Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moturua Island.
Prepared By:
Andrew Blanshard
Kai-arahi Te Ao Tawhito
Historic Ranger
Bay of Islands Area Office
Te Papa Atawhai/Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 128
34 Landing Road
Kerikeri
New Zealand
ablanshard@doc.govt.nz
Introduction 3
Background 3
Archaeological context 6
Investigation 6
Survey 7
Historical Significance 8
Work Proposed 9
Waiwhapuku (Army) Bay Error! Bookmark not defined.
Toilet block technical specs 11
Impacts on the Archaeology 15
Mitigation 15
Recommendations 15
Conclusion 16
Bibliography 17
List of Figures
Background
Moturua Island Scenic Reserve lies in the inner Bay of Islands on the east coast of
Northland (Figure 1). Moturua Island is the second largest island in the Bay of
Islands with total area of 150 ha of which 135 ha is managed by the Department of
Conservation the remaining 15ha is in private ownership. The islands geography is
generally steep, with six small bays present around the perimeter. The northern
coast which faces the open sea has high, rugged cliffs with rocky outcrops, the
southern end of the island is more sheltered and faces the mainland. The vegetation
cover ranges from well established bush in the south western corner to regenerating
Manuka/Kanuka scrub in the north. Most of the bays are backed by a ‘back beach’
which are to a greater or lesser degree covered in Kikuyu.
Moturua was purchased from the Cross family in 1968 and gazetted as a scenic
reserve in 1979, when it was placed under the management of the Bay of Islands
Maritime and Historic Park. Like most of the islands in the Bay, pastoral farming has
been a dominant feature on this island for much of last century. In late 19th and early
20th century the land was cleared, established in pasture and grazed primarily with
sheep although cattle where also present at times. In 1972 grazing ceased and stock
was removed, leaving native vegetation to recover through natural processes. This
regeneration has been remarkably rapid. It has meant that much of the archaeology
that was recorded during the 1960’s and 70’s has now been obscured by the ever
increasing bush line.
Moturua Island has played a significant role throughout New Zealand’s history and
prehistory. Information suggests a long history of human occupation of the island
from the earliest Polynesian settlers, to the development of a distinctly Maori culture,
and through into the early European contact period. In the late 17th and early 18th
century Moturua was visited by both Cook and du Fresne. Moturua has long been
the site of defensive structures, with six pa (constructed prior to European arrival)
and, more recently, a mine control station built during the Second World War. The
archaeological and historical significance of the island is discussed in detail below.
Figure 2:
Moturua Island
Bay of Islands Area 5
Area Office, P.O. Box 128, 34 Landing Road, Kerikeri, New Zealand
Telephone 09-407 8474, Fax 09-407 7938
Archaeological context
Moturua Island has a high density of Archaeological sites. These range from Pa
complexes to 2nd World War navel installations. In total there are 27 recorded sites
including 6 Pa. In the second half of last century there have been numerous
investigations and surveys undertaken on this island.
Investigation
In the1970’s the gardening soil layers (QO5-44 & QO5-46) were re-investigated by
Peters (1975). This investigation was aimed at gaining more accurate dating
material, to recheck the date and context of Groube’s samples. Peters was able to
obtain dates of 740 ±90 B.P and 510±70 B.P (both of these dates have been revised
from the original dates published, for more information www.waikato.ac.nz/cig-
bin/nzcd/search). The samples for these dates came from the same layers (Layers 5
& 6) as Groubes, however only small twigs were used as samples for dating.
During the course of an investigation granted as part of New Zealand Historic Places
Trust Authority (NZHPT 1996/20), Johnson found layers similar to those described
by both Peters and Groube in Opunga Bay (Johnson 1997). In Layer 5 Johnson got
both Carbon and Obsidian hydration dating material. The carbon date was 890±60
B.P. and a calibrated date for the obsidian hydration sample was 542-412 B.P. Both
of the dates confirm a 15th century occupation horizon. The later layers (Layer 2)
were dated using the same methodology. The dates gained were, a carbon date of
670±50 B.P, and an obsidian hydration date of 324-223 B.P. This would suggest a
terminus of agricultural activity of late 17th to early 18th century.
