HAURAKI EVIDENCE

FOR THE

TAURANGA MOANA STAGE II

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL CLAIM

HEARINGS

Thursday 12^th & Friday 13^th October 2006

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

OF

TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA

DATED

2006

POWELL WEBBER & ASSOCIATES

PO Box 37 661

DX CP 31 534

Parnell

AUCKLAND

Telephone: (09) 377 7774

Facsimile: (09) 307 4301

Solicitor: LG Powell/SJ Eyre

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA

1. My name is Toko Renata Te Taniwha.

2. I am of Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Pukenga and Ngati Ranginui descent.

3. I have given evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of the first Tauranga Inquiry in October 2001 and prior to that in respect of the Hauraki Inquiry. My whakapapa is outlined in that earlier evidence.

4. I remain the Chairman of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board.

5. In my own and other evidence presented on behalf of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board in the first part of this Inquiry, we confirmed our interests within this Inquiry district and I understand that those interests were accepted by the Waitangi Tribunal.

6. I am here today to introduce and support the evidence provided by the other Hauraki witnesses regarding our taonga and wahi tapu.

7. I am concerned about our taonga in this area as I am aware from the evidence of John McEnteer and Dr Louise Furey (which will follow my evidence) that there are a significant number of taonga that were found within the Hauraki area that are currently kept by museums. I seriously disapprove of this situation and the law which states that the Crown has rights to all our taonga. I do not accept that the Crown should be allowed to possess our taonga in this way.

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

OF

TERRENCE JOHN MCENTEER

ON

STAGE II ISSUES

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF TERRENCE JOHN MCENTEER ON STAGE II ISSUES

DATED

2006

POWELL WEBBER & ASSOCIATES

PO Box 37 661

DX CP 31 534

Parnell

AUCKLAND

Telephone: (09) 377 7774

Facsimile: (09) 307 4301

Solicitor: LG Powell/SJ Eyre

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF TERRENCE JOHN MCENTEER

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Terrence John McEnteer.

2. I am of Ngati Maru descent through Te Ngako to Naunau. My whanau is Watana.

3. I have given evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of the Tauranga Moana Stage I Inquiry in October 2001 and in respect of the Hauraki Inquiry.

4. In my earlier evidence in this Inquiry I advised the Waitangi Tribunal of my qualifications and experience and I confirm that I still have a consultancy business and provide a bicultural service to clients in the area of Treaty claims, environmental resource management and Maori business development. I am a member of the Institute of Directors in New Zealand. At present I hold director or chairman positions on four boards and have previously served as a company director on Capital Coast District Health Board and the State Owned Enterprise Mighty River Power Limited.

5. Since 1992 I have been retained by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board ("the Board") to manage its Treaty of Waitangi claims, principally the WAI 100 claim lodged in 1987, and other specific claims lodged by the Board since then.

6. As the Claims Manager, my role could best be described as that of a project manager. I supervise and direct research and co-ordinate strategy with the Trustees of the Board. I maintain general liaison, secure financial assistance and report to the Board and hui on progress and policy issues related to the Treaty claims.

7. This year I was elected by the Hauraki whanui as one of the three mandated representatives entrusted to take our issues forward to negotiation and eventual settlement with the Crown. The other two mandated representatives are the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and Russell Karu.

8. My evidence today provides a brief update on the evidence presented in the Tauranga Moana Stage I Inquiry, followed by the presentation of evidence confirming our customary interests in Te Puna-Katikati-Athenree Forest-Waihi area¹ and outlining our concerns regarding our taonga and waahi tapu within this area. I will also consider the effect of the enactment of the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 and propose an alternative model for the care of our taonga. Finally, I will provide evidence on the current situation relating to the Athenree Forest.

9. In my evidence today I necessarily only cover the tribal interests of the relevant Hauraki iwi within the Te Puna-Katikati-Athenree Forest-Waihi area.

HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

10. As the Tribunal is aware this claim was brought by Toko Renata Te Taniwha on behalf of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board. In my earlier evidence to the Tribunal I explained the background to the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and the iwi that it represents, namely the 12 iwi of Hauraki being Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Paoa, Patukirikiri, Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Ngai Tai, Ngati Tara Tokanui, Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora and Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau.

11. Each iwi is represented on the Board by a Trustee, with elections held every three years. Everyone over 18 years and who is registered on the tribal register, is entitled to vote if they wish to exercise their right to vote.

¹ As recognized by the Waitangi Tribunal in Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana Report (2004)

12. The Board holds regular hui throughout the year (including an annual general meeting to present the annual report, financial accounts and review progress) and information is also available through the well used website and newsletters or by request via text or the freephone number.

13. The 2001 Census and the more recent population calculations under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, indicate that there are approximately 14,000 people of Hauraki descent (unfortunately the 2006 census results are not currently available).

14. I consider it is important at this juncture to note what the Board has achieved for its constituents to date and what the vision is for our future.

15. Since its establishment in 1989 the Board has built a business with net assets of $21.2 million.² It provides social services, health services, education services, environmental and resource management services, customary fisheries services, and radio broadcasting services to our constituents and other Maori living in the tribal district.

16. Last year the Board consulted its constituents to develop a strategic focus for the future and to obtain their approval to lead the process for building a distinctly Hauraki nation. The result of this consultation and related work is Strategic Blueprint 2006-2012 - "Building the Hauraki Nation, together”,³ which sets out this vision and allowed an opportunity to reflect and review before embarking on a process of change over the next six years. This Strategic Blueprint sets out our vision for nation building which is designed to achieve a Hauraki Nation where our people are: Healthy and Educated; Culturally Rich; Economically Vibrant; Informed and Participating; and Effectively Governed.

² At 30 June 2005

³ A copy of the Strategic Blueprint is available at www.haurakimaori.co.nz

17. At a more practical level the Strategic Blueprint states that we will know we have been successful in achieving these outcomes when we have completed four major tasks:

17.1 When we have ratified “fit for purpose” new governance arrangements for Hauraki by 2011;

17.2 When a Treaty Settlement acceptable to and ratified by Hauraki whanui has been achieved by 2010;

17.3 When a Joint Mandated Iwi Organisation has received the Hauraki share of the Fisheries settlement pursuant to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004; and

17.4 When a multi-focused integrated development plan that addresses the social, cultural and economic aspirations of the whanui into the 21st century is prepared by 2009 and integrated into the new "fit for purpose" governance arrangements by 2011.

18. Of these tasks the Hauraki Maori Trust Board has now been recognised as the Joint Mandated Iwi Organisation for Hauraki valued at approximately $19 million.

THE HAURAKI WAITANGI TRIBUNAL CLAIMS (WAI 100 AND WAI 650)

19. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board has filed a number of claims on behalf of its constituents. The Hauraki claims (including WAI 100 and related claims) have now been reported in The Hauraki Report published in June 2006. This comprehensive report dealt with many issues raised within the Hauraki hearing district including taonga and waahi tapu.

20. The WAI 650 claim relating to the Tauranga hearing district was filed on behalf of the Trust Board to ensure that the interests of the Hauraki iwi in this part of the rohe and, in particular, our customary land interests in the

Katikati-Te Puna land were protected. The findings were reported in the Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana Report.⁴

21. As the Tribunal will recall, I along with kaumatua and other Hauraki whanau participated in and attended the initial Tribunal conferences and hearings for the Tauranga Moana Stage I Inquiry, including the commencement of those hearings at Huria Marae, the presentation of our evidence at Ngahutoitoi Marae and the presentation of our closing submissions. The Hauraki claimants have participated in and continue to participate in the current Stage II Inquiry, to maintain our interests in this area and to express our concerns regarding key issues which affect our interests and our people.

22. In October 2001 when I last gave evidence in respect of this District, I identified a range of key issues raised by the Wai 100 and Wai 650 claims, affecting our Katikati-Te Puna lands.⁵ Other Hauraki witnesses also presented evidence on these and other issues, including land confiscation and the failure to provide adequate land reserves.⁶

23. As identified in my evidence in October 2001, “the return of specific parcels of land such as Crown forests" and “the destruction of sacred places and the acquisition of Maori heritage or cultural property”⁷ are key issues in our claims and will be addressed in my evidence today.

THE HAURAKI TRIBAL ESTATE

24. As also noted in my evidence in the Stage I Inquiry, the Hauraki tribal territory covers a land area of about 1,500,000 to 1,850,000 acres or 650,000 to 750,000 hectares in addition to the offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf. It also covers all that lies beneath the surface, minerals, geothermal resources and hot springs, as well as the forests, farms, settlements sacred areas (sites) and cultural property which are on the

⁴ (August 2004)

⁵ Refer para 38, #M29 from Tauranga Moana Stage 1 Inquiry

⁶ Refer Briefs of Evidence #M22-#M32 from Stage 1 Inquiry

⁷ supra

surface. The rohe also covers Tikapa Moana, the seaward area of approximately 91,509 square kilometres incorporating all of the foreshore and coastline, most of the Hauraki Gulf to the north of Auckland, the Firth of Thames and parts of the northern Bay of Plenty out to the economic zone of New Zealand.

25. I have a number of maps to illustrate the extent of the Hauraki tribal estate.⁸ The first map is a 3D place names map and it shows the Hauraki tribal estate I have just spoken about This map and the next two were shown to the Tribunal in the first part of this Inquiry so they are already on the Record of Inquiry.

26. In the second and third maps I have reproduced the Katikati-Te Puna area and various related features from both the Hauraki and Tauranga Inquiry districts via an aerial plan and an oblique perspective. These maps are sourced from French satellite images and represent a more advanced form of photography/mapping to that used with the above satellite photography. The areas which I will identify on these latter two maps, include:

26.1 Matakana Island - the southern reference in our pepeha “Mai Matakana ki Matakana”

26.2 The Katikati and Te Puna Blocks - the earliest surveyed land that also shows the raupatu boundary and the northern most boundary of this Inquiry district;

26.3 Uretara, Te Puna and Ohinemuri - some of the important rivers in the traditional stories of our people relating to Katikati, as detailed in evidence in the first stage of this Inquiry;⁹

⁸ Refer map book attached as Annexure “A”.

⁹ Refer evidence from Hauraki witnesses #M22-M32 and in particular evidence by Rikiriki Kaikura (#M23) and Te Wiremu Mataia (Nicholls) (#M24) from Tauranga Moana Stage 1 Inquiry

26.4 Katikati, Te Kauri Point, Ongare Point, Tanners Point, Athenree, Pio and Bowentown - important sites to Hauraki as indicated in evidence in the earlier Inquiry and now described in detail in the evidence of Dr Furey;¹⁰

26.5 Place names of urban areas such as Paeroa, Waihi, Waihi Beach, Katikati, Te Puna and Tauranga;

26.6 Nga Kuri-a-wharei - the Southern offshore reference in the pepeha “Mai Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Mahurangi”. This place of “breaking waters or ruffled waters” is a group of sunken rocks offshore. We have our own tikanga about this important place and the stories that go with it. In my original evidence, I explained how I was told of this location and I note that the location of our Nga-Kuri-a-Wharei differs from the location shown on many historical/official maps, and in evidence given by tangata whenua witnesses on behalf of various Tauranga iwi and hapu, where it is shown as a coastal land based site.

MAPPING UNDERTAKEN FOR STAGE II

27. I will now show you a series of maps we have had commissioned for this stage of the Inquiry. The first three are what I will call general situational maps. They are of the area I am mainly concerned with in my evidence today. You are able to see at a glance the key features described above.

28. The first map of these maps is a textured backdrop showing the land blocks and reserves, confiscation line, main roads and towns and the Athenree Forest.

29. The second map is a topographic map showing these features together with more detail. This is a LINZ map in common use throughout the country.

¹⁰ Refer Brief of Evidence of Dr Furey dated 25 September 2006

30. The third map is a coloured aerial photographic map which is a composite of the latest aerial photography taken by the Environment Waikato Regional Council (flown in 2002) and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (flown in 2004). This map provides an up to date view of the situation at that time. In the electronic version of this map we are able to drill down into the map or enlarge it to get greater detail of any feature, should that be required.

31. The fourth map is a tangata whenua map which shows our marae, Maori reserves, waahi tapu, and old pa sites as well as archaeological sites (for example midden and pits) just north and south of the confiscation line and the Tribunal inquiry district boundary. I have also shown the three Te Kauri Point Historic Reserves. The Te Kauri Point Pa (south of jetty) and waahi tapu is located within a 5.4 hectare Historic Reserve which was formally set up in 1982.¹¹

32. The fifth map is a land ownership map that shows present day property boundaries. For our purposes I have just shown the broad categories of Crown owned land and privately owned land.

ATHENREE FOREST

33. We have already presented in the first stage of the Tauranga Inquiry, evidence regarding our interests in the Athenree Forest. This has been recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal and will not be repeated here¹². The following issues are however of relevance to this Stage II Inquiry.

34. There are three new Athenree Forest maps. The first map using the colour aerial photography from the Regional Councils shows in great detail the Athenree Forest and the location of each lot. You will note the confiscation line. Clearly evident are the nearby Hauraki reserves of Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Koi and Ngati Rahiri reserves.

¹¹ Refer New Zealand Gazette 1982 page1179, SO 50939

¹² Refer in particular chapters 2 and 13 in Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana Report (2004)

35. The forest is 1312.2457 hectares in area, ft comprises 5 lots in one plan on DPS 56705 and another 5 lots on another plan being DPS 56706. The 5 parcels of land or lots on DPS 56706 comprising 357.9763 hectares are located within the Hauraki Inquiry district. The 5 parcels on DPS 56705 comprising 954.2694 hectares are located in the Tauranga Inquiry district. The Athenree Forest therefore spans both Inquiry districts. The 357.9763 hectares (DPS 56706) in the Hauraki Inquiry District were originally part of the Ohinemuri Blocks and the 954.2694 hectares within the Tauranga Inquiry District were part of the Katikati Block, These blocks are shown on the first Athenree Forest map.

36. From the maps, you will see why we refer to the Athenree Forest as a Hauraki forest. Most of the forest naturally slopes northwards down towards Waihi and the sea, as this can be seen from the next two 3D maps looking inland across Athenree Forest to Mt Te Aroha. Both 3D maps are taken from a viewing position just about on the confiscation line. The first view is a wider situational view from Nga Kuri a Wharei and clearly shows the forests sloping north east. I have marked Te Aroha and Hikurangi. The second view is a closer up view of the forest showing SH 2 in red running left to right and the forest roads in brown.

37. Athenree is a state forest which corries within the scope of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and to 31 March 2006, the Trust was holding on trust $1,772,679 in respect of this Forest and the current yearly rental received is $41,555 per annum.¹³

38. As noted in my earlier evidence, the Crown Forest Licence contains requirements to protect waahi tapu, and in the past a kaitiaki taonga group was formed consisting of Hauraki kaumatua. Under this arrangement, a number of our kaumatua generally advised Carter Holt Harvey where waahi tapu are located so as to avoid damaging them in the logging operations. Our kaumatua also carried out certain

¹³ Crown Forestry Rental Trust Report to Appointors 2005 - 2006

ceremonies and took appropriate measures where necessary to exercise their mana whenua and kaitiakitanga responsibilities in and around the Athenree Forest. As far as I am aware, the current licensee does not have a similar arrangement and no appropriate process is in place to protect Hauraki waahi tapu within the forest.

TAONGA

39. No Maori in this region was left unaffected by the pattern of confiscation and the practice of colonial history. As a result of our kinship and whakapapa linkages, all iwi to a greater or lesser extent wherever they lived, suffered the same fate.

40. In the areas of Hauraki interest, being the Te Puna-Katikati-Te Kauri Point-Ongare Point-Athenree and Athenree Forest area the position is much worse. Put simply and unequivocally Hauraki have no land at all in this region and even our taonga have been taken from us and our waahi tapu desecrated.

41. In this part of my evidence I confirm our ongoing interests in our taonga, their significance to us and our concerns regarding our difficulties in locating and ultimately returning our taonga. I also consider in this section the recently enacted Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 and any effect that the amendments this Act introduces will have on our taonga and our relationship with them.

