geoffrey irwin - the archaeology of a late maori lake village

Kohika

Ko whakapaukorero te maungaKo Tarawera te awaKo Ngati Awa te iwi

Ko Mataatua te wakaKo Te Kohika te pa

Ko Tupai, Ko Tutarakauika, Ko Te Rangihiiria, Ko Tuara nga taniwhaKo Matataketake me Tiki nga mauri kohatu

Ko Te Awa o Te Atua te kotoreKo Otamaroroa te papa whenuaKo Tamarau te kaitiaki wairua

Ko Te Kaokaoroa te akuaKo Waimea, Ko Waitepuru, Ko Awatarariki, Ko Awaitipaku, Ko Awaiti,Ko Omehue, Ko Awakaponga, Ko Te Waikamihi, Ko Mangaone nga awa

Ko Te Otaramuturangi, Ko Tiepataua, Ko Te Awakaponga, Ko Te Ahikokoai,Ko Awatarerehika, Ko Te Umuhika nga urupa.

Ngati Awa pepeha

Whakapaukorero is the mountainTarawera is the river

Ngati Awa is the tribeMataatua is the canoe

Te Kohika is the paTupai, Tutarakauika, Te Rangihiiria, and Tuara are the guardians

Matataketake and Tiki are the talismansTe Awa o Te Atua is the estuary

Otamaroroa is the localityTamarau is the spirit guide

Te Kaokaoroa is the coastlineWaimea, Waitepuru, Awatarariki, Awaitipaku, Awaiti, Omehue, Awakaponga,

Te Waikamihi and Mangaone are the streamsTe Otaramuturangi, Tiepataua, Te Awakaponga, Te Ahikokoai, Awatarerehika

and Te Umuhika are the cemeteries.

Ngati Awa proverbial saying

KohikaThe archaeology of a late Maori lake village in

the Ngati Awa rohe, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand

Edited by Geoffrey Irwin

Auckland University Press

First published 2004

Auckland University PressUniversity of Auckland

Private Bag 92019Auckland, New Zealandwww.auckland.ac.nz/aup

© the authors 2004

ISBN 1 86940 315 0

This book is Memoir 9 of the Whakatane and District Historical Society,which has provided assistance with its publication.

National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Kohika : the archaeology of a late Maori lake village in the NgatiAwa rohe, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand / edited by Geoffrey Irwin.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-86940-315-0

1. Ngati Awa (New Zealand people)—Antiquities. 2. Excavations(Archaeology)—New Zealand—Kohika (Rangitaiki Plains)

3. Kohika Site (N.Z.) I. Irwin, Geoffrey.993.4201—dc 22

This book is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study,research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may

be reproduced by any process without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designed and typeset by Amy TansellPrinted by Printlink Ltd, Wellington

Contents

List of tables vi

List of figures vii

List of plates ix

Acknowledgements xiii

1. An introduction to Kohika in historical and archaeological context 1G.J. Irwin, R.G. Law, I. Lawlor and P. Ngaropo

2. Kohika in the geomorphological context of the Rangitaiki Plains 11G.J. Irwin

3. The impact of Polynesian settlement on the vegetation of the coastal Bay of Plenty 20M.S. McGlone and K.L. Jones

4. Excavations and site history at Kohika 45G.J. Irwin

5. Site chronology 76G.J. Irwin and M.D. Jones

6. The wooden artefacts from Kohika 83R.T. Wallace and G.J. Irwin

7. Houses, pataka and woodcarving at Kohika 122R.T. Wallace, G.J. Irwin and R. Neich

8. Kohika fibrework 149S. McAra

9. Artefacts of bone, tooth, pumice and pounamu 160G.J. Irwin

10. Sources of the Kohika obsidian artefacts 168P.R. Moore

11. The Kohika obsidian artefacts: technology and distribution 177S.J. Holdaway

12. Faunal remains from Kohika 198G.J. Irwin, R.K. Nichol, M.A. Taylor, T.H. Worthy and I.W.G. Smith

13. Evidence for diet, parasites, pollen, phytoliths, diatoms and starch grains inprehistoric coprolites from Kohika 217G.J. Irwin, M. Horrocks, L.J. Williams, H.J. Hall, M.S. McGlone and S.L. Nichol

14. Kohika as a late northern Maori lake village 239G.J. Irwin

Appendix Inventory of wooden and fibre items 249R.T. Wallace and G.J. Irwin

Index 260

vi

List of tablesTable 1.1 Frequency of sites by type in the Rangitaiki Plains and surrounding areaTable 3.1 Radiocarbon dates, Kohika pollen site (Square D17)Table 5.1 Chronometric data used in the current analysisTable 5.2 Summary posterior distributions for Phase 2 start, Phase 2 end and Phase 2 durationTable 6.1 Characteristics of the bird spear fragmentsTable 6.2 Comb dimensions (mm)Table 7.1 Estimated dimensions of excavated houses and patakaTable 8.1 Single spiral-wrapped bundles of harakeke (1SWB)Table 8.2 Two-ply spiral-wrapped bundles of harakeke (2PSW)Table 8.3 Three-ply cordageTable 8.4 Three-ply braid variantsTable 8.5 Plaited twill with narrow stripsTable 8.6 Plaited check with broad stripsTable 8.7 Netting and component partsTable 8.8 Other pieces: fragments whose technique is unclearTable 8.9 Contents of boxes (KOH number and technique)Table 9.1 Artefacts from KohikaTable 10.1 Size, roundness and sphericity of Kohika obsidian pebblesTable 10.2 XRF analyses of obsidian samples from Kohika and MaketuTable 11.1 Complete flake mean dimensions (and standard deviation) by exterior scar direction

for all areas in the university excavation, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.2 Maximum dimension of cores by scar pattern for all areas in the university

excavation, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.3 Maximum dimension for proximal, medial and distal fragments by exterior scar

pattern, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.4 Complete flake mean dimensions (and standard deviation) from the Historical

Society assemblage by exterior scar pattern, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.5 Mean dimensions for complete platform rejuvenation flakes from all areas in the

university excavation, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.6 Mean dimensions for complete flakes of length greater than 23 mm, by exterior

scar direction from all areas in the university excavation, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.7 Mean dimensions (and standard deviations) of complete tools compared with

complete flakes for all areas in the university excavations, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.8 Mean dimensions (and standard deviation) for pieces with macroscopic edge

modification by type for all areas excavated by the university, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.9 Mean dimensions (and standard deviation) for complete tools from the Historical

Society assemblage by edge modification type, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.10 Frequency of edge-modified pieces, flakes and cores by area, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.11 Mean length (and standard deviation) of complete flakes with length > 23 mm by

exterior scar morphology and area, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.12 Frequency of complete and fragmented flakes of length > 23 mm by area, Mayor

Island obsidianTable 11.13 Number and weight of flakes and flake fragments of maximum dimension less

than 10 mm by area, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.14 Complete flakes with length > 23 mm from the university excavations compared

with those excavated by the Whakatane Historical Society, Mayor Island obsidianTable 11.15 Frequency of complete and fragmented tools by type of edge modification and

areaTable 11.16 Length of notched area of edge modification for all notched tools by regionTable 11.17 Maketu and Taupo obsidian technological typesTable 11.18 Proportion of cortex on flakes and edge-modified pieces from all areas, Mayor

Island obsidianTable 12.1 Minimum number of individual mammalsTable 12.2 Human bone by excavation area

vii

Table 12.3 Dog body parts by excavation areaTable 12.4 Taphonomic variables for identified dog bone by excavated areaTable 12.5 Estimated ages of dogs at deathTable 12.6 Avian taxa represented among identifiable elements in the Kohika assemblage with

data from all squares and layers amalgamatedTable 12.7 Frequencies of fish species, by areaTable 12.8 Fish species frequencies by layer, Area DTable 12.9 Bone class frequencies for jack mackerel, Area DTable 12.10 Shellfish from KohikaTable 12.11 Shell samples from the White House, Area DTable 12.12 Shell samples from the Yellow House, Area DTable 12.13 Shell samples from the Bright Yellow floor, Area DTable 13.1 Samples included in coprolite analysesTable 13.2 Physical attributes of coprolites analysedTable 13.3 Components of coprolites, weights and percentagesTable 13.4 Incidence of fish body parts in Kohika coprolitesTable 13.5 Seeds from Kohika coprolitesTable 13.6 Percentages of inorganic materialTable 13.7 Variation in coprolite no.19

List of figuresFigure 1.1 The former river courses of the Rangitaiki Plains and communication routes

recorded in early maps (Gibbons 1990, Hunia 1977)Figure 1.2 Archaeological sites recorded in the area of the Rangitaiki PlainsFigure 2.1 The geomorphology of the Rangitaiki PlainsFigure 2.2 Former shorelines and river courses on the Rangitaiki PlainsFigure 2.3 Soils of the Rangitaiki Plains in the vicinity of Kohika (after Pullar 1985)Figure 3.1 The Bay of Plenty lowlands with pollen sites underlinedFigure 3.2 Pollen site stratigraphy: Kohika pollen site (excavation Square D17), Tunapahore

archaeological site complex and Thornton-Atkinson archaeological siteFigure 3.3a Kohika, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.3b Kohika, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.3c Kohika, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.3d Kohika, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.4a Thornton-Atkinson complex, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.4b Thornton-Atkinson complex, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.5 Tunapahore A, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.6a Tunapahore B, percentage pollen diagramFigure 3.6b Tunapahore B, percentage pollen diagramFigure 4.1 A contour map of Kohika showing the location of the excavationsFigure 4.2 Some representative section drawings from Area AFigure 4.3 A plan of the excavated features in Area AFigure 4.4 Square B1, north sectionFigure 4.5 Square B1, south sectionFigure 4.6 Square B1, plan of features at the base of the excavationFigure 4.7 Square B3, east sectionFigure 4.8 Square B4, west sectionFigure 4.9 Square C1, south sectionFigure 4.10 Square C1, west sectionFigure 4.11 Square C7, south sectionFigure 4.12 Square C10, north sectionFigure 4.13 Area D, the layout of excavation unitsFigure 4.14 Squares D1 and D2, all sections

viii

Figure 4.15 Area D, the White House horizonFigure 4.16 Area D, the Yellow House horizon (stakeholes less than 10 cm deep are not shown)Figure 4.17 Area D, the Bright Yellow horizonFigure 4.18 Area D, Squares D12–15, trenchFigure 4.19 Historical Society investigations (with some of their notes)Figure 5.1 Summary of the calibrated distributions for the chronometric data given in Table 5.1Figure 5.2 Posterior distribution for Phase 2, startFigure 5.3 Phase 2, endFigure 5.4 Phase 2, durationFigure 6.1 Bird spear point made from tree-fern trunkFigure 6.2 Twelve digging sticks and one ko footrestFigure 6.3 A weeder blade, a one-piece spade, and four handles of composite digging toolsFigure 6.4 Seven complete detachable digging-tool blades, one rough-out and one fragmentFigure 6.5 Part of a carving on a ceremonial koFigure 6.6 Seven broken shafts with terminal knobs, possibly handles from composite toolsFigure 6.7 Fifteen beaters and beater fragmentsFigure 6.8 Four bowls and bowl fragmentsFigure 6.9 A steering paddle rough-outFigure 6.10 Canoe paddle and paddle fragmentsFigure 6.11 Canoe hull piecesFigure 6.12 Three canoe seats, one bulkhead and eight other fittingsFigure 6.13 Canoe bailersFigure 6.14 Six heru or hair combsFigure 6.15 Six darts or javelinsFigure 6.16 Seven potaka or spinning topsFigure 6.17 An adze handle rough-outFigure 6.18 A chisel handle and a chisel socketFigure 6.19 A section of a putorino (flute)Figure 6.20 Two net gaugesFigure 6.21 Two thread reelsFigure 6.22 Fibre-, net- and rope-working toolsFigure 6.23 LadderFigure 6.24 Wood-splitting wedgesFigure 6.25 PegsFigure 6.26 Items of unidentified functionFigure 7.1 A reconstruction of the carved house from the Historical Society (HS) AreaFigure 7.2 A reconstruction of the pole and thatch house from the Yellow House floor, Area DFigure 7.3 A reconstruction of the pataka from Area DFigure 7.4 Types of lashing holes on house planksFigure 7.5 Poupou and other vertical house elements from the HS AreaFigure 7.6 Door or window parts from the HS AreaFigure 7.7 Tumatahuki battens from the HS AreaFigure 7.8 Possible fragments of pataka from the HS AreaFigure 7.9 Dressed slabs split from pukatea tree trunks, HS Area and Area BFigure 7.10 Timbers recovered from Area DFigure 7.11 The three rafters from Area DFigure 7.12 Detail of rafter tenon jointsFigure 7.13 Parameters used to estimate the width of a building in Area D, based on rafter

dimensionsFigure 7.14 Two parts of pataka from Area D, plus two indeterminate items (KOH30 and 31)Figure 7.15 Detail of the internal and external framing of a superior houseFigure 8.1a KOH298. Drawing of two-ply spiral-wrapped bunches of harakeke (2PSW)Figure 8.1b Diagram of technique for making 2PSWFigure 9.1 Bone hei tiki pendant, tooth pendant, bone toggleFigure 9.2 Pounamu adze

ix

Figure 9.3 Pumice kumara godFigure 10.1 Dimensions of obsidian pebbles from Kohika, Maketu and OtamarakauFigure 10.2 Rb-Sr plots for analysed obsidian artefacts from Kohika (solid symbols) and source

samples from Maketu and TaupoFigure 10.3 Zr-Rb plots for analysed obsidian artefacts from Kohika (solid symbols) and source

samples from Maketu and TaupoFigure 10.4 Relative proportions of ‘grey pebble-type’ and ‘other grey’ obsidian from KohikaFigure 11.1 Terms used to describe flake fragments. Proximal flakes include a platform, distal

flakes have a termination, and medial flakes lack a platform or a terminationFigure 11.2 Flakes with different exterior scar patterns. The identification numbers are given

in brackets: a (1703), b (1637), uni-directional; c (1907), d (1735), bi-directional;e (1893), sub-radial; f (1688), radial

Figure 11.3 Quadrants for assessing scar orientation. The flake is orientated with the platformat quadrant 1 (the figure is based on artefact 161)

Figure 11.4 Typology for edge modification: a (2617), b (2163), bifacial; c (2128), heavy;d (1145), e (1687), f (2175), g (1850), light; h (2490), i and j (1822), k (1635),notch

Figure 11.5 Dimensions of a complete flakeFigure 11.6 Core shapes: a (1525), pebble; b (1747), c (2248), multiple platform; d (2875),

e (3179), flake; f (2878), radialFigure 11.7 Platform preparation flakes and flakes with two interior surfaces: a (2882),

b (2491), c (1589), d (1752) and e (1588)Figure 11.8 Large flakes from Historical Society: a (94), b (96), c (150), d (161), e (98) and

f (158)Figure 12.1 Size frequency distributions of snapper, kahawai and jack mackerel, Area DFigure 12.2 Size frequency distributions of jack mackerel by layer, Area DFigure 12.3 Size frequency distributions of pipi and tuatua, Area DFigure 13.1 Components of Kohika coprolite samples, percentages by weightFigure 13.2 Percentage pollen diagram for Kohika coprolite samplesFigure 13.3 Percentage phytolith diagram for Kohika coprolite samplesFigure 13.4 Percentage diatom diagram for Kohika coprolite samplesFigure 14.1 A schematic view northwards over Area D across the lake to the dunes and the

sea. In the left foreground is a reconstruction of Area D during the Yellow Househorizon. The houses, canoes, nets and racks on the right represent the artefactsand building timbers found in the Historical Society Area. The palisade followsthe topography around the lake. The lakeshore vegetation of raupo, flax andcabbage trees with patches of kahikatea and kanuka scrub is based on the pollenrecord. The roofed pit and two small covered bins in the bottom right were actuallyfound in Area A.

List of platesPlate 1.1 In 1975, Kohika was an inconspicuous, low-lying grassed mound in an area of

agricultural swamp drainage.Plate 1.2 A whakanoa ceremony was conducted by Jack Fox, Romana Kingi, Mike Mason,

Harry Reneti and Albert Te Rere, of the Ratana, Anglican, Catholic, Ringatu andPresbyterian churches respectively. The kaumatua placed the site and the artefactsinto the interim care of the University of Auckland.

Plate 1.3 After the discovery of artefacts, the first investigations were undertaken by mem-bers of the Whakatane and District Historical Society. In this 1976 photographare (from left) Dave White, Ken Moore and the late Anton van der Wouden. Thespoil in the background was removed from the drain by a digging machine.

Plate 1.4 The University of Auckland excavations of Area D during the season of January,1976.

x

Plate 2.1 The new mouth of the Tarawera River. The former course of the RangitaikiRiver is at the left of the entrance and the former Te Awa o te Atua estuary, whichcarried the combined waters of the two rivers, lay to the right of the entrance andflowed west to Matata. The current road bridge is on the Kaharoa shoreline, anda short distance upstream is the junction of the Tarawera and the Awaiti Stream.Canal 109 runs inland from the Awaiti past the remains of Lake Kohika.

Plate 2.2 Looking seawards, a canal and stopbank now separate Lake Kohika from thearchaeological lake village, which formerly lay on its southwestern shore. Thesite itself is located on a remnant of sand-dune that dates from the coastline of2000 years ago. The archaeological excavation can be seen at the end of thefarmer’s cattle-race.

Plate 4.1 Kohika in January 1976. Work is in progress in Areas A, B and D. The spoilheaps are of different colour, which results from their varied composition.

Plate 4.2 Excavations in Square A1 Extension.Plate 4.3 Part of a small bin surrounded by surface stakeholes in Square A3.Plate 4.4 A cross-section of a bin structure in Square A3 dug into the former sand-dune.Plate 4.5 An oval-ended pit in Square A1 Ext. interrupted by a later rectangular pit lying at

right angles to it. A charcoal sample for C14 dating was taken from underneaththe large pumice boulder found in the pit fill.

Plate 4.6 Square B1 during excavation.Plate 4.7 Square B1 near the base of the excavation showing in situ posts.Plate 4.8 The drain section in Area B shows a flood deposit of reworked tephra alluvium

outside the site, where a later meander channel, visible in Square B3, has cut intoits surface.

Plate 4.9 Wooden items from the peat below the flood deposit in Square B3 are triple-baggedin plastic.

Plate 4.10 A degraded pukatea board in the upper peat of Square B4.Plate 4.11 The pukatea board in Square B4 consolidated prior to removal.Plate 4.12 The defended edge of the site was sharply defined in Square B4. Palisade posts

were exposed in the side of the agricultural drain visible in the background andSquare B3 lies on the other side of it.

Plate 4.13 The edge of the site reveals the effect of the flood in Square B4. Fine silt lies aroundthe palisade posts, reworked Kaharoa alluvium lies outside the site, and the twoare separated by the wave-lapped shore.

Plate 4.14 Square B4, west section, showing a palisade post, pre-flood deposits that built upduring occupation, the flood alluvium of sand and silt, and post-flood sedimentsthat are culturally sterile.

Plate 4.15 Squares C1 and C12 reveal a deposit of alluvium. Above this, a late meanderchannel in the Upper Peat can be seen in the baulk, while below the alluvium isthe culture-bearing Lower Peat. This photograph shows the pump being primedin 1975 at the start of a day’s work.

Plate 4.16 Square C10 contained a complex succession of fire-pits and hangi with occupationaldebris and fills composed of material quarried elsewhere.

Plate 4.17 Excavating a swamp in wet weather can have its difficulties. Area D.Plate 4.18 The site perimeter in Area D. Inside the line of posts were artificial house floors;

outside many associated waterlogged artefacts were found preserved in peat.Plate 4.19 Square D2, with superimposed house floors visible in the south section.Plate 4.20 Square D2. A line of standing posts, with horizontal light wooden battens flexed

and pegged between them, marks the edge of an artificial floor of silt, packedwith water-rolled greywacke pebbles.

Plate 4.21 Square D1, south section. Also showing a test excavation of the lacustrine silt, theKaharoa Tephra and sedge peat below.

Plate 4.22 Square D5, the White House floor.Plate 4.23 Square D4, firescoops in the White House horizon.Plate 4.24 Area D, exposing the extent of the Yellow House horizon, January 1976.

xi

Plate 4.25 Area D, some details of the excavation of the Yellow House floor.Plate 4.26 Area D, Square DD during excavation of the Yellow House horizon. Intruding

into the square is the corner of Square D2, dug previously, while the baulks arecomposed of backfilled spoil.

Plate 4.27 Square DD, laid bracken-fern stems below an artificial house floor.Plate 4.28 Square D2, canoe bow in peat.Plate 4.29 Square D2, gourd shell.Plate 4.30 Square D2, adzed log and length of rope.Plate 4.31 Square D7, whale vertebra, wooden spear and coil of vine.Plate 4.32 Square D13, north section.Plate 4.33 Square D14, log at base of excavation.Plate 6.1 Thirteen sections of bird spear and one spear point.Plate 6.2 Two coils of rata vine.Plate 7.1 KOH14. Poupou base, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.2 KOH16. Poupou base, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.3 KOH17. Poupou base, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.4 KOH18. Poupou base, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.5 KOH44. Poutahuhu base, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.6 KOH53. Pare fragment, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.7 KOH1. Part of carving, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.8 KOH3. Fragment of carving, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.9 KOH345. Fragment of spiral from carving, Historical Society Area.Plate 7.10 KOH7. Poutokomanawa figure, Historical Society Area, and modern replica carved

by Paki Harrison, Dante Bonica and Wiremu Puke.Plate 7.11 KOH2. Fragment of elaborate carving, Area D.Plate 7.12 KOH6. Fragment of elaborate carving, Area D.Plate 7.13 KOH4. Fragment of elaborate carving, Area D.Plate 7.14 KOH174. Carved handle of bailer, Area D.Plate 8.1a KOH298.5. Fragment of single spiral-wrapped bunches of harakeke (1SWB)

resembling a handle.Plate 8.1b KOH300.3. Fragment of 1SWB resembling one half of a pair of two-ply spiral-

wrapped bunches (2PSW) of harakeke.Plate 8.1c KOH298.1. Short fragment of two-ply spiral-wrapped bundles of harakeke (2PSW).Plate 8.2 KOH303.8–11. Short braided fragments, showing two straight examples

(KOH303.8 and 9) and an X and a Y braid (KOH303.10 and 11).Plate 8.3 KOH304.1. Fine twill close-up, showing condition of fibres.Plate 8.4 KOH305.1. A larger piece of fine twill, showing the curvature in the plaiting.Plate 8.5 KOH303.4. Broad checked plaiting, showing one folded-back strip (at lower part

of image).Plate 8.6a KOH297. A Grommet with netting still attached.Plate 8.6b KOH297. Small fragment of mesh.Plate 9.1a Greenstone kuru pendant.Plate 9.1b Greenstone chisel pendant.Plate 9.2 Bone tiki pendant (human).Plate 9.3a–c One-piece bone fishhooks (human).Plate 9.4a Bone fishhook blank (human).Plate 9.4b Fishhook point (dog tooth).Plate 9.5a Bone needle (bird).Plate 9.5b Bone needle (dog).Plate 9.5c Bone awl (bird).Plate 9.6a Bone awl (seal).Plate 9.6b Bone chisel (dog).Plate 9.7 Pounamu adze.Plate 9.8a Pounamu chisel.Plate 9.8b Pounamu adze flake.

xii

Plate 9.9a Sandstone file.Plate 9.9b Pumice pigment bowl.Plate 12.1 A sawn section of human cranium.Plate 12.2 Knife-cut marks on a human femur.Plate 12.3 Dog cranium with crushed parietal.Plate 12.4 Dog cranium with cut marks on nasal bone.Plate 12.5 Dog mandible with ventral margin removed.Plate 12.6 Dog-tooth marks on snapper bones and barracouta jaw.Plate 13.1 Examples of coprolites from Kohika.Plate 13.2 Fishbone extracted from coprolite no.24.Plate 13.3 Charcoal extracted from coprolite no.19.Plate 13.4 Egg of Toxocara canis.Plate 13.5 Egg of Toxocara canis, showing characteristic pitting of the shell.Plate 13.6 Egg of Capillaria hepatica.

xiii

Acknowledgements

For over 30 years this project has accumulated a huge debt to many individuals, someof whom have now passed on, and to many institutions. The whakanoa ceremony atthe site was conducted by Jack Fox, Romana Kingi, Mike Mason, Harry Reneti andAlbert Te Rere. Professor Hirini Mead, Pouroto Ngaropo and Ngahuia Rawson of TeRunanga o Ngati Awa provided guidance for the return of the Kohika artefacts andfor their future.

Members of the Whakatane and District Historical Society who first worked atKohika and then gave generous support to the University of Auckland team includedTiena Jordan, Jack Moller, Ken Moore, Dave White, Errol Westgate and Anton vander Wouden, who was also director of the Whakatane District Museum and Gallery.A later director, Warner Haldane, helped arrange the return of the artefacts toWhakatane.

At Kohika, the farmer, Phil Jessop, and the sharemilkers, Les and Graeme Brownlee,could not have been more obliging. Neighbouring farmers, especially Tony Pansier,helped to house the excavators and made gifts of food. The Rangitaiki Plains DairyCompany provided us with showers and evening meals during one winter season.

Institutional support and funding was provided by the Department of Anthropol-ogy, University of Auckland, the University of Auckland Research Committee, theLotteries Board of the Department of Internal Affairs, and the New Zealand HistoricPlaces Trust.

All of the scholars who contributed to the analysis of archaeological material arenamed in the list of contents of the book. Technical staff at the university made amagnificent contribution over the years: they include Karel Peters, Rod Wallace andDilys Johns for conservation; Joan Lawrence, Caroline Phillips and Seline McNameefor illustrations; and Tim Mackrell and Hamish MacDonald for photography. A num-ber of anthropology students carried out preliminary study for research essays andtheses, as described in the book.

Those friends, colleagues and students who took part in the excavations at Kohikainclude Harry Allen, Nola Arthur, Barry Baquie, Gary Barnett, Mark Bellingham, SimonBest, Steve Black, Joanna Boileau, Dorothy Brown, Ken Burnett, Linda Burnett, RichardCassels, Helen Charters, John Coster, Mark de Courcy, Marlene Deans, Sandra Dreifus,Clare Fawsett, Anne Geelen, Roger Green, Don Hanson, Terry Hunt, Joan Hunter, JillIrwin, Gabrielle Johnston, Garry Law, Ian Lawlor, Jennifer Leighton, Steve Mangan,Bernadine Naus, Tia Negerevich, Mary Newman, Reg Nichol, Peter Pearce, Karel Peters,Caroline Phillips, Michelle Phillips, Pamela Raspe, Pamela Russell, Peter Russell, BillShaw, David Stowe, Jan Stowe, Julie Stretton, Doug Sutton, Makiuti Tongia, AlanWalmsley, Graeme Ward, Tony Walton and Lynnette Williams. Apologies to anyonewho has been overlooked.

The quality of this book has been greatly improved by Janet Davidson, who carefully

xiv

read and commented on earlier drafts, and Andrew Mason who edited the text. I amgrateful to Elizabeth Caffin and the staff of Auckland University Press including AnnieIrving, Katrina Duncan and Amy Tansell. Diane Lowther compiled the index.

The project would not have been possible without the support of the Irwin family.Jill made sure the excavation was fed, Sarah and Kate kept watch on the spoil heapsto see that nothing of value was carelessly thrown away, and Tom took his first stepsat Kohika.

Geoffrey Irwin

1

1 An introduction to Kohika in historicaland archaeological context

G.J. Irwin, R.G. Law, I. Lawlor and P. Ngaropo

Archaeological sites in wetlands are unusually rich because they can preserve organicmaterials that rarely survive elsewhere. These include all kinds of wooden artefacts,fabrics, food remains, and microfossils that indicate former environments. In theirpublished Rhind Lectures for 1995, J. and B. Coles wrote (1996:133): ‘. . . the wet-lands of the world have continued to yield new and often surprising information aboutthe past . . . wetlands have continued to produce archaeological evidence unobtainablefrom any other environment save the most extreme.’ However, such sites are increasinglyrare as wetlands are drained.

For Polynesia, Kirch and Green (2001:199–200) estimate that about 20 per cent ofmaterial objects were archaeologically durable and the remaining 80 per cent perish-able, except in unusual circumstances. This is based on ethnographic inventories ofmaterial culture and lexical reconstructions of the names for artefacts. These cir-cumstances apply generally to New Zealand. However, while wet sites offer hugeopportunities for research, considerable analytical sophistication and resources areneeded to investigate and preserve them. It is in such a context that this 30-year arch-aeological wetland study reaches publication.

At some time around AD 1700, a Maori lake village called Kohika in the Bay ofPlenty was abandoned after a flood and fortuitously preserved in peat swamp, togetherwith its contents. It was rediscovered during agricultural drainage in 1974. The sitewas excavated during the late 1970s and produced a rare and comprehensive inventoryof waterlogged remains that are in close association with one another and, as such,represent a technological, economic and cultural entity. The site is of fairly shortduration and provides an archaeological snapshot of Maori material culture and theway of life that had developed in the North Island prior to the arrival and influence ofEuropeans. Although there have been previous excavations of wetland sites in NewZealand, none has produced as much rich and varied material as Kohika and had thebenefit of such a range of modern specialist analysis.

Kohika is located in the west of the Rangitaiki Plains in what was formerly a greatswamp. It is just a few hundred metres east of the Tarawera River and two kilometresinland from the sea. It takes its name from the adjoining Lake Kohika, which lies inthe fork of the Tarawera River and Awaiti Stream (Fig. 1.1). A little further downstreamthe Rangitaiki River formerly joined the Tarawera to form Te Awa o Te Atua, a riverestuary that ran three kilometres further westwards behind the coastal dunes to flowinto the sea near the present settlement of Matata. The site had good access to theresources of swamp, floodplain and coast. It was strategically located for coastalcommunication by canoe, and also by river and track to the interior of the NorthIsland; there is evidence for travel and trade in both directions.

Kohika was a palisaded village on a small island in the swamp beside the lake,

2 Kohika

which was larger then than now. Preserved in the swamp are organic remains that givedetailed information about former environments and diet. The site has archaeologicalevidence for a broad range of domestic and social activities. There were houses ofvaried construction, including the remains of what is currently the oldest-known carvedhouse in New Zealand. There were raised pataka storehouses that have long beenelusive in prehistory, plus cooking shelters and semi-subterranean storage pits and bins.In addition to the remarkable inventory of wooden artefacts, there are fibre plaiting,cordage and netting, a large assemblage of flaked obsidian and some miscellaneousartefacts of other materials. The remains reveal many aspects of life, including housing,canoe transport, food production, craft activities, defence and outside communica-tion. There is evidence for music, play, personal status, art and religion.

This book contains contributions from 20 scholars, and the various chapters dealwith geomorphology, vegetation history, excavation, chronology, wooden artefacts,houses and pataka, fibre work, artefacts of bone, pumice and pounamu, obsidiansourcing, obsidian flake technology, faunal remains and coprolite analysis, followedby a general review of the evidence. The rest of this chapter includes a brief account of

Figure 1.1The former rivercourses of theRangitaiki Plainsand communi-cation routesrecorded in earlymaps (Gibbons1990, Hunia1977)

An introduction to Kohika in historical and archaeological context 3

traditional and historical records of Kohika, and a review of archaeological sitedistribution in this part of the Bay of Plenty. It concludes with a brief history of thearchaeological project since 1975, and negotiations that vested ownership of theartefacts with Ngati Awa.

Kohika in history and traditionAccording to Ngati Awa oral tradition, a man called Waitahaarikikore, who was des-cended from Toi and his wife Te Kuraimonoa, lived on Rarotonga. He built a canoeusing the maihi (barge-boards) from his meeting house and called the waka Te Paepaeki Rarotonga, which he sailed via the Kermadecs to the Bay of Plenty. He lived for atime near the mouth of the Tarawera River at a place now called Te Otaramuturangi.Before moving on, he buried the canoe there and, looking southwards across theswamplands, said: ‘Te ko hika tera’. ‘Over there is the place I shall light my fires’. Bylighting his fires, Waitahaarikikore claimed mana whenua over the place now calledKohika (Anon. 2000:2).

More recently, the wider Rangitaiki floodplain was the land of Ngati Awa and sec-tions of Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. While the area is generally recognised as beingNgati Awa, the other tribes have ‘historical and land affiliations to the area . . .’ (Hunia1977:x). The location of Kohika, near Matata, is now in the rohe of Ngati Awa butits traditional history is complex (Best 1925:690, Grace 1959:90–1, Gudgeon 1970:8,Lawlor 1979:17–22). The tribal history has fluid relationships and the missionary T.S.Grace refers in his diaries to connections between Maori he met in the RangitaikiSwamp and Lake Taupo (Grace 1928:132, Grace MS 1850–73, Feb. 1867). The threerivers crossing the plain, the Rangitaiki, Tarawera and Whakatane, plus foot trails,provided access to Rotorua and the central North Island.

Europeans came late to the Rangitaiki Plains and included traders, missionariesand soldiers (Lawlor 1979:22–8, see also London 1960). One description of condi-tions and communications in the swamp is by Cowan (1923:96):

This Rangitaiki Swamp . . . was then accessible only by the tracks along the sea-ward sandhills, or by canoe along the Tarawera River, the Awaiti-Paku, and theOrini River (connecting the Awa-a-te-Atua with Whakatane Harbour) and by thelabyrinth of reed-fringed waterways, navigable in small canoes, winding amongthe islets that rose above the water a few feet and made camping-grounds for eel-fishers and wild fowl hunters.

Cowan speaks of palisaded ‘island-like forts in the great swamp’ during the militaryoperations of the 1860s (Cowan 1923:96). Two historic pa close to Kohika were Oheuand Te Matapihi, on the west bank of the Tarawera, the latter being where the Rev.T.S. Grace built a storehouse and landing-stage to service his inland mission to Taupo.The village of Matata was sketched in 1865 by H.G. Robley (MS 1858–87:14, MS1898–1922). It was then on the east bank of the Tarawera at its junction with theRangitaiki River (Fig. 1.1) but shifted to its present location after the land confiscations.Kohika was a prehistoric forerunner to these musket pa, not simply as a fort but as asite of substantial settlement.

We have found only two specific references to Kohika. One is in a note at the endof Cowan’s chapter on military operations at Matata, where he quotes Mr F. Burt,who for many years farmed the Matapihi Block at Matata: ‘The natives tell me whenthey were spearing eels near the Kohika Lake they came across the remains of an old

4 Kohika

pa, so there was evidently one between Oheu and the Kohika’ (Cowan 1923:105). Inaddition, the record of a misadventure in the swamp by the Rev. T.S. Grace around1860 indicates that Lake Kohika could be reached from the main streams (Grace1928:133).

The experience of the first Europeans to settle in the Rangitaiki Swamp gives auseful insight into the conditions in prehistoric times. Government survey for settle-ment began in 1890 and allotments were taken up. Then, in 1892, a flood filled theswamp with water and it looked like an inland lake behind the coastal sandhills forseveral years, and many settlers abandoned the area (Gibbons 1990:vii, 10–11). Thefirst drainage board was formed in 1894, the Rangitaiki was diverted to its new mouthin 1914 and the Tarawera in 1924 (Pullar 1985:8). Once drained, the Rangitaiki Plainsbecame highly suited to dairy farming.

Archaeological site distribution in the area of the Rangitaiki PlainsThe Bay of Plenty enjoys a warm, moist climate and fertile soils ideal for horticulture.Together with its fisheries and forests, it offered ideal conditions for Maori settlement.

Figure 1.2Archaeologicalsites recorded inthe area of theRangitaiki Plains


The following account provides an archaeological context for discussing the locationof Kohika.

Recording of Maori archaeological sites in the area began in the 1960s and wascarried on for the next two decades principally by Kawerau resident Ken Moore.Surveying in the Whakatane and Waimana river areas was done by the New ZealandHistoric Places Trust in the early 1980s. Other contributions have come from forestrysurveys and research and heritage management work at Ohiwa, Moutohora andKawerau (Hayward et al. 1987, Jones 1983, 1984, 1986, 1991, Lawlor 1983a, 1983b,Moore 1973, 1974, 1980a, 1980b, Phillips 1996).

Figure 1.2 plots the recorded Maori sites in the area in the New Zealand Archaeo-logical Association Site Recording Scheme, as at February 2002. For this plot the siteswere extracted in a hierarchical manner from the Computerised Index of New Zea-land Archaeological Sites (CINZAS), using the site description field. The site type inthis field is not necessarily the same as on the site record form but represents a moreconsistent approach to setting a site type than is often found on the form. The numberof sites in Figure 1.2 is shown in Table 1.1 using the same system for classification.

The site distribution in Figure 1.2 shows the broad patterns of Maori settlement.Pa are concentrated on higher ground along the coast, around Ohiwa Harbour andon the ridges at the periphery of the Rangitaiki Plains and Whakatane River. Kohika(V15/80) is the only site recorded as a swamp pa in the area, and the other pa shownon the plains close by belong to the historic period.

Terraces are the most common site type and are concentrated in the vicinity ofKawerau and Ohiwa, although this could be partly the result of surveys being morethorough there than elsewhere. Pit sites may be underrepresented in the southwesternpart of Figure 1.2, which was blanketed by tephra from the 1886 Tarawera eruptionthat filled many pits on terrace sites (Lawlor 1983a:220).

Rua, while known from excavations, are rare as field recorded sites, unlike furtherwest in the Bay of Plenty. However, in the Other category there are sites cautiouslydescribed as ‘depressions’ which may be collapsed rua. This low frequency may result

Table 1.1 Frequency of sites by type in the Rangitaiki Plains and surrounding area

Site type Number in areaPa 288Terrace sites 410Pit sites 120Rua 1Middens 175Spot finds 4Ovens 6Cultivated soil 6Other 38Total 1048

Notes:• Pa are sites with that site description.• Terrace sites are those with terraces in their description that are not pa. They may also be sites with

middens, pits, etc.• Pit sites are those with pits in their description, but not pa or terraces. They may also be sites with

middens, etc.• Rua are sites with cave pits in their description, but not the above.• Middens do not include any of the categories above.• Other sites are those coded as Maori. An unusual site is a large grinding stone at Matata (Fulton

1921).

6 Kohika

from the inability of the local natural soils to sustain open rua. Again, in comparisonwith the western Bay of Plenty, records of cultivation soils are few.

Middens are few along the coast west of Matata, which can be attributed to thefact that few soft shore species live in a high-energy beach environment. Along thecoast of the Rangitaiki Plains the records are still few, even though there are moreestuaries and the beach environment is more conducive to sandy shore species. Localinvestigations have certainly revealed middens (Jones 1991, Shawcross 1965) and theapparent scarcity could be corrected by further recording.

In general, the Rangitaiki Plains have a low site density compared with surround-ing areas. However, underrecording may be an issue, and the Tarawera Tephra andoutwash will have buried some sites. Much of the seaward part of the plains wasswamp in the early 19th century and had clearly been so for centuries, as indicated bythe growth of peat. Only raised areas in the swamp would have been attractive forMaori settlement, and Jones (1991) recorded cultivation sites on the beach ridges leftstranded by the prograding coastline, as well as on the better-drained river fans in thesouthern part of the plains. A number of lowland sites have produced wooden artefacts(Mead 1984:200).

In general, the site distribution shows the preference of Maori to live along thecoast, especially near harbours. Away from the coast, sites are concentrated on soilsattractive to Maori horticulturalists and areas enjoying both defensible uplands andaccess to rivers. Kohika is unusual in the context of the larger sample of sites, being aprehistoric lowland swamp pa in an area with a very low density of recorded sites.

A brief history of the investigations since 1975The site was discovered in November 1974 during drainage operations near LakeKohika at the swampy northern end of the farm of Mr P. Jessop of Sutherlands Rd. Adigging machine exposed a palisade of kanuka posts in the side of a drain on theeastern side of the site, and various wooden and other artefacts were thrown out withthe spoil. During the summer of 1974–75, members of the Whakatane and DistrictHistorical Society investigated quite a large area of swamp on the northern side of thesite by probing. They dug up many valuable wooden artefacts which were placed inwater for safekeeping.

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust became involved, and the site was visited inearly 1975 by Auckland archaeologists. It was agreed that G. Irwin, who had previouslyworked at swamp pa in the Waikato excavated by staff of the University of Auckland(Bellwood 1978, Shawcross 1968), would direct an excavation as a University of Auck-land project with a grant from the Golden Kiwi Lottery Board (Irwin 1975, Moore1975). At this time there was little understanding of the site’s complexity, size orsignificance.

A series of major excavations took place in May 1975, January 1976, December1977 and April 1978, and further fieldwork to resolve particular issues was done in1979 and 1981 (see Plates 1.1–4). A large-capacity pumping system was developedtogether with on-site conservation. The fieldwork gradually came to terms with thecomplex geomorphology and site stratigraphy and, increasingly, the research designbecame interdisciplinary.

Large quantities of archaeological material and other samples were taken to Auck-land (in a railway wagon after the 1976 season), but there was no conservationinfrastructure waiting to receive them. Waterlogged artefacts were put into temporarytanks while a conservation laboratory was built and equipped in the new Human

Plate 1.1 In 1975, Kohika was an inconspicuous, low-lying grassed mound in an area of agricultural swamp drainage.

Plate 1.2 A whakanoa ceremony was conducted by Jack Fox, Romana Kingi, Mike Mason, Harry Reneti and Albert Te Rere, of the Ratana,Anglican, Catholic, Ringatu and Presbyterian churches respectively. The kaumatua placed the site and the artefacts into the interim care of theUniversity of Auckland.

Plate 1.3 After the discovery of artefacts, the first investigations were undertaken by members of the Whakatane and District Historical Society.In this 1976 photograph are (from left) Dave White, Ken Moore and the late Anton van der Wouden. The spoil in the background was removed fromthe drain by a digging machine.

Plate 1.4 The University of Auckland excavations of Area D during the season of January 1976.


Sciences Building at the University of Auckland. Conservation took many years. Theanalysis (and re-analysis) of archaeological materials followed and many researcherswere involved, as described in the following chapters. Several specialist studies werecarried out in the late 1990s, and this full report was written from 2000.

G. Irwin returned the Kohika artefacts to the Bay of Plenty in May 1998,accompanied by P. Ngaropo, representing a Ngati Awa hapu closely connected withKohika. The taonga were first acknowledged at Te Umuhika Marae, Matata, beforebeing formally welcomed in Whakatane by representatives of the several iwi of theregion, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Whakatane and District HistoricalSociety and the Whakatane and District Museum and Gallery. The few remainingartefacts were returned to Whakatane in the care of P. Ngaropo in 1999. The finalartefact, a pounamu adze, is to be presented to Ngati Awa together with a copy ofthis book.

The Kohika Collection presented some complex ownership issues. Initially thelandowner, P. Jessop, gave to the Whakatane and District Historical Society, the arte-facts excavated by its members. When the Department of Anthropology at the Universityof Auckland took over direction of the project in 1975, the whole collection was placedin its interim care at a whakanoa ceremony by kaumatua representing local iwi andreligious denominations. After its return, ownership of the collection was negotiatedbetween Ngati Awa and the Whakatane and District Historical Society, who had beenresponsible for recovering the early part of the collection. The issues were resolved bythe appointment of a board of trustees to manage the collection, comprising a majorityof Ngati Awa representatives as well as a representative each from Ngati Tuwharetoaki Kawerau and the Whakatane and District Historical Society, in recognition of theirassociations with the collection. The trustees have placed the Kohika Collection onloan to the Whakatane District Museum and Gallery.

In June and July 2000, an exhibition entitled Kohika: a glimpse of life in a wetlandpa near Matata, was held at Whakatane museum.

ReferencesAnon., 2000. Te Kohika: a glimpse of life in a wetland pa near Matata during the 1600s AD.

Pamphlet prepared for the exhibition at Whakatane and District Museum and Gallery, TeWhare Taonga o te Rohe o Whakatane, 1 June–16 July, 2000.

Bellwood, P.S., 1978. Archaeological research at Lake Mangakaware, Waikato, 1968–1970.New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph No.9.

Best, E., 1925. Tuhoe, the children of the mist. New Plymouth: The Polynesian Society.Coles, J. and B. Coles, 1996. Enlarging the past: the contribution of wetland archaeology.

Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series No.11. Exeter: Short Run Press.Cowan, J., 1923. The New Zealand Wars: a history of the Maori campaigns and the pioneer-

ing period. Vol. II. Wellington: R.E. Owen, Government Printer.Fulton, R., 1921. An account of a supposed Maori sharpening stone. Transactions of the New

Zealand Institute, 53:471–2.Gibbons, W.H., 1990. The Rangitaiki, 1890–1990: settlement and drainage on the Rangitaiki.

Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society.Grace, J. Te H., 1959. Tuwharetoa: the history of the Maori people in the Taupo district.

Wellington: Reed.Grace, T.S., 1928. A pioneer missionary among the Maoris 1850–1879: being letters and journals

of Thomas Samuel Grace. Edited by S.J. Brittan, G.F., C.W. and A.V. Grace. PalmerstonNorth: Bennett.

Grace, T.S., MS Papers 191, Mission work Taupo and Tauranga, 1850–73. Alexander TurnbullLibrary.

10 Kohika

Gudgeon, W.E., 1970. Te heke o Rangihouhiri. Whakatane: Whakatane and District HistoricalSociety.

Hayward, B.W., P.R. Moore and P. Bain, 1987. Prehistoric archaeological sites on Whale Island(Motuhora), Bay of Plenty. Tane, 32:73–86.

Hunia, L.Te A., 1977. Tangi Putauaki: a Maori history of the Rangitaiki. Unpublished MAthesis, University of Auckland.

Irwin, G.J., 1975. The Kohika site, Bay of Plenty. Historical Review, 23:101–4.Jones, K.L., 1983. Pa in two western segments of the Waiotahi and Whakatane Valleys, Bay

of Plenty. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, 26:165–73.Jones, K.L., 1984. Archaeological investigations in Waiotahi Valley, Bay of Plenty, November

1981. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, 27:109–18.Jones, K.L., 1986. Polynesian settlement and horticulture in two river catchments of the east-

ern North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 8:5–31.Jones, K.L., 1991. Maori settlement and horticulture on Rangitaiki Plains, Bay of Plenty,

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 13:143–75.Kirch, P.V. and R.C. Green, 2000. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: an essay in historical

anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lawlor, I., 1979. Palaeoenvironment analysis: an appraisal of the prehistoric environment of

the Kohika swamp pa (N68/140), Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

Lawlor, I., 1983a. Rua Kumara o Kawerau. In S. Bulmer, G. Law and D. Sutton (eds), A lot ofspadework to be done: essays in honour of Lady Aileen Fox. New Zealand ArchaeologicalAssociation Monograph No.14, pp.212–48.

Lawlor, I., 1983b. Maruka investigations, Kawerau, Bay of Plenty: Final Report for Stage IV.Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.

London, H.D., 1960. A field day at Matata. Historical Review, 8:109–14.Mead, S.M., 1984. Te Maori: Maori art from New Zealand collections. Auckland: Heinemann.Moore, K.W., 1973. Archaeology at Whakatane, N.Z. Part 1. Historical Review, 21:113–22.Moore, K.W., 1974. Archaeology at Whakatane, N.Z. Part 2. Historical Review, 22:50–63.Moore, K.W., 1975. Kohika site, N68/140, Bay of Plenty: a preliminary report. Historical Review,

23:60–1.Moore, K.W., 1980a. Te tangata whenua, the early people of Te Teko. Historical Review,

28:63–7.Moore, K.W., 1980b. Place names of the Te Teko district. Historical Review, 28:68–71.Phillips, K., 1996. The archaeology of the eastern Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis,

University of Auckland.Pullar, W.A., 1985. Soils and land use of the Rangitaiki Plains, North Island, New Zealand.

Lower Hutt: New Zealand Soil Bureau.Robley, H.G., MS Notebook, 1858–87. Alexander Turnbull Library.Robley, H.G., MS. Letters Robley to Mair, sketches, etc., 1898–1922. Alexander Turnbull

Library.Shawcross, F.W., 1965. Report on archaeological investigations at Thornton, Whakatane,

Bay of Plenty. Historical Review, 13:186–92.Shawcross, F.W., 1968. The Ngaroto site. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter,

11:2–29.

11

2 Kohika in the geomorphological contextof the Rangitaiki Plains

G.J. Irwin

The Rangitaiki Plains are geologically active and the inhabitants of Kohika lived ina landscape of frequent earthquake, volcanic eruption and flood.

Whakatane GrabenThe Rangitaiki Plains are a lowland some 340 square kilometres in area. They stretch22 kilometres along the Bay of Plenty coast between Matata and Whakatane and extendinland for a similar distance. The plains are part of the Whakatane Graben, which islocated where the Taupo Volcanic Zone reaches the Bay of Plenty coast and intersectswith the north–south-trending North Island Shear Belt (Nairn and Beanland 1989).Within the graben, which is bounded by north–south fault lines (Fig. 2.1), the plainhas subsided and the surrounding hills have risen. The rate of subsidence is estimatedto be 2–3 mm per year over the last 5000 years. As they have dropped, the plains havefilled with sediments from the three large river catchments of the Rangitaiki, Taraweraand Whakatane rivers, and also from the Taupo and Okataina volcanic centres to thesouth. To put this in strict geological terms, Mesozoic basement rocks have down-faulted and the resulting basin infilled by Quaternary volcanics and sediments.Uplifting and tilting of the graben margins has accompanied subsidence of its floor(Nairn and Beanland 1989).

Faulting and earthquakesGeological evidence of recent surface faulting has been largely obscured by the veryyoung sediments, mainly of volcanic origin, that form the modern ground surface.The 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake occurred along two known pre-existing faults thathad previously moved at some time after the AD 1350 Kaharoa eruption (Nairn andBeanland 1989). The 1987 earthquake also moved at three new surface traces thatwere presumed to overlie faults that had been concealed by sediments from both theTaupo eruption of c.AD 150 and the Kaharoa eruption. It appears that faulting hasoccurred independently at Matata and Edgecumbe, that is on the western and easternsides of the graben respectively (Fig. 2.1), which suggests that the Rangitaiki Plainsmay experience moderate to severe shaking more often than if the two graben mar-gins were to move at the same time (Ota et al. 1988). The study of a trench excavationacross a fault at Matata revealed that the most recent earthquake occurred there afterthe Kaharoa Tephra and possibly during the last 250 years, according to radiocarbondating (Ota et al. 1988). In fact, it transpired that this earthquake occurred during

12 Kohika

the human occupation of Kohika, where its secondary faulting offsets could be moreclosely dated.

Volcanic eruptions and coastal progradationAbout 7000 years ago the shoreline probably lay along the cliffs at Whakatane, Awa-keri, Te Teko and Onepu (Pullar 1985). Since then it has prograded about 10 kilometresas the lowland has formed. From time to time the Bay of Plenty has been showered byvolcanic tephra, and the plains have been formed largely from outwash of tephra bythe Rangitaiki, Tarawera and Whakatane rivers (Pullar and Selby 1971). Thus, on theplains, tephra occurs both in airfall bands and as reworked alluvial sediments. A seriesof identified tephra has fallen on the plains over the last 5000 years or more and, asyounger beds overlap the older, Pullar and Selby (1971:419) have ingeniously foundthat ‘a succession of possible shorelines of decreasing age could be plotted at succes-sive points where each older ash disappears’. They regard the position on the groundwhere an airfall ash bed cuts out as a possible shoreline, whereas the position wheresea-rafted pumice boulders occur is a probable shoreline. Coastal progradation evi-dently occurred in fits and starts and was rapid after each volcanic eruption.

Figure 2.1The geomorph-ology of theRangitaiki Plains

Kohika in the geomorphological context of the Rangitaiki Plains 13

Volcanic ashesThe main tephra are the Whakatane Ash of c.5500 years BP, the Taupo Pumice ofc.1850 years BP (Froggatt and Lowe 1990, Nairn and Beanland 1989), the KaharoaTephra of cal. 600 BP (Lowe et al. 1998), and the Tarawera Tephra of AD 1886. Thethree younger of these ashes have been identified at Kohika and the following de-scriptions of them as they occur on the plains are based on the extensive observationsof Alan Pullar (Pullar and Selby 1971:423). The Taupo Ash is 10–13 cm thick. Thegrade is coarse ash and small vesicular lapilli. In peat swamps the colour is pale olive(5Y 6/3) becoming brownish-yellow where the swamp is drained (10YR 6/6). Ondunes the bed is brown in colour (10YR 4/3). The Kaharoa Tephra is usually 10–15cm thick. In peat swamps the bed is white ash (5Y 8/1) and is finely shower-bedded.On dune ridges the ash bed is masked by black topsoil and is difficult to identify. Indune swales the upper 5 cm is light yellowish-brown fine ash (2.5Y 6/4), and the lower10 cm is darker (10YR 4/4). The Tarawera Tephra is often 2–7 cm thick but may beup to 12 cm in dune swales. In peat swamps the Tarawera is very dark greyish-brown(10YR 3/2); on dune ridges it is dark greyish-brown (2.5Y 4/2), becoming darker inthe swales. The sea-rafted Taupo Pumice of c.AD 150 also occurs at Kohika and is ofunique appearance for Holocene times, ‘a light yellowish-brown colour [with] coarseirregular gas cavities. It is easily broken and can be crushed in the hand’ (McFadgen1994:196).

Landforms of the Rangitaiki PlainsThese comprise coastal and inland dunes, back-swamp lowlands and peat swamps,natural levee systems of rivers and streams, and floodplains of largely mixed pumi-ceous alluvium with minor greywacke alluvium.

Dunes

The dunes are linear, and stranded ones lie generally parallel to the coast (Fig. 2.2).The system has formed over some 7000 years as the coast has prograded. Much ofthe dune sand came from the ash beds that still mantle the uplands drained by thethree rivers, while the dune surfaces have been created by long-shore drift from westto east (Pullar and Selby 1971). The dune system is well developed only at theWhakatane end of the plains and near Matata in the west. Near Kawerau, dunes reacha height of about 30 m above sea level but elsewhere, due to subsidence, have beenfound buried under peat some 3 m below sea level. The various dunes are dated bythe particular tephra that lies on them. Those of the Taupo shoreline sometimes occurnear sea level or they may be exposed up to 3–4.5 m above sea level, except at Matatawhere they are higher. Kohika was built on a remnant of the pre-Taupo shoreline thatdates to approximately 2000 BP. Kaharoa and Tarawera shorelines lie closer to thesea than Kohika, parallel to the existing coast and higher in elevation. The destructionof vegetation following human settlement evidently caused the coastal dunes to beeroded and wind-blown during the 500 years bracketed between the Kaharoa andand Tarawera tephra (Pullar and Selby 1971).

Rivers, plains and swamp

Three major rivers cross the plains. Several considerable streams join them as tributariesand these have formed fans where they emerge from the surrounding hills. Over time,the rivers have changed their courses and these can be traced from palaeo-channelsacross the floodplains. The rivers have also cut the stranded marine dunes that now

14 Kohika

sometimes survive as discontinuous strips parallel to the coast and were sometimesislands in prehistory. The general pattern of rivers and streams that existed from thetime of the Kaharoa eruption c.AD 1350 until swamp drainage began early in the20th century is shown in Figure 2.2. The Rangitaiki had no mouth of its own and amajor distributary, the Orini Stream, flowed east to join the Whakatane River at itsmouth, while the Rangitaiki itself ran west behind the coastal sand dunes. The AwaitiStream was another main distributary of the Rangitaiki; it flowed west towards Ma-tata and joined the Awaiti Paku, a distributary stream of the Tarawera, on the way.The combined waters of the Awaiti, Awaiti Paku, Rangitaiki and Tarawera werecalled Te Awa o te Atua, which entered the sea at what is now the western end ofMatata (Gibbons 1990). This common river mouth and estuary was influenced by atidal regime, but was altered in modern times when direct cuts were made to the sea(Plates 2.1 and 2.2).

The Rangitaiki and Tarawera rivers flow through floodplains built up by their owndeposits of silt and tephra. In the past they frequently overflowed their banks andinundated surrounding land. Two main deposits shown in Figure 2.1 are of TaupoPumice alluvium, closely associated with the Rangitaiki River and deposited after AD150, and Kaharoa alluvium deposited after AD 1350. These are extensive areas overthe surface of the plains (Nairn and Beanland 1989). Further areas of Tarawera Ashalluvium have been deposited since AD 1886. In addition, over time there have beenfrequent flood episodes that have locally redeposited pumiceous alluvium around theswamp.

In the back-swamp lowlands, peat horizons formed on Taupo Pumice over much ofthe plains and again, in places, on ash from the Kaharoa and Tarawera eruptions,resulting in complex interbedding. The youngest deposits of the Rangitaiki Plains

Figure 2.2Former shorelinesand river courseson the RangitaikiPlains

Plate 2.1 The new mouth of the Tarawera River. The former course of the Rangitaiki River is at the left of the entrance and the former Te Awa o teAtua estuary, which carried the combined waters of the two rivers, lay to the right of the entrance and flowed west to Matata. The current road bridgeis on the Kaharoa shoreline, and a short distance upstream is the junction of the Tarawera and the Awaiti Stream. Canal 109 runs inland from theAwaiti past the remains of Lake Kohika.

