffman 1988). When the temperature of the fire reduces below 300℃ due to limited of oxygen or fuel, further combustion is prevented, and the fire extinguished and carbonised remnants of the fuelwood are preserved (Braadbaart et al. 2012; Braadbaart & Poole 2008; Wright 2003). Carbonisation converts material from an organic to an inorganic structure, principally comprising carbon, preserving the anatomical structure in a relatively stable state resistant to physical and

23 chemical decomposition (Alperson-Afil 2012; Ascough et al. 2010; Braadbaart & Poole 2008; Bryant 1989; Dimbleby 1967; Dincauze 2000; Gallagher 2014; Hally 1981).

3.1.1.1 The physical impact of carbonisation Charring experiments have shown that carbonisation causes a certain degree of mass reduction and minor cell wall alteration including fusion and cracks, as well as increasing reflectance and vitrification (Allué et al. 2009; Bird et al. 2017; Figueiral & Mosbrugger 2000; Kaal et al. 2011; Lancelotti et al. 2010; Scott 2010; Scott et al. 2000; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010; Veal et al. 2016). Kim and Hanna (2006) found that in charcoal prepared from above 400℃, the cell walls began to thin and shrinkage occurred with increasing effect the higher the temperature. Braadbaart and Poole (2008) found that 15% of shrinkage occurred at temperatures around 350℃ increasing to 35% at 800℃. Cracks and fissures occur in the first stages of combustion as the moisture leaves the cells causing them to contract and crack (Allué et al. 2009; Kim & Hanna 2006; Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012). As the fire heats up reflectance of the cell walls increase with experimental studies showing a direct relationship between increasing temperatures and increasing reflectance of the cell wall (Ascough et al. 2010; Braadbaart & Poole 2008; McParland et al. 2009, 2010; Roos & Scott 2018; Scott 2010; Veal et al. 2016).

Another consequence of carbonisation is vitrification where charcoal has undergone a fusion of cells producing homogenisation of anatomical elements and a glassy appearance (Allué et al. 2009; McParland et al. 2010). It occurs in stages from partially recognisable to unidentifiable in the final stages (Marguerie & Hunot 2007). This process of vitrification makes fragments challenging to break and unusually resistant to damage (Arranz-Otaegui 2017). The exact cause is unknown and may be associated with fire temperature, wood morphology, greenwood, post-depositional processes, recharring or, the presence of resins (Arranz-Otaegui 2017; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Marquer et al. 2012; McParland et al. 2010; Py & Ancel 2006). Experimental archaeology provides conflicting results, with some experiments suggesting that vitrification is associated with resinous wood (i.e. Scheel-Ybert 1998 cited in Arranz-Otaegui 2017:70), whereas others refute this (i.e. Braadbaart and Poole 2008; McParland et al. 2010).

In addition to the physical impact of carbonisation, the firing temperature and combustion time impact the preservation potential of the charred remains as low-temperatures may result in incomplete combustion and therefore more vulnerable to decay, while high temperatures increase brittleness (Gao et al. 2016). For example, when fuel is heated to above 800℃

24 distortion begins to occur in the anatomy, and above 1000℃, anatomical elements are unrecognisable and effecting identifiability of fragments (Braadbaart & Poole 2008; Scott 2010; Smart & Hoffman 1988).

While there is some regularity in how fuel material is affected during carbonisation, this does not necessarily mean that all fires produce charcoal or that all fuel used will produce charcoal remains. The same fire can reduce some pieces of fuel to ash while others are preserved as charcoal. The size of the fuelwood, (e.g. kindling or log), moisture content, length of exposure, placement in fire and the properties of the wood are just some of the factors in which the combustion filter may impact the representativeness of the charcoal assemblage (Py & Ancel 2006; Schaffer 1966; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Wright 2003). Different material is impacted differently by carbonisation. For example, McParland et al. (2007) compared the impact of combustion on wood and ferns finding that ferns suffered a higher mass reduction and anatomical preservation only at lower combustion temperatures. Experimental studies have been designed to consider the impact of combustion on archaeological assemblages allowing for greater understanding of potential bias introduced in the burning process (e.g. Braadbaart et al. 2009, 2012; Chrzavzez et al. 2011; Chrzazvez et al. 2014; Lancelotti et al. 2010; McParland et al. 2009, 2010; Veal et al. 2016). In a summary of experimental works on the impact of combustion on fragmentation and charcoal preservation, Théry-Parisot et al. (2010) suggest that the variability in results of the behaviour of species towards fire indicates that combustion is a random and uncontrolled bias that reinforces the need for a careful sampling strategy.

3.1.2 Influence of post-depositional processes In any archaeological research, the influence of post-depositional processes must be considered. As Lee (2012:654) points out “taphonomic and sampling bias is of considerable concern in attempting to document cultural patterns and changes from archaeological data. Plant remains are no exception for this concern.” There are many elements to this bias caused by physical, biological and chemical processes which impact preservation in the ground and archaeological recovery of remains (Braadbaart et al. 2009). Even though the process of carbonisation results in more surviving plant material than non-carbonised material, preservation is not guaranteed (Braadbaart et al. 2009; Smart & Hoffman 1988). Studies have suggested that apparent scarcity of charcoal is not necessarily related to a lack of fire but rather combustion and taphonomic processes post-deposition (Marquer et al. 2012). There is variation in preservation from site to site, caused by physical processes and soil compression,

25 the nature of the soil, and state of the wood before carbonisation. In addition to this, the archaeological recovery method may impact the representativeness of the assemblage.

3.1.2.1 Physical processes and soil compression Due to the nature of preservation through carbonisation, the main depositional impact on charcoal is physical processes as the charred material is brittle and porous by nature (Schiffer 1996). These physical processes cover the usual suspects including trampling, freeze/thaw, and soil compression which cause fragmentation in deposited charcoal (Allué et al. 2009; Braadbaart et al. 2009; Bryant 1989; 2014; Chzrazvzez et al. 2011; Dincauze 2000; Lancelotti et al. 2010; Piqué 1999; Scott 2010; Scott & Damblon 2010; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Théry- Parisot et al. 2010). The rate of fragmentation of charcoal is also impacted by the stratigraphic formation of the site, with some material being subjected to mechanical forces such as trampling or compression for a more considerable period of time, therefore weakening the charcoal and increasing fragmentation (Chrzavzez et al. 2014; Piqué 1999; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). In early work, Chabal (Chabal 1990 cited in Théry-Parisot et al. 2010:150) proposed a “law of fragmentation”. Based on statistical analysis, this “law” suggests that charcoal tends to fragment into a few large and many small pieces with relative proportions appearing consistent across taxa. Once wood becomes charcoal, it has similar physical properties, regardless of species, implying that post-depositional fragmentation will impact different taxa at a similar rate (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). It should be noted that different taxa produces wood of varying size, for example, a large tree as opposed to a small woody shrub; therefore fragmentation of shrub wood may have a more notable impact as fragmentation may result in smaller pieces being unidentifiable (Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal et al. 1999). Lancelotti et al. (2010) suggest that while there is variation in the way in which different species respond to compression, it is combustion temperature which has a more significant influence. Chrzazvez et al. (2014) and Dussol et al. (2017) argued that the opposite was true. Regardless of the cause of fragmentation, without experimental data relating to the specific species in an assemblage the potential impact of fragmentation on relative abundance must be provided for in sampling methodology.

3.1.2.2 State of wood prior to carbonisation The wood used in an archaeological site will have been gathered from in different states. Wood may be burnt green, dry/seasoned, dead, or rotten and this will affect how it preserves as charcoal in the archaeological record (Alix & Brewster 2004; Allué et al. 2012; Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; McParland et al. 2010; Moskal-del Hoyo et al. 2010; Picornell Gelabert et al. 2011; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010; Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012; 26

Vidal-Matutano et al. 2017). Some suggest that the condition of the wood prior to carbonisation impacts the preservation and degree of fragmentation to a greater extent than the physical properties of the species itself (Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012). For example, cellular collapse and radial cracks have been linked to burning wet wood, but these results are inconsistent, and the same features may be the result of stresses during the life cycle of the tree such as a dry season (Dufraisse 2006; Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012).

Dead and rotten wood influences the post-depositional impact on the assemblage. Rotten wood is caused by micro-organisms including fungi, bacteria and insects. In charcoal, this infestation could happen prior to burning, in the natural environment or wood storage area, or post-depositional in the soil, during transportation or in processing (Allué et al. 2009; Caneva et al. 2008; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Moskal-del Hoyo et al. 2010). The impact of fungal hyphae on wood is particularly significant to anthracology as they can survive the combustion process and be preserved in the charcoal (Allué et al. 2012; Moskal-del Hoyo et al. 2010; Vidal-Matutano et al. 2015, 2017). Fungal decay in wood leads to a loss in strength, weight, and density and eventual decay of the cell wall, with some of these features, and the hyphae itself, remaining visible after combustion (Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Moskal-del Hoyo et al. 2010; Vidal-Matutano et al. 2017). Fungal decay in charcoal can provide information regarding wood collection strategies, identified by features such as vessel or tracheid collapse and radial cracking; it can also affect the representativeness of assemblage (Allué et al. 2009; Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Kabukcu 2018a). It has been shown in experimental studies that healthy wood is 3-5 times more likely to survive post-depositional fragmentation than wood that is burnt in a state of decay (Arranz-Otaegui 2017; Chrzavzez et al. 2014; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010; Vidal-Matutano et al. 2017).

3.1.2.3 Nature of the soil In an archaeological site, the chemical composition of the soil matrix is a potential taphonomic variable that could affect preservation. Previously it was thought that charcoal had long-term chemical stability, however increasing evidence suggests that this may not be the case (Bird 2013; Bird et al. 2017; Canti & Huisman 2015; Cohen-Ofri et al. 2006; Marquer et al. 2012; Weiner 2010). In the case of charcoal, environmental conditions have the potential to alter the chemical structure of charcoal leading to increased degradation (Ascough et al. 2011; Bird et al. 2017; Huisman et al. 2012). One such example of this influence is the impact of exposure to alkaline soil conditions. Studies have shown that the pH balance of soil impacts charcoal preservation with increasing alkalinity causing the material to degrade or 27 even dissolve (Ascough et al. 2011; Braadbaart et al. 2009; Cohen-Ofri et al. 2006; Huisman et al. 2012; Weiner, 2010). In the case of cooking and firing context, Huisman et al. (2012) found that this impact is particularly prevalent owing to the presence of plant ash which increases alkalinity. Shell middens are also known to neutralise acidic soils, or even create an alkaline environment due to the leaching of calcium carbonate from the shell surface (Waselkov 1987). Charcoal assemblages are sampled from contexts that are often fire or midden features, therefore there is a potential for increased post-depositional soil alkalinity that may influence preservation (Ascough et al. 2011; Cohen-Ofri et al. 2006; Marquer et al. 2012; Weiner 2010). As a result, low abundance caused by taphonomic factors can lead to incorrect interpretations, where one assumes that low abundance is related to the original vegetation community rather than taphonomy (Ascough et al. 2011; Braadbaart et al. 2009; Huisman et al. 2012).

3.1.2.4 Archaeological recovery of material No matter the care taken by archaeologists to recover archaeological remains from sites without damage, the excavation process could still impact the results. The sampling strategy in the field can impact representative numbers, particularly if charcoal is hand-picked as this method will usually favour the selection of larger pieces (Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Keepax 1988). Charcoal fragments from archaeological contexts are fragile owing to the combustion and taphonomic processes discussed above, so in recovery, it is vital to consider the potential for loss and damage, particularly when it comes to screening material (Arranz-Otaegui 2017).

3.1.2.5 Screening charcoal The technique employed to separate charcoal from soil or sediment is a source of potential bias to consider. The methods most commonly used are dry screening, wet screening and flotation (Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Hageman & Goldstein 2009; Pearsall 2000; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Wagner 1988; Wright 2005). While each has advantages and disadvantages, dry and wet screening are more likely to cause significant loss or damage to charcoal remains (Wagner 1988). Flotation has been regarded as an essential development in archaeobotanical research and a standard procedure for screening charcoal (Arranz-Otaegui 2017; Hally 1981; Pearsall 2000; Schaaf 1981; Wagner 1982, 1988; White & Shelton 2014; Wright 2005). Floatation works on the principle that different material in a soil or sediment matrix has different porosities and will therefore settle, or float, in the water at different rates, with charcoal being particularly buoyant (Pearsall 2019; Struever 1968; Watson 1976). It is an effective method for recovering both large and small fragments (Chiou et al. 2013; Hageman & Goldstein 2009). Since the publication of Struever’s (1968) “tub method,” there have been 28 numerous systems developed (for detailed descriptions of methods refer to Pearsall 2000:11– 76; Wagner 1982:127). Different methods and equipment used in flotation produce varying results for damage, loss/survival of certain remains and contamination (Wagner 1982, 1988). There is potential for flotation, or indeed any screening method, to bias an assemblage. Charcoal in water can fragment or even dissolve, especially since archaeological charcoal may have undergone structural damage (Brady 1989; Wagner 1988). Arranz-Otaegui (2017) found that charcoal from wood impacted by decay before combustion was more susceptible to damage, which impacts interpretations such as those relating to deadwood gathering. While bias created by flotation is problematic, if the floatation method is well thought out and carefully adhered to then it remains the most efficient method of obtaining a representative charcoal sample.

3.1.3 Human bias Charcoal represents vegetation resources utilised by people in the past, associated with practices such as fuelwood collection, subsistence, landscape management and artefact construction (Chabal 1992; Dufraisse et al. 2018; Martín et al. 2017; Picornell Gelabert 2011; Robin et al. 2015). Of all the biases that may impact the composition of a charcoal assemblage, it is the human element that has the most substantial impact (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The purpose of anthracology in archaeology is to explore the human bias by considering the complicated relationship between people and vegetation, examining the charcoal results in relation to environment and cultural processes (Dufraisse 2012).

3.1.3.1 Vegetation as a resource The role that vegetation played in societies as a resource is underappreciated in broader archaeological literature (Picornell-Gelabert et al. 2017). Carbonised material represents a resource brought into a site based on cultural selection, whether dictated by proximity, physical properties, economic or cultural preference, ease of collection, relative abundance or any number of other factors (Dincauze 2000; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The complexity of this process is illustrated in Figure 10. Vegetation could be present as food, medicine, building material, or from portable artefact manufacture. Wood collection is associated with these specific activities, whether the carbonisation process is a direct result of the activity or not (Delhon 2018; Dufraisse 2012).

29

Figure 10: Interaction between environmental and cultural factors in fuelwood gathering and consumption, (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010, fig. 4).

3.1.3.1.1 Resource selection As previously discussed, the nature of wood prior to carbonisation impacts charcoal preservation, but it also reflects social practices in wood gathering for a particular purpose. The state of the wood prior to carbonisation might shed light on gathering practices and selective use of wood in a certain state for a specific purpose (Allué et al. 2012; Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Vidal-Matutano et al. 2017). For example, deadwood, standing or on the ground, provides a ready source of dry firewood (Smart & Hoffman 1988). Dry wood burns better than green wood so people will favour sourcing readily available dry wood or seasoning for better heat efficiency and calorific value (Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Théry- Parisot 2002).

30

Driftwood represents a ready source of easily collected dry firewood which can impact relative proportions by overinflating species presence within the contemporary plant community. A study of traditional northern populations in the Arctic by Alix and Brewtser (2004) details the importance of driftwood gathering in as a preferred source of dry fuelwood. Caruso Fermé et al. (2015) proposed the use of SEM-EDX chemical analysis to help identify marine driftwood in charcoal from archaeological sites. Though successful in their experiments they advise caution in use of results owing to the small, though statistically significant, sample size. The potential influence of driftwood on relative numbers of taxa in a site must be considered. Wallace and Holdaway (2017:19) found that mangrove (Avicennia marina var. australasica) was prevalent in two sites at Mangawhai Heads, New Zealand. The presence of mangrove in the charcoal was interpreted as indicative of driftwood gathering due to the vicinity of the site to beaches, and the nature of the intertidal species (Crisp et al. 1990; Sutherland 2003; Wallace & Holdaway 2017). Mangrove charcoal in those assemblages provided information relating to wood gathering strategies in terms of the selection of readily sourced dry wood from the beach rather than the local, contemporary terrestrial vegetation community.

Some species will undergo self-pruning processes, known as cladoptosis, which involves the shedding of branches (Millington & Chaney 1973). Cladoptosis occurs in a limited number of species but would result in an overrepresentation in numbers owing to the increase in available deadwood (Delhon 2018; Hearn 2017; Lauri 2009; Millington & Chaney 1973; Steward & Beveridge 2010; Wilson et al. 1998). For example, in the study area, Kauri (Agathis australis) undergoes cladoptosis, producing ready source of deadwood branches for fuelwood (Steward & Beveridge 2010; Wilson et al. 1998). Over-representation of self- pruning trees was found in Anatolia, Turkey, where genus Salicaceae, a taxon prone to cladoptosis, is highly represented in the assemblage as deadwood (Kabukcu 2018a). The higher relative numbers of these species could inform on wood gathering strategies.

3.1.3.2 Vegetation in a cultural landscape Vegetation resources are intertwined with economic practicalities associated with cultural and spiritual practices specific to people and place. These factors could be associated with species or vegetation communities which change how people may interact with a resource. Subsistence, for example, is an important consideration in an anthropogenic landscape and in many societies there is evidence to suggest that fruit, nut and seed-bearing trees which were essential components of local diets were actively maintained (Delhon 2018; Dotte-Sarout 2016; Huebert & Allen 2016; Leach & Stowe 2005; Maxwell 2015, 2017; Maxwell et al. 31

2016). Huebert and Allen (2016) found that on Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas Islands the charcoal record in lowland forest areas indicates that anthropogenic vegetation change leads to the development of agroforestry and loss of tree species that were not economically important. Millerstrom and Coil (2008) cited charcoal evidence to suggest aboriculture systems in the Hatiheu Valley, Nuku Hiva. On the Chatham Island, to the east of the New Zealand mainland, anthracological and palynological analysis lead Maxwell (2015, 2017; Maxwell et al. 2016) to assert that there was evidence of a degree of active management of the kōpi tree (Corynocarpus laevigatus) which played an important role in the subsistence of the Moriori people. C. laevigatus was also important on mainland New Zealand as indicated by evidence of translocation and development of cultural groves in proximity to pā and horticulture sites (Leach & Stowe 2005; Stowe 2003). In these examples, trees were an essential resource and are generally not considered as fuelwood (Maxwell 2015; Maxwell et al. 2016). Consequently, cultivated or even managed trees may be underrepresented in a charcoal assemblage.

Behaviour ecology models approach the interpretation of fuelwood use in relation to environmental abundance or practicality of collection. A common behavioural ecology model applied to anthracological research is the Principle of Least Effort (PLE). This concept, developed initially for linguistics by Zipf, claims that when people approach something, they will choose the method which requires the least effort to complete the task (Zipf 1949). While Zipf originally applied this to the way people speak, the theory has been adapted to research on other aspects of human behaviour in multiple disciplines across science and humanities, including anthracology (Chang 2016). It provides a functional interpretation of charcoal analysis results emphasising the changing abundance of species through time (Scholtz 1986; Shackleton & Prins 1992; Tusenius 1986, 1989). The theory supposes that fuelwood collection is in direct proportion to abundance in the environment and that selectivity decreases as “preferred species” or wood supply declines (Shackleton and Prins 1992). Predictive models based on the principles of PLE include Asouti and Austin (2005:9–10), who developed a model based of wood use by hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists. There is also an element of population pressure on wood as a resource. Delhon (2018:2) points out that while it is safe to assume there will be some amount of “effort-saving” behaviour, people by nature are prone to be selective. In this paper ethnographic studies are cited that identify opportunistic aspects of wood gathering, as well as some degree of selectivity, whether in terms of taxa selected or habitat exploited(2018:3–5).

32

More recent studies focus on aspects of PLE in conjunction with the broader social and economic landscape where the collection of resources is tied into spiritual, social and economic factors (e.g. Scheel-Ybert et al., 2016; Dotte-Sarout et al., 2013; Picornell Gelabert, 2011; Picornell-Gelabert et al., 2017). Ethnobotanical studies have been influential in this line of thought. Bryne et al. (2013) applied both PLE and taxa or habitat avoidance to sites in Weld Range, in Western Australia, finding that the assemblage composition was based both on relative abundance of taxa and landscape practices, with wood collection areas dictated by proximity to other subsistence activity areas. By considering the PLE in conjunction with the socio-economic landscape, interpretation of charcoal remains can be contextualised to allow for a thorough analysis of the relationship between people and vegetation.

3.1.3.3 Anthropogenic landscape change Vegetation is not a static resource, and anthropogenic (and natural) landscape change can also influence the use of wood resources as the ecological structure of surrounding vegetation communities changes (Miller 1985). Goudie (2006:23) states that “mankind has possibly had a greater influence on plant life than on any of the other components of the environment.” Succession is a process by which alteration to the environment results in the clearance of existing vegetation (Wardle 1991). Dotte-Sarout (2016) suggests that in the case of the Kanak in a combination of precise use of slash-and-burn methods along with management of taxa led to the development of a more open forest which aided the growth of important taxa. Scheel-Ybert et al. (2016) found that in Amazonia, south-eastern and southern Brazil firewood was largely taken from areas where human vegetation alteration had occurred suggesting domestication of secondary vegetation rather than collection from the mature forest. By considering the successional nature of taxa in a charcoal assemblage, the process of anthropogenic vegetation change can be observed through time.

3.2 Theory of identification In constructing a methodology for an anthracological study, there are important considerations to factor in relating to the process of identification and sampling.

3.2.1 Taxonomic identification To identify the taxonomic composition of a charcoal assemblage the form, presence/absence, and size of cellular structures of a fragment are compared with the known cellular structures of taxa using incident light microscopy (Barefoot & Hankins 1982; Carlquist 2010; Pearsall 2000; Schweingruber 2007; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Wallace & Holdaway 2017; Wheeler 2011). Charcoal fragments are manually snapped to create a clean fracture of each of the three

33 planes of orientation; transverse (across the stem), tangential (at a right angle to the radius of the stem), and radial (parallel to the radius of the stem) (Pearsall 2019:9; Scheel-Ybert 2016). The freshly snapped fracture will reflect light allowing for the examination of the structure under a stereomicroscope (Scott 2010). For example, by examining vessels, specialist cells for conducting water and slats through the wood, one can distinguish between an angiosperm (hardwood) and a gymnosperm (softwood) as the latter does not have vessels (Carlquist 2010; Meylan & Butterfield 1978; Pearsall 2019). Other characteristics for identification include the distinctiveness of growth rings, arrangement of vessels, size and arrangement of rays, abundance and nature of parenchyma, and shape and form pitting (Barefoot & Hankins 1982; Carlquist 2010; IAWA Committee 1989; Meylan & Butterfield 1978). Reference texts detail and define structural elements of wood for correct identification of anatomical features (Angyalossy et al. 2016; Barefoot & Hankins 1982; Butterfield 1993; Carlquist 2010; IAWA Committee 1989, 2004; Meylan & Butterfield 1978).

Ideally, the identification of charcoal is to species level. However, the degree of taxonomic identification depends on the condition and size of the charcoal, and also the diversity and distinctiveness of taxa within a vegetation community (Dincauze 2000; Figueiral & Mosbrugger 2000). There will be cases in which the structure of wood is always distinctive, with some genera and species that have anatomical features so similar that distinction is not possible (Wheeler 2011). In the case of New Zealand archaeological charcoal, Wallace and Holdaway (2017:18) suggest that most are sufficiently distinctive, however there are some species that are difficult to distinguish, for example, karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus) and tutu (Coriaria arborea), which are remarkably similar, distinguishable only with well preserved, large charcoal.

Additionally, species within some genus’ are difficult to distinguish such as Hebe, which is the largest genus of flowering plants, comprising eighty-eight species, which are anatomically too similar to distinguish (Bayly & Kellow 2006). Growing conditions also influences wood anatomy, trees that grow faster will have relatively thinner walls than slow growing trees of the same taxon (Dimbleby 1967). Additionally, one must consider variability within the different parts of the tree, such as roots vs trunk wood (Carlquist 2010; Dimbleby 1967; Wheeler 2011).

3.2.1.1 Reference material A descriptive list of taxonomic features can be established by adapting published identification keys or utilising online databases such as ‘Inside Wood-the database’ or

34

‘Paleobot.org’ (Warinner et al. 2011; Wheeler 2011). These provide photographs, keys and descriptions of features associated with specific taxa, narrowing down the potential identification. Most of the available reference material and literature is for Europe and South American species; however, since 2006 reference material from Australia and the Pacific has increased (Scheel-Ybert 2016). Published identification guides tend to provide regional specific identification keys such as the work of Patel and Meylan and Butterfield on New Zealand native woods (Heenan & Moar 1997; Meylan & Butterfield 1978; Patel 1967a,b, 1968a,b, 1973a–c, 1974a–d, 1975a–c, 1978, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990a,b, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995a,b; Patel & Bowles 1978a,b, 1980).

It is essential to have access to quality reference material. As Warinner et al. observe, “the level of confidence with which one can make an accurate taxonomic identification of a given archaeobotanical specimen is closely related to the size and quality of the available reference collection” (2011, p. 241). Thin section slides of modern vouched wood examples are invaluable in ensuring correct identification. A reference collection of charred material is also important owing to the impact of combustion on shrinkage and distortion of original materials (Cartwright 2015; Dincauze 2000; Scheel-Ybert 2016; Schoch 1986). With a comprehensive reference collection, charcoal can be identified to family and species level with relative certainty.

3.2.2 Dendrological analysis In addition to the taxonomic analysis of charcoal, dendrological characteristics and alterations can provide further archaeobotanical information from charcoal in the archaeological record. Marguerie and Hunot (2007) summarise these features and how they were applied to archaeological material from studies in north-western France. In dendrological analysis the calibre of wood can be measured by considering the growth ring curvature, the impact of carbonisation can be determined by recording vitrification, and the state of the wood can be indicated by the presence of radial cracks, cellular collapse, and biological degradation (i.e. Costa Vaz et al. 2017; Dufraisse 2006; Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Kabukcu 2018a, 2018b; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Martín-Seijo et al. 2015; Martín-Seijo & César Vila 2019; Théry- Parisot & Henry 2012; Vidal-Matutano et al. 2015, 2017). Dendrological features have been used to consider gathering strategies. For example, Vidal-Matutano et al. (2017) recorded the degree of fungal degradation to show the importance of deadwood gathering by Neanderthal groups in Eastern Iberia. It can also provide more information relating to bias, such as combustion, by highlighting differential impact on specific species. In one such study Martín-

35

Seijo et al. (2015) found that alteration caused by combustion had a higher impact on Quercus sp. and Fabaceae fragments in charcoal and wood fragments from Frijão, Portugal.

3.2.3 Sampling A careful sampling strategy can help to negate bias on an assemblage due to combustion and post-depositional impacts. In anthracological interpretations of charcoal, it is vital to consider whether a representative sample set has been identified to accurately interpret the dataset (O’Carroll & Mitchell 2012). Context, optimal sample size and size of fragments are essential considerations.