42. The term ‘taonga' can refer to a wide range of material, cultural and spiritual phenomena important to Maori. There are a variety of definitions of taonga in circulation, including the definition in the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 and those definitions used by the museums described in the evidence of Dr Furey.¹⁴ In the Hauraki Inquiry, a particular definition was adopted by Hauraki iwi, and we continue to rely upon this which is set out below:

¹⁴ Refer paragraph 19.2 of Dr Furey’s evidence

Taonga are the material treasures of the peoples of Hauraki. These include such objects as mauri (special or tapu objects possessing great powers), toki (adzes of pounamu and other materials), matau (fishhooks of various material), fishing nets and sinkers, patu and mere (prized weapons), taiaha (a type of wooden weapon), hei tiki (a type of pounamu pendant), pare (door lintels), stone implements for domestic use or weapons, and decorative objects worn on the body, artifacts which reflect in some way the culture and / or identity of the Hauraki people. They hold special meaning, have a history, whakapapa or connectedness, not only to those past but also to the people of the present. Today we impart them with meaning, significance, and importance hoping those qualities will endure into the future.

43. Hauraki have in the past and continue to assert ownership over such taonga wherever such are now located. This ownership arises out of the relationship between Hauraki people and our tupuna who fashioned, used and possessed such taonga. I have sometimes used the term cultural property interchangeably to describe these taonga. To Hauraki these taonga hold their own mauri (lifeforce). There is accordingly an important and distinctive difference to the Maori spiritual perception of taonga compared with non-Maori views.

44. We are now aware from Dr Furey’s report of the location of some of our many taonga, her evidence confirms that there are a large number of taonga from the Hauraki area of interest of this Inquiry district at Auckland Museum and also at Waikato Museum, including the Te Kauri Point hair combs.¹⁵

45. I understand that the vast majority of the items identified by Dr Furey were deposited with museums prior to the implementation of the Antiquities Act 1975 (soon to be renamed the Protected Objects Act

¹⁵ Refer in particular, paragraph 13 of Dr Furey’s evidence

1975), thus our taonga became the exclusive property of museums, in our case particularly the Auckland Museum. As a result of the current laws, our newly found taonga are still being deposited in these museums.

46. To my mind the failure of the Antiquities Act 1975 to cover taonga discovered prior to 1975 confirmed the dispossession of our taonga and resulted in the effective confiscation and appropriation of our treasures and property. I believe this is a serious failure to protect our taonga properly. I believe the findings of the Hauraki Inquiry on this point are equally applicable to this part of our tribal territory.¹⁶

47. In the last 10 years various groups of our people, for example the Athenree Forest kaitiaki taonga group, Te Kupenga O Ngati Hako, Ngati Tamatera and Ngati Tara Tokanui and their respective kaumatua and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board have been consulted or provided advice to the Historic Places Trust, the local District Councils, the forest licensee, land developers and/or the police regarding taonga and waahi tapu.

48. In 2001 two carved wooden pare (possibly pataka kai) were found near Athenree (Waiau Road) and our kaumatua of Ngati Tara Tokanui were asked by other iwi to take care of the matter. Our kaumatua had witnessed, in the past and recently, similar highly valued carved taonga being taken to the Auckland museum and, as there is almost no relationship between our kaumatua and the Auckland museum in relation to the care of our taonga, they had no confidence in the Museum to care for them appropriately and in accordance with our tikanga. As part of the exercise of their rangatiratanga they therefore kept these taonga and placed them back into the earth at a new location which was safe and in keeping with the tikanga of the iwi. I would suggest that should similar high value iconic taonga be found now then similar procedures will occur.

49. At the Hauraki Maori Trust Board office we have custody of several stone and wooden taonga from our area of interest the Tauranga Inquiry

¹⁶ Refer page 964 The Hauraki Report (2006)

District. They have returned to us by various pathways. One of the first taonga I had to buy back at auction in Wellington and return it to Hauraki kaumatua (who are now legally registered as collectors, which is the only way we could keep custody of our taonga). Other taonga have been gifted to us. Some taonga are also kept at the iwi offices, for example the Ngati Maru runanga in Thames and Ngati Tamatera in Paeroa.

Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006

50. In August 2006 the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 was passed. It will from 1 November 2006 rename the Antiquities Act 1975 the Protected Objects Act 1975 and it introduced what is intended to be simplified processes for determining custody and ownership of taonga (from 1 November 2006). The Act also recorded New Zealand’s obligations under international conventions to recover illegal exports of taonga and set up a register of protected objects that cannot be removed from New Zealand.

51. Importantly, the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 does not alter the fact that all taonga found from 1976 onwards are deemed to be prima facie the property of the Crown, subject to the establishment through the Maori Land Court of ownership. It is my understanding that only four applications for ownership have been made to the Maori Land Court and that in only three of these cases ownership was confirmed and in the fourth application ownership was declined.

52. It is difficult to see how the amendment to the Act will make any substantive difference to our situation since much of our property has already gone. There are vast collections of taonga in museums, but the law does not apply to most of these taonga as they were found prior to 1976, so eventual return to our ownership of these items is effectively out of our reach.

53. Linder the amendments to the Act, a new process for claims to ownership will be facilitated by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (“the Ministry”).

From my discussions with officials in the Ministry in August 2006 I understand that the new Protected Objects Act processes are designed to speed up the process of determining custody and ownership, however I note that while there is now an obligation on the Chief Executive of the Ministry to take active steps to identify the owners, there is no timeframe within which this must be carried out.

54. In particular I am not aware of what extra resources (if any), the Ministry has to implement this new process and how the process will work in relation to how the Ministry will notify and consult with iwi over newly discovered taonga and in relation to the collections that have already built up.

55. It is acknowledged that the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 makes it possible to award shared or collective custody and ownership of taonga however it is again not clear what capability and resources the Ministry has to resolve disputed claims to custody or ownership should they arise and the practical impact of these new changes may therefore be minimal.

56. The Ministry currently has a register, which was known as the Antiquities Act Artifacts register and is now called the Register of Newly Found Taonga Tuturu. This register is kept for the purposes of recording data on each taonga discovered and registered with the Ministry since 1976. I understand that there are about 6000 items listed in this register for the whole of New Zealand. This register contains among other things the following information - Taonga (artifact) description; the taonga (artifact) type; the source environment it was discovered e.g. beach, urban, rural; antiquity number (or Z number as usually known); a Territorial district council name; the precise location where the object was found; the date it was recorded in the register; the finder and notifying body or person; the name and address of the present holder of the object; and the location of the object at the present time.

57. I have asked the Ministry officials to provide a comprehensive list of all taonga tuturu from our area from this register, so that we can determine the nature and extent and the present physical custodial location of these taonga.

58. I have received information from the Ministry, relating to approximately 70 taonga from the Waihi Beach, Bowentown, Athenree, Te Kauri Point area (corresponding to the Tangata Whenua map) in the last thirty years. Of these about 50 are obsidian or stone flakes. The other 20 or so comprise adzes (5), wooden digging implements (3), wooden bowl (2), wooden carvings (2), part of a waka (taurapa), wooden comb from Te Kauri Point, and other objects such as a sinker, anchor, and stone pounder. It is not clear if these are all the taonga as the register information appears disorganised.

59. In responding to my request, the Ministry only provided me with some information and it withheld all details relating to the nature and contact details of the persons who found the artifact, the person who notified the find to the Ministry, the person who currently had the artifact and the location of the artifact. Therefore, I do not know if these are in a museum or with a private collector and I am unable to properly advise our kaumatua and leaders or meaningfully commence the process to repatriate our taonga.

60. We must ensure that the ownership of these taonga is placed firmly with Hauraki, the appropriate tribal owners to protect them, as in the words of Dr Pita Sharpies:

Te tino rangatiratanga includes the authority of decision making, the right to determine indigenous cultural and customary heritage rights, the right to protect, enhance and transmit the cultural knowledge in relation to all taonga.

61. Dr Pita Sharpies has also made the following points regarding this Act and I agree with his views, which clearly capture our point of view:

Our taonga do not belong to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, they do not belong to Te Papa, they do not belong to museums, art galleries, and private collections home and abroad, although we do have to acknowledge and respect the curatorial guardians who have cared for our taonga; the research, preservation, security, and possession of our treasure is appreciated. But the issue is about tribal ownership, and our ability to still own things as a group. We never forget that it is our inherent right under Article 2 – ko te tino rangatiratanga ki runga I o tatou whenua, o tatou kainga, me nga taonga. ( sovereignty over our lands, homes and treasures). Our cultural heritage estate, our taonga tapu, are so much part of who we are as indigenous peoples, that it is our lifes work to fulfill our responsibilities and obligations in terms of Kaitiakitanga, as expressed in our ownership, authority and protection.¹⁷

62. Thus there is therefore a need for some hybrid or overarching negotiation process to deal with the significant numbers of Hauraki taonga in Auckland museum, otherwise very little of our taonga discovered in the last thirty years is likely to be relevant as according to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage's records there is hardly anything available.

63. At the current time the majority of our taonga (found prior to 1975 and those found after 1975) are deposited with Auckland Museum, as a result of the current law, practice and policy.

64. In our practical experience the current situation is not working for us. There is almost no relationship between our iwi, particularly our kaumatua and the Auckland museum which we believe currently holds most of our taonga, although the lack of records makes it difficult to know exactly what it is holding. Dr Furey has identified in her evidence the Auckland Museum protocol and policy relating to taonga and it is clear that there is

¹⁷ In the Parliamentary debate on the third reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill 2006

no Hauraki involvement at all. Without any guidance and input from us, we cannot therefore have any confidence in the Museum to care for them appropriately and in accordance with our tikanga. We do not have the confidence in the museums and Auckland Museum in particular to care, protect and maintain our taonga and nor do we want them to continue to obtain our property without our input.

65. While we are very frustrated and unhappy with the current situation and relationship with the Auckland, Waikato museums and others that house our taonga, we will continue to attempt to engage with them to find a better way to care for our taonga and to be involved in what happens to our taonga.¹⁸

A BETTER APPROACH - THE NISGA’A MODEL

66. I have had a long interest in taonga going back over 20 years and given our immense dissatisfaction with the current situation I have compared the policies of some overseas institutions with the policies and practices currently carried out by our museums in New Zealand.¹⁹

67. In my opinion, our museum practice in regard to taonga is out of date and old fashioned in many respects. In particular, it is often stated that our taonga cannot be repatriated because of practical difficulties such as there being no security or secure environment available; that there are no physical facilities suitable for the ongoing care of the objects, taking into account humidity, temperature and lighting; or that the objects are too fragile and will get damaged if they are moved around.

68. I do not accept these excuses and believe there is a code of silence by the museums not to reveal innovative solutions which have been in place for sometime now in Canada as epitomised by the Nisga’a treaty

¹⁸ It is noted that at the current time, we have not received any response to a letter to the Waikato Museum outlining our interests in our taonga at that Museum, including the Kauri Point Combs. A copy of this letter is annexed and marked “B”

¹⁹ Refer Brief of Evidence of Dr Furey dated 25 September 2006

agreement. These initiatives appear to work at a practical level and have been successfully implemented into practice.

69. I will outline this model and how it relates to the repatriation, access arrangements, protection and ownership of taonga. I would invite the Tribunal to consider this model and perhaps commission an independent report on its implementation and possible application to our situation.

70. The Nisga’a are an indigenous people in northern British Columbia, Canada, who as part of their attempts to settle their own treaty issues, worked with the Canadian Museum of Civilisation to come up with their own model for managing and caring for their taonga. I have met with some of their chiefs and representatives. I have also met with the Director of the Museum of Civilisation, Canada while on a visit at the time the Nisga’a Agreement in Principle was made, in early 1996.

71. The Nisga’a Agreement in Principle is approximately 180 pages, so I have only appended to this evidence the section which deals with Cultural Artifacts and Heritage.²⁰ I will not go into all the details at this stage, but if after reading the appendix you have questions I will be happy to answer them.

72. The main aspects from this model which I believe warrant your backing as delivering more closely to our Treaty principles are as follows:

72.1 All legal interests and possession of artifacts transfer to Nisga’a;

72.2 Custodial arrangements are negotiated from time to time;

72.3 The Canadian Museum of Civilisation (“CMC”) remain responsible for the care, maintenance and preservation of Nisga’a artifacts in accordance with resources made available for such activities;

²⁰ Refer excerpt annexed and marked “C”

72.4 There are different categories of artifacts which require different custodial arrangements;

72.5 The agreements relating to custodial arrangements respect Nisga’a laws and lore and practices as well as statutory law relating to the CMC;

72.6 The Nisga’a have the first right of refusal to purchase artifacts;

72.7 Subsidiary or provincial museums which hold Nisga’a artifacts apart from CMC will transfer to Nisga’a in the same way;

72.8 Canada and British Columbia province will use reasonable efforts to facilitate Nisga’a access to artifacts held in other public and private collections;

72.9 Archaeological and heritage sites are protected and properly managed to protect them;

72.10 Artifacts found or discovered on provincial Crown lands other than Nisga’a reserves will be loaned and/or transferred to Nisga’a;

72.11 Special arrangements are made in regard to the disposition of archaeological human remains;

73. There is also a set of other practical arrangements which support the above framework and I will detail these in describing the model which I suggest we should adopt.

Hauraki Tino Rangatiratanga nga Taonga model

74. I propose we adopt the Hauraki Tino Rangatiratanga nga Taonga model, as it is an approach which I consider matches both the articles and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi more closely, than the current policy and practice surrounding our taonga. This proposal flows from our

experience here and overseas and I consider it is in keeping with sustaining our sense of identity, rangatiratanga and obligations in terms of kaitiakitanga. The key aspects of this model are:

74.1 All clearly identified Hauraki taonga currently held in museums in New Zealand found prior to 1976 would be transferred to Hauraki tribal ownership;

74.2 Similarly taonga tuturu found since 1976 originating from Hauraki customary lands would be transferred to our ownership;

74.3 The museums would remain responsible for the care, maintenance and preservation of our taonga in consultation with Hauraki;

74.4 Custodial arrangements would be negotiated from time to time with the present holder of the taonga and would respect Hauraki tikanga, lore and practices;

74.5 Different categories or types of taonga may require different or graduated custodial arrangements particularly when considering the outreach arrangements for taonga to be regularly returned to marae;

74.6 Taonga discovered from 2006 in our customary lands whether in private or public ownership would be transferred to Hauraki ownership forthwith and the appropriate custodial arrangements negotiated with museums. Some may need to be conserved, stabilized and protected through the application of scientific or cultural techniques;

74.7 Selected taonga carvings housed in the museums to be returned to Hauraki marae or other suitable places after we have been funded and up skilled to carve replica carvings which may remain in the museum;

74.8 Selected taonga are transferred from the museums in Auckland, Wellington and Waikato or elsewhere to Hauraki marae, schools, tribal offices and other suitable places using portable display cabinets, especially designed and engineered with all the atmospheric controls, display materials, traveling packaging and security features built-in thus avoiding the need to construct special purpose buildings. These outreach portable displays can be moved around on tour within Hauraki and after a period returned to the museum locations to be refreshed;

74.9 Trained professional curators will look after these decentralized collections and train Hauraki Maori in the skills to protect and enhance taonga;

74.10 Selected taonga may be permanently repatriated to Hauraki marae, tribal offices or other suitable places for display, teaching, education and research where there are suitable facilities provided or purpose built;

74.11 Healing and spiritual taonga are transferred to the appropriate tohunga for their protection and use;

74.12 Special arrangements are made for the disposition of archaeologically recovered koiwi human remains or human remains which are otherwise returned from overseas or other museums;

74.13 The Crown would use reasonable efforts to facilitate Hauraki access to taonga held in foreign cultural institutions with the aim of repatriating these taonga to us;²¹ and

²¹ For example by establishing a fund to provide for purchase of taonga from overseas

74.14 Any replicas or images of taonga used commercially in museum shops or sold are done with our agreement and on a shared royalty or shared equity basis.

75. As with any model there will always be details to refine such as in some museum collections it may be challenging to establish the Hauraki taonga. In the case of existing museum collections acquired prior to April 1976 or indeed taonga tuturu found post 1976 there may be some instances where shared or joint ownership with a neighbouring iwi is appropriate because of the overlapping or shared customary land interests.

76. In most cases custodial arrangements would be agreed with a museum or university but they could also be with an archaeologist or private collector who has for the time being the taonga in their custody.

WAAHI TAPU AT TE KAURI POINT

77. Turning now to waahi tapu or sacred places. Dr Furey has provided evidence regarding the Te Kauri Point historical reserve which contains one of our most sacred pa and waahi tapu.

