APPENDIX I CFG archaeological report

Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo , New Chums Beach, Whangapaoua:

archaeological assessment

Matt hew Campbell

report toRussell De Luca Consultancy

andRoss Mear

CFG Heritage Ltd.P.O. Box 10 015

Dominion RoadAuckland 1024

ph. (09) 309 2426mat.c@cfgheritage.com

Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo , New Chums Beach, Whangapaoua:

archaeological assessment

report toRussell De Luca Consultancy

andRoss Mear

Prepared by:

Matthew Campbell

Reviewed by: Date: 18 July 2014

Jacqueline Craig Reference: 14-0575

© CFG Heritage Ltd. 2014

CFG Heritage Ltd.P.O. Box 10 015

Dominion RoadAuckland 1024

ph. (09) 309 2426mat.c@cfgheritage.com

T10/211

T10/1000T10/1080

Allotment 4

Allotment E5

T10/211

T10/1000T10/1080

Allotment 4

Allotment E5

Figure 1. Location of Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo, showing archaeological sites recorded in the general area.

Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo , New Chums Beach, Whangapaoua: archaeological assessment

Ross Mear proposes to subdivide 60.7 ha of land at New Chums Beach, Whangapoua (Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo). Th e development will consist of four house lots with defi ned building platforms. Th ree archaeological sites are recorded within the proposed subdivision in the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme: T10/1000, T10/1080 and T10/211. An archaeological assessment of the sites is required for the subdivision plan in order to avoid the sites or minimise eff ects of construction on them. Th is assessment was commissioned from CFG Heritage Ltd by Russell De Luca Consultancy Ltd on behalf of Ross Mear.

2 New Chums

Figure 2. Subdivision plan for the subdivision of Allotment 4 and Allotment E5 Parish of Wainuiototo, data supplied by Russell De Luca and RMS Surveyors.

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

Lot 4

T10/211

T10/1000T10/1080

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

Lot 4

T10/211

T10/1000T10/1080

N

2500

metres

Matthew Campbell 3CFG Heritage Ltd.

Limitations

Th is assessment is partially based on a previous assessment carried out by Louise Furey of CFG Heritage Ltd (Furey 2008): A preliminary assessment of her report indicated that three sites were located within the proposed subdivision and only one of these, T10/211, was close to a defi ned building platform. Only T10/211 was visited for the current assessment and no new sites were recorded, as the data in the 2008 assessment can be considered accurate and suffi cient for the purposes of the current assessment.

Statutory requirements

All archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and may not be destroyed, damaged or modifi ed without an authority issued by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ).An archaeological site is defi ned in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act as:

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

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and

(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and

(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1).Th e Resource Management Act 1991 requires City, District and Regional Councils to

manage the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way that provides for the wellbeing of today’s communities while safeguarding the options of future generations. Th e protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and devel-opment is identifi ed as a matter of national importance (Section 6f).

Historic heritage is defi ned as those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, derived from archaeo-logical, architectural, cultural, historic, scientifi c, or technological qualities.

Historic heritage includes: • historic sites, structures, places, and areas • archaeological sites; • sites of signifi cance to Maori, including wahi tapu; • surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources (RMA Section 2). Th ese categories are not mutually exclusive and some archaeological sites may include above

ground structures or may also be places that are of signifi cance to Maori. Where resource consent is required for any activity the assessment of eff ects is required to

address cultural and historic heritage matters.

Landscape

Th e proposed subdivision is a mixture of pasture grass, coastal forest, regenerating native bush, gorse and fl annel fl ower. At the southern end of New Chums Beach there is a level coastal ter-race approximately 1–1.5 m high. A steep slope covered in coastal bush dominated by pohutu-kawa rises steeply from the rear of the coastal platform. Nikau groves dominate the vegetation on the approximately 10 metre wide coastal terrace. Breccia outcrops intermittently interrupt the coastal platform. A boulder beach is present at the southern end of the bay and protects the

4 New Chums

front scarp of the coastal platform from erosion. Th e central part of the beach has more recent dunes, with a swale at the rear of the dune abutting the escarpment face. Th e Wainuiototo Steam discharges into the centre of the bay and gives the only easy access to the beach from the land behind. To the north of the stream mouth there is a low coastal platform, again backed by steep slopes. At this northern end of the bay the sand beach merges to a boulder beach at the base of the cliff s which continue uninterrupted to Kennedy Bay.

Th e coastal platform to the north of Wainuiototo Stream is covered in fl ax and other low species and ground visibility is poor. During a site visit in 2006 it was noted that disturbance from pig rooting was evident all along this northern platform and unlike the coastal platform at the southern end of the beach, the ground surface was very wet and poorly drained in early winter (Furey 2008). A stream identifi ed as Te Awaiti on the 1858 survey plan discharges into the bay across this platform. A narrow, deep, steep sided channel carries the water out of the hill country behind.