3.2.3.1 Sub-sample context Charcoal from any archaeological deposit is, theoretically, identifiable, but the context can impact the interpretation. Short-term deposits, such as hearths or fire features, will contain information specific to the function of that feature, or the wood associated with a particular burning episode such as the last fire in the hearth (Asouti & Austin 2005). If the focus of the research is on a particular event or activity this would be an appropriate context (Théry- Parisot et al. 2010). On the other hand, long term deposits such as middens and pit fill are likely to be more representative of lasting patterns and behaviours (Asouti & Austin 2005). Also, the assemblage must come from a distinct stratigraphic context or layer to ensure that results and interpretations are meaningful to the site and the people on the landscape (Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal 1992; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

3.2.3.2 Optimal sub-sample size and diversity There is a debate in the literature over the optimal sub-sample size or the number of fragments identified within each sample (Miller 1985; O’Carroll & Mitchell 2012) Some studies suggest a minimum sample size between 25 and 100 samples with the potential to look at 300-400 fragments (Asouti 2001; Keepax 1988; O’Carroll & Mitchell 2012; Stuijits 2006). Others specify a higher minimum fragment count closer to 200-250 per level with optimum being within the range of 300-500 (Scheel-Ybert 2002; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The site locality may dictate sample size. Tropical environments have a higher botanical diversity than temperate so a higher sample size will be required to ensure coverage of biodiversity (Asouti & Austin 2005; Scheel-Ybert 2002). There is a careful balance between identifying enough fragments to ensure environmental representativeness and confidence in conclusions, and over-sampling when no new information is going to be gained. To be considered representative samples should be rich in taxa, reproducible in other contemporaneous layers

36 or contexts, and relative numbers should adhere to ecological dynamics (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010:143).

When identifying a charcoal sample, the sample size must be considered in relation to the botanical diversity of the environment (Moreno & Halffter 2000; Scheel-Ybert 2000). In fauna and flora studies the use of a species accumulation model is applied to compare the number of species present with the number of samples identified (Soberon & Llorente 1993). Species accumulation models can be sample-based or an individual-based approach and presented as a species accumulation curve or a rarefaction curve (Gotelli & Colwell 2001). The curve indicates the probably of finding new species if sampling continued based on the number of samples compared to the diversity (Chao et al. 2009; Gotelli & Colwell 2001, 2011; Miller & Wiegert 1989; Moreno & Halffter 2000; Soberon & Llorente 1993; Thompson et al. 2003). In charcoal analysis most species are likely to be observed within the first 50 samples; however, there is no guarantee of identifying rarer species (Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Keepax 1988; Smart and Hoffman 1988; Stuijits 2006). By using coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation curves differences and similarities in sample diversity can be compared with more statistical reliability (Chao et al. 2014; Chao & Jost 2012; Cox et al. 2017; Kunin 1998).

With limited sample sizes that reflect the biodiversity of a larger population, it is important to consider the representativeness of the sample in relation to the potential representation of rare species. A commonly applied method to this is the use of the Good-Turing estimator, a simple calculation originally formulated by Allen Turing during World War Two to aid in breaking the German enigma code, and published by Irving Good after the war (Chao et al. 2017a,b; Good 1953). This method is useful in sub-sampling for charcoal analysis because it estimates the true frequency of rare species based on the abundance of taxa in the sub-sample (Chao et al. 2017a,b; Good 1953; Hwang et al. 2015). By using both extrapolation curves and the Good-Turing estimator the probability that the sub-sample size adequately reflects true diversity can be determined.

3.2.3.3 Fragment size There is some debate over how small identifiable charcoal can be; some authors say fragments is identifiable down to 4mm (e.g. Scheel-Ybert & Gaspar 2014), while others suggest that as small as 2mm are identifiable (e.g. Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015). A variety of sizes and shapes of charcoal fragments should be identified to ensure that potential bias created by fragmentation does not impact results. The “law” of fragmentation means that it would be

37 unlikely that a taxon is only represented in fragments too small to be identified (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015). However, the difference in the size of material prior to carbonisation should be considered as well, with smaller taxa such as shrubs producing smaller diameter wood in the first place and therefore more likely to be represented in smaller size ranges (Chabal et al. 1999 cited in Asouti & Austin 2005:3). It is important to ensure a range of sizes of charcoal fragments are identified from each assemblage.

This theory background chapter has outlined the principles behind the sampling method for this thesis. That methodology is considered in the following chapter.

38

4 Methodology This chapter to details the methodology used for the anthracological study of material from Cooks Beach. Recovery and sub-sampling strategies are described and justified. This chapter also includes an account of the sampling methodology employed to control for the potential impact of bias on assemblage composition. Taxonomic and dendrological analysis are described as well.

4.1 Recovery and processing of charcoal During the excavation at Cooks Beach bulk samples were taken from various soil and feature contexts across the site. According to the excavation report, bulk samples of features were processed through “wet-sieve floatation through a 2-micron mesh” to ensure recovery of charcoal remains (Hoffmann 2017:7). This process ensured the recovery of a large sample of charcoal material from across the site. In the laboratory, the material was gently run through a 2.8mm sieve to remove residue charcoal too small for identification and other non-charcoal materials that got caught up during floatation. One of the context, feature 97, was taken as a bulk midden sample from the site and dried in the course of other aspects of site analysis. Rather than flotation, a gentle dry sieve was employed for this feature to minimise the potential impact of re-wetting the charcoal to float it.

4.1.1 Sub-sampling The criteria for sub-sampling ensured sample representativeness based on the sample being related to domestic activity, from a secure context or stratigraphic profile, enough material for statistically significant results, and associated with long-term activity (Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal 1992; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). It was ensured that at least one sample from each of the burn phases had a sufficient quantity of charcoal to provide a sample within the 200-400 fragment range recommended (Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Scheel- Ybert 2002; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The larger samples were Trench 3 for the IBP, Feature 46 for the EHP and D6 midden for the LHP. Smaller sample associated with the EHP, from Feature 68 and Feature 72, and the LHP, from I2 midden and Feature 97, were identified to confirm the reproducibility of results and to ensure that the larger samples were representative of the phase. For the smaller sub-samples, a minimum of 100 fragments had to be of an identifiable size as per the lowest estimate of required sample size in the literature (Asouti 2001; Keepax 1988; O’Carroll & Mitchell 2012; Stuijits 2006). In addition to this, the charcoal from a two-fire feature, F24 and F53, was also identified to consider how context

39 impacts the reliability of results. This variation in context will also be used to show the importance of sampling from secondary deposits for paleoenvironmental reconstructions.

Species richness within each sample was calculated using an extrapolation curve which plots the number of species sampled against the number of samples and then extrapolates the data to show the potential for identification of new species with increased sample number (Chao & Jost 2012; Cox et al. 2017). This analysis was conducted in R-studio (R Core team 2015; R Studio Team 2015) using the iNEXT package (Hsieh et al. 2016). A Good-Turing estimator using the formula was then applied to each sample to examine whether the frequency of species, particularly the rare species, reflects true species richness in the assemblage (Chao et al. 2017a,b; Good 1953; Hwang et al. 2015). The estimator used followed the formula:

푓 1 − ( 1) 푛

4.2 Charcoal analysis For each sampled area or feature, fragments above 4mm were selected for analysis as per the standard practice (Boutain et al. 2010; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Pearsall 2000). Fragments were randomly selected, ensuring that a range of sizes and shapes was analysed, this approach was taken to maximise the potential recovery of bracken fern and other fragile taxa which may have survived the initial sieving and flotation processes (Smart & Hoffman 1988). Fragments were snapped to reveal the transverse, tangential and radial planes and examined under a hand lens and an incident light microscope at 5x-50x magnification.

4.2.1 Taxonomic identification The features of the archaeological charcoal were compared to an identification key of potential species present developed from reference literature by Meylan and Butterfield (1978) and Patel (1967a,b, 1968a, 1974b, 1975b, 1994) which details the anatomical structure of relevant New Zealand native wooded species. Definitions of anatomical features were based on this reference literature and the IAWA microscopic features of hardwood and softwood (Barefoot & Hankins 1982; IAWA Committee 1989, 2004; Meylan & Butterfield 1978). The identification keys (see Appendix A) provided the descriptive elements from known species which, when compared to charcoal morphology, allowed for the potential identification of the species. The features of each piece of charcoal were observed and compared with this key. From this, a tentative identification was made and compared to reference material both in the form of charcoal and thin section slides of known modern specimens to ensure accurate identification. Reference material was obtained through the departments charcoal and thin section reference material. Additional thin-section slides were 40 made where required by the method set out in Maxwell (2015, Appendix 3). Where reference literature was not available, i.e. for native monocotyledon species, direct comparison to reference material was used for identification.

4.2.1.1 Level of identification Where possible identifications have been made to species level, however, there are some factors which meant that this was not always possible.

During the initial identification, uncertain species were marked in the spreadsheet as cf. and kept aside. Some of these samples were sent to Rod Wallace, a charcoal analyst at University of Auckland, to check identifications. Any remaining uncertain identifications were adjusted to the most secure level to ensure that identification did not produce bias on the final results.

In instances in which identification was not clear, or it could not accurately attribute a charcoal fragment to one species over another, the identification was made to the family level. For example, instances when species from the Podocarpaceae family, which constitutes many of the conifer species of New Zealand including Dacrydium, Prumnopitys, Dacrycarpus, and Podocarpus, cannot be distinguished and were therefore recorded as Podocarpaceae sp. There were also examples in which vessels were identified as present or absent but further accurate identification was not possible; the final identification was recorded as Angiosperm or indeterminate.

In some cases, it is not possible to accurately distinguish between species as the structure of wood is not necessarily distinctive between particular species or certain family groups (Wheeler 2011). For example, species from the genus Hebe of the Plantaginaceae family is New Zealand’s largest genus of (Bayly & Kellow 2006). There has been progress made in morphological differentiation (i.e. Kellow et al. 2003); however this has not included the structure of the wood so it is accepted practice in New Zealand anthracology to record species identified to the genus Hebe to family level (Rod Wallace pers comms.). This issue also applies to samples identified to the Coprosma genus of the Rubiaceae family, Pittosporum genus of the Pittosporaceae family and Olearia genus of the Asteraceae family (Rod Wallace pers comms.). Therefore, charcoal identified to the above genus’ were recorded as Hebe spp., Coprosma spp., Pittosporum spp. or Olearia spp. This was also the case for tree ferns; New Zealand has two native genus of tree fern, Dicksonia and Cyathea, however it is difficult to distinguish between the anatomical structure of species belonging to these families so when identified they were recorded as tree ferns.

41

The genus Kunzea also presented issues in identification. Since 2014, the Kunzea genus in New Zealand has been reclassified from into ten different species (de Lange 2014). Reference material or literature was not available for identification to species level, so specimens of this genus were recorded as Kunzea spp. Finally, the diameter of the wood burnt producing charcoal can also impact on identification. Young branch material and twigs of some family groups can look similar to others in the family making them challenging to distinguish. For example, Myrtaceae family species (Genus Kunzea, Metrosideros, and, Leptospermum) are notoriously difficult to differentiate when young (Figure 11) and were therefore recorded to family level only (Wallace 2016).

Lepstospermum scoparium Kunzea ericoides Metrosideros excelsa

Transverse

Tangential

Radial

Figure 11: Reference collection examples of twigs identified as Lepstospermum scoparium, Kunzea ericoides, and Metrosideros excelsa, 5x magnification.

4.2.2 Dendrological analysis In addition to the identification of charcoal to species, dendrological and taphonomic attributes were noted. These can indicate which part of the wooded plant the charcoal derives from and provide insight into the state of wood prior to carbonisation (Dufraisse 2006; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Schweingruber 2007). The selection of features noted in the 42 dendrological approach applied to this study were adapted from Marguerie and Hunot (2007:1418–22) and have been applied in numerous anthracological studies (Costa Vaz et al. 2017; de Carle 2014; Dufraisse 2006; Jude et al. 2016; Martín-Seijo & César Vila 2019; Martín-Seijo et al. 2015, 2017; Moskal-del Hoyo 2012).

4.2.2.1 Bark and Pith The presence of bark and pith was noted when identified on a charcoal fragment. Pith is the central tissue in a wooded stem which consists of parenchyma cells and soft tissue (Raven et al. 1999). It is readily identifiable as homogenous cells at the centre of the stem structure. The bark includes all tissues outside the vascular cambrian (Angyalossy et al. 2016:531; Barefoot & Hankins 1982). Cells in the outer layer can appear denser and more compressed than those in the internal wood. The presence of bark and pith together indicate that the charcoal derives from small diameter wood like a branch or twig (Figure 12).

A B

C

Figure 12: Examples of bark and pith charcoal, transverse plane, 5x magnification. (A) Hebe spp. from I2 midden, (B) Coriaria arborea from F53, (C) Hebe spp. from D6.

4.2.2.2 Growth Ring Curvature The curvature of the growth rings can indicate which part of a tree a piece of charcoal derives from. This approach can be used in place of exact measurements of tree width where the presence of both bark and pith are required (Dufraisse 2006). Curvature was observed at 10x

43 magnification. The recording method adapted from Marguerie and Hunot (2007:1421) divides ring curvature in charcoal by four groups recorded as follows:

0) indeterminate curvature 1) weakly curved 2) moderately curved 3) strongly curved Growth ring curvature was analysed using the test card from Marguerie and Hunot (2007: fig. 3) printed on transparent paper and used for direct comparison to the ring curvature categories (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Test card for growth ring curvature categories (from Marguerie and Hunot 2007, fig 3). By considering the proportions of growth ring curvature in the assemblage, an indication of the size of wood used and how this differs between species can be observed (Figure 14).

Weak Moderate Strong A C E

B D F

Figure 14: Examples of growth ring curvature observed in analysis, transverse plane, 10x magnification. Weak growth ring curvature: (A) Agathis australis from F46, (B) Avicennia marina var australisica from D6. Moderate growth ring curvature: (C) Coprosma spp. from D6, (D) Dodonaea viscosa from F97. Strong growth ring curvature (E) Myrtaceae spp. from I2, (F) Hebe spp. from F53.

44

4.2.2.3 Root charcoal Roots consist of the epidermis, cortex and vascular tissues. Aside from some monocotyledons, there is no pith in the root structure (Raven et al. 1999). Roots of dicotyledons are readily identified by the lack of pith and larger cell size in comparison to trunk wood (Dufraisse 2006). Evidence of root charcoal can indicate mixing soils for horticulture and landscape clearance processes (Figure 15).

A B

Figure 15: Examples of root charcoal observed in analysis, transverse plane, 10x magnification (A) Agathis australis from D6, (B) Prumnopitys taxifolia from F46.

4.2.2.4 Radial and other cracks Radial cracks are observed on the transverse surface of charcoal (Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012) (Figure 16). Several factors have been attributed to radial cracks including burning greenwood (Dufraisse 2006; Théry-Parisot & Henry 2012), waterlogged wood (Prior & Alvin 1986), and anatomical characteristics such as wider rays (Prior & Alvin 1983). When observed, tangential and arbitrary cracks were recorded as ‘other’ cracks (Figure 16).

A B

Figure 16: Examples of radial and other cracks observed in analysis, transverse plane, 5x magnification. (A) Avicennia marina var australisica from F24, (B) Dacrycarpus Dacrydioides from D6.

45

4.2.2.5 Vitrification Vitrification is the fusion of cells which produces the homogenisation of cellular structure and glassy appearance of charcoal (Allué et al. 2009; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; McParland et al. 2010). It is a process that occurs in stages. Taxonomic identification is still possible during the early stages ranging through to complete fusion of cellular features important in identification (Marguerie & Hunot 2007:1421). The recoding of vitrification as based on four levels (Figure 17):

0) no identified evidence of vitrification 1) Low reflectance and some fusion in the smaller cells 2) Strong reflectance with some parenchyma cells beginning to fuse, larger cells visible and some degree of identification possible 3) High reflectance and glassy in appearance and high levels of cellular fusion, identification only possible to gymnosperm or angiosperm if at all. While the exact cause of vitrification is debated, the record of its presence is relevant to an assessment of the impact of the combustion process on the assemblage.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 A C E

B D F

Figure 17: Examples vitrification observed in analysis, Transverse plane, 5x magnification. Level 1: (A) Agathis australis from F46, (B) Prumnopitys taxifolia from F97. Level 2: (C) Leptospermum scoparium from D6, (D) Dacrydium cupressinum from Tr 3. Level 3: (E) Angiosperm from I2, (F) Indeterminate from Tr 3.

4.2.2.6 Fungal decay Fungal infestations in wooded plants can impact the cellular structure of the wood. Fungal hyphae, which penetrate dead or dying wood, can survive the carbonisation process and be 46 observed in the longitudinal section of charcoal as white filaments (Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Schweingruber 2007). Also, it has been noted that fungal decay can cause collapse in the vessels and tracheids which are also observable in charcoal (Henry & Théry-Parisot 2014; Kabukcu 2018a; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Schweingruber 2007). This information provides insight into the state of wood prior to carbonisation, which may indicate the use of dead or dying wood (Figure 18).

A B

Figure 18: Examples fungal decay feature observed in analysis, transverse plane, 20x magnification. (A) Fungal hyphae, Avicennia marina var australsica from D6 (B) Cellular collapse, Agathis australis from F46. 4.3 Data recording and analysis Information for the taxonomic and dendrological analysis was recorded in a spreadsheet for each of the sub-sampled areas (Appendix B). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of this data was then completed to explore the use of vegetation as a resource by Māori, and to assess anthropogenic vegetation change in the seasonal use of Cooks Beach.

The data was also assessed to consider whether the uncontrollable bias from combustion and depositional filters impacted the results. Statistical data analysis was carried out in SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp 2016). A fragmentation/preservation index (Fr/Pr) as developed by Asouti (2001:144–45). The index uses a ratio of unidentified fragments to the number of fragments identified for each sample area to reflect the level of preservation present. Degree of fragmentation was estimated for all species to see if the pattern aligns with the “law” of fragmentation by considering the distribution of fragments according to the weight for each species as illustrated in a histogram (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010: fig. 10). The potential impact of morphological changes caused in the combustion and post-depositional process on the identification of charcoal fragments was explored by considering the influence of vitrification on fragment identifiability. The impact of small diameter Myrtaceae species fragments is also discussed.

47

Where appropriate Chi-square (푥2) test of homogeneity was used to determine the statistical significance of the relationship between variables or if the relationship is a result of sample error (Drennan 2009; Marston 2014). Statistical significance was measured using an alpha value of 0.05. Additionally, the effect size or practical significance was measured using Phi

(∅) for two way tables and Cramars V (휑푐) for tables with more than two categories of variables (Cohen 1988; Cronk 2012; Ellis & Steyn 2003; Kirk 1996; Wolverton et al. 2016). The effect size measures the strength of the relationship between variables using the scale from 0 to 1 with 0.1 being considered weak, 0.3 moderate, and 0.5 or above large (Cohen 1988; Cronk 2012; Wolverton et al. 2016).

The analysis of taxonomic and dendrological features, and abundance data is presented both as fragment count and relative percentage (Pearsall 2000; Piqué 1999; Popper 1988). Anthracology diagrams were generated using tiliaIT software (Grimm 1993).

48

5 Results This chapter presents the results of the taxonomic and dendrological analysis of charcoal from Cooks Beach T11/2789. A total of 1413 charcoal fragments were analysed. The taxonomic and dendrological results were considered in terms of taphonomic issues associated with charcoal analysis and how the results can inform about clearance activities, anthropogenic vegetation change and patterns of fuelwood use.

5.1 Grouping of taxa This analysis considers several different aspects of the relationship between taxa. Table 3 outlines the ecological details used in analysis associated with each taxon identified in the assemblage. Details include growth form and potential height, ecological community associations, succession timing, and seed dispersal based on the available literature (Dawson & Lucas 2011; Wardle 1991).

5.2 Methodology and assemblage formation bias By exploring the themes of sampling, preservation, and identification the results of the taxonomic and dendrological analysis can be considered in relation to the influence of assemblage formation on assemblage composition and the influence of sample context on results reliability.

49

Table 3: Classification of taxa used in in this analysis.

Ecology Succession Seed dispersal Taxa Common Family Size Community+ Early Mid Late Old Bird Wind Water name Growth Agathis Kauri, Araucariaceae Large tree F * * * * australis Dacrycarpus Kahikatea Podocarpaceae Large tree F dacrydioides * * * Dacrydium Rimu Podocarpaceae Large tree F cupressinum * * *

Prumnopitys Matai Podocarpaceae Large tree F taxifolia * * *

Prumnopitys Miro Podocarpaceae Large tree F ferruginea * * Podocarpus Totara Podocarpaceae Large tree F totara * * * Kunzea sp. Kanuka Myrtaceae Medium S to small * * trees Leptospermum Manuka Myrtaceae Medium S scoparium to small * * trees Vitex lucens Puriri Lamiaceae Large tree F * * * Myoporum Ngaio Scrophulariaceae Medium F,S laetum to small * * trees Metrosideros Pohutukawa Myrtaceae Large tree F,S * * * excelsa

50

Taxa Common Family Size Community+ Early Mid Late Old Bird Wind Water name Growth

Pteridium Bracken Dennstaedtiaceae Small tree S esculentum fern to shrub * * Coriaria Tutu Coriariaceae Small tree S * * arborea to shrub Dodonaea Akeake Sapindaceae Medium F,S viscosa to small * * trees Myrsine Matipou Small tree F,S * * australis to shurb Knightia Rewarewa Proteaceae Large tree F * * * excelsa Avicennia Mangrove Acanthaceae Medium E marina var tree * australasica Tree fern Dicksoniaceae or Medium F Cyatheaceae tree * * * *

Olearia spp. Compositae Small tree F,S * * * * to shrub Pittosporum spp. Pittosporaceae Medium F,S to small * * * * tree Coprosma spp. Rubiaceae Small tree F,S * * to shrub Hebe spp. Plantaginaceae Small tree S * * to shrub + Community classed as F=Forest, S=Scrub/shrubland, and E=Estuarine

51

5.2.1 Sampling Sample strategies must be considered for the purposes of robust analysis. In this study, sample size becomes important to assess species richness. Figure 19 shows the rarefaction/extrapolation curves for each of the sample areas. This graph indicates that the larger samples of Tr 3 and F46 have good coverage of potential diversity. Sample D6 has the potential of additional species given that the curve is not at the asymptote, this is likely associated with higher taxonomic diversity requiring a larger sample size for complete coverage. From extrapolation of the smaller secondary context samples (F72, F68, I2 and F97) it is unlikely that additional species would be found with increased sampling effort. For the primary contexts, F53 indicates adequate sample size, whereas F24 the sample size is below the asymptote of the curve, suggesting that additional species might be detected with increased sampling effort.

A B

C D

Figure 19: Extrapolated rarefaction curves for samples, graphed by burn phase association. (A) IBP, (B) EHP, (C), LHP, (D), HP.

52

A Good-Turing estimator was calculated for each sample to detect whether potentially unseen species impact the representativeness of the sample. Of the nine samples, six returned a result of 1.0 which indicates that there is a low probability of unseen species being identified with increased sampling effort. Three samples had a value less than 1.0 (F72=0.991, F24=0.982, F53=0.99). These values are still high enough that is it unlikely that increased sampling effort would yield unseen species.

Sampling effort for paleoenvironmental reconstruction also requires that samples from contemporaneous features should reflect similar results to indicate an overall pattern rather than a sampling bias. To measure this a chi-square test of homogeneity was used on the secondary horticultural features grouped as EHP and LHP, and the primary features grouped as HP. The statistically significant results of the comparison between species and samples grouped as EHP suggest that similarities between the assemblages are not attributed to sampling error (푥2 (1) = 9.574, 푝 = .002), and the effect size of the differences is weak

(휑푐 = .268, 푝 = .002). This pattern is also true for LHP samples which has a statistical 2 significance (푥 (1) = 5.968, 푝 = .015) and weak effect (휑푐 = .226, 푝 = .015). These tests indicate that there is good homogeneity of species composition between the samples within the EHP and LHP indicating that differences are not attributable to sampling error and that the effect of the difference in assemblage composition is minimal. The primary contexts of the horticultural period indicate statistical significance (푥2 (1) = 7.702, 푝 = .006), but there is a large effect (휑푐 = .533, 푝 = .006) which suggests that there is a higher degree in variation. The result is consistent with the samples being from primary contexts. Accordingly, the composition more likely to reflect the last species burnt or taxa burnt in a single fire event rather than the long term pattern (Asouti & Austin 2005).

5.2.2 Preservation The depositional environment can impact the preservation of charcoal fragments in an archaeological context (Ascough et al. 2011; Braadbaart et al. 2009; Huisman et al. 2012; Weiner 2010). Soil sample testing of pH indicated a fair degree of alkalinity in the soil at Cooks Beach (Maxwell et al. 2016). It is not uncommon for midden deposits and fire features to raise the alkalinity of soil which may impact preservation (Ascough et al. 2011; Huisman et al. 2012; Waselkov 1987). To determine how well preserved the charcoal assemblage is and therefore how representative the samples are of the relative proportions of charcoal, a fragmentation/preservation index (Fr/Pr) was used. The index uses a ratio of unidentified fragments to the number of fragments identified for each sample area to reflect the level of preservation present (Asouti 2001). Table 4 shows the Fr/Pr for each of the sample contexts, 53 the <1 result for all contexts except feature 53 indicates that the overall preservation of samples is good with low fragmentation. The ratio for feature 53 (1.44) indicates moderate proportions of fragmentation which means that preservation was not as good for this sample. Poorer preservation of charcoal in primary deposits including fire features is noted in the literature and attributed to post-depositional process (Chabal et al. 1999 cited in Asouti & Austin 2005:3).

Table 4: Fragment/preservation index for contexts sampled, n=1413.

Sample Identifiability Sample context ƒ Unidentified Identified Fr/Pr Trench 3 250 26 224 0.12 Feature 46 250 28 222 0.13 Feature 72 112 21 91 0.23 Feature 68 126 15 111 0.14 D6 midden 250 55 195 0.28 I2 midden 115 14 100 0.14 Feature 97 100 9 91 0.10 Feature 24 110 22 88 0.25 Feature 53 100 59 41 1.44

5.2.2.1 Degree of fragmentation To estimate the degree of fragmentation histograms were created based on count and sample weight of each taxon within each sample. There is a consistent pattern of fragmentation across the taxa in the assemblage which suggests that fragmentation during combustion and post- deposition is occurring at a similar rate across all species. Figure 20-Figure 28 show the histograms of the weight distribution of fragments identified in each sample. Rare taxa (less than 3%) are grouped as other, as there is insufficient fragments of these for meaningful analysis of fragmentation. The distribution of few large fragments and many small observed in the data suggests that there is no differential effect of fragmentation on species or samples.

54

Figure 20: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in Tr3.

Figure 21: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F46.

55

Figure 22: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F72.

Figure 23: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F68.

56

Figure 24: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in D6.

Figure 25: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in I2.

57

Figure 26: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F97.

Figure 27: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F24.

58

Figure 28: Histogram showing the degree of fragmentation for charcoal in F53.

The distribution of charcoal fragment weights follows the pattern of many small and few large fragments as expected according to the law of fragmentation (Chabal 1992; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). Smaller species do have a lower rate of fragments overall likely related to the smaller original size of the wood (Asouti & Austin 2005). However, overall, the histograms indicate that there is no evidence to suggest a differential response to fragmentation between species.

5.2.3 Identification Of the 1413 total fragments, 249 (17.6%) were classed as unidentified due to the size of fragments, nature of species, preservation or lack of key features necessary for identification (Table 5). Preservation appears to be the most significant factor in unidentified species in the Angiosperm, indeterminate and Podocarpaceae spp. categories. On the other hand, calibre of wood was the most common factor in unidentified Myrtaceae fragments.

59

Table 5: Dendrological features on unidentified charcoal in the T11/2789 assemblage, n=249.