78. This is indicated in our final map, which I will now refer to. This map is a close up aerial photographic map of the Te Kauri Point area (taken in 2004). The area I am referring to is the pa, the waahi tapu and swamp enclosure (which contains taonga) on the south side of the jetty at Te Kauri Point. I have also indicated on the map, the archaeological sites referred to in Dr Fureys’ evidence which are also located within the Te Kauri Point historical reserve.

79. Dr Furey’s evidence indicates that these sites provided an internationally importance collection of combs and other taonga. While I understand the particular excavation that uncovered these taonga has not been completely reported on, it is still very clear from Dr Furey’s evidence that the taonga uncovered at the site are very significant. Given the location

and importance of this site and the taonga found there, we consider that it is critical that we are involved in the care and management of this area in order to ensure that our sacred place and the taonga originating from there are cared for appropriately.

80. It is very clear to me that this area is not being appropriately looked after. This is evidenced first in the fact that Hauraki are not involved at all in the care and management of this site, and there also appears to be no intention to involve us in the future.²² Secondly, at the current time there is a lease by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council allowing a farmer to graze the site with a stocking regime that is physically destroying the site and in an area that is not even fenced off.

81. After obtaining information from the Western Bay of Plenty District Council regarding its management of our waahi tapu and the surrounding areas, it appears that, although the Council identified the need to carry out work on the area, it has not been done. Further, there is no indication in the Council’s plan of any intention to undertake meaningful consultation or involvement with Hauraki in respect of the care and management of this area.

82. We do not know what professional advice the Council has obtained to protect our waahi tapu nor what experts they have in their organisation to manage our cultural resource properly.

83. I think it is clear from this information²³ and the report of Dr Furey that the Western Bay of Plenty District Council cannot look after this area, therefore serious changes are required to the management of this site, as at the moment, under the Western Bay of Plenty District Council control it is being systematically destroyed.

84. In addition, as a first step, a relevant and appropriate management plan could be implemented for the better care and protection of this site so as

²² According to the Katikati Ward Reserves Plan annexed and marked “D”

²³ Refer annexure “D”

to ensure appropriate signage and information is available for the public so that they can exercise respect for this place and we can exercise our kaitiakitanga.

ATHENREE FOREST

85. Our interests in the Athenree Forest were recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal in the first stage of this Inquiry. At the current time the Hauraki claimants are trying to enter into negotiations, this will however take some time and any relief will be at least a few years away. As our claims have already been found to be well founded in both the Hauraki and Tauranga Inquiry Districts, we consider that it is important that we are provided with interim relief to assist us over the next few years, until we attain our full settlement.

86. Given these findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and the fact that this is the only Tribunal currently hearing Hauraki claims, we request that our share of the Athenree Forest be returned to us as soon as possible. We have had to wait far too long for any actual remedy and consider that this would be a small gesture of redress, for which there is already a clear legislative process.

87. I consider that the Trust Board is the appropriate entity to return the forest to, to be held in trust for its beneficiaries, pending the settlement of the wider Hauraki claims. This would enable the benefits which derive from the forest to be used for the benefit of our constituents until such time as full benefit and redress can be attained through our eventual settlement.

CONCLUSION

88. The Hauraki iwi have taonga spread throughout a number of museums in New Zealand and waahi tapu within this Inquiry District (and others not the subject of today’s hearing). Neither our waahi tapu nor our taonga have been looked after appropriately by the Crown (and its agents), nor is there any meaningful recognition or involvement of the Hauraki iwi in the

care of our taonga and waahi tapu. This lack of protection and involvement has resulted in our dispossession of taonga and the desecration of our waahi tapu and other sacred places.

89. This situation cannot continue and we invite the Crown to take on our suggestions of an alternative method of caring for our taonga and to provide us with a real way to be involved in the care of our waahi tapu and sacred places.

90. We have interests in the Athenree Forest, that have now been recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal for over two years and we have well founded claims in two Inquiry Districts so far, yet we have still not received any acknowledgment, redress or interim relief from the Crown. We have waited too long and we ask the Crown to not delay any longer and seek the return of the Hauraki share of the Athenree Forest.

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

J. McENTEER

30 August 2006

Waikato Museum

Private Bag 3010

HAMILTON

Fax: 07 838 6751

Tena koutou

KAURI POINT COMBS

We act for the Hauraki Maori Trust Board. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board represent twelve separate iwi and, together with John McEnteer and Russell Karu, is one of the mandated representatives of Hauraki Iwi for the settlement of the Hauraki Treaty claims.

We understand that the Waikato Museum currently holds in its collection the Kauri Point Swamp combs and other taonga found at Kauri Point Swamp. We advise that the Kauri Point Swamp is within the Hauraki iwi tribal region and accordingly we advise that the Hauraki iwi have interests in the combs and other taonga that were found at the swamp.

We would appreciate it if the Museum could acknowledge this interest, provide us with an update on the current arrangements you have for the custody of these combs and undertake to consult with the Hauraki iwi in respect of any future plans for the combs and other taonga from the Kauri Point Swamp.

We look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

POWELL

WEBBER

& Associates

Barristers & Solicitors

PARTNERS

Grant Powell

Rob Webber

ASSOCI ATE

Anthony Ruakere

SOLICITORS

Sarah Eyre

Angela Hansen

Roimata Smail

Telephone (09) 377 7774

Facsimile (09) 307 4301

Level 11, Peace Tower

2 St Martins Lane

Auckland City

PO Box 37 661, Parnell

Auckland, New Zealand

DX CP27025

LG Powell/Sarah Eyre

Partner/Senior Solicitor

Nisga’a

Treaty Negotiations

AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE

NISGA'A TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE

DATED: FEBRUARY 15, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

Lands & Resources

A Map of Nisga'a Lands

B Adjusted Nisga'a Indian Reserves

C Additional Nisga'a Fee Simple Interests

D Nisga'a Names of Key Geographic Features

E Boundaries of Bear Glacier Park

Water Volumes

F Water courses for which a reservation of water volume is to be negotiated prior to the Final Agreement

Fisheries

G Map of Nass Area and Associated Water Bodies

H Determination of Nisga'a Entitlements for Salmon

DEFINITIONS

1. "Agreement" means this Agreement-in-Principle between tie Nisga'a Nation, Canada and British Columbia, negotiated pursuant to the Framework Agreement, dated March 20, 1991.

2. "Ayuukhl Nisga'a" and "Ayuuk" mean the traditional laws and practices of the Nisga'a Nation.

3. "consult" and "consultation" mean, other than in the Dispute Resolution Chapter, provision to a Party of:

a. notice of a matter to be decided, in sufficient detail to permit the Party to prepare its views on the matter;

b. a reasonable period of tune to permit the Party to prepare its views on the matter,

c. an opportunity for the Party to present its views on the matter; and

d. a full and fair consideration of any views on the matter so presented by the Party.

4. "disposition" means an act by which an interest in Nisga'a Lands is disposed of or by which Nisga'a Government divests itself of or creates an interest in Nisga'a Lands.

5. "domestic" means, in the Fisheries and Wildlife Chapters of this Agreement, food, social and ceremonial,

6. "effective date" means the date upon which the Final Agreement will take effect.

7. "fair compensation" means compensation as the term is generally applied with respect to a taking by the Crown including:

a. fair market value;

b. value to owner;

c. disturbance damages;

d. injurious affection; and

in the case of adjusted Nisga'a Indian reserves where Crown access has been established pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Lands and Resources Chapter of this Agreement, any particular cultural values.

8. "Final Agreement" means the agreement between the Nisga'a Nation, Canada, and British Columbia which will be based on this Agreement.

9. "forest resources" includes all timber and non-timber forest resources, including all biota, but does not include wildlife, water or fish;

10. "gravel materials" means gravel, rock and random borrow materials used in highway construction.

11. "law" or "laws" includes federal, British Columbia and Nisga’a legislation, acts, ordinances, regulations, orders in council, bylaws and the common law and, for greater certainty, does not include the Ayuukhl Nisga'a.

12. "Minister" means the Minister or Ministers of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and British Columbia charged by legislation with the responsibility, from time to time, for the exercise of powers in relation to the matter in question.

13. "Nass Area" means;

a. the entire Nass watershed;

b. all Canadian water bodies which flow into portions of Portland Inlet, Observatory Inlet, and Portland Canal, as defined in subparagraph (c);

c. all marine waters in Pearse Canal, Portland Inlet, Observatory Inlet and Portland Canal northeast of a line commencing at the Canadian border, midway between Pearse and Wales Island and proceeding along Wales Passage southeasterly to Portland Inlet, then northeasterly to the midpoint between Start and Trefusis Point, then south to Gadu Point;

d. and includes the adjacent lands in Canada surrounding those waters, approximately as set out on Appendix G.

14. "Nisga'a Central Government" means that government described in the Nisga'a Constitution, recognized in-paragraph 10 of the Nisga'a Government Chapter of this Agreement.

15. "Nisga'a citizen" means a citizen of the Nisga'a Nation as determined by Nisga'a law.

16. "Nisga'a Fee Simple Lands" means those fee simple lands (including those that cease to be Indian reserves after the effective date) outside Nisga'a Lands that are acquired by or confirmed to the Nisga'a Nation tinder the Final Agreement,

17. "Nisga'a Government" means Nisga'a Central Government and Nisga'a Village Governments.

18. "Nisga'a Lands" means those lands identified as Nisga'a Lands in the Lands and Resources Chapter of this Agreement.

19. "Nisga'a Nation" means the collectivity of those aboriginal people who share the language, culture and laws of the Nisga'a Indians of the Nass Area and their descendants.

20. "Nisga'a tribe" means the Laxsgiik (Eagle), Laxgibuu (Wolf), the Gisk'aast (Killerwhale), or the G anada (Raven) tribe of the Nisga'a Nation.

21. "Nisga'a Urban Locals" are entities recognized by Nisga'a Government for the purpose of participation in Nisga'a Central Government by Nisga'a citizens residing outside of the Nass Area and includes the three Nisga’a locals in:

a. Greater Vancouver;

b. Terrace; and

c. Prince Rupert/Port Edward.

22. "Nisga'a Village Governments" means the governments of:

a. New Aiyansh;

b. Gitwinksihlkw;

c. Greenville;

d. Kincolith; and

e. additional village governments within Nisga'a Lands established pursuant to the Nisga'a Constitution.

23. "participant" means a person who is on the enrolment list of the Nisga'a Nation, prepared pursuant to the Eligibility and Enrolment Chapter of the Final Agreement.

24. "Parties" means the parties to this Agreement.

25. "settlement legislation" means the Acts of Parliament and the British Columbia Legislative Assembly which give effect to the Final Agreement.

26. "Simgigat and Sigidimhaanak " means persons designated as such in accordance with Ayuukhl Nisga'a.

27. "submerged lands" means lands below the natural boundary.

28. "Village Lands" means Nisga'a Lands that are designated as Village Land of a particular Nisga'a Village pursuant to Nisga'a law or the Nisga'a Constitution.

12. In the event of disposal of Nisga'a artifacts listed in Appendix N and O by the CMC or Nisga'a Central Government, the other party will be consulted and may exercise a right of first refusal to purchase such artifacts.

13. Prior to the Final Agreement, Canada and the Nisga’a Tribal Council may negotiate arrangement pertaining to:

a. the replication of certain Nisga'a artifacts listed in Appendix O; and

b. professional and technical training for Nisga'a citizens in museum skills and conservation expertise.

Royal British Columbia Museum

14. British Columbia, through the RBCM, currently holds artifacts which it and the Nisga'a Tribal Council have identified as Nisga'a artifacts, which are listed in Appendix P and which the Parties have provisionally divided into categories "0", "1", "2", "3", and "4".

15. Prior to the Final Agreement, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council will divide the Nisga’a artifacts listed in Appendix P into two lists.

16. British Columbia will transfer to Nisga'a Central Government, without condition, all its legal interests in and possession to one of the two lists referred to in paragraph 15, as soon as practicable following the request of Nisga'a Central Government, and in any event, within 5 years from the effective date unless otherwise agreed to by British Columbia and Nisga'a Central Government.

17. Prior to the delivery of Nisga'a artifacts pursuant to paragraph 16, they will be maintained by RBCM, and British Columbia will not be liable for any loss or damage to such Nisga'a artifacts absent dishonesty, gross negligence, or malicious or wilful misconduct of its employees or agents.

18. In the event that other artifacts held by British Columbia as of the effective date are identified as Nisga'a artifacts, they will either be transferred to Nisga'a Central Government pursuant to paragraph 16 or managed in accordance with custodial arrangements negotiated pursuant to paragraph 19.

19. British Columbia and Nisga'a Central Government will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements to establish custodial arrangements in respect of Nisga'a artifacts which are not transferred to Nisga'a Central Government pursuant to paragraph 16.

20. The agreements negotiated pursuant to paragraph 19 will respect Nisga’a laws and practices relating to Nisga'a artifacts, will comply with laws of general application, including the statutory mandate of the RBCM, and may include:

a. conditions of maintenance, storage, and handling of the Nisga'a artifacts;

b. conditions of access to and use, including study, display and reproduction, of the Nisga'a artifacts and associated records by the public, researchers and scholars;

c. provision for incorporating new information into catalogue records and displays of the Nisga'a artifacts; and

d. conditions of de-accession.

21. British Columbia and Nisga'a Central Government may negotiate agreements which:

a. establish processes by which Nisga'a artifacts listed in Appendix P may be loaned by one party to the other;

b . provide for replication of Nisga'a artifacts;

c. provide for professional and technical training for the Nisga'a in museum skills and conservation expertise;

d. provide for enhancing public knowledge of the Nisga'a Nation through the participation of the Nisga’a in public programs and activities at the RBCM; and

e. such other matters as may be agreed.

ACCESS TO OTHER COLLECTIONS

22. Canada and British Columbia will use reasonable efforts to facilitate Nisga'a Central Government access to Nisga'a artifacts held in other public and private collections.

PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND OTHER HERITAGE SITES

23. British Columbia and Nisga'a Central Government will each develop processes to manage archaeological and other heritage sites where proposed land development may impact them. Those processes will be designed to:

a. identify archaeological and other heritage sites;

b. provide notice to the other Parties of identified sites;

c. assess the significance of identified sites;

d. ensure appropriate protective or management measures are taken to protect, or where necessary to mitigate the effects of unavoidable impacts on, identified sites and associated material; and

e. ensure that management implementation measures and costs are borne by the appropriate party.

24. Until such time as Nisga'a Central Government establishes the processes referred to in paragraph 23, processes developed by British Columbia will apply on Nisga'a Lands.

OWNERSHIP OF NISGA'A ARTIFACTS DISCOVERED

25. Nisga'a Central Government will own Nisga'a artifacts discovered:

a. within Nisga'a Lands; and

b. on adjusted Nisga'a Indian reserves outside of Nisga'a Lands which become fee simple lands.

26. Any Nisga'a artifact discovered on provincial lands elsewhere in British Columbia will be subject to provincial jurisdiction. These artifacts will be loaned to Nisga'a Central Government, and may be transferred to Nisga'a Central Government.

HUMAN REMAINS

27. The Final Agreement will contain provisions in respect of Nisga'a Central Government authority over the disposition of Nisga'a archaeological human remains.

Background:

□ Strategically located on the Kauri Point coastal headland.

□ Reserve has historic status due to its Maori archaeological and cultural values being a former pa site and area of historic occupation.

□ There are a number of pa sites, urupa and waahi tapu within the reserve and on adjacent land including scheduled sites listed in the District Plan Appendix ii (H26, H69, H70, H72, H106).

□ Three fee simple sections purchased in 1998 will require change of status. □ Reserve abuts the small coastal settlement of Kauri Point.

□ Generally elevated with a Pohutukawa clad coastal escarpment.

□ Vegetated coastal headland has been Identified as a significant landscape feature of the District requiring protection (District Plan S14).

□ Reserve adjoins the Ongare Point Road Reserve (which does not form part of the Reserves Management Plan)

□ Small sealed carpark and basic toilet block in southern part of the reserve.

□ Timber jetty (popular fishing spot) extends from the south side of the headland.

□ Vehicle access extends down to the water's edge at the base of the jetty where there is a small boat-ramp.

□ A walkway extends from the base of the jetty north up the escarpment to the grazed elevated portion of the reserve.

□ Grazing lease exists over upper paddock area.

Reserve Issues;

□ Congestion at the boat ramp. Conflict between cars and pedestrian access.

□ Cars accessing and turning on the intertidal flats.

□ Grazing of cattle has potential to damage archaeological sites and deters public access/informal use.