In the early 1980’s site QO5-682, an ‘archaic’ midden on Mangawawea Bay, was
excavated. This work was carried out by Mckay in 1981 and was never published or
formally written up. Despite the results never being published it has been possible to
reconstruct the results on a limited scale. There were large amounts of faunal
material recovered, especially from the lower levels. This included human, moa, fish
and dog bone and large amount of shellfish. These remains were associated with
hangi pits and possible floor layers. No carbon or other forms of dating samples were
gained from this material. On top of a sterile cap of soil there was evidence of 19th
century re-use of the site (bottle glass) was discovered.
As can be gathered from the brief round up documented above, with the exception of
the short paper written by Peters (1975) and Johnson’s 1997 NZHPT authority
report, no information from the other numerous investigations has been published.
What these different investigations do throw light on is the density of archaeology
present on the island especially on the back beach areas.
Survey
There was sporadic recording of sites during the 1960 investigations. The first
systematic survey was conducted by Leahy and Walsh in 1976. Further sites were
recorded during Hayward and Wrights survey (1980), which focused on the offshore
islets, and Roundtree (1983) continued the survey of the interior of the island. All
three surveys noted that the stock that had been run on the island until 1972 had
damaged a number of sites, but that the majority remained in good condition.
Roundtree (1984) also highlights the fact that there are several areas of the island
that have not yet been surveyed but due to their geographic location there is a high
probability of sites being present.
The number of recorded archaeological sites in any given area is only an indication
of the total number present. This proved to be the case on Moturua when last year
during the track upgrade project a previously un-recorded archaeological site in
Mangawhea Bay (QO5-1368).
Moturua Island was visited by both Cook and De Fresne. Cook spent five weeks in
and around the bay in late 1769 but appears to have only landed on Moturua once
during that time (Beaglehole 1955: 217). Whilst there Banks observed that although
kumara was the main crop, yams and taro were also cultivated. Banks also noted six
aouta (Paper Mulberry) plants were present, this is the only time this cultigen has
been recorded as being present in New Zealand (Roundtree 1984: 4). Cook records
that approximately 40-50 acres of the island was under cultivation at the time of his
visit (Beaglehole 1955). At the time of Cooks visit Ngare Raumati a division of
Ngatiwai were powerful in the eastern Bay of Islands (Roundtree 1984) and had
several settlements on Moturua.
In 1772 Marion De Fresne spent nearly two months in the Bay of Islands with most
of his time being spent in and around Moturua. He established a shore camp in
Waiiti and Waipao Bay, as well as another on the main land at Clendon Cove. These
encampments were the centre for the first sustained meeting between Maori and
Pakaha. By this time Ngatiwai’s power was beginning to wane and Ngapuhi were
beginning to enter the area (McNab 1914: 378).
De Fresne’s establishement of a shore camp at Waiiti and Waipao Bay did not
immediately lead to hostilities. It is clear from the ship records that the camp included
a forge, hospital and guardhouse. As time progressed tensions between the two
groups gradually increased. This was caused by several issues, including an anchor
going missing from the camp at Clendon Cove and the subsequent French reprisals
this included burning an ‘unoccupied’ village and taking a Chief (Rewhi) captive.
Rewhi was Ngapuhi and it is though that this act influenced Ngapuhi from Waimate
and the Hokianga in the massacre that followed (Lee 1983: 21).
The relationship between the French and the surrounding Maori gradually worsened,
this culminated when De Fresne and fifteen of his men were killed at ‘Te Kuri’s’ cove,
after the French unwittingly broke tapu. News of the killing was brought back to the
ships by a survivor. The French were unable to react immediately, their boats were
still without masts and most of their stores and personnel were ashore. As they
decided on a course of action canoe loads of Maori including Te Kuri (probably
responsible for De Fresne death) surrounded the French camp on Moturua. Roux
(De Fresne second in command) estimates that there were over 1200 men
surrounding the camp. The next twenty four hours saw numerous skirmishes
between the two sides, which culminated with the French attacking Paeroa pa. Roux
estimated that approximately 250 Maori were killed with roughly 200 escaping. Two
weeks later Roux ordered the ships to leave the Bay of Islands (McNab 1914: 435).