Dendrological Myrtaceae. Podocarpaceae Angiosperm Indeterminate features ƒ 124 35 65 25 Vitrification: Degree 3 8 63 25 Degree 2 14 8 Degree 1 33 7 2 Absent 77 12

Radial cracks 48 3 41 4 Other cracks 7 1 Fungal hyphae 3 4 Cellular collapse 1 17 6 No recorded morphological 54 8 change

Growth Ring Curvature: Indeterminate 0 12 63 25 Weakly curved 4 5 Moderately curved 15 14 2 Strongly curved 105 4

Pith 59 Bark 71 3

5.2.3.1 Vitrification During the vitrification process reflectance increases and cellular morphology fuses (Arranz- Otaegui 2017; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; Marquer et al. 2012; McParland et al. 2010; Py & Ancel 2006). As a result of this process many of the anatomical details required for successful identification are no longer identifiable. This makes identification to a low taxonomic order difficult, as illustrated by examples form the assemblage (Figure 29). The impact of cellular fusion on successful taxonomic identification of charcoal is largely restricted to the higher degrees of vitrification as indicated in Table 5. Of the unidentified fragments over half (64.3%) were described as having some degree of vitrification. Most unidentified fragments were noted as having degree 3 vitrification (ƒ=96, 38.6%), while the lesser degrees of vitrification (1 and 2) account for smaller portions of the unidentified charcoal (ƒ=42, 11.7% and ƒ=22, 10.3% respectively). The correlation between presence of vitrification as an independent variable and successful charcoal identification as an dependent variable was statistically significant (푥2 (1) = 34.380, 푝 > .001), but the effect was weak (∅ = .156, 푝 > 60

.001). This result indicates that there is little practical significance in the relationship between vitrification and fragment identifiability indicating that the large sample size limited the overall impact of one potential assemblage formation impact. The effect size of vitrification is higher in primary context (∅ = .307, 푝 > .001 ) than in secondary (∅ = .169, 푝 > .001) which suggests that the overall effect of vitrification on fragment identifiability had a higher impact on primary context samples than secondary.

A B

Figure 29: Examples of unidentified charcoal with level 3 vitrification, transverse plane, 5x maginification (A) Angiosperm from F24, (B) Angiosperm from F68.

5.2.3.2 Wood calibre and identification of Myrtaceae species Differentiation between members of Myrtaceae family can be difficult when charcoal fragments represent small diameter and twig wood, particularly in the case of Kunzea and Metrosideros (Hoffmann 2016; Rod Wallace pers. comm.) as illustrated in Figure 30.

A B

Figure 30: Example of small diameter unidentfiied Myrtaceae fragments., transverse plane, 5x magnification (A) Myrtaceae spp. from F53, (B) Myrtaceae spp. from D6.

61

Of the 399 (28.2% ) of fragments from the Cooks Beach assemblage identified to a Myrtaceae family taxon, 124 (31%) were assigned to the Myrtaceae spp. as lower identification was not possible (Table 6).

Table 6: Myrtaceae family identification from total assemblage, n=399.

Taxa ƒ % of total assemblage Kunzea spp. 67 4.7% Metrosideros excelsa 54 3.8% Leptospermum scoparium 154 10.9% Myrtaceae spp. 124 8.8% Total 399 28.2%

Strong ring curvature was recorded for 105 (84.7%) of the Myrtaceae spp. identifications, with 15 (12.1%) recorded as moderately curved and only 4 (3.2%) weakly curved (Figure 31A). The high prevalence of strong and moderate ring curvature suggests that the principal cause of the high order identification was the issue associated with distinguishing between Myrtaceae species in small diameter branches. Of the strongly curved fragments, 59 (47.6%) were noted to have pith present indicating that close to half of the unidentified Myrtaceae fragments were twigs (Figure 31B).

A B

Figure 31: Percentage cluster graphs of dendrological features identifying small diameter wood in unidentified Myrtaceae fragments A) Growth ring curvature, n=124. B) Presence or absence of pith in strongly curved fragments, n=59. Myrtaceae fragments are largely concentrated in the primary contexts of F53 and F24 (Figure 32). Due to the problems associated with representativeness and primary contexts these samples are not included in analysis for relative proportions, so the potential impact is minimal. There is also a high proportion of unidentified Myrtaceae fragments in D6 which

62 may mean that one or more of the Myrtaceae species are underrepresented and impact the interpretation given that D6 is used in much of the analysis. However, D6 is one of the larger sample sizes and therefore the identified taxa are more likely to be representative of the overall population.

Figure 32: Percentage cluster graph of Myrtaceae species across the samples, n=399

5.2.4 Primary contexts The fire features (F53 and F24) are primary contexts which can be problematic in terms of species representativeness as they often represent either a single fire event or the relative proportions of the last fire event rather than a long-term pattern (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). Both samples were shown to have low diversity, the potential for unseen species to impact results and large effect size in differences in taxonomic composition. Preservation is not as good in F53 (1.44), and both samples were more likely to be impacted by identification bias caused by vitrification and small diameter Myrtaceae fragments. These issues highlight the importance of considering context in anthracological sampling, as primary contexts are less likely to be well preserved or have a diversity representative of long-term patterns (Asouti & Austin 2005). To prevent interpretation bias many of the interpretations associated with the horticultural period will discount the F53 and F24 results unless otherwise specified.

5.3 Summary of taxonomic analysis The results of the taxonomic analysis are presented in an anthracology spectrum which shows the percentage distribution of taxa within the IBP sample and the secondary samples of the EHP and LHP (Figure 36). The figure shows that greater diversity is observed in the LHP. Trench 3 also had lower diversity than the other samples with only eight taxa being identified 63 and all large tree species. Trench 3 provided was the only securely dated context associated with earliest IBP of the site which had charcoal of adequate size for identification. However, as a scattered deposit with low diversity this area was considered separately in the analysis.

An anthracology spectrum, or charcoal percentage diagram, presents the relative proportions of taxa for each sample (Figure 33). Based on these results, interpretation of charcoal data can be made regarding clearance activities, anthropogenic vegetation change and vegetation use at Cooks Beach.

64

Large trees Medium trees Medium to small trees Small trees to shrubs Indeterminate

Agathis australis Dacrycarpus dacrydioides Dacrydium cupressinum Prumnopitys taxifolia PrumnopitysPodocarpus ferruginea totaraPodocarpaceaeKnightia spp.Metrosideros excelsa Vitex excelsa lucensAvicennia marina varTree austrasica fernLeptospermum scopariumKunzea spp.MyoporumPittosporum laetumDodonaea spp. viscosaPteridiumCoriaria esculentumMyrsine arboreaOlearia australisCoprosma spp. Hebe spp. spp.Myrtaceae spp. Angiosperm IndeterminatePhase

Trench 3 IBP

Feature 46

Feature 72 EHP

Feature 68

D6 midden Sample

I2 midden LHP

Feature 97

Feature 24 HP Feature 53

20 40 60 80 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 20 20 20 40 20 40 20 20 20 20 20 40 60 20 20 Figure 33: Anthracology spectrum for Cooks Beach charcoal, n=1413.

65

5.4 Clearance activities It is challenging to distinguish discrete clearance events within the horticultural phase. Many subsequent burns probably occurred at this site as part of the fallow rotation of gardening areas. Therefore, clearance activities will be broadly discussed for the initial clearance period and clearance for horticulture.

5.4.1 Initial clearance There were limited options for charcoal samples which derives from the earliest phase of activity at T11/2789, with much of the charcoal in the IBP burn off layers being too small and fragmented to identify. However, Trench 3 provided a securely dated lens of charcoal for analysis of activity during the initial site clearance phase which Maxwell et al. (2016) attribute to the obsidian gathering phase. It was expected that charcoal from this sample would support pollen records that the vegetation cleared in the initial period of activity at the site was a mixed conifer broadleaf forest (Maxwell et al. 2016).

The taxonomic analysis of Trench 3 shows that it is dominated by large Podocarpaceae spp. including Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 61 (24.4%), Dacrydium cupressinum 56 (22.4%) and Prumnopitys taxifolia 54 (21.6%), and to a lesser degree Podocarpus totara 29 (11.6%) and Prumnopitys ferruginea 8 (3.2%). In addition to the Podocarpaceae spp. present there are also 3 tree fern fragments (1.2%), Metrosideros excelsa 7 (2.6%) and Vitex lucens 6 (2.4%). The low diversity of species suggests that this charcoal deposit is likely to be a single burn event with charcoal deriving from a small number of trees rather than being representative of the total biomass present. According to ethnographic accounts large vegetation not completely burnt during the first landscape burn is left to fallow before they are split and re-burnt (Shortland 1856:203). The combination of low diversity and the dominance of moderate to weak growth ring curvature, which is generally associated with larger calibre branches or trunk wood, supports the inference that Trench 3 represents a single burning event of remaining large branches and trunk wood of canopy trees (Figure 34A). The high prevalence of cellular collapse (ƒ=214, 85.6%) suggests that the charcoal from Trench 3 was from unhealthy wood, potentially as a result of decay during the fallow period (Figure 34B).

66

A B

Figure 34: Percentage cluster graphs showing dendrological features associated with interpretation of Tr 3 charcoal. (A) Growth ring curvature excluded indeterminate curvature category, n=196. (B) Cellular collapse, n=250

5.4.2 Clearance for horticulture Many of the conifer species of New Zealand, including A. australis and D. Cupressinum have shallow roots which grow in a plate in the upper layer of soil and litter. A small portion of the charcoal assemblage reflects this practice with 65 fragments being identified as root fragments (Table 7). These are predominantly from the early horticultural phase and likely reflect the mixing of burnt roots from old growth forest. Old growth taxon root charcoal and the subset of weakly curved large tree charcoal likely reflects the burning and mixing of stumps and root systems from a virgin or ancient forest. Similar observations have been made in other archaeological sites in and around Mercury Bay (Wallace 2013, 2014). Elsewhere in the site, there is a lack of sterile layers which has been linked to deep mixing of soils (Hoffmann 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017). Through the mixing process, old stumps and shed branch wood from the forest of the past may have been uncovered and used as fuelwood (Wallace & Holdaway 2017).

Table 7: Species of root charcoal identified, n=65.

Root charcoal EHP LHP Taxon Ƒ Agathis australis 39 8 Dacrycarpus dacrydioides Dacrydium cupressinum 1 1 Prumnopitys taxifolia 12 1 Podocarpus totara Vitex lucens 1 Pteridium esculentum 2

Secondary vegetation was favoured for clearance areas with Leptospermum scoparium (Manuka) being the most frequently observed taxa in this assemblage, constituting 13.2% 67

(ƒ=154) of the primary and secondary contexts associated with the horticultural phase of site use. Manuka is a fire-tolerant species which along with Kunzea spp. (Kanuka) (ƒ= 48, 5%), is dominant in coastal shrubland vegetation. The reflection of this dominance in the charcoal analysis of the horticultural period, confirms that many of the clearance activities were focused in areas of secondary vegetation likely created as a result of IBP activity.

5.5 Anthropogenic Vegetation change In anthropogenic vegetation change it is expected that in an area known to have been disturbed by human activity, including fire and clearance, there will be a decrease in large forest taxa and increase in successional species. In New Zealand, regeneration after a fire is slow (Ogden et al. 1998; Perry et al. 2012, 2014; Wardle 1991; Wyse et al. 2018). Repeated fire events in a landscape had many unintended consequences including habitat loss and changing succession trajectories which caused lasting ecological disturbance and altered stable states (Bellingham et al. 2010; Perry et al. 2015; Wyse et al. 2018). The six secondary contexts from the horticultural phase were used to explore the dynamics of anthropogenic vegetation change at Cooks Beach as these meet the conditions required for paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Figure 35 shows that the composition of the samples was similar.

A B

Figure 35: Percentage cluster graph of proportions of ecological groups in the samples sorted by chronological grouping A) EHP, n=488. B) LHP, n=465. Shrubland is present in both periods suggesting that clearance and regeneration at the site predated the first horticultural features. However, there is an increase in the scrubland vegetation in the later samples (ƒ =75%, 15.4% combined EHP to ƒ =209, 44.9% combined LHP) which suggests that the secondary bush regenerating after clearance increases through time (Figure 35B). Early in the horticultural phase, there is a large proportion of forest vegetation (ƒ =278, 57%) which suggests that some degree of vegetation regeneration may have occurred at the site (Figure 35A). The decrease in forest taxa in the later period (ƒ =148, 15.4%) suggests that the secondary forest was replaced by scrubland.

68

Late successor Mid successors Early successors Indeterminate

Agathis australis DacrycarpusDacrydium dacrydioidesPrumnopitys cupressinumPodocarpus Knightiataxifolia Dodonaeatotara excelsa viscosaMetrosiderosPittosporum excelsaLeptospermum spp. scopariumKunzea spp.Vitex lucensMyoporumPteridium laetumOlearia esculentumMyrsine spp. Coprosma australisHebe spp. spp.CoriariaAvicennia arborea marinaPodocarpaceae var austrasicaMyrtaceae spp. spp. Angiosperm IndeterminatePhase

Feature 46 EHP Feature 72

Feature 68 Sample

D6 midden LHP I2 midden

Feature 97

40 60 80 20 20 20 20 20 40 20 20 20 20 40 20 40 20 20 Figure 36: Anthracology spectrum for the secondary context in the horticultural period, n=953 Throughout the horticultural period, Leptospermum scoparium is a dominant component of the charcoal middens (ƒ =47, 10.5% of EHP and ƒ =75, 16% of LHP). The high presence of the fire-adapted L. scoparium suggests that from the beginning of the horticultural phase the dominant form of vegetation was secondary, as a result of earlier clearance activities. Large forest taxa including Knightia excelsa, Dacrydium cupressinum, Metrosideros excelsa, Vitex lucens, and Podocarpus totara are characteristic of late succession species and noted in other regenerating sites on the Coromandel Peninsula and offshore islands (Atkinson 2004; Leathwick & Rogers 1996; Rogers 1994). The presence of these species in the EHP suggests that there was a delay between the IBP of the site and subsequent burns which allowed regeneration of secondary forest to occur prior to the commencement of horticulture. This result suggests a pause in landscape clearance activity at the site which may indicate a pause in site use as proposed in Maxwell et al. (2017), or just a cessation in large scale landscape disturbance until more intensive horticultural activities began in the EHP. The taxonomic composition of the later assemblages suggests that much of the vegetation is fast-growing light-demanding shrubs and small trees including , Hebe spp., Coprosma spp., Coriaria arborea and Pteridium esculentum, characteristic of early to mid- succession communities (Figure 36). Through the repeated burning episodes the vegetation landscape becomes more open, making light-demanding species more common as indicated by the dominance of forest species which thrive in open forests or scrublands including Dodonaea viscosa and Myoporum laetum. Overall the taxonomic analysis of species during the horticulture period indicates that anthropogenic vegetation change occurred over the time of site use as a mixed conifer- broadleaf forest was cleared and left undisturbed to partially regenerated. Later more frequent 69 fire events during the horticultural phase, caused arrested succession, creating a persistent a scrub/shrubland. 5.6 Vegetation as a resource Charcoal from archaeological sites represents not only the vegetation present but also the available vegetation that people were choosing to burn. The dominance of particular species could represent a higher relative abundance or preferential selection of that species for a particular purpose. As Cooks Beach is a seasonal activity/gardening area, the charcoal present in midden contexts is likely to be related to landscape clearance and fuelwood gathering. Midden and pit fill contexts are useful for exploring the role of vegetation as they reflect long term activity rather than discrete fire events that are more likely to be the case in primary deposits (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

According to the PLE fuelwood is gathered from the surrounding environment based on preferential selection when the wood is abundant, later as wood resources dwindle or change selectivity decreases or wood gathering areas expand (Shackleton & Prins 1992). This selective behaviour can be based on taxa preference, or attributes of available wood including state and calibre which may relate to particular collection areas or species (Delhon 2018). Samples from both the EHP and LHP reflect a dominance of Leptospermum scoparium, and there is strong evidence to suggest that this is representative of the increasing spread of secondary vegetation communities dominant from the start of the horticultural period. In the EHP, there is a lack of smaller species which suggests that large and medium trees from both secondary forest and shrubland communities were the initial preference (Figure 37). As large taxa decline (ƒ =329, 67.4% in EHP to ƒ =107, 21.9% in LHP) the smaller shrubs increase (ƒ =107, 21.9% in EHP to ƒ =268, 57.6% in LHP) suggesting a change from the large preferential taxa towards the smaller shrubs as the availability changed.

Figure 37: Cluster bar graph of physiognomy in secondary context horticultural samples, n=953. 70

5.6.1 State of wood The state of wood prior to carbonisation can inform about fuelwood collection strategies. By noting dendrological features associated with decaying or unhealthy wood including fungal decay, cellular collapse, and insect boreholes, the collection of dead or decaying wood can be identified (Table 8). The fragment counts of the presence of fungal hyphae, boreholes and cellular collapse suggest that unhealthy wood is commonly associated with Agathis australis and Avicennia marina var australasica, so these species were analysed in-depth.

Table 8: Number of non-root fragments identified to species with decay features from the horticulture phase, n=858.

Fungal Insect bore Cellular Horticultural phase hyphae holes collapse ƒ Taxon EHP LHP EHP LHP EHP LHP EHP LHP Agathis australis 87 14 41 10 1 22 5 Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 9 2 1 Dacrydium cupressinum 22 14 1 3 6 Prumnopitys taxifolia 9 6 1 1 2 Podocarpus totara 8 7 1 3 Kunzea spp. 27 40 3 3 1 3 Leptospermum scoparium 62 92 6 2 4 6 Vitex lucens 18 24 2 0 2 7 Myoporum laetum 7 16 1 1 1 Metrosideros excelsa 28 19 6 1 1 1 Pteridum esculentum 5 Coriaria arborea 22 1 Dodonaea viscosa 18 53 2 1 2 Myrsine australis 14 1 Knightia excelsa 9 1 1 Avicennia marina var 65 59 17 20 21 14 22 13 australisica Olearia spp. 12 17 0 1 1 Pittosporum spp. 11 1 2 Coprosma spp. 36 1 Hebe spp. 26 1

At Cooks Beach there is a dominance of Agathis australis (Kauri) early in the horticultural phase, which decreases in the later phase (Figure 36). The non-root charcoal A. australis fragments in both EHP and LHP were identified as having moderate or strong ring curvature (ƒ =49, 56.3% and ƒ =8, 57.1% respectively), which is more likely to be branch wood, given that this species is noted for having wide trunks required to support their immense height. Kauri timber is noted for being straight because the tree undergoes cladoptosis, or self- 71 pruning, which drops lower limbs from the tree. On the Coromandel Peninsula, A. australis branches would have been common as rooting wood in the undergrowth. Kauri has a slower rate of decay than most species and fallen branches would have served as a ready source of firewood available during the EHP. Elsewhere in the site, old stumps and shed branch wood would have been uncovered providing a ready source of dry fuelwood (Dufraisse 2006; Wallace & Holdaway 2017). This is suggested by the high presence of fungal decay and cellular collapse in many of the A. australis fragments.

Table 9: Count, growth ring curvature and presence of modification to cellular structure in non-root Agathis australis charcoal from the horticultural phase, n=101.

Agathis australis fragments (non-root) Early % of taxon Late % of taxon Ƒ 87 14 Growth ring curvature Indeterminate 16 18.4% 2 14.2% Weakly curved 22 25.3% 4 28.6% Moderately curved 43 49.4% 7 50.0% Strongly curved 6 6.9% 1 7.1% Vitrification Degree 1 24 27.5% 5 35.8% Degree 2 11 12.6% 2 14.3% Radial cracks 44 50.6% 10 71.5% Fungal hyphae 41 47.2% 10 71.5% Boreholes 1 1.2% Cellular collapse 22 25.2% 5 35.7% No modification to structure 18 20.60% 1 7.10%

A B

Figure 38: Examples of decay features observed on A. australis fragments (A) Insect bore hole on radial plane from F46, 20x magnification (B) Cellular collapse from F46, transverse plane, 5x magnification. Avicennia marina var australasica (mangrove) has high relative numbers in the horticultural phase. Mangrove is an estuarine tree which has been noted in other Māori sites as indicative of driftwood gathering due to the distance from the source (Wallace & Holdaway 2017). At Cooks Beach the estuary adjacent to T11/2789 would have been rich with mangrove which may have been removed to increase access to the site via the estuary. As with A. australis, A.

72 marina var australasica is overrepresented in anatomical alteration caused by decay. One hundred and thirty-seven of the 144 A. marina var australasica fragments are identified with some form of decay (Table 10). This species is disproportionally impacted by vitrification in comparison with other taxa present in horticultural phase with 72.92% (ƒ =130) of fragments having some degree of vitrification, while all other taxa have less than half (Figure 39). The prominence of decay features indicates that the mangrove burnt at Cooks Beach is unlikely to be healthy wood. Mangrove is linked to driftwood gathering because as a tidal tree drops deadwood branches into the water which are then moved by the tidal flow, onto a bank or to sea (Sutherland 2003; Wallace & Holdaway 2017). It is highly likely that much of the mangrove at Cooks Beach was collected from the front beach and estuary as driftwood or deadwood branches, providing a ready source of seasoned fuelwood.

Table 10: Count, growth ring curvature and presence of modification to cellular structure in Avicennia marina var australasica charcoal from the horticultural phase, n=144.

Avicennia marina var australasica charcoal Early % of taxon Late % of taxon Ƒ 85 59 Growth ring curvature Indeterminate 9 10.6% 5 8.5% Weakly curved 26 30.6% 17 28.8% Moderately curved 47 55.3% 35 59.3% Strongly curved 3 3.5% 2 3.4% Vitrification Degree 1 29 34.1% 22 37.9% Degree 2 36 42.4% 17 28.8% Degree 3 1 1.2% Radial cracks 61 71.8% 50 84.7% Fungal hyphae 17 20% 20 33.9% Boreholes 21 24.7% 14 23.7% Cellular collapse 22 25.9% 13 22% No modification to structure 5 5.8% 2 3.4%

73

Figure 39: Cluster bar chart of percentage of vitrification present on fragments identified to taxa, less than 2% grouped as other, n= 1413. A B

Figure 40: Decay features observed on Avicennia marina var australisca (A) Radial cracks, fungal hyphae and level 1 vitrification, transverse plane, 10x magnification (B) Level 2 vitrification, transverse plane, 5x magnification. The high prevalence of decay features and possible explanation for the state of kauri and mangrove wood suggests that fuelwood at Cooks Beach was opportunistically sourced based on readily available dry wood within the environment. Later reliance on small tree and shrub taxa likely reflects the changing composition of the available vegetation within the immediate catchment area. This suggests that Māori did not move further afield for preferential species but rather collected readily available fuelwood from the same area.

These results are interpreted in archaeobotanical and paleoenvironmental context in the following chapter.

74

6 Discussion In this chapter, anthracological method, vegetation clearance, anthropogenic vegetation change, and vegetation resource management and use are discussed in relation to Cooks Beach to address the research questions. The discussion focuses also considers the value of anthracology as a tool for understanding vegetation resource use and management within the context of human behaviour.

6.1 Anthracology methodology In any anthracological study, methodological considerations play a crucial role in ensuring the reliability of results from which paleoenvironmental and archaeobotanical interpretations can be drawn. The goal of gaining an in-depth understanding of theoretical and methodological considerations was to explore how bias from assemblage formation processes could be compensated by a targeted sampling strategy.

6.1.1 Impact of assemblage formation processes The potential bias of assemblage formation processes including the filters of combustion, human, depositional/post-depositional and archaeology causes a dynamic assemblage formation process which can impact the relative proportions in an anthracological dataset (Asouti 2001; Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal 1992; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Scott 2010; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

The sampling effort needs to be adequate to ensure that the samples are taxonomically representative and to negate bias from assemblage formation processes. The use of rarefaction/extrapolation curves and the Good-Turing estimator provided the opportunity to illustrate that the diversity observed in the sub-sample of fragments analysed is likely to be representative of the overall diversity in the sample (Chao et al. 2017b,a; Chao & Jost 2012; Cox et al. 2017; Good 1953). Statistical tests indicated that the sampling effort was adequate for representativeness in the secondary context sites. By measuring sampling effort with reproducible statistical analysis, the reliability of results was determined for the secondary context for vegetation reconstruction and evidence of the long-term patterns of Māori vegetation use and management was based.

Preservation of charcoal and successful identification can be impacted by the processes occurring during combustion, and post-deposition which may impact the preservation and identifiability of charcoal fragments. By using a large charcoal sample, the cumulative effects of combustion and depositional/post depositional impacts should theoretically be minimised (Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). 75

Lack of charcoal preservation is often associated with factors including soil alkalinity and mechanical pressures including freeze/thaw and trampling charcoal (Allué et al. 2009; Braadbaart et al. 2009; Bryant 1989; 2014; Chzrazvzez et al. 2011; Dincauze 2000; Lancelotti et al. 2010; Piqué 1999; Scott 2010; Scott & Damblon 2010; Smart & Hoffman 1988; Théry- Parisot et al. 2010). The results of the Fr/Pr index for the samples produced an average ratio of 0.17 which indicates good preservation. However, the average preservation index excludes the one outlier sample, F53, which had an index ratio of 1.44 indicating that preservation was not high in this sample. As a fire feature, the lack of preservation may have been associated with the plant ash deposited with the charcoal (Huisman et al. 2012). Aside from F53, preservation of charcoal was confirmed to be good by the Fr/Pr index, suggesting that preservation in post-depositional conditions at T11/2789 did not adversely impact the overall results. Uniformity in the degree of fragmentation of the taxa present which fits with the ‘law’ of fragmentation principle that charcoal fragments into many small and a few large pieces (Asouti & Austin 2005; Chabal 1992; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). By comparing the distribution of species, it is clearly illustrated that there is no differential impact of fragmentation on either species or samples that may indicate bias from post-depositional processes. Therefore, mechanical pressures on samples did not differ, and species did not react differently to those pressures. It is interesting to note that uniformity of fragmentation is clearer in samples with a higher sample size which suggests that larger sample sizes are more likely to yield results that are not biased by post-depositional processes.

A key influence on the identifiability of fragments was vitrification, particularly at the higher levels where higher order identification only was possible at best. Vitrification was noted in 45.1% of the unidentified fragments; however, this only constituted 7.9% of the entire assemblage, making its overall impact minimal. The impact of vitrification on mangrove fragments is higher than that of any other species. The high levels of vitrification in mangrove fragments suggest that there may be a differential impact of the combustion process (Allué et al. 2009; Braadbaart et al. 2012; McParland et al. 2010). This differential impact may be due to the state of mangrove wood used as the results suggest that there was a high prevalence of decay features. The differential impact of assemblage formation processes could have resulted in an underestimation of the relative proportion of mangrove in the assemblage as unhealthy wood tends to survive less than healthy wood (Arranz-Otaegui 2017; Chrzavzez et al. 2014; Marguerie & Hunot 2007; McParland et al. 2009, 2010). However, due to the high overall prevalence of mangrove throughout the horticultural phase the importance of mangrove as a

76 fuelwood source could still be identified, highlighting the benefit of large sample sizes in negating the potential impact of bias.

The assemblage formation process is an essential consideration in anthracological research. Bias on charcoal results is caused by a complex network of phenomena occurring from selection through combustion, deposition and excavation and analysis. By ensuring the samples meet the criteria of representativeness, the potential for bias can be negated and results can be reliably applied to paleoenvironmental and archaeobotanical reconstructions. These criteria stipulate that samples should be of sufficient size, come from a discrete context reflecting long term activity, be reproducible across contemporaneous features, be taxonomically diverse, and relative abundance should conform to ecological dynamics (Asouti & Austin 2005; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010).