View across the upper grazed portion of the reserve

□ Upper area appears to be private rural farmland, not well sign-posted as reserve.

□ Walkway requires further development.

□ Opportunities for interpretation exist.

□ Protection of significant landscape features.

□ Area in the north is Council's preferred location for a ‘northern harbour’ boat ramp, with feasibility studies being undertaken.

□ Security of vehicles, theft from vehicles.

Reserve Management Policy:

4.12.1 Enhance the Pohutukawa coastal margins with additional appropriate locally sourced native planting and plant pest control.

4.12.2 Extend the walkway around the top of the escarpment toward Ongare Point including areas for seats/picnics.

4.12.3 Ensure the protection of the reserve's important historic and archaeological resources and associations.

4.12.4 With the lessee investigate alternative grazing options that have less impact on the historic and archaeological values of the reserve.

4.12.5 Research and undertake the interpretation of the Maori and European cultural heritage of the reserve.

4.12.6 Put in place vehicle control mechanisms to relieve congestion at the jetty - in the first instance sign this as “for boat launching access only no parking”. Monitor the effectiveness of these controls.

4.12.7 Ensure proposals for any future northern harbour boat ramp support the amenity and public use of the reserve.

4.12.8 Motor Homes are permitted to stay overnight within the formed, sealed carpark by the toilet within this reserve.

4.12.9 Generic objectives for Historic Reserves and generic policies apply.

Aerial view shows coastal Pohutukawa forest, the timber jelly, upper grazed land and adjacent residential settlement

Significant Pohutukawa fringe the coastline of the reserve

Reserves Key

1 Aongatete Domain

12 Kauri Point Historic Reserve

13 Kauri Pt Foreshore and Stokes Rd Esplana

14 Lancaster Rd Landing Reserve

16 Lindeman Reserve/Lookout

17 MacMillan Rd Reserve

20 Ongare Point Reserve

26 Reretukahia Stream Reserve

27 Sapphire Springs Motorcamp

28 Sharp Road Landing Reserve

30 Tahawai Reserve

31 Tanners Point Foreshore Reserve

32 Tanners Point Utility Reserve

38 Woodlands Road Esplanade Reserve

APPENDIX 2 - Reserves requiring classification or reclassification under Section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

OF

DR. LOUISE FUREY

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF DR LOUISE FUREY

DATED

2006

POWELL WEBBER & ASSOCIATES

PO Box 37 661

DX CP 31 534

Parnell

AUCKLAND

Telephone: (09) 377 7774

Facsimile: (09) 307 4301

Solicitor: LG Powell/SJ Eyre

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF LOUISE FUREY

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Louise Furey. I am a practising archaeologist with 26 years experience. I obtained a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Auckland in 1981, and a Doctor of Science degree from the same University in 2005.

2. I have published two books on Maori artefacts,¹ co-authored a book on the excavation of a large volcanic cone pa in Northland,² co-edited a book on New Zealand archaeology,³ written review articles on the archaeology of the Hauraki area and carried out archaeological excavations and site assessments throughout the Western Bay of Plenty area and other areas in the northern North Island.

3. I am a director of CFG Heritage, an archaeological consultancy company.

4. I have presented evidence to the Waitangi Tribunal previously in respect of the Wai 100 and related claims of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board within the Hauraki District Inquiry.

5. I have been commissioned in this instance by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board to prepare an archaeological summary and taonga review in respect of the area between Katikati and Waihi Beach (“the Review”). A copy of this review is annexed hereto and marked “A”.

6. My review addresses three areas of relevance to this Inquiry:

¹ Furey, L. 1996 Oruarangi. The archaeology and material culture of a Hauraki Pa. Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and Museum No. 17.
Furey, L. 2002 Houhora. A 14th century Maori village in Northland. Bulletin of the Auckland War Memorial Museum No. 19

² Sutton D., L Furey & Y. Marshall 2003 The Archaeology of Pouerua. Auckland University Press.

³ Furey, L. & S. Holdaway 2004 Change Through Time. 50 years of NZ archaeology. NZ Archaeological Association Monograph 26.

6.1 The history of archaeological excavations within the Katikati to Waihi Beach area and the subsequent findings that have been and can be drawn from those investigations⁴;

6.2 An analysis of what has happened to the taonga and Maori material culture that was found in the archaeological excavations, and in the wider Waihi Beach-Katikati area, including consideration of the current arrangements governing the care and management of the taonga and Maori material culture⁵;

6.3 The effect that legislative measures such as the Historic Places Amendment Act 1975, the Historic Places Act 1993, the Antiquities Act 1975 and the Resource Management Act 1991 have had on the actual archaeological sites and the taonga and Maori material culture found within those sites⁶.

7. The key points from these areas of the review are summarised in this Brief of Evidence.

HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS

8. Western Bay of Plenty is an archaeologically rich landscape with a high density of settlement evidence. It was an area acknowledged as an archaeological landscape worthy of further study in the early 1960s and archaeological excavations have been carried out on five sites since that time.⁷ I have provided a summary of each of the excavations in my review.⁸

9. The most interesting and relevant information that can be taken from these excavations in respect of this Inquiry are:

⁴ Refer paragraphs 10–26 of the Review

⁵ Refer paragraphs 31–45 of the Review

⁶ Refer in particular, paragraphs 3–9 of the Review

⁷ Four sites within the Kauri Point Area and one in the Athenree area

⁸ Refer paragraphs 10–24 of the Review

9.1 That the area was well used and appears to have been occupied on a number of occasions, with modifications to previous sites being evident in the excavations, including also expansions and contractions in the size of the occupied area at the Kauri Point Pa, identified on an early map as Owarau Pa;⁹

9.2 Gardening and storage of food crops was an ongoing activity around which settlements were based. This important aspect of the economy did not vary over time¹⁰;

9.3 The area was settled soon after Polynesian settlement of Aotearoa, and continued after the arrival of Europeans¹¹;

9.4 Obsidian flakes from the Waihi obsidian source, (located in the Waimata Stream catchment which flows into the Ohinemuri River) are found in only a few sites in this area and also in sites next to the Waihou River. It is possible that this presence of the Waihi obsidian is as close as archaeology is able to get in establishing a tribal association of sites. At the very least the presence of the obsidian may identify direct communication or interaction between the people on those sites where the obsidian has been found, and people from Hauraki.¹²

10. In my review I have attempted to provide the most relevant information from these excavations for the Waitangi Tribunal, however an area of real concern to me is that only one of these excavations have been formally reported on. Therefore the potential wealth of information regarding the people who originally lived in these areas is not available to the claimants or the public, and is only held in note form by those involved with the excavations¹³. Had these excavations been fully written up, it is likely substantially more findings of relevance would have been available for the Waitangi Tribunal.

⁹ Refer map as figure four in my attached report and refer in particular paragraphs 12 and 23 of the Review

¹⁰ Refer in particular paragraph 24 of the Review

¹¹ Refer in particular paragraph 25 of the Review

¹² Refer paragraph 26 of the Review

¹³ Refer in particular paragraphs 2 and 16 of the Review

11. I am aware that the Waitangi Tribunal has already heard evidence regarding the Hauraki customary interests in these areas and that this has been reported on in the Tauranga Moana Report¹⁴. In the absence of any clear archaeological information regarding these peoples and interests I have no reason not to accept these findings and the kaumatua evidence it was based upon.

TAONGA FROM THE KATIKATI TO WAIHI BEACH AREA

12. Taonga that have been found in the Katikati to Waihi Beach area are currently located in various museums throughout the country¹⁵. The distribution is likely to be more extensive than those museums canvassed for this study, as items are also held in private collections. Archaeological excavations, and archaeological recording work carried out under the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (“Historic Places Trust”) authority system, has uncovered artifacts. These are notified to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage in accordance with the provisions of the Antiquities Act 1975. Notification is a standard condition of the Historic Places Trust Authority to Modify and is binding on the authority holder, and on the archaeologist approved to carry out the archaeological work.¹⁶

13. The most significant collection of Maori taonga from this study area is that from the Kauri Point Swamp site. Although a range of wooden and organic items were preserved in the swamp the most important finds were the heru (wooden combs). Over 180 comb fragments were recovered from an enclosure of approximately 16 sq feet within the swamp. Some of the combs had been used and have kokowai and oil embedded between the teeth. However the most remarkable fact was that the predominant comb style changed from the bottom to the top of the swamp deposit – most of the combs near the base were flat topped, while those near the top were mostly rounded. Some were decorated in a very simple way with notching or scalloping on the

¹⁴ (2004)

¹⁵ Refer paragraphs 31–37 of the Review

¹⁶ Refer s17 Historic Places Act 1993

edge of the frame, or projections on one side, but yet others had been decorated with fretting or had incised designs¹⁷.

14. The Kauri Point combs (which are currently in the Waikato Museum), are very important for several reasons:

14.1 The Kauri Point combs are some of the very few wooden items recovered from archaeological contexts, and the deposit able to be dated. Most wooden items in museums do not have the associated information routinely recorded in archaeological excavations, which limits their ability to be interpreted. Knowing where and how these combs were deposited allows inferences to be made about the behaviour of people who deposited them there and about the time period in which the combs were in use¹⁸.

14.2 Most importantly the collection is highly significant, and arguably internationally significant for its ability to contribute to an understanding about the evolution of Maori art styles.

15. Although the Kauri Point Swamp collection has been written about in several academic papers, the full excavation report, complete with a description of each item, has not been published although the excavation took place in 1962-63. The full collection of material recovered from the site, including the combs, has not been described in detail, or illustrated¹⁹. Until this level of analysis is complete it is difficult to use the collection to its full potential in understanding art styles, or how the site and its contents can be compared to other finds. In addition, this collection is so important, and so interesting, that the results should be written and published in a form to make them more accessible to a wider audience. At the current time, tangata whenua have almost no access to the knowledge obtained in these archaeological excavations.

¹⁷ Refer in particular paragraph 15 and figure 6 of the Review

¹⁸ Refer paragraphs 15–20 of the Review

¹⁹ Refer in particular paragraphs 2 and 16 of the Review

16. In addition to the excavated taonga from Kauri Point Swamp, Auckland Museum, Waikato Museum, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and the Tauranga City Museum hold Maori artifacts from the study area.²⁰ The locality information in the museum registers from Auckland Museum is very general for the first decades of the 20th century (in keeping with broad district names in use at the time) so only a few items can be firmly placed to the Kauri Point area. These include a wooden bowl in the form of a stylised bird, and a godstick head from Ongare. The remaining items in Auckland Museum are likely to be from the Waihi Beach or Bowentown area.

17. The majority of the items held by the Auckland Museum, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and the Waikato Museum were accessioned prior to the Antiquities Act 1975. The Ministry of Culture and Heritage Database records 40 entries for this area since 1976. These can be broken down by year: 2 from 1979, 35 from 1980, 1 from 1990, 1 from 2001 and one with no year. With the exception of two adzes, one wooden comb (from Kauri Point Swamp), two carvings, a stone pounder and a sinker, the remaining entries are for obsidian flakes. The current location of these items is unknown as the Ministry of Culture and Heritage will not provide the location of these items.

18. As part of my review I have also undertaken consideration of the various policies and practices for the Museum where these items are being held regarding consultation over the care and management of the taonga²¹.

19. The exact policies (or lack of policy) of the four museums in question are provided in my review²². The main issues of note and of concern regarding the various policies are that:

19.1 None of the four museums have any reference in their own policy or structure to Hauraki involvement and interests

²⁰ Refer paragraphs 31-37 and Tables 4 and 5 of the Review

²¹ Refer paragraphs 38-45 of the Review

²² Refer attachments 3-7 of the Review

19.2 The definition of what constitutes taonga varies. Auckland Museum has an inventory of taonga which continues to be worked on. The criteria for inclusion is outlined in museum policy.²³ The inventory is available online,²⁴ and a search for this area revealed a very mixed representation of items known to be in the museum collection. Decisions on inclusion in the database are made by museum staff, based on information recorded in accession registers and museum records. Iwi from the area are not consulted about what constitutes a taonga, or about what items are or should be included. The fact that an item is in the taonga inventory does not mean it is afforded more careful curation. Conversely, the fact that an item is not in the taonga inventory does not mean that it would not be considered a taonga by those with customary interests if they were given the opportunity to participate.

Kauri Point Historic Reserve

20. The Kauri Point Pa and Kauri Point Swamp are in a historic reserve administered by Western Bay of Plenty District Council, but the sites are being grazed heavily by a local landowner’s stock. A recent publication by the Department of Conservation on Wetland Archaeological Sites outlined the ongoing damage to the swamp²⁵ and stated in summary, that the sites are not being managed in accordance with their status as a Historic Reserve and that the draft management plan for the reserve is inadequate because it does not take into account the significance of the area, nor does it address measures to protect the swamp.

21. During a recent visit I made, it was apparent that stock (cattle) had been walking through the swamp, and the slopes on either side of the swamp were eroding due to stock activity. The northern slope of the pa has exposures of shell and bare ground where stock have contributed to soil movement It appears clear that the Western Bay

²³ Refer attachment 6 of the Review

²⁴ http://tekakano.aucklandmuseum.com

²⁵ Gumbley, W., D. Johns and G. Law 2005 Management of Wetland Archaeological Sites in New Zealand. Science for Conservation 246.

of Plenty District Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Reserves Act 1977 not only is it not managing the site in accordance with its primary purpose of being a historic reserve, the draft management plan referred to in 1992 has still not been reviewed or formally approved by the Minister of Conservation as required in the Reserves Act 1977. in addition, there is no interpretation, or signage, and the public would therefore be generally unaware that the land is a Historic Reserve.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

22. I have discussed in my review the varying effect of legislation on the archaeological sites²⁶.

23. In particular I note that although the Historic Places Act 1975 made it unlawful to modify or destroy an archaeological site without the consent of the Historic Places Trust, a lack of funding and resources meant that the effectiveness of this Act was initially limited and was largely ineffective during the critical period of development which affected the survival of the archaeological sites within this area.

24. Given the ineffectiveness of the Historic Places Trust many of the archaeological sites within this area were damaged or destroyed during establishment of intensive horticulture and an increase in housing development in the area. This occurred well prior to the introduction of the Resource Management Act 1991 which did slightly improve the dissemination of archaeological information. It was however too late for most of the archaeological sites within this area.

CONCLUSION

25. A recent reappraisal of archaeological sites in the Athenree-Kauri Point area (known as the New Zealand Archaeological Association Upgrade Project) revealed that land use has not changed significantly since sites were first recorded in the 1980s, suggesting that the number of archaeological sites remaining has not decreased markedly

²⁶ Refer in particular paragraphs 3-9 of the Review

since that time. The Resource Management Act 1991 and the Historic Places Act 1975 ensure that archaeological sites are taken into account when landowners apply for resource consents. Since 1993, Historic Places Trust has issued 34 authorities within the study area to modify a total of 103 archaeological sites²⁷. Historic Places Trust has had an archaeologist based in the Bay of Plenty since 2001, with increased contact with landowners and local and regional authorities to ensure sites are protected and taken into account in planning issues.

26. Archaeological excavations have provided information on everyday activities of the people who lived in the Kauri Point area in the past Sadly three of the four sites at Kauri Point have not been fully written up, and none have had their results and interpretation presented in an accessible form to a wider non-academic audience. This lack of information has, I believe, contributed to the situation where Kauri Point Swamp and Kauri Point Pa are not managed in a way compatible with the significance of the Kauri Point Swamp and its contents. It is unknown how much of the remaining swamp contains artefacts, and whether the current lack of appropriate management is having a detrimental effect on survival of remaining material in the swamp. The significance of these sites should be recognised and the historic reserve managed appropriately with a sound and comprehensive Management Plan.

27. None of the museums canvassed have direct input by Hauraki iwi on how taonga from this area are to be managed and interpreted. Policies vary from museum to museum on Maori representation within the decision-making process, and who is consulted.