Th ere is little fl at land in the valley bottom behind New Chums Beach, and the north facing slopes are, in places, boulder strewn. Small basins are present above shallow gullies, and these are poorly drained and wet underfoot in winter. Unlike the landscape on the Whangapoua side of the development area, there are no spurs descending from the main ridge separating the catchments, so that there is little defi nition to the landscape or small changes in slope angle close to the base of the hill-slope.

Th e slopes facing Whangapoua are steep, with short narrow spurs ending above the coast at the northeast end of the property, close to Motuto Point. Further to the south, beyond the mouth of the Pungapunga River, the spurs are longer and end above the fl ood plain formed by the river.

Land history

Information on land block histories is derived from Alexander (1997) and from LINZ deeds and Certifi cate of Titles. Th e Pungapunga block of 365 acres encompasses the slope fronting the Pungapunga River and the coast to the north of the river mouth and including part of Motuto Point. Th e block was sold to the Crown for £93 15s in February 1865 by eight named individuals from Ngati Pare. Survey plan SO 918A, Land at Te Punga-punga, dated 1858, shows the land to be predominantly in bush (Figure 3). Th e adjoining Wainuiototo block of 1568 acres, which includes the catchment of New Chums, was sold to the Crown for £255 by its owners on behalf of Patukirikiri, Ngati Karaua and Ngati Pare in August 1858. Th e land was then divided into 11 allotments. Lots were issued as Crown grants from 1863 onwards. All of the allotments passed through several owners, sometimes in quick succession before being col-lectively purchased by Smith from 1912 to 1920. Th e rapid turnover in owners is typical of the speculative land sales occurring elsewhere on the Coromandel Peninsula in the mid-late 19th century and strongly suggests that absentee landowners did not reside here. All the blocks were on sold to Alberta McLean in May 1928. Bertram Denize purchased the land from McLean in 1944.

Wainuiototo West 5 was the only allotment where a timber company was registered as the owner. Th e A. [Auckland?] Timber Company purchased this allotment in 1887, transferring ownership to the Kauri Timber Company in 1888. Th is suggests that at least part of the land was still in primary forest at that time. According to Robin Denize, the previous landowner, the blocks on the northern side of the New Chums catchment (Wainuiototo North East 2 and Wainuiototo South West 2) were also logged in the late 19th century, and the timber was rafted out from New Chums Beach to scows.

Matthew Campbell 5CFG Heritage Ltd.

Fi gure 3. SO 918A, Land at Te Punga-punga, dated 1858.

6 New Chums

Site No. Easting Northing Site type Description

T10/1000 1832941 5934963 Horticulture Stone arrangement thought to be associ- ated with Maori horticultureT10/1080 1832926 5934931 Midden Displaced midden on stock track T10/211 1832649 5935623 Midden/Oven Defl ated Midden on seaward face of dune

Table 1. List of sites in proposed subdivision

Archaeological survey

An archaeological survey was carried out by Louise Furey of CFG Heritage on behalf of Coastal Land Trust Holdings in May 2006. Each ridge and spur was walked and probes were used to detect the presence of shell on level areas, ridge tops, spur crests and ends, plus any other places where there were irregularities in the land surface which might indicate the presence of Maori occupation. All stock tracks on ridges and slopes were inspected for exposed shell, and cuttings in farm tracks and roads were also looked at for any alteration to the natural soil profi le. Th e location of each archaeological site was fi xed with a Garmin hand held GPS with an accuracy of ± 5 m. Previously recorded sites were revisited, and new, more accurate, grid references given on updated site record forms.

Th ree sites were identifi ed within the proposed development, T10/1000, T10/1080 and T10/211. Two of the sites, T10/1080 and T10/211, were identifi ed as being pre-European in origin and are likely to be associated with other archaeological sites within the area. Th e third site, T10/1000 cannot be interpreted based solely on surface evidence, but is likely to be related to Maori horticulture.

Although the allotments in Parish of Wainuiototo were acquired by a timber company and initial land allocation occurred the 1860s, no archaeological evidence related to early European historic occupation or the timber industry has been found in the surveyed land. It is likely there are historic access tracks and timber haul roads higher in the Wainuiototo catchment but as this area was in regenerating bush and gorse, and was outside the assessment area so it wasn’t inspected for sites.

Th e three sites mentioned above occur on the southern and northern boundaries of the pro-posed subdivision. Th e land is steep, and as a result, there is limited access to the beach, with the only easily accessible place in the valley bottom adjacent to the Wainuiototo Stream. In addition, the sparse shells of limited species in the inter-tidal zone suggest that the sandy shore at New Chums may be impoverished of preferred shellfi sh relative to Whangapoua Beach and the nearby harbour.