Plate 2.2 Looking seawards, a canal and stopbank now separate Lake Kohika from the archaeological lake village, which formerly lay on itssouthwestern shore. The site itself is located on a remnant of sand-dune that dates from the coastline of 2000 years ago. The archaeologicalexcavation can be seen at the end of the farmer’s cattle-race.

16 Kohika

are coastal sand dunes, levees and meander sediments associated with very recently orcurrently active floodplains (Nairn and Beanland 1989).

In summary, the landscape of the Rangitaiki Plains has been formed by continuingprocesses of coastal progradation, land subsidence, alluvial infilling, swamp growth,and the formation of shallow freshwater lakes and ponds. All of these have been sup-plemented intermittently by airborne showers of tephra, and by earthquakes, andaffected by frequent flooding. The final episode has been the near-complete drainageof the swamp in the early part of last century to create the rich agricultural landscapeof today.

Soils and stratigraphy around the Kohika siteDunes, back-swamps and floodplain deposits interfinger near the coast where riversand streams converge and shallow freshwater lakes have formed. Figure 2.3 describesthe soils in the vicinity of Kohika as taxonomic and physiographic units, as mappedand described in detail by A. Pullar on the basis of a large number of cores and examinedsections (Pullar 1985). Several of these units were encountered during archaeologicalexcavations at Kohika, and it is necessary to take account of the others to follow thegeomorphological history of the area immediately surrounding the site.

Soils of the dunes

Pki (Pikowai) sand occurs as recent wind-blown sands on the current foredunes witha very thin cover of Tarawera ash.Koe (Kopeopeo) soils are further inland on older stranded dunes and have Taupo andKaharoa tephra (both rhyolitic) on wind-blown sand, with a thin cover of Tarawera(basaltic) tephra. The Kohika site has a natural core of Taupo-age dune.

Soils of the former tidal flats

Muw (Muriwai) silt loams are weakly saline soils derived from mixed pumiceous andgreywacke alluvium on former tidal flats now cut off from river estuaries.

Soils of the present floodplains

Ran (Rangitaiki) soils consist of rapidly accumulating pumiceous alluvium depositedin former meander troughs of streams. The area of Ran shown in Figure 2.3 wasdeposited during floods in 1964.Ou (Opouriao) and Ori (Orini) fine sandy loams are from slowly accumulating pumi-ceous alluvium and found on the levees of rivers and their distributaries.

Soils of the former floodplains

Ats (Awaiti) sandy loam is a recent soil with a thin cover of Tarawera Tephra onpumiceous alluvium derived from Kaharoa Tephra.Ome (Omehue) sandy loam and Omp (Omehue) sandy loam on peat are poorly drainedgley soils from fine pumiceous alluvium derived from Kaharoa Tephra with a thincover of Tarawera Tephra.Onc (Omehue) coarse sandy loam is another poorly drained gley soil with a thin coverof Tarawera Tephra over layered pumiceous Kaharoa alluvium (reworked tephra), ona sub-surface of sand and gravels and with occasional thin layers of diatomaceousearth.


Soils of the back-swamplowlands

Ag (Awakaponga) silt loamand Agp (Awakaponga) siltloam on peat are recent soilsfrom silty pumiceous rhyo-litic alluvium.Pr (Paroa) silt loam and Prp(Paroa) silt loam on peatare poorly drained gley soilsfrom very fine pumiceousalluvium.

Soils of the peaty swamps

Awi (Awakeri) sandy loamon peat is a poorly drainedgley soil with a clearlylayered profile of Taraweraand Kaharoa tephra, peat,silts, pumiceous alluviumunderlain by (dune) sandderived from Taupo Pum-ice. There are sharp discon-tinuities.Mtk (Matuku) silt loam isa poorly drained gley soilconsisting of layered mater-ials, including diatom-aceous earth which hasformed in freshwater lakes,peat and pumice alluvium,with a very thin cover ofTarawera Tephra.Aro (Awaroa) soils areorganic and formed frompeat with a thin cover ofbasaltic ash.

Soil profiles in the Rangitaiki Plain show that there was rapid infilling immediatelyafter the Kaharoa eruption and there are no buried soil horizons from this time. How-ever, intermittent infilling since about 400 years BP is indicated by buried palaeosols.The peat that has grown near Kohika is mainly sedge formed from Baumea spp. Thereare patches of diatomaceous earth, which can form during the open-water stage ofbog development. Diatoms increase markedly following rhyolitic volcanic eruptionssuch as the Kaharoa (Pullar 1985:36), and have been identified at Kohika. Shallowfreshwater lakes were a feature of the floodplain around the site.

Summary of the geological situation of Kohika• The site is on a low island remnant of the 2000 BP shoreline dune that rises above

Figure 2.3Soils of theRangitaiki Plainsin the vicinity ofKohika (afterPullar 1985)

18 Kohika

lake level. Archaeological correlations of stratigraphy between different areas ofexcavation around the edge of the mound are supported by the natural swampstratigraphy, which includes three distinctive tephra beds separated by silts, peatand diatomaceous earth, and in the upper deposits by palaeosols.

• A band of cultural material occurs in the peat between the Kaharoa Tephra of cal.AD 1350 and the Tarawera Tephra of AD 1886. A greater depth of peat lay belowthe archaeological site than above it, indicating that occupation was in the laterpart of the deposit. This will be supported by radiocarbon evidence in Chapter 5.Moreover, the peat above the cultural deposit was sterile, indicating the absence ofoccupation for a period prior to the Tarawera Tephra. Further soils developed inthe swamp above the Tarawera.

• Neither the Taupo nor the Kaharoa tephra remains intact on the mound itself,although each forms components of the soil there. This is also true of the TaraweraAsh which lies like a continuous tidemark around the mound but which, every-where above this, has been mixed into the soil. Evidently the dune at Kohika wasgardened both before the lake village was occupied and after it was abandoned.

• Evidence for substantial occupation ends with the arrival of bands of pumiceousalluvium and silt, derived mainly from reworked Kaharoa Tephra, which representa local flood around parts of the site exposed to floodwaters from the TaraweraRiver. Parts of the shallow lake edge suddenly filled and it was no longer easy toreach the island by canoe.

• Core samples around Lake Kohika, both by A. Pullar and the University of Auck-land, show that the lake was more extensive than today (Lawlor 1979, Figs 3.1 and3.2). However, this has to be seen as the result of modern drainage as well asprehistoric infilling.

• Finally, there is evidence that an earthquake occurred while people were living atKohika and that this event relates to the Matata Fault nearby (Ota et al. 1988).This account has described mainly the natural stratigraphy. The complex interplay

of natural and cultural stratigraphy will be unravelled in Chapter 4.

ClimateThe following information is compiled from Aldridge (1985), Jones (1991) and theNew Zealand Meteorological Service (n.d.). The Rangitaiki Plains are today noted fortheir sunny climate. The duration of sunshine hours is among the highest in the NorthIsland and the mean daily maximum temperature in January is 25.5 degrees Celsius atKawerau and 25.3 degrees at Te Teko. Plant growing days above 10 and 15 degreesCelsius show the area to be warmer than much of the North Island. The mean annualrainfall is 1304 mm on the coast at Whakatane. The number of days with rainfallequal to or greater than 1.0 mm averages ten per month from May to October andeight per month from November to April. Heavy rainfall is associated with the pas-sage of cyclonic systems from the north and northeast in summer. Other rainfall followsthe usual pattern of frontal passages. Frost-free days (screen frosts) average 328 peryear. While frosts are expected every year, between 1948 and 1975 the earliest frostday recorded at Whakatane was 5 May and the latest 10 September. The average yearlyincidence of ground frost is 24 at Te Teko on the plains away from the RangitaikiRiver levee, 24 at Edgecumbe on the Rangitaiki levee, and 15 at Whakatane (Jones1991). Whatever differences may exist between the present and the time when peoplewere living at Kohika, the climate was certainly favourable.


A brief historical observation about vegetationAccording to Pullar (1985:6), at the time of European settlement swampland westof the Rangitaiki River was densely covered with raupo and rushes. Cabbage treesflourished on natural levees of rivers and streams with kahikatea, titoki, toetoe andflax on the back-swamp lowlands. On the coastal dunes there was manuka, brackenfern and mingimingi while small teatree and cabbage trees grew on the inland dunes.Clearly, this landscape was transformed by Maori and influenced by volcanic erup-tion. Buried stumps show that totara grew in the Omeheu locality (inland from Kohika)before the Kaharoa eruption and soil profiles on inland dunes suggest that podocarpforest flourished before the Taupo eruption. Some waterlogged tree-trunks survivein the dune at Kohika. A detailed account of vegetation history follows in the nextchapter.

ReferencesAldridge, R., 1985. Climate. In W.A. Pullar, Soils and land use of the Rangitaiki Plains, North

Island, New Zealand. Lower Hutt: New Zealand Soil Bureau, pp.9–10.Froggatt, P.C. and D.J. Lowe, 1990. A review of late Quaternary silicic and some other

tephra formations from New Zealand: their stratigraphy, nomenclature, distribution, volume,and age. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 33:89–109.

Gibbons, W.H., 1990. The Rangitaiki, 1890–1990: settlement and drainage on the Rangitaiki.Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society.

Jones, K.L., 1991. Maori settlement and horticulture on the Rangitaiki Plains, Bay of Plenty,New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 13:143–75.

Lawlor, I., 1979. Palaeoenvironment analysis: an appraisal of the prehistoric environmentof the Kohika swamp pa (N68/140), Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

Lowe, D.J., B.G. McFadgen, T.F.G. Higham, A.G. Hogg, P.C. Froggatt and I.A. Nairn, 1998.Radiocarbon age of the Kaharoa Tephra, a key marker for late-Holocene stratigraphy andarchaeology in New Zealand. The Holocene, 8:487–95.

McFadgen, B.G., 1994. Coastal stratigraphic evidence for human settlement. In D.G. Sutton(ed.), The origins of the first New Zealanders. Auckland: Auckland University Press,pp.195–207.

Nairn, I.A. and S. Beanland, 1989. Geological setting of the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake,New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 32:1–13.

New Zealand Meteorological Service, n.d., Summaries of climatological observations to 1980.New Zealand Meteorological Service Miscellaneous Publication No.177.

Ota, Y., S. Beanland, K.R. Berryman and I.A. Nairn, 1988. The Matata Fault: active faulting atthe north-western margin of the Whakatane Graben, eastern Bay of Plenty. New ZealandGeological Survey Record, 35:6–13.

Pullar, W.A., 1985. Soils and land use of the Rangitaiki Plains, North Island, New Zealand.Lower Hutt: New Zealand Soil Bureau.

Pullar, W.A. and M.J. Selby, 1971. Coastal progradation of Rangitaiki Plains, New Zealand.New Zealand Journal of Science, 14:419–34.

20

3 The impact of Polynesian settlement on thevegetation of the coastal Bay of Plenty

M.S. McGlone and K.L. Jones

The coastline of the Bay of Plenty forms a great bight, opening north and northeasttowards the central Pacific, creating a natural landfall for voyagers from the tropics(Fig. 3.1). It enjoys a warm, mild, moist climate and has light, fertile soils, ideal forhorticulture. Migrants from northern latitudes in prehistoric times are likely to haveestablished some of their first settlements in this region, as traditions about canoelanding-places at Whangaparaoa imply. The Bay of Plenty coast is therefore central toour understanding of the settlement process. This chapter looks in detail at the vege-tation history of the Kohika swamp, and some other sites in the surrounding region,in order to reconstruct the original vegetation that would have confronted those firstsettlers, to date the beginning of human influences, and to chart the profound effectsof Maori settlement on the local environments.

Intense human use has destroyed or disrupted nearly all of the original vegetationcover in the lowland coastal Bay of Plenty and similar areas throughout the country.Only where rugged hill country comes down to the coast does substantial undisturbedvegetation remain, as in the steep coastal country of the eastern Bay of Plenty (Nicholls

Figure 3.1The Bay ofPlenty lowlandswith pollen sitesunderlined

The impact of Polynesian settlement on the vegetation of the coastal Bay of Plenty 21

1971). While remnant stands of coastal vegetation give some picture of previousvegetation cover, they are often themselves modified (Jones and Moore 1985) andunlikely to represent the full range of original coastal communities.

Palaeoecological investigations are therefore an essential aspect of archaeologicalstudies in which reconstruction of original vegetation is important. Organic sedimentsformed over thousands of years in wetlands preserve abundant pollen and spores which,when extracted and characterised, permit construction of detailed vegetation histor-ies. Analysis of the pollen and spore content of peats and muds in wetland profilesfrom throughout New Zealand has given comprehensive insights into the unmodifiedenvironment, the timing of the Polynesian environmental impact, and the subsequentchanges to vegetation resulting from settlement (McGlone 1983a, McGlone andWilmshurst 1999, Newnham et al. 1998).

The Bay of Plenty lies in a major zone of active volcanism. Three tephra layers – theTarawera, Kaharoa and Taupo – are commonly found in the upper sediments of de-posits throughout the region, thus providing an excellent chronology for palynology.These tephra falls have also had a profound impact on the vegetation.

In this chapter we present the full pollen analysis of the Kohika pa site (abbreviatedversions have been published previously), new analyses of two other lowland coastalBay of Plenty wetland sites (Thornton and Tunapahore), and discuss the environmen-tal history of the Bay of Plenty coastal zone in relation to Maori settlement.

MethodsMost pollen samples were taken directly from cleaned faces of excavation units,although the lower section of the Kohika site was sampled with a Hiller corer. Standardpalynological preparation techniques were used (Moore et al. 1991): disaggregationin potassium hydroxide, wet sieving, digestion in 40 per cent hydrofluoric acid,acetolysis, bleach where needed to remove resistant lignin fragments, and mounting inglycerine jelly. Pollen results are presented as relative percentages of varying pollensums. A terrestrial pollen sum is used for all dryland plants, which excludes tree fernsand all ground ferns (except for bracken, which is treated as a shrub because of itsecological behaviour). Tree ferns are expressed as a percentage of a terrestrial pollensum that includes tree ferns. Wetland and aquatic taxa are expressed as a percentageof total pollen and spores. Note that Leptospermum type (Leptospermum scopariumand Kunzea ericoides) is not included as a terrestrial pollen type, as it has poorlydispersed pollen and is likely to have been derived mainly from manuka (Leptospermumscoparium) growing on peaty wetland soils. Nothofagus subgenus Fuscospora includesall Nothofagus spp. with the exception of N. menziesii. Charcoal counts were madeby a grid point technique (Clark 1982) in which eleven points per field of view arescored for presence or absence of charcoal at the same time as the pollen count. Countsare expressed as percentages of the terrestrial pollen sum.

Site locations, stratigraphy and chronologyRangitaiki Plains: Kohika Pa archaeological site (Figs 3.1 and 3.2)

As the Rangitaiki Plains are intensively farmed, no unmodified natural vegetationremains. At the time of first European settlement, swampland to the west of theRangitaiki River was densely covered with raupo and rushes (Pullar 1985). Sufficientflax (Phormium tenax) was present in this area to support a flax mill at Matata. Ti

22 Kohika

(Cordyline australis) and manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) grew on the naturalriver and stream levees, and kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), titoki (Alectryonexcelsus), toetoe (Cortaderia) and flax on back-swamps. Bracken (Pteridium esculen-tum), mingimingi (Leucopogon fasciculatus) and manuka grew on the coastal dunes.Subsurface diatomaceous earth – mainly immediately postdating the Kaharoa Tephra– occurs on the floodplains of the Rangitaiki and Tarawera rivers between Thorntonand Matata, indicating the presence of shallow lakes of clear, fresh water (Pullar 1985).Several small lagoons ringed by raupo (Typha orientalis) and willow (Salix spp.) persistclose to Kohika.

The location of the pollen site (Square D17) is shown in Figure 4.13 (below). Thepeat was sampled by digging a hole 1.5 m square to a depth of 2.2 m and then coringwith a Hiller peat corer a further 1.3 m to the underlying sand dune. Total sedimentdepth from the base of the Tarawera Ash (datum for all measurements) to the surfaceof the buried sand dune is 3.3 m.

The pollen site stratigraphy (Fig. 3.2) relies for its chronology on the three includedtephra layers and seven radiocarbon dates (Table 3.1). The site is capped by theTarawera Tephra of AD 1886. Two radiocarbon dates in the underlying peat of 353 ±57 BP and 535 ± 57 BP indicate typical swamp accumulation rates of 1–2 mm peryear. The three radiocarbon dates from this site bracketing the Kaharoa Tephra have areversed stratigraphy. NZ4804 (656 ± 57 BP) is from organic muds immediately belowthe Kaharoa, and NZ4803 (678 ± 75 BP) on a diatomaceous organic silt immediatelyabove it. NZ4802 (729 ± 58 BP) is from a grey, largely inorganic fine silt, 22 cm

Figure 3.2Pollen sitestratigraphy:Kohika pollensite (excavationSquare D17),Tunapahorearchaeologicalsite complexand Thornton-Atkinsonarchaeologicalsite


above the Kaharoa Tephra. The two dates bracketing the Kaharoa Tephra are statis-tically indistinguishable. NZ4802 is 63 years older than NZ4804, but still within onestandard error. NZ4804 is no more than 10 radiocarbon years different from theestablished age of the Kaharoa Tephra of 665 ± 17 BP, or c.AD 1350 when calibrated,based on 22 screened dates over its entire distribution (Lowe and Hogg 1992) and isalmost certainly correct. However, swamps are particularly prone to contaminationby old organic material washed in to the lakes after forest clearance (McGlone andWilmshurst 1999), and it is clear from NZ4801 that there was very rapid accumulation(c.5 mm per year) of silt-rich sediments after the deposition of the Kaharoa Tephra.Therefore, as there is a high probability that NZ4803 and NZ4802 are based onsediments contaminated with old organic material incorporated during deposition,they will be ignored in subsequent discussion. On the basis of NZ4805 and NZ4806,organic sedimentation was a moderate 1–2 mm per year- in the years leading up to theKaharoa Tephra eruption, but rapid in the silt-rich sediments following the TaupoTephra (c.5 mm year).

Table 3.1 Radiocarbon dates, Kohika pollen site (Square D17)

C14 age Radiocarbon(conventional) Depth below datum (cm) Material number

353 ± 57 45–50 peat NZ4800535 ± 57 65–69 peat NZ4801729 ± 58 105–110 weakly organic silt NZ4802678 ± 75 130–132 (immediately above diatomaceous silt NZ4803

Kaharoa Tephra)656 ± 57 145–146 (immediately below lake mud NZ4804

Kaharoa Tephra)1365 ± 75 180–182 fine peat NZ48051605 ± 65 220–222 fine peat NZ4806

Rangitaiki Plains: Thornton-Atkinson archaeological site complex

The Thornton-Atkinson archaeological site (W15/121) is on the inland side of a pre-Taupo sand dune on the Rangitaiki flood plain, some ten kilometres west of Whakatane(Fig. 3.1). The crests of these dunes are mantled with ash soils that are easily disturbed,mobilising loose sand that can drift down the dune faces. The site consisted of a surfacescatter of shell and blackened soils underlain by pits cut through the ash soils of thecrest of the dune. A C14 date for shell in one of the pits has a date of 595 ± 50 yrs BP(NZ7543) with a marine calibration of cal. AD 1553–1860 at the 2 sigma limit (Jones1991:153–9). The pre-European settlement vegetation at this site was similar to thatat Kohika.

The pollen profile is in a section in a drainage ditch south of the dune crest andclose to the Rangitaiki River cut. The sediment profile (Fig. 3.2) is undated, but post-dates the Taupo Tephra. Tephra within the profile is lensed with sand and has thereforebeen reworked from tephra deposits within the dune sand.

Hawai Bay: Tunapahore archaeological site complex

Hawai Bay lies 20 kilometres east of Opotoki (Fig. 3.1). The coastal lowlands areonly 800 m wide and consist of partly dissected tephra-covered uplifted marine terracesbacked by steep hills. Immediately west of the two pollen profiles is an area of terraces.The area was heavily used by Maori in pre-European times and there are at least tenpa around the bay.

24 Kohika

Two sites were sampled for pollen (Fig. 3.2). Tunapahore A is from a drainageditch through a swampy area immediately inland of the beach ridge and 150 m fromhigh-water mark. Tunapahore B is at the toe of the slope of a terrace and is close to anow-destroyed swamp pa (X15/105). It is at the extreme inland margin of the samegleyed silt and peat deposit as Tunapahore A, 200 m distant.

Tunapahore A contains airfall Kaharoa Tephra but is otherwise undated because ofthe unsuitable weakly organic clay silts that make up most of the section. TunapahoreB has water-laid Taupo Tephra (absent in Tunapahore A) at the base overlying ayellow-brown pumice-rich soil (Whakatane Hill Soil). A date of 1252 ± 87 BP(NZA3485) on a grey pumice-rich silt immediately above the tephra confirms the iden-tification. From the 65 cm level in the profile, macroscopic charcoal fragments occurin a grey silt matrix and probably derive from reworking from the slopes of the nearbyterraces. A discrete lens of grey tephra at the 60 cm level surrounded by charcoal-richsilt dating to 781 ± 69 yrs BP (NZA3479) gives a maximum age for the start of charcoalinflux. The base of a mottled dark grey silt at 40 cm yielded a date of 1824 ± 142 yrsBP (NZA3484) that is nearly identical with the standard date of 1850 ± 20 BP for theTaupo Tephra (Froggatt and Lowe 1990). It is apparent that charcoal associatedwith the deposition of Taupo Tephra has been reworked into the profile at a muchlater date.

Pollen stratigraphyThe pollen diagrams are zoned on the basis of changes in pollen and spore occurrences,for convenience of description and discussion.

Kohika Pa (Figs 3.3a–d)

Zone KO-1: immediately before Taupo Tephra; 1850 yrs BP

This zone is dominated by local swamp shrubs and trees, most notably Leptospermumcf. scoparium, Coprosma (probably small-leaved shrubs such as C. propinqua), Myrsinecf. divaricata and Elaeocarpus cf. hookerianus (pokaka). Wood fragments within thesandy peat at this level indicate that shrubs were growing directly on the site. Thereare indications of well-drained sandy soils within the developing swamp/dune complex:Paesia scaberula (hard fern) characterises open dryland sites and is abundant in thiszone; Phyllocladus cf. trichomanoides (probably tanekaha) and increasing Metrosideros(rata type) point to the presence of a coastal forest.

Zone KO-2: 1850–1600 yrs BP

Interpretation of this zone is complicated by the eruption of the Taupo Tephra andsubsequent in-wash of pumice from the Rangitaiki River system. The Rangitaiki Riverheadwaters drain the beech-clad (Nothofagus) axial ranges of the east central NorthIsland, an area partly covered with Taupo ignimbrite deposits and totally blanketedwith thick volcanic tephra fall (Wilson and Walker 1985). Two discrete lenses of siltat this location above the Taupo Tephra are accompanied by high levels of microscopiccharcoal fragments of Fuscospora (Nothofagus subgenus Fuscospora, including all butN. menziesii of the New Zealand species) and Cyathea smithii-type tree-fern spores.The first lens of silt has much higher levels of these elements than the second. Brackenspores increase during the first silt episode, peak between the silts, and decline abruptlyabove the second silt. Grass and tutu (Coriaria spp.) percentages rise between the twosilts, both peaking in the second silt, with grass continuing on in significant amountsto the end of the zone. The most likely interpretation is that the Fuscospora charcoal


Figure

3.3

a K

ohik

a, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram

26 Kohika

Figure

3.3

b K

ohik

a, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram


Figure

3.3

c Ko

hika

, per

cent

age

polle

n di

agra

m

28 Kohika

Figure

3.3

d K

ohik

a, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram


and Cyathea smithii-type spores have in-washed with the silt, and most probably camefrom the extensive Taupo Formation pumice deposits in the Rangitaiki River head-waters. Neither the Fuscospora charcoal nor the Cyathea spores are highly corroded,suggesting that they are mainly contemporaneous with the tephra rather than reworkedfrom older soils. Bracken covered extensive areas of the central North Island after theTaupo Tephra eruption (Wilmshurst and McGlone 1996), and it is not clear whetherthe bracken is derived from this source or from local stands induced by damage to theforest through airfall tephra and alluvium deposition.

The local swamp flora reacted to the influx of silt during this zone. Raupo andsedge increase throughout the silty bottom half of the zone, and the aquaticsMyriophyllum and Potamogeton peak with them immediately after the second silt.Muehlenbeckia, Rubus and Leucopogon fasciculatus are common also in the basalsilty sediments. The increase in these scrubby dryland elements suggests that the in-flux of silt provided a suitable substrate for a limited time, while flooding and nutrient-enrichment through silt deposition favoured aquatics, raupo and tall sedges. The zoneterminates with increased levels of manuka, Coprosma, flax and the swamp fern kio-kio (Blechnum novae-zelandiae type), suggesting a reversion to flax swamp or shrub-land. There is little convincing evidence that the extra-local pollen rain, largely fromtree conifers growing on the floodplain and the surrounding hills, was affected bythe Taupo eruption.

The influx of Taupo Formation sediments was probably accompanied by furtherprogradation of the coast and rapid shifts in the courses of the Tarawera and Rangi-taiki river distributaries.


This zone represents a period of prolonged stability during which a flax-dominatedswamp, interfingered with manuka and Coprosma shrubland, occupied the site. Duneridges and levees throughout the swamp complex must have had forest cover. Kahika-tea, totara (Podocarpus totara), tanekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides), pahautea(Libocedrus plumosa), pukatea (Laurelia novae-zelandiae), rata trees and vines (Metro-sideros spp.), rewarewa (Knightia excelsa), Pittosporum and pokaka (Elaeocarpushookerianus) all have pollen percentages that are consistent with their being presentin the swamp complex.


Closely spaced sampling of the profile was carried out in this and the next zone inorder to locate the first signs of possible disturbance to the vegetation. Sedge, raupo,ground ferns (monolete fern spores) and Myriophyllum all peak or are more commonwithin this zone than in the last, while wetland shrubs are less common, suggestinghigher water levels in the swamp. The fine structureless peats which include a band oflacustrine organic silt in these two zones are typical of sediments laid down underopen water. Grass pollen is consistently present in low amounts, peaking immediatelybeneath the Kaharoa Tephra, as does bracken at three per cent of the pollen sum, butthere is no charcoal. Therefore, other than changes resulting from higher water levels,there is only slight evidence for disturbance.


The Kaharoa Tephra erupted from the Okataina complex 40 kilometres to the westand fell at the site, and the tephra-derived sediments of this zone are in-wash from theTarawera River catchment. The zone is estimated from accumulation rates to be 45years or more in duration. The wetland types within it undergo a distinct succession

30 Kohika

in which raupo is followed by sedges, ground ferns and swamp kiokio. The wetlandscrub types manuka and Myrsine follow a U-shaped pattern in that they are abundantin the first sample immediately above the Kaharoa, decline, and then recover by thezone end. A similar pattern is seen in the trees rata, tanekaha and pahautea. Charcoaland bracken are not at high levels initially, but rise abruptly towards the upper bound-ary. At this point all tree types plunge to low levels. Most affected are totara, kahikatea,kauri (Agathis australis), pahautea, maire (Nestegis spp.) and hutu (Ascarina lucida),which suggests that fires swept through the lowland forest.

The sequences immediately following the Kaharoa Tephra reflect the response ofthe swamp community to flooding and the increased nutrient influx in the first fewyears following the tephra deposition, then recovery of the woody swamp vegetation.While swamp herb successions can occur within a few years or less, this is not sowith tall swamp scrub and trees. This pattern of decline and recovery of scrub andslow-growing trees suggests that at least 50 years elapsed between the Kaharoa Tephraand the beginning of full-scale deforestation. Major fire impact therefore probablyoccurred at around 600 BP.


This zone documents the full impact of fire on the Kohika wetlands. Bracken percent-ages peak at over 80 per cent of the terrestrial pollen sum at the beginning of the zone,but decline gradually to c.50 per cent at the top, mainly as a consequence of increas-ing grass and tutu percentages. Charcoal levels rise steeply, increasing throughout thezone. Seral woody plants including wineberry (Aristotelia serrata) and Hebe are presentthroughout, and rewarewa (Knightia excelsa) and kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa)are consistently recorded. The swamp vegetation indicates wetter conditions; aquaticsMyriophyllum and Potamogeton are abundant, as are the tall jointed rush, oioi(Leptocarpus similis), raupo and sedges. Flax is less well represented in the pollen rainbut, as it is normally greatly underrepresented in the pollen rain, it would still havebeen important in the swamp vegetation. Swamp shrubs manuka and Coprosma clearlyplayed a less important role, but were still present as substantial stands close to thesite. Maori presence is indicated late in this zone by the presence of dog bones, woodenimplements, stone, bracken fibre, gourds, shell and wood chips, all of which wouldhave been discarded into the surrounding swamp by the inhabitants.

[Editorial note. Nowhere else in the 120 square metres of excavations in Area Dwere cultural materials found at this level; they were consistently higher. While it ispossible that they were trodden down in prehistory – because this part of the softlakeshore was a busy place – it is almost certain that most of the treadage occurredduring the pollen sampling itself. The 1.5 m pit of D17 was the only part of Area Dnot excavated archaeologically. Boards to protect the soft deposit were not used, andany items in the peat would be carried down underfoot. However, it is important tonote that the samples for pollen, sediment and C14 were taken from the sides of D17,not from the floor, and their integrity is not in question.]

Zone KO-7: 350 yrs BP–1886 AD

The sediment changes to raupo peat and the wetland pollen are dominated by raupo.Swamp scrub taxa are at very low levels and bracken percentages fall steeply. In thesample immediately below the Tarawera Tephra, introduced plants including willowappear. No Maori artefacts or midden material were recovered from the raupo-richpeat above the 35 cm level, suggesting that the pa was abandoned during this zone.Sand and silt bands occur immediately above this level.


Thornton-Atkinson archaeological complex (Figs 3.4a–b)

Zone TH-1

High percentages of manuka, Coprosma, bracken and charcoal fragments, the presenceof sedge and peat and the low occurrences of tree types all indicate a fire-affected,scrub-covered swamp in a largely deforested bracken-covered landscape.

Zone TH-2

Coprosma and manuka decline; bracken, grass and tutu increase, while the range andabundance of tree types decline, showing increased fire pressure. Sporadic highpercentages of Potamogeton, Haloragis and corroded tree-fern spores and charcoal-rich silts all indicate that the swamp was subject to continuing in-wash of alluvialmaterial after fire and in-wash as a consequence of human activities, includingdisturbance of neighbouring dune soils. The pollen profile is probably late (after 400BP) in the pre-European sequence.

Tunapahore A (Fig. 3.5)

There is insufficient significant change to zone this site. The silty sediments and highlevels of Myriophyllum show this to have been a pond or very wet swamp behind arecently formed (possibly post-Taupo Tephra) dune crest. Rarely recorded pollen types,ngaio (Myoporum laetum) and kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile), along with hutu,Dodonaea viscosa, tanekaha, Myrsine and rata, place the site in scrubby coastal forest.High percentages of Fuscospora and podocarp trees reflect pollen transport from thesteep surrounding hills that are in forests of beech, rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum)and tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa). Rata and kahikatea fall to low levels and tanekahaand tree ferns increase after the fall of the Kaharoa Tephra, which suggests that theremay have been some temporary damage to coastal forest, but no major disruption.

Tunapahore B (Figs 3.6a–b)

Zone TB-1: before and during the Taupo Tephra deposition, 1850 BP

This zone has a close resemblance to Tunapahore A, except that ngaio and kohekoheare absent, podocarp trees, tree ferns and hutu more abundant and Fuscospora muchless common. As the site is closer to the terrace scarp and at the edge of the swamp, itis likely to have been beyond the coastal scrub-forest zone and within the margin oftaller coastal conifer-dominant forest.

Zone TB-2: 1850 BP to beginning of Maori clearance

All forest and scrub pollen types are at very low percentages in the sample immediate-ly overlying the Taupo Tephra, with the exception of Fuscospora, and bracken, grass,tutu and charcoal fragments are abundant. The tephra fall was presumably accompaniedby extensive damage to the coastal forest and subsequent fire that resulted in densebracken, grass and tutu on the coastal strip (Wilmshurst and McGlone 1996). Thesediments higher in the sequence show progressive recovery through a hutu–Dodoneaseral phase to a forest type similar to that before the eruption, but with more kahika-tea and totara than previously. At 60 cm there is a further disruption through fire thatdid not affect the forest as severely, but induced reworking of tephra into the swampand was accompanied by flooding and a temporary abundance of raupo. Charcoalassociated with the tephra layer dates to c.780 BP, but this must be taken as a maximumage as there is a likelihood of the charcoal being derived from wood decades to centuriesolder. The uppermost sample in the zone shows undisturbed forest once more.

32 Kohika

Figure

3.4

a T

horn

ton-

Atk

inso

n co

mpl

ex, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram


Figure

3.4

b T

horn

ton-

Atk

inso

n co

mpl

ex, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram

Figure

3.5

Tun

apah

ore

A, p

erce

ntag

e po

llen

diag

ram


Figure

3.6

a T

unap

ahor

e B,

per

cent

age

polle

n di

agra

m

36 Kohika

Figure

3.6

b T

unap

ahor

e B,

per

cent

age

polle

n di

agra

m


Zone TB-3: Maori clearance (maximum age: 780 BP)

All forest and scrub pollen types are at low percentages in these two samples andbracken, grass and charcoal fragment percentages are high, indicating destruction offorest in the coastal strip. Increased flooding and nutrient enrichment of the swampare shown by high levels of raupo. The date of first Maori clearance is problematic,as discussed below.

Prehistoric vegetation of the Bay of Plenty coastThe natural vegetation of the lowland Bay of Plenty has been removed from a widecrescent extending from Waihi in the northwest to the Motu River in the east, and upto 20 kilometres from the coast. In the western and central Bay of Plenty the forestthat remains has been extensively logged and much is second-growth broad-leavedbush (Nicholls 1974a, 1974b). Only west of the Motu River do largely unmodifiedforests extend nearly to the coast. From extant western forest tracts and the pollenresults presented here and in Giles et al. (1999) and Newnham et al. (1995), the pre-historic lowland forest consisted for the large part of conifer/broad-leaved associ-ations in which matai (Prumnopitys taxifolia), rimu, miro (Prumnopitys ferruginea)and kahikatea formed a conifer overstorey above a canopy of tawa, hinau (Elaeocarpusdentatus), maire, rewarewa, kamahi and northern rata (Metrosideros robusta). A largerange of broad-leaved trees and shrubs also occurred in these forests. Where the foreststructure was disturbed, rewarewa, tanekaha, kanuka and kamahi often formed a lowforest as part of the pathway back to tall conifer forest. Tree ferns were abundantthroughout. Within a few kilometres of the coast a number of tree and shrub speciesbecame more prominent, including kohekohe, pukatea, pohutukawa (Metrosiderosexcelsa), ngaio and Dodonaea viscosa.

Wetlands covered much of the Rangitaiki Plains and the Maketu Basin (Campbellet al. 1973, Newnham et al. 1995). Movement of alluvium in river channels and riverlevees, and migrating sand-dunes associated with episodic coastal progradation createda dynamic, diverse topography. Raised bogs were common and dominated by jointedrushes, wirerush (Empodisma minus) and Sporodanthus, nearly always in associationwith a manuka shrubby cover (Campbell et al. 1973). Drier peats tended to be formedby Gleichenia fern and manuka. Swampy wetlands were characterised by the tall sedgeBaumea complanata, flax, raupo and toetoe. At Kohika, the abundance of tanekaha,Metrosideros, manuka, Coprosma, kahikawaka, pukatea, kahikatea and totara suggeststhat a diverse scrub and forest grew on levees and sand-dunes within the swampcomplex, and identification of pukatea and kahikatea macro-remains from peats fur-ther inland on the southeastern Rangitaiki plains (Campbell et al. 1973) confirms theirlocal presence. The swamp areas at Tunapahore represent poorly drained clearingswithin dense coastal forest and appear to have had a scrub/sedge cover.

The range of some species appears to have changed markedly since human occu-pation. Kohika differs from other lowland Bay of Plenty sites in having a significantpresence of kauri and pahautea pollen. The nearest extant occurrences of kauri are onthe Mamaku Plateau, just north of Lake Rotorua (60 kilometres distant), and Te Puke(40 kilometres distant) (Nicholls 1974a). Kauri pollen is consistently present through-out zones KO-2 to KO-5, at levels of 0.5–4.0 per cent. These percentages are similarto those for kauri from lakes in the Hamilton Basin (Newnham et al. 1989) and in thenorthern Bay of Plenty (Newnham et al. 1995), both areas within its current range.On the other hand, kauri pollen is recorded at 20–40 per cent in pre-Kaharoa sedimentson Matakana Island, 80 kilometres northwards along the coast (Giles et al. 1999). It

38 Kohika

is likely that stands of kauri forest grew south of its current range within the TaraweraRiver catchment close to the Kohika site, although wind transport of pollen from thenorth cannot be definitively ruled out. Pahautea is now sporadic in the Bay of Plentyand its pollen is absent at all other Bay of Plenty pollen sites (Giles et al. 1999, McGlone1983b, Newnham et al. 1995). However, it was once an important component of thelowland floodplain forest community at Kohika. Hutu is now rare in the Bay of Plenty,being recorded at only a few sites in forest-covered broken hill country behindWhakatane and Opotoki at altitudes between 150 and 650 m. Hutu is consistentlyrecorded at low percentages in the western Bay of Plenty (Giles et al. 1999, Newnhamet al. 1995) and at Kohika, but, as this small tree is wind-pollinated, this pollen couldderive from long-distance dispersal. However, at Tunapahore the levels of hutuencountered (up to 15 per cent) indicate local occurrence. The mild, drought-free con-ditions most favoured by this species (McGlone and Moar 1977) were evidently bestmet in sheltered coastal sites backed closely by hills.

Volcanic disturbance and fireThe Taupo Pumice and the Kaharoa Tephra occur in sites throughout the Bay of Plenty,including Kohika, Tunapahore, the Rangitaiki Plains and western Bay of Plenty sites(Campbell et al. 1973, Giles et al. 1999, Newnham et al. 1995). Inland, close to theeruptive centre, there was widespread destruction of forest by ignimbrite flows and anextensive halo of forest disruption to the east (Wilmshurst and McGlone 1996). TheBay of Plenty was beyond the reach of the ignimbrite flows, but probably large areasof forest devastation and tephra plains occurred in the modern Kawerau–Edgecumbedistrict associated with flooding by tephric alluvium.

In the most northern of the Bay of Plenty sites, Waihi Beach Swamp in the westernBay of Plenty (Newnham et al. 1995) and inland at Holdens Bay (McGlone 1983b),the vegetation shows little discernible reaction to the deposition of the Taupo Pumice,while at Papamoa Bog, Maketu Basin (Newnham et al. 1995), on the Rangitaiki Plains(Campbell et al. 1973) and Tunapahore, there was a variable but marked disruptionof the vegetation. At Papamoa and the Rangitaiki sites, the Taupo Tephra was followedby increased bracken.

At Kohika, the most rapidly accumulating site, bracken and grass do not increaseuntil after the first alluvial silt deposit following the Taupo. They do not peak withFuscospora, tree-fern spores and charcoal, suggesting the later spread of bracken andgrass. This appears to represent both a delayed successional response in the hinterlandto volcanic devastation, and possibly a local response to direct tephra damage to forestand scrub by providing fresh alluvial surfaces for them to pioneer on (Wilmshurst andMcGlone 1996). Of the forest types, only kahikatea and tanekaha decline, suggestingthat the major effect at Kohika was flooding due to the choking of waterways withTaupo Tephra alluvium. The Maketu catchment (Papamoa), however, would have hadno alluvial flooding, and at Fermah Rd (Waihi) no alluvium flooded onto the site.Nevertheless, bracken still showed an increase, suggesting that there was a direct effectof tephra-fall on the surrounding dryland vegetation that led to some temporaryreplacement of forest or scrub with bracken.

It has been often claimed that the Taupo eruption permanently altered the vegetationof the central North Island, but this appears to be a gross overstatement. The directimpact of the Taupo Tephra on the vegetation at Kohika was over within 200 years.Tunapahore, despite lying at the very edge of the major depositional area of the TaupoTephra (less than 10 cm thickness), shows an extreme reaction. The most likely explan-


ation is that the coastal bush was vulnerable to acidic ash-fall, and widespread die-back resulted in fires lit by lightning that opened up ground for bracken and grass(Wilmshurst and McGlone 1996). As at the sites further west, the forest rapidly andcompletely recovered.

The impact of the Kaharoa Tephra is complicated by the fact that Maori settlerswere almost certainly in the region at the time it fell. The previously dominant kaurideclined after the Kaharoa Tephra fall at Matakana Island, but the decline coincideswith the first appearance of charcoal and bracken. Giles et al. (1999) are unsure whetherthis decline was induced volcanically or by humans. At Waihi Beach Swamp, the 4cm-thick Kaharoa Tephra seems not to have caused any forest destruction (Newnhamet al. 1995), nor did a 10 cm fall at Tunapahore. At the Papamoa site, the 5 cm-thicktephra is followed immediately by bracken and charcoal, but it is very near the surfaceof the bog and the Polynesian and European records are blended, so it is impossible totell whether there was a direct effect (Newnham et al. 1995). On the Rangitaiki Plainsnear Kohika, the Kaharoa Tephra ranges from 10 to 15 cm thick (Pullar 1973) andmay have had an effect independent of Maori burning. Metrosideros, tanekaha andswamp shrubs all decline after the eruption and then recover, accompanied by a briefpulse of charcoal influx and bracken, suggesting that either the tephra directly affectedthe vegetation, or that Maori took advantage of tephra-damaged vegetation to dosome initial clearance, as suggested by McGlone (1981).

Anthropogenic fire and timing of first settlementMost peat deposits in the Bay of Plenty show evidence of having been burnt in pre-Polynesian times. Campbell et al. (1973) recorded charred wood, peat and charcoalthroughout late Holocene deposits at Maketu and on the Rangitaiki Plains. ThePapamoa and Waihi Beach sites also have a long record of microscopic charcoal(Newnham et al. 1995). In all likelihood, these fires were confined mainly to the swampsand bogs, and the surrounding dryland vegetation suffered only infrequent fire. TheKohika site seems to have been less vulnerable to fire, probably because of consist-ently high water-levels and, aside from the charcoal associated with the Taupo Tephra,there is no clear record of natural fire.

Consistent influxes of charcoal and permanent conversion to bracken and grass oflandscapes previously covered with forest or scrub are the best palynological criteriafor inferring human presence (McGlone 1983a, McGlone et al. 1994, Newnham etal. 1998). However, against a background of intermittent natural fire, it is difficult topinpoint exactly when the first Polynesian burning began, as there are no distinctivemarkers to distinguish anthropogenic burning from natural burning.

Evidence for anthropogenic burning before the Kaharoa Tephra in lowland Bay ofPlenty is equivocal. At Waihi Beach Swamp, charcoal abundance immediately belowthe Kaharoa Tephra is no different from that deeper in the profile, and there is nobracken or grass. At Papamoa Bog, charcoal increases immediately below the tephra,but not bracken or grass. Detailed sampling at Kohika revealed consistent but lowlevels of bracken in the 6 cm directly below the Kaharoa Tephra, but no charcoal. Onthe basis of accumulation rates, if the presence of bracken is equated with humanintervention, the first human impact may have occurred at Kohika around 750 BP.At Tunapahore, there is no indication of disturbance immediately before or afterthe Kaharoa Tephra. However, the temporary influx of tephric silt and charcoalaccompanied by bracken and grass, dated at 781 BP, is only a little outside the rangefor first major environmental impact, as estimated from the total New Zealand set of

40 Kohika

palynological sites (McGlone and Wilmshurst 1999), and may possibly represent anearly temporary clearance. The Tunapahore area was not permanently settled untilafter the Kaharoa eruption but, because of the problem of dating silts with reworkedcharcoal inclusions, we cannot be sure when. There are many pa in this area whichare likely to have been established from AD 1500.

The earliest ages for archaeological sites in the Bay of Plenty support the interpret-ation from the pollen profiles that major human impact did not begin until after thedeposition of the Kaharoa Tephra. In the western Bay of Plenty, there are relativelyearly dates for the archaeological site of Kauri Point swamp of between 629 ± 60(NZ593) and 533 ± 82 yrs BP (NZ813) (O’Keeffe 1991:128, 171–4). However, theinbuilt age of the wood and charcoal is not known. In the Whakatane district, a char-coal sample giving a maximum age for a gravel-added soil on the Opouriao Plainshas an age of 540 ± 67 (NZ6838). When calibrated, these radiocarbon dates in therange 550–650 BP enter an area of ambiguity, giving calibrated ages of between thecalendar years AD 1250 and 1450. Obsidian hydration dates for the Tokitoki site,Ohiwa Harbour are in the range 650–690 BP, consistent with the age of the KaharoaTephra on which the site was laid down (McGovern-Wilson pers. comm. 1996). Despiteits convenient location for settlement, benign climates and fertile soils, there is noevidence that the Bay of Plenty was settled earlier than any other district in NewZealand. Continuous traces of bracken recorded immediately below the KaharoaTephra might indicate small-scale burning as Maori exploration of the central NorthIsland began.

Use and impact of fire during the Maori settlement phaseLowland coastal Bay of Plenty was largely covered in tall, species-rich, conifer/broad-leaved forests in the years before Maori settlement. Dense vegetation, including com-plex mosaics of swamp forest, scrub and tall sedges, jointed sedges and flax, coveredthe extensive wetlands of the Rangitaiki Plains. While this vegetation cover supporteda large variety of plants and animals, it was inimical to human settlement. The denselywooded, tangled vegetation of lowland swamps and surrounding slopes would havebeen difficult to penetrate. Once the easily harvested forest birds had been depleted,the primary forests would yield little aside from berries and some minor vegetablefoods. Destruction of forest therefore increased the potential of the Kohika area tosupport humans. Burning of the forest and swamp forests created easier access to thehinterland along valley bottoms and ridge crests, and encouraged the spread ofbracken, ti (Cordyline) and tutu, all of which yielded highly valued carbohydrate foods.Plant remains recovered from the archaeological site (Lawlor 1979), including seedsof titoki and hinau, indicate that there was continuing use of the remaining forestpatches. Freshwater swamp resources such as flax, raupo, eels, other fish and waterbirds were also highly important, and these were increased and made more accessiblethrough burning.

Analysis of gardening patterns in the Whakatane catchment (Jones 1986) showsthat a range of sites was used for cultivation. Choices were based on soil type (light,free-draining soils were preferred) and microclimatic factors, such as north-facingslopes, which increased sunlight and warmth, and those that lengthened the frost-freeseason (cold air drainage and proximity to the coast). Patches of suitable soils occurredthroughout the coastal area, thus further encouraging widespread burning.

Decline in all tall-tree pollen reflects widespread deforestation, and the increasedinflux of bracken spores indicates that fern was a major vegetation cover. The densely


wooded landscape gave way to one in which most of the suitable soils were eitherunder cultivation or in some sort of fire-induced vegetation, with only small patchesof forest surviving. Continuous forest was confined to hilly areas, although even herefire burnt up steep faces and was used to clear tracks along ridges and other naturalpathways. Clearance of the surrounding landscape and the wetland vegetation itselfmay have led to faster run-off from the catchment, and therefore greater flooding andless interception and re-evaporation of rainfall by the vegetation cover (McGlone1983b). Both processes would tend to make the low-lying areas wetter, replacing bogforest and scrub with tall, regularly flooded, herbaceous flax and raupo associationssuch as those which came to predominate around the Kohika pa site. More navigablenetworks of streams and lagoons, and easy access to the hinterland through clearedvalleys and ridges, would have increased the effective size of the resource catchmentavailable to the inhabitants.

Once begun, firing continued regularly, as attested to by the continuing dominanceof bracken and grass. However, dryland vegetation change was relatively slight afterthe major burn-off at Kohika. Jones and Moore (1985) found coastal forest at Whan-gara on the East Coast to have been replaced early in the occupation sequence byrepeatedly burnt shrublands and open mobile dunelands, and this was probably thesame as near the coast on the Rangitaiki Plains. However, most scrub species andbroad-leaved trees are poorly represented in the pollen rain and, at most sites, we canonly infer that they played an important role in the post-settlement vegetation. It seemslikely that the rather monotonous background of generic pollen types conceals a morevaried vegetation history. There was a constant low level of input of forest-type pol-len, some indicating long-distance transport from the forested hinterland and othersthe nature of the local remnant forest patches. Kamahi pollen, sporadic before theKaharoa Tephra, was continuously represented afterwards, while rewarewa pollencontinued to be well represented. The upper sediments at Thornton-Atkinson alsohave high levels of kamahi. Kamahi and rewarewa are prominent in regenerating for-est in the Bay of Plenty (Nicholls 1991), and this suggests that the current situation ofremnant forest patches surrounded by regenerating forest and scrub was establishedearly in the course of Maori settlement.

The upsurge of raupo in Zone KO-7, disappearance of Maori cultural material andinflux of sand and silt argues for major change in local land use, probably associatedwith the introduction of European-style agriculture consequent on intensive Europeancolonisation of the region from the 1850s onwards. Eutrophication of the swamp withthe arrival of stock and later the introduction of fertilisers may account for the raupoincrease.

ConclusionsThe pre-human lowland Bay of Plenty was densely forested and even wetland areaswere predominantly covered with tall swamp forest and scrub. Only deep, wet organicsoils and regularly flooded areas had a mainly herbaceous vegetation. Air-fall depos-ition of tephra after volcanic eruptions caused marked but temporary declines andaltered the forest and wetland cover through the direct influence of tephra and throughflooding of volcanic alluvium down rivers. Maori settlement pervasively altered thisnatural setting through systematic and repeated firing of the vegetation. Dense forests,swamp forests and wooded wetlands were replaced with scrub/fernland, raupo-, reed-,sedge- and fern-covered wetlands and lagoons, interspersed with cultivations on fertileand climatically favoured patches of lowland alluvium soils, and forest stands. Maori

42 Kohika

settlement coincides largely with tawa-dominant forest and, in turn, indicates a mild,not overly wet, benign climate within which kumara cultivation was possible and anabundance of fruits and birds of the diverse lowland forest available. Within this cli-matic zone areas with easy access from the coast and rivers were heavily settled.

The process of destroying the original forest appears to have been as follows. Someminor destruction may have occurred between c.800 BP and the Kaharoa eruption at665 BP, but major settlement can have occurred only after that date. In seasonally dryareas and on fragile dune lands, sustained forest clearance occurred. In inland districtsand Tunapahore, the Kaharoa tephra-fall may have had a considerable impact, butsome recovery ensued over one or two centuries, only to succumb to widespread burn-ing. On the eastern Bay of Plenty terrace lands, sporadic settlement may have occurredearly on, followed by sustained settlement relatively late in the pre-European sequencecompared with elsewhere in the Bay of Plenty, East Coast and Hawkes Bay. Throughoutthe period of sustained settlement, the Rangitaiki Plains, Tunapahore and Whangaracould be described as ‘degraded’ landscapes, as have been described for eastern Poly-nesia in the period of human settlement (Kirch 1984:139–46). However, as theobservations made by James Cook at Tolaga Bay suggest, they are better viewed aslandscapes maintained by repeated firing at certain stages in a seral succession frombracken, scrub and grassland to forest.

The timing of permanent Maori settlement is still not entirely certain. The Bay ofPlenty palaeoecological data suggests that permanent occupation may have been aslate as 750–700 BP, if uncertainty over dating is taken into account. The archaeo-logical and environmental evidence clearly cannot rule out the presence of small,transient populations much earlier. Continuous traces of bracken recorded immediatelybelow the Kaharoa Tephra at a number of locations in the central North Island(Newnham et al. 1998) might therefore indicate small-scale burning as Maori explor-ation began. On balance, we favour an interpretation in which a limited amount ofexploratory activity and transient settlement occurred in the Bay of Plenty just beforethe eruption of the Kaharoa Tephra, followed by mass settlement and rapid popu-lation growth fuelled by the initial plentiful wild resources and productive soils ofthe region.

The relatively late occupation of an area that could be confidently predicted to be aprime focus for Maori activity (Jones 1989) raises questions about when New Zealandwas settled. Currently, there are an ‘early’ model proposing first settlement at around2000 BP (Sutton 1987), an ‘orthodox’ model of settlement at about 1000 BP (e.g.Davidson 1984) and a ‘late’ model of settlement at c.700 BP (Anderson 1991). Palyno-logical research has been undertaken specifically to help distinguish between thesettlement models (e.g. Elliot and Neall 1995, Horrocks et al. 2001, Newnham et al.1998), with some suggestions being made of early human impact before 1000 BP. Inaddition, kiore bones have been dated to as early as around 2000 BP, with theimplication that early contact must have taken place (Holdaway 1996), and a debateon this continues. However, McGlone and Wilmshurst (1999) concluded from a sur-vey of deforestation dates that Maori environmental impact was first experiencedsomewhere between 750 and 550 calendar years BP, and that suggestions that thisimpact occurred earlier is a result of misinterpretation of the significance of charcoaland bracken spore traces, combined with reliance on inherently risky sites for dating.The Bay of Plenty palaeoecological data strongly support the late model, as it is improb-able that such a favoured area in climate and resources, strategically placed at theheart of the intensively settled region of the New Zealand archipelago, would beneglected for hundreds of years after first settlement.

The subsequent ecological history of Maori settlement in the Bay of Plenty after the


major clearance of forest reveals no further major alterations to the vegetation coveruntil European settlement. Regular burning maintained a matrix of cultivable ground,forest, fern, scrub and swamp, within which all the requirements for sustaining therelatively dense network of settlements could be found.

ReferencesAnderson, A.J., 1991. The chronology of colonization in New Zealand. Antiquity, 65:767–95.Campbell, E.O., J.C. Heine and W.A. Pullar, 1973. Identification of plant fragments and pollen

from peat deposits in Rangitaiki Plains and Maketu Basin. New Zealand Journal of Botany,11:317–30.

Clark, R.L., 1982. Point count estimation of charcoal in pollen preparations and thin sections.Pollen et Spores, 24:523–35.

Davidson, J. M., 1984. The Prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.Elliot, M. and V.E. Neall, 1995. A twelve hundred year history of deforestation and a new

age for the Rangitoto Ash from Motutapu Island, Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. GeologicalSociety of New Zealand, Miscellaneous Publication No.81A.

Froggatt P.C. and D.J. Lowe, 1990. A review of late Quaternary silicic and some other tephraformations from New Zealand: their stratigraphy, nomenclature, distribution, volume andage. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 33:89–109.

Giles, T.M., R.M. Newnham, D.J. Lowe and A.J. Munro, 1999. Impact of tephra fall andenvironmental change: a 1000 year record from Matakana Island, Bay of Plenty, NorthIsland, New Zealand. In C.R. Frith and W.J. McGuire (eds), Volcanoes in the Quaternary.London: Geological Society, Special Publications, 161:11–26.

Holdaway, R.N., 1996. Arrival of rats in New Zealand. Nature, 384:225–6.Horrocks, M., Y. Deng, J. Ogden, B.V. Alloway, S.L. Nichol and D.G. Sutton, 2001. High

spatial resolution of pollen and charcoal in relation to the c.600 year BP KaharoaTephra: implications for Polynesian settlement of Great Barrier Island, northern New Zealand.Journal of Archaeological Science, 28:153–68.

Jones, K.L., 1986. Polynesian settlement and horticulture in two river catchments of theeastern North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 8:5–32.

Jones, K.L., 1989. “In much greater affluence”: productivity and welfare in Maori gardeningat Anaura Bay, October 1769. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 98:49–75.

Jones, K.L., 1991. Maori settlement and horticulture on the Rangitaiki Plains, Bay of Plenty,New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 13:143–75.

Jones, K.L. and P.R. Moore, 1985. An archaeological survey and environmental interpretationof the Whangara dunes, East Coast, North Island. New Zealand Archaeological AssociationNewsletter, 28:81–101.

Kirch, P.V., 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Lawlor, I., 1979. Palaeoenvironment analysis: an appraisal of the prehistoric environmentof the Kohika swamp pa (N68/140), Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

Lowe, D.J. and A.G. Hogg, 1992. Application of new technology liquid scintillation spectrom-etry to radiocarbon dating of tephra deposits, New Zealand. Quaternary International,13/14:135–42.

McGlone, M.S., 1981. Forest fire following Holocene tephra fall. In R. Howarth, P.C. Froggatt,C.G. Vucetich and J.D. Cullen (eds), Proceedings of Tephra Workshop. Department ofGeology Publication, No.20. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, pp.80–6.

McGlone, M.S., 1983a. Polynesian deforestation of New Zealand: a preliminary synthesis.Archaeology in Oceania, 18:11–25.

McGlone, M.S., 1983b. Holocene pollen diagrams, Lake Rotorua, North Island, New Zea-land. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 13:53–65.

McGlone, M.S., A.J. Anderson and R.N. Holdaway, 1994. An ecological approach to the

44 Kohika

Polynesian settlement of New Zealand. In D.G. Sutton (ed.), The Origins of the First NewZealanders. Auckland: Auckland University Press, pp.136–63.

McGlone, M.S. and N.T. Moar, 1977. The Ascarina decline and post-glacial climatic changein New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 15:485–9.