The methodology employed in the sampling strategy ensured that the secondary contexts from the horticultural period met the criteria of representativeness, which confirms the reliability of results obtained. While Trench 3 did not meet the criteria for paleoenvironmental reconstruction owing to the low diversity and lack of variation, it did provide a representative sample heavily biased by human activity which could be used in interpretation when combined with pollen data and the ethnographic record. Wallace and Holdaway suggest that the activity which caused charcoal accumulation is an important consideration (2017:28). By considering Trench 3 in the context of clearance activity one can explore the impact of human bias on assemblage composition and the benefit of charcoal analysis data in conjunction with other data sources. Overall the secondary deposits had an average Fr/Pr index of 0.17 indicating good preservation. The taxonomic diversity was consistent within the chronological groupings (EHP- 14-15 identified species, LHP 16-17 identified species). Results from the EHP and LHP utilised large sample sizes through exhaustive sampling and ensuring that each sample was over 100 fragments and that one sample from each was within the 200-400 threshold (Asouti 2001; Chabal 1992; Dotte-Sarout et al. 2015; Keepax 1988; O’Carroll & Mitchell 2012; Stuijits 2006; Théry-Parisot et al. 2010). The large sample sizes, coupled with careful context selection based on stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, and association with long term activity, ensured integrity for paleoenvironmental reconstruction and archaeobotanical interpretations.

The primary features were problematic due to low overall diversity and poor preservation. There was also a high prevalence of unidentified Myrtaceae species fragments due to small diameter wood, and vitrification was shown to have a higher effect on fragment identifiability. These results suggest that the primary contexts in this assemblage were not reliable for 77 paleoenvironmental reconstructions. There is also a lack of diversity in both samples with the overall diversity of F53 having eight identified species and F24 having 13. Stratigraphic evidence suggests that these features are most likely associated with midden contexts dated to the LHP (Hoffmann 2017) where contemporaneous secondary deposits suggest diversity should be around 16-17 species. Overall the poor preservation, lack of diversity, and higher effect of vitrification and fragment identifiability highlight the potential issues associated with interpreting charcoal from primary deposits, justifying the exclusion of these samples from site interpretations.

6.2 Paleoenvironmental and Archaeobotanical interpretations Based on the results of charcoal analysis from Cooks Beach T11/2789, some inferences can be made regarding clearance activities, anthropogenic vegetation changes, and use and management of vegetation by Māori during seasonal site use.

6.2.1 Clearance activities Human agency is an important consideration in anthracological analysis because human bias is the most influential impact on the composition of a charcoal assemblage. Where ecological models provide the opportunity to explore how landscapes changed from human actions, archaeological charcoal can provide information relating to the mechanics of how that change occurred. The process of vegetation clearance is described in the ethnographic record as a series of steps taken by Māori to clear forest vegetation. These steps include the fallow of large logs which are burnt months after felling to allow the wood to dry (Best 1931; Firth 1929; Leach 1984; Shortland 1856). At Cooks Beach, this process is observable in the archaeological record in Trench 3 where only large forest taxa are noted in the charcoal fragments which suggests that the burn event(s) associated with this deposit reflect the burning of only large logs. This was confirmed by the dominance of moderately to weakly curved growth rings and high prevalence of cellular collapse indicating decay. Later clearance activity appears to be associated with a similar area as indicated by the dominance of manuka in the horticultural period assemblage suggesting that burning activities were often associated with regenerating scrub. This result is consistent with accounts of horticulture occurring after primary forest clearance was favoured in areas where scrubland or secondary forest had overtaken from early colonisers including bracken as dominant in the landscape (Leach 1984, 2005).

78

6.2.2 Anthropogenic vegetation change At Cooks Beach the pollen record provides a picture of the vegetation prior to the arrival of Māori as a coastal/lowland mixed conifer broadleaf forest (Maxwell et al. 2017). Accounts from the historical record indicate that by the arrival of Europeans, the areas were a scrub/shrubland (Beaglehole 1968; McDonnell 2018). However, this is the beginning and end of the process of anthropogenic vegetation. Anthracological data has filled the middle sequence allowing for a more thorough understanding of the dynamic process of change that occurred throughout the Māori use of the site. The dominance of successional vegetation throughout the EHP and LHP suggests that there was rapid deforestation through pocket clearance during the initial phase of site use in the 14th century. However, the persistent forest taxa identified in the EHP are often late successional species. This suggests a delay between initial site clearance and subsequent burn events associated with the horticultural period, allowing for a period of regeneration to secondary forest. Clearance well before site occupation has been noted in other nearby sites including Sarah’s Gully (Davidson 2018; Wallace 2018).

Forest regeneration relies heavily on the right ecological conditions and availability of seed stock. Stalled or arrested succession is caused by repeated disturbance and loss of seed stock which likely resulted in the conversion of coastal and lowland forests at Cooks Beach to persistent scrub/shrublands. Forest succession trajectories are dictated by the nature of disturbance, seed stock availability, dispersal agents, and the niche environmental requirements for recruitment, germination, and growth of seedlings specific to different taxa (Atkinson 2004; Clout & Hay 1989; Perry et al. 2010). During the horticultural phase at Cooks Beach, successive anthropogenic fires changed the ecological habitat for both fauna and flora in the area. Birds are lost in the deforestation and succession, causing further vegetation change because of pollination and seed dispersal impacts (Anderson et al. 2011; Bellingham et al. 2010; Clout & Hay 1989). There is evidence to suggest that regeneration occurred when fire frequency was minimal prior to the horticultural phase, based on the combination of scrubland and late successor species in the EHP samples. Alternatively, fuelwood catchment during the EHP was further afield, as suggested by Wallace to account for forest taxa in the later dated areas of Taputapuatea Stream (Hoffmann 2016). This thesis suggests that the former is more likely owing to the chronological gap in site use after the IBP and favourable ecological conditions for regeneration. However, with the more frequent fire regime during the horticultural phase and mass deforestation within the wider ecological area of Mercury Bay, caused arrested succession and persistent scrubland. Other Mercury Bay

79 seasonal campsites contemporaneous in occupation to the T11/2789 horticultural period also show an increasing dominance of shrub and scrub species later in the chronology of site use, including sites at Hahei (Judge et al. 2013; Wallace 2013), and at Opito Bay (Bickler et al. 2014; Wallace 2014). This regional pattern suggests that arrested succession of shrubland in the flat coastal areas and dune plain systems was a consequence of anthropogenic vegetation change in the coastal landscape.

In considering anthropogenic vegetation change there are two prevailing models of the nature of change in New Zealand. The rapid landscape transformation model, which is applicable primarily to inland South Island and dry east coast site, assumes that deforestation occurred rapidly during the IBP of site use (McWethy et al. 2009, 2010). The Two-step model, which draws on research from northern and west coast sites, suggests that the IBP had limited impact on the primary vegetation. Subsequent burn events related to extensive later land use and population movement, had a greater impact on vegetation communities (Newnham et al. 2018).

Concerning the dynamics of the change process, the taxonomic analysis of charcoal from Cooks Beach indicates that anthropogenic vegetation change occurred in two stages. An initial burn period removed the primary forest during the earliest phase of site use; either associated with clearance for access to obsidian as suggested by Maxwell et al. (2017), or with early land preparation for horticulture. Regardless of its intention, the charcoal record supports the chronology proposed in Maxwell et al. (2017) which suggests that there is a gap in site use or at least in activities related to vegetation burning which allowed succession to advance mid to late succession where a secondary forest had begun to establish. This forest was then cleared early in the horticultural phase. Repeated subsequent burn events caused regeneration to arrest at the early to mid-succession stage and producing a persistent scrubland. Therefore, deforestation occurred early in Māori use of Cooks Beach, consistent with the rapid landscape transformation model. However, persistent scrubland vegetation at Cooks Beach was the result of later more extensive land use and repeated fires associated with horticultural and wider regional flora and fauna changes. The last pattern is more akin to the two-step model in which later fires rather than the IBP were more impactful on the vegetation communities. This suggests that vegetation change at Cooks Beach combines elements of both models. This result reinforces the suggestion by Dahl (2018) that patterns of vegetation change need to be considered from a regional perspective. It also suggests that there is an advantage to understanding human driven vegetation change from a proxy directly related to human activity. Charcoal from securely dated and stratified archaeological sites is a useful 80 proxy to establish a more precise image of past human/vegetation interactions and therefore the dynamics of anthropogenic vegetation change.

6.2.3 Use and management of vegetation Cooks Beach was a mahinga kai area and therefore used seasonally for specific subsistence activities. The patterns observed in the charcoal record give insight into the dynamic of vegetation resource use within this context. Results of the anthracological analysis indicated that early successional species were used throughout the horticultural period, particularly relatively long-lived successors including manuka and kanuka. However, the charcoal record indicates a decline in the use of large forest taxa from the EHP to the LHP which likely coincides with the environmental shift towards persistent scrub/shrubland as a result of repeated burning events. This change indicates that the catchment area for fuelwood gathering does not change over the horticultural period, but rather the use of fuelwood is dictated by environmental abundance and likely associated with fuelwood gathering in conjunction with clearance and subsistence activities.

The assemblage at T11/2789 is as not as taxonomically diverse as would be expected for the environment. The EHP samples are dominated by tree taxa which may indicate a degree of selectivity in the choice of fuelwood with a preference for larger wooded taxa. The preference may be associated with burning qualities or clearance practices. In the case of IBP sample, it was noted that diversity was markedly low, and in conjunction with decay features observed in the Podocarpaceae species, it was linked to the clearance practice of felling and leaving larger wood to be burnt later (Best 1931; Firth 1929; Leach 1984; Shortland 1856). The same practice of clearance during the EHP would result in a ready supply of seasoned wood from large taxa when fuelwood is gathered during the subsequent activity at the site. In the LHP there are fewer large taxa to fell and therefore the smaller tree and shrub species become the primary source of fuelwood.

Dendrological features associated with decay were particularly prevalent on two species, kauri and mangrove. The presence of kauri is likely to be associated with branches that had been shed and buried in the leaf litter or below the surface (Steward & Beveridge 2010; Wilson et al. 1998). The horticultural soils of Cooks Beach are noted for having been mixed deeply (Hoffmann 2017; Maxwell et al. 2017) and this process may have uncovered wood which could have been from ancient forest given the slow rate of decay of kauri timber. The use of mangrove and kauri is a dominant component of the fuelwood assemblage for the horticultural phase though there is a marked decline over time which suggests that Māori

81 extensively exploited the supply of this ready dry source of fuelwood during their use of the site. This deep mixing process is also associated with the presence of root charcoal in the assemblage, likely to be related to the burning of old growth stumps (Wallace 2015b; Wallace & Holdaway 2017). The use of buried wood and burning of old growth stumps is associated with other Mercury Bay sites including at Opito Bay (Wallace 2014), and Taputapuatea Stream (Wallace 2016).

Mangrove is likely associated with harvesting of estuarine vegetation and gathering driftwood from the beach and estuarine shores. Mangrove is readily identified as driftwood in other sites owing to the distance from the source to the site and the fact the mangrove drops its deadwood into the water which is then translocated by the tides to other localities (Crisp et al. 1990; Sutherland 2003; Wallace & Holdaway 2017). This interpretation is not so easily taken as a given when the source location is adjacent to the site itself. However, given the high prevalence of decay features the mangrove identified wood cannot be accounted for just based on harvesting the trees from the estuary. Mercury Bay has abundant mangrove not just in the Purangi River/Estuary but throughout Mercury Bay including the nearby Mangrove River at Whitianga (Crisp et al. 1990). With all these sources much of the available driftwood on all the beaches is likely mangrove. Therefore at least some portion of decayed mangrove found in the Cooks Beach assemblage is probably associated with driftwood gathering. Cooks Beach was a site used for horticultural activity, and shellfish gathering focused around the estuary and shoreline where driftwood would have been abundant. The collection of driftwood in conjunction with other subsistence practices accounts for its high prevalence in the charcoal assemblages but also indicates the interconnection of the subsistence activities (Byrne et al. 2013).

The results of charcoal analysis from Cooks Beach suggest that a PLE interpretation of fuelwood gathering is appropriate for this site in terms of the initial exploitation of preferred readily available sources of seasoned wood, moving later to less preferred taxa. There is also a notable degree of selectivity in terms of habitat exploitation, with fuelwood such as driftwood collected in association with other activities. In terms of practicality and the so called “effort- saving” behaviour of people, the collection of wood in conjunction with other activities makes sense (Byrne et al. 2013; Delhon 2018; Shackleton & Prins 1992). The opportunistic gathering of fuelwood was also identified in the charcoal analysis from Opito Bay which showed a similar trend of declining large tree species through time, attributed to decline in supply of readily available wood for fuel including building timber and shed kauri branches (Bickler et al. 2014; Wallace 2014). However, it may also be connected to socio-cultural 82 practices as well especially in terms of ahi kā. The way that Māori land tenure worked was that hapū and whānau groups had the rights of specific mahinga kai practices in specific areas, for example, one group may have the right to garden in an area while another the right to gather shellfish (Asher & Naulls 1987; Boast et al. 1999; Kumar 2010; Mead 2016; Smith 1942). This practice may have also restricted the fuelwood catchment area, limiting it to spaces in which vegetation disturbance had occurred. This aligns to with the conservation element to ahi kā practices in which Māori maintained their connection to seasonal camps through mahinga kai practices but also ensured the preservation of the mauri in the environment by minimising the area of impact (Clarke 2007; Firth 1929; Hiroa 1950; Kumar 2010; Mead 2016).

83

7 Conclusion The goal of this thesis was to explore the application of anthracology to a stratified, well dated archaeological site associate with Māori seasonal activities. The analysis was structured by the following secondary research questions:

- What is the nature of anthropogenic vegetation change through time at Cooks Beach? - Is there evidence of differential use and selection of vegetation as fuelwood at Cooks Beach?

The results of the anthracological study of charcoal from Cooks Beach have indicated that the nature of anthropogenic vegetation change involved an initial burn period and frequent fire events associated with horticulture. There is also evidence to suggest differential use and selection of vegetation as fuelwood, associated with the exploitation of readily available and easily accessible dry wood and gathered in association with other activities. As a seasonal activity area this result is unsurprising and reflects a small part of a larger cultural landscape, similar to other regional examples including the Hauraki Plains (Phillips 2000, 2017).

There are observable similarities between charcoal evidence from T11/2789 and other Mercury Bay and surrounding sites. By comparing the overall pattern of charcoal results from T11/2789 with other sites, several themes appear to be consistent. Anthropogenic vegetation change is synonymous with coastal Mercury Bay and surrounding area sites regardless of socio-economic function with most assemblages showing a decrease in large forest taxa and increasing scrub/shrub vegetation(Gumbley et al. 2018; Harris & Campbell 2012; Wallace 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2016, 2018). Arrested succession in the later phase of Māori occupation of Mercury Bay may be associated with this large-scale anthropogenic vegetation with the lowland coastal habitat of the entire area transforming, altering ecological processes including seed dispersal and regeneration trajectories. The use of readily available sources of fuelwood including shed branches, old growth stumps and potential driftwood gathering was observed in this site and other sites as well (Gumbley et al. 2018; Wallace 2014, 2016).

It is interesting to note that based on the contexts used in this analysis T11/2789 is not taxonomically diverse, a pattern also noted in Wallace’s preliminary charcoal report (Wallace 2015b). The lack of diversity may be a result of short-term occupation periods of the site which would have slowed the depletion of the preferred, readily dry wood resources. However, it may also be linked to T11/2789 being close to other archaeological sites including horticulture areas, stone tool working floors, and middens, which may have been

84 used at the same time, thus highlighting a potential issue with restricting charcoal analysis to a samples from a single site within a cultural landscape.

7.1 The value of anthracological research Cooks Beach T11/2789 provides an example which illustrates the main objective of this research, which was to explore what information can be obtained from an anthracological collection from a well-dated, stratified archaeological site. Charcoal is deposited in the archaeological record as a result of human activity. By examining the fragments in a taxonomic and dendrological analysis direct inferences could be made regarding anthropogenic vegetation change and resource use/management at Cooks Beach. This dataset could then be compared with ecological models and socio-cultural practices to draw a comparison between the dynamic relationship between people and the environment.

A charcoal fragment not only bears the morphological characteristics of tree species burnt but also dendrological features which are the signature of the process from human selection, through combustion and deposition, to excavation and interpretation. By looking at both the taxonomic composition and dendrological features of charcoal fragments more in-depth understanding of change and vegetation management and use by Māori can be understood. Charcoal from securely dated contexts and sites, in conjunction with ethnographic sources and ecological information. If used alongside other archaeological proxies including faunal and lithic analysis a better understanding of the dynamic nature of Māori-environment interactions can be gained.

85

Bibliography Abrahim GMS, Parker RJ, Horrocks M. 2013. Pollen core assemblages as indicator of

Polynesian and European impact on the vegetation cover of Auckland Isthmus

catchment, New Zealand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 131:162–170

Alix C, Brewster K. 2004. Not all driftwood is created equal: Wood use and value along the

Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 2(1):2–19

Allen FL. 2015. Retrospective Anthracological Analysis of Two Early Coastal East Otago

Polynesian Settlements. MA thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago

Allen MS, Huebert JM. 2014. Short-Lived Plant Materials, Long-Lived Trees, and Polynesian

14C Dating: Considerations for 14C Sample Selection and Documentation.

Radiocarbon 56(01):257–76

Allué E, Cabanes D, Solé A, Sala R. 2012. Hearth Functioning and Forest Resource

Exploitation Based on the Archeobotanical Assemblage from Level J. In E Carbonell i

Roura (ed.) High Resolution Archaeology and Neanderthal Behavior: Time and Space

in Level J of Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain), pp. 373–385. Dordrecht: Springer

Netherlands

Allué E, Euba I, Solé A. 2009. Charcoal Taphonomy: The Study of the Cell Structure and

Surface Deformations of Pinus sylvestris type for the Understanding of Formation

Processes of Archaeological Charcoal Assemblages. Journal of Taphonomy 7:57–72

Alperson-Afil N. 2012. Archaeology of fire: Methodological aspects of reconstructing fire

history of prehistoric archaeological sites. Earth-Science Reviews 113(3–4):111–119

Anderson A. 1997. Prehistoric Polynesian impact on the New Zealand environment: Te

whenua hou. In PV Kirch, TL Hunt (eds.) Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands:

Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape Change, pp. 271–283. New Haven: Yale

University Press

86

Anderson A. 1998. The Welcome of Strangers: An Ethnohistory of Southern Maori A.D.

1650-1850. Dunedin: Otago University Press in association with Dunedin City

Council

Anderson A. 2016. The making of the Maori middle ages. Journal of New Zealand Studies

(23):2–18

Anderson AJ. 2015. Speaking of migration AD 1150-1450. In A Anderson, A Harris, B

Williams (eds.) Tangata Whenua: An Illustrated History, Auckland: Bridget Williams

Books

Anderson SH, Kelly D, Ladley JJ, Molloy S, Terry J. 2011. Cascading Effects of Bird

Functional Extinction Reduce Pollination and Plant Density. Science 331(6020):1068–

1071

Angyalossy V, Pace MR, Evert RF, Marcati CR, Oskolski AA, et al. 2016. IAWA List of

Microscopic Bark Features. IAWA Journal 37(4):517–615

Arranz-Otaegui A. 2017. Evaluating the impact of water flotation and the state of the wood in

archaeological wood charcoal remains: Implications for the reconstruction of past

vegetation and identification of firewood gathering strategies at Tell Qarassa North

(south Syria). Quaternary International 457:60–73

Ascough PL, Bird MI, Francis SM, Lebl T. 2011. Alkali extraction of archaeological and

geological charcoal: evidence for diagenetic degradation and formation of humic

acids. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(1):69–78

Ascough PL, Bird MI, Scott AC, Collinson ME, Cohen-Ofri I, et al. 2010. Charcoal

reflectance measurements: implications for structural characterization and assessment

of diagenetic alteration. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(7):1590–99

Asher G, Naulls D. 1987. Maoriland. Wellington: New Zealand Planning Council

87

Asouti E. 2001. Charcoal Analysis from Catalhoyuk and Pinarbasi: Two Neolithic Sites in the

Konya Plain, South-central Anatolia, Turkey. PhD thesis. London: University of

London

Asouti E, Austin P. 2005. Reconstructing Woodland Vegetation and its Exploitation by Past

Societies, based on the Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Wood Charcoal

Macro-Remains. Environmental Archaeology 10(1):1–18

Atkinson IAE. 2004. Successional processes induced by fires on the northern offshore islands

of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 28(2):181-194

Banks J. 2008. General account of New Zealand. In R Preistley (ed.) The Awa Book of New

Zealand Science, pp. 13–22. Wellington: Awa Press

Barber I. 2010. Diffusion or innovation? Explaining lithic agronomy on the southern

Polynesian margins. World Archaeology 42(1):74–89

Barber IG. 1989. Of boundaries, drains and crops: a classification system for traditional Maori

horticultural ditches. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 11:23–50

Barefoot AC, Hankins FW. 1982. Identification of Modern and Tertiary Woods. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Bayly M, Kellow A. 2006. An Illustrated Guide to New Zealand Hebes. Wellington: Te Papa

Press

Beaglehole JC (John C. 1968. The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages of

Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, Economos Ltd, Covec. 2006. Cooks Beach coastal

erosion management strategy. Part I [unpublished report]. Environment Waikato

Technical Report. TR2006/21

Bellingham PJ, Towns DR, Cameron EK, Davis JJ, Wardle DA, et al. 2010. New Zealand

island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand

Journal of Ecology 34(1):22

88

Bellwood P. 1969. Excavations at Skipper’s Ridge, Opito Bay, Coromandel Peninsula, North

Island of New Zealand. Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in Oceania 4(3):198–

221

Best E. 1904. Maori medical lore. Notes on sickness and disease among the Maori people of

New Zealand, and their treatment of the sick; together with some account of various

beliefs, superstitions and rites pertaining to sickness, and the treatment thereof, as

collected from the Tuhoe tribe. Part I. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 13(4

(52):213–237

Best E. 1924. The Maori, Vol. 1. Wellington: Board of Māori Ethnological Research

Best E. 1925. The Maori Canoe. Wellington: Te Papa Press

Best E. 1931. Maori agriculture. Cultivated Food-Plants of the Maori and Native Methods of

Agriculture. (Continued). The Journal of the Polynesian Society 40(1):1–22

Best E. 1941. The Maori, Vol. 2. Wellington: Board of Māori Ethnological Research

Best E. 1942. Forest Lore of the Maori: With Methods of Snaring, Trapping, and Preserving

Birds and Rats, Uses of Berries, Roots, Fern-Root, and Forest Products, with

Mythological Notes on Origins, Karakia Used, Etc. Wellington: EC Keating,

Government Printer

Bickler S, Baquie B, Brown A, Clough R, Dawson L, et al. 2014. Opito Bay T10/777,

Coromandel Peninsula: Archaeological Excavation. Report in Fulfilment of NZHPT

Authority No 2008-85. Clough and Associates Monograph Series 14. Auckland:

Clough and Associates Ltd

Bird MI. 2013. Radiocarbon dating: charcoal. In S.A. Elias (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quaternary

Science, pp. 353–360. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Bird MI, McBeath AV, Ascough PL, Levchenko VA, Wurster CM, et al. 2017. Loss and gain

of carbon during char degradation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 106:80–89

Boast R, Erueti A, McPhail D, Smith N. 1999. Maori Land Law. Wellington: Butterworths

89

Boutain JR, Brown AR, Webb DT, Toyofuku BH. 2010. Simplified Procedure for Hand

Fracturing, Identifying, and Curating Small Macrocharcoal Remains. IAWA Journal

31(2):139–147

Braadbaart F, Poole I. 2008. Morphological, chemical and physical changes during

charcoalification of wood and its relevance to archaeological contexts. Journal of

Archaeological Science 35(9):2434–2445

Braadbaart F, Poole I, Huisman HDJ, van Os B. 2012. Fuel, Fire and Heat: an experimental

approach to highlight the potential of studying ash and char remains from

archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(4):836–847

Braadbaart F, Poole I, van Brussel AA. 2009. Preservation potential of charcoal in alkaline

environments: an experimental approach and implications for the archaeological

record. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(8):1672–1679

Brady TJ. 1989. The influence of flotation on the rate of recovery of wood charcoal from

archaeological sites. Journal of Ethnobiology 9(2):207–227

Bray JR, Burke WD, Struik GJ. 1999. Propagule dispersion and forest regeneration in

Leptospermum scoparium (manuka) - L ericoides (kanuka) forests following fire in

Golden Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Natural Sciences 24:35–52

Bryant V. 1989. Botanical remains in archaeological sites. In C Matthewson (ed.)

Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Physical-Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting

Archaeological Sites, pp. 85–115. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers

Buist AG. 1965. Site recording, Kuaotunu Point, Coromandel Peninsula. New Zealand

Archaeological Association 8(4):130–147

Butterfield BG. 1993. The structure of wood: an overview. In I.C.F. Walker (ed.) Primary

Wood Processing, pp. 1–22. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

90

Byrami M, Ogden J, Horrocks M, Deng Y, Shane P, Palmer J. 2002. A palynological study of

Polynesian and European effects on vegetation in Coromandel, New Zealand, showing

the variability between four records from a single swamp. Journal of the Royal Society

of New Zealand 32(3):507–31

Byrne C, Dotte-Sarout E, Winton V. 2013. Charcoals as indicators of ancient tree and fuel

strategies: An application of anthracology in the Australian Midwest. Australian

Archaeology (77):94–106

Caneva G, Nugari MP, Nugari MP, Salvadori O. 2008. Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage:

Biodeterioration and Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Publications

Canti M, Huisman DJ. 2015. Scientific advances in geoarchaeology during the last twenty

years. Journal of Archaeological Science 56:96–108

Carlquist SJ. 2010. Comparative Wood Anatomy: Systematic, Ecological, and Evolutionary

Aspects of Dicotyledon Wood, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer Berlin

Cartwright CR. 2015. The principles, procedures and pitfalls in identifying archaeological and

historical wood samples. Annuals of Botany 116(1):1–13

Caruso Fermé L, Iriarte Avilés E, Borrero LA. 2015. Tracing Driftwood in Archaeological

Contexts: Experimental Data and Anthracological Studies at the Orejas De Burro 1

Site (Patagonia, Argentina): Driftwood at the Orejas de Burro 1 site (Patagonia,

Argentina). Archaeometry 57:175–193

Chabal L. 1992. La représentativité paléo-écologique des charbons de bois archéologiques

issus du bois de feu. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France. Actualités

Botaniques. 139(2–4):213–236

Chao A, Chiu C-H, Colwell RK, Magnago LFS, Chazdon RL, Gotelli NJ. 2017a. Deciphering

the enigma of undetected species, phylogenetic, and functional diversity based on

Good-Turing theory. Ecology 98(11):2914–2929

91

Chao A, Colwell RK, Chiu C-H, Townsend D. 2017b. Seen once or more than once: applying

Good-Turing theory to estimate species richness using only unique observations and a

species list. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8(10):1221–1232

Chao A, Colwell RK, Lin C-W, Gotelli NJ. 2009. Sufficient sampling for asymptotic

minimum species richness estimators. Ecology 90(4):1125–1133

Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC, Sander EL, Ma KH, et al. 2014. Rarefaction and extrapolation

with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity

studies. Ecological monographs 84(1):45–67

Chao A, Jost L. 2012. Coverage‐based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples

by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93(12):2533–2547

Chappell PR. 2014. The Climate and Weather of Waikato 3rd ed. Wellington: NIWA.