²⁷ Refer Table 1 of the Review

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

DR. FUREY

ANNEX ‘A’

Waihi Beach-Kauri Point

Summary of Archaeology

and

Review of Taonga

LOUISE FUREY

HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

2006

Figures

1 Recorded archaeological sites

2 Archaeological sites for which authorities have been issued since 1993

3 Larger scale map of Kauri Point area

4 Survey plan SO417, 1869

5 Kauri Point Pa phases of use

6 Wooden hair combs, Kauri Point Swamp

7 Kauri Point Swamp showing excavated view

8 Ongare Pa

9 Photograph of Kauri Point Pa and swamp

10 Photograph of Kauri Point Pa and swamp

11 Photograph of Kauri Point Pa and swamp showing pugging of swamp by cattle, and erosion on northern slopes of pa.

Tables

1 List of authorities issued by NZ Historic Places Trust since 1993

2 List of archaeological excavations, Kauri Point

3 Radiocarbon dates Kauri Point

4 Artefacts held in Auckland Museum

5 Artefacts held in Waikato Museum

6 Museum comparisons on governance and policy

Attachments

1 Kauri Point Swamp. Pp. 41-47 in Gumbley, W., D. Johns, G. Law 2005 Management of Wetland Archaeological Sites in New Zealand. Science for Conservation 246, Department, of Conservation, Wellington

2 Western Bay of Plenty Council Katikati Ward Reserves Management Plan p59&60: Kauri Point Historic Reserve

3 Auckland Museum Taumata-a-iwi Kaupapa

4 Auckland Museum Governance Policy Taumata-a-iwi Appointment (CS1.1)

5 Auckland Museum Governance Policy Relationships with Iwi (CS1.2)

6 Auckland Museum Governance Policy Guardianship of Taonga (C1.6)

7 Auckland Museum Governance Policy Storage and Conservation of Objects (C1.4)

8 Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Policy on Mana Taonga

Introduction

1. The western Bay of Plenty is an archaeologically rich landscape with a high density of settlement evidence. This is due in large part to the environmental conditions. The friable volcanic soils enriched with successive tephra showers over the last several thousand years and a mild climate suitable for growing cold-sensitive sub-tropical cultigens such as kumara, yam, gourd and taro made it a particularly favourable place. The close proximity of the northern entrance to the Tauranga Harbour to this study area could also have been an attraction; both for ease of access to the open sea, and the abundance of marine resources related to the movement of tidal water into and out of the harbour.

2. This area was acknowledged as an archaeological landscape worthy of further study in the early 1960s when archaeology was a very young discipline in New Zealand (Golson 1961). Many months of archaeological excavations, involving many people hours, were carried out on the Kauri Point Peninsula in the early to mid 1960s. The work, on four sites, was reported on in varying degrees of detail. Only one of the excavations has been fully reported on. Archaeological attention then turned to other areas, and other theoretical issues, and the key archaeologists working in the area moved from New Zealand to take up academic positions in Australia. No further archaeological work took place in this area.

Archaeological sites

3. It was not until after the passing of the Historic Places Amendment Act 1975 that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust employed archaeologists to oversee the protection and management of archaeological sites. The western Bay of Plenty area was recognised by staff archaeologists at New Zealand Historic Places Trust (HPT) as being an area where the archaeological sites were under extreme pressure as pastoral land was converted to horticultural and residential uses. A pilot study identified previously unknown archaeological sites in over one third of the residential subdivisions taking place in the area (Walton & O’Keeffe 2004:270). This situation led to money being allocated by HPT to carrying out intensive site surveys over the western Bay of Plenty area in 1982, 1983-84 and 1984-85 in the area covered by Tauranga County. The HPT archaeologist responsible for the programme, Dr Bruce McFadgen, also carried out small scale investigations on sites exposed during subdivision development at Athenree, and obtained radiocarbon dates on a number of shell and charcoal samples recovered from sites in the area.

4. The majority of the site records for the area held in the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site File, the national database of archaeological sites, were entered in the early to mid 1980s as a result of the HPT sponsored site surveys. For the first time, the 1975 Historic Places Act made it unlawful to modify or destroy an archaeological site without the consent of New Zealand Historic Places Trust. However lack of funding and staff meant that the effectiveness of the act was limited. The situation changed with the passing of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which required resource consent applicants to obtain an assessment of effects of the proposed development

where archaeological sites were likely to be present. This meant that there was more involvement by archaeologists in identifying archaeological sites and their values prior to earthworks and development. Under the RMA local councils were also charged with identifying and managing historic resources, and an amendment to the act in 2004 strengthened the status of historic heritage, elevating it to “a matter of national importance”. Dissemination of information about the presence of recorded archaeological sites is now a matter of course for Council-issued Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports, increasing the likelihood of known sites being taken into account during development plans. The Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) integrated protection of historic resources with general planning provisions in the RMA.

5. An effect of the RMA and HPA has been the upsurge in archaeological monitoring and recording during the destruction of site features exposed in developments. The archaeological provisions of the HPA were designed to protect information contained in sites through allowing for archaeological investigation and recording of information as a condition of the Historic Places Trust issuing an authority to modify the site (Allen 1994). Permanent site protection is hard to achieve in all but the most significant sites where there are strong archaeological values, often supported by Maori values.

6. Effective legislation on archaeological sites came too late for many of the Maori settlement sites in the Kauri Point–Athenree area. Development of pastoral land for horticultural purposes did not require planning consent; archaeological sites were damaged or destroyed in large numbers by land development techniques relating to intensive horticulture. In addition there was in the 1970s and 1980s an increase in housing development in the area.

7. A recent resurvey of the area by the NZ Archaeological Association has been carried out as part of the national Upgrade Project to establish whether sites in the database still survive, and whether land use has changed since the sites were first recorded. There is no final analysis on the exercise but the archaeologist has reported informally that site destruction has been limited in the last 20 years and that land use has not significantly changed since the intensive surveys of the early 1980s. The initial site records documented the modification, and the condition of many of the sites remains unchanged (K. Phillips pers comm., 2/8/06). There are currently 880 recorded archaeological sites in the area (Figure 1).

8. A total of 34 authorities, covering 103 sites, have been issued for this area by NZ Historic Places Trust since the 1993 HPA (Figure 2 and Table 1). Many of these authorities have not resulted in total destruction of the site e.g. the Waihi Beach-Athenree sewerage scheme may have affected only part of some sites, or a precautionary authority may have been issued in order for western Bay of Plenty Council to carry out management work on a site in a reserve. On occasion, where there is a possibility of a site being present, or earthworks may affect a site, Historic Places Trust will require the applicant to obtain an authority in order that the Trust can set a condition of archaeological monitoring to control the extent of the earthwork activity. Archaeological investigations have been carried out on some sites as a condition of the Historic Places

authority. Unfortunately it is difficult to compile a list of excavated sites because of the delayed reporting of the results.

9. The HPA requires iwi to be consulted when an application is made to modify or destroy an archaeological site. The list of authorities issued by Historic Places Trust identifies the iwi group consulted in each instance.

Archaeological Investigations

10. There have been five major excavations in the study area: four in the Kauri Point area and one at Athenree (Figures 2 and 3). These are U13/4, identified in the archaeological literature as Kauri Point Pa; Kauri Point Swamp adjacent to the pa and with the same site number; an undefended pit site nearby (U13/45), and Ongari Pa (U13/8) all on the Kauri Point peninsula, and U13/46 Anatere Pa at Athenree. Collectively the occupation of these sites is likely to span the period of settlement in the western Bay of Plenty. There have been other investigations carried out under the Historic Places Act, but these have been smaller in scale and reports are pending. A summary table of the major excavations is set out in Table 2. The literature on these sites is extensive so I will present here a brief summary.

11. In 1961 Jack Golson, then lecturer in archaeology at University of Auckland, was looking for a site to excavate which would be a contrast with investigations in the previous six years on East Polynesian type dune sites in the Coromandel Peninsula. Golson was searching for the site or sites to link these early places containing moa bone and artefacts in East Polynesian styles with the material culture collected by Captain Cook, and typified by later sites such as Oruarangi on the Hauraki Plains. The material culture at each end of the settlement sequence was different in terms of style, but also in types. For instance neither weapons nor musical instruments were known to have been found in early sites, but these items were associated with late Maori culture at the time of contact. Styles of fishhooks were also different, and in the later period there were few one-piece fishhooks relative to two-piece composite hooks.

12. Golson was attracted to the Kauri Point area for a number of reasons, including its close proximity to Waihi Beach from which a number of early artefacts were held in Auckland Museum and in private collections. The proposal was to excavate a single-phase pa, and from the artefacts and features be able to document archaeologically the “Classic Period of Maori Culture”, which was defined at the time of European, contact. The project did not proceed according to plan: not only were there few artefacts but the archaeology was very complicated with several phases of use. Excavations continued over several years—in a total fieldwork time of 6 months only 5% of the 2 acre extent of the pa was investigated. Golson called the pa Kauri Point Pa, but survey plan SO417, dated 1868, identifies it as Owarau Pa (Figure 4). The final excavation report has not been written, but the excavations were strategically placed to be able to report a broad history of the site (Golson 1961; Ambrose 1962, n.d.) (Figure 5).

• the first use was as an undefended settlement complete with rectangular storage pits and terraces on the northern slope. Gardening

was carried out around the site. Spoil from terrace construction was deposited on the lower slope, restricting a stream that flowed through the valley bottom causing a swampy area to form.

• in the second phase of use defences were built which enclosed the two knolls of about 2 acres. There was a single lateral ditch along the northern slope, and two ditches where the relief was lower at the far western end of the second knoll. A line of palisade posts above the ditch encircled the site.

• later, cooking debris from terraces inside the defended area filled in the ditch, indicating that it was no longer in use.

• another phase of ditch building began, but this time reducing the size of the site by half.

• later again the defences were rebuilt with a parallel double ditch and bank. There was a double row of palisades associated with the ditches.

13. Radiocarbon dates indicate the first occupation of the pa and formation of the swamp was in the 15th century, and the final double ditch and bank most likely constructed in the 18th century. The sequence will be discussed more fully in relation to the swamp excavation. There was no evidence of occupation within the historic period. It is likely that the remodelling took place intermittently and that the pa was not lived on all the time.

14. When Kauri Point Pa failed to provide the “missing link” for the archaeological theoretical framework on Maori settlement history, another archaeologist Wilfred Shawcross, also lecturer at University of Auckland, was attracted to the swamp at the base of the pa. He reasoned that artefacts were likely to be found around the margins of the site, and that organic materials were likely to survive in the waterlogged swamp conditions (Shawcross 1976:278). There had been some significant bog or wet site excavations in Europe in the few years prior to this when Shawcross was a student at Cambridge University, and this influenced Ms research on this subject.

15. A most remarkable collection of wooden objects was recovered from the Kauri Point Swamp, and the find is unparalleled anywhere else in New Zealand. The excavated assemblage included at least 187 complete or broken wooden hair combs, two stylised wooden figures, five gardening tools, an adze, an adze handle, three barbed spears, two musical instruments, three wooden dishes or containers, textile fragments and cordage, gourd fragments and containers, and about 13,000 obsidian flakes (Shawcross 1964a, 1976). The hair combs, present through a deposit depth of about 100 cm, showed a change in style from bottom to top (Shawcross 1964b, 1976). In the lower levels of the swamp deposit, the predominant style of comb frame was flat topped in profile, and in the upper levels it was rounded. While some plain comb frames were found, many were decorated with notches, knobs, fretted and engraved designs (Figure 6). The most spectacular was a comb where the profile incorporated notches, a knob and engraving in a shape to represent a profile face. The total number of combs represented could be greater, because most were in fragments. All the combs are made from heart trunkwood of rimu (Wallace 1989).

16. The excavation detail has not been fully reported but Shawcross (1976) recovered the wooden items within a confined area of the swamp (Figure 7). There were also lenses of wood chips, yellow-brown subsoil and vegetation, and a large quantity of obsidian flakes. Although the maximum distribution area of combs was 160 sq. ft, 75% were found within 16 sq. ft (Shawcross 1964b:383). A rectangular structure formed by worked timbers about 8-10 ft long was held in place by posts driven vertically into the swamp, but the published report is not detailed enough to say with any confidence that the combs were confined within the boundaries of the wooden structure, or that the majority of the other artefacts were also, apart from the obsidian flakes which clearly were within the confines of the wooden timbers. The deposits surrounding some of the combs were stained red with kokowai.

17. The deposit of combs was not merely a place where broken or incomplete combs were placed—many show evidence of use, and repair in some examples. In addition the breaks on the combs indicate that they may have been deliberately destroyed. The teeth were broken off and the frames snapped. Shawcross (1976:289) identified concentrations of combs through the depth of deposit, and speculated that the combs were put there on up to seven different occasions. The putorino, the spears, and two of the bowls were also broken.

18. Shawcross (1976:297-303) interpreted the enclosure as a wahi tapu, a formal sacred place. He argued that the objects were deliberately placed in a confined area, rather than being a random gathering scattered through the swamp. Due to the nature of the objects recovered, the relationship between tapu and the head, and by extension anything which had contact with the head and hair, the evidence could be teased out to define the feature in such a way. The presence of kokowai, or ochre, seems to reinforce the tapu nature of the objects and the enclosure. Very few of these tapu or ritual places have been identified archaeologically (Crosby 2004). Shawcross’s interpretation was a leap from viewing the combs and other items in a purely practical or utilitarian way as artefacts, to incorporating the concepts of social meaning and symbolic behaviour.

19. The association of the enclosure with occupation of the pa has been assumed by archaeologists. However, the enclosure was open to the other side of the swamp and objects thrown in from that side, necessitating either a walk around the head of the swamp from the pa, or access through the swamp. It cannot be stated as fact that there was a relationship between the two places—the people making and using the combs may have been living on the opposite side of the swamp to the pa. There has been no investigation of the nearby area, or consideration of how the wider landscape may have been used.

20. The combs and other objects were probably deposited within the enclosure over a period of time, but the interval represented is unknown because radiocarbon dating is not precise enough. There are dates for the lower end of the comb deposit (95% confidence level that it was between AD 1430-1560), and it is known that the swamp was formed as a result of terrace construction on the northern slope of the pa before the defensive ditch was dug. The dates for this activity on the pa are in agreement with a date on organic material under the

comb deposit, suggesting the swamp was formed sometime between AD 1370-1460. The time when the swamp ceased to be used as a comb repository is not so clearly established. Shawcross broadly suggested sometime before AD 1770, but after analysis of all the dates of the swamp and pa, Green (1978) put the end date as being possibly before AD 1650. Shawcross (1976:291) suggested the combs may have been deposited over a period of up to 200-250 years, sufficient for there to be a change in style of combs. However the change in style may have occurred quite quickly and the time may have been a few years, or a few decades. Combs have only been recovered from one other site, that of Kohika near Whakatane, which has been dated to the later half of the 17th century (Irwin 2004). The combs from Kohika were round topped, consistent with the results from Kauri Point for the same time period, and the notion of the widespread use of a predominantly rounded style of comb frame in the 17th century.

21. Attempts have been made to integrate the various excavations at Kauri Point into a chronology of settlement (Green 1978). There is a relationship between the Kauri Point Pa and the swamp in that the spoil from terrace construction on the northern slope of the pa spilled down and blocked the stream, forming the swamp behind the obstruction. This interpretation has been supported by dates from the pa (ANU025 for shell midden on the terrace) and dates on wood from the base of the swamp deposits (NZ810, 811) (Table 3).

22. The third excavation at Kauri Point was that of a small undefended site, U13/45 (Green 1963). Eighteen pits were excavated, fourteen of which were considered to be contemporary. There were no pits or postholes on one part of the site, which possibly was a courtyard. One radiocarbon date was obtained, indicating the site was occupied in either the 15th or 16th centuries. Apart from obsidian flakes, no other artefacts were found.