McGlone, M.S. and J.M. Wilmshurst, 1999. Dating initial Maori environmental impact inNew Zealand. Quaternary International, 59:17–26.

Moore, P.D., J.A. Webb, and M.E. Collinson, 1991. Pollen analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Newnham, R.M., D.J. Lowe and J.D. Green, 1989. Palynology, vegetation and climate of the

Waikato lowlands, North Island, New Zealand, since c.18,000 years ago. Journal of theRoyal Society of New Zealand, 19:127–50.

Newnham, R.M., D.J. Lowe and G.N.A. Wigley, 1995. Late Holocene palynology andpalaeovegetation of tephra-bearing mires at Papamoa and Waihi Beach, western Bay ofPlenty, North Island, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 25:283–300.

Newnham, R.M., D.J. Lowe, M.S. McGlone, J.M. Wilmshurst and T.F.G. Higham, 1998. TheKaharoa Tephra as a critical datum for earliest human impact in northern New Zealand.Journal of Archaeological Science, 25:533–44.

Nicholls, J.L., 1971. Raukumara Forest Class Map. Forest Service Mapping Series 6. Sheet 6.Wellington: New Zealand Forest Service.

Nicholls, J.L., 1974a. Rotorua Forest Class Map. Forest Service Mapping Series 6. Sheet 5.Wellington: New Zealand Forest Service.

Nicholls, J.L., 1974b. Urewera Forest Class Map. Forest Service Mapping Series 6. Sheet 7.Wellington: New Zealand Forest Service.

Nicholls, J.L., 1991. Native Forests. In B.D. Clarkson, M.C. Smale and C.E. Ecroyd (eds),Botany of Rotorua. Rotorua: Forest Research Institute, pp.15–22.

O’Keeffe, M.P., 1991. Prehistoric settlement in the western Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MLittthesis, University of Auckland.

Pullar, W.A., 1973. Isopachs of tephra, Central North Island, New Zealand. Scale 1:1,000,000.New Zealand Soil Bureau Maps 133/1–7. New Zealand Soil Survey Report No.31.


Sutton, D.G., 1987. A paradigmatic shift in Polynesian prehistory: implications for New Zea-land. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 9:135–55.

Wilmshurst, J.M. and M.S. McGlone, 1996. Forest disturbance in the central North Island,New Zealand, following the 1850 BP Taupo eruption. The Holocene, 6:399–411.

Wilson, C.J.N. and G.P.L. Walker, 1985. The Taupo Eruption, New Zealand. I. Generalaspects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, A314:199–228.

45

4 Excavations and site history at Kohika

G.J. Irwin

An archaeological and environmental context for Kohika has been established inChapters 1–3, and it is now time to consider the structure of this remarkable site.Figure 4.1 is a contour map showing several areas of excavation and Plate 4.1 is anaerial photograph taken during the season of January 1976. This chapter describesand interprets the excavations in the University Areas A, B, C and D, followed by anaccount of the Whakatane and District Historical Society investigations.

Figure 4.1 shows a Regional Council stopbank and canal to the north of the site,running east–west to join Canal 109, which runs northwards alongside SutherlandsRoad (shown in Fig. 2.3). North of the stopbank is what remains of Lake Kohika, andimmediately to the south is an east–west belt of remnants of pre-Taupo age dune thatextends on both sides of the Tarawera River. Site V15/80, Kohika, is one of these and,at the time of occupation, was a small island that stood in freshwater lake and swamp.The contours in Figure 4.1 are at 10 cm intervals and show heights above sea level(mean high-water springs) as measured from a Regional Council benchmark on thestopbank beside Canal 109. During our fieldwork the freshwater level to the north of

Figure 4.1A contour mapof Kohikashowing thelocation of theexcavations

46 Kohika

the stopbank varied with tide and weather, and the water table in the swamp aroundthe site lay typically between the 40 cm and 60 cm contours.

When drains were dug on Mr Jessop’s farm in 1974 the machine skirted the easternedge of the mound, leaving the zig-zag to be seen in Figure 4.1. It exposed a palisadeof kanuka posts that were rotted off at the water table, and it threw out variouswaterlogged artefacts that were found in the spoil heaps. It later transpired that thiscultural material came from peat lying below a thick band of alluvium composed ofreworked tephra, laid by floodwaters from the Tarawera River that flowed northwardsaround the eastern side of the site. This flood deposit was much less in evidence inthe sides of the drain along the northern side of Kohika which lay in the shelter of themound, and it was in this area where members of the Whakatane and District HistoricalSociety concentrated their efforts (Fig. 4.1). Artefacts could be found much more easilyby probing and digging in the peat here than where it was covered by floodwash.

The dynamic geology of the Rangitaiki Plains has been described in Chapter 2.All of the layers and stratigraphical events at Kohika have both natural and culturaldimensions and it is not possible to explain the prehistoric occupation without closeattention to both. The geomorphological setting of Kohika, in summary, is that it wasat the 2000 BP shoreline and has a core of dune sand. The Taupo, Kaharoa andTarawera tephras are present, plus the Taupo sea-rafted pumice. All three tephrashave been mixed into the soil of the dune but survive intact as beds in the surroundingswamp, where they are interstratified with peats, silts and diatomaceous earth thatformed in swamp and freshwater lake. Also in the immediate area of the site is theband of reworked Kaharoa Tephra alluvium, mentioned above, that was redepositedduring a local flood event when the Tarawera River overflowed its banks. As describedin Chapter 2, in Pullar’s (1985) scheme the dune sand is Koe and the diverse soil typesimmediately adjacent to Kohika conform to his Mtk and Onc categories. Other soiltypes lay close by. Thus Kohika was not entirely artificial, as are some swamp sitesin the North Island. Its sand core was natural but, as will be shown, it expandedlaterally with the spread of occupation debris and artificially laid floors, which werefound to interdigitate with the swamp deposits at the margins.

The excavations of each season followed the developing knowledge of the site.1. Area A was in a high and dry part of the site with evidence for intercutting storage

pits and bins with a later episode of cooking structures. After the site was aban-doned there were late intrusive burials. Excavation began in 1975 and continued in1976, with final investigations in 1978.

2. Area B lay at the eastern palisade, and the exposed sections of the drain offered akey to site structure. Artefacts thrown out with the ditch spoil included hair combsand a greenstone pendant and chisel. In 1975 Squares B1 and B2 were dug insidethe palisade, and in 1976 Square B3 was dug outside the palisade while Square B4straddled it.

3. In Area C in 1975, Squares C1 and C12 were dug adjacent to the Historical Societyarea at the edge of the swamp, and two further squares, C7 and C10, were placedon higher ground to the south. No further work was done in later years.

4. Area D lay marginal to the water table on the northern side of the site at the formerlakeshore. In 1975 Squares D1 and D2 discovered a number of superimposedartificial living floors and these were pursued horizontally in 1976 in Squares D1 toD11, and D16. Rich waterlogged remains included houses and their contents,a pataka storehouse, cooking shelters and canoes.

5. In 1977 and 1978 excavation dealt with particular problems that remained:• Square DD was dug in Area D on a different orientation to the previous grid to

investigate the lowest level.

Excavations and site history at Kohika 47

• Squares D12–15 were dug as a discontinuous trench to establish the stratigraphicrelations between Area A at the top of the mound and Area D at its edge.

• Square D17 was dug to collect samples of pollen and sediment.• An effort was made to locate the palisade on the western side of the site.• Other miscellaneous tasks included making a contour map, establishing eleva-

tion in relation to the tidal data, and the burial and retrieval of thermal cells forobsidian hydration calibration.

6. An extensive survey of stratigraphic cores was made in the vicinity of Kohika. In1967 A. Pullar of the Soil Bureau made 11 cores in this part of the Rangitaiki Plains.He visited Kohika during the excavations in 1975 and 1976 and made a further 27cores; the information is shown in Figure 2.3. The University of Auckland teammade some 20 cores both within and close to Kohika in 1976, and another 10 inassociation with M. McGlone in 1978. In the same year, I. Lawlor inspected theagricultural drain sections near Kohika as part of his thesis research (Lawlor 1979).This chapter concludes with a discussion of the area, very rich in waterlogged arte-

facts, previously dug by Whakatane and District Historical Society members. Hence-forth it is referred to as the HS Area. The account is based on their brief notes andsketches made at the time, some discussions with this author and also on informationextrapolated from the university investigations.

Excavations in Area AArea A was on the dry part of Kohika and expected to produce different evidencefrom the swampy margins of the mound. A continuous area of more than 70 squaremetres was investigated.

Volcanic ash and disturbance on the moundExcavations revealed only a few small patches of intact Taupo Ash on the dune itself.No intact Kaharoa Tephra was found either, but this was to be expected because it isgenerally masked by black topsoil on the dune ridges of the Rangitaiki Plains anddifficult to identify (Pullar 1985). However, the upper layers in Area A also have theappearance of a mixed deposit. We know that the inland dunes of the plains werefavoured for gardening in prehistory and can be confident that this took place atKohika.

Moreover, the bed of Tarawera Ash that lay undisturbed in the swamp was alsomissing on the mound and has been mixed into the soil since AD 1886. Whether thiswas due to Maori gardening or recent conversion of the land to pasture is not known.If the upper part of the deposit was mixed by machine, it did not reach very deep,because several late intrusive burials in the site, which were the highest cultural fea-tures, were not badly smashed up. However, we found them to be in generally poorcondition, due to exposure to severe weathering.

StratigraphyExcavation followed the natural stratigraphy in 5 cm spits. Cultural items were mostlyhand-picked but samples were taken regularly for sieving and flotation. Soil sampleswere collected from every layer and further bulk samples were returned to the laboratory

48 Kohika

for processing (Lawlor 1979). Some representative section drawings in Squares A1and A5 are shown in Figure 4.2. Plate 4.2 shows the excavation in Square A1 Extensionin progress.

Layer A consisted of currently grassed black topsoil. Layer B was a mixed sandysubsoil with pumice dispersed throughout. Pieces of pumice up to about 1 cm in diam-eter occur in the airborne Taupo Ash at Kohika while larger pieces were sea-rafted.These normally ranged in size up to about 10 cm but some large pumice boulderswere discovered. Layer B was usually divided into upper and lower levels, B1 and B2.While they were similar in texture and composition, B1 was commonly more brownin colour and B2 rather more stained grey with charcoal. Much of the charcoal scatteredthrough Layer B is likely to result from burning of vegetation and tillage of the soil.However, lower down in the deposit, and especially where associated with features,the charcoal has a different origin and more integrity. It is likely that much of theobsidian and the scattered small cooking stones in Layer B are out of primary con-

text, too. Notwithstandingthe mixing, there is variabilityin the layer – as shown, forexample, by lenses of denserpumice in some places.

Layer C consisted of thebrown sterile sand of theformer dune without the pum-ice that arrived some timeafter its formation. At theLayer B/C interface was a fewcentimetres’ depth of mottledmaterial resulting from theinteraction of the layers bynatural soil processes. Thiswas also the zone in which ex-cavation detected many fea-tures and some disturbancesthat were dug into Layer C.The fills of these featuresshowed some variation incolour and texture, but allshared a basic compositionsimilar to the material oflower Layer B.

Features and chronologyA plan of excavated featuresis shown in Figure 4.3. Mostof these were found at essen-tially the one level, the topof Layer C, but clearly theywere not all of the same age.Three means of inferring rela-tive chronology were (1) the

Figure 4.2Some represen-tative sectiondrawings fromArea A


evidence of stratigraphy and the intercutting of features, (2) the tentative evidence ofdifferent fills of features, and (3) the pattern of features in plan. Of these only theintersection of features was reliable, but the other evidence did not contradict it. Anumber of feature types were found.

Bins

There were five bins more than 1 m long in the excavated area. At least three of thesehad small stakeholes around them that probably supported light roofs. An examplefrom Square A3 is shown in Plate 4.3, and a cross-section of the same structure at alater stage of excavation in Plate 4.4. The bins do not appear to be part of other largerstructures, as known from other sites. In age, none of the bins cut any earlier feature.

Pits

There were seven pits, all distinguished from bins by being clearly larger. They includedboth round-ended and rectangular plans and there is nothing remarkable about them.Alignments of the pits suggest some contemporaneity among them, at different times

Figure 4.3A plan ofthe excavatedfeatures inArea A

50 Kohika

(Fig. 4.3). Further, whereas most pits were found to intersect with other pits, asshown in Plate 4.5 (only one did not), pits did not cut any other kind of feature. Thuswe may conclude that both bins and pits were generally earlier than other kinds ofstructure. We cannot tell the time relations of pits and bins because of their mutuallyexclusive distribution, but this probably indicates that the two were sometimescontemporary.

Ovens and firepits

There were more than 20 of these and some of the stratigraphically younger ones stillcontained cooking stones; earlier ones had been raked out. Ovens and firescoops cutinto the fills of pits and they also overlay one another. Where any relevant evidenceexists, ovens were younger than both pits and bins, but there was no indication of thetime interval between them.

Burials

Five late burials were found in the top of the mound in Area A. These were the shal-lowest features and were generally picked up within Layer B. They were not interruptedby any other feature, which supports a young age. Indeed, it seems certain that theburials were late and intrusive and occurred after Kohika had been abandoned as asettlement. The burials were flexed and primary and the bones had been in articulationat the time of interment. While observations and notes were made in the field by G.Barnett, a physical anthropologist, any remains that had been moved were reburied atthe end of the excavation exactly where they had been found. This was the preferenceof both Maori elders consulted and the director.

Other above-ground structures?

One might expect people to have built houses on top of Kohika so as to be as high aspossible above the water, but there is no current evidence for it. However, it was sens-ible to use the top of the mound for storage, to keep the bottoms of pits as far aspossible above the water table.

In Figure 4.3 there is a line of three slots in Square A4, in the northern one ofwhich were the remains of a split plank. Excavations in swamp sites in the Waikatoand in other parts of Kohika have shown that standing planks in bedding slots wasone form of house construction in prehistoric New Zealand. A second single slot withthe surviving butt of a plank was found 1.40 m to the east of the first one, in SquareA3. However, a supposed hut or house that included the two would be implausiblynarrow and the line of just three slots is too short. Obviously, some minor above-ground structure stood there, but what it was is by no means clear.

In Area A there is no unambiguous floor plan as outlined by the remains of walls.There is no physical floor and there is no distribution of artefacts or debris to implyone. However, all these kinds of evidence for housing were found in Area D at Kohika,while the wooden parts of houses themselves were recovered from the adjacentswamp. As we know what houses look like elsewhere at Kohika, there is no reason topropose any for Area A. Various alignments of postholes shown in Figure 4.3 mightsuggest structures, however. For example, running roughly east–west across SquaresA1 and A2 is an alignment of postholes that was possibly a shelter for a similar align-ment of fireplaces just to the south.

Area A sequence

To summarise, the sequence of major activity in Area A was storage followed by cooking(however, it should be remembered that Kohika was quite large enough to accommodate


the spatial variation of activities). Then came abandonment. Afterwards, peoplereturned to bury their dead in what was to them, perhaps, an ancestral site. Thereis no evidence for any considerable duration of settlement in Area A but, clearly, thesuperimposition of structures shows some elapsed time. Nor is there evidence forany interval during occupation, although that might be elusive anyway. However, thegeneral pattern conforms to what is understood about other parts of the site.

Excavations in Area BOne basic feature shared by Areas B, C and D is that they all made contact with thesame natural swamp stratigraphy, although they interacted with it in different ways.Experience has shown that comparisons between areas can assist the interpretationof each, so this approach is taken in the following discussion.

Area B was selected for excavation because of the interesting material thrown outby the drain digger. Squares B1 and B2 were located inside the defended site perimeter(Fig. 4.1) but B2 was abandoned at a depth of about 30 cm. Square B3 was dug eastof the agricultural drain to investigate the area that lay clearly outside the site, beyondthe palisade. Square B4 was carefully located to straddle the perimeter of the site alongthe line of the palisade.

Site structure and history at Square B1Square B1 encountered a new kind of deposit. While it was still inside the site, therewas no in situ dune sand. Instead, it was in an area where the mound was artificiallyexpanded but had not yet reached the palisade that separated dry land from lake.Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show, respectively, the north and south sections of Square B1, andFigure 4.6 is a plan of features at the base of the excavated square. Plate 4.6 showsexcavation in progress and Plate 4.7 shows some detail at the base of the culturaldeposit.

The first essential point to note about the bottom of Square B1 is the natural se-quence of the bed of airfall Kaharoa Tephra overlain by lacustrine silt, then followedby peat, that underlies the cultural deposit (Fig. 4.5). It follows that the mound hadspread sideways over these natural sediments of shallow lake and swamp duringoccupation. Cultural material was found only from the upper part of the peat, indi-cating that there had been a considerable time of peat growth after the Kaharoa eventand before occupation of the site. Nevertheless, both the sterile lower peat and theupper part of the pale olive silt below were stained by the cultural material above.Moreover, unlike the situation in Squares B3 and B4 (see below), there was no floodalluvium in B1 because at the time of the flood the perimeter of the site already laybeyond the excavated square. The flood could not reach it here, inside the site.

The source of the sediment in the cultural layers of Square B1 was sand from thedune itself together with other occupational debris. Much of the activity that relatedto the lateral expansion of the site in Area B took place a little further inland towardsArea A, which indicates that the two were broadly contemporaneous.

Although Area B was contiguous with Area A, none of the structures characteristicof Area A was found in B. Also absent were artificial floors (of largely sterile dunesand or reworked tephra quarried from elsewhere), such as occur in Area D. No livingsurfaces were found in the 20 square metres excavated in Area B, although there areindications of a house nearby that was not found (see below).

52 Kohika

Figure 4.4Square B1,north section

The cultural deposit in Square B1 accumulated around three substantial standingposts, all more than 20 cm in diameter. Two of these can be seen in Plate 4.7 while thethird was still to be excavated at that stage. The plan of the excavation (Fig. 4.6)shows the three posts in the northern part of the square set in wider holes originallydug for them to stand in. Also shown in the southern part of the square are threesimilar large holes that do not hold posts, and two of them can be seen in Plate 4.7. Itis probable that these holes formerly held posts that were drawn, because otherwisethe timber would still survive below the water table. Thus there is evidence for some

Figure 4.5Square B1,south section


substantial construction in Square B1 and also for change. The remaining posts arelarge and capable of supporting a considerable load, and there could be others beyondthe excavated area, but there was no building at ground level for there is no trace of afloor. Currently the posts lie inside the line of lighter kanuka posts that form the pal-isade, probably too far away to be part of a raised defensive stage or entrance. Theseveral valuable artefacts found in the vicinity could suggest a raised storehouse onthe posts.

The composition of the cultural layers was unremarkable. The section drawings(Figs 4.4 and 4.5) show that the original topsoil of Square B1 was covered by somedepth of overburden from the modern ditch. A small greenstone chisel from the ditchwas found in this spoil in Square B1 and a fine greenstone pendant was found at thesame level in Square B2; clearly, they both came from the agricultural ditch. The ab-sence of intact airfall Tarawera Ash below the topsoil conforms to the situation overthe whole mound above the swamp. An upper layer of brown soil, flecked with orange,had virtually no cultural component and is interpreted as a soil profile that formedafter the abandonment of Kohika but was within reach of more recent disturbancefrom the surface. The occupation soil in Square B1 was a deposit of mixed sedimentand cultural material derived mainly from the sand dune nearby. Every sixth bucket of

Figure 4.6Square B1, planof features atthe base of theexcavation

54 Kohika

material was wet-sieved through a 5 mm screen and was found to contain scatteredcharcoal, occasional cooking stones, flakes of obsidian, freshwater mussel epidermis,bone, wood chips and some flecks of ochre. The matrix of the deposit was sandy,grading to more silty and moist, and then peaty, with increasing depth. There werescatters of pumice sand and sporadic pumice chunks. The posthole fill low in the de-posit (Fig. 4.5) was derived from occupation sediment above but was turning to peat.The fine lens of pumiceous sand shown at the interface of the sterile lower peat andthe diatomaceous silt below arrived by natural agency.

Site structure and history of Square B3Square B3 was outside the site and the lake bed was covered by alluvium from a floodthat happened while people were living at Kohika. Above it there was further peatgrowth in the interval after the village was abandoned. It lay close to the drainageditch (Plate 4.8), which made it difficult to excavate, because drain water flowed throughthe bed of airfall Kaharoa Tephra, acting as an aquifer. An external sump/test pitwas dug to protect fragile deposits in the square. When both Squares B3 and B4 near-by were getting down to the water table, the main sludge pump was moved acrossfrom Area D to keep the water level under control in both excavations while theywere finished and recorded.

Figure 4.7 records the stratigraphy of B3 and Plate 4.9 shows a late stage of ex-cavation and the bagging of waterlogged remains. Below the topsoil in the upper deposit,a post-flood meander channel can be seen in Plate 4.8 cutting into the top of the tephraalluvium below. Filling this meander channel was an Upper Peat (see below) in whichlay the bed of airfall Tarawera Tephra. The growth of peat between the alluvium andthe Tarawera indicates an interval of time. In the base of this peat some fragments of

Figure 4.7Square B3,east section

SN 2.001.00

B3 East Section

silty peat

sedge peat

upper peat

lower peat 1

lower peat 2

pumiceousalluviumwith siltlenses

grey pumice

white pumice

grey pumice sand

topsoil

Tarawera Ash

silt lens

silt lenses


unworked wood and a flake of obsidian could relate to the flood event itself, ratherthan to post-flood activity.

A dramatic flood

Life at Kohika was interrupted by the sudden arrival of a deep deposit of alluvium.The stratigraphic sections at this part of Kohika correspond to a variant of Pullar’s(1985) soil type Onc (Omehue Coarse Sandy Loam), a poorly drained gley soil witha thin cover of Tarawera Ash over pumiceous Kaharoa alluvium, on a sub-surface ofsand and gravels and with occasional thin layers of diatomaceous earth. The distributionof this type is shown in Figure 2.3 (above), and at Kohika there were lower peats andsilts as well. Clearly, the alluvium arrived as a local but sudden event and it appearsto have been similar to modern floods. For example, the area of Pullar’s Ran soil typeshows the distribution of alluvium deposited in the flood of 1964 (Fig. 2.3). Typically,the passage of a cyclonic weather system across the Bay of Plenty is accompanied byhigh rainfall in the catchment of the rivers that cross the plains. Strong on-shorenortheasterly winds back up the floodwaters, particularly when the tides are high. In1964 the Tarawera River overflowed its banks not far upstream from Kohika duringjust such an event. Alluvial sediments consisting mainly of Kaharoa-derived materialsthat were already in the swamp were carried by the floodwater and redeposited main-ly in the meander channels that crossed the swamp at that time.

The prehistoric flood deposit at Kohika was laid down in a short time, probablyduring a single period of bad weather. There were bands of reworked tephra in whichthe sediments were size-graded. At the very bottom of the alluvium were pieces ofpumice up to 4 cm in diameter and waterworn greywacke stones up to 6–7 cm. Clearly,there was some variation in the energy of floodwaters during the event as silty lensesformed among the bands of pumice sand. The alluvium also contained odd bits ofdebris, such as water-rolled charcoal and pieces of stick, that had been gathered up inthe floodwaters. But no cultural material or peat growth or palaeosol has been foundin this deposit, even though some hundreds of metres of drain and excavated sectionin the locality have been carefully examined (Lawlor 1979).

The arrival of half a metre or more of fill around the lakeshore meant it was nolonger normally possible to reach parts of the site by canoe. While this would havebeen of only minor significance in the context of wider swamp history, it was moreserious to the people of Kohika. From this time on, in every excavated area, the amountof cultural evidence is minimal and much of that can be attributed to later disturbanceof the upper deposit.

Below the alluvium two natural layers of peat divided into an upper layer of sedgepeat with rushes, and a lower layer of more silty peat. Cultural material was founddown to the interface between them. It included scattered wood chips, coils of ratavine, fragments of bracken and miscellaneous sticks. There were pieces of gourd shell,cooking stones and a few patches of dumped ash and fishbone. A wooden hair combat the interface of the two peats was a valuable find. The lakeshore in Square B3 at thetime of occupation was evidently shallow water and reeds with various flotsam andjetsam. However, there was an important exception in three long adze-dressed woodenposts that were found lying across the northern part of the square, with no ends inview. They give the appearance of having been laid together at the wet margins of thesite with the intention of retrieving and using them later. While these posts were foundclose to the three empty postholes in the peat at the bottom of Square B1 from whichthree posts were evidently removed, the ones in B3 were of smaller diameter. Lyingabove the posts in the Square B3 peat was a long dressed totara plank that protrudedfrom the northern baulk. It seems that one extra dimension to the use of the swampy

56 Kohika

margins of Kohika was the occasional storage of wooden items, and the more frequentstorage of vine in water to keep it supple.

Site structure and history in Square B4With both interior and exterior strata established, a transect of posthole bores betweenthem found the actual edge of the site and the location for Square B4. The informationit provides is striking. Plates 4.10–14 show stages of the excavation and Figure 4.8, adrawing of the west section of the square, provides relevant stratigraphic information.

To control drainage while digging below the water table, a deep external sump thatdoubled as a test pit was dug outside the west section at the northern end. Into thiswas placed a metal drum with perforated holes to allow water to flow but to reduceerosion of fragile sediments. Water was then pumped from this drum. A narrow drainthat went down with excavation led from a small seepage sump inside the excavationthrough the baulk to the sump outside. A point of stratigraphic interest is that thissump was the only place in Area B where the original pre-Taupo sand-dune surfacewas encountered as it sloped down under the swamp sediments that formed above it,long before the site was occupied.

Square B4 was a 2.5 x 2 m unit that crossed transversely from the flat area of theswamp to the rising incline of the mound, which explains why the topsoil becamemore moist and peaty in the lower end of the square. Below the topsoil the edge of themound was perfectly defined by the presence of Tarawera Tephra outside the site andits absence inside. Since it fell in AD 1886, the tephra has been mixed into the soileverywhere on the dry part of the site and now lies around it like a tide-mark. InB4, the ash varied in thickness and had gone down in pockets under the weight ofcattle hooves.

Below the Tarawera Tephra, lay a peat that is separated into two bands in Figure4.8, although it stopped some 30–40 cm short of the end of the ash as the squarebecame drier. This Upper Peat, as we have called it, was found generally in the swamp

Figure 4.8Square B4,west section


around the mound in both Areas B and C and indicates former freshwater stands.Sealed under it in the southwestern corner of Square B4 was a wooden board in poorcondition as a result of periodic drying of the upper deposits (Plate 4.10). It wasreinforced in a wooden frame prior to being lifted (Plate 4.11).

Below the peat, as can be seen in Figure 4.8, was a post-flood deposit and the groundsurface that existed at the time of the flood can be traced inland. This soil was a grey-brown, or grey-black, gritty mixture of sand with scattered seeds and lenses and lumpsof pumice. Every sixth bucket of this soil was wet-sieved through a 5 mm screen. Itwas found to contain virtually no cultural material (apart from scattered charcoal)and, as the deposit sloped down across the square, the soil became increasingly sterile.The same inference arises as before: there is little evidence for continuing occupationof substance at Kohika following the flood.

Prior to the arrival of the floodwash, an occupation soil was forming inside thekanuka palisade post shown in Figure 4.8. This was the same deposit as we have seenalready in Square B1 and consists of occupation debris that spread laterally from theexposed sand-dune nearby. The pre-flood sediment was stained with charcoal and itsmatrix graded from sandy silt to peat with increasing depth and moisture. Sievedcomponents include wood fragments that were often partly burnt, scattered shellfishremains including freshwater mussel, a few dog coprolites, discarded cooking stonesand flakes of obsidian.

The flood deposit itself is nowhere revealed more starkly than in Square B4. Plate4.12 shows the sharp division between the dark cultural interior and the clean whitepumice exterior as one sights along the agricultural drain that closely follows the formerpalisade. Plate 4.13 shows the detail of half a dozen kanuka posts in the palisade, allsurrounded by a homogeneous layer of grey alluvial silt, and also shows the rippledeffect that the water had at the shoreline. Plate 4.14 and Figure 4.8 show how thefloodwater washed tephra sand between the palisade posts into the site. The zonewhere sand and silt interdigitate is complex and delicate. While some silt was evidentlyborne by the flood, some here was washed away from the shore. The distinguishedsoil scientist A. Pullar saw this section on one of his visits to Kohika and observed thatthe deposition of the pumice and formation of the lapped shoreline could have takenplace within a day during the flooding of a braided river channel (pers. comm. 1976).

Immediately below the pumice alluvium was a bed of rushes that grew at the baseof the palisade at the time of the flood. Stratigraphically below this again was thesame Lower Peat as defined in both Squares B1 and B3 (and also Areas C and D). Aselsewhere, cultural material was found only in its upper part because the lower parthad grown before people lived at Kohika. One further feature of the Lower Peat inSquare B4 was that the layer became more sterile as one followed the deposit from theoutside to the inside of the site. As in Square B1, the dry land that built up inside thepalisade in this part of Area B overlay lake-bed sediments that had formed during anearlier time when the edge of the site was further inshore.

Excavations in Area CArea C was excavated in 1975 only. Squares C1 and C12 were placed near the HistoricalSociety dig to investigate the deposit that had produced such a wealth of waterloggedwooden items (Fig. 4.1). The further purpose of Squares C7 and C10 was to extendthe sample to the high and dry area of the site.

58 Kohika

Site structure and history at Squares C1 and C12Figures 4.9 and 4.10 are drawings of the south and west sections of Square C1 andPlate 4.15 is a general view of the same squares during excavation. The mainstratigraphic units will now be familiar after the discussion of Area B. They includethe topsoil and Upper Peats 1 and 2 containing Tarawera Ash. Below this came thedeposit of alluvial tephra, and the number and order of interleaved bands of pumicesand and silt were very similar to those in Squares B3 and B4. Under the floodwash,Lower Peat 2 was a dark brown peaty silt followed by the Lower Peat 1, which was abrown sedge peat with rushes. A natural interface separated the two peaty layers inArea C. The lowest layer shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.10 is lacustrine silt that overlaythe bed of airfall Kaharoa Tephra.

Cultural deposition

Sparse cultural material occurred through the 6–7 cm depth of Lower Peat 1, at theinterface, and intruded into the top 2–3 cm of Lower Peat 2. It contained adzed woodchips, scraps of worked wood up to 40 cm in length, and odd broken sticks. Much ofthe wood showed signs of burning. In Square C12 there were also six obsidian flakes,a few fire-cracked stones, a light scatter of charcoal and some fragments of gourd

Figure 4.9Square C1,south section

Figure 4.10Square C1,west section


shell. The items found were the waste from woodworking and other activities on higherground nearby. This interpretation is supported by the generally pristine surface ofthe underlying silt, which had an extremely soft consistency.

People did not actually live in this part of the site because it was shallow lake at thetime, which implies that the Historical Society’s adjacent excavation could have beenlocated on an outlying part of the dune. No finished wooden artefacts floated intoArea C from the HS Area or from the University Area D, a little further away. Reedsand raupo growing at the lakeshore probably prevented that.

Site history after abandonment

Plate 4.15 shows that a late meander channel formed in the swamp around this north-eastern part of the mound and crossed both squares on their long axis. The channelremoved some of the upper alluvium but peat continued to grow. The sediments herewere diatomaceous and indicate freshwater stands. Lying below Upper Peats 1 and 2at the bottom of the meander channel, and on the upper surface of the floodwash,were some fragments of plaited flax and a broken wooden weeder. However, thesecould have been separated in time from the cultural material below the floodwash bythe flood event itself.

Site history at Squares C7 and C10Squares C7 and C10 were located on the mound in the northeastern part of the siteinside the palisade. The soils here derive from dune sand with tephra mixed by garden-ing and occupational debris. Both Squares C7 and C10 represent substantial cookingactivity although their features differ in detail. Figure 4.11 is a drawing of the southsection of Square C7. Under the turf the deposit had a dark brown peaty layer mixedwith Tarawera Tephra, and below this again were numerous fireplaces and lenses ofdiverse materials, including pumice sand (quarried from elsewhere), dune sand andcharcoal-rich soils. Two long parallel features with dark fill had cut into a log lying inthe dune sand. Our interpretation is that these were fire-pits extended horizontallywith re-use and that the log was intruded on by burning. It appears that the log waspresent in the site before occupation and does not represent woodworking. At Kohika

Figure 4.11Square C7,south section

60 Kohika

some substantial tree trunks have survived at or below the water table on the dune,indicating that forest trees once grew here on the Taupo-age shoreline. Large buriedstumps have also been found on dunes further inland, suggesting that podocarp forestonce flourished there (Pullar 1985).

Figure 4.12 is a drawing of the north section of Square C10. At the top of thedeposit were the recent remains of two cabbage tree stumps, which overlay a strati-graphic tangle of hangi structures that had been made, remade and sometimesplugged with sand. The most recent of these still had cooking stones in place. In thelower deposit was a squarish feature 1.5 m across made of imported yellow sand,with a raised edge and associated postholes (Plate 16). One might guess that it waspart of a cooking shelter, but it was too disturbed to tell.

In general, these two squares represent continuous activity and especially foodpreparation, as distinct from other high parts of the site that have indicated differentfunctions. However, an excavated area of only 12.5 square metres of the dry part ofArea C is an insufficient sample to reveal wider patterns of settlement.

Excavations in Area DArea D was located in an embayment on the northern side of the old dune wherepasture met raupo swamp (Figs 4.1 and 4.13). In 1975 Squares D1 and D2 estab-lished vertical stratigraphy in this low-lying part of the site and revealed several super-imposed living horizons. In 1976 Squares D1 and D2 were completed, while D3–11and D16 were opened to expose the horizontal dimensions. Then in 1977 and 1978excavation units D12–15 formed a discontinuous trench that was dug to establishstratigraphic continuity between Area D and Area A on the top of the mound. A fur-ther square, DD, was dug over the southeastern corner of D2 and the northern part ofD5, but on a different alignment, to investigate the lowest level. Finally, Square D17was used to sample the palynological history of the swamp, as described in Chapter 3.In all, approximately 120 square metres were excavated in Area D.

Figure 4.12Square C10,north section


Excavation methodsArea D was marginal to the water tableand, after prolonged rain, water began toflow out of the lowest holes (Plate 4.17).Baulks were used to divide the excavationarea into pumping units. They were 0.5 mwide and protected by planking. We beganin 1975 with a single pump but from 1976had a large-capacity pump that could con-trol water in four excavation units at onceor, when there were high volumes ofwater, in two units. Baulks also providedlong straight sections for recording andfacilitated the removal of spoil. As ex-cavation proceeded, baulks were progres-sively removed where possible.

The wet deposit was fragile and excav-ators worked on boards to protect it. Theflow of water was found to be of benefitinsofar as it continuously washed the de-posit as it was excavated, which made forexcellent visibility. However, where theflow was strong or the baulks fragile, itcaused erosion. One remedy was to stepbaulks, which was done occasionally. Also,test pits within excavation units doubledas sumps for drainage. In some places, such as Square D1, drains were led out of theexcavation to exterior sumps that were kept deeper than the level of excavation.Perforated cans and drums, were used to collect water in sumps while retaining thedeposit.

Samples of soil were wet-sieved regularly during excavation as a check on the qual-ity of data collection, and bulk samples of all layers were taken for later analysis inthe laboratory (Lawlor 1979). Wooden items were washed and treated with a polyethyl-eneglycol solution as they came out of the ground and then triple-bagged in plastic.Rolls of plastic tubing were kept for this purpose on site. At the end of the 1976season a railway truck was needed to bring all the material back to Auckland. Tocomplicate matters, at this time no suitable conservation laboratory was available toreceive it, so interim storage was used until a new laboratory was fitted out.

Stratigraphy and interpretationThe vertical stratigraphy will be considered first, then the horizontal disposition ofthe layers. Figure 4.14 is a drawing of all four sections of Squares D1 and D2. Theupper layers were found to cover the whole excavation unit. The topsoil was a blacksandy silt loam, mainly in grass. Below this was a layer of brown peaty silt, and sam-ples collected by A. Pullar and analysed at the New Zealand Soil Bureau containeddiatoms (McGlone and Pullar 1976). This was a new discovery for soils of the Rangi-taiki Plains (Pullar 1985), but it caused no surprise in this location on the shores ofLake Kohika. Also within this layer of peaty silt was a continuous bed of airfallTarawera Tephra of AD 1886.

Figure 4.13Area D,the layout ofexcavation units

62 Kohika

Figure 4.14Squares D1and D2, allsections


Below the upper 20 cm of deposit, the tops of standing wooden posts began to beuncovered where they had rotted off at the water table. Plate 4.18 shows they formeda line that crossed the excavation obliquely from the southeast of Square D1 to thenortheast of D2. This line marks an important boundary for all the layers below,distinguishing between an inside area associated with structures and an outside areaassociated with the swampy margins of the site which, nevertheless, contained richcultural materials. Thus layers of different material were found to be contemporarywith one another at, or near, this boundary.

The section drawings in Figure 4.14 show where the various layers began and ended.Inside the site perimeter was a layer of black sandy silt loam that has two divisions.The upper one represents a buried topsoil (McGlone and Pullar 1976) and was sub-stantially free of cultural material. Outside the perimeter fence was a layer of cleanwhite pumice sand derived from alluvial Kaharoa Tephra. Examination of the sec-tions of the modern agricultural drains that surround Kohika, together with an extensivepattern of cores, indicates that this layer corresponded to the alluvial tephra alreadyfound in Areas B and C. The distribution of the deposit varied around the site insofaras it related to the idiosyncratic nature of the flood. The alluvium was deepest in theformer meander channels and in some areas did not occur at all. The differences alsofollowed the amount of shelter found progressively around the eastern to northernsides of the mound from the flood that came from the Tarawera River. In Area B itwas 0.7 m deep, in Area C 0.5 m deep and it was shallowest in Area D, typicallyabout 0.15 m. This event provided a definitive stratigraphic link between the threeareas and marked the simultaneous end of occupation.

Below the alluvium lay the lower division of the black sandy silt loam that coveredthe whole of Squares D1 and D2. Whereas the upper division of this loam inside theline of posts was a buried topsoil, the lower division, which also extended outside theposts, was an occupation surface containing cultural material such as wood, charcoaland cooking stones. A sharp boundary between the upper and lower black loams wasobserved during excavation and confirmed in the field by A. Pullar (McGlone andPullar 1976).

This occupation surface formed above the highest of three artificial floors in Area D(Plate 4.19), named the White House horizon during the excavation. It had an actualhouse floor and adjacent areas of cooking and dumping, and consisted of 5–10 cmdepth of the clean Kaharoa tephra alluvium that was readily available in the swampnearby. While the laid floor itself was confined to the area inside the line of standingposts, a fine horizon of the same gritty material could be traced outside the posts overthe whole of the excavation of Squares D1 and D2, and beyond. The spatial patternwill be discussed further below.

Under the White House on the same alignment was the Yellow House horizon,which consisted of a laid floor of yellow-grey dune sand that could have been obtainedfrom quarrying in a higher part of the site. The Yellow House floor varied in thicknessup to 20 cm. In some places it lay almost directly below the White House, separatedby an interface only a few centimetres deep. Elsewhere in the sections can be seen ablack sandy occupation layer that built up during the life of the Yellow House horizon.However, there is no indication of any interval of time between the Yellow and Whitehorizons when this part of the site remained unoccupied. It was first one and then theother.

Below the Yellow House floor lay another artificial horizon that followed much thesame alignment across Squares D1 and D2. However, this surface was made up of twodifferent materials that met edge-on at a further line of posts running towards theinside of the site at right angles to the posts marking the outer edge of the White and

64 Kohika

Yellow floors above. To the west of this new post alignment was the Bright Yellowfloor. It can be seen in the south section of Square D2 (Fig. 4.14) and, again, it reachedthe line of posts diagonally crossing the excavation.

At the same level to the east of the new posts was a contemporaneous floor consist-ing of white silt and smooth water-rolled pebbles varying in diameter from 5–10 cm(Plate 4.20). The white silt is the same lacustrine silt sediment widely available in theswamp around Kohika. In the floor it appeared to have been laid in basketfuls andpacked with stones. The stones are greywacke and derive ultimately from the catchmentof the Rangitaiki River that formerly flowed nearby. They were available locally asgravels associated with the pre-Taupo shoreline of which the stranded sand-dune ofKohika is a remnant.

These three levels of artificial floor were built out from the former edge of the mound,thereby extending the dry land. They lay above sedge peat and silt that had formedpreviously in the swamp. Cultural debris lay in peat outside the perimeter fence beyondthe floors.

Below the artificial floors the stratigraphy corresponds broadly to that describedalready for Areas B and C. Figure 4.14 shows a layer of peat containing cultural materialdown to a band of dense in situ vegetable material at its base. Next came a layer ofsterile peaty silt, and a sample of this from Square D2 was found to contain diatoms(McGlone and Pullar 1976). Excavation below the brown peaty silt is shown in Plate4.21. First came the same layer of pale olive lacustrine silt as elsewhere and beneaththis, again, the bed of airfall Kaharoa Tephra locally some 10 cm deep. The ash actedas an aquifer and exposing it produced a considerable inflow of water. Nevertheless,excavation some 50 cm deeper into the sedge peat that pre-dated the Kaharoa pro-vided no evidence for a human presence.

A question of faultingIt was clear during the excavation of Square D2 that faulting had occurred in theartificial floors, and geological research since the Edgecumbe earthquake of 1987 hasraised a significant issue. Figure 4.14 shows that the Yellow House and the underlyingwhite silt and stone floor both faulted at the same place and time. This left a gap inthe Yellow House floor that was evidently patched (see below). However, the WhiteHouse floor did not drop, and it would surely have done so had it existed at the time,because it was made of fragile sandy tephra with no support other than the layersbelow. This consideration provides an age for the event.

At the time of excavation the faulting was thought to be an event peculiar to Ko-hika as diatomaceous sediments are known to be unstable. Also, the site of Ngarotohad revealed some fault-like features (Shawcross 1968), but that case was very differentbecause there was a large number of floors, many just 2–3 cm thick, laid over severalmetres of cultural deposit that was above the water table and therefore able to dry outfrom time to time and to move. The situation was very different from Area D of Kohika,where there were only three, much thicker floors resting directly on swamp depositsthat never dried out during prehistory.

Recent geological research has provided a more likely explanation. A series of faultslies on both sides of the Whakatane Graben (Nairn and Beanland 1987), as illustratedin Figure 2.1. The existence of many of these was unsuspected because the surfaceevidence was concealed beneath recent alluvium on the flood plains. The faults atMatata, located just a few hundred metres from Kohika, have been described by Otaet al. (1998). A radiocarbon date for the most recent event has given an age of less


than 250 years (Ota et al. 1998). This was probably the cause of the faulting at Kohika.The chronology is about right – in fact, the dating of the occupation at Kohika canprovide a more precise date for the geological event at Matata than is currently available.

It seems that living at Kohika during late prehistory had its moments of drama.People there experienced an earthquake that foreshadowed the one of 1987. Moreover,occupation of the site was ended by flood just as the major flood of 1892 wiped outthe first attempts of Europeans to settle on the Rangitaiki Plains (Gibbons 1990).

The spatial evidence from Area DWooden artefacts from the peat in Area D indicate houses and pataka. The purpose ofthe laid floors was to provide clean living surfaces and to raise the ground above waterlevel, as at other swamp pa.

White House horizon

Figure 4.15 shows a house floor on the White House horizon measuring 5.40 x 3.65m orientated with its long axis approximately east–west. One end of the house wasaligned to the posts crossing Squares D1 and D2 that evidently formed the perimeterfence of the site.

The wider horizon extended beyond the house with a clear distinction between theclean floor of the house and the stained area outside it. There were many cookingstructures. The most recent contained cooking stones but others had been raked outand there was dispersed midden and other debris. The pumice floor had been damagedby use and Figure 4.15 shows what remains. Much of the house itself was in SquaresD2 and D5 (Plate 4.22), cooking took place in D4 (Plate 4.23) and a large number ofdiscrete rubbish-dumping events were identified in the adjoining Square D3. Further,although the extent of the floor was distinct, a wider horizon could be traced by thespread of its sediment surface beyond the perimeter posts.

As described above, the horizon was covered by a shallow occupation surface ofblack sandy silt loam. Then, inside the posts only, the same loam matrix continuedabove it but without cultural material and was identified as a buried topsoil. Outsidethe site at the same level was the white alluvium. While in places this washed betweenthe perimeter posts, it is significant that it did not penetrate over the house floor itself(Fig. 4.15). This means that a standing house kept the flood deposit out, andcorroborates the interpretations already given for Areas A, B and C that the site wasoccupied until the flood and then evidence for occupation virtually ends. Diatomaceouspeaty silt formed above the floodwash and buried topsoil and, within it, lay theTarawera Tephra, whose intact distribution marks the water level in 1976 (Figure 4.15).

Yellow House horizon

The Yellow House floor was made of reworked local dune sand and was more extensivethan the White House floor. Because it was lower in relation to the water table, morethan a dozen wooden posts survived along the two side walls of a large house some7.25 x 5.35 m. Its long axis was east–west and the western end was aligned to thesame perimeter posts as the White House, built directly on top. The distribution ofyellow-grey sand is shown in Figure 4.16 and Plate 4.24. Again, there is a distinctionbetween the clean interior of the house and the stained and more damaged contemporarysurface outside. As in the case of the White House horizon, cooking took place at thesouthern side of the house, where firescoops were found, some with cooking stones insitu and scattered food waste. Occupation had damaged and removed parts of the

66 Kohika

yellow sand floor to reveal a black sandy layer below. In some places the yellow-greyfloor was repaired by patches of clean sand as revealed by lenses of black below them(Plate 4.25). During the excavation, records were kept of the characteristics of theposthole fills, but it was difficult to distinguish postholes that belonged to this periodof occupation from those that intruded later from above. However, there is no suchdoubt about the remains of the actual posts found along the sides of the house. Muchof the area outside the house was probably uncovered, but some stakes in Square D3probably relate to a simple shelter, and recovered timbers support this (see below). Tothe north of the house in Square D6, an area of laid but stained yellow sand extendedinside the palisade. This part of the shore would have been a suitable landing-placeand several canoe parts were found in both Area D and the HS Area nearby.

Apart from the typical wear and tear of the Yellow House floor, there is some par-ticular and interesting damage in the northern extension of Square D5 and the southernextension of Square D6 (Figure 4.16). The east section of Square D2 (Fig. 4.14) showsthis to be precisely where some yellow-grey floor faulted and dropped. The plan draw-ing shows the sand to be missing and the gap filled with a miscellaneous assortment ofwaste timber that relevelled the floor, apparently as a deliberate patch, although no

Figure 4.15Area D, theWhite Househorizon


additional yellow sand was laid on top. Only a small part of the house floor wasaffected, together with a section of the eastern wall. One can only guess at the amountof damage caused to the house that was standing at the time. This event probablydates the most recent earthquake at the Matata Fault, as described above.

The interface between White and Yellow horizons

The interface between the two laid house floors consisted of a lens of dark sand perhaps2–3 cm deep, marked by an extensive scatter of small, freshly adzed wood chips anda number of obsidian flakes. Beyond the houses, a layer of stained sand up to 10 cmdeep had formed during the Yellow House occupation. The lens of wood chips wasundisturbed and there was no sign of any interval of time. Evidently the Yellow Housedid not collapse or rot slowly. It did not burn down either because, although therewas a scatter of very small pieces of charcoal at the interface, there was not the ash or

Figure 4.16Area D, theYellow Househorizon (stake-holes less than10 cm deep arenot shown)

68 Kohika

debris one would expect on the basis of evidence from other sites. It is possible thatthe Yellow House was dismantled, and the evidence from the house parts found in theswamp nearby shows that the houses at Kohika were eminently suited to simpleconstruction and dismantling. The suggestion that an earthquake happened whilethe Yellow House stood may be the explanation. At all events, one house was removedand another, smaller one built in its place in precisely the same spot, and with noarchaeological sign of a delay. The scatter of wood chips and flakes at the interfacemay indeed be the result of building the new house, and these were then covered andprotected from subsequent disturbance by the laying of the White House floorimmediately after the new house itself was built. That is the logical order of eventsbecause, if the floor had been laid before the house was built, one could expect dam-age to the floor to result, but this did not happen.

Bright Yellow floor

A small part of a third level of artificial floors was found in Squares D1 and D2 in1975 and 1976 and later investigated in Square DD, which lay on a different orien-tation. Details are shown in Figure 4.17. Another issue that directed attention to thispart of the site was the large number of coprolites found in the southeastern corner ofSquare D2, although it was later established that these were dog faeces that lay in peatbelow the artificial floors, at which time they were outside the site perimeter.

Figure 4.17Area D, theBright Yellowhorizon


As with the floors above, this horizon ended at the north–south alignment of per-imeter posts, but an additional line of posts crossed Squares D2 and DD inside the siteat right angles to it. To the west was a layer of Bright Yellow dune sand underlying theyellow-grey sand of the Yellow House horizon. This new sand layer could have beenquarried from the top of Kohika itself. East of the line of posts was the artificially laidlayer of white silt with water-rolled greywacke pebbles (both available in the swampnearby), as described above. The two floors of sand and silt were formerly part ofthe same surface. Originally they met at the new east–west line of posts but the BrightYellow sand had been removed in places by later disturbance (Fig. 4.17). Woven alongthe line of posts were long wooden battens, typically 3 cm thick, flexed between thestanding posts and also held in place by wooden pegs. The battens separated the twosides of the floor. Details can be seen in Plates 4.20 and 4.26.

It is probable that one or other of the two adjoining floors was roofed. The author’sopinion during excavation was that it was the Bright Yellow rather than the silt andstone floor, but, without a larger expanse of floor plan to go on, this is conjecture.In Square D3, at the western side of Area D at a contemporary level, there were patchesof woodworking debris and shell midden.

In stratigraphic terms the three superimposed structures in Area D were built with-out appreciable interval. There was no palaeosol, peat or significant cultural debris.While each of the floors and its associated structures may have remained in use forsome time, the conclusion is the same as that derived independently from the evidenceof Areas A, B and C: the duration of Area D was about a few decades. Stratigraphiccorrelations show that all excavated areas of the site were contemporaneous.

Evidence from the peat

The stratigraphy of Squares D1 and D2 outside the area of laid floors is typical ofArea D (Fig. 4.14) and is already familiar. It consisted of a band of sedge peat contain-ing cultural material as far down as a natural layer of flattened reeds that were grow-ing at the time of first occupation. Below this was sterile brown peaty silt. Directlyunderneath the lowest laid floor was a widespread but discontinuous lens of brackenfern that had been deliberately laid as a foundation on the peat, as seen in Plate 4.27.This had been done with some care, for the stems were aligned and no roots were tobe seen. Bands of midden and other debris can be seen in Figure 4.14 spilling awayfrom the edges of the sand floors into the peat. This was collected and recorded bysquare-metre unit. There is evidence for on-going deposition of material by fairlyrandom dumping in the peat outside the perimeter, and the soft matrix would havebeen subject to constant interference by people and dogs, and canoes were drawn upat this part of the lakeshore.

As for the cultural material, there were cooking stones, occasional large pieces ofpumice, waste worked and unworked wood of all sizes and many wood chips. Therewere waterlogged artefacts, various large adzed timbers and poles, a few worked treetrunks and segments of tree-fern trunks apparently dumped for consolidation. Therewere coils of unused lashing vine, pieces of gourd, patches of charcoal and ash withfish bones and scales, seams of dumped marine and freshwater mussel shell. Therewere scattered mammal and bird bones, and dog faeces were abundant. Amongst therubbish were some woven fibre artefacts including lengths of rope and sections of net.Squares D7, D16 and D17 were located clearly beyond the artificial floors, yet theycontained similar material in the corresponding peat layer. D16 produced a spear, awooden beater and a weeding tool, and D17 a paddle with a broken blade, and abroken bailer with a carved handle. Plate 4.28 shows the bow of a composite canoe,

70 Kohika

Figure 4.18Area D, SquaresD12–15, trench

Plate 4.29 the top of a gourd, Plate 4.30 part of an adzed log and a long piece ofplaited rope, and Plate 4.31 a whale vertebra, a spear and a coil of vine.

Squares D12–15: a substantive trenchTowards the end of the excavations at Kohika, the stratigraphic relations betweenAreas A and D were investigated. Seven posthole bores helped to locate four test excav-ations, D12–15, whose locations are shown in Figure 4.1 and section drawings inFigure 4.18. At the lower northern end of the section, Square D12 can be seen partlyto underlap Square D9, which was excavated in a previous year although no deeperthan the Yellow House floor. The southern end of the Yellow House floor was foundin the northern end of Square D12 and the stratigraphy is essentially the same as forArea D. A black occupation soil in upper Square D12 had a sandy matrix and con-tained oven stones, charcoal, wood chips, flakes of obsidian and scattered middenshell and bone. In the lower part of the excavation, the layer of peat contained culturalmaterial similar to the peat outside the site perimeter elsewhere in Area D, althoughthe material in Square D12 belongs to a time when the site perimeter was closer tothe former mound. As in Square DD nearby, at the base of the peat was a lens of reedsthat had grown in situ and patches of bracken fern had been laid. Below the culturaldeposit was the same sterile brown silt and white lacustrine silt that overlay the airfall


Kaharoa Tephra elsewhere. A log was found lying sideways across the excavation, butit was not possible to tell whether it had grown there. It could have been brought in oreven floated to this part of the site.

Square D13 presented a similar situation to Square D12, except at the bottom. Threesubstantial artificial floors were laid as phases in the on-going use of the same raisedarea (Plate 4.32). While these were not continuous with the floors already found tothe north in Area D, they occurred at a stratigraphically equivalent level and werecomposed of the same three distinctive materials. Highest was a white reworked tephrasimilar to the White House floor, next came a yellow-grey dune sand comparable tothe Yellow House floor, and lowest was a clean floor of white silt similar to the one atthe base of Area D. Thus the three different materials were found in the same order asthey had been in Area D. This situation is unlikely to have occurred by chance, and itis probable that the floors in Square D13 were contemporary with the ones some metresaway to the north. In the absence of evidence for surface buildings, this area can beinterpreted as open space in front of the houses in Area D. Under the floors was thetypical occupation debris in the peat that overlies the brown silt. However, at the baseof the excavation there was a difference from the rest of Area D: the lacustrine siltgave way to a pale, silty sand. Evidently, we had reached the top of the buried part ofthe former dune.

Square D14 was still higher on the mound along the D12–15 section (Fig. 4.18).There was still an upper black sandy layer containing charcoal, cooking stones, mid-den, wood chips and so on, but there were a few formal artefacts and a large numberof obsidian flakes, as in Square D13. Artificial build-up in Square D14 was in theform of a thick floor of yellow sand quarried from the dune nearby. Near the base ofthe excavation, only a small deposit of peat remained at this higher elevation, restingon the white silty sand of the former dune surface. The sterile brown silt of Area D aswell as the white lacustrine silt had lensed out at this higher elevation along the D12–15 trench. Lying lengthwise in the bottom of Square D14 was a substantial tree trunkwith no surviving evidence of having been worked (Plate 4.33). This could not havefloated into the site and is interpreted as a tree that grew on the former sand-duneprior to occupation, and like that described already for Square C7. While these trunkslay on the same general orientation, it would be too much to suggest that they wereboth blown down during a single storm, especially as the log in Square D12, whichmay or may not have grown in situ, was found on a different orientation.

Finally, at the top of the D12–15 section, Square D15 exhibited similar stratigraphyto that found already in Area A. There was the same deposit of mixed sandy subsoilwith dispersed pumice in upper and lower divisions, as represented by Layers B1 andB2 in Area A. However, the stratigraphy differed in detail from that typical of Area A,both at the top and the bottom of the section. Below the topsoil in Square D15 wasa version of the brown silty soil found along the length of the D12–15 trench at thislevel and, below that, an additional dark charcoal-rich sand that seemed to be thelocal result of particular burning activity and not the result of any systematic differ-ence in soil process. The composition of the natural basement material was different,too. In this northern part of the mound in Square D15 it was a pale silty sand, whereasin Area A it had been a brown sand. Square D15 was some 20 m away from the AreaA excavation, so evidently there was some minor variation in the natural stratigraphyof the mound.

72 Kohika

Chasing the line of the western palisadesA palisade was found in Areas B and D and exposed in the side of the drain along theeastern side of the site. It was possibly also in the area investigated by the HistoricalSociety (see below). Only a few pa are known to lack a continuous defended perimeterbut, assuming that a palisade encircled Kohika, it proved to be elusive along the west-ern sides of the site. One of the reasons may be that the changes in elevation therewere gradual and the precise edge of the site was not conspicuous. A trench was dugin the southwestern part of the site (Fig. 4.1) but produced no posts. We next tried aline of posthole bores in the vicinity, looking for distinctive natural layers that markedthe border of the site elsewhere, such as the Tarawera Ash and the white reworkedtephra floodwash, but in this low-lying and fairly flat part of the site these two distinctivedeposits did not end on the same line. Some 20 m further around the western sidethere was a more distinct edge. Here the Tarawera Ash stopped as expected and it waspossible to ascertain where the charcoal-stained cultural deposit ended, but no whitealluvium was found outside. The flood deposit was intermittent on this side of the siteand occurred only in pre-existing meander channels in the peat. Finally, at the north-western edge of the site a line of small test holes was dug along a transect (Fig. 4.1)but without the desired result. The basic difficulty was that there was quite a broadarea where the palisades might run. It would have taken an area excavation to findpalisades in the swamp, and the issue did not warrant such an effort. Nor could weexclude the real possibility that the evidence had already been removed when willowtrees were bulldozed from the western side of the site.