Chazdon RL. 2014. Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age

of Deforestation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Chiou KL, Cook AG, Hastorf CA. 2013. Flotation versus dry sieving archaeobotanical

remains: A case history from the Middle Horizon southern coast of Peru. Journal of

Field Archaeology 38(1):38–53

Chrzavzez J, Théry-Parisot I, Fiorucci G, Terral J-F, Thibaut B. 2014. Impact of post-

depositional processes on charcoal fragmentation and archaeobotanical implications:

experimental approach combining charcoal analysis and biomechanics. Journal of

Archaeological Science 44:30–42

Chzrazvzez J, Théry-Parisot I, Terral J-F, Ducom A, Fiorucci G. 2011. Differential

preservation of anthracological material and mechanical properties of wood charcoal,

an experimental approach of fragmentation. SAGVNTVM Extra 11:29–30

Clarke A. 2007. The Great Sacred Forest of Tāne = Te Wao Tapu Nui a Tāne: A Natural Pre-

History of Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland: Reed Publications

92

Clarkson BR, Smale MC, Williams PA, Wiser SK, Buxton RP. 2011. Drainage, soil fertility

and fire frequency determine composition and structure of gumland heaths in northern

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35(1):96-113

Clout MN, Hay JR. 1989. The importance of birds as browsers, pollinators and seed

dispersers in New Zealand forests. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 12

(supplemental):12–33

Cockayne L. 1911. Report on the Dune-Areas of New Zealand, their Geology, Botany and

Reclamation. Science 35(905):699–700

Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum

Associates

Cohen-Ofri I, Weiner L, Boaretto E, Mintz G, Weiner S. 2006. Modern and fossil charcoal:

aspects of structure and diagenesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(3):428–439

Colenso W. 1865. Essay on the Botany of the North Island of New Zealand. Dunedin: Printed

for the commissioners by Fergusson and Mitchell

Colenso W. 1880. On the Vegetable Food of the Ancient New Zealanders before Cook’s

Visit. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 13:3–38

Costa Vaz F, Tereso JP, de Carvalho TP. 2017. Selection of firewood in Monte Mozinho

(NW Iberia) in the Late Antiquity: A question of function and availability. Quaternary

International 431:103–115

Cox KD, Black MJ, Filip N, Miller MR, Mohns K, et al. 2017. Community assessment

techniques and the implications for rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers.

Ecology and Evolution 7(24):11213–11226

Crisp P, Daniel LJ (Lindsay J, Tortell P, Wagemaker P. 1990. Mangroves in New Zealand:

Trees in the Tide. Wellington: GP Books

Cronk B. 2012. How to Use SPSS, 12th Edition. Glendale: Pyrczak Publishing

93

Dahl J. 2018. A High-Resolution Chronology of Human Arrival and Environmental Impact in

Northland, New Zealand. MA thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago

Dahm J. 2011. Fragile: A Guide to Waikato Dunes. Hamilton: Environment Waikato. Revised

edition ed.

Dahm J, Munro A. 2002. Coromandel Beaches: Coastal hazards and development setbacks

recommendations [unpublished report]. Environment Waikato Technical Report.

02/06.

Davidson J. 1979. Archaic middens of the Coromandel region. In Bird of a Feather:

Osteological and Archaeological Papers from the South Pacific in Honour of R.J.

Scarlett, pp. 183–202. Wellington: New Zealand Archaeological Association. BAR

International Series 62

Davidson J. 2018. In search of the North Island Archaic: archaeological excavations at

Sarah’s Gully, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand, from 1956 to 1960. Tuhinga

29:90–164

Dawson J, Lucas R. 2011. New Zealand’s Native Trees. Nelson: Craig Potton Publishing Ltd de Carle DE. 2014. Changing plant subsistence in Prehistoric Southwest Britain:

archaeobotanical and anthracological evidence from the South Cadbury Environs

Project. PhD thesis. Sheffield: University of Sheffield de Lange P. 2014. A revision of the New Zealand Kunzea ericoides (Myrtaceae) complex.

PhytoKeys 40:1–185

Delhon C. 2018. Is Choice Acceptable? How the Anthracological Paradigm May Hinder the

Consideration of Fuel Gathering as a Cultural Behaviour. Environmental Archaeology

1–9

Dieffenbach E. 1843. Travels in New Zealand: With Contributions to the Geography,

Geology, Botany, and Natural History of That Country, Vol. 2. London: J Murray

Dimbleby GW. 1967. Plants and Archaeology. London: John Baker Publishers Limited

94

Dincauze DF. 2000. Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Dotte-Sarout E. 2016. Evidence of forest management and arboriculture from wood charcoal

data: an anthracological case study from two New Caledonia Kanak pre-colonial sites.

Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26(2):195–211

Dotte-Sarout E, Carah X, Byrne C. 2015. Not just carbon: assessment and prospects for the

application of anthracology in Oceania: Not just carbon. Archaeology in Oceania

50(1):1–22

Dotte-Sarout E, Ouetcho J, Bolé J, Barret D, Sand C. 2013. Of charcoals and forests: Results

and perspectives from an archaeobotanical investigation of precolonial Kanak

settlement sites in New Caledonia. In GR Summerhayes, H Buckley (eds.) Pacific

Archaeology: Documenting the Past 50,000 Years: Papers from the 2011 Lapita

Pacific Archaeological Conference, pp. 120–137. Dunedin: University of Otago

Drennan RD. 2009. Statistics for Archaeologists A Common Sense Approach, 2nd ed. New

York: Springer

Drury B. 1857. Mercury Bay / surveyed by Comr. B. Drury 1852 ; reduced from the original

drawings by Edward J. Powell of the Hydrographic Office ; engraved by J. & C.

Walker. London: Hydrographic office of the Admiralty. Digital copy Wellington:

National Library of New Zealand

Dufraisse A. 2006. Charcoal anatomy potential, wood diameter and radial growth. In A

Dufraisse (ed.) Charcoal Analysis: New Analytical Tools and Methods for

Archaeology: Paper from the Table Ronde Held in Basal 2004, pp. 47–60. Oxford:

Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1483

Dufraisse A. 2011. Interpretation of firewood management as a socio-ecological indicator.

SAGVNTVM Extra 11:179–180

95

Dufraisse A. 2012. Firewood and woodland management in their social and ecological

dimensions: new perspectives. In E Badal, Y Carrión Marco, M Macías Enguídanos,

M Ntinou (eds.) Wood and Charcoal Evidence for Human and Natural History, pp.

65–74. Spain: SAGVNTVM Extra 13

Dufraisse A, Coubray S, Girardclos O, Nocus N, Lemoine M, et al. 2018. Anthraco-typology

as a key approach to past firewood exploitation and woodland management

reconstructions. Dendrological reference dataset modelling with dendro-

anthracological tools. Quaternary International 463:232–249

Dussol L, Elliott M, Théry-Parisot I. 2017. Experimental anthracology: Evaluating the role of

combustion processes in the representivity of archaeological charcoal records in

tropical forests, a case study from the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological

Science: Reports 12:480–490

Easdale S, Jacomb C. 1982. Coromandel Coastal survey: A study of Archaeological Sites on

the Beachs of the Coromandel Penisula [unpublished report]. Hauraki Catchment

Board, report 121

Ellis D. 2001. Whitianga: A report commissinoed by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Wai 705

claim [unpublished report]

Ellis SM, Steyn HS. 2003. Practical significance (effect sizes) versus or in combination with

statistical significance (p-values). Management Dynamics 12(4):51–53

Figueiral I, Mosbrugger V. 2000. A review of charcoal analysis as a tool for assessing

Quaternary and Tertiary environments: achievements and limits. Palaeogeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 164(1–4):397–407

Firth R. 1929. Primitive Economics of the New Zealand Maori. London: George Routledge &

Sons Ltd

Furey L. 2002. Archaeological Investigations Whitianga Waterways [unpublished report]

96

Furey L. 2003a. Investigation of Archaeological Site T11/624, Whitianga [unpublished

report]

Furey L. 2003b. Investigations of T11/926, Cook Drive, Whitianga [unpublished report]

Furey L. 2006. Maori Gardening: An Archaeological Perspective. Wellington: Department of

Conservation

Furey L, Petchey F, Sewell B, Green R. 2008. New observations on the stratigraphy and

radiocarbon dates as the Cross Creek Site, Opito, Coromandel Peninsula. Archaeology

in New Zealand 51(1):46–64

Gallagher D. 2014. Formation processes of the macrobotanical record. In JM Marston (ed.)

Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany, J d’Alpoim Guedes, C Warinner, pp. 19–34.

Bolder: University Press of Colorado

Gao X, Norwood M, Frederick C, McKee A, Masiello CA, Louchouarn P. 2016. Organic

geochemical approaches to identifying formation processes for middens and charcoal-

rich features. Organic Geochemistry 94:1–11

Godwin H, Tansley AG. 1941. Prehistoric Charcoals as Evidence of Former Vegetation, Soil

and Climate. Journal of Ecology 29(1):117–126

Goldie WH. 1904. Maori medical lore: Notes on the causes of disease and treatment of the

sick among the Maori people of New Zealand, as believed and practised in former

times, together with some account of various ancient rites connected with the same.

Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 37:1–120

Good I. 1953. The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population

parameters. Biometrika 40(3):237–264

Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the

measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4(4):379–391

Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. 2011. Estimating species richness. Biological Diversity: Frontiers in

Measurement and Assessment 12:39–54

97

Goudie A. 2006. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment: Past, Present, and Future,

6th ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishers

Graeme M. 2012. Estuarine Vegetation Survey Purangi Estuary [unpublished report]. Natural

Solutions Contract Report. 12/109

Graeme M, Dahm J, Kendal H. 2010. Coromandel Peninsula: Ecological assessment of

natural character [unpublished report]. Natural Solutions Contract Report. 09/087

Grimm EC. 1993. TiliaIT. Version 2.0. Springfield: Illinois State Museum, Research and

Collections Center

Gumbley W, Laumea M, Sutton M. 2018. Hot Water Beach: Archaeological report for site

T11/115 [unpublished report]

Hageman JB, Goldstein DJ. 2009. An integrated assessment of archaeobotanical recovery

methods in the Neotropical rainforest of northern Belize: flotation and dry screening.

Journal of Archaeological Science 36(12):2841–52

Hally DJ. 1981. Plant Preservation and the Content of Paleobotanical Samples: A Case Study.

American Antiquity 46(04):723–42

Harmsworth G, Awatere S, Robb M. 2016. Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to

inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology and Society

21(4):1–15

Harris J, Campbell M. 2012. The Mill Road Site, Whitianga [unpublished report]. CFG

Heritage

Hearn D. 2017. Perennial growth, form and architecture of angiosperm trees. In A Groover, Q

Cronk (eds.) Comparative and Evolutionary Genomics of Angiosperm Trees, Vol. 21.

pp. 179–204. Cham: Springer International Publishing

Heenan PB, Moar NT. 1997. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand

26. Rutaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 35(2):229–242

98

Henry A, Théry-Parisot I. 2014. From Evenk campfires to prehistoric hearths: charcoal

analysis as a tool for identifying the use of rotten wood as fuel. Journal of

Archaeological Science 52:321–336

Hiroa TR. 1950. The Coming of the Māori, 2nd ed. Wellington: Māori Purposes Fund Board.

Hoffmann A. 2010. Archaeological Investigation of site T11/928, Cooks Beach, Coromandel

Peninsula: Final Report [unpublished report]

Hoffmann A. 2015. Results of exploratory investigations at Part Dacre Grant SA4A/631, 720

Purangi Road, Cooks Beach, Coromandel Peninsula: HNZ authority 2015/197 -

Assessment of archaeological values and effects of proposed subdivision earthworks

Stage 1 (PHASES 1 and 2) as background for a general authority to destroy

[unpublished report]

Hoffmann A. 2016. Final report: Investigation of Archaeological site T11/914, Taputapuatea

Stream, Whitianga, Mercury Bay - Stage 4E [unpublished report]

Hoffmann A. 2017. Investigation of archaeological site T11/2789, Cook’s Beach (Pukaki),

Mercury Bay: final report. HNZ authorities 2-15/867 & 2015/1022 [unpublished

report]

Hogg AG, Hua Q, Blackwell PG, Niu M, Buck CE, et al. 2013. SHCal13 Southern

Hemisphere calibration, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1889–1903

Holdaway SJ, Emmitt J, Furey L, Jorgensen A, O’Regan G, et al. 2019. Māori settlement of

New Zealand: The Anthropocene as a process: Māori settlement of New Zealand: The

Anthropocene as a process. Archaeology in Oceania 54(1):17–34

Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A. 2016. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of

species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(12):1451–1456

Huebert JM, Allen MS. 2016. Six centuries of anthropogenic forest change on a Polynesian

high island: Archaeological charcoal records from the Marquesas Islands. Quaternary

Science Reviews 137:79–96

99

Huisman DJ, Braadbaart F, van Wijk IM, van Os BJH. 2012. Ashes to ashes, charcoal to dust:

micromorphological evidence for ash-induced disintegration of charcoal in Early

Neolithic (LBK) soil features in Elsloo (The Netherlands). Journal of Archaeological

Science 39(4):994–1004

Humphreys E, Tyler A. 1990. Coromandel Ecological Region. Survey report for the protected

natural areas programme [unpublished report]

Hwang W-H, Lin C-W, Shen T-J. 2015. Good-Turing frequency estimation in a finite

population: Good-Turing frequency estimation in a finite population. Biometrical

Journal 57(2):321–39

IAWA Committee. 1989. IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification.

IAWA Bulletin 10(3):219–332

IAWA Committee. 2004. IAWA list of microscopic features of softwood identification. IAWA

Journal 25(1):1–70

IBM Corp. 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. New York: IBM Corp.

Jacobs W. 1992. Coromandel Peninsula. Christchurch: Kowhai Publishing

Jacomb C, Holdaway RN, Allentoft ME, Bunce M, Oskam CL, et al. 2014. High-precision

dating and ancient DNA profiling of moa (Aves: Dinornithiformes) eggshell

documents a complex feature at Wairau Bar and refines the chronology of New

Zealand settlement by Polynesians. Journal of Archaeological Science 50:24–30

Jude F, Marguerie D, Badalyan R, Smith AT, Delwaide A. 2016. Wood resource management

based on charcoals from the Bronze Age site of Gegharot (central Armenia).

Quaternary International 395:31–44

Judge C, Bickler S, Turner M. 2013. Site T11/1030, Hahei, Coromandel Peninsula: Final

Report on Archaeological Investigation. In fulfilment of NZHPT Authority No.

2012/515. Clough and Associates Monograph Series 13. Auckland: Clough and

Associates Ltd

100

Kaal J, Carrión Marco Y, Asouti E, Martín Seijo M, Martínez Cortizas A, et al. 2011. Long-

term deforestation in NW Spain: linking the Holocene fire history to vegetation

change and human activities. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(1–2):161–175

Kabukcu C. 2018a. Identification of woodland management practices and tree growth

conditions in archaeological fuel waste remains: A case study from the site of

Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia, Turkey. Quaternary International 463:282–297

Kabukcu C. 2018b. Wood Charcoal Analysis in Archaeology. In E Pişkin, A Marciniak, M

Bartkowiak (eds.) Environmental Archaeology, pp. 133–54. Cham: Springer

International Publishing

Keepax CA. 1988. Charcoal Analysis with particular reference to archaeological sites in

Britain. PhD thesis. London: University of London

Kellow AV, Bayly MJ, Mitchell KA, Markham KR, Brownsey PJ. 2003. A taxonomic

revision of Hebe informal group “Connatae” (Plantaginaceae*), based on morphology

and flavonoid chemistry. New Zealand Journal of Botany 41(4):613–635

Kelly D, Ladley JJ, Robertson AW, Anderson SH, Wotton DM, Wiser SK. 2010. Mutualisms

with the wreckage of an avifauna: the status of bird pollination and fruit- dispersal in

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1):66-85

Kelly J. 1999. Maori maps. Cartographica 26(2):1–30

Kessels & Associates. 2010. Significant Natural Areas of the Thames-Coromandel District:

Terrestrial and Wetland Ecosystems [unpublished report]. Environment Waikato

Technical Report. 2010/36

Kim N-H, Hanna RB. 2006. Morphological characteristics of Quercus variabilis charcoal

prepared at different temperatures. Wood Science and Technology 40(5):392–401

Kirk RE. 1996. Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and

psychological measurement 56(5):746–759

101

Kitzberger T, Perry G, Paritsis J, Gowda J, Tepley A, et al. 2016. Fire–vegetation feedbacks

and alternative states: common mechanisms of temperate forest vulnerability to fire in

southern and New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany

54(2):247–272

Kumar TA. 2010. Kia Māia ki te Kānga o Tā Koutou Ahi: Keeping the Home Fires Burning.

MA thesis. Wellington: Victoria University

Kunin WE. 1998. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science

281(5382):1513–1515

Lancelotti C, Madella M, Ajithprasad P, Petrie CA. 2010. Temperature, compression and

fragmentation: an experimental analysis to assess the impact of taphonomic processes

on charcoal preservation. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 2(4):307–320

Lauri P-E. 2009. Does plant architecture only result from growing meristems? Atlan’s

principle of life and death as regulated morphogenetic processes. In W Karam (ed.)

Tree Growth: Influences, Layers and Types, pp. 45–55. New York: Nova Science

Publishers

Leach H. 1980. Incompatible land use patterns in Māori food production. New Zealand

Archaeological Association Newsletter 23:135–147

Leach H. 1984. 1,000 Years of Gardening in New Zealand. Wellington, N.Z.: A.H. & A.W.

Reed Ltd

Leach H. 2003. Did East Polynesians have a concept of luxury foods? World Archaeology

34(3):442–457

Leach H. 2005. Gardens without weeds? Pre‐European Maori gardens and inadvertent

introductions. New Zealand Journal of Botany 43(1):271–284

Leach H, Stowe CJ. 2005. Oceanic arboriculture at the margins: The case of the karaka

(Corynocarpus Laevigatus) in Aotearoa. The Journal of the Polynesian Society

114(1):7–27

102

Leathwick JR, Rogers GM. 1996. Modelling relationships between environment and canopy

composition in secondary vegetation in Central North Island, New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology 20:147–161

Lee G-A. 2012. Taphonomy and sample size estimation in paleoethnobotany. Journal of

Archaeological Science 39(3):648–655

Ludemann T, Nelle O. 2017. Anthracology: local to global significance of charcoal science.

Quaternary International 457:1–5

Marguerie D, Hunot J-Y. 2007. Charcoal analysis and dendrology: data from archaeological

sites in north-western France. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1417–1433

Marquer L, Lebreton V, Otto T, Valladas H, Haesaerts P, et al. 2012. Charcoal scarcity in

Epigravettian settlements with mammoth bone dwellings: the taphonomic evidence

from Mezhyrich (Ukraine). Journal of Archaeological Science 39(1): 109-120

Marston JM. 2014. Ratios and simple statistics in paleoethnobotanical analysis: Data

exploration and hypothesis testing. In JM Marston, J d’Alpoim Guedes, C Warinner

(eds.) Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany, pp. 163–180. Bolder: University Press

of Colarado

Martín M, Bettencourt AMS, Abad E, García JCL. 2017. Firewood and timber exploitation

during the third and second millennia BC in northwestern Iberia: Wood resources,

territories and chaîne opératoire. Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar «Cultura,

Espaço e Memória» (CITCEM): 115–135

Martín-Seijo M, César Vila M. 2019. Oak, ash and pine: the role of firewood in funerary

rituals at the Roman site of Reza Vella (Ourense, Spain). Archaeological and

Anthropological Sciences 11(5):1911–1926

103

Martín-Seijo M, Pedro Tereso J, Bettencourt AMS, Sampaio HA, Abad Vidal E, Vidal Caeiro

L. 2017. Socio-ecology of Early and Middle Bronze Age communities in the

northwest Atlantic region of Iberia: Wood resources procurement and forest

management. Quaternary International 437:90–101

Martín-Seijo M, Silva VMF, Bettencourt AMS. 2015. Carbonised wooden objects and wood

charcoal from an Iron Age feasting context in North-western Iberia: The case study of

Frijão (Braga, Portugal). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2:538–550

Maxwell J, McCoy M, Tromp M, Hoffman A, Barber IG. 2017. The difficult place of

deserted coast in archaeology: New archaeological research on Cooks Beach

(Puakaki), Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. The Journal of Island and Coastal

Archaeology: 1–20

Maxwell JJ. 2015. The Moriori. The integration of Arboriculture and Agroforestry in an East

Polynesian Society. PhD thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago

Maxwell JJ. 2017. Conservation and Restoration of a Cultural Forest Landscape: Protecting

the Forests Created by Moriori on Chatham Island. Conservation and Management of

Archaeological Sites 19(3):197–209

Maxwell JJ, Howarth JD, Vandergoes MJ, Jacobsen GE, Barber IG. 2016. The timing and

importance of arboriculture and agroforestry in a temperate East Polynesia Society,

the Moriori, Rekohu (Chatham Island). Quaternary Science Reviews 149:306–325

McDonnell H. 2018. Captain Herd and the New Zealand Company Settlers on the Barque

Rosanna 1825-1827: Includes the Journal of Thomas Shepherd, revised ed. Lower

Hutt: Vera Publications

McGlone MS. 1983. Polynesian Deforestation of New Zealand: A Preliminary Synthesis.

Archaeology in Oceania 18(1):11–25

McGlone MS. 1989. The Polynesian settlement of New Zealand in relation to environmental

and biotic changes. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 12:115–129

104

McGlone MS. 2001. The origin of the indigenous grasslands of south eastern South Island in

relation to pre-human woody ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 25(1):1–

15

McGlone MS, Richardson SJ, Burge OR, Perry GLW, Wilmshurst JM. 2017. Palynology and

the Ecology of the New Zealand Conifers. Frontiers in Earth Science 5:1-23

McGlone MS, Wilmshurst JM. 1999. Dating initial Maori environmental impact in New

Zealand. Quaternary International 59(1):5–16

McGlone MS, Wilmshurst JM, Leach HM. 2005. An ecological and historical review of

bracken (Pteridium esculentum) in New Zealand, and its cultural significance. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology 29(2):165–184

McIntosh R. 1939. Milestones to Centuries: Historic Mecury Bay. The New Zealand Railways

Magazine 14(1):17–19

McLaren RG, Cameron KC. 1996. Soil Science: Sustainable Production and Environmental

Protection. Auckland. Oxford University Press.

McParland L, Collinson ME, Scott AC, Steart DC, Grassineau NV, Gibbons SJ. 2007. Fern

and fires: Experimental charring of ferns compared to wood and implications for

paleobiology, paleoecology, coal petrology, and isotope geochemistry. PALAIOS.

22(5):528–538

McParland LC, Collinson ME, Scott AC, Campbell G. 2009. The use of reflectance values for

the interpretation of natural and anthropogenic charcoal assemblages. Archaeological

and Anthropological Sciences 1(4):249–261

McParland LC, Collinson ME, Scott AC, Campbell G, Veal R. 2010. Is vitrification in

charcoal a result of high temperature burning of wood? Journal of Archaeological

Science 37(10):2679–2687

105

McWethy DB, Higuera PE, Whitlock C, Veblen TT, Bowman DMJS, et al. 2013. A

conceptual framework for predicting temperate ecosystem sensitivity to human

impacts on fire regimes: Evaluating human impacts on fire regimes. Global Ecology

and Biogeography 22(8):900–912

McWethy DB, Whitlock C, Wilmshurst JM, McGlone MS, Fromont M, et al. 2010. Rapid

landscape transformation in South Island, New Zealand, following initial Polynesian

settlement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(50):21343–21348

McWethy DB, Whitlock C, Wilmshurst JM, McGlone MS, Li X. 2009. Rapid deforestation of

South Island, New Zealand, by early Polynesian fires. The Holocene 19(6):883–897

McWethy DB, Wilmshurst JM, Whitlock C, Wood JR, McGlone MS. 2014. A High-

Resolution Chronology of Rapid Forest Transitions following Polynesian Arrival in

New Zealand. PLoS ONE 9(11):1–9

Mead H. 2016. Tikanga Maori: Living By Maori Values, Revised ed. Wellington: Huia (NZ)

Ltd

Meylan BA, Butterfield BG. 1978. The Structure of New Zealand Woods. Wellington: New

Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

Miller NF. 1985. Paleoethnobotanical Evidence for Deforestation in Ancient Iran: A Case

Study of Urban Mayan. Journal of Ethnobiology 5(1):1–19

Miller RI, Wiegert RG. 1989. Documenting Completeness, Species-Area Relations, and the

Species-Abundance Distribution of a Regional Flora. Ecology. 70(1):16–22

Millerstroms S, Coil J. 2008. Pre-Contact Arboriculture and Vegetation in the Marquesas

Islands, : Charcoal Identification and Radiocarbon Dates from

Hatiheu Valley, Nuku Hiva. Asian Perspectives 47(2):330–351

Millington WF, Chaney WR. 1973. 5 - Shedding of Shoots and Branches. In TT Kozlowski

(ed.) Shedding of Plants Parts, pp. 149–204. New York: Academic Press

106

Monin P. 2001. This Is My Place: Hauraki Contested 1769-1875. Wellington: Bridget

Williams Books

Moore PR. 1983. Geology and geochemistry of obsidian deposits in the Cook Beach-Hahei

area, Coromandel Peninsula: a contribution to archaeological sourcing studies. New

Zealand Journal of Science 26:523–533

Moore PR. 2015. Archaeological Monitoring and Investigations at Hahei Holiday Resort

(Block C), Hahei, Coromandel Peninsula (HPT Authority 2013/352) [unpublished

report]

Moorefield JC. 2019. Te Aka Online Māori dictionary. https://maoridictionary.co.nz

[accessed 19/9/2019]

Moreno CE, Halffter G. 2000. Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories

using species accumulation curves. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(1):149–158

Moskal-del Hoyo M. 2012. The use of wood in funerary pyres: random gathering or special

selection of species? Case study of three necropolises from Poland. Journal of

Archaeological Science 39(11):3386–3395

Moskal-del Hoyo M, Wachowiak M, Blanchette RA. 2010. Preservation of fungi in

archaeological charcoal. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(9):2106–2116

New Zealand Archaeolological Association. 2009. Archsite: Archaeological site recording

scheme. www.archsite.org.nz [accessed 10/10/2019]

Newnham R, Lowe DJ, Gehrels M, Augustinus P. 2018. Two-step human–environmental

impact history for northern New Zealand linked to late-Holocene climate change. The

Holocene 28(7):1093–1106

107

O’Carroll E, Mitchell F. 2012. Charcoal sample guidelines: new methodological approaches

towards the quantification and identification of charcoal samples retrieved from

archaeological sites. In E Badal, Y Carrión Marco, M Macías Enguídanos, M Ntinou

(eds.) Wood and Charcoal Evidence for Human and Natural History, pp. 275–82,

Spain: SAGVNTVM Extra 13

Ogden J, Basher L, McGlone MS. 1998. Fire, Forest Regeneration and Links with Early

Human Habitation: Evidence from New Zealand. Annals of Botany 81(6):687–696

Ogden J, Deng Y, Boswijk G, Sandiford A. 2003. Vegetation changes since early Maori fires

in Waipoua Forest, Northern New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science

30(6):753–767

Ogden J, Deng Y, Horrocks M, Nichol S, Anderson S. 2006. Sequential impacts of

Polynesian and European settlement on vegetation and environmental processes

recorded in sediments at Whangapoua Estuary, Great Barrier Island, New Zealand.