T10/211

Th is midden was visited on 16 July 2014 and reassessed, as it was recorded within 20 m of the defi ned building platform for Lot 1 (Figure 2) – the grid reference in the site record form con-tains an error and has been corrected to place the site 70 m from the building platform. Th e site is a defl ating midden on the seaward face of the beach dune about 50 m south east of a stream mouth. Th e main area of midden is visible over 12 m along the dune face and 7 m up it, with a smaller patch of midden 12 m south east. Th e shell is primarily tuatua (Paphies subtriangu-lata) with occasional tuangi (Austrovenus stutchburyi), limpet (Patella sp.), whelk (Cominella sp.),

Matthew Campbell 7CFG Heritage Ltd.

cat’s eye (Turbo smaragdus) and mudsnail (Amphibola crenata). Numerous heat cracked rocks are present, gathered from the beach about 20 m away. No charcoal was visible, or evidence of fi re scoops. Th e midden is too sparse to probe and is probably all located on the dune surface. It may survive better beneath a patch of gorse uphill from the exposed midden but could not be detected with the probe. Th is patch of gorse is 7–8 m wide and very occasional shell was visible on the surface above it. Th is midden will probably completely erode away in the next few years.

Assessment

Th e following assessment of archaeological values is based on the criteria set out in NZHPT (2006) and relate only to archaeological values. Other interested parties, in particular mana

Figure 4. The main patch of midden on the dune surface at T10/211.

Figure 5. Close up of midden T10/211.

8 New Chums

whenua, may hold diff erent values regarding the proposed development. Th e values assessments are assessed separately and an assessment of the signifi cance of the sites is discussed at the end.

Assessment of valuesT10/1000

Condition Th is site is in reasonable condition, although it is diffi cult to interpret from only a surface study.

Rarity Stone arrangements are not common in New Zealand, although stone used in horticultural practices is reasonably common.

Context Th is site is part of a much more extensive archaeological landscape in the Whangapoua region. While much of this landscape, especially in the Whangapoua township has been developed, enough remains to provide good context for the sites.

Information Th e investigation and excavation of this site could provide useful information about the timing, use and development of Whangapoua and Wainuiototo bay during pre-European Maori occupation of the Coromandel Peninsula.

Amenity Th e site is not very visible and could not be easily interpreted to the public.Cultural Th e cultural values of the sites can only be determined by the mana whenua.

T10/1080

Condition Th is site is in fair condition, and is subject to stock trampling and landslips.Rarity Shell midden’s are the most common type of site in New Zealand.Context Th is site is part of a much more extensive archaeological landscape in the

Whangapoua region. While much of this landscape, especially in the Whangapoua township has been developed, enough remains to provide good context for the sites.

Information Th e investigation and excavation of this site could provide useful information about the timing, use and development of Whangapoua and Wainuiototo bay during pre-European Maori occupation of the Coromandel Peninsula. Midden analysis would aid in the understanding of subsistence activities carried out in the pre-European period.

Amenity Th e site is visible and could be easily interpreted to the public.Cultural Th e cultural values of the sites can only be determined by the mana whenua.

T10/211

Condition Th is site is in good condition, although it is defl ating.Rarity Shell midden’s are the most common type of site in New Zealand.Context Th is site is part of a much more extensive archaeological landscape in the

Whangapoua region. While much of this landscape, especially in the Whangapoua township has been developed, enough remains to provide good context for the sites.

Information Th e investigation and excavation of this site could provide useful information about the timing, use and development of Whangapoua and Wainuiototo bay during pre-European Maori occupation of the Coromandel Peninsula. Midden

Matthew Campbell 9CFG Heritage Ltd.

analysis would aid in the understanding of subsistence activities carried out in the pre-European period.

Amenity Th e site is visible and could be easily interpreted to the public.Cultural Th e cultural values of the sites can only be determined by the mana whenua.

Assessment of Signifi cance

Th e main values of these sites are their information potential and context. Collectively the three sites are of moderate signifi cance.

Assessment of eff ects

T10/1000 and T10/1080 are located in the proposed Lot 4 and are 70 m or more from the proposed building platform. Th ey will not be aff ected by the development.

T10/211 is located on Lot 1 approximately 70 m from the proposed building platform. It will not be aff ected by the development.

Recommendations

Th ese recommendations are only made on the basis of the archaeological values that have been outlined above. Any other values associated with other interested parties, including tangata whenua, can only be determined by them. It is recommended that:

an archaeological authority to destroy, damage or modify the sites is not required; any tracks down to the beach should be careful to avoid the sites; all earthworks in the development should be subject to standard discovery protocols. since archaeological survey cannot always detect sites of traditional signifi cance to

Maori, or wahi tapu, mana whenua should be consulted regarding the possible exist-ence of such sites, and the recommendations in this report.

References

Alexander, D. 1997. Th e Hauraki Tribal Lands. Hauraki (WAI 100) Treaty of Waitangi Claims Project. Hauraki Maori Trust Board.

Furey, L. 2008. Archaeological assessment, New Chums–Whangapoua, Coromandel Peninsula. Unpublished CFG Heritage Ltd report to Coastal Land Trust Holdings Ltd.