23. After the Kauri Point excavations, the focus shifted to Ongare, about 2 km to the north. Shawcross continued the search for a site which would provide archaeological definition of the “Classic Period”. He chose to excavate Ongare Pa, U13/8, which historic accounts indicated was occupied by Tauranga-Moana people and attacked by Taraia of Marutuahu in 1842 (Shawcross 1964c). Shawcross’s intention, in digging a site with a known age for end of occupation was to provide a context for the end of the Kauri Point Pa sequence which was undated. At that time, archaeologists believed that there were distinctive storage pit styles through time, and that site relationships or age of site could be determined from the type of pit present. This was a simplistic argument, which, as more sites were excavated, was found to be incorrect Shawcross excavated Ongare Pa in the summer of 1963-64 and 1964-65 (Shawcross 1964c, 1966). Again the site failed to deliver on expectations. Shawcross found the site had been gardened after occupation ceased, and that the top 10 inches was mixed up. This removed the layer detail of the upper levels of the site and information necessary to reconstruct the vertical relationships between features. Although all the postholes and storage pits could be identified and mapped, the associations between them could not be determined. Ongare Pa consisted of three enclosures on the cliff edge surrounded by ditches and banks (see Figure 8). Excavations through the south eastern and central enclosures and ditch between the two

revealed multiple phases of use, similar to what was encountered at Kauri Point Pa. Storage pits were present in the earliest phase, and possibly the remnants of an early ditch under the outer bank visible on the surface. Defences were rebuilt in the third phase and there were more pits. The double ditch and bank visible on the surface were built in the fifth phase, and although there was a lot of evidence of cooking and food debris there were no pits associated with this occupation. Artefacts were rare, and included an adze and a pumice bowl (the whereabouts of these is unknown). In the second season of excavation a larger area of the site was opened up to expose more evidence of the settlement with the expectation of finding house outlines. There was nothing in the first season’s excavation which could be identified as relating to the 1842 historic occupation, so Shawcross shifted the focus of excavation to the third enclosure. Here a garden soil was found under the defensive bank, and although storage pits and over 400 postholes were recorded, these could not be related to the defences. In a later there were burials on the site, and ovens and more postholes at yet a later time. The Ongare pa is undated, and the full excavation report has not been written. Shawcross concluded that the historic settlement at Ongare attacked by Taraia and others was possibly on the flat adjacent to the pa but no evidence remained there as a timber mill and extensive bulldozing had severely damaged the area. Although Shawcross named this pa Ongari, the 1868 survey plan SO417 identifies Ongare pa as being a different shape and to the north of this one. A similar shaped pa to that excavated by Shawcross is named Oteratahi on the survey plan. Only one pa has been identified archaeologically and recorded.

24. The fourth major excavation, carried out in this area was at Anatere Pa at Athenree. This was a salvage excavation, carried out by University of Auckland in 1996 prior to the site (U13/46) being destroyed. Like the other pa there was an undefended first phase of occupation where gardening, cooking and kumara storage was carried out. Defences of ditch and bank, and two lines of palisades, were then constructed. The earlier defended occupation was somewhere in the broad time period AD 1530-1670.

25. Most archaeological sites cannot be identified to age from their surface appearance. Exceptions are the East Polynesian-type dune sites containing moa and distinctive styles of artefacts, and sites which can be assigned to the historic period by the presence of European material such as bottle glass, ceramics, clay pipes or metal. Pa (defined by ditch and bank defences) were probably built after AD 1500, a generalisation supported by radiocarbon dates. There are no dates for defences earlier than about AD 1500 (Schmidt 1995). For other sites radiocarbon dating can give a broad range of time within which occupation took place but it cannot be as precise as we might want. However as more sites are excavated and dated in the western Bay of Plenty, it is apparent that the early sites Golson sought were there all the time—it is just that the sites did not have the types, or quantities of artefacts that Golson associated with early East Polynesian settlements. It is likely that these sites represent a different set of activities, predominantly gardening, rather than the hunting and fishing camps and. places were artefacts were made in large quantities. Radiocarbon dates on pit and terrace sites show some are almost as early in the settlement sequence as the East Polynesian middens. Kauri Point Pa is a typical example where the

earliest evidence of storage pits and terrace building was probably in the early to mid 15th century.

26. As more sites are excavated and dated, archaeologists are gaining a greater understanding of the settlement pattern through time but archaeological investigations cannot determine tribal associations of either sites or artefacts. However, the analysis of the small finds such as obsidian flakes might provide some clues as to who was responsible for building and using a site, or at least interactions between groups and geographic areas. Obsidian flakes have been recovered from the majority of sites excavated. Obsidian is sourced to only a few localities, and each source has distinctive characteristics such as colour, clarity of the glass, flaking quality or presence of crystal inclusions. The sites of Raupa, Waiwhau and Opita at Paeroa, excavated in the early 1990s, produced large quantities of obsidian. Most of the obsidian was from Mayor Island, the main source used, but some flakes of distinctive obsidian were found to be from the Waihi obsidian source (Moore and Coster 1989) found in the Waimata Stream area to the south of the Athenree Gorge. The Waimata Stream is one of the upper tributaries of the Ohinemuri River which flows through the Karangahake Gorge and joins the Waihou River near Paeroa, eventually discharging into the Firth of Thames. Compared to nearly all other obsidian sources, the Waihi source material was not widely used. However identification of obsidians from sites in the western Bay of Plenty indicate that Waihi obsidian is present in large quantities in several sites from Athenree including Anatere Pa, and also from Ongare Pa (Moore 2005). None of the analysed flakes from Kauri Point swamp were from the Waihi source, but it is estimated that only about half of the 13000 flakes were looked at. Further analysis of the data may indicate that the infrequently used Waihi obsidian only occurs in settlements from later in the sequence, but given the connection between specific geographic areas and people from Hauraki, the presence of the Waihi obsidian may prove to be an indicator of identity at a finer-grained level than archaeology has previously been able to establish.

27. Several pa and other sites in this area are in reserves administered by Western Bay of Plenty Council. The Kauri Point Pa and Swamp plus two other pa are included in the Kauri Point Historic Reserve which was gazetted in 1982. The part of the reserve incorporating Kauri Point Pa and Swamp is leased for grazing. Kauri Point Swamp is not identified in the District Plan Appendix ii although Kauri Point Pa (H106) is. Relevant parts of the lease related to stock grazing are quoted in Gumbley, Johns and Law (2005), where Kauri Point swamp was used as a case study on archaeological wetland sites. The condition of the swamp (and pa) has deteriorated through stock grazing (Figures 9-11).

The conclusion was that the draft management plan, dated 1992, was inadequate to protect the historic values of the site, and that current land use practices may be assisting in the destruction of artefacts and their environment (Gumbley, Johns and Law (2005:47). The report also noted that there is “... a very real need for a well-considered reserve management plan for the Kauri Point Historic reserve-one which recognises the presence and importance of the swamp deposits.” (ibid:61). See Attachments 1 and 2.

28. The Reserves Act 1977 places restriction on the use of a historic reserve.

Section 18(2) provides for:

“... every historic reserve shall be so administered and maintained that (a) The structures, objects, and sites illustrate with integrity the history of New Zealand: ...

(b) Where scenic, archaeological, geological, biological, or other scientific features, or indigenous flora or fauna, or wildlife are present on the reserve, those features or that flora or fauna or wildlife shall be managed and protected to the extent compatible with the principal or primary purpose of the reserve. ...

29. A management plan is required for a reserve under s41, and in respect of an historic reserve to be approved by the Minister of Conservation. The Council is required to keep it under “continuous review, so that... the plan is adapted to changing circumstances or in accordance with increased knowledge”.

30. The practice of grazing animals, and a stocking rate which is causing erosion and damage to the archaeological sites, is not compatible with the designation of a Historic Reserve.

Museum Collections

Auckland Museum

31. There are a relatively large number of artefacts from the wider Waihi Beach–Katikati area in Auckland Museum. Historically, different names were used for some localities so that Waihi Beach southern end was also referred to as Katikati and Bowentown. Similarly, two artefacts identified in the catalogue as being from Katikati are actually from Ongare Point. The finding of these wooden items is well documented (Simmons 1973a,b). Unfinished adze preforms collected by Sonny Hovell and Reg Bell in 1940 are catalogued as having come from Katikati, as is the material collected by Gilbert Mair in the early 1890s. He collected “...over two hundred perfect implements...” (Mair 1902:240) but not all of these were presented to Auckland Museum by Mair. From the published description of the location the site would be near the southern end of Waihi Beach on the dunes near Pio’s Beach, opposite Athenree. It is apparent from supporting information associated with some of the items in Auckland Museum that more than one site of the early East Polynesian type was present on the beach dunes, and that the artefacts were exposed in dune blowouts. There are fishhooks made from moa bone, which is consistent with having been obtained from a site of very early age, plus obsidian and stone flakes and adzes. Dune sites of this type are far more likely to have been on Waihi Beach than on the far harbour side near Katikati or Kauri Point

32. Auckland Museum holds at least six items with the identified locality of Bowentown; 34 from Waihi; 195 from Waihi Beach; and nine from Athenree (Table 4). The majority of the material identified as being from Waihi is also more likely from the type of artefacts (including fishhooks) to have come from Waihi Beach than near the inland town of Waihi. Table 4 shows there is consistency in the range and amount of material attributed to both Waihi Beach

and Katikati, suggesting that in large part the names refer to the same general place i.e. the dunes behind Waihi Beach¹.

33. Collectors who gifted material to Auckland Museum over a period of time from 1903 to the 1940s include Gilbert Mair, Edward Earle Vaile, W. F. Mappin, W. Goffe, Hammond and Sonny Hovell. Pounamu items from Reg Bell, Hovell’s curio-hunting partner, were purchased by Mappin and donated to the Auckland Museum.

34. The Auckland Museum collection from this area identified in Table 4 was all accessioned prior to 1976, and therefore prior to the Antiquities Act 1975.

Waikato Museum

35. The wooden artefacts excavated from the Kauri Point Swamp are held in Waikato Museum. These were excavated by archaeologists from University of Auckland, underwent conservation in the Anthropology Department, and were then donated to the Waikato Museum in July 1973. The museum catalogue has 486 entries for Kauri Point Swamp including combs, obsidian flakes, fibre, soil and organic samples (Table 5). All the material was excavated and acquired by Waikato Museum prior to the Antiquities Act 1975 which vests prima facie ownership in the Crown. Objects found before that date are owned by the finder or the holder, in this case the Waikato Museum. Three other items from the broader area of study were accessioned after 1975.

Tauranga City Museum

36. Tauranga City Museum has only a few objects from this study area. These are an adze from Waihi Beach, and a piece of worked pumice (perhaps the beginnings of hollowing out for a bowl) from site U13/89. In addition there is a collection of obsidian flakes from the Athenree foreshore, and other flakes of obsidian and Tahanga basalt.

Te Papa Tongarewa Museum of New Zealand

37. Te Papa also holds very few items from this area. A search of their database on locality names revealed six items: a tewhatewha, three adzes, a toki pounamu and an obsidian flake. However some of the entries are dubiously assigned to this area. The tewhatewha identified as being collected from. Waihi was donated by a Mrs Butterworth. Examination of the original acquisition register for 1904 showed Mrs Butterworth donated a number of items from localities around Taranaki. The comment for this tewhatewha slated it was “Broken in a fight at Pukerangiora”, which is in Taranaki. It is unlikely therefore that the tewhatewha is from the Waihi in the study area, and that the “Waihi” is closer to Taranaki. Similarly, one of the adzes has no provenance listed in the original register, but the electronic database has an assigned locality of “Probably Waihi”. There is no supporting information for this in any of the records consulted. The toki pounamu is from the Ken Webster Collection. The history of the item is unknown. Most of the items collected by Webster himself had no provenance, but he did acquire the Armitage collection of pounamu which was well

¹ The confusion over place names is largely due to the accepted use of district names in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when describing locations.

documented (R. Neich, Auckland Museum, pers. comm.). It is possible this toki pounamu came from that source. The remaining adze, accessioned in 1980 is part of the H.B. Wallace Collection. It also is identified as “Waihi”, and its acquisition history is unknown.

Museum practices and policies

38. Information was sought from the above mentioned museums on their policies regarding consultation with iwi groups over the care and. management of taonga. As background, O’Regan (1997) and Butts (2003) were consulted on governance in museums in New Zealand, and museum practices in relation to iwi and taonga.

39. Auckland Museum and Te Papa Tongarewa Museum of New Zealand are governed by legislation. The Tauranga City Museum has an Interim Governing Body, serviced by Tauranga City Council, and Waikato Museum is similarly administered by Hamilton City Council. The Waikato Museum does not have a governing body or trust structure. A summary is presented in Table 5.

40. The Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 includes reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, establishes a Maori Committee (Taumata-a-iwi) of six members, and allows for one Maori representative chosen by the Taumata-a-iwi on the museum board of 10 members. The Taumata-a-iwi is composed of four representatives of Ngati Whatua and one each from Ngati Paoa and Tainui. The Act requires the board to consult with the Taumata-a-iwi, and to take regard of advice given. The Taumata-a-iwi advises on custodial policies and guardianship of all Maori Taonga of whatever kind and tribal source. The museum Trust Board in 2001 adopted a statement of guiding principles (the Kaupapa) prepared by the Taumata-a-iwi (see Attachment 3).

41. The museum has published policies through their website (www.aucklandmuseum.com) on Taumata-a-iwi Appointment, Storage and Conservation of Objects, Relationships with Iwi, and Guardianship of Taonga (see Attachments 4–7). Briefly, the policy on Relationships with iwi sets out that Maori values are to be upheld, and that for any area, the appropriate tribe with whom to exclusively enter into any negotiations, settlements, joint ventures or partnerships is that which has mana whenua (customary rights and responsibilities of and over a defined area of land) defined as being held at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi. Where there is more than one party seeking tangata whenua status for an area, the principle of mana whenua is applied by the museum (“Treaty of Waitangi 1840 rule”).

42. The policy on taonga (Attachment 6) provides a definition of taonga: an item representing an ancestor or was associated with an ancestor, or carries an ancestral name, or is of ancestral importance to the Maori descent group. The definition, with its emphasis on an object having a known past or identity, clearly excludes many other items such as everyday objects. The policy requires the museum to keep an inventory of taonga, including information on status of ownership and acquisition to guide management of those objects. The information contained in the inventory is derived solely from the museum’s own

records and files. It is viewable online at http://tekakano.aucklandmuseum.com. The inventory of taonga duplicates some of the information held in the museum computerised catalogue system which is more comprehensive because it includes all objects held within the museum including stone flakes and material recovered from archaeological collections (e.g. soil, charcoal and shell samples).

43. The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992 does not refer to the Treaty of Waitangi and there is no legislative requirement to have a Maori member on the governing board—the Governor General appoints the board on the advice of the Minister of Culture and Heritage. There are currently two members of the board who are Maori (Butts 2003). Mana whenua status is not the criteria used by the Crown in determining Maori appointments.

44. The museum states that it is committed to biculturalism. Mana whenua status of individual items resides with the iwi of the area from which the items were obtained. The Mana Taonga policy gives iwi the rights to define how taonga within Te Papa should be cared for and managed in accordance with tikanga (Attachment 8). Where there are disputes over mana whenua or iwi association with an item, the museum policy is to engage in mediation but this has not yet been put into practice (Arapata Hakiwai, Te Papa, pers comm.). The museum does not make distinction between taonga and other items. Te Papa National Services, through the contestable Regional and Iwi Development Fund, provides funding for iwi to make inventories of items from their rohe held by museums. Funding is also available to investigate the feasibility of establishing a cultural centre.

45. Waikato Museum is managed and financed by Hamilton City Council. There is no trust board making governance decisions. To assist the museum in matters where a tikanga perspective is required, Te Arikinui selected an individual to represent her; the representative has put into place a support system of kuia and kaumatua (Paepae Tapu) with expertise. With the recent passing of Te Arikinui, for the interim the representation will remain the status quo. If there are disputes over items of Maori origin in the museum, the situation is dealt with by the Paepae Tapu in conjunction with the museum director. Like Te Papa, Waikato Museum does not distinguish between taonga and other Maori items. There is a draft museum policy of a general nature covering topics such as acquisition, storage, loans, conservation and other museum practices.

Conclusion

46. The Waihi Beach–Kauri Point area has been occupied and fought over for many centuries. The number of archaeological sites has diminished as the Maori cultural landscape has been compromised and destroyed by fanning, horticulture and housing developments. The destruction of sites is ongoing, but recovery of information under the Historic Places Act goes some way towards mitigating the loss. Through time those sites held in public ownership, in reserves, will become more significant relicts of the past cultural landscape. These sites must be managed and protected with that in mind.

47. Museums have dealt with the issue of mana whenua in different ways. Te Papa has a policy of an inclusive approach and consultation over care of taonga, recognizing that relevant tangata whenua have a right to be involved Auckland Museum through their Taumata-a-iwi, with predominantly Ngati Whatua o Orakei representation, retains the right to make decisions on taonga in their care. The differing policies do not affect the day to day care and management of the objects within the museums.

References

Allen, H. 1994 Protection for archaeological sites and the NZ HPT register of historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas. Archaeology in New Zealand 37(3):205-227.

Ambrose, W. 1962 Further investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati. NZ Archaeological Association Newsletter 5(1):56-67.

Ambrose, W. n.d. Kauri Point. Paper presented to the New Plymouth Conference, New Zealand Archaeological Association, May 1967.