Regional Environmental Change 6(1–2):25–40

Ogden J, Stewart GH. 1995. Community dynamics of the New Zealand conifers. In NJ

Enright, RS Hill (eds.) Ecology of the Southern Conifers, pp. 165–72. Melbourne:

Melbourne University Press

Patel RN. 1967a. Wood anatomy of Podocarpaceae indigenous to New Zealand: 1.

Dacrydium. New Zealand Journal of Botany 5(2):171–84

Patel RN. 1967b. Wood anatomy of Podocarpaceae indigenous to New Zealand: 2.

Podocarpus. New Zealand Journal of Botany 5(3):307–21

Patel RN. 1968a. Wood anatomy of Cupressaceae and Araucariaceae indigenous to New

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 6(1):9–18

Patel RN. 1968b. Wood anatomy of Podocarpaceae indigenous to New Zealand: 3.

Phyllocladus. New Zealand Journal of Botany 6(1):3–8

108

Patel RN. 1973a. Wood Anatomy of the Dicotyledons Indigenous to New Zealand: 1.

Cornaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 11(1):3–22

Patel RN. 1973b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 2.

Escalloniaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 11(3):421–434

Patel RN. 1973c. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 3.

Monimiaceae and Atherospermataceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 11(4):587–

598

Patel RN. 1974a. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 4.

Winteraceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 12(1):19–32

Patel RN. 1974b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 5.

Verbenaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 12(1):33–44

Patel RN. 1974c. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 6.

Meliaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 12(2):159–166

Patel RN. 1974d. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 7.

Santalaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 12(4):431–444

Patel RN. 1975a. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 8.

Corynocarpaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 13(1):19–29

Patel RN. 1975b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 9.

Sapindaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 13(2):131–140

Patel RN. 1975c. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 10.

Chloranthaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 13(2):141–148

Patel RN. 1978. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 11.

Oleaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 16(1):1–6

Patel RN. 1986. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 15. Fagaceae.

New Zealand Journal of Botany 24(2):189–202

109

Patel RN. 1987. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 16.

Lauraceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 25(4):477–488

Patel RN. 1988. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 17. Tiliaceae.

New Zealand Journal of Botany 26(3):337–343

Patel RN. 1989. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 18.

Elaeocarpaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 27(3):325–335

Patel RN. 1990a. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 19.

Gesneriaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 28(1):85–94

Patel RN. 1990b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 20.

Cunoniaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 28(3):347–355

Patel RN. 1991. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 21.

Loranthaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 29(4):429–449

Patel RN. 1992. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 22.

Proteaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 30(4):415–428

Patel RN. 1994. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand 23.

Myrtaceae — subfam. Leptospermoideae (part I). New Zealand Journal of Botany

32(1):95–112

Patel RN. 1995a. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand: 24.

Fabaceae—subfam. Faboideae (part I). New Zealand Journal of Botany 33(1):121–

130

Patel RN. 1995b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand. 25.

Myrtaceae — subfam. Myrtoideae (part I). New Zealand Journal of Botany

33(4):541–555

Patel RN, Bowles A. 1978a. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand:

12. Icacinaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 16(1):7–12

110

Patel RN, Bowles A. 1978b. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand:

13. Moraceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 16(1):13–19

Patel RN, Bowles A. 1980. Wood anatomy of the dicotyledons indigenous to New Zealand

14. Piperaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany 18(4):507–513

Pearsall D. 2000. Paleoethnobotany; A Handbook of Procedures, 2nd ed. London: Academic

Press.

Pearsall D. 2019. Case Studies in Paleoethnobotany: Understanding Ancient Lifeways

through the Study of Phytoliths, Starch, Macroremains, and Pollen. New York:

Routledge

Perry GL, Wilmshurst JM, McGlone MS. 2014. Ecology and long-term history of fire in New

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 38(2):157-176

Perry GLW, Ogden J, Enright NJ, Davy LV. 2010. Vegetation patterns and trajectories in

disturbed landscapes, Great Barrier Island, northern New Zealand. New Zealand

Journal of Ecology 34(3):311-323

Perry GLW, Wilmshurst JM, McGlone MS, McWethy DB, Whitlock C. 2012. Explaining

fire-driven landscape transformation during the Initial Burning Period of New

Zealand’s prehistory. Global Change Biology 18(5):1609–1621

Perry GLW, Wilmshurst JM, Ogden J, Enright NJ. 2015. Exotic Mammals and Invasive

Plants Alter Fire-Related Thresholds in Southern Temperate Forested Landscapes.

Ecosystems 18(7):1290–1305

Phillips C. 2000. Waihou Journeys: The Archaeology of 400 Years of Māori Settlement.

Auckland: Auckland University Press

Phillips C. 2017. Temporality in a Maori landscape: the progression of inter-related activities

over 400 years in the Hauraki Plain, New Zealand. In U Rajala, P Mills (eds.) Forms

of Dwelling: 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeology, pp. 190–214. Oxford;

Philadelphia: Oxbow Books

111

Phillips FL. 1995. Nga Tohu a Tainui Landmarks of Tainui: A Geographical Record of Tainui

Traditional History, Vol. 2. Otorohanga: Tohu Publishers

Picornell Gelabert L. 2011. People, trees and charcoal: some reflections about the use of

ethnoarchaeology in archaeological charcoal analysis. SAGVNTVM Extra 11:185–86

Picornell Gelabert L, Asouti E, Martí EA. 2011. The ethnoarchaeology of firewood

management in the Fang villages of Equatorial Guinea, central : Implications

for the interpretation of wood fuel remains from archaeological sites. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 30(3):375–384

Picornell-Gelabert L, Allué E, Courty MA. 2017. An archaeology of fuels: Social and

environmental factors in behavioural strategies of multi-resource management.

Quaternary International 431:2–5

Picornell-Gelabert L, Servera-Vives G. 2017. Landscape practices and everyday life in

domestic spaces in Bronze Age Mallorca (Balearic Islands): Perspectives for and

archaeology of fuel and firewood. Quaternary International 431:73–89

Piqué R. 1999. Quantification in Archaeobotany: Charcoal Analysis and Fire- Wood

Management. In J.A. Barcelo, I. Briz, and A. Vila (eds.) New Techniques for Old

Times. Proceedings of the 26th Conference, Barcelona, March 1998, pp. 188-200.

Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 757

Popper V. 1988. Selecting quantitative measurements in paleoethnobotany. In C. Harstorf and

V. Popper (eds.) Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural

Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, pp. 53–71. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press

Prebble M, Anderson AJ, Augustinus P, Emmitt J, Fallon SJ, et al. 2019. Early tropical crop

production in marginal subtropical and temperate Polynesia. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 116(18):8824–8833

112

Prior J, Alvin K. 1983. Structural changes on charring woods of Dichrostachys and Salix from

Southern Africa. IAWA Journal 4:197–206

Prior J, Alvin KL. 1986. Structural Changes on Charring Woods of Dichrostachys and Salix

from Southern Africa: The Effect of Moisture Content. IAWA Journal 7(3):243-250

Py V, Ancel B. 2006. Archaeological experiments in fire-setting: protocol, fuel and

anthracological approach. In A Dufraisse (ed.) Charcoal Analysis: New Analystical

Tools Adn Methods for Archaeology: Paper from the Table Ronde Held in Basal 2004,

pp. 71–82. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1483

Ramsey CB. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360

Raven P, Evert R, Eichhorn S. 1999. Biology of Plants, 6th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman

and Company Worth Publishers

Reed AH. 1964. The New Story of the Kauri, 3rd ed. Wellington, N.Z.: A H & A W Reed Ltd.

Reed AH. 1972. The Gum Diggers: The Story of Kauri Gum. Wellington: A H & A W Reed

Riddle JI. 1996. Saltspray & Sawdust. Coroglen: Gumtown Publishers,

Robin V, Talon B, Nelle O. 2015. Charcoal: Resource and ubiquitous proxy. Quaternary

International 366:1–2

Rogers GM. 1994. North Island seral tussock grasslands 1. Origins and land-use history. New

Zealand Journal of Botany 32(3):271–286

Rogers GM, Walker S, Basher LM, Lee WG. 2007. Frequency and impact of Holocene fire in

eastern South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31(2):129–142

Roos CI, Scott AC. 2018. A comparison of charcoal reflectance between crown and surface

fire contexts in dry south-west USA forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

27(6):396-406

Roskruge N. 2011. Traditional Māori horticultural and ethnopedological praxis in the New

Zealand landscape. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

22(2):200–212

113

Ryan PM. 2012. The Raupō Dictionary of Modern Māori, 4th ed. Auckland: Penguin Group

(NZ).

Salisbury EJ, Jane FW. 1940. Charcoals from Maiden Castle and their Significance in

Relation to the Vegetation and Climatic Conditions in Prehistoric Times. The Journal

of Ecology. 28(2):310-325

Salmond A. 1992. Two Worlds: First Meetings between Maori and Europeans, 1642-1772.

Honolulu: University of Press

Salmond A. 2017. Tears of Rangi: Experiments across Worlds. Auckland: Auckland

University Press

Schaaf JM. 1981. A method for reliable and quantifiable subsampling of archaeological

features of floatation. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6(2):219–248

Schaffer EL. 1966. Review of Information Related to the Charring Rate of Wood, Vol. 145.

New York: Forest Products Laboratory

Scheel-Ybert R. 2000. Vegetation stability in the Southeastern Brazilian coastal area from

5500 to 1400 14C yr BP deduced from charcoal analysis. Review of Palaeobotany and

Palynology 110(1–2):111–138

Scheel-Ybert R. 2002. Evaluation of sample reliability in extant and fossil assemblages. In S

Thiébault (ed.) Charcoal Analysis: Methodological Approaches, Palaeoecological

Results, and Wood Uses: Proceedings of the Second International Meeting of

Anthracology, Paris, September 2000, pp. 9–24. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR

International Series 1063

Scheel-Ybert R. 2016. Charcoal collections of the world. IAWA Journal 37(3):489–505

Scheel-Ybert R, Caromano CF, de Azevedo LW. 2016. Of forests and gardens landscape,

environment, and cultural choices in Amazonia, southeaster and southern Brazil from

c.3000 to 300 cal BP. Cardernos do LEPAARQ 13: 426-458

114

Scheel-Ybert R, Gaspar MD. 2014. Anthracological Research on the Brazilian Coast:

Paleoenvironment and Plant Exploitation of Sambaqui Moundbuilders. In M Madella,

C Lancelotti, and M. Savard (eds.) Ancient Plants and People: Contemporary Trends

in Archaeobotany. Tucson: University of Arizona Press

Schiffer MB. 1996. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press

Schoch WH. 1986. Wood and charcoal anatomy: Problems and solutions. SAGVNTVM Extra

11: 43-44

Scholtz A. 1986. Palynological and palaeobotanical studies in the southern Cape. MA thesis.

Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch

Schweingruber FH. 2007. Wood Structure and Environment. Berlin ; New York: Springer

Scott AC. 2010. Charcoal recognition, taphonomy and uses in palaeoenvironmental analysis.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 291(1–2):11–39

Scott AC, Cripps JA, Collinson ME, Nichols GJ. 2000. The taphonomy of charcoal following

a recent heathland fire and some implications for the interpretation of fossil charcoal

deposits. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 164:1-31

Scott AC, Damblon F. 2010. Charcoal: Taphonomy and significance in geology, botany and

archaeology. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 291(1–2):1–10

Sewell B. 2002. Archaeological Monitoring of Trenches for Cooks Beach Sewage Scheme.

Part I- Ferry Landing to Cooks Beach [unpublished report]

Sewell B. 2003. Archaeological Monitoring of Trenches for Cooks Beach Sewage Scheme.

Part II- Cooks Beach [unpublished report]

Shackleton CM, Prins F. 1992. Charcoal analysis and the “Principle of least effort”—A

conceptual model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(6):631–37

Shortland E. 1856. Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, 2nd ed. London:

Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts

115

Simmons A. 2002. Purangi Reserve, boat ramp upgrade project: Report on Archaeological

Monitoring and data recovery at T11/593 [unpublished report]

Simmons DR. 1975. Cyclical aspect of early Maori agriculture. Records of the Auckland

Institute and Museum 12:83-90

Smart TL, Hoffman ES. 1988. Environmental interpretation of archaeological charcoal. In C

Hastorff and V Popper (eds.) Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and

Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, pp. 167–205. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press

Smith N. 1942. Native Custom and Law Affecting Native Land. Wellington: The Maori

Purposes Fund Board

Soberon J, Llorente J. 1993. The Use of Species Accumulation Functions for the Prediction of

Species Richness. Conservation Biology 7(3):480–88

Steward GA, Beveridge AE. 2010. A review of New Zealand kauri (Agathis australis (D.Don)

Lindl.): its ecology, history, growth and potential for management for timber. New

Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 40:33-59

Stowe CJ. 2003. The ecology and ethnobotany of karaka (Corynocarpus Laevigatus) MSc

thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago

Struever S. 1968. Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-Scale Archaeological

Remains. American Antiquity. 33(3):353–62

Stubbs BJ, Lennon J, Specht A, Taylor J. 2012. From Kauri to kumara: Forests and people of

the Pacific Islands. In S Feary (ed.) Australis’s Ever-Changing Forests VI:

Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Australian Forest History, pp.

202–7. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies

116

Stuijits I. 2006. Charocal sampling site and procedures: Practical themes from Ireland. In A

Dufraisse (ed.) Charcoal Analysis: New Analystical Tools And Methods for

Archaeology: Paper from the Table Ronde Held in Basal 2004, pp. 25–34. Oxford:

Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1483

Sutherland JI. 2003. Miocene petrified wood and associated borings and termite faecal pellets

from Hukatere Peninsula, Kaipara Harbour, North Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of

the Royal Society of New Zealand 33(1):395–414

Sutton DG. 1986. Maori demographic change, 1769-1840: The inner workings of “a

picturesque but illogical smile.” The Journal of the Polynesian Society 95(3):291–339

Taylor R. 1855. Te Ika a Maui. London: Wertheim and Macintosh

Terry C. 1842. New Zealand : Its Advantages and Prospects as a British Colony : With a Full

Account of the Land Claims, Sales of Crown Lands, Aborigines, Etc. Etc. London: T.

& W. Boone,

Théry-Parisot I. 2002. The gathering of wood during palaeolithic time. In S Thiébault (ed.)

Charcoal Analysis: Methodological Approaches, Palaeoecological Results, and Wood

Uses : Proceedings of the Second International Meeting of Anthracology, Paris,

September 2000, pp. 243–50. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1063

Théry-Parisot I, Chabal L, Chrzavzez J. 2010. Anthracology and taphonomy, from wood

gathering to charcoal analysis. A review of the taphonomic processes modifying

charcoal assemblages, in archaeological contexts. Palaeogeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 291(1–2):142–53

Théry-Parisot I, Henry A. 2012. Seasoned or green? Radial cracks analysis as a method for

identifying the use of green wood as fuel in archaeological charcoal. Journal of

Archaeological Science 39(2):381–88

117

Thompson GG, Withers PC, Pianka ER, Thompson SA. 2003. Assessing biodiversity with

species accumulation curves; inventories of small reptiles by pit-trapping in Western

Australia: Species accumulation curves for small reptiles. Austral Ecology 28(4):361–

83

Tūroa T. 1997. Nga Iwi o Hauraki: The Iwi of Hauraki. Paeroa: Hauraki Māori Trust Board

Tūroa T, Royal TAC. 2000. Te Takoto o Te Whenua o Hauraki = Hauraki Landmarks.

Auckland: Reed,

Tusenius ML. 1986. The study of charcoal from some southern African archaeological

contexts. MA thesis. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University

Tusenius ML. 1989. Charcoal Analytical Studies in the North-Eastern Cape, .

Goodwin Series 6:77

Veal R, O’Donnell L, McParland L. 2016. Reflectance - Current state of research and future

directions for archaeological charcoal; Results from a pilot study on Irish Bronze Age

cremation charcoals. Journal of Archaeological Science 75:72–81

Vennell R. 2019. The Meaning of Trees: The History and Use of New Zealand’s Native Trees.

Auckland: Harper Collins Publishers

Vidal-Matutano P, Henry A, Théry-Parisot I. 2017. Dead wood gathering among Neanderthal

groups: Charcoal evidence from Abric del Pastor and El Salt (Eastern Iberia). Journal

of Archaeological Science 80:109–21

Vidal-Matutano P, Hernández CM, Galván B, Mallol C. 2015. Neanderthal firewood

management: evidence from Stratigraphic Unit IV of Abric del Pastor (Eastern Iberia).

Quaternary Science Reviews 111:81–93

Wagner GE. 1982. Testing Flotation Recovery Rates. American Antiquity 47(1):127–32

Wagner GE. 1988. Comparability among recovery techniques. In C Hastorf and V Popper

(eds.) Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of

Archaeological Plant Remains, pp. 17–35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

118

Waitangi Tribunal. 2017. Ngāti Hei and The Trustees of the Hei o Wharekaho Settlement

Trust and the Crown: Deed of Settlement Schedule documents. New Zealand

Government

Wallace R. 2013. Charcoal and wood identification, site T11/1030, Hahei, Coromandel

Peninsula [unpublished report]. In C Judge, S Bickler and M Turner (authors) Site

T11/1030, Hahei, Coromandel Peninsula: Final Report on Archaeological

Investigation. In fulfilment of NZHPT Authority No. 2012/515, p. Appendix 4: 97-99.

Auckland: Clough and Associates Ltd.

Wallace R. 2014. An analysis of the charcoal assemblage from T10/777 [unpublished report].

In S Bickler et al. (authors) Opito Bay T10/777, Coromandel Peninsula:

Archaeological Excavation. Report in Fulfilment of NZHPT Authority No 2008-85, p.

Appendix 4: 200-205. Auckland: Clough and Associates Ltd.

Wallace R. 2015a. Charcoal identification [unpublished report]. In P Moore (author)

Archaeological Monitoring and Investigations at Hahei Holiday Resort (Block C),

Hahei, Coromandel Peninsula (HPT Authority 2013/352) [Unpublished Report], p.

Appendix 3: 30

Wallace R. 2015b. Charcoal identification site T11/2789, Cooks Beach, Coromandel

Peninsula [unpublished report]

Wallace R. 2016. Charcoal identification site T11/914, Whitianga [unpublished report]. In A

Hoffmann (author) Final Report: Investigation of Archaeological Site T11/914,

Taputapuatea Stream, Whitianga, Mercury Bay - Stage 4E [Unpublished Report], p.

Appendix E: 144-158

Wallace R. 2018. Sarah’s Gully charcoal and vegetation [unpublished report]. In J Davidson

(ed.) In Search of the North Island Archaic: Archaeological Excavations at Sarah’s

Gully, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand, from 1956 to 1960, Vol. 29, pp. 90-164.

Appendix 5 161-164

119

Wallace R, Holdaway SJ. 2017. Archaeological Charcoal Analysis in New Zealand. Journal

of Pacific Archaeology 8(2):17–30

Wallace R, Irwin G. 2004. The wooden artefacts from Kohika. In G Irwin (ed.) Kohika: The

Archaeology of a Late Māori Lake Village in the Ngāti Awa Rohe, Bay of Plenty, New

Zealand, pp. 83–121. Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press,

Wardle P. 1991. Vegetation of New Zealand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Warinner C, Guedes J d’Alpoim, Goode D. 2011. Paleobot.org: establishing open-access

online reference collections for archaeobotanical research. Vegetation History and

Archaeobotany 20(3):241–44

Waselkov GA. 1987. Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory 10:93–210

Watson PJ. 1976. In pursuit of prehistoric subsistence: A comparative account of some

contemporary floatation techniques. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):77–

100

Weeks ES, Walker S, Dymond JR, Shepherd JD, Clarkson BD. 2013. Patterns of past and

recent conversion of indigenous grasslands in the South Island, New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology 37(1):127–38

Weiner S. 2010. Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Wheeler EA. 2011. Inside Wood – A Web resource for hardwood anatomy. IAWA Journal

32(2):

White CE, Shelton CP. 2014. Recovering macrobotanical remains: Current methods and

techniques. In JM Marston, J d’Alpoim Guedes, C Warinner (eds.) Method and

Theory in Paleoethnobotany, eds. pp. 95–114. Bolder: University Press of Colarado

Willcox GH. 1974. A History of Deforestation as Indicated by Charcoal Analysis of Four

Sites in Eastern Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 24:117–33

120

Willcox GH. 2002. Evidence for ancient forest cover and deforestation from charcoal analysis

of ten archaeological sites on the Euphrates. In S Thiébault (ed.) Charcoal Analysis:

Methodological Approaches, Palaeoecological Results, and Wood Uses : Proceedings

of the Second International Meeting of Anthracology, Paris, September 2000, pp.

141–45. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1063

Williams E. 2009. Māori fire use and landscape changes in southern New Zealand. Journal of

Polynesian Society 118:175–89

Wilmshurst JM, Anderson AJ, Higham TFG, Worthy TH. 2008. Dating the late prehistoric

dispersal of Polynesians to New Zealand using the commensal Pacific rat.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(22):7676–80

Wilmshurst JM, Higham TFG, Allen H, Johns D, Phillips C. 2004. Early Maori settlement

impacts in northern coastal Taranaki, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology

28(2):167–79

Wilmshurst JM, Hunt TL, Lipo CP, Anderson AJ. 2011. High-precision radiocarbon dating

shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 108(5):1815–20

Wilson VR, Gould KS, Lovel PH, Aitken‐Christie J. 1998. Branch morphology and

abscission in kauri, Agathis australis (Araucariaceae). New Zealand Journal of Botany

36(1):135–140

Wolverton S, Dombrosky J, Lyman RL. 2016. Practical significance: ordinal scale data and

effect size in zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 26(2):255–

265

Wright NJ, Fairbairn AS, Faith JT, Matsumura K. 2015. Woodland modification in Bronze

and Iron Age central Anatolia: an anthracological signature for the Hittite state?

Journal of Archaeological Science 55:219–230

121

Wright P. 2003. Preservation or destruction of plant remains by carbonization? Journal of

Archaeological Science 30(5):577–583

Wright PJ. 2005. Flotation samples and some paleoethnobotanical implications. Journal of

Archaeological Science 32(1):19–26

Wyse SV, Wilmshurst JM, Burns BR, Perry GLW. 2018. New Zealand forest dynamics: a

review of past and present vegetation responses to disturbance, and development of

conceptual forest models. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 42(2):87–106

Zipf G. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Boston: Addison-Wesley

Press

122

Appendix A: Identification key Descriptions in the identification keys are from the sources referenced for each taxon. Taxon Features Description Hebe spp. Growth rings Slightly distinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Solitary or in radial multiples or clusters 2-5 cells 1978:238-239) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits large, bordered, oval to circular and alternate Helical thickenings Long in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with lenticular apertures and bordered Thin to moderately thick walled Axial Parenchyma Absent Rays Absent Leptospermum scoparium Growth rings Moderate to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield 1978: Vessels Diffuse porous to semi ring porous 90-91; Patel 1994:106-107) Solitary, radial multiples, tangential multiples, clusters 2-5 cells Simple perforations plates Intervessel pits vessel to fibre and vessel to axial parenchyma small, bordered, but vessel to ray oval to circular, minute to small and alternatively arranged, often vestured Tyloses sometimes present Individual vessel members medium length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Fibres with small bordered pits, apertures slit extended, sometimes vestured Thick to very thick walled Axial Parenchyma Abundant Scanty paratracheal Diffuse to diffuse in aggregate Rays Uniseriate to multiseriate 1-3 cells wide Heterogeneous type II and III Pits small, circular and simple

123

Taxon Features Description Kunzea spp. Growth rings Moderate to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Semi to ring porous 1978:88-89; Patel 1994:107- Solitary, tangential multiples or oblique pairs 108) Simple perforation plates Intervessel pits oval to circular to weakly angular, minute to small and alternatively arranged Frequently overlaid with a heavy warty layer Medium length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Bordered pits with lenticular apertures present in radial and tangential walls Thick to very thick walled Axial Parenchyma Abundant Scanty paratracheal Diffuse to diffuse in aggregates Rays Uniseriate and multiseriate 2-4 cells wide Heterogeneous types II and III Pits small, circular and simple Metrosideros excelsa Growth rings Indistinct to slightly distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Mostly solitary, rarely radial multiples and pairs 1978:94-95) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits, vessel to fibre and vessel to axial parenchyma small, bordered, but vessel to rays axially elongated and large, forming prominent cross sections, vestured Walls mostly smooth but sometimes overlaid with a warty layer short in length and wide Tracheid and fibres Small pits with lenticular apertures Moderately thick to thick walled Axial Parenchyma Abundant Scanty paratracheal Diffuse to diffuse in aggregates apotracheal Rays Multiseriate 2-4 cells wide Heterogeneous type II Pits small, circular and simple

124

Taxon Features Description Vitex lucens Growth rings Indistinct to slightly distinct (Meylan & Butterfield 1978: Vessels Solitary, radial multiples 2-4, occasionally oblique tangential pairs 242-243; Patel 1974:34,38) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits small, oval to circular and alternate, vessel to rays pits sometimes radially elongated without borders Tyloses present Wall mostly smooth Short in length and wide Tracheid and fibres Pits small, with slit extended apertures, and simple, more common on radial walls Thin to very thick walled Axial Parenchyma Moderately frequent to frequent Scanty to vasicentric paratracheal Diffuse to diffuse in aggregates sometimes banded apotracheal Rays Uniseriate and multiseriate 1-4 cells wide Homogeneous or heterogeneous types II and III Pits small, circular and simple Myoporum laetum Growth rings Indistinct to slightly distinct (Meylan & Butterfield 1978: Vessels Radial multiples 2-5 cells of irregular clusters 2-6 cells 240-241) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits small, bordered, circular to elongated and alternately arranged Walls smooth Short in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with lenticular apertures and bordered Thin to moderately thick walled Axial Parenchyma Scanty to vasicentric paratracheal sometimes banded confluent Sometimes diffuse in aggregates Thin walled with simple pits sometimes containing starch Rays Uniseriate and multiseriate 1-4 cells wide Heterogeneous types I and II Pits small, circular and simple

125

Taxon Features Description Dodonaea viscosa Growth rings Indistinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Solitary or radial multiples or clusters 2-4 cells 1978:162-163; Patel 1975:134, Simple perforation plate 138) Intervessel pits bordered, oval to extended in outline, alternative or irregular in arrangement Wall mostly smooth but sometimes deeply cut by extended pit apertures Average in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with slit extended apertures and mostly simple Very thick walled Axial Parenchyma Scanty to mostly vasicentric paratracheal and banded Sometimes diffuse to diffuse in aggregates Rays Uniseriate and multiseriate 1-4 cells wide Homogeneous Pits small, circular and simple Knightia excelsa Growth rings Slightly distinct to moderately distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Arranged in concentric bands alternating with growth ring 1978:74-75) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits bordered, oval in outline, and alternate Vessel to ray contact uncommon Trabeculae occur occasionally Short in length Tracheid and fibres Arranged in concentric bands alternating with growth ring Pits slightly bordered with slit extended apertures Axial Parenchyma Form narrows tangential bands between vessels and fibres Thin walled with simple pits Rays Two distinct sizes, Uniseriates and broad multiseriates 8-30 cells wide Multiseriate rays are either homogeneous or heterogeneous type III Pits small, circular and simple