Whakatane and District Historical Society excavationsWhen the site was discovered in November 1974, society members inspected the newlyexposed drain sides and dug extensively in the area shown in Figure 4.19, which isbased on their summary field notes and a sketch. Five units 10 metres square weremarked out along the southern side of a new drain running east–west at the northernside of the site, as shown in Figure 4.1. (Squares 2 to 4 were further sub-divided intoirregular sections numbered 1–10, as in Figure 4.19.) Another unit, Square 0, lay onthe eastern side of a drain running north to join the first. Investigations also extendeda few metres beyond the northern drain towards the stopbank with vehicle track ontop (Fig. 4.19).

Parts of the HS Area were among the richest at Kohika. Artefacts were found inthe drain or were located by probing with a gum spear and then dug out. Evidently,there was no substantial removal of spoil during excavation. No precise stratigraphicinformation is available, therefore, but this can be extrapolated from the drain sectionand from adjoining parts of the University Areas C and D. It is clear that the waterloggedartefacts were preserved in peaty deposits lying between the Tarawera and Kaharoatephras. Further, this peat was not sealed by pumice floodwash, which follows fromits sheltered northerly location.

Generally, the area seems to have been stratigraphically variable but similar to, andcontemporary with, University Area D. University Squares C1 and C12 lay to thesouth of HS Squares 1 and 2. The former lay off the mound in an area of soft peat,and there was no firm substrate or artificial sand floor to support occupation there.Also, no wooden artefacts were found in the peat in Squares C1 and C12, as we wouldexpect if they could have floated from the HS Squares 1 and 2 nearby. Reeds andraupo growing around the site could explain the lack of lateral movement, and thisconsideration reinforces the conclusion that items found in HS Squares 1 and 2 were


Figure 4.19Historical Societyinvestigations(with some oftheir notes)

74 Kohika

substantially in situ. Another difference between University Squares C1 and C12and HS Squares 1 and 2 is that the former had a substantial deposit of pumice floodalluvium, which was not generally the case for the HS Area.

Much of the HS Area was evidently still on the dune or dry enough to live on, likeArea D. While the field notes are few, they do record a ‘hard tramp’ layer and thenature of the material found provides evidence for living on the spot, and also forcanoes being drawn up on the lakeshore. The society’s notes, some of which are repro-duced in Figure 4.19, show that in Square 0 charred wood, charcoal and cookingstones were found at the bottom of the drain and this level was the ‘hard tramp’ layer,which indicates that the underlying deposits consisted of dune sand or artificially laidsand such as encountered in Area D. In Square 1 sticks and spears protruded from thedrain side; there was broken gourd shell, some ‘human bone’ tied with flax rope,and a fragment of folded matting (the positions of items shown in Figure 4.19 areapproximate).

Remarkably, in Squares 1 and 2 were many parts of what is currently the earliest-known carved house in New Zealand, together with many diverse household itemsthat are described in other chapters. This was an in situ household stunningly pre-served until 1974. Near this house were considerable quantities of obsidian, includingchunks up to 20 cm thick (not all of which were recovered). To the west of the housein Square 2, and extending through Squares 3 and 4, was an area of densely scatteredwood chips, evidently the result of adzing. The obsidian and the wood chip scatterswere separate but contemporary distributions. Canoe-making is one likely source forthe wood chips, and several parts of canoes (including an unfinished bow) and paddleswere found. A pounamu adze was found in the drain in Square 4.

There were various pumice chunks in Squares 2 and 3. A few had been made intoartefacts, but pumice occurs widely in the dune and derives from sea-rafted pumiceassociated with the Taupo eruption.

There was a lesser concentration of wooden items in Square 4 and the so-called‘tramp layer’ continued through it. Posts described as from a possible ‘palisade’ oc-curred in the drain in Square 5, and this is plausible given that a section of palisadepassed through Area D heading in this general direction at about the same contour.Field notes suggest that flood alluvium reappeared in the drain section around Square5, with peat and then the ‘hard tramp’ layer below it, which generally matches theArea D stratigraphy.

Finally, some evidence from the poupou (house wall planks) found in Square 2 maytell us something about the abandonment of Kohika. These were incomplete, withmost of the bottoms rotted off and all the tops burnt off. It seems that, while theywere still standing upright in the ground, a fire, or series of scrub fires, passed throughthe area and burnt off the tops. Most of the house had already collapsed before thefire, because only the pieces still standing were burnt while the rest survived in theswamp.

To leave behind carved house parts might seem rather drastic. We already knowthat occupation was suddenly interrupted by a major flood, and can only speculateabout why people did not come back to recover the carvings later. In fact, many otherartefacts of value were also left behind, including more than one canoe that couldhave been used to carry them away. That people did not return could imply somethingabout the political circumstances of late prehistory. However, five late intrusive burialsin Area A do tell us that people did eventually return to Kohika from time to time,and the mixing of Tarawera Ash into the dune after 1886 indicates that it was gar-dened afterwards.


ReferencesGibbons, W.H., 1990. The Rangitaiki, 1890–1990: settlement and drainage on the Rangitaiki.

Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society.Lawlor, I., 1979. Palaeoenvironment analysis: an appraisal of the prehistoric environment

of the Kohika swamp pa (N68/140), Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

McGlone, M.S. and W.A. Pullar, 1976. More about the Kohika site, Bay of Plenty: soilstratigraphy and pollen analysis (a preliminary report). Historical Review, 14:110–3.

Nairn, I.A. and S. Beanland, 1989. Geological setting of the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake,New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 32:1–13.

Ota, Y., S. Beanland, K.R. Berryman and I.A. Nairn, 1988. The Matata Fault: active faultingat the north-western margin of the Whakatane Graben, eastern Bay of Plenty. New ZealandGeological Survey Record, 35:6–13.


Shawcross, F.W., 1968. The Ngaroto site. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter,11:2–29.

Plate 4.1 Kohika in January 1976. Work is in progress in Areas A, B and D. The spoil heaps are of different colour, which results from their variedcomposition.

Plate 4.2 Excavations in Square A1 Extension.

Plate 4.3 Part of a small bin surrounded bysurface stakeholes in Square A3.

Plate 4.4 A cross-section of a bin structure inSquare A3 dug into the former sand-dune.

Plate 4.5 An oval-ended pit in Square A1 Ext.interrupted by a later rectangular pit lying at rightangles to it. A charcoal sample for C14 dating wastaken from underneath the large pumice boulderfound in the pit fill.

Plate 4.6 Square B1 during excavation.

Plate 4.7 Square B1 near the base of the excavation showing in situ posts.

Plate 4.8 The drainsection in Area Bshows a flood depositof reworked tephraalluvium outside thesite, where a latermeander channel,visible in SquareB3, has cut into itssurface.

Plate 4.9 Woodenitems from the peatbelow the flooddeposit in SquareB3 are triple-baggedin plastic.

Plate 4.10 A degraded pukatea board in the upper peat of Square B4.

Plate 4.11 The pukatea board in Square B4 consolidated prior to removal.

Plate 4.12 The defended edge of the site was sharply definedin Square B4. Palisade posts were exposed in the side of theagricultural drain visible in the background and Square B3lies on the other side of it.

Plate 4.13 The edge of the site reveals the effect of the floodin Square B4. Fine silt lies around the palisade posts, reworkedKaharoa alluvium lies outside the site, and the two are sep-arated by the wave-lapped shore.

Plate 4.14 Square B4, west section, showing a palisade post, pre-flood deposits that built up during occupation, the flood alluvium of sand and silt,and post-flood sediments that are culturally sterile.

Plate 4.15 Squares C1 and C12 reveal a deposit of alluvium. Above this, a late meander channel in the Upper Peat can be seen in the baulk, whilebelow the alluvium is the culture-bearing Lower Peat. This photograph shows the pump being primed in 1975 at the start of a day’s work.

Plate 4.16 Square C10 contained a complex succession of fire-pits and hangi with occupational debris and fills composed of material quarriedelsewhere.

Plate 4.17 Excavating a swamp in wet weather can have its difficulties. Area D.

Plate 4.18 The site perimeter in Area D. Inside the line of posts were artificial house floors; outside many associated waterlogged artefacts werefound preserved in peat.

Plate 4.19 Square D2, with superimposed house floors visible in the south section.

Plate 4.20 Square D2. A line of standing posts, with horizontal light wooden battens flexed and pegged between them, marks the edge of anartificial floor of silt, packed with water-rolled greywacke pebbles.

Plate 4.21 Square D1, south section. Also showing a test excavation of the lacustrine silt, the Kaharoa Tephra and sedge peat below.

Plate 4.22 Square D5, the White House floor.

Plate 4.23 Square D4, firescoops in the White House horizon.

Plate 4.24 Area D, exposing the extent of the Yellow House horizon, January 1976.

Plate 4.25 Area D, some details of the excavation of the Yellow House floor.

Plate 4.26 Area D, Square DD during excavation of the Yellow House horizon. Intruding into the square is the corner of Square D2, dugpreviously, while the baulks are composed of backfilled spoil.

Plate 4.27 Square DD, laid bracken-fern stems below an artificial house floor.

Plate 4.28 Square D2, canoe bow in peat.

Plate 4.29 Square D2, gourd shell.

Plate 4.30 Square D2, adzed log and length of rope.

Plate 4.31 Square D7, whale vertebra, wooden spear and coil of vine.

Plate 4.32 Square D13, north section.

Plate 4.33 Square D14, log at base of excavation.

76

5 Site chronology

G.J. Irwin and M.D. Jones

This chapter concludes that Kohika was probably occupied for quite a short period ofone or two human generations in the late 17th century, that all of the excavated areaswere contemporary, and that settlement was substantially continuous. These conclu-sions arise from a number of strands of geomorphological and archaeological datadrawn together by Irwin, together with a Bayesian analysis of the radiocarbon resultsby Jones.

The evidence of geomorphology and archaeologyThe natural stratigraphy of the swamp shows that the occupation of Kohika occurredbetween the Kaharoa Tephra of cal. AD 1350 and the Tarawera Tephra of AD 1886.We note that:

• A greater depth of peat lay below the archaeological site than above it, whichplaces the occupation in the latter part of the period.

• The peat above the archaeological deposit was sterile, which demonstrates thatan interval of time elapsed between abandonment and the Tarawera Tephra.

• The generally narrow band of cultural material in the swamp sediments indicatesa restricted period of occupation.

Two natural events have implications for the chronology:• Evidence for faulting in Area D during the Yellow House horizon was probably

associated with an earthquake centred on the nearby Matata Fault (Ota et al.1988).

• The alluvial deposition of reworked Kaharoa Tephra around the shores of Kohikaduring a flood marked the simultaneous end to occupation in the excavated AreasB, C and D.

With regard to the relative ages of the different excavated areas, we note that:• Areas B, C and D were all at the swampy margin of the site and there is a strong

stratigraphic and sedimentary correlation between them.• The field notes of the Historical Society excavations and evidence extrapolated

from the university excavations argues for a stratigraphic association betweenArea D and the HS Area, as well.

• Area A (and parts of C) lie on top of the Kohika dune and have a lesser strati-graphic correlation with Areas B, D (and the rest of C) at the margins. However,the source of sediments in the expanding margins of the site during the occu-pation of Area B was the dune itself, which argues for contemporaneity.

• The four separate areas excavated by the University and that excavated by theHistorical Society were found to be functionally different, but culturally comple-mentary. The mutually exclusive distribution of different aspects of settlementsupports contemporaneity.

Site chronology 77

With regard to the chronological implications of cultural constituents of the site,we note that:

• The artefact style is generally that of Classic Maori (only a vague indicator ofchronology).

• R. Neich’s analysis of woodcarvings (Chapter 7) indicates a lack of stylistic con-tinuity between the carvings of Kohika and the carving styles of local iwi, includingNgati Awa, as described in European times, suggesting an interval of time betweenthem.

• In the huge archaeological database, we have so far found no remains of anyEuropean artefact, animal or plant to contest its prehistoric status.

With regard to structural evidence for site duration, we note that:• In Area A, kumara storage pits were built at different times and interrupted one

another. After the area was no longer used for storage (but with no perceptibledelay), the many firescoops show it was used for cooking. Only after the sitewas abandoned as a settlement was it used for burial.

• Area D was occupied long enough for the White House to be rebuilt directly ontop of the Yellow House on the same alignment and sharing a common wall.Both were of pole and thatch construction (see Chapter 7). The evidence isconsistent with the Yellow House being dismantled (possibly following earth-quake damage), and its successor built immediately afterwards.

• Until further evidence is forthcoming from elsewhere in the site, the indicationsare that the duration was quite short.

The chronological hypothesis

All of the above information, in combination, supports the hypothesis that Kohikawas occupied for an uninterrupted period of only one to two human generations inlate prehistory and also that it was probably abandoned by around AD 1700, or notvery long afterwards.

Radiocarbon evidenceThere have been fifteen radiocarbon dates from Kohika. The results provide a consist-ent series and the site can be regarded as securely and quite tightly dated. Seven of theC14 samples were collected from Square D17 and were used to date the pollen andsedimentary core, as described in Chapter 3. All of these dates are earlier than thetime of occupation of the lake village itself.

Eleven further samples that did relate to the village occupation were submitted tothe Institute of Nuclear Sciences by G. Irwin in 1984. Six of these samples were dated.All were found to be rather young and of similar age. On the basis of these results, the(then) Radiocarbon Archaeological Committee deemed it unnecessary to date theremaining five samples. However, two further samples were dated in 2001 by the Wai-kato University Radiocarbon Laboratory, bringing the total for the site occupation toeight and confirming the age of the site.

The samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from a range of structural contextsfrom Areas A, B, C and D. Details of the samples and their conventional radiocarbonages (CRA) are presented below.

NZ6599, Square A1

This sample consisted of charcoal from short-lived species collected from beneath apumice boulder in the fill of a pit in Square A1 Extension, as shown in Figure 4.3.

78 Kohika

This pit was deliberately filled at the time of construction of a later intersecting pit.Thus the age of the sample relates to the pit sequence of Area A.

NZ6580, Square C7

This consisted of tuatua shell (Paphies subtriangulata) collected from shell middensome 75 cm beneath the surface, as shown in Figure 4.11. This was a zone of cookingand midden scatter on the mound.

NZ6583, Square B4

The sample was a standing palisade post of small-diameter kanuka, with bark. It isshown in the drawing of the west section of Square B4 (Fig. 4.8). The palisade stoodwhile deposits built up inside it and then was enveloped by the alluvial flood deposit.

NZ6611, Square B3

This was a similar small-diameter worked kanuka post found lying in the peat belowthe flood alluvium at the base of Square B3 (Fig. 4.7). Thus it was a sample fromoutside the palisade in Area B and expected to give a similar result to NZ6583.

NZ6618, Square DD

This sample was a small-diameter post from a line of standing posts that separated ayellow sand floor from one composed of white silt packed with greywacke river stones.These were two contemporary parts of the same Bright Yellow horizon, which repre-sented an early stage in the sequence of laid floors and houses in Area D (Figs 4.14and 4.17).

NZ6619, Square DD

This consisted of laid bracken fern stems (Plate 4.27) from below the floor of clay siltand stones of the same Bright Yellow horizon and is stratigraphically equivalent toNZ6618, both dates relating to the floors and houses of Area D.

WK10292, Square D1

This was a small-diameter post from the palisade in Square D1. This palisade wasfound to have abutted the northern ends of two successive houses that stood in AreaD at the Yellow House and White House levels, as shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16.The age of the sample could be expected to be equivalent to NZ6618 and 6619.

WK10293, Square D1

This sample consisted of charcoal of kanuka, tutu, coprosma, hebe and fernroot andwas collected from the peat in the swamp outside the palisade in the same excavatedsquare. The sample does not have the same structural integrity as the other three samplesfrom Area D but should be equivalent in age, or very slightly earlier. It represents theburning of secondary growth at the edge of the mound in Area D.

Bayesian calibration of the radiocarbon dataA Bayesian analysis of the available radiocarbon results was performed to assess howwell they support the chronological observations outlined above. Here we describethe observed archaeological record as a single general phase of activity of unknownduration. We seek to determine when this phase of activity took place and for howlong.

Site chronology 79

Analysis

The Bayesian calibration applied in this analysis follows the phase model described byNicholls and Jones (1998, 2001). Here all dates are treated as coming from one ofthree phases that occur in a single, abutting series temporally bounded by the Kaha-roa and Tarawera Tephras. This represents the basic structure of the post-Kaharoageomorphological sequence described in Chapters 2 and 3. Phase 1 is an upper layerof sedge peat that overlies the cultural layer and is bounded by the Tarawera Tephra.No chronometric determinations are associated with this phase. Phase 2 comprisesthe cultural layer from which eight CRA determinations have been obtained. Withinthis phase we cannot a priori apply any constraints on the relative age of the dates.Phase 3 corresponds to the layer of peat lying between the cultural deposit and theKaharoa Tephra. Two suitable determinations are available for this phase, and on thebasis of stratigraphic superposition these are constrained temporally so that NZ4801is of greater age than NZ4800. Thus the chronology of this phase sequence is definedby the unknown temporal parameters Phase 1 end (�0), Phase 2 end (�1), Phase 2 start(�2) and Phase 3 start (�3). The distribution of the parameters �1 and �2 provideestimates for the chronology of the Kohika archaeological record. The purpose ofthe current analysis is to provide age estimates for these temporal parameters basedon the measured CRA data and phase associations given in Table 5.1 below. In add-ition, we wish to estimate the total duration over which cultural activity has takenplace (R ––– �1 – �2).

Table 5.1 Chronometric data used in the current analysis

Date CRA Error �13C Phase ReservoirM N

NZ6599 159 42 -25.7 2 1 TerrestrialNZ6580 596 32 -1.35 2 2 MarineNZ6583 212 32 -25.89 2 3 TerrestrialNZ6611 157 32 -24.73 2 4 TerrestrialNZ6618 221 32 -24.97 2 5 TerrestrialNZ6619 190 39 -24.7 2 6 TerrestrialWK10292 204 54 2 7 TerrestrialWK10293 270 38 2 8 TerrestrialNZ4800 352 56 -26.1 3 1 TerrestrialNZ4801 534 56 -26.2 3 2 Terrestrial

For further discussion of the model applied in the current analysis it is useful to definethe following notation. Let �m,n be a calibrated date for the n’th specimen measured inthe m’th phase, with units calendar years AD, and assumed to equal the context dateassociated with the (m,n)’th specimen. Let �m denote the (unknown and undated)boundary date at the lower boundary of phase m. Let P and A, P � A be given termini,setting lower and upper bounds on the dated sequence. Possible parameter sets (�,�)take some value in a parameter space �, which is simply the set of all states (�,�)satisfying the stratigraphic constraints. In the current analysis we have:

� ––– {(�,�);P ��3� �3,2� �3,1.� �2� �2,.��1� �0�A}

Where P=600 and A=66 on the basis of tephrochronology.

Following the standard Bayesian inferential framework, the posterior distributionof � and � conditional on the observed dates y (with density h (�, � | y)) is defined interms of an unnormalised prior density f (�, �), and likelihood L (y | �), as

80 Kohika

h (�, � | y) = L (y | �) � f (�, �).

Here we use the ‘Neutral’ prior f (�, �) defined by Nicholls and Jones (2001) and thestandard definition of the radiocarbon likelihood for L (y | �) (e.g. Buck et al. 1991).

In the current analysis the INTERCAL98 calibration data (Stuiver et al. 1998) wereused. Additionally, a terrestrial reservoir offset of 25 ± 5 (McCormac et al. 1998) anda marine reservoir offset of -27 ± 15 (Higham and Hogg 1995) have been applied. Inthis case correlated reservoir offsets have been used (Jones and Nicholls 2001).

Summaries of the likelihood distributions (calibrated distributions) for chronomet-ric data given in Table 5.1 are presented in Figure 5.1 below.

Results

Marginal posteriors for the � parameters were computed using an implementation ofthe rejection sampler described by Nicholls and Jones (1998, 2001) through DateLab1.2 (Jones and Nicholls 2002). The posterior distributions for �1, � 2 and R aresummarised in Table 5.2 and Figures 5.2–4 below. Under the assumptions describedabove and the chronometric data given in Table 5.1, these results indicate that thecultural phase sequence corresponds to activity spanning 5–165 years starting sometime in the interval AD 1610–1690.

Table 5.2 Summary posterior distributions for Phase 2 start, Phase 2 end and Phase 2 duration

Parameter 95% HPD 68% HPD

Phase 2 start (�2) 1610–1690 1660–1680Phase 2 end (�1) 1680–1810 1680–1700Phase 2 duration (R) 5–165 5–50

Determination

NZ

6599

NZ

6580

NZ

6583

NZ

6611

NZ

6618

NZ

6619

WK

10292

WK

10292

NZ

4800

NZ

4801

Ye

ars

BP

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Figure 5.1Summary ofthe calibrateddistributions forthe chronometricdata given inTable 5.1

Site chronology 81

1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900

Years AD

0.0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Lik

elih

oo

d

68% HPD95% HPD

1500 1650 17001550 1600 1750 1800 1850 1900

Years AD

0.0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Lik

elih

oo

d

68% HPD95% HPD

Figure 5.2Posteriordistribution forPhase 2 start (�2)

Figure 5.3Phase 2 end (�1)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Span (years)

0.0

0.0073

0.0146

0.0219

0.0292

0.0365

0.0438

0.0511

0.0584

0.0657

0.073

0.0803

0.0876

Lik

elih

ood

68%HPD95%HPD

Figure 5.4Phase 2duration (R)

82 Kohika

ConclusionsThe Bayesian analysis presented here suggests that the cultural deposits in the Kohikaarchaeological record correspond to a period of occupation in the late 17th century.This analysis is to some extent confounded by multiple perturbations in the calibra-tion curve at this period (e.g. the bimodality in Figure 5.3). These raise the possibilityof a longer occupation. However, the analysis does show that the occupation wascertainly less than 160 years and probably less than 70–80 years. On this basis, wewould conclude that Kohika was occupied during the latter half of the 17th century.The archaeological and geomorphological data enable us to narrow down the rangeof chronological options presented by the Bayesian analysis of the C14 results, and tosupport the chronological hypothesis stated above.

ReferencesBuck, C.E., J.B. Kenworthy, C.D. Litton and A.F.M. Smith, 1991. Combining archaeological

and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity, 65:808–21.Higham, T.F.G. and A.G. Hogg, 1995. Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric shell from New Zea-

land and calculation of the dr value using fish otoliths. Radiocarbon, 37:409–16.Jones, M.D. and G.K. Nicholls, 2001. Reservoir offset models for radiocarbon calibration.

Radiocarbon, 43:119–24.Jones, M.D. and G.K. Nicholls, 2002. DateLab manual. University of Auckland.McCormac, F.G., A.C. Hogg, T.F.G. Higham, M.G.L. Baillie, J.G. Palmer, L. Xiong, J.R. Pilcher,

D. Brown and S.T. Hoper, 1998. Variations of radiocarbon in tree-rings: southern hemi-sphere offset preliminary results. Radiocarbon, 40:1153.

Nicholls, G.K. and M.D. Jones, 1998. Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints.Technical Report. Mathematics Department, Auckland University, New Zealand. No.407.http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~nicholls.

Nicholls, G.K. and M.D. Jones, 2001. Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, 50:503–21.

Ota, Y.S., S. Beanland, K.R. Berryman and I. Nairn, 1988. The Matata Fault: active faulting atthe north-western margin of the Whakatane Graben, eastern Bay of Plenty. New ZealandGeological Survey Record, 35:6–13.

Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac,J. Plicht and M. Spurk, 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal. BP.Radiocarbon, 40:1041–83.

83

6 The wooden artefacts from Kohika

R.T. Wallace and G.J. Irwin

The waterlogged deposits of this small lake village produced a rare and comprehensiveinventory of wooden artefacts that were in close association with one another. Theartefacts bear on many aspects of life, including collecting and preparing diverse foodsfrom a varied environment, the importance of canoe transport, the tools used fordomestic and craft activities, for defence and for outside contacts and trade. Theartefacts also throw light on social aspects of life, including ornamentation and art,personal status, religion, music and play. Some of the artefacts are finely made andreflect social value but others were casually made for day-to-day use. This chapterincludes all wooden artefacts except houses and pataka, which are described separ-ately in Chapter 7. Fibre and woven fabric are covered in Chapter 8, which completesthe waterlogged assemblage.

Field treatment and laboratory conservationMembers of the Whakatane and District Historical Society, who carried out the initialdigging, stored most of the wooden artefacts they found in water. However, somepalisade posts were dried out and only those of sound wood survived largely intact.After May 1975, the University of Auckland took responsibility for conservationand study. In the field each artefact was washed and painted with a 50 per cent solutionof polyethylene glycol (PEG) 400 to aid dimensional stability. Each was labelledand bagged in three layers of clear flexible polythene tube, the innermost layerclosely around the artefacts and the outermost one airfilled to cushion it duringtransport.

On arrival at the university the artefacts were washed, disinfected, labelled andstored in temporary purpose-built tanks containing water and biocide prior to con-servation treatment. They were stored in this way until 1979, when the AnthropologyDepartment moved into the Human Sciences Building. With the needs of waterloggedwood conservation in mind, K. Peters designed the Conservation Laboratory in thenew building and assembled the equipment needed to carry out the process. In thefollowing years he undertook specialist training and was awarded a Churchill Fellow-ship to travel to waterlogged wood conservation laboratories in Scandinavia and theNetherlands. The excavation of Kohika and the development of this laboratory facil-ity were among the reasons for the creation of a doctoral fellowship funded by theDepartment of Internal Affairs to conduct research on the conservation of woodenartefacts in New Zealand (Wallace 1985). When Peters left the department in 1983,R. Wallace, the holder of that fellowship, replaced him. D. Johns, then a student in theAnthropology Department, completed an MA on waterlogged wood conservation andundertook postgraduate training in conservation in Italy and Canada. On her return

84 Kohika

she took over the running of the Conservation Laboratory, which is now an inter-nationally recognised facility and the only one in the country able to carry out thistype of work.

The initial conservation work on the collection was carried out by Peters. After hisdeparture in 1983, Wallace completed the work, with some assistance from Johnstowards the end of the process. Peters’ work included drying out some very soundartefacts without any conservation treatment. He also employed a solvent/wax impreg-nation method on some small, valuable artefacts with very acceptable results. By 1984,however, the majority of the artefacts were still in tanks containing 12 per cent PEG400. This was intended to prepare them for freeze-drying, which was carried out in1986. The results were satisfactory, except for a few originally highly degraded itemsthat were left with an excessive PEG 400 content. These items were subsequently recon-served by Johns using a method now preferred for conserving artefacts of this type,which involved removal of the PEG 400 and reimpregnation with the higher molecularweight PEG 3350 followed by non-vacuum freeze-drying in a large blast freezer.

Wood identification, artefact reassembly and identificationThe field catalogue consisted of a duplicate manifold book with a numbered list of allitems recovered from the site. In most cases this gave a two- or three-word descriptionof the object and recorded provenance to square and layer. A later laboratory bookrecorded the items accompanied by rough sketches and measurements. When con-servation was completed, a new catalogue was made with all relevant informationand items grouped by artefact type.

The wood species composition of each item was identified using transmitted andincident light microscopy, and this information was extremely useful in carrying outlater analysis. The collection was laid out with all items of the same wood speciesplaced together, and this allowed broken parts of the same artefact to be easily rejoined.In addition, the wood type used sometimes suggested the function of an artefact. Oneexample is fern-root beaters. Previous research by Wallace (1989:225) had shown thatheart kauri branch wood was used almost exclusively for making these beaters in theareas of New Zealand where the species grew. Kauri no longer grows in the Kohikaarea (but it occurs in the prehistoric pollen record), and there were two well-preservedbeaters made from kauri in the collection. When the wood identification was completed,two further kauri beaters in a degraded state were recognised. In contrast, an artefactpreviously and incorrectly recorded as a roughly made beater turned out to be madefrom mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) but, as this wood is too soft and light to be suit-able for the purpose, the artefact was reclassified.

The possible function of each artefact was suggested by comparing its form andwood composition with those either recorded in the ethnographic literature or extantin museum collections. The attributed functions are recorded in this chapter, togetherwith the descriptions of each artefact, but must always remain somewhat speculative.The starting-point on this topic was a preliminary research paper by an MA student,J. Boileau (1978). Subsequently, P. Harrison, a master carver, D. Bonica, an expert intraditional Maori material culture, and R. Neich and D. Simmons, current and formerEthnologists at Auckland Museum, contributed valuable suggestions. Any errors insuggesting a function must remain the responsibility of the authors.

The body of this chapter consists of descriptions of the wooden artefacts recoveredfrom Kohika. All items were drawn, photographed and measured as part of the analy-sis. Drawing was part of the process of description and required very thorough

The wooden artefacts from Kohika 85

observation. The working drawings were redrawn by J. Lawrence, illustrator at theAnthropology Department, University of Auckland. The photographs are by H.MacDonald, former photographer at the department. Many artefacts were merelyfragments and are not described in the text. Details of all pieces recovered are con-tained in an artefact catalogue, the Appendix, as are dimensions not provided inthe formal description sections below. The items listed in the Appendix are identifiedby KOH (Kohika) numbers, and additional AU or WM numbers indicate whether theitems were collected by the University of Auckland or by the Whakatane and DistrictHistorical Society.

Bird SpearsMaori bird spears were slim rods of wood 6–12 m long fitted with a barbed point andused to impale birds in trees by a thrusting rather than throwing action (Best 1977:153–63). Superficially they were difficult to distinguish from naturally formed sticks, butcloser inspection showed that the shafts had been made from wood of medium-sizedtrees that had been painstakingly split out and thinned down to less than 20 mm thick.Due to their great original length, only short broken sections of spears were recoveredat Kohika. Fourteen of these were found (Plate 6.1) as well as one spear point (Fig.6.1). The attributes of each artefact are listed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Characteristics of the bird spear fragments

Max. Min.Artefact Length width width End A End B Wood type Comments

mm mm mm

KOH125 680 17 12.5 Broken Broken Kanuka Spear sectionKOH126 895 18 0 Broken Blunt butt Kanuka Spear tip?KOH127 1390 17 14 Broken Broken Kanuka Spear sectionKOH128 510 14 0 Broken Sharp point Kanuka Spear tip?KOH129 1175 18 18 Broken Blunt butt Kanuka Spear butt?KOH130 375 16 16 Broken Broken Kanuka Spear sectionKOH131 620 18 18 Broken Broken Kanuka Spiral bindingKOH132 595 16 10 Broken Broken Kanuka Spear sectionKOH133 137 17 17 Broken Blunt butt Kanuka Spear butt?KOH134 820 14 14 Broken Blunt butt Kanuka Spear butt?KOH135 285 19 15 Broken Broken Maire Spear sectionKOH136 730 18.5 18 Broken Lap joint? Rimu Lap joint?KOH137 265 9 0 Broken Point Rimu Spear tip?KOH138 700 16.5 10 Broken Blunt butt Rimu Spear butt?KOH139 167 7 3 Complete Tip broken Ponga Barbed point

Comments

The fourteen broken sections of bird spear range in length from 1390 mm to 137 mm.Three have pointed ends and appear to have been from the front where the barbedspear tip was lashed. Three have squared or rounded-off ends and may have been buttends of the spears. One (KOH136) has a chamfered end that would have allowed alap joint to be formed in the middle section of the spear. The other seven are sectionsof shaft with both ends broken. KOH131 has a shadow left by a strip of bindingwrapped in a spiral along its length. All had been carefully formed from the trunkwood of three species of tree that produce very hard wood. The blanks must first have

86 Kohika

been split from a felled tree trunk then thinned down to lessthan 20 mm thick, accurately following the run of the woodgrain to prevent the shaft splitting in two.

Ten sections are made from kanuka, one from maire and threefrom exceptionally resinous rimu heartwood. The fourteenfragments could theoretically have come from a minimum offour spears, two of kanuka and one each of maire and rimu,but it is much more likely that there were more. Oral traditionsreported in the ethnographic literature (Best 1977, Colenso 1868,1891, Downes 1928, Ranapiri 1895) record all three of thesespecies as having been used for bird spears but they also suggestthat tawa was often used, although that does not seem to haveoccurred at Kohika. In the case of kanuka:

The spear maker who used manuka as a material fashionedhis instrument from the species known to our scientists asLeptospermum ericoides, ‘white manuka’ of ordinary nomen-clature, the other species not being suitable for the purpose.The first named, known as M-ar-a, kopuka and kahikatoawill, under favourable conditions, develop a straight-barrelled,straight-grained and comely trunk that lends itself to freeriving . . . These spears were more rigid than those fashionedfrom tawa so were easier to manipulate . . . [and] less liableto break. (Best 1977:157)

Maire is also recorded: ‘when fashioned from maire, a talland straight young tree was selected, and this was thinned down

Figure 6.1Bird spear pointmade from tree-fern trunk

Plate 6.1Thirteen sectionsof bird spearand one spearpoint.


to the desired thickness’ (Downes 1928:10). Best comments that ‘if this was so thenthe woodsmen certainly had a trying task’ (Best 1977:159). While he was referring tothe notorious hardness and toughness of this wood his doubts were misplaced, as theoccurrence at Kohika of a maire bird spear proves. Rimu is recorded from Northland:‘The best being made of “Kapara”, the gum-preserved core found in some decayedkahikatea and rimu trees after the sapwood had rotted away’ (Matthews 1910:604).Colenso (1891:50), in contrast, doubted the existence of rimu bird spears, declaringonly man spears were made from this wood.

The lap joint suggested for KOH137 has been recorded for kanuka bird spears(Matthews 1910:604) but Best vigorously denied the possibility of such a thing: ‘Aspear-shaft composed of two pieces would not, I feel assured, commend itself to theMaori of yore as they were used with branch rests they would not work so easily’(Best 1977:157). His scepticism was clearly misplaced in this case.

KOH139 is a barbed bird-spear point 167 mm long. It is made from the hard,highly lignified material from inside a tree-fern trunk. It has four barbs and is slightlyC-shaped in cross-section (Fig. 6.1). It is about half the size of one made from thesame substance recorded by Matthews (1910:604). Best also records this substancebeing used, giving Cyathea dealbata as the species, and says that on the East Coast itwas regarded as producing inferior points (1977:159).

Digging toolsThe Kohika site yielded parts of thirteen ko or digging sticks, one teka or ko footrest(Fig. 6.2), a ketu (weeder) blade, a hotu (one-piece spade) and four handles (Fig. 6.3),and nine blades for composite digging tools (Fig. 6.4). Also described here is a piece ofan elaborate carving probably from the top of a ceremonial ko (Fig. 6.5).

The artefacts are described individually below and then the nature of the class asa whole is summarised.

KOH198 is a large ko made from a moderately straight manuka stem. The bottomend has been sharpened to a laterally flattened point and the top carved into a leafshape.

KOH199 is a large ko made from a whole, moderately straight kanuka stem. Itscross-section is sub-rectangular where it narrows to a needle-shaped point. The tophas been broken off.

KOH200 is a large ko made from a gently curved length of trunk-wood maire. It ishas a very long bevel running down one face to the chisel-shaped tip. Its top has alsobeen broken off.

KOH201 is a light ko made from a rather crooked stem of manuka. It has beensharpened to a bevelled point and its top shaped into a simple knob.

KOH202 is a medium-sized ko made from a very straight stem of manuka. It isbevelled to a chisel point and has its top broken off.

KOH203 is the top of a light ko made from a crooked stem of manuka. The tophas been carved into a new-moon shape, traditional for many ko.

KOH204 is the top of a ko made from a crooked stem of kanuka with the tipcarved into the same leaf shape as found on KOH198. This artefact has been badlyburnt.

KOH205 is a double-ended ko made from a crooked stick of manuka. It is sharpenedto needle points at both ends.

KOH206 is a manuka ko tip bevelled to a chisel point.KOH207 is a kanuka ko tip also bevelled to a chisel point.

88 Kohika

Figure 6.2Twelve diggingsticks and oneko footrest


Figure 6.3A weeder blade,a one-piecespade, and fourhandles ofcompositedigging tools

90 Kohika

Figure 6.4Seven completedetachabledigging-toolblades, onerough-out andone fragment


KOH208 is a manuka ko tip with a needle-shapedpoint.

KOH209 is a manuka ko tip sharpened to a pointand with bevels on both sides of the shaft.

KOH8 is a fragment of a carving in the form ofa three-fingered hand (Fig. 6.5). It is strongly remin-iscent of the tops of elaborate ceremonial ko illus-trated in Best (1976:69, 76, 78) and in the Oldmancatalogue (Oldman 1946, Plate 53, Item 152). KOH8is almost certainly a fragment of one of these arte-facts.

KOH211 is a plain teka (ko footrest) made froma naturally L-shaped stem of mahoe. The horizontalpart is worn from use and has a knob on its end.The vertical part has a bevelled flat surface designedto fit flush with the ko shaft.

KOH212 is the blade of a ketu that has beensnapped from its handle. It is made from manukaand the tip has substantial use wear.

KOH213 is a digging tool with a very broad blade.It could be described as a very long-handled ketu, aspatulate ko or a one-piece spade. It is rather similarin shape to a canoe paddle, except that its blade isabout a quarter the size needed for one. Also, unlikepaddles it is made from manuka, a much strongertimber than the tawa used for the Kohika paddles.The top has an ornamental end with a knob formedfrom a natural knot in the wood.

KOH214 appears to be a handle for a composite digging tool designed to be fittedto one of the detachable blades found at Kohika (see below). It is made from a rathercrooked stem of Metrosideros spp. (rata or pohutukawa) and has an end bevelled tofit a blade and a knob at the top.

KOH215 appears to be a shaft for a composite digging tool made from a crookedbranch of mahoe. Like KOH214 it has an end bevelled to fit a blade and a simpleknob on top.

KOH216 is probably from a composite digging tool shaft. It has one end bevelledwhile the other narrows to a point, the tip of which has broken off. It is made ofmanuka.

KOH339 is also a probable composite digging tool shaft made of manuka. The endwhere the blade would have been attached has been bevelled.

KOH217 is a complex and well-finished blade from a composite digging tool madeof manuka.

KOH218 is a complete blade from a composite digging tool made from rata orpohutukawa.

KOH219 is almost identical to KOH218 in all respects.KOH220 is the same as KOH219.KOH221 is similar to KOH219 but is made from mapara, which is resinous rimu

heartwood.KOH222 is similar to KOH221 in all respects.KOH223 is similar to KOH221 in all respects.KOH224 is a composite blade in the process of manufacture. Its edge had been

Figure 6.5Part of acarving on aceremonial ko

92 Kohika

formed but the top not completed when the wood split and work was abandoned. Itis made from maire.

KOH355 appears to be the edge of a detachable digging tool blade made from rataor pohutukawa.

Summary

The digging implements from Kohika are strikingly diverse in form. There is one cere-monial ko, three heavy ko, one medium and seven light ko, one double-ended ko, oneteka, two (somewhat different) ketu, a one-piece spade/spatulate ko/ketu, four ratherdifferent composite digging tool shafts, and eight composite spade blades in a range ofsizes. Some are clearly carefully made to reproduce a specific tool form and decoratedwith knobs and terminal motifs. Others are quite casually constructed. Some spadeblades might, on occasion, have been used as hand tools without attached handles.Strong tough woods were used with thirteen of manuka, four of kanuka, four ofMetrosideros spp., two of maire, three of mapara (rimu), two of mahoe and one totara(the ceremonial ko top). In general, the digging tools at Kohika indicate that a widerange of activities, including gardening and gathering fern-root, was carried out onthe site and most probably on other stranded sand-dunes in the Rangitaiki Swamp.

Shaft knobsThe end sections of seven broken shafts each with a terminal knob were found in thesite (Fig. 6.6). Handles made from such terminals are often found on digging toolssuch as composite spade handles (Wallace 1989:227).

KOH225 is from a shaft of trunk-wood matai 27 mm in diameter that first nar-rows as it nears the top then sharply widens to form a plain knob.

KOH226 is also made from matai trunk-wood and is very similar to the above butwith a shorter knob.

KOH227 is a carefully made knob of phallic form. The lower part of the shaft isnearly perfectly round in cross-section while the knob itself is sub-rectangular. It ismade from trunk-wood rata or pohutukawa.

KOH228 is a very carefully made shaft of kanuka with a flared end.KOH229 is a natural stem of kanuka with a knobbed end.KOH230 is a natural stem of kanuka in the process of being made into a shaft

similar to KOH229. However, it broke at this point due to the presence of a knot andwas discarded.

KOH347 is a figure-of-eight-shaped knob at the end of a puriri shaft.

Patu aruhe (fern-root beaters)Fifteen items were identified as beaters, many of them presumably for fern root (Purdue2002) although flax is another possibility. Dried fern root was soaked in water androasted on coals, then pounded to separate the tough outer covering and coarse fibresfrom the starchy edible component (Best 1977:70–86). Thirteen beaters were wholeor nearly complete while three were merely knobs. The latter were tentatively identifiedas being from fern-root beaters on the basis that they were identical to ones on theends of the handles of complete beaters and, like many of them, made from maire(Nestegis spp. cunninghamii?). After the knobs were placed with the complete beatersit was realised that one of them was, in fact, part of the handle of one of the nearly


Figure 6.6Seven brokenshafts withterminal knobs,possibly handlesfrom compositetools

94 Kohika

complete beaters. These have been rejoined and are now treated as one item (whichreduces the number of single knobs to two while the whole beaters remain at thirteen).The beaters are illustrated in Figure 6.7.

KOH183 is a complete beater of rather irregular outline with a hollow worn onone striking surface, and is made of trunk-wood maire.

KOH184 is a complete beater of more regular form than KOH183. It has twoseverely worn surfaces on opposite sides of its rectangular cross-sectioned blade andis made from a half-section of a branch of maire.

KOH185a and KOH185b were found in separate places in the excavation and wereevidently broken before deposition. They were put back together in the laboratory toform a nearly complete beater. It is made of trunk-wood maire and is rectangular incross-section with all four striking surfaces well worn.

KOH186 is a complete beater with a well-worn striking surface around its circum-ference. It is oval in cross-section and is made from trunk-wood maire.

KOH187 is a beater with most of its blade missing. It is in a very poor state ofpreservation, having been dried out prior to conservation treatment. It is round incross-section and is made from trunk-wood maire.

KOH188 is a complete beater worn on three of its four potential striking surfaces.It is oval in cross-section and is made from a quarter-section of a branch of maire.

KOH189 is a fragment of a beater comprising a half-section of the handle andmost of the blade. It is round in cross-section and is made from trunk-wood maire.

KOH190 is the knob and part of the handle of a beater. This handle is oval incross-section and made from trunk-wood maire.

KOH191 is the knob and part of the handle of a beater. As with KOH190, thishandle is oval in cross-section and is made from trunk-wood maire.

KOH192 is a complete beater that is round in cross-section, being rather roughlymade from a whole stem of kanuka (Kunzea ericoides).

KOH193 is a complete small beater that shows little evidence of wear. It is round incross-section and is made from a branch of rata (Metrosideros spp. probably robusta).

KOH194 is a complete, beautifully made beater that shows little sign of wear. Roundin cross-section, it is made from the resinous heart of kauri branch wood. This timberis very heavy, mostly due to the extremely high resin content. Where kauri is readilyavailable, fern-root beaters appear to be made exclusively from this wood (Wallace1989:225). The Kohika site is currently outside the natural range of the kauri and itwas initially thought that this artefact, or at least the wood from which it is made, wasimported from further north, perhaps from the Coromandel peninsula. However, thediscovery of kauri pollen in the swamp sediments at Kohika shows that some standsof kauri were growing closer to hand in the Bay of Plenty.

KOH195 is a complete but very weathered beater. Its knob is burnt and it has heavyuse wear all around the circumference of its striking surface. It is made from the sametype of kauri as KOH194.

KOH196 is even more weathered than KOH195, with only the blade of the beatersurviving. It is sub-rectangular in cross-section and is made from the same type ofkauri as the above two.

KOH197 is a fragment of beater blade even more weathered than KOH196. It iscircular in cross-section and made from the same type of kauri. These last two itemsare so weathered that they were hard to recognise as beaters. Their identification isbased on their basic form and the fact that they were made from this special woodtype used by the pre-European Maori specifically for beaters and mallets, and possiblytraded some distance from its sources to the north for this reason.


Figure 6.7Fifteen beatersand beaterfragments

96 Kohika

Summary

Nine of the fifteen beaters are made from maire, one each from kanuka and rata andfour from kauri. The first three species are broadleaf woods (angiosperms) that producethe very hard, heavy, tough woods needed for these artefacts. Maire is the speciesmost commonly used where kauri is not available, but is accompanied by other hardtough woods such as rata (Wallace 1989). The dense resinous wood in kauri brancheswas so desirable for beaters that it was used exclusively where available. Kohika showsboth traditions of wood use in action; the maire is more common than kauri, addingweight to the suggestion that kauri was harder to obtain.

The beaters show a range of forms and quality of manufacture. Some are very care-fully made and finished while others are quite rough. Some are rectangular in cross-section but most are round or irregular. Only some have knobs at the end of theirhandles. The impression gained is that, though beaters could be carefully made, theywere such a ubiquitous and utilitarian item that many were quite casually constructedand discarded when broken.

BowlsKohika has yielded five items identified as bowls or bowl fragments. Four of these areillustrated in Figure 6.8.

KOH175 is the only complete bowl found. It is long and narrow with a pouringspout at one end. It is made from totara compression wood. This special type of wood,found on the underside of branches or in trees exposed to strong winds, is softer butheavier and much more resinous than normal trunk-wood. It is reasonable to assumethat this bowl was used for some special food preparation involving pouring a liquid,perhaps oil or berry juice.

KOH176 is about half of a medium-sized bowl, oval in outline and semi-circular incross-section. It is made from normal trunk-wood totara. It has no handle, spout orornamentation and may have been a simple, if well-made, domestic item.

KOH180 is a rim section from a long, narrow bowl. It is clear that the original wasa thin-walled bowl generally similar in form to KOH175. It is made from heart totara.

KOH181 is a fragment from the angle between the side and the base of a thin-walled bowl similar to KOH180 and KOH175. It is made from heart totara.

KOH182 is a small fragment from the end of a quite thick-walled bowl. The bowlwas canoe-shaped with a pointed end. It is made of matai. It is not illustrated.

Canoe paddlesFragments of a large steering paddle (Fig. 6.9) and ten canoe paddles (Fig. 6.10) werefound, only two of these being reasonably complete. They were assembled from 23separate fragments, some of which were scattered pieces that were only recognisedand reassembled later. When wood species were identified during analysis, it was foundthat all Kohika paddles were made from tawa. All fragments of this species were thenre-examined to see whether they could be fitted to the existing artefacts. This processwas very successful, and many fragments not previously recognised as being parts ofthese artefacts were rejoined. Each is described in turn below, followed by a generaldiscussion of the artefact type at Kohika.

KOH161 (a–e) consists of five fragments that are parts of a large steering paddle.The first three were found near one another in the site and recognised as being part of


Figure 6.8Four bowls andbowl fragments

the same piece. Two further pieces were located during laboratory analysis and theresult is an unfinished paddle, at the stage of manufacture when a slab of wood splitfrom a tree trunk had been adzed into general shape. The final product would havebeen 2.73 m long and resulted in a very straight steering paddle or oar.

KOH162 (a–d) was found as four pieces in the site. It was reassembled in the labora-tory to form a nearly complete canoe paddle. The handle is circular in cross-sectionnear the top but becomes sub-rectangular nearer the blade. The wood has been cutfrom a quite small-diameter tawa trunk. It has the distinctive form shared by all paddlesfrom Kohika, as discussed below. This paddle was the only one from Kohika withdecorative carving in the thickened area where the handle joins the blade. This orna-mentation and the lack of wear on its tip suggest it may have been a ceremonial paddlerather than regularly used.

KOH163 is a paddle handle that had snapped where it joined its blade. It is almostperfectly circular in cross-section along its length. The top of the handle is thickenedand has a simple double spiral pattern incised on it. Unlike the previous example, theslightly thickened area where the handle joined the blade had been left plain.

KOH164 is a paddle handle similar to KOH163. Snapped off at the junction withits blade, it too is circular in cross-section at the top but becomes rectangular furtherdown towards the distinct thickened area that had joined it to the blade.

KOH165 is also a paddle handle that had snapped off just short of where it joinedits blade.

KOH166 is a paddle blade and part of the handle. The blade had split in half andthe two pieces were found separately in the site. Like the others it has a distinctthickening at the point where the handle joins the blade

KOH167 is most of the blade of a paddle that had snapped off below the junction

98 Kohika

Figure 6.9A steeringpaddle rough-out

with the handle. The lower end is heavily roundedoff by wear.

KOH168 is a small paddle blade fragment.KOH169 is the very worn tip of a paddle and

KOH170 (not illustrated) is a smaller fragmentfrom the middle of its blade. While the two cannotbe directly joined, their colour and surface textureare identical on both sides, allowing a secure asso-ciation of the two pieces.

KOH171 is a fragment split from the side ofa paddle blade.

KOH172 is the side and tip of a paddle bladereassembled from four pieces.

Comments

Apart from the long steering paddle, there is onlyone almost complete example in this collection, butthe fragments provide sufficient information todefine the form of the Kohika paddles. This clearlyestablishes that a local tradition of paddle-makingexisted that is quite distinct from the one typicallyseen in museum storerooms in this country, in termsof both the shape of the paddle and the wood used.

All the Kohika paddles were made from tawa(Beilschmiedia tawa). However, a study of 41 otherMaori paddles from four museums (Wallace 1989:224) has shown that the majority were made fromkanuka with just a few from manuka, rata, puririand kowhai, all of which are very hard, heavy,strong woods. A few examples from the southernSouth Island were made from totara. The onlypaddle made from tawa was an unprovenanceditem from Otago Museum (Accession No. D23.703). In his account of the Maori canoe, ElsdonBest (1925:158) records a preference for very hardstrong woods for paddles, although he quotes aninformant, Tuta Nihoniho, as saying that on the

East Coast preferred timbers were matai, manuka, maire, heart pukatea and occasion-ally tawa. The tradition of using tawa for paddles is therefore not much mentionedpreviously.

The form of the Kohika paddles also seems to be distinctive. To confirm this im-pression, all the approximately 300 paddles in the Auckland Museum collection wereexamined. Without exception all were of the form well illustrated by Best (1925, Figs111 and 113), which have a slight kink where the handle joins the blade. This meansthat the blade follows slightly behind the handle when it is stroked through the waterrather than being in the same line. This property makes it easier to prevent the handlefrom rotating in the paddler’s hand even when loosely gripped. However, this bendwould also create a physical weakness between the handle and blade if the grain of thewood was straight and partially ran out at the kink. This does not seem to have been aproblem with tough, wavy-grained woods such as kanuka, as little difficulty would befound in selecting a piece where the grain followed the curves of the paddle shape.


Figure 6.10Canoe paddleand paddlefragments

And, in fact, the junctions of handle and blade are not heavily thickened in any of theAuckland Museum examples, nor do they have ornamental carving at this point.

The physical characteristics of tawa may account for some of the distinctiveness inthe Kohika paddle form. Tawa, while moderately hard, is usually straight grained and

100 Kohika

free splitting. Any kink at the junction of blade and handle would be fatal when thepaddle faced heavy use. So tawa paddles had to be very straight with the grain run-ning cleanly from one end to the other. This also explains why the junction of theblade with the handle, always a weak point, was strengthened by a thickened section.These features are shown very clearly in the Kohika paddles illustrated in Figure 6.10.This thickened part also provided a field to be ornamented by decorative carving inthe case of KOH162. One further feature of KOH162 is that the pointed end of theblade would control the water dripping from it between strokes and make it less noisy,useful when stealth was required.

The only paddle of the Kohika form seen by R. Wallace in a New Zealand museumcollection is the Otago example mentioned above. Moreover, the only collections wherepaddles of the Kohika form are typical are those made during Captain Cook’s voyagesor in the early 19th century. Examples of these are illustrated in the catalogue ofCambridge University’s Oldman Collection (Oldman 1946, Plate 63, Item 52) of ma-terial gathered during Cook’s first voyage (Shawcross 1970) and in the extensive studyof painted paddles by Neich (1993, Figs 24–34). These are strikingly like the Kohikaexamples, especially KOH162, though no painted patterns are preserved on that one.Furthermore, all the scenes sketched by Cook’s illustrator Sydney Parkinson in whichpaddles appear seem to show the Kohika style in universal use. In a recent publicationon the art of Cook’s voyages (Joppien and Smith 1984) some 28 of the paddles figuredcan be ascribed to one or other style. Twenty-seven are of the straight Kohika style,with only one clearly of the kinked form. Only four of these paddles are portrayed indetail and these are clearly elaborate, ceremonial forms of the Kohika type.

The abundance of the Kohika-style paddles in 18th-century illustrations and theirrarity in modern New Zealand museum collections may be explained in two ways.The Kohika style may have been dominant in pre-European New Zealand where itwas collected and illustrated by early voyagers. It may then have been replaced by anew style at the beginning of the historic era. If the latter were so, then it is odd thatan illustration from Abel Tasman’s earlier voyage (Best 1925:7) shows the typicalmodern kinked Maori paddle form. Alternatively, the Kohika style may have beenregional, perhaps occurring only in the Bay of Plenty/East Cape area, where Cook’sparty may have collected most of their paddles. Neich has suggested that most ofthese came from the Poverty Bay area (1993:59–64). If so, then the artists on Cook’sexpeditions or those contributing to the publications associated with them may haveused the collected paddles as models rather than drawing from life when draftingillustrations. In general, it appears that the Kohika paddle style may have been a localEast Coast and Bay of Plenty tradition that has not survived into the modern era.

Canoe hull piecesKohika was an island in a large swamp. Canoe transport would have been essentialand six pieces of canoe hull were found there. Two of these are complete (or nearly so)bow or stern parts while the other four are merely fragments of hull. Five of the sixitems are illustrated in Figure 6.11.

KOH140 (a–d) is pieces of a large canoe bow or stern made as a separate item toattach to the open end of a canoe hull. It was broken into five pieces, one of whichwas not recovered, by the mechanical digger that uncovered it in the agricultural drain.It is made from a large-diameter hollowed totara trunk and designed to attach to ahull by lashings that passed through four large chiselled holes along the edge of asimple vertical butt joint. Unlike KOH141 described below, no provision has been


Figure 6.11Canoe hullpieces

102 Kohika

made to recess the lashings into grooves in the hull to prevent damage when the canoewas beached. Partly for this reason, but more because of the rough adzed surface ofthe piece, it appears to be unfinished. The gunwale on one side is intact and has threelashing holes distributed evenly along it, presumably for the attachment of a bow orstern piece or strake plank above it. The outer surface of the hull is flattened wherethese holes emerge to allow the batten that would have covered the joint to form aclose contact.

KOH141 is a smaller detachable canoe bow of rather more sophisticated design.The joint it would form with the main section of the hull is irregular, having been cutto fit the irregular shape of an existing hull. Six attachment holes, three each side, arepresent along the joint, all of which have grooves running out to the junction with thehull in which lashings could be recessed to avoid abrasion. Each gunwale has fourholes to take lashings for extra pieces set above. This bow piece is also made from ahollowed totara trunk.

KOH142 is a fragment of canoe hull 120 mm thick. It includes a portion of theangled midline keel.

KOH143 appears to be a fragment of gunwale from near the bow or stern of acanoe. The oblique way in which the grain runs through the piece suggests it was fromwhere the gunwale curves in towards the point of the bow. The edge has two lashingholes for a strake or other attachments. It is made of trunk-wood kauri. This canoemay have been imported from further north, perhaps from the Coromandel penin-sula, where kauri is abundant.

KOH144 is similar to KOH143, a piece of canoe hull gunwale from near the bowor stern. It has three lashing holes along its upper edge and is made of trunk totara.

KOH335 is also similar to KOH143, with one lashing hole on its upper edge. It ismade from totara. It is not illustrated in Figure 6.11.

Canoe fittingsIn this category are one possible canoe bulkhead, three definite canoe thwarts (seats)and twelve other artefacts of which several are also likely to have been seats but othersless certainly so. The bulkhead, the three seats and eight of the other fittings are illus-trated in Figure 6.12.

KOH145 (a and b) are pieces of an artefact identified as a possible canoe bulkhead.It is a 12 mm thick plank made from rata or pohutukawa. It has a D-shaped outlineand six irregularly distributed lashing holes around its edge. It may have formed apartition in the canoe to aid bailing by preventing water from moving freely along theinside of the hull.

KOH146 is half of a carefully made canoe seat. It is made from a dressed totaraplank and is identical in shape to a canoe seat in Auckland Museum.

KOH151 is a canoe seat made from an unpeeled stem of tawa with deep notcheschiselled in each end to allow it to be lashed across the gunwales of the canoe.