Butts, D. 2003 Maori and Museums. The Politics of Indigenous Recognition. PhD thesis, Massey University.

Crosby, A. 2004 Ritual. Pp. 105-124 in Furey, L. and S. Holdaway (eds) Change Through Time , 50 Years of New Zealand Archaeology. NZ Archaeological Assn Monograph 26.

Golson, J. 1961 Investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati, western Bay of Plenty. NZ Archaeological Association Newsletter 4(2):13-41.

Green, R. 1963 An undefended settlement at Kauri Point, Tauranga District. Historical Review 11(3):143-156.

Green, R. 1978 Dating the Kauri Point sequence. Historical Review 26(1):32-45.

Irwin, G. (ed.) 2004 Kohika. The archaeology of a late Maori lake village in the Ngati Awa rohe Bay of Plenty New Zealand. Auckland University Press, Auckland.

Mair, G. 1902 Chips from an ancient Maori workshop. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute XXXV:240-242.

Moore, P. 2005 Cultural distribution of the Waihi obsidian. Archaeology in New Zealand 48(1):70-76.

Moore, P. and J. Coster 1989 Waihi obsidian. Archaeology in New Zealand 32(1):17-25.

O’Regan, G. 1997 Bicultural Developments in Museums of Aotearoa: what is the current status: Ki te Whakamana i te Kaupapa Tikanga-a-rua ki roto I nga Whare Taonga o te Motu: kei hea e tu ana? Museum of New Zealand National Services.

Phillips, C. and H. Allen 1996 Anatere pa, Athenree, Bay of Plenty. Archaeology in New Zealand 39(4):264-277.

Schmidt, M. 2000 Pa excavation and radiocarbon dating in New Zealand archaeology: a brief presentation of results. Archaeology in New Zealand 38(1):56-61.

Shawcross, W. 1964a Stone flake industries in New Zealand. Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:7-25.

Shawcross, W. 1964b An archaeological assemblage of Maori combs. Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:382-98.

Shawcross, W. 1964c Archaeological investigations at Ongari Point, Katikati, Bay of Plenty. A report on the first season of excavations. NZ Archaeological Association Newsletter 7(2):79-98.

Shawcross, W. 1966 Ongari Point - second season . NZ Archaeological Association Newsletter 9:53-71.

Shawcross, W. 1976 Kauri Point Swamp: the ethnographic interpretation of a prehistoric site. Pp. 277-305 in Sieveking, G., I. Longworth and K. Wilson (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. Duckworth, London.

Simmons, D. 1973a Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic Maori bowls from Hauraki and the Bay of Plenty. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 10:59-64.

Simmons, D. 1973b “Godstick” head from Katikati. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 10:65-67.

Wallace, R. 1989 A preliminary study of wood types used in pre-European Maori wooden artefacts. Pp. 222-232 in Sutton, D (ed.) Saying So Doesn’t Make it So. Papers in Honour of B. Foss Leach. NZ Archaeological Assn Monograph 17.

Table 1. Authorities to Modify issued by NZ Historic Places Trust since 1993.

Table 2. Archaeological excavations in Kauri Pointy/Waihi Beach area

Table 3. Radiocarbon dates Kauri Point (after Green 1978)

Table 4. Items in Auckland Museum catalogued by locality and artefact type.

Table 5. Items from Waihi Beach-Katikati held in Waikato Museum.

Table 6. Summary of policies in museums.

Figure 1. Recorded archaeological sites

Figure 2. Location of archaeological sites for which Historic Places authorities have been granted, and location of excavations.

Figure 3. Detail of site locations in the Kauri Point area.

Figure 4. SO417 (1869) showing Owarau Pa (Kauri Point) at the upper edge, and Oteratahi and Ongare centre left Note other pa in the area shown in Figure 3 are not identified.

Figure 5. Sequence of occupations and changes to Kauri Point Pa.

Figure 6. Wooden hair combs, Kauri Point Swamp.

Photo: Anthropology Dept. University of Auckland, line drawings from Shawcross 1976..

Figure 7. Kauri Point Swamp excavation (Shawcross 1976).

Figure 8. Ongare Pa showing excavated areas: 1963-64 to the right, and 1965-66 to the left.

Figure 9. View to south showing Kauri Point Pa in middle of photo with pohutukawa trees at rear. The vegetation on the slope in the centre left of the photo is on the northern slope of the smaller enclosure of the pa

Figure 10. View of the slope of the smaller enclosure of Kauri Point Pa showing exposed shell midden, and broken ground on the slope of the pa and on opposite side of swamp.

Figure 11. View of Kauri Point Swamp with the pa to the left of the image. Note the pugged and trampled surface of the swamp.

BRIEF

OF

EVIDENCE

FUREY ATTACHMENTS

Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand

SCIENCE FOR CONSERVATION 246

Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law

Published by

Department of Conservation

PO Box 10-420

Wellington, New Zealand

5. Case studies

5.1 KAURI POINT SWAMP

The Kauri Point swamp is a true swamp. It is fed by mineral-rich ground water, is eutrophic, and moderately acid—no more than pH 5.8 (Shawcross 1976: 281-282). The swamp is essentially Y-shaped with a main arm and

slightly smaller tributary arm. Both arms are fed by perennial springs, which are augmented, to some extent, by run-off from the ground surface during rain. However, the surrounding volcanic ash soils are free draining and much of the rain probably feeds the springs via the ground water-table. For most of its length the swamp is less than 10 m wide, usually about

5 m, but narrower for the lower 40 m (adjacent to the pa) where it cuts down to a narrower channel. Just above this, at the junction of the two branches, the swamp is wider—approximately 15 m. Immediately below the junction of the two arms is where the swamp excavation was made.

The head of the main arm of the swamp (where the principal springs are located), is vegetated above a culverted causeway. The vegetation is predominantly willow, but includes manuka, cordyline, ferns, grasses, raupo, rushes, cress, and arum lily. The vegetation continues below the causeway for approximately 50 m, but here it is less diverse with a large clump of raupo

above a large grove of willow. Below the willows the diversity of vegetation declines and it is mainly grasses and rushes.

The Kauri Point swamp site (Figs 4, 5, and 6) lies adjacent to Owarau Pa¹² (U13/4) (commonly, but incorrectly, called Kauri Point Pa by archaeologists). From archaeological evidence the swamp site was a functional part of that pa, contributing to its defence and containing significant artefacts interred by the pa’s occupants.

Figure 4. Locations of Lake Mangakaware and Owarau Pa (Kauri Point) swamp.

Figure 5. View of Owarau Pa, Kauri Point from the north. The arrow indicates the location of the swamp excavation.

(Photo: W. Gumbley)

Name given on the 1865 survey plan SO 417.

Figure 6. View west along the swamp on the north side of Owarau Pa. The arrow indicates the location of the excavation. (Photo: W. Gumbley)

5.1.1 Archaeology

The pa was investigated during three seasons from 1961 to 1963, and the swamp was investigated during two seasons, 1962 and 1963 (Golson 1961; Ambrose 1962, 1967), with ‘several short spells of work in subsequent years’ (Shawcross 1976: 280). Both the investigations (the pa and the adjacent swamp) have been formative in the development of understanding of the process of human settlement of New Zealand and the development of Maori art and culture.

Owarau Pa (U13/4) underwent five periods of occupation (Ambrose 1967). Occupation began as a garden with associated kumara storage pits that were constructed and reconstructed successively up to six times in one place. After this the level of occupation intensified substantially with the construction of a set of terraces for domestic activities—including the construction of kumara storage pits—and abandonment of the garden soil on the site of the future pa. Later this terraced area was fortified with an encircling palisade and a single ditch. After a period of abandonment the pa was reconstructed with at first a single ditch. Later a double ditch and bank was formed enclosing a smaller area.

The swamp lies in a stream gully on the north-east side of the pa. Ambrose has suggested that formation of the swamp began following the soil disturbance resulting from the ‘large scale development of terraces’ (period 2), which caused the ‘rapid silting and constriction of the small stream that began the process of ponding’ (Ambrose 1967: 12). Nonetheless, it may just as easily have begun earlier with the disturbance caused by vegetation clearance and gardening.

The investigation of the swamp was directed by W. Shawcross and was an extension of comprehensive investigations being carried out on the pa (Fig. 7). The excavations began after the swamp was probed with a gum-spear, which revealed that over ‘an area of about 18 feet [5.5 m] by 9 feet [2.75 m] was found to have a layer of stone or shell at a depth of between 2 and 3 feet [0.6 m-0.9 m], and this was selected for excavation’ (Shawcross 1962: 51). Shawcross (1976: 280) gives the ultimate depth of the excavation as ‘nearly six feet’ [1.8 m].

There are three layers overlying the sandstone that forms the base of the swamp. The lowest is a very dark greyish brown plastic sandy deposit and on

top of that is a 150 mm thick layer of dark grey soil (Shawcross 1976: 283). Above this is the principal swamp deposit layer formed from sand and organic material. The upper part of that layer has been oxidised. Shawcross believed this was caused by the lowering of the water level late in the deposition history of the swamp, but before the excavation.

The archaeological materials were deposited in the principal swamp layer, and included ‘almost horizontal laminations’ or ‘floors’ formed from local ash soil re-deposited in the swamp and from dense concentrations of crushed plants. The list of finds from the swamp is impressive (Shawcross 1963: 52-55, 1964, 1976: 285-294). The focal feature identified during the investigation was a rectangular structure which enclosed approximately 2 m × 2 m and was 0.6 m deep. All of the major timbers had been worked and used previously, mostly as building timbers. These were laid horizontally and held in place with six vertical posts. Shawcross (1963: 52) noted that ‘the structure was defined by a very large number of sticks, some of them pointed, and twigs, and by small floors formed of wood chips or subsoil carried from elsewhere’ (the laminations referred to above). This structure coincided ‘with the dense distribution of artefacts, particularly combs and obsidian flakes’ (Shawcross 1963: 52) (Fig. 8).

The following is a brief summary of the artefacts recovered during the investigation.¹³ Obsidian flakes were the most common type of artefact (almost 14 000 flakes), with 75% of them showing use wear. These were found in clusters, suggesting they were placed in the swamp in vessels in the same manner as the 60 flakes and a hammer stone found in a gourd. Fragments of small gourds were found and several contained obsidian flakes and kokowai (red ochre). Other artefacts included:

• ‘Ten pieces of matting, six pieces of cordage and four other items consisting of long fibres with knotted ends’ (Shawcross 1976: 294). Most of the pieces of matting were made into wallets and some contained obsidian or ochre.

• Three wooden bowls, one of them carved.

• As well as a gourd nguru (a type of flute) at least two fragmentary undecorated putorino (bugle flutes) were identified.

• The broken shafts and barbed points of three spears, which Shawcross believed were weapons and not hunting tools.

• One complete ko (digging stick) and several broken ones.

• ‘Some small spatulate objects’ that Shawcross believed were horticultural tools because of their similarity to cultivating tools recorded historically (Shawcross 1976: 292).

Figure 7. Plan of Owarau Pa (Kauri Point) and the locations of of excavations in the swamp (after Shawcross 1976).

¹³ For a fuller description of these see Shawcross (1976).

Figure 8. Part of the Owarau Pa swamp deposit exposed during the excavation. (Photo: from the Anthropology Photographic Archive, University of Auckland)

• A small adze blade and an adze haft.

• Four pieces of worked kauri gum.

• Two wooden figures worked from forked timbers. The better preserved of the two was made from ‘a forked tree trunk, originally a little over two metres high, with peg-like feet, knees and waist marked by a reduction in diameter, and the head and neck by a further, badly rotted, peg-like projection’ (Shawcross 1976 : 292). The other, poorly preserved figure was of similar dimensions. There are no other similar examples known in New Zealand.

• 334 large comb fragments (Fig. 9) (a number with carved motifs) and ‘several thousand teeth and small fragments’ (Shawcross 1963: 53).

It is unclear from any of the published material whether the whole of the swamp deposit was excavated or not, but Ambrose believes that it was not (Ambrose in pers. comm. to D.A. Johns, June 2001).

5.1.2 Historic site protection

The pa U13/4 and part of the swamp is within the Kauri Point Historic Reserve. This reserve is administered by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and was gazetted in 1982 (N.Z. Gazette 1982: 1179) and it includes 5.434 ha¹⁴. The remainder of the swamp is on the Noble property (Lot 1 DPS 14772) or on the unformed Esplanade Road. However, it appears that the part of the swamp where the 1962-63 archaeological investigation occurred is in the Historic Reserve. The Nobles lease the part of the reserve contiguous with their farm (1.3 ha of reserve) and 1.0 ha of Esplanade Road.

¹⁴ Allotment 137 Tahawai Parish, SO 50939.

Figure 9. Close-up view of a comb during excavation of the Owarau Pa swamp deposit. (Photo: from the Anthropology Photographic Archive, University of Auckland)

Examination of the reserve’s management, and the implications this has for any remaining wet archaeological deposits in the swamp, is illuminating, in view of the problems and issues involved. As an Historic Reserve its management is controlled by the Reserves Act. The Act states that the purpose of an Historic Reserve is to protect and preserve in perpetuity items of ‘historic, archaeological, cultural, educational, and other special interest’ (Reserves Act, section 18(1)) that are within the area of the reserve. Section 41 of the Act requires that a management plan for a reserve is prepared (section 41) and must ‘incorporate and ensure compliance with the principles set out in’ the section of the act relating to that specific class of reserve. Moreover, that plan must be ‘under constant review’ (section 4l).

There is a draft management plan for Kauri Point Historic Reserve which was probably written in 1992 (Bryan Norton pers. comm.¹⁵) and includes the following clauses relevant to preservation of the archaeological deposits.

‘The reserve shall be managed in such a way as to comply with the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1980 and ensure that archaeological values represented by the historic sites are preserved as far as possible for future generations.

‘No activity shall be permitted that is likely to cause erosion or disturb any archaeological site in any way.’

The Kauri Point Historic Reserve is leased for grazing. The lease conditions from the copy of the 1993-1998 lease (on file with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council) states:

¹⁵ Reserves Officer, Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

‘That the Licensee will ensure that the pa sites are only grazed lightly for short periods and that the surface will not be disturbed or modified in any way without first obtaining the written consent of the Licensor.’

And that:

‘(I) The Licensee will during every autumn of the term of the within license at his own cost, supply transport and spread on the said land at the rate of not less than 400 kilograms per hectare of 15% potassic superphosphate.’

The following notes on the environment of the swamp were made following a visit to the site on 29 November 2000.

Stocking rates have increased compared to past practice (Alison Noble pers. comm. 29 November 2000).

The swamp is unfenced save for a single wire along its western side adjacent to the pa, which forms a ‘T’ junction with another single wire that runs up the side stream gully. Otherwise cattle walk through freely with only the clumps of willow and raupo to prevent movement. Stock tracking through the swamp is obvious in the area below the lowest willow clump where there are only grasses and rushes. The single strand electric fence prevents tracking entirely across the swamp, but only impedes access to the swamp from the pa (western) side and is presumably sited to prevent excessive stock tracking up that side of the pa, rather than keeping stock out of the swamp.

The organic material in the swamp had been preserved by the anaerobic conditions in the swamp that largely excluded adverse microbial activity. Moreover, the natural buffering actions of the peat will also have served to ‘condition’ the water flowing down the swamp by the time it reached the archaeological deposit.

5.1.3 Conclusions on the management of Kauri Point swamp

The current situation has two major areas of concern relating to the preservation of any remaining archaeological material in the swamp: the effect of agricultural fertilisers on the stability of the swamp system, and the mechanical effects of stock movement across the swamp.

Put simply, the agricultural fertiliser will encourage eutrophication and also oxidisation of the swamp environment. As well as promoting plant growth and the attendant physical damage issues, along with the added probable rise in oxidisation potential, there is a suggestion ‘that organic matter degradation is more rapid when nutrients are added’ particularly when the receiving system has ‘low nutrient status to begin with’ (L. Schipper, Landcare Research pers. comm. 16 July 2001). Nutrient enrichment should be viewed as undesirable, however, there is no monitoring of the swamp so there is no data on which to draw to assess these issues. The buffering effect of the peat is unknown, as is the flushing effect of the spring water.