126

Taxon Features Description Myrsine australis Growth rings Slightly distinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Solitary or in radial multiples of 2-5 cells 1978:194-195) Simple perforation plates Intervessel pits bordered, oval and alternate Prominent helical thickenings Long in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with lenticular apertures, and simple Angular in transverse outline and commonly septate Thin to moderately thick walled Axial Parenchyma Scanty paratracheal, occasionally vasicentric Rays Multiseriate 4-10 cells wide Heterogeneous type II Coriaria arborea Growth rings Slightly distinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Solitary or in irregular multiples 2-8 cells 1978:78-79) Almost transverse perforation plate Intervessel pits are bordered, oval, and alternate Walls smooth Short in length and wide Tracheid and fibres Pits small with slit extended to lenticular apertures, simple to slightly bordered Thin to moderately thick walled Angular in transverse outline Axial Parenchyma Vasicentric paratracheal, tending towards aliform and confluent Apotracheal diffuse in aggregates, sometime banded Rays Multiseriate, 10-20 cells wide Smaller rays composed entirely of small upright cells, while larger have procumbent cells at the centre Pits small, circular and simple

127

Taxon Features Description Avicennia marina var Vessels Solitary or radial multiples of 2-6 cells, rarely irregular clusters of 2-6 cells australasica Simple perforation plate (Meylan & Butterfield Intervessel pits bordered, small, almost circular in outline and alternate 1978:244-245) Wall smooth Short in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small, with slit extended apertures and simple Moderately thick to thick walled Angular in transverse outline and septate Parenchyma Axial parenchyma scanty to vasicentric paratracheal A few isolate apotracheal axial parenchyma cells among fibres Concentric band of axial and isodiametric parenchyma and thick walled sclereids also occur in association with the phloem strands Rays Heterogeneous with uprights cells 2-6 cells wide Olearia spp. Growth rings Slightly distinct to moderately distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Semi ring porous 1978:230-236) Solitary, radial multiples or irregular clusters 2-6 cells Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits bordered, oval and alternate or opposite Faint to prominent helical thickening present in some species Medium in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with lenticular apertures Thin to moderately thick walled Angular in transverse outline and septate Axial Parenchyma Scanty to vasicentric paratracheal, sometimes confluent Diffuse to diffuse in aggregates Rays Multiseriate 2-3 cells wide Heterogenous mixed upright and procumbent Pits small, circular and simple

128

Taxon Features Description Coprosma spp. Growth rings Slightly distinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Tending towards ring porosity 1978:206-221) Solitary, radial multiples 2-5 cells, irregular, tangential and oblique clusters 2-6 cells Simple perforation plates, some species have reticulate to simple and scalariform to simple combination plates and vestured perforations Intervessel pits bordered, oval and alternate, often vestured Some species have faint helical thickenings Long in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small with lenticular apertures Moderately thick to thick walled Angular in transverse outline Axial Parenchyma Scanty to vasicentric paratracheal, confluent in early wood of some species Diffuse and diffuse in aggregates Rays Multiseriate 2-8 cells wide Heterogeneous type II Sheath cells common in some species Pits small, circular and simple Pittosporum spp. Growth rings Indistinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Vessels Solitary, radial multiples 2-5 cells or irregular clusters 2-8 cells 1978:80-85) Simple perforation plate Intervessel pits bordered, circular to oval and alternate or opposite Prominent helical thickenings Medium to long in length and narrow Tracheid and fibres Pits small, slit to lenticular apertures and simple Thin to thick walled, angular in transverse Commonly septate Axial Parenchyma Scanty paratracheal Rays Few Uniseriate, mostly Multiseriate 3-6 cells wide Homogeneous or heterogeneous types II and III Pits small, circular and simple

129

Taxon Features Description Dacrydium cupressinum Growth rings Slightly to moderately distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Tracheid Intertracheary pits confined to radial walls, occurring in one or occasionally two rows 1978:22-23; Patel 1967a:174) oppositely arranged Pits leading to ray parenchyma cupressoid, taxodioid or sometimes piceid, small occupying a small portion of the cross-field Faint callitrisoid thickenings occur in some tracheid Tangential pitting rare Axial Parenchyma Abundant Diffuse to diffuse in aggregate Commonly containing starch Rays Uniseriate, occasionally part-biseriate Thin walled, occasionally pitted Dacrycarpus dacrydioides Growth rings Slightly to moderately distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Tracheid Intertracheary pits confined to radial walls, in one or two rows, opposite arranged, bordered 1978:28-29; Patel 1967b:309- with circular pit apertures 310) Pits leading to ray parenchyma cupressoid or taxodioid, small occupying a small portion of the cross-field Tangential pitting uncommon Axial Parenchyma Abundant Rays Uniseriate, sometimes biseriate Thin walled and pitted Prumnopitys ferruginea Growth rings Indistinct (Meylan & Butterfield Tracheid Intertracheary pits confined to radial walls in one or two rows, opposite arrangement, 1978:30-31; Patel 1967b:314) bordered with circular apertures Pits leading to ray parenchyma cupressoid or taxodioid, small occupying a small portion of the cross-field Tangential pitting uncommon Axial Parenchyma Sparse Rays Uniseriate, sometimes biseriate Horizontal walls thin and weakly pitted

130

Taxon Features Description Prumnopitys taxifolia Growth rings Slightly distinct (Meylan & Butterfield Tracheid Intertracheary pits confined to radial walls in one and occasionally two rows, opposite 1978:34-35; Patel arranged, bordered with circular apertures 1967b:310,314) Tracheid to ray pits large cupressoid, each occupying a large portion of cross-field area Tangential pitting uncommon Axial Parenchyma Sparse Rays Uniseriate, sometimes biseriate Walls thin and weakly pitted Podocarpus totara Growth rings Moderately distinct to distinct (Meylan & Butterfield 1978: Tracheid Intertracheary pits occur mostly on the radial wall in one sometimes two rows, oppositely 36-37; Patel 1967b:314) arranged, bordered with circular pit apertures Tracheid to ray pits small cupressoid, or small taxodioid, occupying a small proportion of the cross-field area Tangential pitting common Axial Parenchyma Abundant Rays Uniseriate, sometimes part-biseriate Thin walled and pitted with intercellular spaces common

131

Appendix B: Raw data Key for acronyms and value recording protocol used in the raw data spreadsheet:

SC- Site Context, recorded as Tr. for trench, A. for Area, Sq. for Square R- Root charcoal, recorded as 1 when present DC- Deposition Context, recorded as S for Secondary and P for Primary B- Bark, recorded as 1 when present V- Vitrification, where present it is recorded in degree 1-3 P- Pith, recorded as 1 when present GRC- Growth Ring Curvature, recorded on scale from 0-3 FH- Fungal Hyphae, recorded as 1 when present RC- Radial Cracks, recorded as 1 when present CC- Cellular Collapse, recorded as 1 when present OC- Other Cracks, recorded as 1 when present IBH- Insect Bore holes, recorded as 1 when present

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 1 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.31 2 1 S12 2 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.19 3 1 S12 3 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 S12 4 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.4 3 0 S12 5 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.31 1 1 S12 6 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.09 2 1 1 S12 7 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.13 1 2 1 1 1 S12 8 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.01 0 1 S12 9 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 2 2 1 1 S12 10 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Tree fern 1 0.24 0 S12 11 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.3 1 3 1 1 1 S12 12 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 1 2 1 S12 13 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 1 0 1 S12 14 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 0 1 S12 15 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.08 1 1 S12 16 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.21 3 1 132

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 17 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 1 0 1 S12 18 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.1 2 2 1 1 S12 19 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.06 2 1 S12 20 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 1 1 S12 21 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.21 2 2 1 1 1 S12 22 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.16 3 1 1 S12 23 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.22 1 1 S12 24 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.11 2 1 S12 25 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.29 3 1 S12 26 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.25 2 1 1 1 1 S12 27 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.29 1 3 1 1 1 S12 28 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.22 1 2 1 1 1 S12 29 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.25 2 1 S12 30 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 0 S12 31 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 1 2 1 S12 32 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 1 3 1 S12 33 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.19 1 2 1 1 S12 34 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 2 1 S12 35 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.23 1 2 1 S12 36 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.09 3 1 S12 37 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.12 1 2 1 1 S12 38 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.18 2 3 1 S12 39 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.36 1 2 1 S12 40 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.19 2 1 S12 41 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.01 1 0 1 1 S12 42 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 1 1 1 S12 43 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.13 1 1 1 1 133

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 44 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 S12 45 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 2 3 1 S12 46 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.14 1 2 1 S12 47 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.03 1 0 1 S12 48 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.32 1 3 1 1 S12 49 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 1 3 1 1 S12 50 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 1 0 1 S12 51 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 2 1 1 S12 52 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 S12 53 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.21 2 1 1 1 S12 54 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.1 2 3 1 1 1 S12 55 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 1 0 1 1 S12 56 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 1 0 1 S12 57 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.19 2 2 1 S12 58 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.34 2 1 S12 59 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.21 2 3 1 1 S12 60 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.1 2 1 1 S12 61 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 1 S12 62 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.08 1 2 1 1 1 S12 63 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.16 2 2 1 1 1 S12 64 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 3 1 1 S12 65 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.19 2 2 1 1 S12 66 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.2 2 1 1 1 S12 67 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.14 1 2 1 S12 68 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 0 S12 69 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.09 1 3 1 S12 70 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.04 1 3 1 1 134

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 71 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.14 2 2 1 S12 72 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 2 1 1 S12 73 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.05 1 2 1 1 S12 74 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.09 2 1 S12 75 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 2 1 S12 76 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 1 S12 77 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.33 2 1 S12 78 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.04 1 S12 79 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 3 1 S12 80 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 0 1 S12 81 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 0 1 S12 82 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 2 S12 83 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.13 2 2 1 S12 84 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.11 1 2 1 1 S12 85 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 3 1 1 S12 86 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.17 1 1 1 S12 87 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.05 2 2 1 S12 88 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 1 2 1 S12 89 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 2 2 1 1 1 S12 90 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.1 1 2 1 S12 91 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 3 1 1 S12 92 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 2 3 1 1 1 S12 93 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.44 3 0 S12 94 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.1 2 0 1 1 S12 95 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.18 1 2 1 1 S12 96 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.12 1 3 1 1 S12 97 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.06 1 2 1 1 135

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 98 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 1 S12 99 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 S12 100 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.08 1 2 1 1 S12 101 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.04 2 S12 102 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.15 2 1 S12 103 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.14 3 0 S12 104 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 1 2 1 S12 105 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.16 1 2 1 1 S12 106 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.22 1 3 1 1 S12 107 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.06 1 0 1 S12 108 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 0 1 S12 109 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 1 3 1 1 S12 110 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 2 1 1 1 S12 111 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.28 2 2 1 S12 112 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.12 1 2 1 1 1 1 S12 113 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.07 1 1 S12 114 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.13 1 2 1 S12 115 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 1 0 1 S12 116 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.16 3 1 S12 117 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 2 1 1 S12 118 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 1 1 1 S12 119 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.26 2 1 S12 120 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 S12 121 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.17 3 0 S12 122 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 3 1 S12 123 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.14 1 2 1 S12 124 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.14 2 2 1 136

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 125 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.13 2 1 1 S12 126 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 1 3 1 S12 127 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 2 3 1 1 S12 128 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 1 0 1 S12 129 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.08 1 0 1 1 S12 130 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 2 1 S12 131 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 2 2 1 S12 132 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.13 3 0 S12 133 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 0 S12 134 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 0 1 1 S12 135 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.12 1 3 1 S12 136 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.08 1 2 1 1 S12 137 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 2 S12 138 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.07 1 0 1 S12 139 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 1 0 1 S12 140 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.05 2 0 1 1 S12 141 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 2 1 S12 142 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 2 1 1 S12 143 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 2 1 S12 144 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 3 1 1 1 S12 145 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 3 1 S12 146 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 2 1 S12 147 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.11 1 0 1 S12 148 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 1 3 1 1 S12 149 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.06 1 2 1 S12 150 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.09 1 2 1 1 1 S12 151 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.15 1 3 1 1 137

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 152 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.1 1 2 1 1 S12 153 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.17 2 3 1 1 1 S12 154 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.15 1 2 1 S12 155 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.14 2 2 1 1 1 S12 156 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.08 3 1 1 S12 157 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 2 0 1 1 S12 158 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 1 1 1 S12 159 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.01 0 1 S12 160 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 2 1 S12 161 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.06 2 2 1 S12 162 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 2 1 1 S12 163 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 2 1 S12 164 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.17 1 2 1 1 S12 165 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.13 3 1 1 S12 166 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.12 1 2 1 S12 167 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.06 1 1 1 S12 168 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.03 2 1 S12 169 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.01 1 2 1 S12 170 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.01 2 S12 171 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.3 3 0 S12 172 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 1 S12 173 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.07 1 2 1 S12 174 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.15 2 2 1 1 S12 175 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.08 2 2 1 S12 176 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 3 S12 177 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.2 1 2 1 S12 178 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.04 3 1 1 138

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 179 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 1 2 1 1 S12 180 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 2 2 1 1 1 S12 181 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.03 2 3 1 1 S12 182 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.11 2 1 S12 183 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.13 2 3 1 1 S12 184 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.11 2 2 1 1 S12 185 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.09 1 1 1 S12 186 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.06 2 2 1 1 S12 187 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 0 S12 188 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.07 1 2 1 1 S12 189 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.03 1 2 1 S12 190 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.1 2 2 1 S12 191 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.08 3 0 S12 192 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 3 1 1 S12 193 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.13 2 1 1 S12 194 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.07 3 0 S12 195 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 2 0 1 S12 196 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S12 197 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.1 2 2 1 S12 198 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 2 3 1 1 S12 199 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 2 1 1 1 S12 200 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.01 2 2 1 S12 201 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.19 2 1 1 1 S12 202 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.08 1 0 1 1 S12 203 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 1 3 1 S12 204 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 2 2 1 1 S12 205 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.19 3 0 139

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 206 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 3 1 1 S12 207 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 0 1 1 S12 208 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.03 2 1 S12 209 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 1 0 1 S12 210 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.1 1 2 1 1 S12 211 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.03 1 3 1 S12 212 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.08 2 1 1 1 S12 213 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Tree fern 1 0.07 0 S12 214 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 S12 215 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 0 1 S12 216 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 1 S12 217 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 1 S12 218 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 3 1 S12 219 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 2 1 S12 220 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 1 0 1 S12 221 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Tree fern 1 0.15 0 S12 222 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 0 1 1 S12 223 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.07 1 0 1 1 S12 224 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.15 1 1 1 S12 225 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.12 2 2 1 S12 226 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.01 0 1 1 S12 227 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys ferruginea 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 S12 228 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 2 1 S12 229 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 1 3 1 1 S12 230 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 1 3 1 1 S12 231 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 2 2 1 S12 232 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 2 1 1 1 140

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S12 233 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.08 1 2 1 1 S12 234 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP unidentifiable 1 0.1 3 0 S12 235 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.01 2 1 1 S12 236 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.03 2 1 1 S12 237 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.06 2 2 1 1 S12 238 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 1 3 1 S12 239 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 1 2 1 S12 240 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 S12 241 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 2 0 1 S12 242 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 S12 243 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpus totara 1 0.01 2 0 1 S12 244 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.59 0 1 S12 245 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.28 2 2 1 S12 246 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 1 0 1 S12 247 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Vitex lucens 1 0.07 2 S12 248 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.12 2 1 1 S12 249 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.38 2 2 1 1 S12 250 Tr. 3 S Tr 3 IBP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.07 2 S355 1 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.49 3 0 S355 2 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.58 2 3 1 S355 3 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.39 3 2 1 s355 4 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.09 3 0 S355 5 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.31 2 2 1 1 S355 6 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 1 0 S355 7 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.15 2 0 1 S355 8 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.45 3 0 S355 9 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.31 2 0 1 1 1 141

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S355 10 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.18 2 S355 11 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.16 1 1 S355 12 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.1 0 1 S355 13 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.38 1 2 1 S355 14 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.54 2 1 1 S355 15 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.22 3 S355 16 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.18 1 1 1 1 S355 17 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.42 2 1 1 S355 18 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.13 2 S355 19 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.01 2 1 S355 20 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.55 1 1 1 S355 21 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.08 3 0 S355 22 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 2 1 S355 23 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 2 1 S355 24 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.34 2 2 1 1 S355 25 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.69 2 1 1 1 S355 26 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.29 2 0 1 S355 27 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.4 2 3 1 S355 28 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.43 2 1 1 S355 29 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.45 2 1 S355 30 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.45 2 1 1 S355 31 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.47 2 0 1 S355 32 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.31 3 0 S355 33 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.28 2 S355 34 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.29 0 1 S355 35 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.54 2 1 S355 36 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.34 1 2 142

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S355 37 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.38 2 2 1 1 S355 38 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.16 2 1 S355 39 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.05 3 0 S355 40 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 2 1 S355 41 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 2 S501 42 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 2 1 S501 43 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.34 3 1 1 S501 44 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.39 2 1 S501 45 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 0 S501 46 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.65 3 1 1 S501 47 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.4 3 0 1 S501 48 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.15 1 3 1 1 S501 49 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.21 2 2 S501 50 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.2 1 2 1 1 S501 51 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 1 0 1 S501 52 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 2 1 S501 53 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.01 0 S501 54 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 1 2 1 1 S501 55 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.13 2 1 1 S501 56 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.14 1 2 1 1 S501 57 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.29 3 1 1 1 S501 58 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.36 2 1 1 S501 59 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.1 0 S501 60 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 3 1 1 S501 61 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 2 1 S501 62 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 1 3 1 1 S501 63 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 2 1 143

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S501 64 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.11 1 2 S501 65 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 3 1 S501 66 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 0 1 1 S501 67 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 1 S501 68 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.18 2 2 1 1 S501 69 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 2 1 1 1 S501 70 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.14 2 0 S501 71 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 0 S501 72 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.04 2 S501 73 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 1 0 S501 74 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.14 2 0 S501 75 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.06 2 0 1 S501 76 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 1 S501 77 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 1 S501 78 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 0 1 S501 79 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 1 3 1 S501 80 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.15 2 0 1 S352 81 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.1 2 S352 82 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 S352 83 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.13 1 S352 84 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 1 S352 85 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.55 1 1 S352 86 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 0 1 1 S352 87 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.07 2 S352 88 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.03 1 2 1 S352 89 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.57 2 S352 90 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.4 1 1 144

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S352 91 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 1 1 S352 92 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.11 2 S352 93 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.36 2 1 S352 94 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 1 2 1 1 S352 95 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.04 2 1 1 S352 96 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 0 S352 97 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 2 1 S352 98 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.39 2 2 1 S352 99 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 S352 100 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.15 1 2 1 S352 101 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.22 2 S352 102 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 2 1 S352 103 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 1 1 S352 104 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.17 2 0 S352 105 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.15 1 1 S352 106 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 2 S352 107 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.07 3 0 1 S352 108 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.07 2 1 1 S352 109 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.13 1 2 S352 110 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 1 1 1 S352 111 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 1 2 1 S352 112 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 2 3 1 1 1 S352 113 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 2 1 S352 114 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 0 S352 115 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.33 1 1 1 S352 116 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.31 2 2 1 1 S352 117 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.18 2 0 1 145

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S352 118 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 1 1 S352 119 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 1 S352 120 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 0 S451 121 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 S451 122 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 1 2 1 1 1 S451 123 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 2 S451 124 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 3 1 1 S451 125 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.13 1 2 1 S451 126 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 2 1 S451 127 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 3 1 1 S451 128 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 2 S451 129 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 0 S451 130 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 1 3 S451 131 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 2 1 1 1 S451 132 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 1.12 3 0 S451 133 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.32 1 2 1 1 1 S451 134 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.37 1 2 1 S451 135 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 2 1 1 S451 136 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.12 1 2 1 S451 137 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.31 3 1 S451 138 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.15 1 2 S451 139 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 2 1 S451 140 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 3 S451 141 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 2 S451 142 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 1 1 1 1 S451 143 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 3 0 S451 144 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 1 3 146

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S451 145 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 2 1 1 1 S451 146 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.22 2 1 S451 147 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.28 2 S451 148 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.1 2 S451 149 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.34 2 2 1 1 S451 150 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.03 2 S451 151 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 0 1 1 S451 152 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 S451 153 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 1 2 S451 154 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.18 2 2 1 1 1 S451 155 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.22 2 S451 156 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.02 3 S451 157 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 2 S451 158 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 2 1 S451 159 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.12 1 2 1 1 S451 160 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.06 2 1 S449 161 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.1 3 1 1 S449 162 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.13 3 0 S449 163 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 2 0 S449 164 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.08 3 0 S449 165 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 1 3 1 S449 166 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 S449 167 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.08 1 2 1 S449 168 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.1 3 1 1 S449 169 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.03 3 1 1 S449 170 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 2 2 1 S449 171 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.02 3 1 1 1 1 1 147

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S449 172 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.13 1 2 1 1 1 S449 173 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 2.93 2 0 1 1 1 S449 174 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.21 3 1 1 1 S449 175 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 1 2 S449 176 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 1 0 1 S449 177 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 1.11 1 2 1 1 1 S449 178 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.34 2 1 1 1 S449 179 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 1 2 1 1 S449 180 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 1 1 S449 181 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 1 S449 182 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.19 2 S449 183 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.38 2 0 S449 184 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.21 2 1 S449 185 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.16 1 2 1 S449 186 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 3 1 S449 187 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 1 0 1 S449 188 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 S449 189 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.12 1 2 1 S449 190 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 2 0 1 S449 191 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 2 3 1 1 1 S449 192 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 1 1 1 S449 193 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 1 2 1 S449 194 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 1 1 1 1 S449 195 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.18 1 3 1 S449 196 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.15 1 1 1 1 1 S449 197 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 1 2 1 1 1 S449 198 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 1 3 1 1 1 148

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S449 199 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.03 2 S449 200 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.07 3 0 S353 201 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.11 2 1 S353 202 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 2 3 1 S353 203 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.1 1 2 1 S353 204 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 S353 205 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 1 1 1 S353 206 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 3 1 1 S353 207 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S353 208 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 3 1 1 1 1 S353 209 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 S353 210 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.24 1 2 1 1 S353 211 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.3 2 1 S353 212 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 2 1 1 S353 213 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 2 1 1 S353 214 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 2 0 1 1 S353 215 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 2 1 1 S353 216 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.15 2 S353 217 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 3 1 1 S353 218 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.06 3 1 1 S353 219 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 2 1 1 S353 220 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 1 1 1 S353 221 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 S353 222 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 3 1 S353 223 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.29 1 2 1 S353 224 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.47 3 0 S353 225 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.42 2 149

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S353 226 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.14 2 2 1 1 S353 227 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.16 3 0 S353 228 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 1 1 1 S353 229 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.22 3 0 S353 230 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 1 1 1 S353 231 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.04 3 1 S353 232 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.06 3 S353 233 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 3 1 1 S353 234 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 1 3 1 S353 235 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 S353 236 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 2 1 S353 237 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.04 3 S353 238 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.14 2 0 1 1 S353 239 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 2 1 1 S353 240 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.07 2 S500 241 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 2 1 1 S500 242 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.06 2 1 S500 243 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.01 1 1 1 S500 244 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 1 1 1 S500 245 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 1 2 1 S500 246 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.04 2 1 S500 247 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 2 1 1 1 S500 248 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 2 1 S500 249 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 1 1 1 S500 250 Tr. 31 S F46 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 2 1 1 S333 1 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.56 2 0 1 1 1 1 S333 2 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 1 150

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S333 3 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.2 3 1 1 S333 4 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.32 3 0 1 S333 5 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 3 1 S333 6 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.01 3 0 1 S333 7 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.12 0 1 S333 8 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.16 3 0 S333 9 A. N S F72 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.2 1 2 S333 10 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.12 2 2 S333 11 A. N S F72 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.03 3 1 1 S333 12 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 3 1 1 1 S333 13 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 3 1 S333 14 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 1 3 1 1 S333 15 A. N S F72 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.11 2 2 1 S333 16 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 3 S333 17 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 0 S333 18 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 S333 19 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.09 2 1 S333 20 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.33 3 0 S333 21 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 S333 22 A. N S F72 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.16 2 0 S333 23 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 0 S333 24 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.15 2 1 S333 25 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.05 2 1 S333 26 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 3 1 1 S333 27 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 2 S333 28 A. N S F72 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.13 2 S333 29 A. N S F72 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.05 1 151

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S333 30 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 2 S333 31 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 S333 32 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 1 S333 33 A. N S F72 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.05 1 2 S333 34 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 S333 35 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 1 1 1 S333 36 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.06 2 S333 37 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 S333 38 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 1 S333 39 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 3 1 S333 40 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 3 1 1 1 S333 41 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 3 1 1 S333 42 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.16 1 1 S333 43 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 2 1 S333 44 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 S333 45 A. N S F72 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.06 2 1 S333 46 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 1 3 1 S333 47 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 3 1 S333 48 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.04 2 S333 49 A. N S F72 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.03 2 S333 50 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.02 1 1 S333 51 A. N S F72 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.01 0 S333 52 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.39 1 2 S333 53 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 2 1 1 S333 54 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 1 1 S333 55 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 S333 56 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 152

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S333 57 A. N S F72 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.03 3 S333 58 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 2 1 1 1 S333 59 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 1 S333 60 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 3 S333 61 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 1 2 1 S333 62 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.01 3 S333 63 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 2 S333 64 A. N S F72 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 2 S333 65 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.08 2 1 S333 66 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 S333 67 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 0 S333 68 A. N S F72 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.06 1 3 S333 69 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 2 S333 70 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 2 2 1 S333 71 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.01 1 2 S333 72 A. N S F72 EHP Unidentifiable 1 0.1 3 0 1 S333 73 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.01 1 1 S333 74 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 2 1 S333 75 A. N S F72 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.05 1 3 S333 76 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.13 2 2 1 1 S333 77 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 1 1 S333 78 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 2 2 1 S333 79 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.06 2 S333 80 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 S333 81 A. N S F72 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.02 1 S333 82 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 1 S333 83 A. N S F72 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.01 1 153

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S333 84 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 2 S333 85 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 1 S333 86 A. N S F72 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.01 3 1 1 1 S333 87 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 1 S333 88 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.12 3 0 S333 89 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 3 1 1 S333 90 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.07 2 1 1 1 S333 91 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 2 2 S333 92 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 S333 93 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrycarpus dacrydioides 1 0.05 0 S333 94 A. N S F72 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.02 1 1 S333 95 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.01 2 S333 96 A. N S F72 EHP Unidentifiable 1 0.41 3 0 1 S333 97 A. N S F72 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.02 2 S321 98 A. N S F72 EHP Unidentifiable 1 0.25 3 0 S321 99 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 1 2 1 S321 100 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.03 3 0 S321 101 A. N S F72 EHP Unidentifiable 1 0.08 3 0 S321 102 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 2 1 S321 103 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 1 S321 104 A. N S F72 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 1 S321 105 A. N S F72 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.01 2 1 1 1 S321 106 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S321 107 A. N S F72 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 2 S321 108 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.01 1 2 1 1 S333 109 A. N S F72 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 1 1 1 S333 110 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.04 3 0 1 154

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S333 111 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 S333 112 A. N S F72 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 S288 1 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.2 1 1 S288 2 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.33 1 1 1 S288 3 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.13 3 1 1 S288 4 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 2 S288 5 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.24 3 1 1 S288 6 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.13 2 S288 7 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.15 3 S288 8 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 S288 9 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.27 1 2 S288 10 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 3 1 1 S288 11 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 1 1 S288 12 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.1 2 S288 13 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.66 2 1 1 1 S288 14 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.2 1 1 1 S288 15 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.18 1 2 1 S288 16 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.2 2 1 S288 17 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.14 1 1 S288 18 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.14 2 1 1 S288 19 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.35 2 1 1 S288 20 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.09 3 S288 21 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.19 1 1 S288 22 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.04 1 2 1 S288 23 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 2 2 1 1 S288 24 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 1 S288 25 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.14 2 1 1 1 155