KOH152 is a very similar seat made from a peeled manuka stem.The remaining twelve artefacts are tentatively identified as canoe seats. They are

rather casually made from natural sticks by notching their ends. Four are whole butthe remaining eight are broken-off ends made from the stems of six different speciesof broadleaf shrub and tree. They were not necessarily permanent fittings and mayhave been produced casually when a canoe was being outfitted for a specific purpose– for example, a fishing trip. In addition to the above items, KOH345 was very ten-tatively identified as a fragment of spiral fretwork from a carved bow or stern carving.


Figure 6.12Three canoeseats, onebulkhead andeight otherfittings

The wide variety in the quality of workmanship of these fittings suggests that a rangeof different river and sea canoes was present at the site.

104 Kohika

BailersFour items were found that may have been parts of canoe bailers, and three are illus-trated in Figure 6.13.

KOH174 is a bailer with one side of its scoop missing. It suffered minor scorchingin a fire after being broken. The terminal knob on the handle has been carved in theform of a stylised human face (Plate 7.14, below). Just below the knob a hole has beenchiselled sideways through the handle for a cord to tie onto some part of the canoe toprevent it being washed overboard when it was urgently needed. It is made of totarawith an unusual tightly waved grain, possibly selected to yield an item less liable tosplit, but ultimately it did not escape this fate.

KOH179 appears to be the side of a bailer scoop and is rather similar to KOH177.The side wall is 10 mm thick and the end wall up to 35 mm. It has a simple chiselledperforation in the side wall near its broken edge that seems to have been part of anattempted repair. This artefact is made from heart totara.

KOH177 may have been part of the side rim of a bailer. The fragment is toosmall to be sure of its origin and it is not illustrated. It matches the structure of theside of KOH174, however, and may have been a detached fragment of this or a simi-lar artefact. It too is made of heart totara.

KOH178 is a burnt and broken fragment of the side and end of a bowl-like con-tainer. The side wall is about 10 mm thick but the end wall is up to 55 mm thick.Made from matai, this artefact may have been part of either a bowl or a bailer.

Figure 6.13Canoe bailers


Heru (hair combs)Heru were ornamental hair combs worn by men of rank to adorn their koukou ortopknot and, as a consequence, objects of considerable tapu. They can be separatedinto three distinct types: those made from a single piece of bone, those made from asingle piece of wood, and composite combs which consist of separate wooden teethbound together by fine thread (Fisher 1962:47). The six Kohika combs are all of thesecond type, the one-piece wooden comb, and are illustrated in Figure 6.14.

Early European visitors to New Zealand give many accounts of one-piece woodencombs. Monkhouse, Cook’s surgeon on the first voyage (1768–71), wrote: ‘But howgreat was our surprise to see combs in their hair! They were about two inches broad,the tooth very long: some were made of wood, others of bone – these combs appearedto be more fitted for ornament than use.’ (Beaglehole 1974:573). Combs were fre-quently collected and described in Cook’s time and seem to have been in common use(Joppien and Smith 1984). By the middle of the 19th century, however, explorers, mis-sionaries and travellers mentioned combs as things of the past, and their manufactureand use had been largely discontinued (Gardner 1985:48).

Only two collections of prehistoric combs are available for direct comparison withthe Kohika examples. The first is from Kauri Point in the western Bay of Plenty, wherea total of 334 large fragments and over 1000 detached teeth representing some 187individual combs were excavated from an area of wet ground adjacent to a pa (Shaw-cross 1964, 1976). Most had been deliberately broken before being placed in a struc-ture in the swamp, apparently as part of the ritual disposal of tapu objects associatedwith the head or hair of high-status individuals. The second large collection is fromcaves and rock shelters on the west coast of the Waitakere Ranges in Auckland(Lawrence 1989).

KOH106 is the smallest comb in the collection. All the teeth have been broken offbetween 10 and 50 mm from their junction with the frame and only two found withthe artefact. The total length of the comb cannot be determined but is somewhat morethan 122 mm. One of the side-bars has also been lost and the break smoothed off. Itsthirteen teeth are the thickest and have the second-narrowest space between them ofany of the combs in the collection.

KOH104 is the second-smallest comb and is fairly complete. During its life a side-bar and up to two teeth had broken off and the split edge was then rounded andsmoothed to allow continued use. Seven of the remaining thirteen teeth are present fortheir full length, as is one side-bar. The curvature of the top of the frame suggests itwas originally 45–50 mm wide. Unlike the other combs the frame is the same lengthas the teeth rather than being shorter.

KOH103 is the most complete comb in the collection and only half of the twelveteeth and the ends of the two side-bars are missing. It is near median size for thiscollection but has the fewest teeth and the widest gaps between each of them.

KOH105 is badly damaged, with all of its teeth detached and the ends of both side-bars missing. Six detached teeth were found with this comb but these have missingtips. The top of the frame is badly worn rather than broken and all but the base of theornamental boss has been lost. As only the butts of the teeth survive, their width andthe groove width are difficult to measure.

KOH101 is a comb with a complete frame but its teeth are broken 40–70 mm fromtheir bases. Both side-bars are present for part of their length. Five fragments of teeth,all minus tips, were found. It was the second-largest comb in the collection.

KOH102 is the largest comb, with the longest and the widest frame, but it is alsothe most fragmentary, with most of one side missing, and the length of the teeth is

106 Kohika

Figure 6.14Six heru or haircombs

unknown. This damage appears recent and is probably associated with its discoveryby mechanical digger. Only ten teeth remain and these are represented by short stumps,but the frame width indicates that a minimum of eighteen teeth were originally present.


The condition of the remaining parts of the frame suggests the comb had less wearthan any of the others when discarded.

Comb measurements are shown in Table 6.2. Some of the values are minimumsand are recorded with a + sign after. Frame width, frame length, frame depth, toothlength and total length are the maximum dimensions. Side-bar width was measuredwhere it was attached to the frame and, in the three combs where both bars are pres-ent, the values are the average of two measurements. Tooth depth and width are aver-ages of at least 30 separate measurements taken mainly on detached tooth fragments.

Table 6.2 Comb dimensions (mm)

KOH number 106 104 103 105 101 102 Average

Frame width 40 40+ 42.2 51.3 51.2 52+ 46+Frame thickness 3.6 4.3 5.6 6.1 5.60 5.6 5.1Frame length 51.0 76.5 119.5 99.0 115.8 157+ 103+Side-bar width 3.8 6.1 4.6 5.5 7.4 7.3 5.8Tooth length 71+ 75.0 105.5 132+ 159+ 120+ 110+Tooth number 13 13+ 12 18 15 18+ 15+Tooth thickness 3.05 3.7 4.8 5.25 6.3 4.6 4.6Tooth width 1.70 1.65 1.59 1.54 1.45 1.6 1.6Groove width 0.52 0.38 0.52 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.44Total length 122+ 151 225 231+ 275+ 277+ 213.5+

Summary

An examination of the literature on heru (Fisher 1962, Gardner 1985, Lawrence 1989,Shawcross 1964, 1976) shows the Kohika examples to be well within the known rangeof forms. As an assemblage they have a degree of coherence of form and style thatsuggests a single local manufacturing tradition or even a single maker. The attributesof this comb style are:• all are round-topped and comparable with Type A as defined by Shawcross

(1964:388)• belong to the end of the prehistoric sequence• have no ornamentation apart from the knob• have the knob placed near the top of the frame rather than further down the side

(as with most Kauri Point combs); as the frame may represent a human head theknob is the nose

• have a variable frame length that ranges from the average Kauri Point length to 20per cent greater than the longest comb in that very large collection

• have a relatively standard frame width and thickness that are very similar to theKauri Point ones

• have teeth that are very much finer (1.5–1.7 mm wide), longer (up to 1.5 times) andmore closely set (4.9 per centimetre) than the very finest in the Kauri Point collection

• have side-bars, like many of the Waitakere examples but unlike any of the KauriPoint combs; these are necessary to protect the fine teeth from damage during useand are almost identical in form to those of modern plastic

• the side-bars have four degrees of taper• all are made from mapara, the resinous heart of rimu, as are all the Kauri Point

combs (Wallace 1989:229) and eleven of twelve Auckland Museum combs identi-fied by this author (Lawrence 1989)

• none of the combs appears to have been deliberately damaged, in marked contrastto the Kauri Point situation where all the combs appeared to have been rituallybroken before being discarded in a specific place.

108 Kohika

The Kohika comb style, though similar to that of the upper levels of the KauriPoint site (Shawcross 1976, Fig. 4), is closer to the one seen in several of the Waita-kere examples (Lawrence 1989). The Kauri Point combs change over time from being‘square topped’ to ‘round topped’ and show an increase in size. The Kohika combsare all large and round topped. No two are identical in any of the collections butKohika shows the most consistent style, with variation being mainly in frame andtooth length.

Manufacturing method

A detailed examination of the combs gives some idea of the methods used to makethem. The most difficult part of the process would seem to be cutting the teeth, andthe wood selected had perfectly straight grain to allow parallel teeth to be cut. Closeexamination of detached teeth of the original combs showed they had been made bycutting grooves from both sides that met at the centre. In order to understand howthis might have been achieved, some replication experiments were attempted byR.Wallace. Groove cutting tools tried were a rat (Rattus exulans) incisor and modifiedflakes of obsidian and chert. Several things were learned quite quickly. Chert flakeswere the most successful because rat incisors and obsidian were too brittle to havebeen ideal for the purpose. The tool that was developed could be called a scriber. Afine-edged flake was struck and a bite taken out at one end of the cutting edge to forma sharp corner or point. The sharp edge was then deliberately blunted. This was essentialas a sharp edge can more readily cut wood across the grain, a process that must beavoided when cutting teeth that follow the grain exactly.

The first step in cutting was to start the groove by gently drawing a line along thegrain of the wood with the point of the scribing tool. Some skill was necessary tomake this exactly parallel with and the correct distance from the previous groove. Thescriber was then drawn up and down the deepening groove with increasing pressure.A small amount of oil run into the groove speeded the process greatly. The grooveswere not cut but rather dented or compressed into the surface with very little materialbeing removed. This compressed wood material partially rebounds when wet, creatinga groove significantly narrower than the tool used to make it. When the groovepenetrated halfway through the blank, another matching one was made from theopposite side until it nearly met the first. A new tooth could be split off and the scriberrun up and down in the gap to remove any excess wood. The technique createdremarkably fine grooves and with some practice it was possible to make teeth as fineas those of the Kohika combs.

The hardest part in making combs was getting the grooves exactly regular andparallel, and the great skill of the prehistoric craftsmen is reflected in the extremelyneat finish of the Kohika combs. It was also found that a variety of fine-grained rockand some shells could be employed to make scribers and that the main requirementsfor their successful use were strong fingers coupled with great care and manual dexterity.

Javelins/dartsSix artefacts (Fig. 6.15) from Kohika are identified as darts or javelins as described byBest (1924:94). Such missiles were produced in bulk and stored on fighting stages andin pits in fortified pa to be rained down on attackers or propelled with the aid of awhip into a pa from the outside. In the latter case they were placed butt first in theground and the end of a whip looped around just below the pointed end in such a waythat, when the dart was whipped out, the whip-cord was released. These artefacts


could also have been made as toys de-signed to foster martial skills in children.

The Kohika darts illustrated in Figure6.15 are all manuka sticks with a ‘bulrushshaped’ section behind the point or, inone case, a barbed end. This thickeningwould allow the cord of the whip to belooped behind it and would add weightto the front of the dart to make it fly better(Best 1924). Auckland Museum holds abundle of almost identical artefacts foundtogether in Lake Rotoaira and these showthe same diverse range of tip forms.

KOH119 is the only complete dart inthe collection.

KOH120 is the barbed point of a dart,the only such point found in this site. It isalmost identical to two found at the KauriPoint swamp site by Shawcross (1976:292–93).

KOH121 has the ‘bulrush’ thickenedpart carved in a simple ornamental form.

KOH122 is another dart fragment, in-cluding the thickened part.

KOH123 is similar to KOH122 but thethickening is in two sections separated bya narrow gap.

KOH124 has a simple thickening nearthe point.

Potaka (spinning tops)There are seven spinning tops in theKohika collection (Fig. 6.16). An eighthone, not described here, was irresponsiblyremoved from the site by a visitor duringthe excavation (S. Webster, pers. comm.2003). Tops were common items in Maorimaterial culture and their manufactureand use continued into living memory (P.Harrison and M. Penfold, pers. comm.).They are small cones of wood that wereset in motion by a length of fibre wrappedaround the top and whipped away by the stick to which it was attached. More whip-ping kept it spinning. Different types of top were made and used in a variety of children’sgames and, occasionally, in more serious situations (Best 1976:153–63).

The Kohika examples are of two forms, a short broad one and a tall slim one. Thelatter are said to be jumping tops that could be made to leap into the air (P. Harrison,pers. comm.). All the Kohika examples appear to be rather casually made toys and allare made from manuka except KOH112, which is made from a heavy, resinous type

Figure 6.15Six darts orjavelins

110 Kohika

of totara. It is the most carefullyproduced top with a depressionin its upper surface. It is iden-tified by Dr Paki Harrison as ahumming top, the sound beingproduced by the hollow in thetop and by the slightly squaredsides.

KOH113 has been identifiedas a jumping top, being tall andslim with a groove around itscircumference to accommodatethe wound string.

KOH114 is a plain broadtop.

KOH115 is similar in shapeto KOH114 but somewhatsmaller.

KOH116 is similar but small-er again.

KOH117 is a tall slim jump-ing top.

KOH118 is the smallest top.

Adze and chisel handlesThree artefacts in the Kohikacollection fall into this category.One is an adze haft still in theprocess of manufacture, anotheris a finely made handle for a verysmall stone chisel head, and thelast a socket for a composite haftof a small chisel, conceivably fortattooing.

KOH109 is an unfinished adze handle. It is made from a small branch of rimu cutto include its junction with a larger one (Fig. 6.17).

KOH110 is a finely made chisel handle made from heart kanuka (Fig. 6.18). Thechisel head it was designed to hold must have been small, as its butt sat in a taperedsocket 25 mm long widening to a maximum of 11 mm. Just such a blade of greenstoneis described in Chapter 9.

KOH111 appears to be a miniature version of an adze socket (Fig. 6.18), designedas the wooden butt extension for an adze (Wallace 1982). One end has a socket thatappears to be for the butt of a small chisel. The other end has another socket to takethe head of a handle. Such a composite handle and socket has previously been recordedonly for full-sized woodworking adzes. Its size, however, suggests only a very smallwoodworking chisel or even a tattooing chisel that was hafted. Tattooing chisel handlesof this form have been reported by Robley (1987:48) and if this socket was for acomposite tattooing handle then it is a unique prehistoric artefact. It is made frompuriri.

Figure 6.16Seven potaka orspinning tops


FluteKOH107 is part of one side of a flute or putorino (Fig. 6.19). Such instruments weremade in two half sections that were then bound together. It is smaller than most ofthose in museum collections (M. McLean, pers. comm.) and is made from mapara. Itis unornamented but very finely finished.

Net gaugesKOH241 is a very carefully finished tab of totara slightly tapered at the end with afinely drilled hole near one corner (Fig. 6.20). This artefact is identical to one of a setof net gauges from Tikopia held in Auckland Museum (D. Bonica, pers. comm.). Thesegauges were used to standardise the mesh of nets during manufacture and repair. If

Figure 6.17An adze handlerough-out

Figure 6.18A chisel handleand a chiselsocket

112 Kohika

KOH241 is accurately identified, then itscircumference would generate a mesh with anaperture of 15 mm. The hole in one cornerwould allow a string to hold together a set ofdifferent-sized gauges.

KOH243 is a flat piece of rimu (Fig. 6.20)very similar in thickness, general appearanceand finish to KOH241. It too could have beena net gauge.

Thread reelsTwo items, KOH239 and KOH240, are smallstrips of heart totara with broad notches alongeach side (Fig. 6.21). They were identified asreels for fine thread (P. Harrison, pers. comm.).The notches are to prevent the thread fromsliding and becoming tangled, and such toolsare made for Maori weavers to this day.

Fibre working toolsEighteen Kohika artefacts are tentatively iden-tified as fibre working tools (Fig. 6.22). Theyare short pieces of wood, eight of which havespatulate points and ten needle points. It issuggested here that they were used for a varietyof purposes related to weaving, net making,rope working and so on. All are illustrated inFigure 6.22 but only three of the better-madeand more distinctive are described here.

KOH261 is a very beautifully made kaui,or weaving tool. It is a leaf-shaped piece ofheart totara wood with a 13 mm long pointat one end. Unlike the others in this category,it is beautifully finished and may have been ahigh-status object used for the finest weaving.

KOH251 is a cone-shaped piece of totaraidentical in form and probable function to amarlinspike – a tool for loosening knots andstrands in ropes and cordage.

KOH254 is a carefully made artefactshaped from a stick of manuka that tapers toa slight knob at the top and has a steep bevelat the other end, leading to a projectingtongue.

Figure 6.19A section of aputorino (flute)

Figure 6.20Two net gauges

Figure 6.21Two thread reels


Figure 6.22Fibre-, net- andrope-workingtools

Wakahuia lid?KOH108 is a flat plain slab of totara with rounded, tapered edges. It could have beena lid for a simple wakahuia, or treasure box. This item is not illustrated.

114 Kohika

LadderKOH231 is a ladder with four notched steps (Fig.6.23). It is made from a small trunk of mahoe 1205mm long and has a hole piercing the bottom end toallow it to be lashed to something. We believe it wasfor a pataka in Area D.

Bevelled stripsKOH242 is a set of eight strips of totara 14–20 mmwide by 3–4 mm thick, broken into sections 25–150mm long. The edges of one face have been bevelled.The original function of these items is not known butthey must have been a component of a larger artefactassociated with the White House level (Square D7).They are not illustrated.

WedgesSix items have been identified with varying degrees ofconfidence as wood-splitting wedges (Fig. 6.24). Theyhave the expected acute triangle profile and most showevidence of hammering on their butts or breakage atthe other end. KOH232 is a wedge carefully made frommaire trunk-wood. It has a groove cut around its top,presumably to take a binding to reduce splitting, andits tip has broken. The others are less clearly wedgesbut most have some degree of battering on their tops.

PegsSeven items are identified as pegs in this collection (Fig.6.25). They are rather casually made from a variety ofspecies and quite robust.

PostsA sample of sixteen has been identified as being manufactured stakes or posts but, ingeneral, they are too fragmentary to be ascribed to the main defensive palisade. Allhad been split out of small to medium-sized trees. Only one (KOH263) is a completesection of stem and had been made into a post or stake 1360 mm long. The otheritems are merely split pieces of wood of similar cross-section, frequently having theouter surface of the tree trunk (minus bark) as one face. The wood identifications ofthese artefacts include tawa, pukatea, matai, rimu and totara. They are not illustratedhere.

Figure 6.23Ladder


Figure 6.24Wood-splittingwedges

116 Kohika

Figure 6.25Pegs


Figure 6.26Items ofunidentifiedfunction

118 Kohika

Sharpened sticks/stakesTen stems cut off at one end and adzed into sharpened ends at the other were broughtback to the laboratory while numerous other examples were discarded in the field.They may have been parts of various above-ground structures, including low fencesseparating activity areas within the site. Nine are manuka and one is mahoe.

Miscellaneous itemsFive very carefully made items with no obvious function are illustrated in Figure 6.26.Some may have been fittings associated with houses or canoes.

Lashing vinesMany coils of lashing vine were found at Kohika and a sample of nineteen was col-lected from eleven different locations. All are 3–7 mm in vine thickness and probablyof white rata (Metrosideros albiflora). The coils are of two types: smaller ones 1–3 mlong wound into a coil some 175 mm across, and larger ones with 5–22 m of vinemeasuring about 220 mm across. A total of 140 m of vine is present in these coils.Two coils are shown in Plate 6.2.

Most pre-European Maori structures were lashed together. Superior houses couldhave employed manufactured twine but for most work, such as palisades, vines wouldhave been used. These could have been collected in the bush, coiled on the spot andtransported to the site by canoe. They are very flexible when green but become stiffwhen dry and, if stored dry, would have required several days’ soaking before use.The Kohika coils were all found in peaty deposits, suggesting they had been stored inwater at the swampy margins of the site to keep them in a usable state.

Adzed fragmentsTwelve items, KOH271 toKOH282, show extensiveadze marks on some of theirsurfaces and preserve evidenceof careful use of a stone adze.

Wood chipsKOH308–334 and KOH351–354 are chips of wood pro-duced as waste during adzeworking. These were collectedto investigate woodworkingtechnology, and a preliminarydiscussion can be found inBoileau (1978). Wood chipswere abundant in the site anda sample of more than 200

Plate 6.2Two coils ofrata vine.


was retained for analysis. This indicates three forms of adzing: steep-angle choppingused to sever trunks or stems, rapid reduction of surfaces by levering off large chunks,and shallow-angle adzing to dress surfaces to a smooth finish.

The steep-angle chopping was done at an angle of up to 30 degrees and indicatesvery vigorous adze work. Several of the flake scars are deep enough to suggest that theadze blade was driven up to 50 mm into the wood in a single heavy blow.

The second and commonest type of wood chip resulted from rapid reduction of awood surface. These are large splinters and strips of wood with one or both endsbroken off across the grain. All of these are of totara and most can be placed into oneof three sub-categories. First are those with one end chopped off at a steep angle andthe other end smashed off at right angles. Second, those smashed off at both ends.Third, those smashed off at one end and the other thinning out to a point or edgewhere the grain ran out. The ratio between these types is close to 1:4:1 in the sample.Each wood chip has a single split surface on its lower face and remnants of severalscars on its upper face where several flakes had previously been split off. These woodchips were clearly produced by driving an adze into an exposed end grain and leveringup a strip of wood until it broke across the grain. The adze was then driven under thenewly broken end to lever off another strip, a process that continued until the splinterran out or the end of the log was reached. In this case the adze was being used as across between a cutting tool, a wedge and a lever.

Totara is a very free-splitting wood and it should normally be possible to split itinto blanks of the correct size with little need for such a rough reduction process asindicated by these wood splinters. However, it is interesting that one activity wheresplitting is not normally possible is hollowing out logs during the manufacture of canoesor very large bowls. The necessity of preserving a watertight hull in one piece meantthat wood had to be levered and smashed out rather than wedged and split off. Itfollows that many of the wood chips could derive from canoe building.

Wood chips resulting from shallow-angle dressing of timber are less common in thesample. These are mostly about 1 mm thick and have one side with several shallow-angle adze scars and the other with a single scar or merely a single split surface wherethe adze had cleaved a piece rather than cut it. The low frequency of such dressingchips is surprising considering the abundance of adze-marked timbers, but the samplereturned to the laboratory is not considered to be representative.

Evidence of yet another type of adzing is seen on sharpened stakes and stems wherethe sapwood had been cut off. The adze marks on the artefacts suggest the removal oflong narrow shavings by multiple short adze blows, one after another. Such chips werenot included in the sample and may also have not survived burial in quantity.

An overview of the Kohika wooden assemblageThe artefacts described in this chapter are the result of activities associated with builtstructures, food acquisition and preparation, transport, defence and the working ofother materials, including fibre and manufacturing waste.

Housing is discussed in Chapter 7. Food acquisition and preparation are reflectedin the fifteen fragments of bird spears, the 28 pieces of digging and horticultural imple-ments, the six knobbed ends of shafts (probable digging tool shaft fragments), thefifteen beaters and the six bowls. These artefacts reflect active exploitation of forestbirds, vigorous horticultural activity and a strong emphasis on fern root as a foodsource.

Artefact manufacture involving woodworking is represented by an adze handle,

120 Kohika

one chisel handle and one socket for a composite hafted chisel. Together with thewood chips and wedges, these artefacts show that many of the items found were actu-ally made on the site. The fibre-working tools include two reels for fine thread, nineteenweaving and rope-working implements and the two net gauges.

The nineteen paddles, six canoe parts, three or four bailers and thirteen possiblecanoe seats and fittings reflect the importance of transport technology. The abundanceof such artefacts is expected in a swamp site located within a network of rivers, streamsand lakes where canoes would have been the primary means of transport. One mustalso bear in mind the evidence for contact further along the coast. One of the canoefragments is made from kauri and could imply that the site was part of a network ofwaterborne communications wider than the local area.

There is a notable absence of some of the wooden weapons of Classic Maori culture.The only possible ones are the six javelins or darts, but these may have been toys. Thepalisade posts and coils of lashing vine that were used to bind them certainly reflectdefence, and we may note the contemporary existence of many fortified sites in thehills around the swamp.

One of the great benefits of wetland archaeology is that items of status, ornamen-tation, religion, art and play are relatively well represented. Apart from the elaboratelycarved house parts discussed later, there are six ornamental hair combs, seven spinningtops and part of a flute. Such artefacts imply the presence of people who practised themore sophisticated Maori arts.

The overall picture is of a lightly defended horticultural, fishing and fowling lakevillage occupied by a community practising a wide variety of economic, industrial,social and cultural activities and with some time for leisure. The people participatedin exchange networks, as reflected in exotic materials. In short, this wooden artefactcollection might be seen as typical of a late period, but clearly before European arrival.

ReferencesBeaglehole, J.C., 1974. The Journals of Captain James Cook. Volume I: The Voyage of the

Endeavour 1768–1772. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Best, E., 1924. The Maori. Vol. I. Wellington: The Polynesian Society.Best, E., 1925. The Maori Canoe. Dominion Museum Bulletin No.7. Wellington: Government

Printer.Best, E., 1976. Maori Agriculture. Dominion Museum Bulletin No.9. Wellington: Government

Printer.Best, E., 1977. Forest Lore of the Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin No.14. Wellington:

Government PrinterBoileau, J., 1978. Wood from Kohika: a study of timber exploitation and woodworking

technology. Unpublished MA research essay, University of Auckland.Colenso, W., 1868. On the geographic and economic botany of the North Island of New Zealand.

Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 1:233–83.Colenso, W., 1891. Vestiges: Reminiscences: Memorabilia of works, deeds and sayings of the

ancient Maori. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 24:445–67.Downes, T.W., 1928. Bird snaring on the Wanganui River. Journal of the Polynesian Society,

37:1–30.Fisher, V.F., 1962. The heru or Maori comb. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter,

5:47–50.Gardner, J., 1985. What value and use are the records of explorers, missionaries, traders and

early settlers to the study of combs in an archaeological context? Unpublished MA researchessay, University of Auckland.

Joppien, R. and B. Smith, 1984. The Art of Captain Cook’s Voyages. Volume I: The Voyage of


the Endeavour 1768–1771. Volume II: The Voyage of the Resolution and the Adventure1772–1775. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Lawrence, J., 1989. The Archaeology of the Waitakere Ranges. Unpublished MA thesis,University of Auckland.

Matthews, R.H., 1910. Reminiscences of Maori life fifty years ago. Transactions and Proceedingsof the New Zealand Institute, 43:598–605.

Neich, R., 1993. Painted Histories. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Oldman, W.O., 1946. Skilled handwork of the Maori: being the Oldman Collection of Maori

artefacts illustrated and described. Wellington: The Polynesian Society Memoir No.14.Purdue, C., 2002. What is a fern-root beater? the correlation of museum artefacts and ethno-

historical descriptions. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.Ranapiri, T., 1895. Ancient methods of bird snaring amongst the Maoris. Journal of the

Polynesian Society, 4:132–52.Robley, H.G., 1987. Moko, or, Maori tattooing. Papakura: Southern Reprints.Shawcross, F.W., 1964. An archaeological assemblage of Maori combs. Journal of the Polynesian

Society, 73:382–98.Shawcross, F.W., 1970. The Cambridge University Collection of Maori artefacts, made on

Captain Cook’s first voyage. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 73:305–48.Shawcross, F.W., 1976. Kauri Point Swamp: the ethnographic interpretation of a prehistoric

site. In G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth and K.E. Wilson (eds), Problems in Economicand Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth, pp.201–20.

Wallace, R.T., 1982. Woods used in the manufacture of Maori adze helves and composite helvesockets. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 4:170–84.

Wallace, R.T., 1985. Studies in the conservation of waterlogged wood in New Zealand.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waikato.

Wallace, R.T., 1989. A preliminary study of wood types used in pre-European Maori woodenartefacts. In D.G. Sutton (ed.), Saying so doesn’t make it so. Wellington: New ZealandArchaeological Association Monograph No.17.

122

7 Houses, pataka and woodcarving at Kohika

R.T. Wallace, G.J. Irwin and R. Neich

Kohika pa adds to the knowledge of traditional Maori architecture, and this chapterreconstructs the buildings that stood there. The evidence consists of surviving timbersand excavated floor plans, which are interpreted in the context of archaeological andethnographic information from elsewhere. In an earlier report Wallace and Irwin (1999)described a generic Kohika house but this chapter describes the individual buildings.The chapter briefly reviews the literature on traditional Maori buildings and describesthe parts found at Kohika. A number of carvings, mainly from buildings, are describedalso. There are general discussions of both the buildings and the carving styles. Thecombined evidence gives us a view of an assemblage of houses and pataka of variedform, size and decoration.

The buildingsThe Whakatane and District Historical Society team collected many dressed timbersfrom a carved house, but they did no formal excavation and found no floor plan. Theresult is that the house tells us much about the details of construction of a superiorhouse but not much about its dimensions. The remains of a pataka (raised storehouse)were found in the same area. In Area D, the university team excavated a sequence ofartificial floors and found two houses, with their floor plans revealed by postholesand post butts. However, although these houses were substantial, they were of a lessformal, pole and thatch construction. Area D also supplied timbers from a possiblethird house and pataka for which we have no floor plans.

Figure 7.1 is a reconstruction of the house in the HS Area. It had at least fourcarved poupou that were set in the ground, a carved figure on a board (poutahuhu)that possibly faced into the interior of the house, plus a carved human figure on a post(poutokomanawa) that supported the ridgepole (tahuhu). All of the carvings were thework of one artist. Figure 7.2 is the house that stood on the excavated Yellow Househorizon, shown without its facing boards at the gables and wall ends (maihi and amo).Minor decorations and carvings were associated with this house. A smaller house ofthe same construction, not illustrated here, stood directly above this house on theWhite House horizon and probably reused some of the parts. There are indicationsthat yet a third building in Area D may have stood underneath both these two on theBright Yellow level. The details of the three excavated floors were shown in Figures4.15–17.

Figure 7.3 is a pataka that has been reconstructed from several distinctive components(including the ladder described in Chapter 6). It stood close to the houses in Area Dbut the precise location is unknown because the supporting posts did not survive insitu.

Houses, pataka and woodcarving at Kohika 123

Figure 7.1A reconstructionof the carvedhouse from theHistoricalSociety (HS)Area

The estimated dimensions of the buildings are shown in Table 7.1, except for thecarved house in Figure 7.1. The body proportions of the human figures in the surviv-ing parts of the poupou indicate that it had a wall height of 1.0–1.2 m, but otherdimensions could vary while wall height stayed the same. However, we would notexpect the carved house to have been smaller than the houses in Area D. The dimen-sions of the White and Yellow houses were based on floor plans and of the BrightYellow House and pataka on the size of surviving timbers.

Table 7.1 Estimated dimensions of excavated houses and pataka

Building Width Length Height at ridgepole Floor area

Yellow House 5.35 m 7.24 m 2.85 m 38.8 m2

White House 3.65 m 5.40 m 2.30 m 19.7 m2

Bright Yellow House 3.00 m minimum 4.50 m (1.5 x width) 2.00 m 13.3 m2

Pataka Area D 2.60 m 3.90 m (1.5 x width) 1.80 m 10.1 m2

A brief review of Maori architectureArchaeology rarely discovers the actual remains of above-ground buildings. The excep-tions have been isolated finds, such as the spectacular carvings found near Waitara inTaranaki (Duff 1961). Systematic excavations of wet sites have been few; the onesmost comparable with Kohika being two swamp sites at Lake Mangakaware near Te

124 Kohika

Figure 7.2A reconstructionof the pole andthatch housefrom the YellowHouse floor,Area D

Awamutu (Bellwood 1978). Underground evidence of the floor plans of buildingssurvives in dry sites as features such as patterns of postholes, hearths and scatters ofartefacts and other debris (Davidson 1984:151–63). All of these sources of informationprovide a context for the review of the Kohika houses and pataka.

Whare

Prickett (1982:111–12) has shown that the Maori house (whare) was a conservativecultural form that persisted through much of New Zealand prehistory and well intothe European era. Many historic and ethnographic descriptions of traditional Maoribuildings are available but, unfortunately, none written by someone who had actuallybuilt one. As a consequence, construction details are usually quite superficially treated.Most accounts date to the 19th century, when Maori architecture was progressivelyadopting European construction techniques and materials. The last descriptions ofhouses built by traditional methods were made in the 1920s (Firth 1926). Knowledgeof construction methods was lost and by 1949 Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa) wrote:‘No detailed description of the framework of the common Maori house is available tome and my memory cannot supply details which were never noted despite frequentcontact with them.’ (Buck 1949:117). An explanation for this is provided in this chapter.Modern Maori architecture is focused on the whare whakairo or communal meetinghouse, a form that has continued to evolve and develop up to the present day (Neich1993:89–121).

Traditional Maori houses were constructed using a system fundamentally differentfrom modern building methods and, in some aspects, to ones described as traditional


in parts of tropical Polynesia. Scholars have classified Maori houses in various ways,the most basic distinction, according to Prickett (1982:116), being between what Best(1924:559) called ‘carefully fitted houses constructed of wrought timbers, with or with-out embellishment’ and those made from pole and thatch. The former can be dividedinto meeting houses, or large communally owned structures often embellished withcarved, painted and woven decoration, and smaller, privately occupied sleeping houses.In the following account the main sources used are Prickett (1974, 1979, 1982) fortraditional houses, Williams (1896) for contact-period houses, Phillips (1952), Makereti(1986) and Firth (1926) for 19th-century and early 20th-century houses, and Anon.(1988) for the modern carved house. Additional information is from Bellwood (1978),Best (1924), Buck (1949) and Prickett (1982).

The Kohika house illustrated in Figure 7.1 can be taken as a model of a houseconstructed from dressed timbers. Construction began by setting up a line of centreposts spanned by a ridgepole (tahuhu) that projected at the front. As this formed theprimary structural support, the house can be seen as being built from the top down.The walls were then formed by setting vertical boards in the ground, poupou at thesides and epa at the ends. Each poupou had a slot in the top to take the tongue (teremu)of a rafter (heke) forming a mortise and tenon joint. How rafters joined at the ridgepole

Figure 7.3A reconstructionof the patakafrom Area D

126 Kohika

is not clearly described. If they met end on, poupou would occur in matched pairs oneither side of the house, as in the case of modern meeting houses. If rafters crossed atthe ridgeline and were lashed together, each poupou would be systematically offsetfrom its matching one on the opposite side of the house. The latter appears to havebeen normal during prehistory, as can be seen by posthole patterns excavated by archae-ologists (Davidson, 1984, Figs 97, 101, 102 and 103). This form has been used inFigure 7.1.

A cable (tauwhenua) ran up each poupou, along the top of the rafters and down tothe opposite poupou. This held the joints of the structure together under compression(Best 1924:565, Makereti 1986:299). This cable is said to have attached to a buttress(pou matua) set up outside each poupou. Such accounts are sketchy and not entirelylogical, leaving unclear the question of how the ends of the tauwhenua were anchored.While photos of 19th-century houses sometimes show a line of light posts outside thewalls (Neich 1993, Figs 69, 106 and 131), it is clear their function was to support thethatching so it projected well clear of the walls of the house, a necessity in such largehouses in the absence of projecting rafters. These disappeared as soon as corrugated-iron roofing and steel gutters were adopted. Lines of postholes outside and parallel tohouse walls were not found at Kohika and are rare in other sites.

The primary load-bearing structure of the house was thus a ridgepole spanningtwo or more posts supporting a series of arches whose joints were held together undercompression by a cable. This primary structure was then reinforced by lighter verticaland horizontal elements. A horizontal batten (kaho-paetara) ran the length of the sidewalls, on the outside near their tops. Lashed to this element were vertical battens(tumatahuki) placed between poupou. The tops of the end wall posts were connectedto a pair of special rafters (heke ripi). Purlins or stringers (kaho) ran across the rafters,either lashed to the rafters or held in place by having the tauwhenua looped aroundthem (Best 1924:565, Makereki 1986:299). There was a single door (tatau, kuaha orwhatitoka) and window (pihunga, mataaho or matapihi) in the front wall, often closedby solid slabs of wood that sat in grooves in sills and lintels and slid sideways intocavities in the wall insulation. Accounts of how lintel and sill plates were fitted (Williams1896, Firth 1926) are either vague or relate to large late 19th-century houses (Makereti1986:307–8).

The above account relates to superior houses made from dressed timbers. Mostwhare, however, would have been constructed of a framework of undressed poles withall joints lashed together where elements crossed, as in the Kohika house shown inFigure 7.2. Such houses were not necessarily smaller than ones made from dressedtimber and the difference would have been visible mainly from the inside, because theload-bearing structure formed the internal surface and the insulation was placed againstthe outside. One of the best insulation materials was the bulrush raupo (Typhaaugustifolia). It was used in the house reconstructions in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, as thepollen record demonstrates an abundance of the species around the site. Raupo wasset vertically on the walls and the roof and lashed in place to light horizontal elements(Neich 2001, Figs 7.1, 11.5). These elements were made from thin sticks or even thecane-like supplejack (Rhipogonum scandens). Inside superior houses, wall insulationbetween poupou was covered by an ornamental latticework (tukutuku panels) sup-ported by the tumatahuki. The roof insulation was usually further topped off by amore durable thatch such as toitoi leaves (Cordateria conspicusa) held in place bypoles or cables. Houses could be finished off with facing boards placed above thedoor (pare), window (korupe), the gables (maihi) and ends of the side walls (amo). Aplank set on edge (paepae) could be placed along the front of the porch (Fig. 7.1).


Pataka

There is a well-attested concept of raised platforms in Polynesia, either open or en-closed, for the storage or display of food, gifts, other belongings or even corpses (Geelen1974). These are generally referred to as fata or pafata from the Proto-Polynesian*fata (Walsh and Biggs 1966). In New Zealand, open storage platforms called whataand enclosed storehouses built on raised platforms supported by posts, usually calledpataka, were notable features of 19th-century Maori culture. Most New Zealand andmany international museums have examples of elaborately carved and ornamentedpataka in their collections. Different types were built to store food, clothing or tapuitems, sometimes including human remains. They varied greatly in size and construction,with some being of dressed timbers, others of pole and thatch or even, in the case ofsmaller ones, assembled from sections of old canoes (Best 1974, Earle 1966, Geelen1974, Phillips 1952). Pataka were frequently ornamented with carvings, paint andfeathers, and the larger and more elaborate ones were similar in appearance to smallhouses.

Pataka are shown in many depictions of 19th-century Maori settlements (e.g. Best1974, Earle 1966). During the century, communal meeting houses grew in size andelaboration and assumed their current role as the main vehicle of group prestige (Neich1993) and, conversely, pataka declined in importance. However, pataka were describedas the most notable buildings in early 19th-century villages (Cruise 1974). This viewis supported by a recent study of the numerous carvings recovered from swamps innorth Taranaki (Day 2001), which are loosely dated to the late 18th and early 19thcenturies. The author concludes: ‘Probably one of the most obvious facts is that theprestigious architectural structures in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centur-ies for the northern part of Te Tai Hauauru ki Taranaki were pataka.’ (Day 2001:117)

Evidence exists of other pataka from potentially pre-European and certainly earlycontact-period contexts. This includes part of a doorway recovered during excav-ations at Oruarangi, a site not inhabited after the 1820s (Green and Green 1963:33,Teviotdale and Skinner 1947:343). The set of pataka carvings recovered at Mirandain the late 19th century, is rumoured to have been buried in pre-European times (Lysnar1915:57). There are the well-known Te Kaha pataka carvings in Auckland Museumwhose history is reported to date from as early as 1780 (Geelen 1974:32). A patakapaepae recovered from waterlogged soils at Chartwell in Hamilton (Edson, pers. comm.)may also be early. Geelen (1974:32–3) lists further potential examples of contact-periodor older pataka.

Unfortunately, the above records all lack good chronological provenance. They andthe early European eye-witness accounts relate mainly to the 19th century, and leaveunclear the extent to which raised storehouses were features of pre-European Maoriculture. This led Groube (1965:56) to suggest that highly carved pataka, along withmuch else in 19th-century Maori culture, arose as a result of European influences.Such influences may have included steel carving tools and the need to relocate prop-erty (other than root crops requiring the controlled temperatures of undergroundstorage) out of reach of newly introduced rats and pigs. Unfortunately, evidence ofraised storage platforms and storehouses is usually ephemeral in the prehistoricMaori archaeological record, as it may consist of little more than a few postholes.Waterlogged deposits containing parts of the superstructure of storehouses fromchronologically secure contexts offer the best hope of demonstrating the antiquity ofpataka.

At Kohika we have found evidence for probable pataka in three of the excavatedareas and can date these to the late 17th century. The evidence consists of structural

128 Kohika

timbers that match those of ethnographically recorded storehouses, and can be dis-tinguished from those of houses by details of form and by smaller dimensions. Thereare significant differences between pataka and whare made from carefully dressedtimbers. Figure 7.1 illustrates the essential features of a dressed-timber whare whileFigure 7.3 does the same for a plank-built pataka. Pataka walls were formed fromplanks lashed to a raised platform whereas whare planks or posts were set in the earth.Pataka walls had a single thickness of planks sewn edge to edge with a batten coveringthe joint while whare walls were formed by a line of well-separated posts with insula-tion attached to the outside. Unlike whare, pataka often had side walls of horizontalplanks and never had windows. Finally, pataka dimensions overlap with those of whareonly at the upper end of their range. The last point is relevant as we have good dataon whare dimensions at Kohika.

The structural timbers from Kohika strongly support the presence of pataka. Manyitems found in the peat of Areas B, D and the HS Area could as easily have been keptin storehouses as in houses. Also, in Square B1 there were standing posts consistentwith a raised pataka, with valuable artefacts present but no house in the immediatevicinity. The argument will be developed that at Kohika there were not just houses,but integrated households, which also included storehouses and other less formalstructures such as cooking shelters for which there are both floor plans and suitabletimbers.

Description of the parts of buildings at KohikaIn order to facilitate description of the timbers recovered, a standardised nomenclat-ure has been adopted for the way boards were cut from tree trunks and the types oflashing holes cut into them, as illustrated in Figure 7.4.

Timbers from the Historical Society Area

The society team recovered a large number of dressed timbers from their Squares 1and 2. A feature found only in this area was that some had been partly consumed byfire. This had removed only the upper parts of timbers that had originally been setupright in the ground, their lower parts having been protected from fire damage bymoisture from the saturated ground. The absence of charring on other timbers stronglyimplies that the buildings had been abandoned for a period prior to the fires. In this

Figure 7.4Types of lashingholes on houseplanks


scenario, the structure would have disintegrated and its timbers lain in contact withthe saturated ground prior to the fires, leaving only the tops of standing posts dryenough to burn. Afterwards, the surviving bottom halves remained standing until theyrotted off at ground level. When recovered, all timbers had one side more weatheredthan the other, indicating that they had lain exposed for an extended period beforebeing incorporated into waterlogged deposits.

Four poupou with carved ornamentation on one surface were recovered (Plates 7.1–4). They had clearly been parts of a whare whakairo or carved house. All had theirtops burnt off and were damaged by decay at ground level. Extrapolation from theproportions of the carved human figures indicates that the poupou were once approxi-mately a metre tall. Stylistic analysis is provided below. The poupou, KOH14, KOH16,KOH17 and KOH18, are very similar in size, 205–280 mm wide and 30–40 mm thick.Part of the base of KOH16 was still partially intact and shows they had chisel endsthat allowed them to be driven into the ground.

KOH44 (Plate 7.5) is notably thicker at 85 mm than the others and is interpretedas a poutahuhu, a post set in the centre of the front wall of the house supporting theridgepole and with its carving facing into the interior (Figure 7.1). Such posts oftenhad the same type of carving as poupou. All of these items were made from totaraand, on the basis of the carving style (see below), were a matched set.

KOH53 (Plate 7.6) is the corner broken from a very elaborately carved pare, orflashing over a door. Analysis of the carving style is given later in this chapter.

Plate 7.1KOH14. Poupoubase, HistoricalSociety Area.


130 Kohika

KOH1, KOH3 and KOH345 (Plates 7.7–9) are fragments broken off elaboratelycarved slabs. KOH345 is a small (35 mm) fragment of spiral fretwork. These itemsare too small to allow discussion of the function of the timbers they came from. It islikely that KOH1 and KOH3 are from the whare whakairo, but it is quite possiblethat KOH345 is from a carving on a canoe.

KOH7 (Plate 7.10) is a large (1030 mm tall) stylised human figure executed in theround. The base is flat and it sat on the ground rather than being set into it. It is ina very weathered state but the top is broken in a way that shows it once had a postextending upwards from it. It is interpreted as a poutokomanawa or central housepost supporting the ridgepole. An attempt was made to reconstruct it. Using only stonetools, Paki Harrison, Dante Bonica and Wiremu Puke carved a figure as close to theoriginal as they could achieve (Plate 7.10). The surface ornamentation is, necessarily,conjectural.

All other house timbers found in this area were without carved ornamentation.Some had also been partly burnt but most had remained untouched.

KOH9 is a nearly complete 765 mm-long poupou (Fig. 7.5). The base has rottedoff at ground level, but it is not burnt. The intact top has a square notch cut to takethe tongue on the lower end of a rafter. It has a face-type eyelet just below this notch,probably for holding the tauwhenua cable in place.

KOH12 is a 155 mm-wide wall slab (Fig. 7.5), burnt off square at the top androtted off at ground level. This could have been either a poupou or an epa. It has two




Plate 7.5KOH44.Poutahuhu base,HistoricalSociety Area.

edge eyelets opposite each other that would have allowed a horizontal structural elementto have been attached without the lashings being visible from inside the house. Suchhorizontal elements can be located on Figure 7.1.

KOH13 (Figure 7.5) is another slab burnt and rotted off in a similar way to KOH12that has just one edge eyelet.

KOH15 is a plank (Fig. 7.5) whose base and burnt-off top form an angle of 80degrees to its edge, which implies that it was leaning 10 degrees to one side when partof a structure. As such, it could have been an amo (Fig. 7.1) cut to match the inwardslope of the side walls. The two lashing holes at the base could have been used toconnect it to the wall behind or to a paepae.

Plate 7.6KOH53. Parefragment,HistoricalSociety Area.

132 Kohika

Plate 7.7KOH1. Partof carving,HistoricalSociety Area.

Plate 7.8KOH3.Fragmentof carving,HistoricalSociety Area.

Plate 7.9KOH345.Fragment ofspiral fromcarving,HistoricalSociety Area.


Plate 7.10KOH7.Poutokomanawafigure, HistoricalSociety Area, andmodern replicacarved by PakiHarrison, DanteBonica andWiremu Puke.

134 Kohika

Figure 7.5Poupou andother verticalhouse elementsfrom the HSArea

The timbers described above have been adze-dressed on all four faces and haveneatly made lashing holes chiselled through them. They are vertical elements from avery carefully made house, most probably the whare whakairo. In contrast, KOH10(Fig. 7.5) is a rather roughly made poupou that could have come from a more casuallyconstructed building. It has been split from the outer surface of a pukatea (Laurelianovae-zelandiae) trunk with only the split surfaces dressed. The three lashing holesdown the length of the board are casually chiselled and unevenly placed.

KOH55 (Fig. 7.6) is identified here as a nearly finished pare (flashing board over adoor) or korupe (over a window). It is a slab of totara 575 mm by 135 mm with azigzag outline on its upper margin. It is similar to a pare from a Maori house at Waipa(Angas 1979:36) and to a smaller item (KOH54, described below) found in Area D.The wood has been adzed relatively smooth but no lashing holes had yet been cut.

KOH57 (Fig. 7.6) is a slab of totara 488 mm long by 108 mm with a deep U-shaped hollow down its length. One end has a deep square notch and the other theremains of a square tongue. This artefact fits the description of a door sill (Williams


1896:148). The way it could have operated in a house is illustrated in Figure 7.1.Thesquare notch would have fitted around a solid jamb or epa at one side. The tongue atthe other end would have been inserted between a two-piece jamb that allowed thedoor slab to slide into the wall cavity.

KOH58 is identified as a door jamb. It is a board 1230 mm by 535 mm with twolarge square holes cut through it and the remains of three edge eyelet-type lashingholes along one edge (Fig. 7.6). It is nearly identical to a door jamb described byBellwood (1978, Fig. 11). We could not find a source for Bellwood’s ascription, butthere is a matched door sill and lintel in Auckland Museum collected from Oruarangithat would fit into a jamb of this form.

Nine artefacts from Squares 1 and 2 meet the definition of tumatahuki or verticalhouse wall battens (Fig. 7.7). They were split from heart totara, the top half adze-dressed, and a simple hole chiselled near the very top. The larger six (KOH42–48) areclearly from the same house. They range from 1135 mm to 1005 mm long, a variationto be expected as house walls often rose in height from back to front (Firth 1926).These battens are all in an excellent state of preservation and have no evidence ofrot at their bases. Tumatahuki typically support tukutuku panels with their tops lashedto the kaho-paetara. Clearly, when the house was abandoned, the lashings rottedand the battens fell onto the wet ground and escaped fire. Three smaller battens(KOH49–51) were also recovered from Squares 1 and 2. Although identical in formto those described above, they are only 705 mm to 560 mm long.

A further batten (KOH52) of a different type was found in the same area. Unlike

Figure 7.6Door or windowparts from theHS Area

136 Kohika

the others, it has a hole in both ends and may have had a different function, such asto hold the front wall insulation in place (Fig.7.7).

KOH59 is a slat 1545 mm long and 40 mm wide (not illustrated). It is slightlytapered and snapped off at one end. There are many possible functions for such anitem in the house construction, including covering the junction between two planks,trimming around doors and windows, and holding insulation onto the front wall.

Several timber planks that were probably parts of pataka were found in the Societyarea. These have lashing holes enabling them to have been sewn edge to edge. KOH11and KOH21 (Fig. 7.8) are probably from pataka epa on the front wall (see Fig. 7.3),as their tops are cut at 45–55 degrees from the vertical. KOH11 has three simplelashing holes along one edge and two on the other. KOH21 is a burnt-off fragmentwith two simple lashing points along its remaining intact edge. It is the only burntfragment in the collection that was not the base of a post set in the ground. KOH22(Fig. 7.8) is a plank originally 720 mm by 155 mm with simple lashing holes at eachcorner. KOH71–74 and KOH40 are board fragments with lashing holes that implythey may have been from sewn plank structures.

Four items, KOH23–25 (Fig. 7.9), and KOH29 (not illustrated), are slabs split fromthe surface of pukatea trunks with simple lashing holes at their tops. The only intactone is 1827 mm tall and has a base bevelled to allow it to be driven into the ground.They are rather casually made and dressed on the split face. Whatever structures theywere from must have been relatively low in status but high enough to have allowedpeople to stand up. They could have been walls of cooking shelters.

Figure 7.7Tumatahukibattens from theHS Area


In summary, timbers were found thatdemonstrate the presence in this area ofplank-built buildings including a definitewhare whakairo, a probable pataka andsome other informal structures, perhapsincluding cooking shelters.

Timbers from Area D

Excavation of this area found a sequence ofhouse floors with an adjacent cooking areaset against a palisade (Figs 4.15–17). Thepostholes and intact butts of these housesdemonstrate that they were constructedof pole and thatch and used the palisadeas their back wall. The dressed timbersrecovered from this area appear to havecome from a number of structures that stoodin the immediate area. Undressed poles aredifficult to attribute to specific buildingswhen found as scattered pieces.

Six items have incised or relief ornamen-tation. KOH2 is a fragment of a board (Plate7.11) from the Yellow House level that iselaborately carved on both sides. KOH6(Plate 7.12) is a weathered knotty fragmentrecovered from the White House level thathas incised carving on its surface. KOH4 isa long (459 mm), narrow (32 mm) fragmentdetached from a plank with an incisedpattern on one face (Plate 7.13). KOH5 isa small slab of wood with an incised linedrawing on one side that could have beeneither a doodle or a preparatory sketch fora carving (Fig. 7.10). KOH54 is a completeartefact recovered from the Yellow Houselevel (Fig. 7.10). It is 350 mm by 95 mmwith a zigzag upper margin and four lashingholes. It could have been a korupe (windowfacing board) or a pare of a house or pataka.While such items could relate to structuresof status marked out as different from do-mestic ones by ornamentation, the evidencefrom Area D allows the clear possibility thatthey were attached to pole and thatch housesand that there was, therefore, more diversityin house status and decoration than has beenenvisaged.

KOH56 is a carefully made item 398 mmlong, U-shaped in cross-section, and withdeep U-shaped recesses cut in each end (Fig.7.10). It could have been a lintel plate for

Figure 7.8Possiblefragments ofpataka fromthe HS Area

Figure 7.9Dressed slabssplit frompukatea treetrunks, HSArea andArea B

138 Kohika

Plate 7.11KOH2.Fragmentof elaboratecarving, Area D.



the small door of a pataka, as illustrated in Figure 7.3, where it is shown trimmingthe epa over the door opening and with the recesses at its ends fitting around the epaat each side. In this case the door would be only 325 mm wide.

Three rafters from a small plank-built house or pataka were recovered in SquareD2 just outside the palisade line. KOH34 and KOH35 (Fig. 7.11) appear to be amatched set of heke ripi rafters that abutted the end wall. Each has holes along onlyone side so it could be lashed to the tops of epa, as illustrated in Figures 7.1 and 7.3.KOH34 has five plain lashing holes cut through one edge and three face eyelets on theupper surface. KOH35 has ten edge eyelets, five cut from the upper and lower sur-faces respectively. In contrast, KOH36 has only three face eyelets, suggesting it was anormal rafter, not attached to an end wall. The purpose of the face eyelets seems tohave been to hold a tauwhenua, or tensioning cable, in place along the length of therafter.

These rafters were carefully made and provide intricate details of their construc-tion and the design of their joints (Fig. 7.12). From their lengths we can estimate thewidth of the building from which they came. A roof pitch of 110 degrees and wallssloping outward by five degrees give a building approximately 2.50 m wide at the


Figure 7.10 (top left)Timbers recovered from Area D

Figure 7.11 (top right)The three rafters from Area D

Figure 7.12Detail of rafter tenon joints

Figure 7.13Parameters used to estimate thewidth of a building in Area D,based on rafter dimensions

140 Kohika

base (Fig. 7.13). This is narrower than the pole and thatch house floors in Area D,which ranged from three to five metres wide. Furthermore, the side wall posts of thelatter were narrower than the rafters and could not have formed joints with them.Therefore, we are dealing with parts of another building altogether. As the two itemsdescribed next are clearly from a pataka, it could well be that these rafters are fromthat structure too.

KOH19 is a pataka epa fragment with five neatly chiselled holes along its edge.KOH20 is a flashing strip, semi-circular in cross-section, that was recovered stillattached to KOH19, the remains of lashings being still present (Fig. 7.14). These itemsare clearly from the wall of a very carefully finished pataka made from dressed planksset edge to edge.

KOH32 is a board, triangular in outline, with seven holes piercing it (Fig. 7.14). Itcould be the end epa of a small pataka cut to accommodate the inward slope ofthe side wall.

KOH30 is a thick slab 700 mm by 200 mm with a triangular cross-section (Fig.7.14). It has three large simple lashing holes along its thick edge. The thinner edge ismostly broken away, leaving two of the original five or six smaller holes intact. Thefunction of this item is uncertain. Also of uncertain purpose is KOH31, an adzedtotara slab 450 mm long with its ends bevelled on alternate sides (Fig. 7.14). KOH37and KOH38 (not illustrated) are pieces of one plank well over 2 metres long with anL-shaped cross-section. Its function, too, is not clear. KOH39 is a short batten withone end bevelled. KOH60 is a slat bevelled at each end.

In addition, 23 other fragments of dressed plank recovered in Area D were, in general,too small to associate with particular structures. They were so numerous and of sucha variety of wood species (kauri, totara, matai, rimu, kahikatea and pukatea) that

we could suggest that other buildingsmade from dressed planks existed inthis area of the site.

Timbers from Area B

Area B lay near the eastern palisadeand very few dressed wooden timberswere recovered here. KOH26 (Fig.7.9) is a possible poupou, 1480 mmlong, of dressed pukatea with a chiselend. Only three further plank frag-ments were found in this area.

Posts and palisade timbers

Sixteen items were identified as frag-ments of stakes, posts or palisades.All were either natural stems or hadbeen split from small to medium-sizedtrees. The species include manuka,kanuka, tawa, matai, rimu, pukateaand totara. A large number of com-parable items were not analysed.

Figure 7.14Two parts ofpataka fromArea D, plus twoindeterminateitems (KOH30and 31)


Discussion of the buildingsIt is clear that one whare whakairo and possibly other dressed-plank houses stood atKohika pa as well as numerous sleeping houses more simply constructed from poleand thatch. Also present were plank-built pataka. On the basis of current evidence, itis established that houses and pataka occurred in households on low-lying groundclose to the lakeshore. There were also less formal structures – probably cookingshelters. However, storage pits were found only on top of the mound in Area A. In-deed, pits would have been restricted to high areas of the site to keep their floorsabove the water table. Therefore it is unlikely that any of the waterlogged timbersfrom Kohika belonged to roofed storage pits, and we are unable to tell whether anywere decorated, for instance, by a simple carving over the door. However, this seemsquite possible, given that houses of pole and thatch construction did have modestdecorations.