Traffic of cattle through the swamp may have two effects: direct damage to artefacts, and damage to the swamp’s physical character leading to destabilisation of the soil environment. The first of these effects can be taken for granted. The changes to the swamp’s soil structure may vary with the possible introduction of oxygen into upper part of the swamp (by hoof action), and the compaction of the peat. Distortion or even crushing of artefacts may

Background:

□ Strategically located on the Kauri Point coastal headland.

□ Reserve has historic status due to its Maori archaeological and cultural values being a former pa site and area of historic occupation.

□ There are a number of pa sites, urupa and waahi tapu within the reserve and on adjacent land including scheduled sites listed in the District Plan Appendix II (H26, H69, H70, H72, H106).

□ Three fee simple sections purchased in 1998 will require change of status.

□ Reserve abuts the small coastal settlement of Kauri Point.

□ Generally elevated with a Pohutukawa dad coastal escarpment.

□ Vegetated coastal headland has been identified as a significant landscape feature of the District requiring protection (District Plan S14).

□ Reserve adjoins the Ongare Point Road Reserve (which does not form part of the Reserves Management Plan)

□ Small sealed carpark and basic toilet block in southern part of the reserve.

□ Timber jetty (popular fishing spot) extends from the south side of the headland.

□ Vehicle access extends down to the water’s edge at the base of the jetty where there is a small boat-ramp.

□ A walkway extends from the base of the jetty north up the escarpment to the grazed elevated portion of the reserve.

□ Grazing lease exists over upper paddock area.

Reserve Issues:

□ Congestion at the boat ramp. Conflict between cars and pedestrian access.

□ Cars accessing and turning on the intertidal flats.

□ Grazing of cattle has potential to damage archaeological sites and deters public access/informal use.

View across the upper grazed portion of the reserve

□ Upper area appears to be private rural farmland, not well sign-posted as reserve.

□ Walkway requires further development.

□ Opportunities for interpretation exist.

□ Protection of significant landscape features.

□ Area in the north is Council’s preferred location for a ‘northern harbour’ boat ramp, with feasibility studies being undertaken.

□ Security of vehicles, theft from vehicles.

Reserve Management Policy:

4.12.1 Enhance the Pohutukawa coastal margins with additional appropriate locally sourced native planting and plant pest control.

4.12.2 Extend the walkway around the top of the escarpment toward Ongare Point including areas for seats/picnics.

4.12.3 Ensure the protection of the reserve’s important historic and archaeological resources and associations.

4.12.4 With the lessee investigate alternative grazing options that have less impact on the historic and archaeological values of the reserve.

4.12.5 Research and undertake the interpretation of the Maori and European cultural heritage of the reserve.

4.12.6 Put in place vehicle control mechanisms to relieve congestion at the jetty - in the first instance sign this as “for boat launching access only no parking”. Monitor the effectiveness of these controls.

4.12.7 Ensure proposals for any future northern harbour boat ramp support the amenity and public use of the reserve.

4.12.8 Motor Homes are permitted to stay overnight within the formed, sealed carpark by the toilet within this reserve.

4.12.9 Generic objectives for Historic Reserves and generic policies apply.

Aerial view shows coastal Pohutukawa forest, the timber jetty, upper grazed land and adjacent residential settlement

Significant Pohutukawa fringe the coastline of the reserve

Attachment 2

www.aucklandmuseum.com

Auckland Museum Taumata-a-Iwi Kaupapa

This Kaupapa sets out the principles upon which the Taumata-a-Iwi will discharge its responsibilities to Maori (this revised Kaupapa was developed by the Taumata-a-Iwi and adopted by the Auckland Museum Trust Board 6 December 2001).

PRINCIPLE I: THE RIGHT TO ADVISE

The Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 empowers the Taumata-a-Iwi to give advice on all matters of Maori protocol within the Museum and between the Museum and Maori people at large. Museum policies will reflect the aspirations of both Treaty partners by acknowledging that existing and proposed policies will be reviewed by the Taumata-a-Iwi, and recommendations to the Auckland Museum Trust Board will be made accordingly.

PRINCIPLE II: PARTNERSHIP

Both the Auckland Museum Trust Board and the Taumata-a-Iwi will act reasonably and in the utmost good faith by observing and encouraging the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Trust Board recognises the Taumata-a-Iwi’s cultural responsibility to wider Maori regarding any implications of mana Maori (lore of the Maori) as measured by mana whenua and associated obligations of manaakitanga (providing hospitality to visitors) or kaitiakitanga (cultural management and protection of taonga and resources) including Maori cultural, intellectual and commercial property rights, and will seek advice and direction in all such cases as they arise.

PRINCIPLE III: MAORI EXPECTATIONS

The Museum recognises the right of all Maori to expect the Taumata-a-Iwi, on their behalf as the recognised kaitiaki of the Museum, to

(i) monitor the management - custody, care, display, accessibility and development - of their taonga within the Museum

(ii) facilitate repatriation of all whakapakoko, uru moko and koiwi

PRINCIPLE IV: ACTIVE PROTECTION

The Taumata-a-Iwi will provide advice to the Auckland Museum Trust Board, and the Trust Board will protect the Taumata-a-Iwi by ensuring the rights of Maori in the Museum are protected, in kaitiakitanga terms, by:

(i) safeguarding mana whenua and the lore of Maori

(ii) safeguarding the tapu (spiritual restrictions) of the Museum’s war shrines

(iii) providing appropriate management - custody, care, display, accessibility and development - of all taonga

(iv) providing all staff and visitors with a culturally safe environment

(v) taking affirmative action in recruitment, training and educational (primary,

secondary and tertiary) programmes, which will lead Maori people into professional careers in New Zealand’s culturally integrated museums.

PRINCIPLE V: REDRESS FOR PAST MISUNDERSTANDINGS

The Auckland Museum Trust Board acknowledges that there may be misunderstandings from the past related to taonga that need to be addressed and that there is a responsibility to seek advice from the Taumata-a-Iwi, and to:

(i) objectively explore and assess each example as it comes to light

(ii) put in place practices that minimise and eliminate future needs for redress.

Taumata-a-iwi

Auckland War Memorial Museum is governed by the Auckland Museum Trust Board. The Board’s duties, functions and powers, and its responsibilities to ten statutory objectives are set out in the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996. Paramount amongst its responsibilities is the trusteeship and guardianship of the Museum, and its extensive collections of treasures and scientific materials.

The Museum’s Act also provides for a Maori Committee known as the Taumata-a-Iwi. The Taumata-a-Iwi is founded upon the principle of mana whenua (customary authority of and over ancestral land), and comprises Ngati Whatua, Ngati Paoa and Tainui.

The Taumata-a-Iwi is responsible for the provision of advice and assistance to the Trust Board in a series of matters set out in the Act. The Taumata-a-Iwi acts in a trustee role in representing the interests of Maori and advising the Trust Board on matters of custodial policy and guardianship of taonga (Maori ancestral treasures) and any whakapakoko, uru moko and koiwi (indigenous human remains) held by the Museum. They are also required to advise the Trust Board on all Maori cultural aspects concerning Museum’s wahi tapu (shrines, ancestral spaces set apart), staffing, display, visitor, marketing and development policies.

1. Purpose

To provide for the appointment of persons to the Taumata-a-Iwi pursuant to section 16 of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 [“The Act”].

To continue to foster a beneficial relationship as envisaged by the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996.

2. Definitions

Nil

3. Policy

Appointment of Taumata-a-Iwi

3.1 The Board notes that the Act provides no guidance relating to the appointment of persons to the Taumata-a-Iwi.

3.2 The Board recognises the principle of mana whenua (customary authority of and over ancestral land).

3.3 The Board agrees that representation on the Taumata-a-Iwi should be based on the principle of mana whenua.

3.4 The Board recognises that Ngati Whatua o Orakei holds mana whenua status as it relates to the physical site and location of the Museum, Te Papa Whakahiku.

The Board also recognises Ngati Whatua’s tikanga obligations with regard to:

a) The Museum, Te Papa Whakahiku, as a wahi tapu;

b) The responsibility owed to the taonga of nga iwi o te motu;

c) The responsibility owed Museum staff [nga tangata kainga] and visitors [nga tangata manuhiri].

3.5 The Board shall appoint Ngati Whatua o Orakei’s representatives to a majority on the Taumata-a-Iwi in recognition of Ngati Whatua’s mana whenua status.

3.6 The present composition of the Taumata-a-Iwi, established following consultation with Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board in 1996, accepted by Ngati Paoa and Tainui and confirmed through the consultative process of subsequent Annual Plans, is as follows:

a)	Ngati Whatua	3 members
b)	Ngati Paoa	1 member

3.7 In line with the terms of appointment for Board members, every two years the Board shall invite recommendations for appointment or reappointment from Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board, Ngati Paoa Trust Board and Te Kingitanga o Tainui of their respective representatives to the Taumata-a-Iwi.

Guiding Principles for the Trust Board’s Relationship with the Taumata-a-Iwi

The Trust Board and the Taumata-a-Iwi acknowledge the following:

1. The Trust Board acts in the interest of the Museum at all times.

2. The Trust Board exercises trusteeship over the Museum / Te Papa Whakahiku, and all treasures and trusts within Its care.

3. The Trust Board recognises the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi.

4. The Trust Board recognises the principle of mana whenua with regard to Te Papa Whakahiku and its taonga.

5. The Trust Board recognises the principle of mana whenua in making appointments to the Taumata-a-Iwi.

6. The Trust Board and Taumata-a-Iwi have trusteeship obligations toward nga iwi o te motu.

7. The Trust Board will seek advice from the Taumata-a-Iwi on ways of ensuring that the Board’s policies relating to:

a) Custodial policies and guardianship of all Maori taonga of whatever kind and tribal source;

b) Staffing policies, including taking affirmative action in recruitment and training programmes, which will lead Maori people into professional careers in New Zealand’s bicultural museums;

c) Display policies, including presentation of Maori taonga to the public in a culturally appropriate and informative manner; and

d) Development policies, including protection of both the substance and status of Maori taonga in any Museum plan;

give proper regard to Maori values, and those matters provided for in the Treaty of Waitangi.

8. The Trust Board recognises the right of the Taumata-a-Iwi to give advice on all matters of Maori protocol.

9. The Trust Board recognises the value of a direct relationship with the Taumata-a-Iwi, and will encourage hui where that is identified as being appropriate.

10. In giving effect to its special relationship with the Taumata-a-Iwi, the Trust Board recognises the following principles:

a) The right of the Taumata-a-Iwi to advise the Trust Board;

b) The principle of partnership;

c) The principle of Trusteeship;

d) Active protection to ensure physical and cultural safety;

e) Resolution of past misunderstandings.

11. Where the Trust Board requests or the Taumata-a-Iwi provides formal advice to the Trust Board, that request or advice shall be in writing and shall clearly state:

a) the grounds for that advice;

b) any alternative means or options required or available;

c) whether, and on what basis, recommendations are to be made; and

d) the implications of not accepting the advice.

12. The Trust Board recognises that the Tumuaki Maori Director has a dual role with respect to the Trust Board and the Taumata-a-Iwi:

a) as a member of executive management reporting through the Director to the Trust Board;

b) as a provider of services and advice to the Taumata-a-Iwi, and consulting with it on

such other matters as are delegated to the Tumuaki Maori from time to time by the Director.

The Board notes that alternate appointees or deputies are not provided for in the Act.

In recognition of the need of the Taumata-a-Iwi for mandated agreement on issues, and the problem of ensuring appropriate iwi representation at all Hui-a-Marama, the following policy shall apply:

a) At the same time that the Board invites recommendations for appointment or reappointment to the Taumata-a-Iwi, it shall invite nominations from Ngati Paoa Trust Board and Te Kingitanga o Tainui for alternates for the purpose of representation at Hui-a-Marama.

b) Such alternates shall be appointed for the same two year term as the appointee.

c) As the remuneration paid to Taumata-a-Iwi representatives does not represent a meeting fee but, rather, a general service allowance, where an alternate attends any Hui-a-Marama on the appointees behalf, the remuneration shall continue to be paid to the appointee, and the appointee is solely responsible for all and any financial or other arrangements with the alternate;

d) An appointee shall not substitute an alternate for more than two consecutive Hui-a-Marama in any one calendar year.

1. Purpose

To ensure all Museum encounters with iwi (Maori people) are conducted in a manner that upholds the integrity – mana – of both parties.

2. Definitions

Treaty of Waitangi 1840 rule: Any Maori kin group that can demonstrate it held mana whenua (customary rights and responsibilities of and over a defined area of lands) at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed (1840) is considered the appropriate tribe with whom to exclusively enter into any negotiations, settlements, joint ventures or partnerships.

3. Policy

3.1 To ensure Maori values are upheld, the appropriate conduit between the Museum and iwi will be the office of the Tumuaki.

3.2 The Tumuaki will ensure the Director, Board and Taumata-a-Iwi are kept fully briefed of any interactions that may impact on the Museum’s Maori values.

3.3 Within any region where more than one Maori community is claiming tangata whenua status the Museum will be guided by the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 rule as with whom it should interact to ensure Maori values are upheld.

3.4 Within any Maori community where leadership is contested the Museum will ensure Maori values are upheld by not engaging exclusively with any one party until such time the whole community reconciles its internal differences to the satisfaction of the Museum.

1 Purpose

To ensure Maori values associated with all Auckland Museum-held taonga are protected.

2 Definitions

Taonga

Any item housed in or under control of the Auckland Museum will be considered a taonga and identified accordingly if it fulfils the following criteria:

a) Is an obvious representation of a Maori ancestor; and / or

b) Was directly associated with a known Maori ancestor; and / or

c) Carries a Maori ancestral name; and / or

d) Is considered of ancestral importance to the Maori descent group from where it originated.

3 Policy

3.1 To ensure Maori values associated with all taonga in the collections are upheld such items will remain within the Museum’s Auckland Domain precinct unless otherwise arranged by the Board under advice from the Taumata-a-Iwi.

3.2 To further ensure Maori values associated with all taonga in the collections are upheld the Board will categorise, inventory and manage every such item according to the acquisition pathway by which it originally entered the Museum:

• Gift: where taonga have been gifted the cultural obligations of the gift will be upheld;

• Purchase: where taonga have been purchased the conventional responsibilities and authorities of ownership of each item will be upheld;

• Loan (deposit): where taonga have been loaned or placed on deposit clear understanding of trusteeship will be upheld;

• Contested acquisition: where dubious acquisition of any taonga is proven the Museum will do everything in its power to redress history.

3.3 The Board will seek the advice of the Taumata-a-Iwi in any situations where the identification, categorisation or acquisition pathway of any taonga in the collections is questionable.

1 Purpose

To be drafted

2 Definitions

Nil

3 Policy

3.1 Storage

Collections will be stored and serviced so as to maximise their life, but still allow appropriate access.

3.2 On-Site Storage

On-site storage of collections will be provided wherever possible.

3.3 Collection Security

The Museum will ensure effective security for its collections.

3.4 Conservation of taonga

To ensure Maori values associated with the conservation of Museum-held taonga are upheld, the Board will seek advice from the Taumata-a-Iwi before confirming any significant new proposal for conservation of Museum-held taonga.

MANA TAONGA

At its meeting of 30 September 1992 Ngä Kaiwawao (the Mäori Advisory Group to the museums development board) resolved to recommend that the Board endorse the concept of Mana Taonga.

This concept as defined by Te Papa, is central in laying the foundation for Maori participation and involvement in Te Papa. The concept was developed through consultation with iwi and other key stakeholders in 1989 - 1990, and was endorsed by the Museum’s Board in 1992.

Broadly speaking the mana taonga concept as practiced by Te Papa, recognises the spiritual and cultural connections of taonga with their people through the whakapapa of:

i) The creator of specific taonga;

ii) The ancestors after whom the taonga is named; and

iii) The whanau, hapü or iwi to whom the taonga is an heirloom

The concept is defined as follows:

• The rights of iwi to Te Marae o Te Papa Tongarewa in equality with all other iwi – these rights are conferred through the taonga that are held by Te Papa on the behalf of iwi.

• Spiritual and cultural ownership rights conferred through the whakapapa in respect of the traditions and histories that taonga represent, as well as the whakapapa of the creator of the taonga.

• These rights accord to iwi the mana to care for their taonga, to speak for them, and to determine their use or uses by the Museum.

The rights of mana taonga cannot be erased and continue to exist for those taonga held within Te Papa’s care. In a practical sense, mana taonga provides iwi and communities with the right to define how taonga within Te Papa should be cared for and managed in accordance with their tikanga or custom.

Mana Taonga

The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa

September 1992