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S288 26 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 2 S288 27 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.19 2 S288 28 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 2 0 S288 29 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.14 3 1 1 S288 30 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.07 2 S288 31 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.1 3 S288 32 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 0 1 1 S288 33 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S288 34 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S288 35 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.11 3 1 S288 36 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 2 1 S288 37 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.09 1 1 1 S288 38 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.09 1 3 S288 39 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.08 1 3 1 S288 40 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 3 1 S288 41 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.12 3 S288 42 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 1 S288 43 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 1 S288 44 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.07 2 0 1 1 S288 45 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 1 S288 46 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.07 1 S288 47 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.08 2 1 S288 48 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.07 2 1 S288 49 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.03 2 S288 50 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 3 1 1 S288 51 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.14 1 2 1 S288 52 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.1 2 156

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S288 53 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.39 1 2 1 1 S288 54 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 1 2 1 S288 55 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 1 S288 56 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 1 2 1 1 S288 57 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 S288 58 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 2 2 1 S288 59 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.08 3 0 1 S288 60 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 S288 61 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.15 3 1 S288 62 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 2 S288 63 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Olearia spp. 1 0.02 3 1 S288 64 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 2 2 1 S288 65 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 S288 66 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 S288 67 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.08 2 1 1 S288 68 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 2 1 S288 69 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 1 S288 70 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 3 1 S288 71 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 2 1 S288 72 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.05 2 S288 73 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.04 3 0 S288 74 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 1 2 1 S288 75 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 3 1 S288 76 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.13 3 0 1 S288 77 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.01 3 1 S288 78 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 1 1 S288 79 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.13 2 2 157

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S288 80 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 1 S288 81 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 S288 82 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.07 3 0 S288 83 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 2 3 1 S288 84 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.03 1 2 1 S288 85 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 1 2 S288 86 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 1 1 S288 87 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.08 2 2 1 1 S288 88 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.1 3 1 1 S288 89 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.17 2 3 1 1 S288 90 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 2 1 S288 91 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.02 2 S288 92 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 S288 93 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 3 1 1 S288 94 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 S288 95 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.2 3 0 S288 96 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 3 1 1 S288 97 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.08 2 1 S288 98 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 2 S288 99 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP unidentifiable 1 0.1 3 0 S288 100 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Knightia excelsa 1 0.06 1 2 S288 101 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 3 1 S288 102 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 2 1 S288 103 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 S288 104 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.11 2 2 1 1 S288 105 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 S288 106 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.04 2 158

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S288 107 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.07 3 1 S288 108 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 2 1 S288 109 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S288 110 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 0 1 1 S288 111 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 0 1 1 S288 112 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 S288 113 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.04 3 S288 114 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.03 1 3 1 S288 115 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 1 2 1 S288 116 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 3 1 1 S288 117 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.02 3 1 S288 118 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 2 1 1 S288 119 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 2 1 S288 120 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Agathis australis 1 0.02 3 1 S288 121 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 1 S288 122 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 1 2 1 S288 123 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 1 S288 124 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.02 2 S288 125 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 1 S288 126 Sq. I2 S F68 EHP Pittosporum spp. 1 0.03 2 S235 1 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.28 3 1 1 1 S235 2 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.17 3 1 1 S235 3 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.12 3 1 1 1 S235 4 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.13 3 1 1 1 S235 5 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 1 S235 6 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.06 3 0 S235 7 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 159

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S235 8 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 3 1 1 S235 9 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 1 S235 10 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 1 S235 11 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.21 3 1 1 1 S235 12 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 3 1 1 S235 13 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 3 1 1 S235 14 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 S235 15 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 S235 16 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 1 S235 17 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 1 S235 18 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.04 3 1 1 S235 19 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 1 S235 20 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.01 3 1 1 S235 21 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.02 3 1 1 S235 22 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 3 1 1 S235 23 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.01 3 1 1 S235 24 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.3 2 1 S235 25 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.24 1 3 1 S235 26 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.17 1 2 1 S235 27 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.19 2 S235 28 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.29 2 1 1 S235 29 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.32 2 1 1 S235 30 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 2 1 S235 31 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.16 2 1 S235 32 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.54 1 1 S235 33 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.22 2 1 S235 34 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.22 2 1 1 160

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S235 35 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.21 1 2 1 1 1 S235 36 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.14 1 1 1 S235 37 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.12 1 1 1 S235 38 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.23 2 1 S235 39 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.14 2 S235 40 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 2 2 1 S235 41 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.17 3 S235 42 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.21 2 1 S235 43 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 1 1 1 S235 44 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.12 3 0 1 S235 45 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.1 2 S235 46 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 S235 47 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.05 2 S235 48 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.17 2 1 S235 49 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.19 2 1 1 S235 50 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S235 51 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.22 2 S235 52 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 2 S235 53 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 2 1 1 S235 54 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 2 1 S235 55 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 1 3 1 S235 56 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 1 3 S235 57 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 S235 58 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.14 1 2 1 S235 59 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.18 3 0 1 S235 60 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.14 1 3 1 1 S235 61 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.08 2 161

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S235 62 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myoporum laetum 1 0.15 1 3 1 S235 63 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.15 1 3 1 S235 64 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.14 3 1 S235 65 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.13 2 1 S235 66 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 2 1 S235 67 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.13 1 3 S235 68 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Olearia spp. 1 0.1 1 3 1 S235 69 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 1 3 1 S235 70 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.16 3 0 1 S235 71 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 1 3 S235 72 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 1 3 S235 73 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.12 3 0 1 S235 74 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.07 1 2 1 S235 75 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 3 1 S235 76 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.12 1 3 1 S235 77 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.1 2 S235 78 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 1 2 1 S235 79 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 1 3 S235 80 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 S235 81 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Olearia spp. 1 0.13 3 1 S235 82 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 1 S235 83 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.07 3 S235 84 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.03 1 3 1 1 S235 85 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 2 S235 86 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 2 S235 87 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 2 3 S235 88 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 1 3 1 162

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S235 89 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 3 S235 90 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 S235 91 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 1 S235 92 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Angiosperm 1 0.04 3 0 S235 93 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 S235 94 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 2 S235 95 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 1 1 S235 96 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 2 S235 97 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 2 S235 98 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 1 2 S235 99 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.08 1 S235 100 Sq. I2 P F53 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S68 1 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 S68 2 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.14 2 2 1 1 S68 3 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 3 1 1 S68 4 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.08 1 3 S68 5 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 2 S68 6 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.09 3 0 1 S68 7 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.14 3 1 1 S68 8 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 3 1 S68 9 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 1 1 S68 10 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 1 3 1 1 S68 11 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.47 2 1 1 S68 12 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.24 1 1 S68 13 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.29 2 S68 14 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.37 2 S68 15 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.33 2 163

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S68 16 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.16 1 1 S68 17 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.07 1 2 1 S68 18 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.28 2 1 1 S68 19 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.06 2 1 S68 20 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.29 1 2 1 1 S68 21 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.16 1 3 1 S68 22 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.19 3 1 S68 23 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.1 1 2 1 S68 24 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.21 3 1 S68 25 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 1 1 S68 26 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.22 1 S68 27 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.13 1 1 S68 28 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.12 1 2 1 1 1 1 S68 29 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.14 2 S68 30 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 3 1 S68 31 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.02 1 3 1 1 1 S68 32 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.34 2 2 1 1 S68 33 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.13 2 0 1 1 S68 34 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.06 2 1 S68 35 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.17 1 1 1 1 S68 36 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.22 2 1 S68 37 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.39 1 3 S68 38 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 1 1 S68 39 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.17 1 1 1 1 S68 40 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.21 2 3 1 1 S68 41 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.11 1 3 S68 42 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.13 2 1 164

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S68 43 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.13 2 2 1 1 S68 44 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 2 1 S68 45 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.14 2 1 S68 46 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.2 1 S68 47 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.25 1 3 1 1 S68 48 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.07 2 S68 49 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.4 2 2 1 1 S68 50 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.17 2 S70 51 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.15 3 1 1 S70 52 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.26 3 1 1 S70 53 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.23 3 1 1 S70 54 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.04 3 1 1 1 S70 55 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.12 3 0 S70 56 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 1 3 1 1 S70 57 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.03 3 0 1 S70 58 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.08 3 S70 59 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.17 3 2 1 S70 60 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 1 S70 61 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.4 1 3 1 S70 62 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.07 3 S70 63 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.08 3 S70 64 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.09 1 S70 65 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.23 2 1 1 S70 66 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.22 2 2 1 S70 67 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.68 3 S70 68 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 2 1 1 S70 69 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.09 3 0 165

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S70 70 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.15 3 0 1 S70 71 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 1 2 1 1 S70 72 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.16 3 1 S70 73 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.02 3 1 1 S70 74 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.22 2 1 1 S70 75 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.9 1 3 1 1 S70 76 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.27 2 3 1 S70 77 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 1 1 S70 78 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.2 1 1 S70 79 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.11 1 2 1 1 S70 80 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.12 2 S70 81 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.36 1 S70 82 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.3 1 2 1 1 1 S70 83 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.15 1 2 S70 84 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 1 3 1 S70 85 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.24 1 2 S70 86 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.1 1 2 S70 87 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.14 2 1 1 1 1 S70 88 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.12 1 1 1 S70 89 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.23 1 2 1 1 1 1 S70 90 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.07 3 1 1 S70 91 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 3 S70 92 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 3 1 1 S70 93 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.14 1 2 1 S70 94 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 2 S70 95 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.17 3 1 S70 96 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 1 3 1 166

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S70 97 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 2 1 1 1 S70 98 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.16 3 1 S70 99 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 2 2 1 S70 100 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.06 3 1 1 S60 101 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 S60 102 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.1 3 1 1 S60 103 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.1 3 1 1 S60 104 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.26 3 1 S60 105 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 1 S60 106 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 1 3 1 S60 107 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 1 S60 108 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.05 2 1 S60 109 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.19 2 S60 110 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.34 1 1 1 S60 111 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.15 2 3 S60 112 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.15 3 1 1 S60 113 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.19 2 1 S60 114 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.03 1 S60 115 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S60 116 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.7 1 3 1 1 S60 117 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.17 3 1 S60 118 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 3 1 1 1 S60 119 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 1 1 1 S60 120 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.09 2 1 1 1 S60 121 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.18 3 S60 122 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.13 2 S60 123 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.33 1 167

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S60 124 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.23 3 0 1 S60 125 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.11 2 3 S60 126 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 1 3 1 S60 127 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.09 3 S60 128 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 1 S60 129 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.06 2 3 1 S60 130 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.16 1 S60 131 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.22 2 3 1 1 S60 132 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.57 1 S60 133 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 1 2 1 S60 134 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 1 2 1 1 S60 135 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.07 1 2 S60 136 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.1 2 2 1 1 S60 137 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP unidentifiable 1 0.07 3 0 1 S60 138 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.36 1 3 1 S60 139 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.01 3 1 1 S60 140 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.05 1 2 1 S60 141 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.01 2 0 1 S60 142 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.41 3 1 1 S60 143 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.14 1 S60 144 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 3 1 1 S60 145 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.26 2 1 S60 146 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 2 2 1 1 S60 147 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 1 2 1 1 S60 148 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.02 2 S60 149 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.23 1 2 1 1 1 S60 150 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 1 168

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S59 151 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.47 2 S59 152 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 1 1 S59 153 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 3 1 1 1 S59 154 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.09 3 1 S59 155 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.12 3 1 S59 156 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.08 3 1 1 S59 157 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 1 S59 158 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 1.03 3 0 1 S59 159 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 1 S59 160 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.48 3 0 1 S59 161 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.16 2 S59 162 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.11 3 S59 163 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.13 3 0 1 S59 164 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.06 3 0 1 S59 165 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.15 3 0 S59 166 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 2 1 S59 167 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.06 3 S59 168 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.2 2 S59 169 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.14 3 1 1 S59 170 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.18 2 2 1 S59 171 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 S59 172 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.12 3 1 S59 173 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 2 3 S59 174 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.05 0 S59 175 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.03 3 0 1 S59 176 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.05 3 1 S59 177 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.13 2 3 1 169

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S59 178 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.6 3 1 S59 179 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.24 3 0 1 S59 180 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.33 2 1 1 S59 181 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.16 1 3 1 S59 182 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 S59 183 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.49 1 2 1 1 S59 184 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.22 3 0 1 S59 185 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.17 1 2 1 S59 186 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.36 2 1 S59 187 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 3 1 1 S59 188 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.32 3 S59 189 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.2 2 3 1 S59 190 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.08 1 2 1 S59 191 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 S59 192 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 1 3 1 1 S59 193 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 3 1 1 S59 194 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 1.38 1 3 1 1 1 1 S59 195 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.22 2 1 S59 196 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.15 2 S59 197 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 1 1 S59 198 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.16 1 S59 199 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.1 3 0 1 S59 200 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.69 2 3 S69 201 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.26 3 1 1 S69 202 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.52 2 3 1 S69 203 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.17 3 1 1 S69 204 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 3 1 1 170

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S69 205 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.2 1 0 1 S69 206 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.26 2 2 1 S69 207 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.06 3 S69 208 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.31 2 S69 209 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.28 2 S69 210 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.2 3 1 1 S69 211 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.14 2 1 S69 212 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 1 2 1 1 S69 213 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.07 3 1 1 S69 214 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.62 1 S69 215 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.25 3 0 S69 216 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.05 1 3 1 S69 217 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.01 3 1 1 S69 218 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.02 3 1 1 S69 219 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.02 1 3 1 S69 220 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 1 1 S69 221 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.07 3 0 1 S69 222 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.12 1 3 1 S69 223 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.13 3 S69 224 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.12 2 S69 225 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Olearia spp. 1 1.13 2 1 1 S69 226 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.11 1 3 1 S69 227 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.2 2 2 S69 228 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 3 1 1 S69 229 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.06 3 S69 230 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.03 3 1 1 S69 231 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.07 3 1 171

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S69 232 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 3 1 S69 233 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.09 3 S69 234 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.08 3 S69 235 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.12 3 S69 236 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.1 2 S69 237 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 2 S69 238 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 2 3 1 S69 239 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.14 3 1 1 S69 240 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.1 1 2 S69 241 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.18 2 S69 242 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.39 2 S69 243 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.11 3 S69 244 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.19 2 2 S69 245 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 S69 246 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.14 2 S69 247 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.45 3 0 1 S69 248 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.05 3 1 1 S69 249 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 1 S69 250 Sq. D6 S D6 LHP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.02 3 S199 1 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.29 3 1 S199 2 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 1 S199 3 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.54 1 1 1 1 S199 4 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.74 1 2 1 S199 5 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.16 2 1 S199 6 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.32 2 1 1 1 S199 7 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.32 1 2 S199 8 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.14 1 0 1 172

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S199 9 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.2 3 S199 10 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.23 1 2 S199 11 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.34 3 1 S199 12 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.14 1 3 S199 13 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.05 3 S199 14 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.13 3 1 S199 15 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.18 2 0 1 1 S199 16 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.19 2 S199 17 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.13 1 1 1 S199 18 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.1 1 3 1 S199 19 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.18 2 S199 20 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.07 3 S199 21 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.11 2 S199 22 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 2 1 S199 23 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 3 1 S199 24 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.16 2 1 S199 25 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.2 1 3 1 S199 26 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.29 3 0 1 S199 27 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.07 2 1 1 S199 28 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.1 1 3 1 S199 29 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.13 1 2 1 1 S199 30 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.11 1 1 1 S199 31 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S199 32 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.09 3 1 1 S199 33 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 2 S199 34 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.16 2 1 S199 35 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 1 173

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S199 36 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 S199 37 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.09 1 S199 38 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.02 2 S199 39 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 1 2 1 1 S199 40 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.05 2 1 1 S199 41 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.03 3 S199 42 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 1 1 S199 43 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 1 S199 44 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.11 0 S199 45 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 2 S199 46 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.04 3 S199 47 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.07 2 1 1 S199 48 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 1 S199 49 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.07 3 S199 50 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.1 2 S199 51 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.33 3 S199 52 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.3 2 S199 53 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.06 2 S199 54 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.07 2 S199 55 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.07 3 S199 56 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.06 1 2 1 S199 57 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.05 2 S199 58 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.06 1 1 S199 59 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.06 2 3 1 S199 60 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.05 2 S199 61 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 3 S199 62 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.08 1 1 174

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S199 63 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.03 2 S199 64 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.05 3 S199 65 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.04 3 S199 66 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.05 2 S199 67 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.05 3 S199 68 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 2 S199 69 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.09 1 1 S199 70 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 S199 71 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.04 2 1 S199 72 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 2 0 1 S199 73 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.09 3 S199 74 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 3 S199 75 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.04 1 1 1 S199 76 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.07 2 S199 77 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.04 2 1 S199 78 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.03 2 S199 79 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.02 3 S199 80 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.05 3 S199 81 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.08 2 S199 82 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.05 1 1 1 S199 83 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.03 2 S199 84 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.04 2 1 S199 85 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.03 3 S199 86 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.05 3 S199 87 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 S199 88 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 1 S199 89 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 2 1 175

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S199 90 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.11 1 S199 91 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S199 92 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 S199 93 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 S199 94 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 3 S199 95 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.05 3 S199 96 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 S199 97 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.02 3 1 S199 98 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.03 1 2 1 S199 99 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.03 2 1 S199 100 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 2 1 1 S199 101 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 2 1 S199 102 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 2 0 1 S199 103 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.02 1 S199 104 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 1 S199 105 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.04 1 2 S199 106 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.06 3 0 1 S199 107 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.02 2 2 1 S199 108 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 1 2 1 S199 109 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.05 3 S199 110 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 2 S199 111 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S199 112 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S199 113 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.04 3 S199 114 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 1 S199 115 Sq. I2 S I2 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.04 2 S99 1 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 3 1 1 176

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S99 2 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.19 3 1 1 1 S99 3 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.04 3 1 1 S99 4 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.05 3 1 1 S99 5 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.06 3 1 1 S99 6 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 3 1 S99 7 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.24 1 3 1 1 S99 8 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.22 1 3 1 1 S99 9 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 S99 10 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 1 3 1 1 S99 11 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S99 12 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.09 2 1 S99 13 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.9 2 1 S99 14 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.16 2 3 1 1 S99 15 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.07 3 1 1 S99 16 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.01 3 1 S99 17 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.09 3 S99 18 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.13 2 1 S99 19 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.17 2 2 1 S99 20 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 3 1 S99 21 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.03 3 1 S99 22 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.01 3 1 1 S99 23 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 1 S99 24 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Olearia spp. 1 0.12 1 1 1 S99 25 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.11 2 1 S99 26 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.91 1 1 1 S99 27 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.49 1 1 S99 28 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.18 2 3 177

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S99 29 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 2 1 S99 30 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.09 2 2 1 S99 31 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Agathis australis 1 0.05 3 1 S99 32 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.77 1 2 1 S99 33 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.36 2 S99 34 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 1 1 1 1 S99 35 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.39 1 1 1 S99 36 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.09 2 1 S99 37 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.06 2 1 S99 38 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.85 1 2 1 S99 39 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.08 2 1 S99 40 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.12 2 S99 41 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.16 2 2 1 1 S99 42 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.14 2 3 1 S99 43 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.35 1 S99 44 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Vitex lucens 1 0.08 3 1 1 S99 45 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.01 3 S99 46 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.28 1 2 S99 47 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.11 1 3 1 S99 48 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 1 1 S99 49 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.58 3 1 S99 50 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.16 3 1 1 S99 51 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.21 2 1 1 S99 52 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.29 2 1 S99 53 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.08 3 1 S99 54 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.22 2 1 S99 55 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.13 2 178

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S99 56 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.06 3 1 1 S99 57 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.02 3 1 1 1 S99 58 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.19 2 2 1 S99 59 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.09 2 S99 60 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.08 3 1 S99 61 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 1.11 1 2 1 S99 62 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.52 2 2 1 1 S99 63 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.26 1 2 1 S99 64 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.21 2 2 1 S99 65 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Angiosperm 1 0.3 3 0 1 S99 66 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.01 3 1 1 S99 67 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.01 3 1 S99 68 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coriaria arborea 1 0.23 2 3 1 S99 69 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 1.13 2 0 1 1 S99 70 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.34 1 2 1 S99 71 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.07 2 1 S99 72 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.13 2 2 1 S99 73 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.08 2 2 S99 74 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coriaria arborea 1 0.13 1 1 1 S99 75 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.43 2 S99 76 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.39 1 3 1 S99 77 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 S99 78 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.44 1 2 1 1 S99 79 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.29 2 1 S99 80 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.09 2 1 S99 81 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.06 3 1 1 S99 82 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.13 1 2 1 179

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S99 83 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.14 3 1 1 S99 84 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.24 1 2 1 S99 85 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.13 1 2 1 S99 86 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myoporum laetum 1 0.03 2 S99 87 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 3 1 S99 88 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Pteridium esculentum 1 0.02 3 1 1 S99 89 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Angiosperm 1 0.22 3 0 1 S99 90 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myoporum laetum 1 0.06 3 S99 91 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.05 2 2 1 S99 92 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.23 1 3 1 S99 93 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coprosma spp. 1 0.1 1 3 1 S99 94 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Angiosperm 1 0.17 3 0 1 S99 95 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 2 S99 96 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.23 2 1 1 S99 97 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Kunzea spp. 1 0.14 1 2 1 S99 98 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.16 1 3 1 S99 99 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.19 3 1 1 S99 100 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.06 2 2 1 S99 101 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.26 1 2 1 S99 102 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.18 2 2 1 S99 103 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Coriaria arborea 1 0.19 1 S99 104 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.28 2 1 S99 105 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.34 1 1 1 1 S99 106 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.22 1 2 1 1 1 S99 107 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.16 2 1 1 S99 108 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.04 3 1 S99 109 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.1 2 3 1 1 180

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S99 110 Sq. E7 P F24 HP Angiosperm 1 0.1 3 0 1 S454/456 1 A. O S F97 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.18 2 3 1 1 S454/456 2 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.19 1 3 1 1 1 S454/456 3 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 S454/456 4 A. O S F97 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.05 2 1 1 1 S454/456 5 A. O S F97 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.17 3 1 1 1 1 S454/456 6 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.13 2 0 1 1 S454/456 7 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.13 3 1 S454/456 8 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.12 2 S454/456 9 A. O S F97 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.24 2 S454/456 10 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.1 1 2 S454/456 11 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.35 1 1 S454/456 12 A. O S F97 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.19 2 1 1 S454/456 13 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.4 2 2 1 S454/456 14 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.09 2 1 S454/456 15 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.17 1 1 1 S454/456 16 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 2 2 1 1 S454/456 17 A. O S F97 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.04 2 2 S454/456 18 A. O S F97 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.06 2 1 S454/456 19 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.21 2 S454/456 20 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 S454/456 21 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.02 3 0 S454/456 22 A. O S F97 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.03 2 S454/456 23 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.07 2 S454/456 24 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.09 1 2 S454/456 25 A. O S F97 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.02 2 S454/456 26 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 1 2 1 181

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S454/456 27 A. O S F97 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 S454/456 28 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.05 2 1 1 1 S454/456 29 A. O S F97 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.04 2 1 S454/456 30 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 2 2 1 1 S454/456 31 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.12 3 1 S454/456 32 A. O S F97 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.1 2 3 1 S454/456 33 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.12 2 0 1 1 1 S454/456 34 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.07 1 S454/456 35 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.01 1 1 S454/456 36 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 2 2 1 1 S454/456 37 A. O S F97 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.19 2 S454/456 38 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.12 3 0 S454/456 39 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.03 3 1 S454/456 40 A. O S F97 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.03 2 1 1 S454/456 41 A. O S F97 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.02 2 0 1 1 S454/456 42 A. O S F97 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.02 1 1 1 1 S454/456 43 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.05 2 1 S454/456 44 A. O S F97 LHP Prumnopitys taxifolia 1 0.04 2 S454/456 45 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 0 1 1 1 S454/456 46 A. O S F97 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.02 3 S454/456 47 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.05 1 2 1 S454/456 48 A. O S F97 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.01 2 2 1 1 S454/456 49 A. O S F97 LHP Podocarpus totara 1 0.1 2 S454/456 50 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 1 1 S454/456 51 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.01 1 3 1 1 S454/456 52 A. O S F97 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.04 2 S454/456 53 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.14 2 182

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S454/456 54 A. O S F97 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.08 2 1 S454/456 55 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S454/456 56 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.04 3 0 1 1 S454/456 57 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 1 1 S454/456 58 A. O S F97 LHP Podocarpaceae spp. 1 0.15 3 0 1 1 1 S454/456 59 A. O S F97 LHP Dacrydium cupressinum 1 0.12 2 0 1 1 S454/456 60 A. O S F97 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.09 2 0 S454/456 61 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 2 1 1 S454/456 62 A. O S F97 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.03 2 S454/456 63 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.03 1 1 S454/456 64 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.05 3 0 1 1 1 S454/456 65 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.4 2 S454/456 66 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.31 2 2 1 1 S454/456 67 A. O S F97 LHP Angiosperm 1 0.09 3 0 1 1 S454/456 68 A. O S F97 LHP Kunzea spp. 1 0.06 2 1 1 S454/456 69 A. O S F97 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.05 1 2 1 S454/456 70 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.09 1 2 1 S454/456 71 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.11 1 2 1 S454/456 72 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 S454/456 73 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 S454/456 74 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.03 1 1 1 S454/456 75 A. O S F97 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.15 1 2 1 S454/456 76 A. O S F97 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.01 2 S454/456 77 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.02 1 1 S454/456 78 A. O S F97 LHP Myoporum laetum 1 0.02 2 S454/456 79 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 2 S454/456 80 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.01 1 3 1 183

Context Taxonomic analysis Dendrological analysis Bag # Sub-bag SC DC Sample Phase Species Nisp weight (g) V GRC RC OC R B P FH CC IBH S454/456 81 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.01 2 S454/456 82 A. O S F97 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.03 2 S454/456 83 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.02 2 0 1 1 1 S454/456 84 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.02 2 S454/456 85 A. O S F97 LHP Myrsine australis 1 0.01 2 S454/456 86 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.04 1 1 S454/456 87 A. O S F97 LHP Agathis australis 1 0.03 2 0 1 1 1 1 S454/456 88 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.11 2 S454/456 89 A. O S F97 LHP Dodonaea viscosa 1 0.08 1 S454/456 90 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.03 2 S454/456 91 A. O S F97 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.04 1 1 S454/456 92 A. O S F97 LHP Myrtaceae spp. 1 0.01 3 S454/456 93 A. O S F97 LHP Vitex lucens 1 0.02 2 S454/456 94 A. O S F97 LHP Leptospermum scoparium 1 0.01 2 S454/456 95 A. O S F97 LHP Avicennia marina var austrasica 1 0.04 1 1 1 1 S454/456 96 A. O S F97 LHP Coriaria arborea 1 0.01 1 S454/456 97 A. O S F97 LHP Metrosideros excelsa 1 0.02 1 2 S454/456 98 A. O S F97 LHP Coprosma spp. 1 0.04 1 S454/456 99 A. O S F97 LHP Hebe spp. 1 0.02 3 S454/456 100 A. O S F97 LHP Olearia spp. 1 0.05 2 1

184