These interactions had strong ramifications in the development of New Zealand as a
colonized nation.
The descriptions and charts documented by the French provide an invaluable insight
into pre-European Maori lifestyle. However, although some elements of the French
stay in the Bay of Islands were well documented, other elements were not. In order
Work Proposed
The Department of Conservation is planning provide toilet facilities for day visitors to
the Island in Whaiwhapuku (Army) Bay.
Whaiwhapuku Bay was occupied by the Navy during the Second World War as part
of the coastal defence strategy for the Bay of Islands. A mine observation post was
built on the top of Hikurangi pa (QO5-64). The concrete pads for the ablution blocks
and barracks situated on the back beach to the north of the intermittent stream still
remain. There are numerous archaeological sites recorded in the bay including a
series of terraces (QO5-781), several drainage/agricultural ditches (QO5-45 & QO5-
47) (Figures 2 and 3). Due to the dense nature of the both historical and
archaeological sites finding a location that effects neither has been difficult,
especially when the toilets design requirements are also added to the equation.
The location that has been chosen and described here is situated on the southern
side of the intermittent creek that bisects the bay. Although close to recorded
terraces (QO5-781) the location identified for the toilet block is not situated on the
terraces themselves (Figure 7 and 8). The track that will lead to the toilets will go
over these terraces. There will be no earthworks on the terraces themselves, there
will also be close and on going monitoring of the track surfaces that leads to the
toilets to insure that no erosion is taking place. Due to the density of the archaeology
in the Bay there is a strong possibility of there being unrecorded sub surfaces
features, especially so close to QO5-781 it is recommended that permission to
modify be sought from the Historic Places Trust.
The design of the toilet block was carefully considered. In order to disturb the ground
as little as possible the toilet collection pan needs to be situated on a slope (See
Figure 10) and be north facing. In Waiwhapuku Bay a location has been chosen
where the natural topography means that the ground disturbance should be minimal
yet it is still possible to maintain the northerly aspect as well as the fall height
necessary for the collection chamber to work efficiently.
The area of ground disturbance will be, approximately 3 by 4 meters. There will also
need to be a track running up to the toilets this will probably be approximately
1200mm wide. The scraping of the soil and the shaping of the slope for the toilet will
be done with a combination of hand tools and a small digger (1 ton).The track will be
a weed-eated with no soil disturbance. For the toilet slope creation will still require a
small amount of earth movement. In order to minimise the visual impact of the two
toilets there will be a small amount of ancillary planting of low impact plants. When
completed the toilet should look something like Figure 9 although without the fence.
Figure 6: example of
completed toilet block
The design and location of the toilet have been carefully considered so as to
lower the impact on the archaeology to the least possible. However because
of the density of archaeological sites on Moturua, as well as the likelihood of
sub-surface archaeology it is impossible to guarantee that there will be no
impact on archaeology.
The toilet block in Waiwhapuku (Army) Bay will visible but has been placed in
a location that is as discreet as the archaeological landscape and the design
requirements of the toilets will allow. There will also be a small amount of low
impact, shallow rooting plants planted directly in front of the toilet block which
will help to soften this structure from both the water and the track.
Mitigation
That before work is carried out a small scale investigation of the area that is to
be disturbed be carried out, and any archaeological layers be fully recorded
and sampled.
Recommendations
This project has been designed from start to finish to have the lowest impact
possible on archaeology.
All recorded archaeological sites are being avoided. Although the toilet block
will abut QO5-781 and will have a visual impact on the site. This can not be
avoided as there are technical specifications for the toilet blocks that require it
to be situated in certain locations (north facing, on a slope), and the rest of
Waiwhapuku (Army) Bay is a myriad or archaeological and historic features.