A notable feature of the analysis of the houses is the way in which the assemblageof timber relates to the floor plans. Houses and other domestic structures constructedfrom pole and thatch are visible archaeologically only by their floor plans and a rela-tively small number of distinctive timber elements and minor decorations. Most oftheir remains could not be recognised, even if they constituted a majority of the build-ings. In contrast, the dressed planks recovered yielded considerable informationconcerning houses and other structures, even when their floor plans were not found.

Archaeological sites normally supply only floor plans, but at Kohika parts of thesuperstructures of Maori houses were recovered. These provide details of constructionnot otherwise available to us, in particular how dressed timbers were joined together.A striking feature is how much trouble was taken to ensure the lashings were notvisible. This was achieved by mortise and tenon joints and the extensive use of faceand edge eyelets in preference to simple holes that passed directly through the planks.With lashings exposed mainly on the outside of the frame, visible or accessible onlyduring house construction or repair, the internal timber surfaces of the houses remainedunimpeded and ‘clean’. This aspect is illustrated in Figure 7.15. The use of facingboards on the front elevation of the house seems to continue this principle.

This deliberate masking of construction details goes some way to explaining gapsin the ethnographic literature on house construction. Despite having had repeated con-tact with such houses, Peter Buck may have had no memory of the details simplybecause they were constructed so as to be almost completely hidden from sight. Incontrast, the systems described by Buck (1938:277) from tropical Polynesia have openscaffolding-like frames secured by visible, and often ornamental, lashings. Maoripractice was to avoid this. An exception is the tukutuku panelling, whose exposedlashings were artistic patterns.

The question arises why the New Zealand Maori developed this approach. Theanswer may be, in parts, environmental, ecological and technological. The need toadapt to a colder climate by constructing thick, well-insulated walls in the superiorMaori house types was met by using squared timbers and planks obtained from avail-able large-diameter trees. Assembling such timbers into structures requires differenttechniques from those employed in tropical Polynesia on houses constructed of poles.Maori adopted techniques for connecting planks that resemble those used in canoebuilding. Canoes were made from planks fitted together with watertight joints to formhull surfaces that had no lashings exposed to abrasion when landing. Early Maorialready had such techniques in their voyaging repertoire. The result may have been atransfer of technology from canoe to house construction in the context of the verydifferent environment in New Zealand. However, one difference is that, while canoes

142 Kohika

Figure 7.15Detail of theinternal andexternal framingof a superiorhouse

had their lashings recessed from outside, superior houses had theirs concealed frominside.

The deliberate masking of construction methods may have contributed to anotherfeature of Maori architecture, the persistence of the meeting house into modern times.In tropical Polynesia, the form of a building is influenced by the visible techniques ofconstruction. The adoption of European building methods inevitably radically alteredits appearance. The Maori house conceals its construction methods so that the inwardand outward appearance of the meeting house was retained in a highly recognisableway despite the adoption of European materials and construction methods. Thus thecultural continuity of buildings of central importance to the community was assured.


Woodcarvings from KohikaItems from Kohika bearing carved embellishments include architectural componentsof houses: namely poupou, poutahuhu, pare and poutokomanawa, a paddle and acanoe bailer. All of these were made of totara, apart from the paddle, which was tawa.

Carved parts of house: poupou

Because the tops were burnt off, the length (or rather the height) of each poupou isarbitrary.

KOH14: poupou base with burnt-off top, 345 long by 205 wide by 30 mm thick(Plate 7.1).

The surviving carving depicts a portion of a torso with a large plain spiral on theshoulder and a shallow sulcus separating the body from the upper leg, which has aplain surface. A deep curving cut outlines the edge of the figure. In the space besidethe body and standing on the curve of the hip is a small supplementary figure witha round elongated face, open mouth with straight tongue, hands to hips. Overlyingthe body is a small contorted supplementary figure with a hand to its mouth. Apartfrom the shoulder spiral, no surface decoration is present.

KOH16: poupou base with burnt-off top and chisel-ended base, 460 by 240 by40 mm (Plate 7.2).

The surviving carving consists of a lower leg and foot with projecting toes of themain figure on the poupou. Between its legs was a small supplementary figure, possiblywithout an obvious head, outlined in carving that pierces the poupou plank and displayssome shaping even on the rear of the poupou. There is no surface decoration.

KOH17: poupou base with burnt-off top, 425 by 280 by 35 mm (Plate 7.3).The surviving carving seems to depict a lower portion of a figure with its hip curv-

ing out at a marked angle from the body, perhaps with a lower arm ending in a handon the body. There is also a small supplementary figure standing on the curve of thehip. There is no surface decoration.

KOH18: poupou base with burnt-off top, 365 by 220 by 37 mm (Plate 7.4).The surviving carving depicts the lower portion of a figure, with a shallow sulcus

separating the stomach from the hip. A large plain spiral covers the hip and there mayhave been a supplementary figure overlying the body. In the curve between the bodyand the hip there is a supplementary male figure with its feet on the hip. Apart fromthe spiral on the hip, there is no surface decoration.

KOH44: poutahuhu base with burnt-off top, 290 by 175 by 85 mm (Plate 7.5).The surviving carving possibly depicts a wide leg and foot of the main figure, with

the remains of a small supplementary figure between its legs. This panel is notable forthe depth of the timber and the consequent deep cut outlining the leg, making it morelikely to have been a poutahuhu rather than a poupou.

General comments on the poupou and poutahuhu

Some general compositional features can be discerned from the carving that surviveson these fragments. All of the carving has been executed in the same style, almostcertainly the work of one individual carver. His work is characterised by the deploy-ment of large plain spirals on shoulders and hips of the main poupou figure, which isthe only surface decoration pattern used. He placed small supplementary figures onthe body of the main figure, standing on the hip in the curve of the main figure outlineand between its legs. He marked the outlines of his main poupou figures with a deepsmooth curving cut and left the body of the main figure in fairly flat low relief. How-ever, his large plain spirals and supplementary figures overlying the main figure showthat he had good control of his two layers of relief. Within the outline of the main

144 Kohika

figure, he separated its body from its legs with a wide shallow sulcus. There are limitedindications that he may have pierced his carving right through the poupou, a practiceseen in other pre-European examples.

An instructive comparison can be made with the complete small early poupou foundnear Waioeka, now in Auckland Museum, not so much in carving style, which is dif-ferent, but in size and constructional form. This Waioeka poupou indicates a side wallheight of about 80 cm; much of the carving is pierced right through the panel, and thesupplementary figure between the legs has its head carved in low relief on the lowertorso of the main figure. This form of figure between the legs is reminiscent of thefigure on KOH16 and may also be compared with the figure between the legs of thepataka doorway figure from Thornton swamp, near Kohika, now in the Museum ofNew Zealand.

Carved parts of house: pare

KOH53: pare fragment very elaborately carved, 265 by 65 by 25 mm (Plate 7.6).This pierced openwork portion of a pare is carved on the front only, with a flat

back. A wheku-type face projects at an oblique angle from the upper edge of the pare.This face has bulbous eyes not intended to take shell inserts, the brows are slightlycurved and are the same width as the mouth. A continuous double ridge runs downover the forehead to the nose and each nostril is well defined. The mouth is wide openwith four teeth indicated and the lips are carved as two parallel raumoa ridges crossedat intervals by ritorito ridges. Surface decoration over the rest of the fragment consistsof the same double raumoa ridges crossed by angular groups of three or four ritorito.Some of the ridges have nicked notching along the apex. This surface patterning formsa double spiral with pointed ends, creating the motif known as puwerewere.

Most of the stylistic affinities of this pare are to be found in stone-tooled carvingsfrom the Hauraki area, most notably the Patetonga pare in Auckland Museum, theNewman pare in Whanganui Museum, and the Miranda pataka doorway in theMuseum of New Zealand. In the wider field, these affinities would extend into the fullrange of the western and northern sinuous styles, which are nearly all stone-tooledand date from pre-European times.

Carved parts of house: poutokomanawa figure

KOH7: human figure executed in the round, central house post, 11030 by 280 by155 mm (Plate 7.10).

Although deeply eroded and therefore lacking any evidence of surface decoration,most of the compositional features of this carving can still be determined. It is verydefinitely a poutokomanawa figure, intended to stand as part of a central post sup-porting the ridgepole. Many small houses had only one poutokomanawa, usuallyin the interior. Larger, later 19th-century houses often have two or even more interiorpoutokomanawa and some elaborate houses also have a comparable figure, tokoihi,at the exterior central front of the porch. Judging by the size and period of this Kohikahouse, this figure is probably the only poutokomanawa from the house, presum-ably from the interior. Early contact-period accounts of houses indicate that the pareand the small interior poutokomanawa figure were symbolically the two most import-ant carvings of the house.

Closely constricted within the original dimensions of the post, this stocky, short-bodied figure has narrow sloping shoulders, a wheku-type face with large open mouthand slightly protruding tongue. Its left hand reaches up the lower jaw while the rightis placed on the middle of the chest. The legs are wide apart, with a supplementaryfigure between having its head carved in low relief on the lower torso of the main


figure. It is a fair assumption that this figure represents a major named ancestor of theperson or group owning the house. Stylistically, it can be attributed to the hand of thesame person who carved the poupou for this house.

Carved boards and slabs

KOH1: board fragment, pierced and elaborately carved on both sides, 435 by 120 by43 mm (Plate 7.7). This is a fragment from a larger composition of uncertain purpose.It could perhaps be part of a pare of a previously unrecorded form, but the carving onboth sides probably precludes this. Its being pierced and carved on both sides maysuggest a portion of a canoe prow or stern, though of uncertain form. At this stage, itsidentification must remain undetermined. The surface decoration consists of an earlyform of raised taratara-a-kai in linear and spiral arrangements. The spirals are doublewith a ‘looped’ centre.

KOH2: board fragment, elaborately carved on both sides, 100 by 85 by 30 mm(Plate 7.11). This could possibly be part of a pare. It has a curved facet worn smoothbelow that suggests abrasion against a moving surface, as in an entryway. The notchingabove this curved facet could be the remains of rauponga surface decoration.

KOH3: board fragment, elaborately carved on both sides, 172 by 45 by 43 mm(Plate 7.8). This fragment is shaped out with matching pierced carving on both sidesbut only one side has raised taratara-a-kai surface decoration. The bases of brokenconnectives remain in the central plane of the fragment. It could be part of a pare.

KOH4: long, narrow plank fragment with incised pattern visible, 459 by 32 by18 mm (Plate 7.13). This is a narrow strip split off a larger plank. On the back it hasbeen adzed flat. On the front it bears raised taratara-a-kai surface decoration. It maybe a portion of a poupou but none of the other definite poupou have taratara-a-kaisurface decoration.

KOH5: slab of wood, with incised line drawing on one side (Figure 7.10). This is aflat slab split off a larger piece. One side is plain with shallow adzing marks. Theother side shows very shallow incised curving lines, perhaps forming outlines of carv-ing patterns, but no definite form can be discerned. These lines may have been huahuadrawing for later carving, but the surface has been adzed and polished flat, suggest-ing that these lines might be just idle markings.

KOH6: weathered fragment with incised carving visible, 325 by 70 by 65 mm (Plate7.12). This piece shows only minimal incising with no definite pattern.

KOH345: fragment from elaborate carving possibly broken from spiral fretwork(Plate 7.9). This fragment is too small for any specific function to be determined.

Paddle

KOH162: parts of nearly complete canoe paddle with decorative carving on loomwhere handle joins base, 1670 by 306 by 40 mm (Fig. 6.10).

Unfortunately, the carving at the loom has been badly eroded but it would seem tohave been a complex pattern of raised taratara-a-kai. This suggests affinities with thepaddles, often with kowhaiwhai painted on the blades, collected by Captain Cook in1769 and later explorers in the Poverty Bay area (Neich 1993:59–73). However, whilethese Poverty Bay paddles were also carved in raised taratara-a-kai, they almost allfeatured a manaia head with a long curved jaw. The carving on the Kohika paddleseems to have been a different composition, although now beyond determination. It isalso carved deeper into the surface of the loom and is separated from the blade by adefinite deeper curved edge, whereas the carved head on the early Poverty Bay-stylepaddles protrudes markedly from the rest of the paddle surface. Many of the PovertyBay paddles also feature a manaia head at the butt of the handle, absent from the

146 Kohika

Kohika paddle. The rounded rectangular section of the Kohika paddlehandle contrasts with the round section of Poverty Bay paddle han-dles. Consequently, the Kohika paddle must represent a parallel butdifferent tradition of prestigious paddles bearing elaborate carving atthe loom.

Bailer

KOH174: bailer with projecting handle, knob with carved humanface, damaged (Fig. 6.13, Plate 7.14).

With its handle projecting back from the scoop, this bailer is ofthe less common form, which is usually left plain compared with theelaborately carved and more common war-canoe bailers. There areindications that this plain form was used in smaller uncarved riverand swamp canoes. Known examples of this form are from Coro-mandel, Hauraki, Rotorua and Taupo. Several have a simple facemask carved on the butt of the handle, as on this Kohika piece wherethe wheku-type face projects downward. The handle shows signs ofwear and the face may have been altered by abrasion, especially theflattened nose. The round bulbous forehead is wider than the openmouth; there is a deep straight cut above each eyebrow, and no sur-face decoration.

Discussion of the Kohika carving stylesThe people of Kohika obviously possessed a rich and varied tradition of woodcarvingexpressed in stone-tool carving. It was applied to a range of objects of the typesdocumented ethnographically from early post-European Maori culture, although someimportant carved elements that might have been expected are absent, such as smallitems like flutes.

Very few prehistoric or early contact stone-tooled carvings are documented to theBay of Plenty. Among the most important would be the Waioeka poupou, the Te Kahapataka and the Mokoia Island storehouse carving (all in Auckland Museum), the smalldoorway carvings from Thornton (in Whakatane Museum), the semi-subterraneanstorehouse doorway from Omarumutu (in Canterbury Museum), the storehouse door-way from Thornton (in the Museum of New Zealand), the Mokoia Island poupou inTamatekapua house at Ohinemutu, and the Puwhakaoho poupou in Houmaitawhitihouse at Otaramarae. Apart from the comparison made with the Waioeka poupouabove, none of these shows any close stylistic relationship to the Kohika carvings.Probably most noticeable in this respect is the occurrence of an early form of raisedtaratara-a-kai surface decoration at Kohika, close to the raised taratara-a-kai presenton many early carvings usually attributed to the East Coast and possibly an earlierform than that seen on some of the above Bay of Plenty carvings.

For other comparisons it was necessary to look further afield, including early stone-tooled carvings from the Hauraki area. Similarly, a stone-tooled poupou from Whangara(now in Auckland Museum) gives a wall height of 112 cm, and a stone-tooled poupoucollected by Cook’s first expedition from Tolaga Bay (recently rediscovered in theTuebingen University Museum) gives a wall height of 92 cm. Stylistically, these NgatiPorou poupou add to our understanding and appreciation of the Kohika poupouespecially in terms of their size, their plain spirals on shoulders and hips, their piercedcarving, and the supplementary figure between the legs with its head on the lower

Plate 7.14KOH174.Carved handleof bailer,Area D.


torso of the main figure. Nevertheless, this lack of comparable pieces limits the insightto be gained from wider comparisons but points up the supreme importance of thecarved assemblage from Kohika.

Within the Kohika carving assemblage, the work of at least four individual carverscan be distinguished:

Carver A

His work includes all the poupou (KOH14, 16, 17, 18), the poutahuhu (KOH44) andthe poutokomanawa figure (KOH7) and is characterised by the features describedabove. Since these were parts of a house built at Kohika, it is a fair assumption that hewas a local man. His carving style is very consistent and distinctive but, on the basisof the other early Bay of Plenty and East Coast carvings described above, it cannotbe closely linked to any other known early styles, whether from Ngati Awa or widerafield. This may suggest that the generally recognised specific tribal styles of theBay of Plenty are a more recent development.

Carver B

This carver was responsible for the pare fragment (KOH53), which suggests that hehad connections with the Hauraki area. This small pare would have been portablefrom the Hauraki area but could also have been carved on the site. His work is char-acterised by a fine detailed touch with careful attention to surface decoration.

Carver C

His work is limited to the face on the bailer (KOH174), where the differences fromthe face on the pare by Carver B are very obvious.

Carver D

His hand can be recognised on carved fragments KOH1 and KOH3 and perhapsKOH2, characterised by his use of deep relief pierced carving and high raised taratara-a-kai surface decoration with limited pakura spirals. The top of his taratara-a-kai ridgesare often completely flat and he does not use the ridge apex notching seen in the workof Carver B. Carver D favoured a round double spiral in taratara-a-kai with loopedcentre, while Carver B produced an angular pointed spiral in raumoa and ritorito.

Thus the carvings from Kohika, with their range of individual styles linking to dif-ferent areas of the country, suggest that this might have been a diverse communitywith wide external connections to people from other areas.

ReferencesAngas, G.F., 1979. Early paintings of the Maori. Illustrated and described by George French

Angas. Wellington: Reed.Anon., 1988. Tane-Nui-A-Rangi. Auckland: University of Auckland.Bellwood, P., 1978. Archaeological research at Lake Mangakaware, Waikato, 1968–70. New

Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph No.9.Best, E., 1924. The Maori. Vol. II. Wellington: The Polynesian Society.Best, E., 1974. Maori storehouses and kindred structures. Wellington: Shearer, Government

Printer.Buck, P.H., 1938. Vikings of the sunrise. Philadelphia: Lippicott.Buck, P.H., 1949. The coming of the Maori. Wellington: Maori Purposes Trust Board.Cruise, R.A., 1974. Journal of a ten months’ residence in New Zealand. 2nd Edition. Christ-

church: Capper Press.

148 Kohika

Davidson, J.M., 1984. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.Day, K., 2001. Maori wood carving of the Taranaki region. Auckland: Reed.Duff, R., 1961. Waitara Swamp search. Records of the Canterbury Museum, 7:303–26.Earle, A., 1966. Narrative of a residence in New Zealand. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Firth, R.W., 1926. Wharepuni: a few remaining Maori dwellings of the old style. Man,

26:54–9.Geelen de Kabath, M.A.X., 1974. Raised storage structures in New Zealand prehistory.

Unpublished research essay, University of Auckland.Green, R.C. and K. Green, 1963. Classic and early European sites on the Hauraki Plains.

New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, 6:27–34.Groube L.M., 1965. Settlement patterns in New Zealand prehistory. Dunedin: Anthropology

Department, University of Otago.Lysnar, F.B., 1915. New Zealand, the dear old Maori land. Auckland: Brett.Makereti, 1986. The old-time Maori. Auckland: New Women’s Press.Neich, R., 1993. Painted Histories: early Maori figurative painting. Auckland: Auckland

University Press.Neich, R., 2001. Carved Histories: Rotorua Ngati Tarawhai woodcarving. Auckland: Auck-

land University Press.Phillips, W.J., 1952. Maori houses and food stores. Dominion Museum Bulletin No.8. Wellington:

Government Printer.Prickett, N.J., 1974. Houses and house life in prehistoric New Zealand. Unpublished MA

thesis, University of Otago.Prickett, N.J., 1979. Prehistoric occupation in the Moikau Valley, Palliser Bay. In B.F. Leach

and H.M. Leach (eds), Prehistoric man in Palliser Bay. National Museum Bulletin No.21,pp.29–47.

Prickett, N.J., 1982. An archaeologists’ guide to the Maori dwelling. New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology, 4:111–47.

Teviotdale, D. and D.H. Skinner, 1947. Oruarangi Pa. Journal of the Polynesian Society,56:357–63.

Wallace, R. and G.J. Irwin, 1999. A Kohika wharepuni: house construction methods of thelate pre-contact Maori. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 21:67–86.

Walsh, D.S. and B. Biggs, 1966. Proto-Polynesian word list I. Auckland: Linguistic Society ofNew Zealand.

Williams, H.W., 1896. The Maori whare: notes on the construction of a Maori house. Journalof the Polynesian Society, 5:145–54.

149

8 Kohika fibrework

S. McAra

This chapter completes the description of the waterlogged assemblage from Kohika.As with wetland archaeological excavations world-wide, the remains of woven fabrics,rope and netting were extremely fragile and presented problems for excavation andconservation, particularly in the initial excavation by the Historical Society.

The accumulating evidence suggests the existence of households near the lake inArea D and the HS Area, and possibly also in Area B, and the distribution of fibreartefacts supports this. In Area D, cordage, netting and a few plaited items (KOH296–301) were found in association with the Yellow House horizon, not within the house,but outside in the peat that formed in the former shallow lakeshore. This was anactive area of disturbance and treadage; canoes landed, midden was dumped and peopleand dogs were active. Similarly, in the HS Area, cordage and several plaited items(KOH302–307, KOH340, 341) were found in the vicinity, but some fine mattingprobably came from inside the carved house itself. In Area B, fibre remains (KOH295),probably of rope (see Appendix ), were found outside the palisade.

The techniques represented by the fibre remains include one- and two-ply spiral-wrapped cordage, three-ply braiding, checked and twilled fabric plaitwork, and net-ting. The Maori ropemaking technique which is here termed ‘two-ply spiral-wrapped’appears to be previously unrecorded. All items appear to be made using strips of rawharakeke (New Zealand flax, Phormium tenax).

Few Maori archaeological sites have yielded fibre artefacts, and many of the surviv-ing examples are in poor condition. A range of Maori fibre-working techniques wasrecorded during the early 20th century (e.g. Buck 1926a, 1926b) and more recently, inthe context of a cultural renaissance, some ‘how-to’ books have emerged (e.g. Hopa1971, Pendergrast 1986, Puketapu-Hetet 1989). The archaeological finds, however,provide information about both recorded and hitherto undocumented fibre-workingtechniques, which had fallen into disuse.

There is a small literature about fibre from specific excavations. For example,Lawrence (1989) describes pieces found in caves in the Waitakere Ranges dating toc.AD 1750–1850, while Anderson et al. (1991) describe fibre material retrieved fromFiordland, including numerous pieces of raw harakeke worked into cordage and knots.Lander (1992) draws on her skills as a fibre artist to describe pieces of c.1820 fibre-work from Raupa on the Hauraki Plains. In a recent paper, McAra (2001) describesseveral portions of well-preserved harakeke nets measuring between 20 and 40 metreslong from a Banks Peninsula cave.

The Kohika plant fibre collection consists of fragments representing several kindsof fibre-working technique. They are primarily short lengths of cordage that divideinto the categories of two-plied and braided. A few pieces are too matted and decayedto clearly identify the technique. There are several fragments of twill plaiting, and theremains of a net. With regard to terminology, Connor’s (1983) classification system

150 Kohika

for describing fibres is followed here, where possible. The cordage fragments are tooshort for it to be possible to specify the uses to which they were put. Whakatane andDistrict Historical Society members glued much of the collection to sheets of cardboard,further limiting the amount of investigation possible.

R. Wallace identified small fragments of cuticle, one from a representative sampleof each technique, as being harakeke, but it was not possible to identify particularcultivars. Significantly, none of the pieces described in this paper is made from muka(dressed fibre). Instead, strips are used, made by splitting the softened leaf. Harakekecan be softened in several different ways (McAra 2001): by scraping its shiny side (e.g.with the flat edge of a mussel shell); drawing it over embers to make the leaf ‘sweat’;or boiling it. The author has also successfully used dried leaves, which are soaked andthen partially redried, before working with them while they still retain some moisture,a technique practised with dried coconut fronds in Samoa (Pendergrast, pers. comm.2002). Softening the leaf prevents shrinkage.

The condition of old harakeke artefacts depends on whether they were preserveddry or wet. It may also depend on measures taken by the makers to prolong the life-span – for example, by smoking the material or rubbing oil or tree gum into the fibres.Conservator D. Johns (pers. comm. 2002) affirms that both wet and dry conditionsretard decay, but in a dry cave the waxy cuticle may curl and flake off, leaving thefibre intact, while in a swamp it is the most waterproof part of the harakeke and willlast longest. The fishing net in the Canterbury Museum, taken from a dry cave, hasseveral areas where the cuticle has flaked off leaving the muka fibre intact (McAra2001). In comparison, the Kohika pieces have lost much of the fibre, in places leavingonly the cuticle, although in some parts the imprint of the fibre is visible as dark lineson the cuticle.

CordageSingle ‘spiral-wrapped’ bunches of strips and ‘two-ply spiral-wrapped’ cordagefragments

The author could discover no Maori name for the two variant techniques observed inthe Kohika cordage fragments, so two descriptive terms are used. The first is the‘single spiral-wrapped bunches’ (1SWB) of raw harakeke (Plates 8.1a and 8.1b) andthe second is the ‘two-ply spiral-wrapped’ (2PSW) bunches of raw harakeke (Plate8.1c; Figs 8.1a and 8.1b). The distinguishing feature of 1SWB and 2PSW cordageis that the strips in each bunch are contained by a wider ‘wrapping strip’ 7–10 mmwide which spirals around the bunch, leaving gaps through which the inner strips areclearly visible. In both cases, each ‘bunch’ of strips is cylindrical and contains aboutten strips, each approximately 2–3 mm wide.

Some of the 1SWB examples show kinks along the length, suggesting the imprint ofa lost counterpart such as KOH300.3 (Plate 8.1b) and KOH300.13. It is likely thatthe 1SWB examples are simply the component parts of 2PSW cordage. KOH298.5looks different from the other 1SWB pieces, as the spiral wrap leaves fewer gaps (Plate8.1a). Perhaps it was used differently, or perhaps the spiral wrap was wound moretightly. Table 8.1 gives details of 1SWB pieces.

The 2PSW pieces consist of two elements, each comprising ‘bunches’ of harakekestrips, twisted anti-clockwise (Z-twist) into two-ply rope (see Table 8.2). The frag-ments of cordage are too short for joins to be visible where one of these wrappingstrands runs out and another is added in – presumably the new strip would have to beknotted to the previous one. Some of them are in poor condition and it is not possible

Kohika fibrework 151

Plate 8.1bKOH300.3.Fragment of1SWB resem-bling one half ofa pair of two-plyspiral-wrappedbunches (2PSW)of harakeke.

Plate 8.1cKOH298.1.Short fragmentof two-plyspiral-wrappedbundles ofharakeke(2PSW).

Plate 8.1aKOH298.5.Fragment ofsingle spiral-wrappedbunches ofharakeke(1SWB)resemblinga handle.

Table 8.1 Single spiral-wrapped bunches of harakeke (1SWB)

Length of Approximate ApproximateKOH number fragment width of wrapping number of raw Comments Plate

(mm)* strip (mm) strands per element no.

298.5 190 5 7–10 Spiral wrap leaves 8.1afewer gaps thanon other pieces.

300.3; 300.13 210, 120 8 8–12 Both pieces appear 8.1bto be from a2PSW rope

302a & 302b Fragment appears to be 1SWB tied in a knot; b is a 50mm length of 1SWB. –

* All measurements in this chapter are approximate.

to identify the spiral wrapping. It seems more likely that this is due to decay than to avariant technique, because other 2PSW fragments show traces of the wrapping strip.

152 Kohika

Table 8.2 Two-ply spiral-wrapped bunches of harakeke (2PSW)

Length Number PlateKOH number (mm) of twists Comments no.

298.1 140 6 Diagram (Figs 8.1a and 8.1b) based on this piece 8.1c298.2–4 140 4 Some are partly unravelled – fibres appear –

crushed in places299.1 210 6 Thickness c.15–20 mm; spiral wrap in poor –

condition; c.5 mm wide where visible299.2–3 270 These two are knotted or tangled pieces299.4–5 250–70 7 Little remaining of spiral wrap –300.7 290 13 No spiral wrap –300.9; 300.10–12; 120–220 5–10 Thickness c.10–15 mm; spiral wrap c.10 mm –300.14–15 wide; spiral wrap absent on some pieces

(decay?); quite loose and unravelled pieces341 380 12 Little remaining of spiral wrap; 2nd longest piece –

Figure 8.1aKOH298.Drawing of two-ply spiral-wrappedbunches ofharakeke(2PSW)

Figure 8.1bDiagram oftechnique formaking 2PSW

Three-ply braids (whiri)

A range of styles of braided ropes was used widely by Maori, from small items such assandals and kete (handles, carrying straps [kawe]) to large items such as the ropes forlong nets. Four-ply braids are cylindrical, while three-ply braids are flatter. Thicknessand width vary depending on the quantity of strands in each ply as well as the tensionused in the braiding. Three-ply cordage is the only kind of braiding represented in thiscollection.

The Kohika braids vary in width and thickness and all are neatly made, holding


together tightly except where the fibre has decayed. Some visibly diminish in width asthe fibres decrease down the braid. Most are fat braids, tightly worked with thickstrands. Most of the fragments are short, single sections of braid, but a few of themstart as two braids, converging into one in a ‘Y’ shape (e.g. KOH303.11), and thereis also an ‘X’ shaped braid (e.g. KOH303.10, KOH340), which has two wider braidsand two narrower ones (Plate 8.2).

None of the surviving fragments shows a commencement or finishing knot. All of thefragments must have come from a longer rope or ropes because they are too short tobe useful (Tables 8.3 and 8.4). The ends of each are broken, rather than being frayedor having come unravelled, possibly a result of decay processes rather than use wear.

Table 8.3 Three-ply cordage

KOH number Length Width Thickness Number Plate(mm) (mm) (mm) of twists Comments no.

298.6–7 110 each 7 3 12–13 Probably both part of –one longer braid

300.1 90 14 4 8 Probably both part of –one longer braid

300.2 120 14 5 11300.4–6 50 each 5 3 4–5 Probably part of longer –

braid300.8 420 20 13 36 Tightly braided and thick; –

longest piece in collection300.4–6 Each piece approx. 70 mm long, thin, and 3–5 twists; probably part of one –

longer braid; similar to 298.6, 208.7303.6–9 70–180 9–13 2–3 6–15 8.2306.3–5 100–130 10 3–6 5–9 –340.1–3 80–130 9–15 5–7 8–10 340.2 has a folded-back –

fragment of 3 twists340.5–10 80–210 7–12 4–7 7–12 Lengths of braiding, –

varying thickness andcondition

340.12 180 –

Width of braids varies along length, so separate fragments of different widths are not necessarilyfrom separate original braids.

Plate 8.2KOH303.8–11.Short braidedfragments,showing twostraight examples(KOH303.8 and9) and an X anda Y braid (KOH303.10 and 11).

154 Kohika

Table 8.4 Three-ply braid variants

Length of Length of components (X is pointKOH number fragment where braid parts intersect) Comments Plate

(mm) A–X X–B X–C X–D no.

298.8 170 60 110 70 – 3-ply braid in Y-frag- –ment shape; in manyplaces fibre is lost andonly epidermis remains

303.10 200 60 30 40 160 Pair of thin braids –forming X shape,7–10 mm wide

303.11 260 80 180 70 – Pair of thick braids 8.2meeting to form athicker single braid(Y shape), 19 mm wide

340.4 190 80 110 90 – 3-ply braid in Y-frag- –ment shape, 10 mmwide, 5 mm thick

340.11 230 120 110 60 90 X braid – piece C–X is –thinnest; X–B thickest

Plaitwork (raranga) fragmentsThese fabric fragments come from the main body of plaiting (raranga). The startingand finishing points of the plaiting are missing, making it difficult to establish thedirection of plaiting or to show which strips were the dextrals and which the sinis-trals. Further, the plaiting has degraded even within the surviving pieces to the extentthat it is not possible to be certain whether irregularities are due to intentional shaping,errors or the loss of fibres through disintegration. The function of the original objectscan only be surmised.

There are several pieces of plaitwork, with two styles in evidence. The first is finetwill work (Plates 8.3 and 8.4), and the second is 1/1 plaiting using wider strips (Plate8.5). KOH301a and 301b are the smallest fragments, so it is difficult to identify anyplaiting pattern. It appears that, in these two fragments, the strips lie 2/1 in the rowsin one direction, and 1/1 along the other. The rest of the plaited twill pieces are 2/2 onboth the dextrals and the sinistrals. Variations in plaiting technique are convention-ally employed to create patterns or to shape an item (e.g. to tailor the shape of a cloakto the body, or control the finished shape of a basket or kete). There appear to bevariations in the Kohika plaiting but they are difficult to detect because of the condi-tion and small size of the fabric fragments. However, there are wear lines on some ofthe fragments, suggesting folds in the fabric, and others have an edge which may havebeen created by a break along a wear line during the decay process. Such a foldedpiece was found by members of the Whakatane and District Historical Society in Square1. The possible uses of such plaitwork are many (e.g. a kete, cloak or mat) and cannotbe ascertained here, but the fineness of the work indicates that they must have beentime-consuming to make.

The plaited check pieces are wider, and KOH306.1 shows folded-over edges resem-bling the edge on a rourou (a basket in which food is served). Similarly, one strip isalso folded back on the piece shown in Plate 8.5. Such items take only a few minutesfor an experienced weaver to make and are often used only once. Plaited items arelisted in Tables 8.5 and 8.6.


Plate 8.3KOH304.1. Finetwill close-up,showingconditionof fibres.

Plate 8.4KOH305.1.A larger pieceof fine twill,showing thecurvature inthe plaiting.

Netting (taa kupenga)One tray of the Kohika collection contains the remains of a small net with braids andgrommet or ring (KOH297, and 297A–C; Plates 8.6a and 8.6b, Table 8.7). Theseitems use the same technique of net-making that is described in Buck (1926b), withthe direction of netting switching for alternate rows in what Buck calls a ‘boustrophedonmanner’ (a row-reversal method that is also used in knitting). Similar netting has also

156 Kohika

Plate 8.5KOH303.4.Broad checkedplaiting, showingone folded-backstrip (at lowerpart of image).

Plate 8.6a(bottom left)KOH297. Agrommet withnetting stillattached.

Plate 8.6b(bottom right)KOH297. Smallfragment ofmesh.


been recovered in other archaeological excavations (e.g. McFadgen and Sheppard 1984).The netting was probably shaped into a cone, a shape found in several kinds of net(see Buck 1926b). The grommet is made from strands of harakeke, formed into a tightring and spiral-wrapped with another strand. This probably held the narrow end ofthe net in place. Plate 8.6a shows the grommet with a small fragment of netting at-tached, but this picture was taken before the author had seen the Kohika fibre fragments;the grommet now sits with the netting fragments (here termed 297B and 297C), butwith the netting no longer attached to it.

Table 8.5 Plaited twill with narrow strips

PlateKOH number Type Comments no.

301a 2/1? Horizontal* rows, 4 strips 2/1 survive; vertical* rows, –7–8 strips 1/1 survive

301b 2/1? Horizontal rows, 7 strips 2/1 survive; vertical rows, –4 strips 2/1 survive

303.1–3 2/2 3 fragments around 40 x 120 – 105 x 110 mm –304.1–8 2/2 fragments around 60 x 120 – 90 x 120 mm 8.3305.1–3 2/2 3 fragments fine twill 8.4306.2, 307.1 & 2 2/2 fine twill –

*Horizontal and vertical in relation to the writing of the KOH numbers on the card to which theitems are attached. Because the pieces are so fragmented, it is not possible to identify sinistrals anddextrals.

Table 8.6 Plaited check with broad strips

PlateKOH number Strip width Type Comments no.

303.4–5 15–20 1/1 2 fragments of check 8.5306.1 15–20 1/1 Bends on one edge* similar to upper edge of rourou –

* This edge is the ‘lower’ edge in relation to the card to which the items are attached.

Table 8.7 Netting and component parts

PlateKOH number Comments no.

297 Fragment of mesh with approx. 14 visible mesh diamonds (more 8.6bbunched up at top) attached to card upside down. Piece is made inboustrophedon manner

[297A]* Grommet: a circular loop made out of harakeke (?) strips. The circle 8.6ais about 30 mm in diameter, and spiral-wrapped with a strip in whicha knot is visible

[297B]* Braid fragments number B1–B7, and vary from 4 to 11 twists long; all –are of same width/thickness, and 3-ply

[297C]* Mesh fragments. Most have broken into individual knots, but in top –right corner, near braids B6 and B7, a bunch of mesh survives(characteristics: 10 mm gauge, knot size about 10 mm high; meshdirection: boustrophedon. Strip width approx. 7 mm; add-in knotsvisible in places, next to or incorporated into mesh knots)

* The author has assigned the number KOH297 to match the fragment shown in Plate 8.6b.

158 Kohika

Discussion and conclusionsThe Kohika fibre pieces were found in the swamp beside the site, near former housesand pataka and in the same areas as numerous wooden artefacts (G. Irwin, pers. comm.2002). The cordage remnants (including the braids) consist of short lengths. The longestpiece is 380 mm, so we cannot be certain whether they were intended for use as shortlengths only, such as handles, or for greater lengths, such as would be used for tyingand binding. There is no evidence of fibres emerging at regular intervals from eachtwist along one side of the braid, as would be the case if these braids had formed theedge or base of a kete-like article.

The most unusual cordage in the Kohika collection is the two-ply, spiral-wrappedfragments. These are the only examples of twisted (as opposed to braided) cordagemade with unscutched harakeke leaves and distinctive spiral-wrapping that the authorhas been able to locate. Enquiries to the four main New Zealand museums have yieldedno further examples; all other examples of two-ply cordage the author has seen aremade from processed muka. Nor has she been able to find a published description ofthis particular cordage technique. It is not described in Buck (1921, 1926a, 1926b,1949), Connor (1983) or Crosby (1966). It is possible that this technique was commonin the past but of no interest to collectors of the time (Pendergrast, pers. comm. 2002).

This kind of cordage was perhaps useful, on the one hand, for making thick, strongrope when the only harakeke cultivars available lacked sufficient muka, or when themuka was particularly difficult to extract, so that unscutched leaf strips had to beused. On the other hand, perhaps it was made for specialised uses and certain condi-tions, as the waxy cuticle may have given the fibre some protection against the elements.However, if this were the only reason, the author believes, after experimenting withthe technique, that three-ply braids would be easier to make. Further experimentalresearch could explore techniques for making the two-ply twist from raw harakeke.

Table 8.8 Other pieces: fragments whose technique is unclear

KOH number Description and comment

295 1 fibre fragment, technique unclear296.1–2 2 fibre fragments, technique unclear302a, 302b Two separate fragments, one of which appears to be tied into a loose knot

or crushed in a coiled-up position

Table 8.9 Contents of boxes (KOH number and technique)

BOX Numbers Contents

Box 1 298.1–8 Cordage (various)340.1–10

Box 2 300.1–9 Cordage (various)301–302 Raranga

Box 3 295–297a Cordage (various)300.10–15

Box 4 297A–C Netting with braids and grommetBox 5 303–308 Raranga (1/1, 2/2)

3 x 3-ply braidsBox 6 299.1–5 Cordage (various)

340.11–12341


It would be easier to make the two-ply using the twist-and-wrap technique with twopeople, because it takes two hands to maintain one set of bunched strips and wrappingstrip, while performing the twisting action with even, correct tension. However, unlessfurther information comes to light, the uses for this technique remain speculative.

Table 8.8 lists other miscellaneous fragments of fibre and Table 8.9 shows the locationof items by KOH number, as they were packed in boxes for return to Ngati Awa.

ReferencesAnderson, A., J. Goulding and M. White, 1991. Bark and fibre artefacts. In A. Anderson and

R. McGovern-Wilson (eds), Beech forest hunters: the archaeology of Maori rocksheltersites on Lee Island, Lake Te Anau, in southern New Zealand. New Zealand ArchaeologicalAssociation Monograph No.18, pp.43–55.

Buck, P.H., 1921. Maori food supplies of Lake Rotorua. Transactions of the New ZealandInstitute, 53:433–51.

Buck, P.H., 1926a. Maori plaited basketry and plait work: 1, mats, baskets and burden-carriers. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 54:705–42.

Buck, P.H., 1926b. The Maori craft of netting. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,56:597–646.

Buck, P.H., 1949. The coming of the Maori. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs.Connor, J., 1983. A descriptive classification of Maori fabrics: cordage, plaiting, windmill

knotting, twining, looping and netting. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 92:189–213.Crosby, E.B.V., 1966. Maori fishing gear: a study of the development of Maori fishing gear,

particularly in the North Island. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.Hopa, N.K., 1971. The art of piupiu making: an instructional manual setting out the materials,

design and assembly of the Maori skirt, central item of Maori costume. Wellington: Reed.Lander, M., 1992. Fibre fragments from the Raupa site, Hauraki Plains. Records of the Auck-

land Institute and Museum, 29:7–23.Lawrence, J., 1989. The archaeology of the Waitakere Ranges. Unpublished MA thesis, Uni-

versity of Auckland.McAra, S., 2001. Maori fishing nets in the Canterbury Museum. Records of the Canterbury

Museum, 15:83–99.McFadgen, B.G. and R.A. Sheppard, 1984. Ruahihi Pa: a prehistoric defended settlement in

the south-western Bay of Plenty. Wellington: National Museum of New Zealand.Pendergrast, M., 1986. Te mahi kete: Maori basketry for beginners. Auckland: Reed.Puketapu-Hetet, 1989. Maori weaving with Erenora Puketapu-Hetet. Auckland: Pitman.

160

9 Artefacts of bone, tooth, pumice and pounamu

G.J. Irwin

The excavations at Kohika and the analysis of its waterlogged remains have establishedthe presence of lakeside households in Area D and the Historical Society (HS) Area.There is evidence for houses, pataka and other more casual buildings, and the asso-ciated wooden and fibre artefacts cover the whole spectrum of domestic life. There isalso some evidence suggesting a third household in the vicinity of Area B, which wasalso close to the lake. In contrast, Area A, which is located on the higher and drierpart of Kohika, has provided evidence for cooking and for roofed storage pits andbins that could not have been built on low-lying land near the lakeshore withoutflooding.

The main aim of this chapter is to investigate further the developing picture of Kohikaby describing the nature and distribution of artefacts of more durable materials,including bone, tooth, greenstone (pounamu) and pumice (Table 9.1). This assem-blage, unlike the waterlogged one, is more typical of many dryland sites in being neitherlarge nor remarkable in its composition. However, the artefacts are known to fall withina short interval of time, and comparisons with other sites help to define Maori materialculture in the Bay of Plenty as it was not long before the arrival of Europeans.

PendantsPounamu

There are two greenstone pendants from Kohika and both are similar to examplesfrom Oruarangi illustrated by Furey (1996:39). One is a kuru pendant (Plate 9.1a)and the other a chisel pendant (Plate 9.1b). The latter has a rounded cross-section anda suspension hole drilled at the end opposite the bevel. The edges of an earlier, brokensuspension hole can been seen beyond it. This item might have begun its life as a chiseland then become an ornament, or it could have had a dual function.

Bone

A fine bone pendant in the style of a tiki is shown in Figure 9.1 and Plate 9.2. Thecurvature of a human long bone has been used to create the torso, and the genital areaconforms to a hei tiki. The head is broken but it retains the bottom of an eye and anopen mouth.

Tooth

A drilled human incisor is shown in Figure 9.1. Drilled human and dog teeth werecommonly seen by Cook and his party in 1769, worn singly or in groups, suspendedfrom an earlobe or sometimes from the neck (Davidson 1984, Furey 1996:47).

Artefacts of bone, tooth, pumice and pounamu 161

Table 9.1 Artefacts from Kohika

Artefact type Material Provenance Illustration

Pendant (kuru) greenstone Square B2, drain spoil Plate 9.1aPendant (chisel) greenstone Square A1 Ext., Layer B Plate 9.1bTiki pendant human bone HS Area Plate 9.2, Fig 9.1Tooth pendant human incisor Square D3, Yellow House Fig. 9.1Toggle bird bone HS Area Fig. 9.1Fishhook human bone Square D3, Yellow House Plate 9.3aFishhook human bone Square D10, Yellow House Plate 9.3bFishhook human bone Square D13, white pumice Plate 9.3cFishhook blank human bone Square D3, White House Plate 9.4aFishhook point dog tooth Square B1, pre-flood layer Plate 9.4bNeedle bird bone Square B4, brown silt layer Plate 9.5aNeedle dog mandible Square B4, drain spoil Plate 9.5bAwl bird bone Square D13, white pumice Plate 9.5cAwl seal scapula Square B4, brown silt layer Plate 9.6Awl dog humerus Square D5, Yellow House Plate 9.6bChisel dog tibia Square B4, brown silt layer –Chisel dog tibia Square D6, Yellow House –Adze greenstone HS Area Fig. 9.2, Plate 9.7Chisel greenstone Square B1, drain spoil Plate 9.8aAdze chip greenstone Square D6, Yellow House Plate 9.8bFile sandstone Square B1, drain spoil Plate 9.9aPigment bowl pumice Square D14, upper black sand –Pigment bowl carved pumice HS Area Plate 9.9bKumara god pumice HS Area Fig. 9.3

Note: M. Taylor identified the bone by species.

TogglesBone

A toggle made of bone from a mollymawk or albatross is shown in Figure 9.1. Oneend is notched and the other not, and the toggle is otherwise plain, which is the sameas a toggle illustrated from Oruarangi (Furey 1996, Fig. 104). The Kohika example isbroken, but the edge of a hole remains that would have held a threaded cord. Togglescan be taken as an indication that breast pendants were present, even when not found(Davidson 1984:87).

Figure 9.1Bone hei tikipendant, toothpendant, bonetoggle

162 Kohika

Plate 9.1a(right)Greenstone kurupendant.

Plate 9.1b(far right)Greenstonechisel pendant.

Plate 9.2 Bonetiki pendant(human).


FishhooksBone

Three one-piece fishhooks made of human bone are illustrated in Plates 9.3a–c.All three have straight shanks and two have very incurved points, the third beingincomplete. Two of the hooks also have a decorative projection for the attachment ofbait string. The Kohika fishhooks are of a widespread form and very similar to onesfrom Kauri Point Pa (Davidson 1984, Fig. 50, pp.67–68), and provide a close datefor the use of this type of hook in the Bay of Plenty. Two were associated with theYellow House horizon in Area D, and the third with a white pumice floor in SquareD13 at a level equivalent to the White House. A fishhook blank of human bone, shownin Plate 9.4a, is also from the White House.

Tooth

A dog-tooth point of a two-piece fishhook is shown in Plate 9.4b. It is finely shapedand could be an ornament as well.

Plate 9.3a–cOne-piece bonefishhooks(human).

Plate 9.4a(far left) Bonefishhook blank(human).

Plate 9.4b(left) Fishhookpoint (dogtooth).

164 Kohika

NeedlesBone

One complete bone needle is made of bird bone (Plate 9.5a), while another has noperforation (Plate 9.5b). The latter is shaped from the lower edge of a dog mandibleand three of these, minus ventral surfaces, were found in Area B. The unfinished itemwas ground and polished and, if it was intended as a needle, the eye had not yet beendrilled.

Awls/chiselsBone

A hollow-sectioned awl of bird bone is illustrated in Plate 9.5c. Like examples fromOruarangi (Furey 1996, Figs 271 and 272), the shaft of a long bone has been sliceddiagonally at one end and sharpened to a point. This item came from Square D13,from a layer similar in age to the White House horizon. Awls made from a seal scapulaand a dog humerus are shown in Plates 9.6a and b. Two other chisels, not illustrated,were made from dog tibia. Perhaps surprisingly, no bone tattooing chisels were foundat Kohika, but the explanation may lie in the relatively small number of bone toolsfound in the excavations.

Adzes and chiselsThere were hundreds of pieces of worked wood of all kinds among the waterloggedremains, including carvings, and some unfinished items, while a large number of woodchips and shavings indicates considerable woodworking on site. In addition, a woodenadze handle was found along with a chisel handle and a socket, both made to holdsmall stone heads. Yet only two stone tools are associated with all this activity – onestone adze and one chisel. The situation is a striking reminder of the bias of archaeo-logical sampling. We can assume that the people of Kohika owned other stone toolsand, conversely, we have an insight into the wooden artefacts and manufacturing wastethat must have disappeared from dryland sites where adzes have been found.

Plate 9.5a(below left)Bone needle(bird).

Plate 9.5b(below centre)Bone needle(dog).

Plate 9.5c(below right)Bone awl (bird).

Plate 9.6a(right) Bone awl(seal).

Plate 9.6b(far right) Bonechisel (dog).


Pounamu

A greenstone adze of Duff-type 2B form is illustrated in Figure 9.2 and Plate 9.7. Ithas a wide blade, a width greater than twice its length, a defined bevel chin and aquadrangular cross-section with the front slightly wider than the back. There is ascarfing groove on the back. Such an adze would have been suitable for dressing timber,and there is abundant evidence for this in the site. A finely made, quadrangular cross-sectioned miniature greenstone chisel, only 12 mm long, is shown in Plate 9.8a. Itseems likely that such a tool was used for fine work, including carving, with the hafttapped with a wooden mallet. Finally, among the artefacts of greenstone, there was achip from the corner of an adze (Plate 9.8b).

Plate 9.7Pounamu adze.

Figure 9.2Pounamu adze

166 Kohika

Plate 9.8a(right) Pounamuchisel.

Plate 9.8b(far right)Pounamu adzeflake.

Plate 9.9aSandstone file.

Plate 9.9bPumice pigmentbowl.

Stone fileA small sandstone file with an oval cross-section and flattened abrading surfaces isshown in Plate 9.9a. J. Davidson (pers. comm. 2002) notes that it is interesting thatonly one stone file was found, which suggests that they were used here, as often as-sumed for earlier sites, for working bone rather than wood.

Pumice containersThere were two small bowls of a kind often called pigment pots (Furey 1996:42), andthe broken one illustrated in Plate 9.9b has a stylised face on the back.

Pumice figureA remarkable carved pumice figure of a kind commonly called a kumara god is shownin Figure 9.3.

Distribution of the artefacts and implications for functional areasThe artefacts described in this chapter were generally associated with houses, but nonewas found in Area A, which was used for pit storage and then cooking during the


occupation. The greenstone pendantof chisel form in Square A1 Ext.,Layer B (Table 9.1) came from oneof two late burials which date fromafter the village was abandoned. Norwas any artefact found in Area C,which lay partly in swamp beyondthe perimeter of the site and partlyin a cooking area. The absence ofartefacts adds weight to the view thatpeople did not reside in these areas.

By contrast, Area D has strikingevidence for buildings and a widerange of other evidence. All threeone-piece fishhooks came from here,plus the fishhook blank. There wasalso a bird-bone awl, dog-bone awland chisel, pumice pigment bowl,drilled human-tooth pendant andchip from a greenstone adze (Table9.1). These artefacts are consistentwith people living in this part of thesite.

In the vicinity of the carved housein the HS Area was a tiki pendant ofhuman bone, a bird-bone toggle, apumice kumara god, a pumice bowland a greenstone adze. These itemsare consistent with the presence ofa high-status household.

The situation in Area B is not so clear. There were wooden timbers from at leastone surface building, and three substantial posts standing in B1 (Fig. 4.4) probablysupported a raised storehouse. It is likely that a house was nearby, but the area ofarchaeological excavation was too small to find it. Some valuable items were thrownout with the spoil from the agricultural drain, and these included two wooden haircombs, found by members of the Historical Society. Others found later by the uni-versity were a greenstone chisel (Square B1), greenstone pendant (Square B2) and dog-jaw needle (Square B4). These all indicate rich deposits where the agricultural drainskirted the palisade. The excavation of undisturbed deposits yielded numerous boneartefacts, including a dog-tooth fishhook point, dog-bone chisel, bird-bone needleand seal-bone awl, together with a sandstone file that would have been suitable forbone working (Table 9.1). In addition, three dog mandibles with detached ventralmargin were recovered. The pattern of evidence is consistent with another lakesidehousehold in Area B that was only partly excavated.

ReferencesDavidson, J.M., 1984. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.Furey, L., 1996. Oruarangi: the archaeology and material culture of a Hauraki pa. Bulletin of

the Auckland Institute and Museum No.17.

Figure 9.3Pumice kumaragod

168

10 Sources of the Kohika obsidian artefacts

P.R. Moore

The analysis of obsidian artefacts can provide useful information about trade networksand wider cultural relationships by establishing where the obsidian came from. Gener-ally, in the past, chemical analyses have been used to determine the original geologicalsources. An alternative method was developed by Moore (1988), in which a range ofphysical characteristics, such as colour, translucency and flow banding, could identifylikely sources. However, this has rarely been applied to large assemblages. In this study,both physical characteristics and chemical (X-ray fluorescence or XRF) analyses wereused to establish the sources of the Kohika obsidian artefacts.

MethodsThe excavations at Kohika produced over 2400 obsidian flakes, tools and cores witha maximum dimension greater than 10 mm, and a further 1040 smaller pieces of shatter.First, the entire obsidian assemblage was separated into two groups, ‘green’ and ‘grey’,based on their colour in transmitted light. Only two or three pieces could not be readilyplaced into either group on this basis, and these were later examined more closely.

The grey obsidian could be further subdivided into: pebbles and part-pebbles withsmooth water-worn cortex, and flakes with similar cortex; and flakes generally lackingwater-worn cortex. Other characteristics such as translucency, flow banding and lustrewere then considered, which resulted in some flakes in the second group, lacking cor-tex, being transferred to the first group. The general characteristics of the obsidian inthese two groups – here referred to as the ‘pebble-type grey’ and ‘other grey’ – werethen documented. All the obsidian of both grey types was weighed and pebbles werealso measured.

Potential sources of the two groups of grey obsidian were considered by referenceto the descriptions of geological sources given by Moore (1988), and direct compari-sons were then made between pieces from each Kohika group and reference samplesfrom various geological sources, to determine similarities and differences in physicalcharacteristics. This procedure resulted in the identification of the most likely sources.

Lastly, nine samples were selected for chemical (XRF) analysis, to test the reliabilityof source indications from physical characteristics.

Physical characteristicsGreen obsidian

The bulk of the Kohika obsidian assemblage consists of flakes, pieces and cores thathave a distinctive olive-green colour in transmitted light, and only one flake (1040),

Sources of the Kohika obsidian artefacts 169

grey in colour and greenish-grey in transmitted light, could not be confidently assignedto this group. There is little doubt that all of the green obsidian originated from MayorIsland.

Although this very large assemblage was not examined in detail during the sourcingstudy, it is evident from the types of cortex present on some pieces that the obsidianwas obtained from several different localities on Mayor Island. At least eight of theflakes had been removed from water-rolled cobbles or boulders, probably collectedfrom a beach environment. Several other pieces contained portions of rough, but notwater-worn cortex, and could have come from colluvial deposits. The majority of flakes,however, lacked cortex and some of these may have been struck from blocks obtainedfrom obsidian quarries on the island.

‘Pebble-type grey’

Thirty-five pieces of obsidian with smooth, water-worn cortex were identified in thecollection. This included three almost complete pebbles, thirteen part or broken pebbles(many representing cores), and nineteen flakes with a small portion of cortex remain-ing. In addition, a further eight flakes, mostly lacking cortex but otherwise havingsimilar characteristics to the above, were assigned to this group, making a total of 43.

The ‘pebble-type grey’ obsidian is mostly greyish-black to black in colour, butsome is medium to dark grey (Rock Colour Chart). In transmitted light the colour isa slightly different shade of grey from that seen in the ‘other grey’ group. However,the main factor that distinguishes the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian (apart from cortex) is itsgenerally poor translucency. Many pieces also show weak flow banding, which iscommonly vague or wispy. Only a few pieces show strong flow banding, and some areslightly colour-banded.

Spherulites are generally rare – only about 20 per cent of the assemblage containsspherulites – although they are common in some individual pieces. Crystal inclusions(phenocrysts) are also rare, and usually very small. Vesicles (gas bubbles) were identifiedin two pebbles.

One other feature of note is the streaky appearance of some material, which resultsin the obsidian having a dull or less vitreous lustre. Abundant microscopic gas bub-bles are the probable cause.

‘Other grey’

This grouping consisted of 42 flakes without cortex, or with only a small portion ofcortex. In general this cortex is very smooth and differs from that of the ‘pebble-type’obsidian. It may have been produced by slight weathering of natural fracture faces(at the source) rather than by water rolling, although at least four flakes were clearlyderived from water-worn pebbles or cobbles. About 25 per cent of the flakes havesome cortex present.

Most of the obsidian is black in reflected light, but some is greyish-black and oneflake is dark grey in colour. A distinctive feature of the assemblage is that the majorityof flakes have moderate to good translucency, with perhaps fewer than 20 per centhaving poor translucency. Many also have a smoky tinge in transmitted light.

The majority of flakes show weak flow banding which, in some cases, is vague orwispy. Strong flow banding is evident in only one flake and colour banding is veryrare. Spherulites are present in about 30 per cent of flakes and are common in some.Crystal inclusions are rare.

In contrast to the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian, flakes in this assemblage tend to have amore vitreous lustre, although a few show a slight streakiness (as described above).This obsidian, therefore, is of better quality overall.

170 Kohika

Potential sourcesThere are about twenty known obsidian sources, or source areas, in New Zealand,of which at least seventeen consist of grey obsidian (Moore 1988). The Kohika greyobsidian could, potentially, have come from almost any of these sources, althoughmany can be ruled out on the basis of one or more criteria.

‘Pebble-type grey’

It is evident that the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian came from a source that consisted primar-ily of rounded to well-rounded, water-worn pebbles. Such pebbles are likely to befound only on beaches (coastal or lake) or in rivers, where rounding occurred eitherover a considerable period of time or as a result of rapid transportation by water overa considerable distance. The size and shape of the pebbles may provide a clue as to thetype of environment they came from, and this is considered now.

One possibility is that the pebbles were obtained from the Tarawera River, whichflows past Kohika. Fluvial gravel deposits exposed along the river upstream fromKawerau contain common obsidian pebbles, but these are predominantly sub-angularto sub-rounded and not well-rounded like many of the Kohika pebbles. Virtually allof the Tarawera River obsidian is also perlitic and not of flake quality, and differs inmany other respects from the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian. For example, it contains abun-dant crystal inclusions and lacks flow banding. No obsidian pebbles were found at themouth of the Tarawera River, or on the beach at Matata just to the north.

An alternative source for the pebbles is Maketu, which lies about 35 kilometresnorthwest of the Kohika site. There, all of the obsidian is in the form of pebbles, someof which are well-rounded. Useful comparisons can therefore be made in terms ofthe size and shape of the pebbles.

Although adequate measurements could be obtained for only five Kohika pebblesand part-pebbles, these are clearly small to medium-sized, with the largest being closeto the upper size limit for pebbles (Fig. 10.1). Most are also slightly elongated. How-ever, the shape of the pebbles can be better expressed by calculating their sphericity,which ranges from about 0.7 to 0.8, with a mean of 0.78 (Table 10.1). A sphere has asphericity of 1.

The size range of twelve rounded to well-rounded pebbles from Maketu is verysimilar to that of the Kohika pebbles and most of them also show only slight elonga-tion (Fig. 10.1). Their sphericity ranges from 0.69 to 0.82 with a mean of 0.74, whichis almost identical to the mean value obtained for the five Kohika pebbles.

Two well-rounded obsidian pebbles collected from the ocean beach at Otamara-kau, which lies between Kohika and Maketu, were also included for comparison (Fig.10.1). These are both relatively flat in shape and have sphericities of 0.75 and 0.66respectively.

Other characteristics of the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian closely match those of the Maketumaterial, particularly the poor translucency, flow banding (and minor colour banding),and proportion of spherulites. Of the twelve measured pebbles from Maketu, onlytwo (17 per cent) contain spherulites, which is very similar to the proportion (about20 per cent) for the entire assemblage of ‘pebble-type’ obsidian. The Kohika obsidianalso shows a superficial resemblance to some of the Waihi material, notably in flowbanding and the poor translucency, although there is a slight but distinct differencein colour in transmitted light.

‘Other grey’

The main features that distinguish this group are the moderate to good translucencyand smoky tinge in transmitted light, weak flow banding and very vitreous lustre.


Based on these criteria alone, potential sources would include Otoroa (Northland),Fanal Island, Te Ahumata (Great Barrier), Cooks Beach, Hahei, Whangamata, Whaka-rewarewa, Whakamaru and Ben Lomond (Moore 1988). Some of these sources,however, can virtually be eliminated on other criteria: Otoroa and Fanal (abundantcrystal inclusions, no spherulites), Whakamaru (common to abundant crystal inclu-sions, poor fracture) and Whakarewarewa (poor fracture). The type of cortex presenton some of the flakes also does not match that seen on most material from CooksBeach, Hahei or Whangamata deposits. That effectively leaves Te Ahumata (GreatBarrier) and Ben Lomond (Taupo) as the most likely sources.

Typical Te Ahumata obsidian has moderate to good translucency and a slight smokytinge, very vitreous lustre and shows weak flow banding. Spherulites are generallysparse (although common in some pieces), and crystal inclusions are rare. Overall,

Table 10.1 Size, roundness and sphericity of Kohika obsidian pebbles

Number Roundness# Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Sphericity*

1525 Well-rounded 3.3 3.0 1.9 0.811529 Rounded 2.7 2.5 1.4 0.781683 Well-rounded 2.8 2.3 1.7 (min.) 0.792434 Rounded 4.2 4.2 2.3 0.823202–5 Well-rounded? 6.3 5.5 2.4 0.69

# Based on standard roundness scale.* Sphericity = 3� LWT/L3.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Width (cm)

Length

(cm

)

Kohika

Maketu

Otamarakau

Granule

Pebble

Cobble

Figure 10.1Dimensionsof obsidianpebbles fromKohika,Maketu andOtamarakau

172 Kohika

there would appear to be a good match, although the type of cortex on Te Ahumatamaterial (finely to coarsely pitted) is not the same as that seen on the Kohika flakes.

Direct comparison of the ‘other grey’ flakes with source material from Ben Lomondrevealed that many have very strong similarities in translucency, the proportion ofspherulites and phenocrysts, and flow banding. Ben Lomond obsidian also has a smokytinge in transmitted light. It seems very likely, therefore, that the bulk of this obsidianoriginated from Ben Lomond, although a few flakes – notably those with remnants ofwater-worn cortex – may have been derived from another source.

Chemical analysesSample selection

The selection of samples for XRF was largely dictated by the amount of material(minimum 10 g) required for analysis. This meant that for the ‘pebble-type’ grouponly four pebbles or part-pebbles were of suitable size, and for the ‘other grey’ grouponly five larger flakes could be used. Fortunately, the latter were either from differentparts of the site or from different squares, thus reducing the risk that they had comefrom the same core, although this cannot be entirely ruled out.

The selected samples showed some variation in physical characteristics. Of the fourfrom the ‘pebble-type’ group, two were black, one greyish-black and one medium todark grey in colour. Flow banding varied from weak to strong and three of the pebblesshowed slight colour banding. Of the five ‘other grey’ flakes, four were black and one(3201) greyish-black in colour. All showed weak flow banding and had moderate orpoor translucency, and one (2281) contained common spherulites. Three flakes hadremnants of cortex, and two of them (2281, 3201) were probably derived from water-worn cobbles.

Analytical data

XRF analyses of the nine Kohika samples and one obsidian pebble from Maketu(MK1A), were carried out by J. Wilmshurst of the Geology Department, University ofAuckland in 2002. The results are provided in Table 10.2. (Values for Sc, V, Cr, Niand Cu were mostly at, or below, the limit of determination, and have been excludedfrom the table.) Plots of selected trace elements are presented in Figures 10.2 and 10.3.

From Table 10.2 it is evident that all the ‘pebble-type’ samples have a very similarcomposition, with only minor variation in the values for most elements. Flakes fromthe ‘other grey’ group also have a remarkably similar composition, although the Baconcentration for 3201 is unusually high. There are, however, significant differencesbetween the two groups for most major elements and some trace elements (notablyRb and Zr), and there is little doubt that they were derived from different sources.

Sources

The ‘pebble-type’ samples from Kohika have an almost identical composition to thepebble from Maketu (MK1A). They also have very similar values to an earlier ‘bulk’analysis of Maketu obsidian (MK-1) obtained in 1987, which represents the approxi-mate average composition (Moore, unpublished data). The close similarity of the‘pebble-type’ analyses to those of Maketu obsidian is clearly illustrated in Figures 10.2and 10.3.

The ‘other grey’ samples have a very similar composition to obsidian from theBen Lomond (Taupo) source, with almost identical values for many trace elements,particularly Rb, Sr, Y and Zr (Figs 10.2 and 10.3). Minor differences in some major


Table 10.2 XRF analyses of obsidian samples from Kohika and MaketuPebble type Maketu Other grey

Number LOD*wt (%) 1525 1529 1683 2434 MK1A 1429 1834 2281 2812 3201 (ppm)

SiO2 76.58 76.77 76.69 76.72 76.74 77.09 77.09 77.01 77.04 77.04 177TiO2 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 26Al2O3 12.76 12.67 12.75 12.74 12.69 12.42 12.42 12.47 12.46 12.45 116Fe2O3 1.42 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.4 1.42 14MnO 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 8MgO 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.19 0.19 61CaO 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.12 42Na2O 3.91 3.79 3.83 3.82 3.83 4.06 4.05 4.05 4.07 4.1 73K2O 4.1 4.18 4.14 4.14 4.16 3.44 3.44 3.49 3.48 3.46 14P2O5 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 16(H2O) 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03(LOI) 0.79 0.55 0.68 0.48 0.41 0.31 0.34 0.24 0.3 0.23(Total) 99.83 99.68 99.66 99.88 99.81 99.84 99.88 100.03 99.63 99.79

ppmRb 142 142 143 144 144 120 122 124 122 123 3Sr 81 80 80 82 81 87 87 86 86 87 2Y 29 28 29 29 29 24 25 24 24 25 2Zr 113 111 112 115 116 157 158 158 155 160 2Nb 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 6 7 2Ba 767 751 749 751 759 676 681 689 680 1141 16La 26 29 24 26 26 22 23 25 23 24 10Ce 50 52 54 50 44 36 31 34 43 52 26Pb 19 20 20 20 19 25 36 16 16 14 6Th 16 17 13 16 14 10 11 13 13 11 4Zn 38 32 33 36 35 31 30 32 28 32 4Ga 14 15 14 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 4

* LOD = Limit of determination

Figure 10.2Rb-Sr plotsfor analysedobsidianartefacts fromKohika (solidsymbols) andsource samplesfrom Maketu andTaupo

Rb-Sr

110

120

130

140

150

50 60 70 80 90 100

Sr (ppm)

Rb

(p

pm

)

Pebble type

Maketu

Other grey

Taupo

Note: Data from Table 10.2 and Moore (1988, unpublished report).

174 Kohika

Zr-Rb

90

110

130

150

170

110 120 130 140 150

Rb (ppm)

Zr

(pp

m)

Pebble type

Maketu

Other grey

Figure 10.3Zr-Rb plotsfor analysedobsidianartefacts fromKohika (solidsymbols) andsource samplesfrom Maketuand Taupo

element concentrations (notably Mg and Fe, and also Ba) may be due partly to thefact that the Taupo sample was analysed on a different XRF machine, in 1987 (Moore,unpublished data). Although the Ba, and possibly Ce, values for sample 3201 appearanomalously high, these may still lie within the compositional range of the Taupoobsidian; most other element concentrations are very similar to those of the otherflakes and source sample. This flake had a slightly different colour and partly water-worn cortex, which could indicate that it came from a different deposit within thesource area.

Comparisons with compositional plots for all the Coromandel Peninsula sourcesrevealed that, while the Kohika samples had similar values for certain elements, therewere significant differences in many others. For example, the Rb/Sr ratios of the ‘othergrey’ flakes are similar to those of Cooks Beach and Tairua obsidian, but the Zr/Rbratios are very different. Waihi can certainly be excluded as a source for the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian on the basis of Rb/Sr ratios alone. Te Ahumata can probably also beruled out as a source for the ‘other grey’ flakes based on the PIXE data provided byNeve et al. (1994), which indicates that Te Ahumata obsidian has significantly differ-ent values for Rb, Sr and Zr. However, other central North Island sources cannot beentirely excluded since the compositional data available for those sources are at presentvery limited. It is possible, therefore, that, while the bulk of the ‘other grey’ obsidianwas almost certainly derived from the Taupo source, a small proportion of the flakesin this group could have been obtained from other sources.

Proportions of obsidianThe relative proportions of the different obsidians may reflect their desirability andavailability. Mayor Island was the major source and the two grey obsidians were ofminor significance. Maketu lies on the way to Mayor Island, so the appearance ofobsidian from there may be no surprise and its low frequency a measure of its perceivedvalue. The presence of Taupo obsidian is more interesting, because it shows longer-


distance contact and the possibility of political relations between the central NorthIsland and the Bay of Plenty coast in late prehistory.

Little can be said about the relative proportions of the two grey obsidians becausethe samples are so small, and what has been found may not be representative of thesite as a whole. Certainly, the quantity of grey obsidian in Areas A, B and D is vari-able, as shown by S. Holdaway (in Chapter 11).

The total weight of grey obsidian recovered from the site is only about 425 g. The‘pebble-type’ constitutes approximately 250 g (60 per cent) of this, which would beequivalent to perhaps ten or twelve average-sized pebbles (Fig. 10.4). All of the 175 gof ‘other grey’ flakes could have been produced from the equivalent of just one hand-sized piece, although the variation in physical characteristics demonstrates that theflakes came from several different cores.

Considering only the flakes, Figure 10.4 shows the relative proportions of eachgrey obsidian group by both weight and number. One could conclude that relativelyfewer and smaller flakes were produced from the Maketu pebbles. In contrast, thehigher-quality Taupo obsidian yielded a very high proportion of flakes and therewere no cores (see Chapter 11).

ConclusionsAnalysis of the large obsidian artefact assemblage recovered from Kohika has shownthat, while the bulk of the obsidian undoubtedly originated from Mayor Island, avery small proportion – all grey in transmitted light – was obtained from other sources.Two different groups of grey obsidian were identified on the basis of various physicalcharacteristics. One, ‘pebble-type’, was derived from water-worn pebbles and charac-terised in particular by poor translucency; the other, ‘other grey’, was distinguished

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total weight Flakes only

(weight)

Total number

of flakes

Pebble type

Other greyR

ela

tive P

roport

ion (

perc

ent)

Figure 10.4Relativeproportions of‘grey pebble-type’ and ‘othergrey’ obsidianfrom Kohika

176 Kohika

mainly by the lack of water-worn cortex and predominantly moderate to good trans-lucency.

Consideration of the range of physical characteristics and direct comparisons withreference samples from potential sources suggested that the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian wasprobably derived from Maketu, 35 kilometres to the northeast. This was supportedby comparison of the size and shape (sphericity) of pebbles from Kohika and Maketu.Physical characteristics of the ‘other grey’ obsidian suggested that it was obtained largelyfrom either Te Ahumata (Great Barrier Island) or Ben Lomond (Taupo).

Chemical (XRF) analyses of nine samples clearly demonstrated that the ‘pebble-type’ and ‘other grey’ groups had very different compositions and were thereforederived from different sources. Comparisons with analyses of source samples showedthat the ‘pebble-type’ obsidian was obtained from Maketu, while the bulk (and possiblyall) of the ‘other grey’ obsidian came from the Taupo (Ben Lomond) source. This pro-vides the first definite evidence for prehistoric exploitation of the Maketu source.

One might suggest (very tentatively on present data) that slightly more ‘pebble-type’ was present at Kohika but fewer flakes were produced from it, which reflects thedifficulty in flaking well-rounded pebbles. Also, although the ‘other grey’ (Taupo) ob-sidian was of better quality and easier to work, it was obtained less often than theMaketu pebbles. Maketu, of course, is on the coast between Kohika and Mayor Island,from where the overwhelming bulk of the Kohika obsidian came.

ReferencesMoore, P.R., 1988. Physical characteristics of New Zealand obsidians and their use in

archaeological sourcing studies. Unpublished report.Neve, S.R., P.H. Barker, S. Holroyd and P.J. Sheppard, 1994. Obsidian sourcing by PIXE an-

alysis at AURA 2. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 26:93–121

177

11 The Kohika obsidian artefacts:technology and distribution

S.J. Holdaway

The excavations at Kohika produced over 2400 obsidian flakes, tools and cores witha maximum dimension greater than 10 mm, and a further 1040 smaller pieces of shat-ter. Although not the largest assemblage of obsidian artefacts excavated from a NewZealand site, it is certainly one of the more numerous and therefore has the potentialto add to our understanding of how obsidian was processed in the past. This chapterpresents the results of a study of the morphology of the artefacts. The attribution ofthe obsidian to geological sources was described by P. Moore in Chapter 10, and theresults used to separate artefacts derived from different sources in the analyses pre-sented below. The aim of this chapter is to develop an understanding of the way obsidianwas used as a resource at Kohika at three levels: first, at the level of the artisans whoworked the stone into usable flakes; second, in terms of the various activities under-taken in different areas of the site; and, third, in relation to other sites in New Zealandwith obsidian assemblages.

From a theoretical perspective, it is useful to consider the economics of procuringobsidian, its use and abandonment. Like other technologies, the way stone artefactproduction and use was organised in prehistoric Maori society reflects the overall eco-nomic system. For instance, a relationship exists between the time invested in stoneartefact production, the complexity of stone artefact technology and the permanencyof settlement (e.g. Parry and Kelley 1987). Torrence (1992) argues that there is a closerelationship between the design of stone artefacts and the amount of time availableto modify the artefact during use. Among some hunter-gatherers the opportunities tocapture prey are limited. Artefact maintenance will therefore be scheduled, and theartefacts themselves may be designed to minimise the chance of failure through care-ful design. Among horticulturalists, on the other hand, the stress associated with foodacquisition is different. It may be more important to invest time in ensuring a readysupply of raw material by stockpiling flakes or cores than in the over-design of particu-lar artefacts. Archaeologists sometimes use the term curated to describe artefacttechnologies where the design of items is emphasised, and expedient to describe in-stances where the need to have material on hand to work is given more weight. Kohikawould seem an ideal location from which to investigate an expedient technology,since there can be little doubt that the economy of the people who occupied the siteincluded horticulture and the obsidian was definitely imported into the site. Thesignificance of this observation is considered at the end of the chapter.

The methods of excavation are relevant. As described elsewhere, two phases ofexcavation occurred at Kohika. The lithic assemblage obtained by the Whakatane andDistrict Historical Society is dominated by large flakes, while the assemblage pro-duced by the university excavation is more numerous and has much higher proportionsof small flakes and flake fragments. Some of the difference results from the different

178 Kohika

excavation methods used, meaning that comparisons between the two assemblagesmust be made with caution. While there were genuinely more large obsidian artefactsin the HS Area, the absence of smaller pieces in this assemblage reflects the excavationmethod employed.

Obsidian is a hard yet brittle material and extremely prone to damage after it isdiscarded, and a large proportion of the artefacts from both assemblages is broken.While much of the breakage probably occurred at the time of deposition, some of thedamage, particularly from the society’s assemblage, occurred afterwards (e.g. Kamminga1982:10). More care was given to the artefacts recovered from the university excav-ation. Although artefacts were stored together in the same bag, individual pieces werefrequently wrapped in paper to prevent damage. As will be demonstrated below, thereis good evidence that some of the edge damage is a product of tool function in pre-history rather than post-excavation modification. However, the level of damage forthe society’s assemblage is considerably higher than for the university’s assemblage.Many of the flake edges on pieces from the society’s assemblage have been chipped,no doubt as a result of friction during storage.

Analytical approachesThe methods adopted to study a collection of stone artefacts depend very much on thenature of the research questions. It is perhaps easiest to visualise these questions interms of a series of different levels of behaviour by the people who lived at Kohika. Atthe narrowest level, the assemblage may be studied from the viewpoint of the artisansfaced with working blocks of obsidian into useful products. Given the density ofoccupation at the site, it is unlikely that the work of any individual will be identi-fiable, but trends in the way blocks of stone were worked can be investigated in theassemblage as a whole. These trends allow the identification of the general reductionsequence – that is, the way blocks of obsidian were worked to form useful products.

At a wider level, the ways blocks of stone were worked or used at separate loca-tions in the site may be investigated, and these patterns correlated with those identifiedfrom the study of other types of evidence. At a still broader level, consideration can begiven to how, and from where, the obsidian was obtained, and to the form of theblock that was brought to the site. Finally, comparisons can be drawn between theKohika obsidian artefacts and those found in other sites in New Zealand.

Different types of information are relevant to each level. Minimally, each artefactmay be placed in a group depending on whether it is complete or broken, whetherit has evidence of macroscopic retouch, and whether it is a flake (i.e. with both anexterior and interior surface, as shown in Figure 11.1) or a core (with only exteriorsurfaces). Occasionally a flake was used as a core, with a number of negative flakescars covering the flake interior surface. Such pieces are grouped with the cores forthe purposes of this study. Complete flakes have both a striking platform and a flaketermination. Broken flakes represent the proximal, medial or distal fragments of aflake defined on the position of the break (either proximal, distal or both), and thepresence of a striking platform or distal termination. Tools are identified by the pres-ence of small flake scars concentrated along an edge, and are divided into completeand broken fragments using the same criteria as flakes. Cores are defined as eithercomplete or broken, depending on the presence of a snap.

For each artefact two further sets of variables are recorded. The first set recordsaspects of morphology that give insights into the way the artefacts were producedfrom a block of stone, and in the way pieces were modified as a result of use. The

The Kohika obsidian artefacts: technology and distribution 179

pattern of scars on the exterior surface of the artefact indicates the way flakes wereremoved from a core (Fig. 11.2). Scars that all originate from one direction or twoopposed directions suggest that the core was worked by striking flakes from one plat-form or two opposed platforms. These are termed uni-directional and bi-directionalpatterns respectively. Flake scars that come from directions at right angles to eachother, or from three or more directions, suggest that cores were worked from a numberof platforms by turning the core. The first group is called sub-radial and the secondradial. Scar direction can be assessed by orientating the flake relative to the platform(Fig. 11.3), and defining four arbitrary directions. Scar direction is then determined interms of flake scars originating from one of the four quadrants. In the case of broken

Figure 11.1Terms used todescribe flakefragments.Proximal flakesinclude aplatform, distalflakes have atermination, andmedial flakeslack a platformor a termination

Figure 11.2Flakes withdifferent exteriorscar patterns.The identifica-tion numbersare given inbrackets:a (1703),b (1637),uni-directional;c (1907),d (1735),bi-directional;e (1893), sub-radial; f (1688),radial

180 Kohika

Figure 11.3Quadrants forassessing scarorientation.The flake isorientated withthe platform atquadrant 1 (thefigure is basedon artefact 161)

Figure 11.4Typology foredge modifica-tion: a (2617),b (2163),bifacial;c (2128), heavy;d (1145),e (1687),f (2175),g (1850), light;h (2490), i andj (1822),k (1635), notch


fragments that lack a platform (medial and distal pieces), exterior scar directioncan be assessed only when the orientation of the piece can be reconstructed on thebasis of ripple marks on the interior surface. In many cases this is not possible, soexterior scar morphology cannot be recorded.

Other variables that may be used to reconstruct the core reduction sequence in-clude the proportion of cortex on the flake. Clearly, flakes with a high proportion ofcortex were removed when the block was first worked. The proportion of cortical tonon-cortical flakes gives an impression of the size of the obsidian block, since largerblocks will produce proportionally fewer cortical flakes.

For the pieces with macroscopic, or secondary, flake removals along one or moreflake edges, additional variables are used to describe the location and form of themodification. For the Kohika assemblage, a simple typology was developed based onthe slope and invasiveness (how far it extends across the body of the tool blank) of theedge modification (Fig. 11.4).

A flake edge is modified by three processes. First, edges may be modified to pro-duce a tool of a particular shape. There are suggestions, for instance, that tanged flakesfound in New Zealand sites were modified by retouch to form types similar to theEaster Island mataa (Jones 1981). Second, cutting or scraping a flake of obsidian acrossa hard surface, thereby removing miniature chips, may modify the edge. Third, a flakeedge may be modified to change the characteristics of the edge itself. This may involveblunting a naturally sharp edge, or perhaps resharpening an edge that has becomeclogged with material through use. While it may appear conceptually easy to differ-entiate tools produced by these three processes, in practice this is not the case (e.g.Jones 1972, Kamminga 1982:8, Leach 1979).

Differentiating tools that were deliberately shaped through edge modification isgenerally achieved by comparing tools of similar morphology among many sites. Theproblem is that stone tools can also achieve a uniform shape through processes likeresharpening and even consistent use. None of the obsidian tools found at Kohikahas traces of extensive edge modification, so it would be difficult to argue that theywere being deliberately shaped into a particular form. But regularities in both theinvasiveness of the edge modification and its shape do exist on tools from the assem-blage (see below). Previous studies of New Zealand obsidian assemblages have relatedpatterns based on more or less invasive modification to different functions, althoughno one-to-one correlation between form and function has been found (e.g. Fredericksen1987, Leach 1979, Morwood 1974). The general consensus seems to be that steeper,more invasive retouch results from scraping, particularly of wood, while less invasiveretouch is associated with lighter scraping and cutting. As Fredericksen (1987) com-ments, a wide range of scraping and cutting functions for shell tools is documentedin the ethnographic literature (see Harsant 1983 for a review). It is likely that stonewas used for a similar range of functions, so it should not be expected that a simplerelationship existed between tool form and function.

In this study the patterns of edge modification found within the assemblages wereused to develop a morphological typology for the Kohika tools. Whether these typesare the result of deliberate shaping of an edge or of tool use is difficult to say and, interms of the analysis presented here, may not be particularly important. Some of theobsidian brought into Kohika was used in ways that resulted in edge modification.Investigating how edge-modified artefacts vary in relation to the rest of the Kohikacollection allows behavioural inferences to be drawn at each of the levels discussedabove. What is of interest is how blocks of obsidian brought to Kohika were workedinto products that were subsequently used and abandoned.

In addition to a set of variables that describe the morphology of the flakes, a second

182 Kohika

set of variables is used to measure flake size. The conventions for recording the basicdimensions (length, width and thickness) for complete pieces are displayed in Figure11.5. For broken pieces, these attributes are replaced by maximum length, the max-imum dimension of the piece irrespective of the orientation. Likewise, for cores amaximum dimension is taken together with the length of the longest flake scar.

These measures of flake size are combined with the attributes that describe flakemorphology in the analyses presented below. As these progress from the narrowest tothe broadest level of behavioural information, additional data concerning the spatialdistribution of artefacts are introduced. In most cases, groups of artefacts defined onthe basis of shared similarities in morphological attributes (the independent variables)are compared on the basis of measures of flake size (the dependent variables). Statis-tical tests (mainly t-tests, analysis of variance [ANOVA] and chi-square) are used toestablish whether an inter-group distinction is significant.

Most of the obsidian is sourced to Mayor Island, with a distinctive green colour intransmitted light. Most of the analyses presented below are limited to the materialfrom this source. Moore (Chapter 10) also identified two groups of grey obsidian, onecoming from the Maketu source and the other from Taupo. Less than 100 artefactsare from these sources and they have been excluded from most of the technologicalanalyses. However, they are considered at the end of the chapter when raw materialprovisioning at Kohika is discussed.

In summary, the analytical tests presented below are aimed at demonstrating theway the prehistoric inhabitants of Kohika exploited obsidian at three behaviourallevels. To do this, two broad classes of attributes are recorded for each artefact. First,observations are made that relate to the technology of flake production and tomodification of the artefact through use. A second set of attributes is taken as a measureof artefact size. Groups of artefacts combined on the basis of similarities in techno-logical variables are then compared on the basis of artefact dimensions.

Core reduction sequenceComplete flakes and cores

To begin at the narrowest behavioural level, the way the obsidian blocks were flakedat the site is investigated. As discussed above, the exterior scar morphology of eachpiece preserves a record of the flakes that were removed at an earlier stage in thereduction process. Flakes can be broken into groups based on their exterior scar pat-terns and comparisons made between groups in terms of their mean dimensions.Flakes with the same exterior scar pattern, which are on average larger than thosebelonging to other groups, were probably produced at an earlier stage in the corereduction sequence, while smaller flakes are likely to have been produced when thecore was nearing exhaustion. Thus, a general idea of the core reduction strategy canbe achieved simply by comparing the size of flakes with different scar patterns.

Table 11.1 presents the results of a comparison of flake length, width and thicknessfor non-retouched flakes from Kohika according to exterior scar direction. Dividingthe flakes into four groups, those with uni-directional, bi-directional, radial and sub-radial patterns, produces significant results. Radial flakes are the largest, followed bybi-directional and sub-radial flakes, with those having uni-directional flake scarsbeing the smallest. This suggests that cores were rotated frequently during the firststages of reduction, leading to the production of radial flakes. As the cores becamesmaller, fewer platforms were worked, producing flakes with sub-radial and bi-directional patterns. Finally, flakes were removed from platforms in such a way that


they did not intersect with flake removals from other platforms, producing flakes withuni-directional scars.

This interpretation is supported to some extent by analysis of the cores. If cores aredivided into groups based on the pattern of flake scars, and then compared accordingto maximum dimension, those cores with a radial pattern of flake removal are thelargest, although the difference is not significant (Table 11.2 and Fig. 11.6). Coreswith uni- or bi-directional flake removal, and those where flakes were removed frommany platforms with no consistent pattern, have smaller mean maximum dimensions.This suggests that the radial cores were abandoned relatively early in the reductionsequence, while cores with other scar patterns were reduced further, the multi-directionalcores representing small cube-like blocks that have been worked from every availablesurface. Flakes removed from these multi-directional cores would tend to have uni-directional exterior scars since these cores rarely have more than one platform on

Figure 11.5Dimensions of acomplete flake

Table 11.1 Complete flake mean dimensions (and standard deviation) by exterior scar direction forall areas in the university excavation, Mayor Island obsidian

Length Width Thickness

Radial N=21 32.5 26.2 7.8(12.4) (9.9) (3.6)

Bi-directional, N=26 29.2 19.1 6.0(10.8) (6.4) (2.9)

Sub-radial N=113 27.3 19.6 5.8(10.8) (7.4) (3.1)

Uni-directional N=257 24.1 17.8 4.4(9.2) (6.9) (2.3)

Length F=6.5, df 3,413, p<0.001Width F=9.5, df 3,413, p<0.001Thickness F=17.0, df 3,413, p<0.001

Table 11.2 Maximum dimension of cores by scar pattern for all areas in the university excavation,Mayor Island obsidian

Mean maximum Standarddimension deviation N

Radial 39.3 13.4 32Multi-directional 33.6 10.9 25Uni-directional 32.7 8.0 11Bi-directional 34.1 9.3 19

Maximum dimension F=3.7, df, 3,83, p=0.17

184 Kohika

each core surface. Finally, the same general pattern is evident among broken flakeswhere the direction of flake scars can be determined. Taking all fragments together,those with radial, sub-radial or bi-directional flake scars are significantly larger thanthose with uni-directional flake scars or where scar direction could not be determined(Table 11.3).

A similar pattern is suggested by the comparison of complete flakes from theHistorical Society assemblage, grouped according to exterior scar pattern (Table 11.4).Although fewer individual flakes are involved, radial flakes have a longer averagelength than bi-directional and sub-radial flakes, while uni-directional and plain flakesare the smallest.

Figure 11.6Core shapes: a(1525), pebble;b (1747),c (2248),multipleplatform;d (2875),e (3179), flake;f (2878), radial


Debitage

The analysis suggests that the blocks of obsidian brought to Kohika were reducedaccording to a coherent pattern related to the size of the core being worked. Theproducts of this core reduction were a series of flakes of varying size that were thenavailable for use in various tasks. It is well known, however, that the working of coresproduces many flakes as a by-product of knapping. It is likely, for instance, that flakeswere removed during the shaping of the core as a prelude to flake removal. Otherflakes and flake fragments were produced when flakes shattered under the impact ofthe hammer stone (particularly common with a brittle material like obsidian). Theseflakes are referred to as debitage and fall into three groups. First are what might becalled technologically special flakes: those with evidence of core platform preparationproduced as a by-product of reworking the core to prepare new platforms for flakeremovals (Fig. 11.7). At Kohika these were limited to a few flakes with evidence ofcore platform remnants on their exterior surfaces, and unusual flakes that have rem-nants of an old interior surface on their exterior (in other words they have two interiorsurfaces). Table 11.5 gives the mean dimensions of the platform rejuvenation flakes,and it is interesting to note that these are relatively large, particularly when comparedwith the mean length, width and thickness of complete flakes. The large size of theseplatform rejuvenation flakes may indicate that the artisans attempted to control theshape of the platform when the core was fresh, but this became less critical as the corewas reduced in size. The flakes with two interior surfaces are interesting because theysuggest that large flakes were bifacially worked as cores. Flakes removed from the

Table 11.3 Maximum dimension for proximal, medial and distal fragments by exterior scar pattern,Mayor Island obsidian

Mean maximum Standarddimension deviation N

Sub-radial 29.9 11.2 81Bi-directional 30.1 9.9 24Radial 28.2 9.3 8Uni-directional 24.8 8.7 266No clear direction 24.4 9.8 255Plain 23.4 9.7 30

Maximum dimension F=5.5, df 5,658, p<0.001No clear direction refers to those pieces too fragmentary to determine scar pattern.Plain refers to fragmentary cortical fragments.

Table 11.4 Complete flake mean dimensions (and standard deviation) from the Historical Societyassemblage by exterior scar pattern, Mayor Island obsidian


Bi-directional N=9 48.9 34.5 11.1(16.9) (16.2) (6.0)

Plain N=7 46.2 38.8 6.5(21.0) (17.1) (1.8)

Radial N=7 62.1 42.8 12.8(21.3) (17.2) (6.1)

Sub-radial N=39 51.0 40.8 11.3(21.3) (14.0) (5.5)


186 Kohika

interior surface of a flake core would preserve a portion of the flake core bulb on theirexterior surfaces.

The second group of debitage flakes consists of small flakes and chips that are lessthan 10 mm in maximum dimension. These flakes are too small to measure easily, butfor this analysis they were counted and weighed. Their distribution in different re-gions of the site is potentially informative, since they are produced in large numbersduring the working of stone. They are considered in detail below in the section deal-ing with intra-site spatial differences.

The third group consists of small flakes of normal morphology that are producedas debitage during core shaping. Larger than the small chips, they are virtuallyimpossible to separate from the usable products of core reduction on the basis ofmorphology alone. One way to separate them, however, is to use the size of the nega-tive scars on the cores. On every core the length of the largest flake scar can be thoughtof as a measure of the size of the last flake removed before the core was discarded.The mean length of these scars represents an average minimum length for flakes belowwhich there is a good chance that the flake was not an intended product, but shouldbe considered as debitage. In the case of Kohika, all cores can be treated together sincethe length of the largest scar (mean length = 23 mm, standard deviation = 7.9) is notstatistically distinguishable among groups of cores with different scar patterns.

If flakes with a length below 23 mm are removed, and size comparisons madebetween groups of flakes defined on the basis of exterior scar morphology, radial flakescontinue to be larger than bi-directional and sub-radial flakes, and these in turn arelarger than uni-directional flakes (see Table 11.6). Thus, we can conclude that blocksof obsidian were flaked at Kohika to produce flakes with a length in the range 23 to42 mm. Flakes produced at an early stage in the reduction strategy tended to be sig-nificantly longer, wider and thicker than those produced at a later point. In additionto these products, a large number of smaller flakes was produced as debitage.

Figure 11.7Platformpreparationflakes and flakeswith two interiorsurfaces: a(2882), b (2491),c (1589),d (1752) ande (1588)

Table 11.5 Mean dimensions for complete platform rejuvenation flakes from all areas in the universityexcavation, Mayor Island obsidian


Mean 33.2 20.7 7.3Standard deviation 10.5 3.6 2.5


Tools with edge modificationAs discussed above, some of the flakes from Kohika were either modified by second-ary retouch or used in such a way that produced this retouch. The significance ofthese pieces can be considered at the same range of levels as proposed for the non-retouched component. At the level of the individual artisan, it is clear that secondaryedge modification was made on flakes that are among the biggest in the assemblage.Pieces with retouch are significantly longer, wider and thicker when compared withall complete flakes without retouch, although none of these comparisons is signifi-cant when pieces less than 23 mm long are excluded (Table 11.7). If it is accepted thatflakes less than 23 mm long represent the debitage produced during core reduction,then in most cases only the flake products of core reduction received edge modification.

Among these pieces a typology of edge form can be recognised, depending on theshape and invasiveness of the edge modification. Four types are apparent within theassemblage as a whole. Pieces categorised as having edge damage have regular retouchalong one or more flake edges that acts to blunt the edge without altering the morph-ology of the flake. Flakes with more invasive modification, where the outline of theflake edge has changed, are described as heavily retouched. Those pieces where the

Table 11.6 Mean dimensions for complete flakes of length greater than 23 mm by exterior scardirection from all areas in the university excavation, Mayor Island obsidian


Radial N=15 37.6 28.8 8.5(10.7) (10.3) (3.9)

Bi-directional N=16 35.6 22.1 7.0(8.9) (5.8) (3.0)

Sub-radial N=62 34.5 23.0 7.1(9.2) (7.3) (3.5)


Length F=3.0, df 3,205, p=0.033Width F=4.0, df 3,205, p=0.008Thickness F=6.1, df 3,205, p=0.001Flakes with a length less than the mean length of the largest scar on the cores have been deleted;see text for an explanation.

Table 11.7 Mean dimensions (and standard deviations) of complete tools compared with completeflakes for all areas in the university excavations, Mayor Island obsidian


Complete flake N=547 25.2 18.6 5.1(10.2) (7.2) (2.8)

Complete tool N=52 29.8 22.2 6.8(10.0) (8.2) (2.9)

Length t=3.3, df 582, p<0.001Width t=3.7, df 582, p<0.001Thickness t=4.29, df 582, p<0.001Tests for complete flakes and tools with length >=23 mmLength t=0.4, df 298, p=0.671Width t=1.1, df 298, p=0.258Thickness t=1.6, df 298, p=0.106

188 Kohika

retouch is limited to a restricted region with a concave shape are described as notches.Finally, some pieces show bifacial retouch (flake scars originating from both the in-terior and exterior surfaces) along one or more edges. These are labelled as bifacial.Whether these four types were recognised by the inhabitants of Kohika is immaterial.What is of interest is whether these types can be used to demonstrate interesting pat-terns within the assemblage.

If tools with different types of edge modification are compared by size, there issome evidence to suggest that more intensive types of modification were applied tolarger flakes. Thus, although there are insufficient complete flakes with heavy or bifacialretouch, those with notched retouch have greater mean length, width and thicknessmeasurements than the equivalent measurements for complete tools with edge damage.For fragmented tools, pieces with heavy and bifacial retouch have larger mean max-imum dimensions than those with edge damage or notches, although once again thesedifferences are not significant (probably due to the small numbers of some types – seeTable 11.8). While the statistical tests are not conclusive, the evidence from flakeswith edge modification does suggest that larger flakes were being selected for retouchin general, and that among these pieces the largest flakes were selected for the mostintensive use.

There is some support for this interpretation from analysis of the Historical Societyassemblage. Here pieces with scraper modification have a greater mean length, widthand thickness than those with edge damage or notching, although in this case thenotched pieces have the smallest mean dimensions. The low number of tools involvedmeans that the differences in mean length do not attain statistical significance (Table11.9). The low number of edge-modified tools from Kohika compared with the largenumbers of non-retouched flake products and debitage suggests that large amountsof obsidian were available for use at the site, but few flakes were used in a way thatproduced modification. The significance of this finding will be considered in relationto other sites below.

In sum, the Kohika assemblage allows a series of inferences to be drawn concern-ing the way obsidian was worked at the site. Blocks of material were frequently rotatedduring the initial period of core reduction, but rotation became less frequent as theblocks of material became smaller. The products of this reduction strategy can be dif-ferentiated from the debitage on the basis of flake size relative to the mean length ofscars on the core. Larger flakes, the products of core reduction rather than debitage,were selected for use that produced macroscopic edge modification. There is also someevidence that more invasive edge modification was applied to the largest flakes.

Intra-site spatial differencesThe next level of behaviour to be investigated concerns differences in the way theobsidian was worked within the site. Four main areas of excavation produced suf-ficiently large assemblages of obsidian to enable comparisons (Table 11.10): AreasA, B, D and the HS Area. Area C produced only twelve pieces and a further thirteencame from post hole core samples and have no spatial significance (shown as P inTable 11.10).

Using the core reduction sequence developed above, comparisons can be made forboth the size of flakes produced at different stages in the reduction sequence and theirproportions among Areas A, B and D. While there are too few complete flakes withradial or bi-directional flake scars to make comparisons, there are sufficient flakeswith sub-radial and uni-directional exterior flake scars for comparison of the size of


Table 11.8 Mean dimensions (and standard deviation) for pieces with macroscopic edge modificationby type for all areas excavated by the university, Mayor Island obsidian

Complete pieces Length Width Thickness

Notched N=23 30.4 22.6 7.3(9.7) (8.5) (3.1)

Edge-damage N=28 27.9 20.7 6.0(10.1) (7.6) (2.9)

Length t=0.9, df 49, p=0.379Width t=0.8, df 49, p=0.406Thickness t=1.5, df 49, p=0.136

Fragmented pieces Maximum dimension

Heavy N=10 36.9(14.4)

Bifacial N=7 35.7(8.5)

Notch N=46 30.2(9.1)

Edge-damage N=57 29.9(12.2)

Maximum dimension F=1.6, df 3,115, p=0.200

Table 11.9 Mean dimensions (and standard deviation) for complete tools from the Historical Societyassemblage by edge modification type, Mayor Island obsidian


Heavy N=10 56.4 42.6 12.2(22.6) (12.7) (4.4)

Edge damage N=32 52.3 39.2 10.5(18.9) (13.4) (4.0)

Notch N=13 44.8 36.7 10.4(15.2) (14.4) (5.3)

Length F=1.6, df 2,71, p=0.211Width F=0.7, df 2,71 p=0.500Thickness F=0.4, df 2,71, p=0.440

Table 11.10 Frequency of edge-modified pieces, flakes and cores by area, Mayor Island obsidian

Edge-modified pieces Flakes Cores

Area A 58 396 31Area B 56 624 24Area C 1 11 0Area D 63 622 27Area HS 115 234 28Area P 0 13 0

flakes between different areas. Comparing these two types of flake distributed amongthe three regions reveals a pattern of size differences within each technological group.Thus sub-radial flakes are larger in Area A than in B and D, while flakes with uni-directional scars are slightly larger in Areas A and B than in D, although in neithercase do these differences reach statistical significance (Table 11.11).

A similar pattern is reflected in flake proportions among the different regions. Allthree have similar proportions of complete to broken flakes, although Area A hasmore flakes greater than 23 mm long (the mean of the largest flake scars on the cores),

190 Kohika

compared with flakes less than 23 mm long, than either B or D. Finally, if the cut-offpoint of 23 mm is applied to broken flakes, then Area A has proportionally moreflake fragments with a maximum dimension greater than 23 mm than either Area B orD (Table 11.12). These results suggest that there are significant differences in the

Table 11.11 Mean length (and standard deviation) of complete flakes with length > 23 mm by exteriorscar morphology and area, Mayor Island obsidian

Sub-radial Uni-directional

Area A 37.2 32.5(9.8) (7.6)

N=24 N=25Area B 32.7 32.5

(9.5) (7.7)N=18 N=53

Area D 33.5 31.7(7.7) (6.2)

N=19 N=37

Sub-radial F=1.5, df 2,58 p=0.222Uni-directional F=0.2, df 2,112, p=0.848

Table 11.12 Frequency of complete and fragmented flakes of length > 23 mm by area, Mayor Islandobsidian

Complete Fragments Total

Area A 73 160 233Area B 93 221 314Area D 89 194 283Total 255 575 830

Pearson chi-square 0.3 df 2 p=0.865

Frequency of complete flakes > 23 mm length and complete flakes < 23 mm in length by area,Mayor Island obsidian

Area A Area B Area D Total

> 23mm 73 93 89 255< 23mm 58 96 109 263Total 101 189 198 518

Pearson chi-square 3.7, df 2, p=0.16

Frequency of flake fragments of maximum dimension > 23 mm and flake fragments of maximumdimension < 23 mm by area, Mayor Island obsidian

Area A Area B Area D TOTAL

> 23mm 160 221 194 575< 23mm 105 214 230 549TOTAL 265 435 424 1124

Pearson chi-square 14.0 df 2, p=0.001, phi=0.112

Table 11.13 Number and weight of flakes and flake fragments of maximum dimension less than 10 mmby area, Mayor Island obsidian

Number Weight (g)

Area A 144 25.7Area B 404 91.9Area D 449 75.1


way blocks of obsidian were worked in different areas at Kohika. Area A has a greaterproportion of large flakes, both broken and complete, compared with Areas B and D.Area D has the smallest proportion of large flakes, with Area B in the middle. A similarpattern is suggested by the distribution of cores, with Area D having the most (36)while Area A produced 31 and Area B 24. Given that high proportions of small debit-age are produced during the working of cores, it would seem likely that Area Dwitnessed considerably more flake production than Area A.

This interpretation is supported by the differences in the number of small flakefragments (with a maximum dimension less than 10 mm) among the three areas. Assummarised in Table 11.13, both Areas B and D have over three times the number ofsmall flake fragments than A. Small fragments like these are produced in abundanceduring the production of flakes, so their large numbers in Areas B and D would seemto confirm that these areas were the primary sites for obsidian flake manufacture,whereas A may have been a primary site for flake use.

The complete flakes from the Historical Society assemblage are considerably largerthan similar pieces from any of the areas excavated by the university (Table 11.14).Some of this size difference is no doubt due to excavation bias, particularly the failureto include smaller flakes in the HS assemblage. Still, this assemblage included somevery large flakes, up to 111 mm long (Fig. 11.8). This would suggest that it came froma region in the site where some large blocks of obsidian were initially reduced, or thatthese large flakes represent a cache of pieces intended for later use as cores. Otheractivities are represented in this area, however, as evidenced by the 28 cores in thisassemblage.

Figure 11.8Large flakesfrom HistoricalSociety: a (94),b (96), c (150),d (161), e (98)and f (158)

192 Kohika

Intra-site regional differences for tools with edge modification are much less ap-parent, possibly owing to the smaller numbers of artefacts involved. Neither completepieces nor tool fragments show any significant difference in frequency among the threeareas when divided by edge modification type (Table 11.15). Nor are there significantdifferences when the total length of the retouched edge is considered. In fact, the onlyintra-site pattern that is suggested among the edge modification pieces is for thosewith concave notches. If the mean length of the notched area (irrespective of whethermore than one notch occurs on the artefact) is compared by region, those from AreasA and B have mean lengths slightly longer than those from Area D, although thestatistical test comparing these means is not significant (Table 11.16). On the basis ofthese results, it must be concluded that, whatever behaviour was responsible for theapplication of secondary edge modification, it did not significantly vary among thethree areas. It should be added, however, that the small number of artefacts involvedmay be masking patterns of intra-site spatial variability that are below the resolutionimposed by the statistical tests used.

To summarise, differences in the size and proportions of flakes among the areas

Table 11.14 Complete flakes with length > 23 mm from the university excavations compared with thoseexcavated by the Historical Society, Mayor Island obsidian


Area A N=72 33.6 23.0 6.7(8.5) (6.0) (2.8)

Area B N=75 33.0 23.0 6.4(8.6) (7.8) (2.9)

Area D N=89 33.6 21.0 6.5(8.0) (8.0) (3.5)

Historical Society N=106 50.0 39.1 11.2(18.1) (15.8) (6.5)

Length F=47.0, df 3,356, p<0.001Width F=63.7, df 3,356, p<0.001Thickness F=28.8, df 3,356, p<001

Table 11.15 Frequency of complete and fragmented tools by type of edge modification and area

Fragmented tools Edge-damage Notch Heavy

Area A 21 13 3Area B 11 20 3Area D 24 13 4

Pearson chi-square 6.9 df 4, p=0.140

Complete tools Edge-damage Notch Heavy

Area A 7 10 3Area B 10 6 0Area D 11 8 2

Pearson chi-square 4.2 df 4, p=0.380

Table 11.16 Length of notched area of edge modification for all notched tools by region

Mean Standard deviation N

Area A 9.6 3.5 22Area B 10.4 2.3 26Area D 8.8 3.8 21

F=1.4, df 2,66, p=0.262


investigated, allow a strong case to be made that blocks of obsidian were workedprimarily in Areas D and B, while higher proportions of large obsidian flakes weredeposited in Area A, perhaps suggesting that they were used more often at this loca-tion. The large size of the flakes from the HS Area suggests that this region saw theinitial working of large obsidian blocks into cores. The products of core reductionwere used in all regions of the site in such a way that little difference can be foundin the size and distribution of edge-modified tools.

Regional interactionsBehaviour at a regional level can be inferred by considering both the nature of theoriginal obsidian blocks brought into Kohika, and the source of the raw material. InChapter 10, P. Moore showed that almost all of it has the characteristics of MayorIsland sources. He also identified a small number of grey obsidian pieces from Maketuand Taupo and this section reports on the technology and distribution of theseartefacts.

Table 11.17 presents a breakdown of the numbers of flakes, cores and tools forboth sources of grey obsidian. Complete and fragmented flakes occur in similar num-bers from the two sources, but there are differences in the frequency of cores andtools. Fourteen cores or core fragments of Maketu obsidian are present but there is

Table 11.17 Maketu and Taupo obsidian technological types

Taupo Maketu

Complete flake 11 13Complete tool 5 0Core 0 12Core fragment 1 2Distal flake 10 8Distal tool 1 0Medial flake 4 6Medial tool 2 0Proximal flake 8 5

Maketu obsidian technological types by areaArea A Area B Area D Area HS Area P

Complete flake 4 7 1Core 2 5 5Core fragment 1Distal flake 4 1 2Medial flake 1 1 1Proximal flake 1 2

Taupo obsidian technological types by areaArea A Area B Area D Area HS

Complete flake 2 5 4Complete tool 1 3 1Core fragment 1Distal flake 5 2 2 1Distal tool 1Medial flake 4Medial tool 2Proximal flake 1 5 2

194 Kohika

only a single core fragment from Taupo obsidian. On the other hand, all of the greyobsidian artefacts with macroscopic retouch are manufactured from Taupo obsidian.

Maketu obsidian is concentrated in Area D, with smaller numbers of artefacts inArea B, and the HS Area. In contrast, Taupo obsidian is most frequent in Area B,with smaller numbers of artefacts in Areas A and D and only a single piece recoveredfrom the HS Area.

As discussed by Moore, the obsidian from Maketu occurs as small pebbles and, ofthe cores, only the core fragments manufactured from this material lack cortex. Inaddition, only one of the thirteen complete flakes lacks at least some cortex. Completeflakes of Maketu obsidian are smaller than the equivalent flakes from Mayor Islandobsidian; with a mean length of 20 mm (standard deviation 4.6), they are smaller thanthe smallest of the Mayor Island obsidian flakes with uni-directional flake scars (Table11.1).

In contrast, complete flakes manufactured from Taupo obsidian have a mean lengthof 25.7 mm (standard deviation 8.7), slightly longer than the uni-directional completeMayor Island obsidian flakes. Of the twelve complete flakes, half have no cortex,three have less than 10 per cent cortex and only two have more than 60 per centcortex. Tools consist of a single artefact with bifacial retouch, three notches and fourpieces with edge damage.

The Maketu material was introduced to the site as pebbles. The Taupo obsidianartefacts, however, do not seem to have been introduced to the site as raw material.Instead, the Taupo artefacts may represent the discarded remnants of tool kits carriedby individuals as they journeyed from the central North Island to Kohika. If this inter-pretation is correct, these people spent more time, or at least abandoned more arte-facts, in Area B than they did in other parts of Kohika.

Mayor Island sources

Table 11.18 provides frequencies and proportions of complete and fragmentary flakesand tools by proportion of cortex for Mayor Island obsidian. It is clear that, for alltechnological artefact classes, fewer than 20 per cent of the artefacts retain cortex. Inany assemblage the proportion of cortical artefacts will vary in response to severalfactors. Rock that is quarried, or picked up from eroded flows, rather than retrievedas boulders, will often not retain any cortex. Proportionally, cortex will also vary inrelation to the size of the boulder. Larger cobbles have a smaller surface area relativeto their volume, and so will produce fewer cortical flakes for an equivalent amountof knapping compared with smaller cobbles. Finally, cortical cobbles may be partiallyworked at the source to remove cortex, particularly if cortical flakes are thought tobe less useful than their decortified equivalents.

Table 11.18 Proportion of cortex on flakes and edge-modified pieces from all areas, Mayor Islandobsidian

0% 1–40% 41–90% 91–100% Total

Complete flakes 553 47 24 14 63886.7% 7.4% 3.8% 2.2%

Complete edge-modified pieces 116 8 4 7 13585.9% 5.9% 3.0% 5.2%

Fragmentary flakes 849 77 31 47 100484.6% 7.7% 3.1% 4.7%

Fragmentary edge-modified pieces 127 16 9 5 15780.9% 10.2% 5.7% 3.2%


If cortical cobbles are introduced to a site and subsequently knapped to removecortex, flakes with cortex should be larger than those without cortex since, in general,core reduction leads to the production of progressively smaller flakes. That this pat-tern does not hold for complete Mayor Island obsidian flakes from Areas A, B and Dsuggests that cortical cobbles were not the major form in which Mayor Island obsidianwas introduced into the site. Complete Mayor Island obsidian flakes without cortexfrom Areas A, B and D have a mean length of 25.1 mm (standard deviation 10.1),while those with cortex have a length of 26.0 mm (standard deviation 11.3), and thisdifference is not significant (t=0.19, df 505, p=0.848). It is possible, therefore, thatsome Mayor Island obsidian was decortified before it was brought to Kohika, or ob-sidian was obtained from the island in a decortified state.

P. Moore (in Chapter 10) notes the presence of at least two types of cortex on MayorIsland obsidian artefacts: cortex from water-worn cobbles or boulders, and rough cor-tex that may have come from colluvial deposits. He also notes that most artefactsfrom Kohika do not retain cortex, and suggests that they derive from blocks that werequarried on Mayor Island. It is possible that some obsidian with a weathered fracturesurface – not strictly speaking cortex at all – was produced by the exposure of obsid-ian flows on the surface. The results of recent surveys on Mayor Island report thepresence of tabular boulders of obsidian littering some beaches and inland locations(Sheppard, pers. comm. 2002). Fracturing these boulders would produce pieces, eitherflakes or cores, suitable for transport that would not necessarily retain cortex in thenormal sense. In fact, most of the cortex identified on the Mayor Island obsidian ap-pears to reflect weathered, naturally fractured surfaces. These pieces may well be theform in which Mayor Island obsidian was transported to Kohika. They may, forinstance, be the source of the large flakes recovered from the Historical Societyexcavation.

Large flakes in the HS Area

The flakes, cores and tools abandoned at Kohika vary considerably in size. The largestflakes abandoned in the HS Area, for instance, are more than 60 mm long ranging inone case up to 111 mm. This is more than twice to nearly five times the mean lengthof complete flakes with uni-directional scars from Areas A, B and D. While theinhabitants of Kohika clearly had good access to Mayor Island obsidian, some artefactswere worked intensively while others were abandoned well before they were exhausted.This difference suggests various reasons for abandonment. Some pieces were no doubtabandoned because they were of no further use, but others may have been depositedwith the intention of further use later – an intention that was never realised. It seemslikely, therefore, that some obsidian artefacts, particularly the larger flakes, were retainedrather than abandoned. As discussed above, following Torrence (1992), such behaviourprovides some insight into the economic significance of obsidian to the people whooccupied Kohika. Despite the relative proximity of Kohika to Mayor Island, obsidianwas important enough to warrant maintaining a regular supply through the curationof large flakes, and efficient use through intensive core reduction at several locationswithin the site. Either it was important to maintain a ready supply of obsidian to fulfila variety of purposes at Kohika itself, or obsidian was valued beyond immediateutilitarian needs. While of interest in interpreting the nature of occupation at Kohikaitself, the full potential of assigning value to items like obsidian artefacts will comefrom comparing the results of technological analyses of assemblages from a numberof sites occupied at different times in the past.

196 Kohika

Comparisons with other sitesThe most striking aspect of the Kohika assemblage is its size in comparison with otherNew Zealand archaeological obsidian assemblages. In fact, the only assemblages ofsimilar size or larger are those from Kauri Point (Shawcross 1964), Raupa (Prickett1990, 1992), Whitipirorua (Furey 1990) and Houhora (Best 1975:22, Bolong 1983).The large and well-studied assemblages from Palliser Bay numbered over 4000 pieces,but these were distributed among many sites and were mainly composed of very smallpieces (Prickett 1975). The large assemblage from Hahei was also dominated by smallpieces, with only 534 of the 3376 flakes weighing more than 0.5 grams (Harsant 1985).Thus by New Zealand standards Kohika stands out as a large assemblage by con-taining many large flakes.

In the most extensive comparative study of New Zealand obsidian assemblagesto date, Seelenfreund-Hirsch (1985) analysed obsidian sourced to Mayor Island froma number of North and South Island sites. Mean weights are given as an estimate offlake size by assemblage for cortical flakes, non-cortical flakes and cores, but onlyobsidian sourced to Mayor Island is considered. Calculating the mean weight for allcomplete flakes from Areas A, B and D at Kohika gives a value of 3.9 grams (standarddeviation 5.4), in the middle of the range of mean weights for secondary flakes (thosewithout cortex) provided by Seelenfreund-Hirsch. However, the large standard devi-ation from Kohika, and the large standard deviations recorded for the assemblagesstudied by Seelenfreund-Hirsch, make it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusionsfrom these figures.

Other studies have focused on the proportion of flakes with secondary retouch inassemblages from different sites. In an early study, Morwood (1974) showed that themajority of obsidian flakes from the site of Tokoroa showed evidence of secondaryedge modification. He compared this with the much lower values obtained from assem-blages from Houhora and Great Barrier Island. Although calculating a ratio ofretouched to non-retouched flakes has been criticised by Leach (1979) on the basis ofinconsistency among observers, the substantial differences in the proportions of modi-fied to unmodified flakes in sites like Tokoroa and that shown by her own study,compared with sites like Great Barrier, suggest that these ratios reflect importantdifferences in the intensity with which obsidian was used. As noted above, the Kohikaassemblages have low proportions of edge-modified pieces in relation to the unmodi-fied component, a pattern similar to assemblages from sites like Great Barrier andHouhora. It would be interesting to determine whether this low proportion reflectsthe production of large numbers of unmodified flakes in excess of those required bythe inhabitants of Kohika. Unfortunately, at present there are insufficient studies ofobsidian technology to provide the type of data that might answer this question.

ConclusionThe reduction strategy reconstructed for the Kohika obsidian assemblage suggests thatobsidian was reduced in a systematic manner, first through a process involving muchcore rotation that changed as the cores became smaller. While there is little evidencethat flakes were subsequently shaped to produce particular tool forms, larger flakestended to be used more frequently, giving rise to macroscopic edge damage.

Within the site, the separate areas display different concentrations of obsidian flakesand debitage, suggesting that the material was primarily worked in Areas B and D,but that large flakes may have been used more frequently in Area A. The large flakesrecovered by the Whakatane Historical Society may evidence an area where large blocks


of obsidian were initially worked, or may represent a cache of large flakes introducedinto the site.

Given the large amount of obsidian, particularly large flakes, abandoned at the site,and the low proportion of flakes with macroscopic edge damage, it seems reasonableto conclude that residents at the site had few problems in gaining access to raw mater-ial. Inhabitants of Kohika either had direct access to Mayor Island or were in closecontact with the island’s resident populations. There are several other collections fromNew Zealand archaeological sites of comparable size to that from Kohika, and thereis certainly the potential to make interesting inter-site comparisons. Unfortunately,the lack of technological studies in New Zealand means that few such comparisonsare possible at this time.

ReferencesBest, S., 1975. Adzes, rocks and men. Unpublished research essay, University of Auckland.Bolong, C., 1983. Automated isoprobe analysis of New Zealand and Oceanic volcanic glasses.

Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.Fredericksen, C., 1987. Stone tools and cultural diversity: the analysis of stone tool assemblage

variability in New Zealand archaeology. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.Furey, L., 1990. The artefact collection from Whitipirorua (T12/16), Coromandel Peninsula.

Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 27:19–60.Harsant, W., 1983. Historical evidence for the use of unmodified shell tools in New Zealand.

In S.E. Bulmer, R.G. Law and D.G. Sutton (eds), A lot of spadework to be done. New ZealandArchaeological Association Monograph No.14, pp.149–83.

Harsant, W. 1985. The Hahei (N44/97) assemblage of Archaic artefacts. New Zealand Journalof Archaeology 7:5–37.

Jones, K.L., 1972. Prehistoric Polynesian stone technology: a study of usage and flaking tech-nique with special reference to assemblages of stone flake debitage of New Zealand Archaiccultural provenance. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.

Jones, K.L., 1981. New Zealand mataa from Marlborough, Nelson, and the Chatham Islands.New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 3:89–107.

Kamminga, J., 1982. Over the edge: functional analysis of Australian stone tools. St Lucia:University of Queensland, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No.12.

Leach, H.M., 1979. An analysis of an open-air workshop in Palliser Bay. New Zealand Journalof Archaeology, 1:139–51.

Morwood, M., 1974. A functional analysis of obsidian flakes from three archaeological siteson Great Barrier Island and one at Tokoroa. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum,11:77–99.

Parry, W.J. and R.L. Kelly, 1987. Expedient core technology and sedentism. In J.K. Johnsonand C.A. Morrow (eds), The organization of core technology. Boulder: Westview Press,pp.285–304.

Prickett, K., 1975. The prehistoric exploitation and knowledge of geological resources in southernWairarapa. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.

Prickett, N., 1990. Archaeological excavations at Raupa: the 1987 season. Records of theAuckland Institute and Museum, 27:73–153.

Prickett, N., 1992. Archaeological excavations at Raupa: the 1988 season. Records of theAuckland Institute and Museum, 29:25–101.

Seelenfreund-Hirsch, A., 1985. The exploitation of Mayor Island obsidian in prehistoric NewZealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Otago.

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

Torrence, R. 1992. What is Lapita about obsidian? a view from the Talasea sources. In J.C.Galipaud (ed.), Poterie, Lapita et peuplement. ORSTOM: Noumea, pp.111–26.

198

12 Faunal remains from Kohika

G.J. Irwin, R.K. Nichol, M.A. Taylor, T.H. Worthy and I.W.G. Smith

This chapter describes the remains of mammals, birds, fish and shellfish from Kohikathat represent food waste (bone used for artefacts was described in Chapter 9). Mostof the material was recovered during the university excavations, but some was foundpreviously by the Whakatane and District Historical Society. The assemblage dates fromlate prehistory. Much of it was found in peat and is unusual for its good preservation.

Mammals were analysed by M. Taylor, birds by T. Worthy, fish and shellfish byR. Nichol. G. Irwin directed the excavations and compiled this report, and detailedcomments were made by I. Smith. The spatial distribution of the remains is describedby reference to the structural units detailed in the excavation report in Chapter 4.

MammalsBone was recovered from Areas A, B and D, but not C. At some time, clearly after theabandonment of Kohika, people returned to bury some of their dead. Five intrusivecrouched burials were encountered during the excavation of Area A. These were leftundisturbed or reinterred and were not included in this analysis. Area A was subjectto regular wetting and drying. The burials were shallow and exposed and the bonesshowed advanced weathering, in marked contrast to the rest of the assemblage, whichwas well preserved.

Dogs, a whale, seal and possibly humans were eaten as food and their bones usedto make artefacts. The dogs were kept and eaten at Kohika. There are clear indicationsthat bone refuse was gnawed by dogs and rats. Parasites from rat intestines found indog faeces provide further evidence for the presence of rats, although none of theirbones were recovered from the excavations.

The bones were examined by M. Taylor and identified from reference materialheld at the Anthropology Department, University of Auckland. The minimum numberof individuals (MNI) present was calculated by determining the minimum number ofeach element (MNE) and then taking the most frequently counted element, consider-ing body side, age and element portion as relevant. The MNI was calculated takingthe whole site as a single assemblage. The bones were examined individually under directillumination for cultural and taphonomic modifications. These included breaking, burn-ing, chiselling, cutting, drilling, gnawing by dogs and rats, and sawing (Taylor 1984).

Table 12.1 Minimum number of individual mammals

Species Common name MNI

Homo sapiens Human 4Canis familiaris Dog 16Arctocephalus forsteri NZ fur seal 1Cetacean sp. Whale 1

Faunal remains from Kokiha 199

Human bone

Four individuals were represented (Table 12.2), not counting the late intrusive burialsin Area A described above. These were identified as possibly three women and oneyoung adult male.

Table 12.2 Human bone by excavation area

Element Area D occupation level Area B HS Area TotalDirty White Yellow Brightpumice House House Yellow

Cranial piece 1 2 2 1 6Distal humerus 2 1 3Proximal femur 1 1Distal femur 1 1 2Proximal ulna 1 1Patella 1 1Calcaneus 1 1Pelvis 1 1Ribs 1 1Digits 1 1 2Unidentified fragments 1 1

Chopping, breaking and sawing were observed on more than halfof the long bone fragments. Evidently, the shafts were used forartefacts after the ends had been removed. Three of the four cranialfragments showed evidence for sawing (Plate 12.1), plus anotherfragment not identified to body part.

Long bones useful for artefacts must have been kept away fromdogs. The absence of dog gnawing on these bones, when it was pres-ent on a high proportion of those from other taxa, could suggest thathuman long bones were not food remains. However, the fragmentsof patella, pelvis and rib could have been food waste because thesebones are not so useful for tools. One piece of human rib had dog-tooth marks. Other cancellous body parts, such as vertebrae, thatwere absent from the site could have been eaten by dogs. In add-ition, knife cut marks near the ends of the long bones are consistentwith the disarticulation of limbs during butchering (Plate 12.2).

Marine mammal bone

The remains of a whale were found at Kohika. A lumbar vertebra inarticulation with an epiphyseal plate came from the Yellow Househorizon of Area D. The size is consistent with a medium-sized baleenwhale such as a Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). These occur todayin some numbers in the Bay of Plenty (Gaskin 1967:14). The boneswere probably deposited in a fresh state, as they disarticulate quickly.

Only half of the spinous and articular processes of the vertebra survived and theremainder had been gnawed by dogs. However, the rim of the vertebra body and theepiphyseal plate had no trace of gnawing, and it is only when these bones remain aspart of a larger articulated segment that dogs cannot gain access to them (Taylor 1984).A second intact and ungnawed epiphyseal plate in the peat associated with the WhiteHouse was possibly derived from the same whale.

A sub-adult fur seal was represented by a scapula, ulna and lower lumbar vertebra.The scapula had been made into an awl while the ulna had the anterior margin

Plate 12.1 Asawn section ofhuman cranium.

200 Kohika

removed by sawing, which would have pro-vided a sliver of compact bone useful as apoint or a heavy needle. The spinous pro-cess of the vertebra showed clear evidenceof dog attrition.

Dog bone

In a metrical study of the bones of theextinct Maori kuri, Clark (1995) describedthe dog remains from Kohika as the mostcomplete and best-preserved collection fromany site in the country. Some hundreds ofdog coprolites showed that dogs were keptat the site, where they were also killed,skinned, butchered and eaten and some oftheir bones used for artefacts. A minimumnumber of sixteen dogs was identified fromthe crania, and the body part frequencies arepresented in Table 12.3 by excavation area.While a relative absence of limb and otherbones might be partly explained by theirconsumption by other dogs, as implied by

the extent of gnawing on the surviving elements in Table 12.4, and by the use of bonesfor industrial purposes, the observed pattern may also represent the sharing of dogcarcasses (Smith 1981:98–9). The estimated ages of the dogs at death, based on tootheruption and fusion of epiphyseal centres, are presented in Table 12.5. Assessment ofage is possible for fifteen of the sixteen dogs, showing clearly that most were killedafter reaching maturity.

Table 12.3 Dog body parts by excavation area (MNE)

Element Area B Area D occupation level HS Area TotalDirty White Yellow Bright Total Dpumice House House Yellow

Floor

Crania 2 1 10 1 12 2 16Mandibles 4 9 2 11 12 27Vertebrae 7 2 2 9Ribs 3 1 2 1 4 7Scapulae 1 3 3 3 7Humeri 5 8 1 9 6 20Radii 2 1 2 4 1 8 4 14Ulnae 1 6 1 7 3 11Pelves 4 1 3 1 5 6 15Femora 2 1 1 2 6 10Tibiae 4 8 8 8 20Metapodials 9 9Phalanges 1 1Fragments 6 15 4 25Total 41 86 64 191

Plate 12.2Knife-cut markson a humanfemur.


Table 12.4 Taphonomic variables for identified dog bone by excavated area (MNE)

Attrition Area B Area D HS Area Total

Dog gnawed 17 41.5% 21 24.4% 17 26.6% 55 28.8%Rat gnawed 4 9.8% 4 4.7% 4 6.3% 12 6.3%Weathered 4 9.8% 3 3.5% 14 21.9% 21 11.0%Knife cut 4 9.8% 18 20.9% 2 3.1% 24 12.6%Sawn 3 7.3% 3 3.5% 3 4.7% 9 4.7%Burnt 2 4.9% 2 2.3% 1 1.6% 5 2.6%

Table 12.5 Estimated ages of dogs at death (MNE)

Element Juvenile Adolescent Adult Not assessed Total

Crania 1 2 12 1 16Mandibles 2 4 15 6 27Humeri 1 2 7 10 20Femora 2 5 3 10Radii 1 3 7 3 14Tibiae 1 2 10 7 20

Dog bone was recovered from two areas excavated by the university, Areas B andD, and also from the HS Area. Houses have been found in both Area D and the HSArea, and probably existed, although they were not excavated, in Area B.

The method of killing three dogs was indicated on two of the crania by holes in theleft parietal bone with inwardly crushed margins (Plate 12.3), indicating a heavy blowto the side of the head, probably with a stone. A third cranium had holes on bothsides. Allo Bay-Petersen (1979:171) described this method as commonly used on Maoridogs, and observed that many were struck on the right side of the head. The twoKohika examples with holes on the left side might suggest left-handed butchery, ifwe could be sure where the butcher stood. Two of these crania were found in theYellow House horizon in Area D and the third in the HS Area. The remaining craniashowed no such damage, and some other method of slaughter must have been used.

Plate 12.3Dog craniumwith crushedparietal.

202 Kohika

Commonly among prehistoric kuri the brain was extractedby the removal of the posterior part of the cranium, but nonein the Kohika assemblage exhibited such damage – most wereintact. Evidently, the brains of dogs were not eaten at this site.

Knife cuts were observed on all principal dog long bonesexcept radii. The marks could be from the disarticulation oflimbs during butchering, although some on the mid-shafts ofthe ulna and the distal tibia may be from skinning. Further tracesof skinning and butchering were observed on crania, mandibles,pelves and ribs. Five crania had numerous transverse cut markson the nasal bone (Plate 12.4), indicating that the face wasskinned. Two cases were from the Yellow House level of AreaD, one from Area B and two from the HS Area. Some heavycuts on the nasal bones could result from the head being skinnedafter the animal was cool, when skinning was more difficult.

Skinning marks were also recorded on nine mandibles thatexhibited between two and 30 cuts on their lateral surfaces, mostcommonly near the ventral margin below the molars. Fourmandibles also had cuts on their medial surfaces, again in theregion of the molar teeth, and such marks are often interpretedas a result of cutting out the animal’s tongue to eat (Binford1981). Similar cut marks on both lateral and medial surfaceshave been recorded from the Twilight Beach assemblage, wherethey were observed on New Zealand fur-seal mandibles (Taylor1984). A dog mandible with its ventral margin removed toprovide material for a tool is shown in Plate 12.5.

The percentages of the various kinds of bone attrition shown in Table 12.4 arebased on the frequency of body parts in Table 12.3. They show that dog gnawing wasmore prevalent in Area B than elsewhere, that knife cuts were highest in Area D, andthat more bones were weathered in the HS Area, possibly as the result of farmingdisturbance.

Finally, a suggestion that dog heads including mandibles were probably not cookedat Kohika is supported by the high survival rate of intact crania, and also by the recoveryof a cranium complete with both mandibles and atlas and axis vertebrae from theBright Yellow-level midden.

Plate 12.4Dog craniumwith cut markson nasal bone.

Plate 12.5Dog mandiblewith ventralmarginremoved.


Comments on the mammal bone

The recovery of a large sample of well-preserved bone from an archaeological excav-ation is rare in a North Island Classic Maori site. The excellent survival, notably ofthe fragile yet intact dog crania and whale vertebral plates, follows from its depositionin a stable wet environment.

Dogs were unusually common at Kohika, and the pattern of evidence matches manyof the general observations made in previous studies (Allo 1970, Allo Bay-Petersen1979, Clark 1995, Smith 1981). As in some other Classic assemblages, most of thedogs were slaughtered after maturity and the long bones, mandibles and canine teethused for making artefacts. Their skins were removed, and the skinning of the facialregion argues for the value placed on the pelt. However, other features of the assem-blage were more unusual, such as the brains not being eaten.

Human long bones were used for artefact manufacture at the site. The recovery ofa small number of other fragments may indicate that butchering took place elsewhere,or in an unexcavated part of the site. It remains possible, but uncertain, that flesh wasconsumed at the site.

The whale (and possibly the seal) was probably found beached and its exploitationwas opportunistic (see Smith 1996).

The analysis of the mammal bone, with its emphasis on the observation of tapho-nomic features and cultural modifications, has produced some interesting conclusionsconcerning the use of dogs, sea mammals and possibly humans for meat and tools bythe people of Kohika.

AvifaunaThe avifauna from Kohika is small, with only 27 identifiable elements representingfourteen individuals. There appear to be no significant differences in species distribution,either by square or by layer, so all data are amalgamated into a single assemblage(Table 12.6). The bones were identified by T. Worthy with reference to modern speci-mens in either his own or the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa collections.

The largest faunal component is wetland birds (pukeko, banded rail, scaup, brownteal, grey duck), which is as expected considering the site location. The presence ofpukeko supports the late prehistoric age of the site, as this taxon is not known in pre-human sites in New Zealand nor in early sites dominated by moa (Holdaway et al.2001). The banded rail bone was previously identified as godwit Limosa lapponicaby Nichol (1988), so the latter is now known from only three archaeological sites(Haulashore Island, Ponui Island and Warrington; Worthy 1999, unpublished data).Banded rail is relatively rare in archaeological sites, partly because of the small size ofits bones and also because of problems with identification (Worthy 1999). The rest ofthe terrestrial birds (kiwi, kaka, harrier) are common in prehistoric sites.

While only six, or possibly seven, albatross bones were identified to taxon, a numberof shaft fragments are most probably from one or another albatross species. The alba-tross bones were very fragmented and several pieces showed evidence of working,which suggests that their presence may have been for tool manufacture as much as,or more than, for food. They may represent beach-wrecked birds that were not usedfor food at all. However, this number of bones seems unusually high in relation to thetotal sample of identifiable bones, so it may be that the birds were taken from a colonynear the site. The nearby islands of Tokata, Rurima, Moutoki and Motuhora wouldall be potential colony sites. Some of the bones could have been intended for trade,and we have already noted Kohika’s location on river routes to the inland North Island.

204 Kohika

Table 12.6 Avian taxa represented among identifiable elements in the Kohika assemblage with datafrom all squares and layers amalgamated

Species Common name Elements MNE MNI

Porphyrio melanotus Pukeko 1R quad, 1d+sR 6 2ulna, 2sR fem,1p+sR 1dL tmt

Apteryx spp. Kiwi spp. indet, juvenile 1dL tt 1 1Apteryx mantelli Brown kiwi 1L tt 1 1Nestor meridionalis Kaka 1dR tt, mand, 4 1

1L1sR humAythya novaeseelandiae Scaup 1R cor, 1R hum 2 1Anas chlorotis Brown teal 1R cor, 1R scap, 3 1

1 ant sternAnas superciliosa Grey duck 1 ant stern 1 1Circus approximans Australasian harrier 1sR ulna 1 1Gallirallus philippensis Banded rail 1R tt 1 1Thalassarche spp. size T. bulleri Albatross, size of Buller’s 1L hum, 1L 2 1

albatross radiusThalassarche spp. size T. salvini Albatross, size of Salvin’s 1L1dR ulna 2 1

albatrossThalassarche spp. size T. cauta Albatross, size of white-capped 1dR ulna 1 1

albatross?Thalassarche spp. ?Albatross Part shaft radius 1Diomedea spp. Great albatross 1sL ulna 1 1Totals 27 14

Abbreviations: R, right; L, left; d, distal; s, shaft; p, proximal; ant stern, anterior sternum; cor, coracoid;fem, femur; hum, humerus; mand, mandible; quad, quadrate; tmt, tarsometatarsus; tt, tibiotarsus.

Comments on taxon identifications

The lesser albatrosses, or mollymawks, have species complexes in three main sizegroupings within which post-cranial elements are generally not distinguishable. Thespecies listed in Table 12.6 are those most likely to be encountered on current dis-tributional data. Albatrosses the size of Thalassarche bulleri include yellow-nosedalbatross T. chlororhynchos and grey-headed albatross T. chryostoma. Thalassarchebulleri currently breeds at the Three Kings Islands and yellow-nosed albatross arerelatively common in the Bay of Plenty in winter. The white-capped or shy albatross(formerly D. cauta) have recently been separated into several taxa: white-cappedThalassarche cauta, Salvin’s T. salvini, and Chatham Island albatross T. eremita. Thespecimen identified as similar to the white-capped albatross is larger than the Salvin’salbatross bones examined and, as it duplicates elements of bones attributed to thattaxon, must indicate another individual. Both Salvins and white-capped albatrossesare common in northern coastal waters at present.

The great albatrosses include four taxa with similar sized bones: wandering D.exulans, northern royal D. sanfordi, southern royal D. epomophora, snowy D.chionoptera. Of these, either of the first two listed taxa is a possibility, but neithercould have been taken from a colony as all these species breed much further south.Therefore, the six partial bones indicate a minimum of four individual albatross inthis small sample.


FishThe fishbone analysis was by R. Nichol. It considered the methods and seasons offishing, environments exploited, butchering patterns and aspects of the taphonomy.Initially, all the fishbone from the site was searched for elements that could be iden-tified as coming from particular taxa. The five main elements of the jaw apparatus(premaxilla, maxilla, dentary, articular and quadrate) were the most useful, but manycrests, operculae, vertebrae, dorsal spines, scutes and cleithra were also identified.

Quantification was by counts of the most numerous element present for each of thespecies represented in the material. These elements are listed in the results, set out inTable 12.7. Where this was a paired element, as was usually the case, the frequency ofthe species was taken to be the average of the frequencies of the two sides. This aver-aging explains the occasional occurrence of ‘half fish’ in the results. Thus the figuresin the table are a version of MNI that could be called ANI (average number ofindividuals). One feature of this method is that counts of ANI in separate excavationareas can be added together without running the risk that the pair of elements in asingle animal could be counted twice (Nichol 1988).

Table 12.7 Frequencies of fish species from Kohika, by area

Numbers of IndividualsSpecies Common name Most common Area B Area C Area D

element

Shark/ray Vertebrae (3)* (27)Zeus faber John dory Premaxillae 0.5 5.5Chelidonichthys kumu Red gurnard Operculae + 2Polyprion oxygeneios Hapuku Vertebra (1)Caranx georgianus Trevally Crests 1 4Trachurus spp. Jack mackerel Cleithra 5 0.5 109Arripis trutta Kahawai Dentaries 0.5 + 22Chrysophrys auratus Snapper Premaxillae 0.5 0.5 11.5Nemadactylus macroterus Tarakihi Premaxillae 0.5 1Pseudolabrus spp. Labrids Articular quadrate +Parapercis colias Blue cod Premaxillae 0.5Leptoscopus macropygus Estuarine stargazer Articular +Thyrsites atun Barracouta Dentaries + 2Scomber australasicus Blue mackerel Dentaries 1 9Parika scaber Leatherjacket 1st dorsal spine 2Totals 13 5 173

*figures in brackets are numbers of vertebrae found+ represents a fragment

Preservation of fishbone was good in the peaty margins of the site but none wasrecovered from the HS Area. This was an area of housing and living activity and theabsence of fishbone can only be a result of the excavation methods. Nor was anyfishbone recovered from Area A, where there was evidence for the cooking of food.However, the top of the dune was subject to continual wetting and drying and thestate of the late human burials indicates the poor conditions for preservation.

By far the biggest sample came from Area D, which was an area of housing andcooking, with associated rubbish scatters. The fishbone contents of four superimposedlevels are shown in Table 12.8. The dirty pumice was the upper depositional compon-ent of the White House horizon. Below this came the Yellow House, and underneaththat again was the Bright Yellow floor, of which considerably less was excavated. Thetable also includes a number of small samples that could not be reliably associated

206 Kohika

with any of the four major units, and these have been grouped together as ‘Other’.Little can be said about the stability of the fish catch on the basis of these samplesand it is unlikely that there was much change in the resource during the few decadesin late prehistory when Kohika was occupied.

Table 12.8 Fish species frequencies by layer, Area D

Species Yellow floor Yellow House White House Dirty pumice Other

Shark (verts) (1) (1) (1) (6) (18)John dory + 2 2 1 0.5Red gurnard 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Trevally 2 + 2Jack mackerel 4.5 12 15.5 66 11Kahawai 2 7 8 1 4Snapper 2 2 2.5 0.5 4.5Tarakihi 0.5 0.5 +Labrid +Blue cod + 0.5Stargazer +Barracouta 0.5 + + 1 0.5Blue mackerel + 9Leatherjacket 2

In the case of the snapper, kahawai and jack mackerel, estimates of fish size weremade using calculations from Nichol (1988), and the resulting size–frequencydistributions are presented in Figures 12.1 and 12.2. Algorithms based on the morerecent study of larger samples were not available to us at the time (Leach and Boocock1995, Leach et al. 1996, Leach et al. 1996). Estimates of size for other species wereless reliable because of scarcer available reference material and smaller archaeologicalsamples. The blue mackerel were generally from 35 to 50 cm in body length (averagemeat weight around 1 kg); the barracouta ranged from around 75 to 100 cm in bodylength, or about 1.5 to perhaps 3.5 kg meat weight (Morphett 1984); and the johndory were all large fish, around 50 cm in body length. One shark vertebra was sosmall (diameter 2.6 mm), it could have come from a foetal shark.

One species that deserves mention because of its absence is eel. Though finds of eelbones in New Zealand sites are rare, it might have been expected that Kohika,surrounded by streams and lake, would produce some. This has proved not to be thecase, however, and close examination of the material reveals no trace of their verydistinctive bones. Clearly, eels were available locally and survival conditions for theirbones were excellent had they been eaten and their bones disposed of in the sameway as other fish.

Season of occupation

Inferences of seasonality from faunal remains usually depend on the animals beingavailable for only part of the year, and it is a serious difficulty with fish bones thatmost fish resident in an area are there more or less permanently (Nichol 1988). Ingeneral, summer could be expected to be the season when most fishing was done, butwinter fishing could have been done in the sheltered estuary of the combined Taraweraand Rangitaiki rivers, Te Awa o te Atua.

Two species in the Kohika assemblage suggest the possibility of winter fishing,although this must be tempered by their very low frequency in the site. First, barra-couta are apparently somewhat migratory, with most catches in the Bay of Plenty beingmade between June and September (Nichol 1988:164). The second possible winter


indicator is john dory. According to Doogue and Moreland (1973:211), these fish arenot often hooked, and Reece (1975) does not mention them in his survey of line fish-ing in Auckland. Their apparent rarity is caused by their feeding habits. They are mid-water stalkers that slowly approach their prey before suddenly seizing it in theirtelescopic jaws. This means that fishermen would have to drop their lines rather closeto john dory for them to take the bait. In winter, however, the fish seem to move intoshallow water (Doak 1972:24, Ayling and Cox 1982:180), where they are more ac-cessible and from where they can be chased ashore (Doogue and Moreland 1973:211)or even strand themselves (Doak 1972:24).

Figure 12.1Size frequencydistributionsof snapper,kahawai and jackmackerel, Area D

208 Kohika

Figure 12.2Size frequencydistributions ofjack mackerelby layer, Area D

Environments exploited

Although some of the Kohika fish could be caught in a wide range of environments,it seems significant that almost all can be taken in estuaries, in this case Te Awa o teAtua. While they can also be caught in the open sea, relevant species include jackmackerel (Doogue and Moreland 1973, Graham 1974, Bradstock 1985), trevally (Brad-stock 1985), kahawai (McDowell 1978, Bradstock 1985) and stargazer (McDowell1978). Blue mackerel can be taken on the surface close inshore (Ayling and Cox 1982).Apart from snapper, these are all the common species present and in total they rep-resent about 80 per cent of the assemblage.

It seems likely, however, that the snapper and most of the relatively scarce species,such as gurnard, blue cod and terakihi, were taken at sea. Snapper are usually themost abundant fish in archaeological sites in northern New Zealand and, althoughthis may reflect their greater availability (Crossland 1976), they were also sought after(Nichol 1988). It is very probable that people sometimes fished for snapper in theopen waters of the bay and took specimens of several other species on those trips.However, most fishing could have been done in the estuary.


Methods of capture

Although many species can be caught by different methods, it seems that, in terms oftheir feeding habits, kahawai, barracouta and blue mackerel imply trolling while snapperstrongly suggests line fishing. Nets would have been useful to catch small jack mack-erel in the confines of the estuary or in beach seining, so that the few schooling speciesavailable there were caught in considerable numbers, with the stargazer being the onlyincidental catch. There are the remains of nets from the site, along with a small num-ber of bait hooks, but no trolling hooks.

Taphonomic issues and butchering patterns

Nichol considered these issues in detail in his 1988 study of the Kohika fishboneassemblage. However, it is sufficient for the present purpose to list only the followingobservations.• Fishbone did not survive in Area A on top of the sand dune, although it was well

preserved where it had been deposited in the peaty lake edge in Areas B, C and D.It must have been present, but was not collected, from the HS Area.

• Dogs were kept on the small island site, where they were fed on scraps and scav-enged. Some 300 of their faeces were found and there were fishbones in every oneof those inspected (Horrocks et al. 2003; see also Chapter 13 of this volume). Dog-tooth marks appear on several surviving snapper bones and on one barracouta jaw(Plate 12.6). It could be expected that body part frequencies were distorted by dogseating the bones.

• Head bones were the most common for every species except jack mackerel, wherethey were outnumbered by cleithra and the case could be complicated by a possible

Plate 12.6Dog-tooth markson snapper bonesand barracoutajaw.

210 Kohika

decline in the relative frequency of heads to cleithra over time in Area D (Table12.9).

Table 12.9 Bone class frequencies for jack mackerel, Area D

Numbers of bonesDentaries Premaxillae Cleithra Vertebrae

Dirty pumice 27 4 132 30White House 14 7 31 102Yellow House 24 6 12 39Bright Yellow floor 9 4 5 35

In fish, the cleithra line the rear surface of the gill slit and so belong with vertebraeas body bones. In a discussion of the data, Nichol (1988) suggests that most of theheads of jack mackerel were discarded at the time of capture to improve the eating.His alternative explanation is that many of the jaws of jack mackerel simply decayedin the ground and the rate of attrition was highest in the upper deposit. (The sameargument could be made for the relative frequency of premaxillae over dentaries.)However, while this explanation of differential attrition may apply in some other sites(Nichol and Wild 1984), it does not fit the good survival conditions at Kohika.

All that remains at Kohika of most of the delicate cleithra are bony nodules close tothe ventral end of the bone. Investigation by Nichol (1988:174–9) indicates thatprobably only one species of jack mackerel, Trachurus novaezelandiae, has the bonynodules on cleithra while Trachurus declivis does not.

Summary

On the evidence of the surviving fishbones from Kohika, it is possible that fishingoccurred throughout the year. The snapper remains show that people were exploit-ing the open sea, but most of the fish could have been taken in the sheltered estuary ofthe two rivers. Many fish could have been taken in nets, while bait hooks can accountfor most of the remainder.

Most species remains were dominated by jawbones, although vertebrae of all com-mon species were present. In the case of jack mackerel, a portion of the cleithrum,behind the gillslit, dominates in later layers of Area D, which should probably be inter-preted as evidence that the species was often headed at the time of capture to retainflesh quality. The relative frequency of heads and bodies could be complicated by thefeeding of scraps to dogs.

ShellfishA preliminary analysis of the shellfish from Kohika was made by R. Foster (1980).Data collected at that time included species identifications, weights and numbers ofshells by species in each sample, and measurement of lengths of individual shells fromthe most common species, which in practice meant tuatua and, in two cases, pipi.

The present study by R. Nichol involves combining many samples into fewer butlarger ones for each of the excavated areas A to D, and also for the different stratigraphichorizons of Area D. The analysis presents species counts by sample and some of theshell length data as graphs. Some attention is given to patterns of exploitation andpossible signs of environmental impact.

With regard to the identifications, the data presented here are those previouslytabulated by Foster. It is assumed on distributional grounds that the tuatua is Paphies


subtriangulata and not the very similar southern tuatua, P. donacina. Freshwater mussel,presumably Hyridella menziesi, is represented by many fragments of skin or perios-tracum, but shells of the species are absent. Therefore, the few numbers given aresignificant underestimates.

Because the range of species identified from the site is so limited – only ten gastropodsand nine bivalves – the contents of each of the areas are considered within a standardtable format (Table 12.10) listing all nineteen species (whether or not all species werepresent in the sample). In each case the counts given are numbers of individuals. Forbivalves this was half the number of valves recorded, rounded up in each case. Speciesidentified by Foster (1980) as merely ‘present’ are marked ‘+’ in the tables, or ‘++’ ifappearing in more than one sample. (Note that the samples shown in the tables aremade up of many smaller excavated samples combined. Therefore, a value in a tableof, say, ‘5++’ means that five shells were counted in one sample and the presenceof the species concerned was noted in more than one other sample.)

Table 12.10 Shellfish from Kohika (MNI)

A5 B1 / B4 C7 D

Paua (Haliotis iris) 1 1 2+Catseye (Turbo smaragdus) 1 1 119Cook’s turban (Cookia sulcata) 3+Black nerita (Nerita atramentosa) 3Ostrich foot (Struthiolaria papulosa) 95 10+White slipper shell (Crepidula monoxyla) 1White rock shell (Dicathais orbita) 1 25Knobbed whelk (Austrofuscus glans) ? 4Volute (Alchithoe arabica) 1Mudsnail (Amphibola crenata) 2Green mussel (Perna canaliculus) + 1+Queen scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) 1Freshwater mussel (Hyridella menziesi) + ++ ++ 14+Trough shell (Mactra spp.) 3Triangle shell (Spisula aequilatera) 1 1 9+Pipi (Paphies australis) 3 613Tuatua (Paphies subtriangulata) 13 167 2307Ringed venus shell (Dosinia anus) 2+Cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi) 2+

Note: Foster recorded that the ostrich foot shells from B4 were juvenile.

All four areas of the university excavation produced shellfish remains, though invery different quantities. In Area A, where conditions for preservation were poor, justa few traces of freshwater mussel remained in the firepits of Square A5. All samplesfrom Area B were of much the same age, earlier than the flood alluvium, and arelumped together in this report. Square B1 produced three samples containing a veryrestricted range and quantity of shells, and Square B4 produced six small samples, allfrom inside the palisade, where the shell contributed to a build-up of the ground sur-face during lateral expansion of the site. In Area C, Square C7 was located in a cookingarea with continual disturbance and reworking of the deposit. It contained four verysmall samples, as well as a fifth rather more substantial sample of midden, found belowthe pumice layer at a depth of 75 cm. No shell was collected from the Historical Societyexcavations.

The great bulk of the shell came from Area D, where most samples can be relatedto one or other of the living horizons. Samples associated with the White House came

212 Kohika

from Squares D3, D10, D11 and D11 Ext. and the contents are summarised in Table12.11. Samples associated with the Yellow House came from Squares D1, D2, D3,D6, D8 and D9 Ext. and the material is summarised in Table 12.12. Several samplesassociated with the Bright Yellow floor were found in Square D8 and in small quantitiesin Square DD, and this material is summarised in Table 12.13.

Table 12.11 Shell samples from the White House, Area D

D3 D4 D10 D11 Totals

Paua ++ + ++Catseye 8 5 19 22 54Cook’s turban ++ ++Black nerita 1 1Ostrich foot ++ 4 4+White slipper shell 1 1White rock shell 3 1 1 5Knobbed whelkVoluteMudsnailGreen mussel + + ++Queen scallopFreshwater mussel ++ + ++ 2 2+Trough shellTriangle shell + 3 3+Pipi + 1 291 292+Tuatua 22 3 11 490 526Ringed venus shell + + +Cockle + + +

Note: Foster recorded that most of the pipi in D11 were small or juvenile shells

Table 12.12 Shell samples from the Yellow House, Area D

D1 D2 D3 D6 D8 D9 Totals

Paua 2 + 2+Catseye 35 4 1 21 2 63Cook’s turban 1 + + 1+Black nerita 1 1Ostrich foot 1 3 + 1 5+White slipper shellWhite rock shell 15 1 1 17Knobbed whelk 1 1VoluteMudsnail 2 2Green mussel 1+ + 1+Queen scallopFreshwater mussel 2+ 8+ + 2+ + 12+Trough shellTriangle shell 1+ 3 4+Pipi 10 2 309 321Tuatua 1004 126 111 8 15 1264Ringed venus shell 1 1Cockle 1+ 1+


Table 12.13 Shell samples from the Bright Yellow floor, Area D

D8 DD Totals

PauaCatseye 2++ + 2++Cook’s turban 1juv 1Black nerita 1 1Ostrich foot 1 1White slipper shellWhite rock shell 3 3Knobbed whelk 3 3VoluteMudsnailGreen mussel + +Queen scallopFreshwater mussel ++ + ++Trough shell 3 3Triangle shell 2 2PipiTuatua 511 6 517Ringed venus shell 1 1Cockle 1 1

Interpretation

Comparison of Tables 12.11–13 shows that, with two exceptions, the contents of thevarious assemblages remain similar through time and across the whole site. One ex-ception is pipi, which appear in high concentrations in two deposits in Area D, oneassociated with the White House and another from the Yellow House, but are extremelysparse or absent elsewhere. The other exception is ostrich foot, which is sparse exceptin Square B4, where juveniles are present.

The assemblage is dominated by tuatua, a species of the open coast, while theoccasional specimens of other bivalves such as scallop, Spisula and Dosinia, and thesoft-shore carnivores Struthiolaria and Alcithoe, were probably collected incidentallyto the taking of tuatua in bulk around the low-tide mark. The isolated shells of mudsnail,Mactra and cockle suggest the exploitation of limited areas of mudflat, probably aroundstream mouths, and the presence of numbers of pipi suggests that areas of shelteredsoft shore were available.

There is also a range of rocky-shore species. Catseye is consistently by far the mostabundant of these, while there are small numbers of paua, Cook’s turban, white rockshell and green mussel. Small species such as Nerita and slipper shell might have arrivedas passengers on paua or mussels. The rocky-shore species could have been collectedfrom the coast to the west of Matata.

Freshwater mussels appear in most deposits, though the numbers of shells cannotbe estimated. These could have been obtained from streams and lakes, with Lake Kohikathe nearest.

The earlier study by Foster (1980) produced lists of shell sizes within each sample.These have been converted to size–frequency distributions for pipi from the Whiteand Yellow houses, and for tuatua from the White, Yellow and Bright Yellow levels(Fig. 12.3). From these it appears that the size of the tuatua hardly changed during theoccupation of the site, and this impression is strengthened by an examination of Foster’ssummary statistics from other samples not included in Figure 12.3. However, it ap-pears that there was a decline in the size of pipi shells between the Yellow House andthe White House. Foster (1980) observed that most of the pipi shells in Square D.11,

214 Kohika

which are associated with the White House, were small or juvenile, and most couldnot be measured because of damage to the shells. So the decline in the size of pipi inthe samples could have been greater than that shown by Figure 12.3.

The site was occupied for such a short time that one would not expect marineresources to change very much. The consistency in the size of tuatua could also resultfrom their being gathered from beds over very wide stretches of coast. In the case ofpipi, there was a more restricted area of sheltered shore near Kohika where they couldhave been more exposed to over-exploitation. However, the pipi samples could alsohave been subject to other sources of behavioural and sampling variation.

Figure 12.3Size frequencydistributions ofpipi and tuatua,Area D


Finally, there is the question of the use of shells as implements or ornaments. Oneobvious possibility is the Cook’s turban shells, which were all recorded as having beenreduced to fragments. Pieces of them could have been used in fishhook manufacture(Law 1984). Another possibility, not previously recorded, is that the numbers of ju-venile Struthiolaria in Area B, where other shells are distinctly uncommon (Table 12.10),may have been used as necklace units.

SummaryThe Kohika faunal assemblage belongs to a narrow period of late prehistory. It is notremarkable except for its large sample of dogs.

The mammal bones show that dogs, a whale, a seal, and possibly humans wereeaten and their bones made into tools. The bone preservation was generally excellentapart from gnawing by both dogs and rats.

The bird species represent forest, swamp, estuary and open coast environments.Their bones represent food and, especially in the case of albatross, tools and possiblytrade.

A study of the fishbone considered fishing methods, ecology, seasonality, butcher-ing patterns and the weathering of remains. Some fifteen species were identified and,while it is clear that people fished at sea, approximately 80 per cent of the catch couldhave been taken in Te Awa o te Atua, the estuary of the combined Rangitaiki andTarawera rivers. Nets and bait hooks could account for most of the fish caught, andboth have been found in the site. Eel bones were anomalously absent.

A study of shellfish included species identification, the numbers and size of individ-uals, patterns of exploitation and possible signs of change through time. Some nineteenspecies of gastropods and bivalves represented open coast, mudflat, sheltered soft-shore and lake environments. The contents of the various collections remained fairlyconstant through time and across the site.

ReferencesAllo, J.L., 1970. The Maori dog: a study of the Polynesian dog of New Zealand. Unpublished

MA thesis, University of Auckland.Allo Bay-Petersen, J.L., 1979. The role of the dog in the economy of the New Zealand Maori.

In A. Anderson (ed.), Birds of a Feather. New Zealand Archaeological Association Mono-graph No.11 and BAR International Series 62, pp.165–81.

Ayling, T. and G.J. Cox, 1982. Collins guide to the sea fishes of New Zealand. Auckland:Collins.

Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic Press.Bradstock, M., 1985. Between the tides: shore and estuary life in New Zealand. Auckland:

Reed Methuen.Clark, G.R., 1995. The kuri in prehistory: a skeletal analysis of the extinct Maori dog.

Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.Crossland, J., 1976. Fish trapping experiments in northern New Zealand waters. New Zealand

Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 10:511–16.Doak, W., 1972. Fishes of the New Zealand region. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton.Doogue, R.B. and J.M. Moreland, 1973. New Zealand sea anglers guide. Wellington: Reed.Foster, R., n.d. [1980]. Kohika midden analysis – shells. Unpublished ms, Department of

Anthropology, University of Auckland.Gaskin, D.E., 1967. The whaling potential of the New Zealand sub-region. Fisheries Technical

Report No.16. Wellington: New Zealand Marine Department.

216 Kohika

Graham, D.M., 1974. A treasury of New Zealand fishes. Wellington: Reed.Holdaway, R.N., T.H. Worthy and A.J. Tennyson, 2001. A working list of breeding bird

species of the New Zealand region at first human contact. New Zealand Journal of Zoology,28:119–87.

Horrocks, M., G.J. Irwin, M. McGlone, M. Nichol and L. Williams, 2003. Pollen, phytolithsand diatoms in prehistoric coprolites from Kohika, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 30:13–20.

Law, G., 1984. Shell points of Maori two-piece fishhooks from northern New Zealand. NewZealand Journal of Archaeology, 6:5–21.

Leach, B.F. and A. Boocock, 1995. Estimating live fish catches from archaeological bonefragments of snapper, Pagrus auratus. Tuhinga: Records of the Museum of New ZealandTe Papa Tongarewa, 3:1–28.

Leach, B.F., J.M. Davidson, L.M. Horwood and A.J. Anderson, 1996. The estimation of livefish size from archaeological cranial bones of the New Zealand barracouta Thyrsites atun.Tuhinga: Records of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 6:1–25.

Leach, B.F., J.M. Davidson, L.M. Horwood and S.Mallon, 1996. The estimation of live fishsize from archaeological cranial bones of the New Zealand kahawai Arripis trutta. Tuhinga:Records of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 7:1–20.

McDowell, R.M., 1978. New Zealand freshwater fishes. Auckland: Heinemann.Morphett, P., n.d. [1984]. Fish length and meat weight from bone size for barracouta (Thyrsites

atun). Department of Anthropology essay, University of Auckland.Nichol, R.K., 1988. Tipping the feather against a scale: archaeozoology from the tail of a

fish. PhD thesis, University of Auckland.Nichol, R.K. and C.J. Wild, 1984. Numbers of individuals in faunal analysis: the decay of

fish bones in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 11:35–51.Reece, L., 1975. Fish galore. Auckland: Jason.Smith, I. W.G., 1981. Mammalian fauna from an Archaic site on Motutapu Island, New Zea-

land. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 18:95–105.Smith, I., 1996. Historical documents, archaeology and 18th century seal hunting in New

Zealand. In J.M. Davidson, G.J. Irwin, B.F. Leach, D.M. Brown and A. Pawley (eds), Oceanicculture history: essays in honour of Roger Green. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology, pp.675–88.

Taylor, M.A., 1984. Bone refuse from Twilight Beach. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

Worthy, T.H., 1999. What was on the menu? Avian extinctions in New Zealand. New ZealandJournal of Archaeology, 19 (1997):125–60.

217

13 Evidence for diet, parasites, pollen, phytoliths,diatoms and starch grains in prehistoriccoprolites from Kohika

G.J. Irwin, M. Horrocks, L.J. Williams, H.J. Hall, M.S. McGloneand S.L. Nichol

The excavation of Kohika yielded a large sample of faecal material or coprolites. Theresults of a battery of tests argue that they are the preserved excrement of Maori dogsrather than humans. Domestic dogs (kuri) were evidently taken to the island by canoe,as they could not have made their own way through kilometres of river and swamp.Dogs were fed on scraps but eaten by people. The overlap in the diets of people anddogs, plus the likelihood that dogs ate human faeces, means that these dog copro-lites provide insights into human diet. The microfossil evidence, in particular, showsthat prehistoric dog coprolites are virtual time-capsules of palaeoenvironmental andepidemiological evidence.

Initially, a sample of specimens was analysed by L. Williams (1980) as an MAresearch essay. She investigated the macroscopic constituents of diet and their canineorigin. Subsequently, sub-samples of all specimens analysed by Williams were sent toH.J. Hall for parasitological analysis, and this chapter presents the complete results ofthat. Further sub-samples were analysed by M. McGlone for pollen. Recently, furthermicrofossil analyses of additional coprolite samples from Kohika include the study ofpollen, phytoliths and bracken-fern starch by M. Horrocks, and of diatoms by S.L.Nichol (Horrocks et al. 2003, Horrocks et al. in press).

The palaeoenvironmental evidence confirms that the coprolites are of prehistoricage but follow large-scale deforestation, that a freshwater lake lay adjacent to the siteand that some coprolites were deposited during summer, specifically mid-summer. Inthe matter of diet, the presence of bracken-fern starch and high values for the pollenof puha (Sonchus type) and raupo (Typha) provide direct evidence that these wereused as food by Maori, as described in ethnographic times.

The archaeological study of coprolites in New Zealand and Polynesia has beenconfined mainly to macrofossil contents such as bones and plant fibres (Bellwood 1971,1972, Roe 1969, Stapleton 1969, Williams 1980). A study by McGill (1989) consideredbiochemical methods to identify the source of coprolites. There has been little researchinto microfossils, although a study by Byrne (1973) included the analysis of parasiteeggs. Parasites, pollen, spores, starch grains, phytoliths and diatoms are among themore likely types of microfossil to be preserved in coprolites, given their innate resistanceto decay. The walls of pollen grains and spores of ferns and fern allies are composedof sporopollenin, a durable organic substance (Faegri and Iversen 1989), and opalphytoliths are silica bodies found in some plant tissue (Piperno 1988). Diatoms aremicroscopic aquatic and sub-aquatic algae common in a range of environments,including streams, ponds, lakes and estuaries (Round et al. 1990, Werner 1977) and,like phytoliths, their preserved remains are composed of silica.

218 Kohika

The analysis of coprolites is described in detail by Rheinhard and Bryant (1992),and the use of pollen and phytoliths by Pearsall (1989) and Piperno (1988) respectively.Coprolite pollen analysis has been used extensively in North America to provide infor-mation on diet and seasonality (Bryant 1974a, Bryant and Larson 1968, Gremillionand Sobolik 1996, Martin and Sharrock 1964, Riskind 1970, Schoenwetter 1974,Williams-Dean and Bryant 1975). However, there has been relatively little research onphytoliths and diatoms in coprolites (Bryant 1974b, Bryant and Williams-Dean 1975,Horrocks et al. 2003, Kondo et al. 1994) and also relatively little study of the copro-lites of domestic dogs, even though their diets overlap with humans.

The Kohika coprolitesAt Kohika, more than 300 coprolites were recovered near the swampy margins ofthe site in Areas B, C and D. None were found in Area A, where conditions were lesssuited to their survival, although their absence could also reflect a functional difference.Thirty-three came from Square B4, where the site had spread sideways beyond itsmarine sand core with the continuing deposit of occupational debris. Just a few co-prolites were found in Area C, where occupation had been slight. The bulk of themcame from Area D, where midden from house floors had spread into swamp outsidethe palisade. Generally, their distribution was scattered and suggested dogs rather thanhumans, although a concentration of some 130 coprolites was found in Square DD.At the time of excavation it was thought that this might have been a latrine, but laterit became clear that dogs were sometimes restrained outside the palisade in this partof the site. Only a few coprolites were found inside the palisade of Area D betweenthe living floors of artificially laid sand.

Initially, 40 coprolites were selected for study, comprising sample numbers 1–18from Square DD, 19 and 20 from D1, 21–23 from D6, 24 from D5, 25–30 from D3and 31–40 from B4. Not all of these were analysed. More recently studied weresample D1E4 from Square D1 and sample DD from Square DD. Table 13.1 showswhich samples were included in the various aspects of analysis.

Macroscopic analysisMethods

Specimens were cleaned, measured, weighed, photographed (Plate 13.1) and theirphysical attributes described (Table 13.2). They were then cut open for extraction ofsamples for various analyses. Those for macrofossil analysis were broken down by acombination of soaking in a solution of trisodium phosphate, supplemented by phys-ical disintegration by hand and instrument, and ultrasonic agitation. Samples werethen passed through screens of 2000, 600 and 210 microns and the residue and liquidretained. Material retained by the screens was dried, sorted, identified, quantifiedand the results were tabulated (Williams 1980).

Results

A notable feature of the coprolites is that they were all found to be generally similar.All contained fish bone, charcoal, grit and plant material as the main components.However, there were differences in the relative proportions of these components, andalso in the occurrence of additional ones, including fish teeth, marine shell, seeds andhair. Weights and percentages of the components are shown in Table 13.3 and a graph

Evidence for diet, parasites, pollen, phytoliths, diatoms and starch grains in prehistoric coprolites from Kohika 219

Table 13.1 Samples included in coprolite analyses

Sample no. Macroscopic Combustion Parasites Pollen Phytoliths Diatoms Starch

1 x x x2 x x x3 x x5 x x x x6 x x x x7 x x x x10 x x11 x x12 x x x13 x x14 x x17 x x x x19 x x x x20 x x x22 x x x24 x x x25 x31 x34 x x x x35 x x x37 x x xD1E4 x x x xDD x x x x

Plate 13.1Examples ofcoprolites fromKohika.

of the percentages in Figure 13.1. Issues ofquantification are discussed by Williams(1980:62–7).

Fish bone

This was present in all samples and rangedfrom 86.2 per cent by weight of specimenno.14 to 12.4 per cent of no.35. In ten outof nineteen specimens analysed by Williams(1980), fish bone made up more than 50 percent of components by weight (Fig. 13.1).Plate 13.2 shows that much of the bone wasfragmentary, having been broken, splinteredand chewed, and several pieces were argu-ably larger and sharper than a person wouldswallow. Table 13.4 indicates the body partsof fish represented by bones for which identi-fication was possible. Head parts were foundin ten and fish teeth with fragments of jaw intwo; no.5 contained at least fourteen teethand no.4 only three. The teeth were not iden-tifiable as to species but were unlikely to besnapper. Vertebrae occurred in eleven of nine-teen coprolites and spines and rays in almostall. Nine specimens contained cycloid scales

220 KohikaTa

ble

13

.2Ph

ysic

al a

ttrib

utes

of t

he c

opro

lites

ana

lyse

dM

axim

umC

ross

-C

opro

lite

Wei

ght

Com

-L

engt

hdi

amet

erE

xter

nal

Inte

rnal

Inte

rnal

sect

ion

no.

(g)

plet

enes

s 1

(cm

) 2

(cm

) 2

colo

urco

lour

text

ure

Smel

lsh

ape

3C

omm

ents

124

.40

15.

53.

010

YR

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edno

neO

Blu

nt a

t sm

alle

r en

d, c

onca

ve a

t ot

her

but

brok

en. G

ood

surf

ace.

Con

volu

ted.

27.

662

4.5

2.5

2.5Y

7/2

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edno

neC

-OTa

pere

d in

to h

ook

at o

ne e

nd. G

ood

surf

ace.

Sm

ooth

, hin

t of

con

volu

tion

s.3

15.8

22

4.7

2.6

10Y

R 6

/32.

5Y 6

/3fi

neno

neO

Cur

ved.

Con

cave

at

one

end.

Goo

d su

rfac

e.2.

5Y 7

/3Sm

ooth

, slig

ht c

onvo

luti

ons.

57.

770

4.6

2.8

2.5Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edm

usty

OC

urve

d. P

oor

surf

ace.

Slig

ht c

onvo

luti

ons.

614

.67

0(4

.6)

(3.9

)10

YR

6/3

10Y

R 6

/3m

ixed

none

O-T

Irre

gula

r, po

ss. s

quas

hed

in m

iddl

e. O

val a

ton

e en

d, t

rian

gula

r at

oth

er. P

oor

surf

ace.

727

.70

010

.02.

42Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edsl

ight

lyO

Ovo

id b

ut c

urve

d ba

ck o

n it

self

. Goo

dm

usty

surf

ace.

Slig

ht c

onvo

luti

ons.

109.

521

3.8

2.7

2.5Y

6/3

2.5Y

6/3

med

ium

slig

htly

OC

onca

ve a

t on

e en

d. G

ood

surf

ace.

Sm

ooth

.m

usty

116.

361

3.2

2.0

2.5Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/4

mix

edsl

ight

lyC

Cur

ved

leng

thw

ise.

Fla

t at

one

end

. Poo

rfa

ecal

surf

ace.

Con

volu

ted.

1220

.06

15.

72.

82.

5Y 7

/32.

5Y 7

/3m

ixed

none

OV

aryi

ng d

iam

eter

. Con

cave

at

one

end.

Goo

d su

rfac

e. C

onvo

luti

ons.

136.

431

3.2

2.8

2.5Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

coar

seno

neT

One

end

nar

row

s qu

ickl

y in

to h

ooke

d10

YR

6/3

poin

t. P

oor

surf

ace.

Sm

ooth

.14

5.86

23.

92.

92.

5Y 7

/22.

5Y 7

/2co

arse

none

OTw

o pe

llets

pre

ssed

tog

ethe

r. Po

or s

urfa

ce.

1716

.41

14.

33.

12.

5Y7/

22.

5Y 8

/2ve

ry f

ine

none

OB

lunt

at

one

end.

Goo

d su

rfac

e.C

onvo

lute

d. V

ery

hard

to

cut

open

.19

13.1

02

5.7

2.4

2.5Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edsl

ight

lyO

Bul

let-

shap

ed, b

lunt

at

one

end.

Sur

face

faec

algo

od. V

ery

smoo

th.

2014

.40

24.

53.

02.

5Y 7

/32.

5Y 7

/2m

ixed

none

OFl

at a

t on

e en

d, c

onca

ve a

t ot

her.

Goo

d su

r-fa

ce. C

onvo

lute

d. V

ery

hard

to

cut

open

.22

6.30

0(3

.9)

(2.9

)2.

5Y 8

/32.

5Y 8

/3m

ixed

none

–In

com

plet

e, n

o su

rfac

e. C

ould

be

squa

shed

stoo

l or

piec

e of

larg

e on

e.24

7.14

0–

––

2.5Y

7/3

mix

edno

ne–

Cru

mbs

onl

y re

ceiv

ed in

labo

rato

ry. E

xcav

-at

or’s

desc

ript

ion:

larg

e ov

oid

but s

quas

hed.

3457

.77

2(7

.1)

(5.5

)2.

5Y 7

/32.

5Y 7

/3m

ixed

slig

htly

IV

ery

irre

gula

r, an

am

orph

ous

lum

p. G

ood

swee

tsu

rfac

e, h

ard

to b

reak

ope

n.35

16.3

32

4.7

2.8

10R

6/2

2.5Y

7/4

coar

seno

neC

Slig

htly

cur

ved

leng

thw

ise,

oth

erw

ise

bulle

t2.

5Y 8

/32.

5Y 4

/1sh

aped

. Con

cave

end

. Poo

r su

rfac

e.C

onvo

luti

ons.

374.

651

4.0

1.7

2.5Y

7/3

2.5Y

7/3

coar

seno

neC

Shar

ply

curv

ed, t

aper

s to

ben

t po

int

at o

neen

d. G

ood

surf

ace.

Not

es:

1. G

rade

d ac

cord

ing

to n

umbe

r of

inta

ct e

nds

2. D

imen

sion

s of

mal

form

ed s

tool

s gi

ven

in b

rack

ets

3. O

= o

val,

C =

cir

cula

r, I

= ir

regu

lar,

T =

rou

nded

tri

angl

e


Table

13

.3C

ompo

nent

s of

cop

rolit

es, w

eigh

ts an

d pe

rcen

tage

s (W

illia

ms

1980

, Tab

le 5

)

Cop

rolit

e no

.1

23

56

710

1112

13

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

Fish

bon

e1.

224

64.4

0.32

172

.60.

038

27.3

0.12

124

.71.

077

82.5

0.10

029

.80.

153

61.2

0.14

638

.20.

522

76.0

0.77

148

.4Fi

sh t

eeth

0.03

57.

2Pl

ant

0.02

01.

10.

035

7.9

++

0.00

61.

20.

010

0.8

0.00

51.

50.

008

3.2

0.01

43.

70.

005

0.7

0.01

00.

6C

harc

oal

0.01

40.

70.

059

13.4

0.03

021

.60.

051

10.4

0.02

62.

00.

049

14.6

0.03

012

.00.

012

3.1

0.08

312

.10.

082

5.1

Gri

t0.

623

32.7

0.02

76.

10.

071

51.1

0.27

656

.40.

186

14.3

0.18

254

.20.

059

23.6

0.15

440

.30.

077

11.2

0.73

145

.9Sh

ell

0.00

60.

50.

056

14.7

Hai

r+

++

++

+O

ther

0.02

01.

1+

Tota

lco

mpo

nent

s1.

901

100.

00.

442

100.

00.

139

100.

00.

489

99.9

1.30

510

0.1

0.33

610

0.1

0.25

010

0.0

0.38

210

0.0

0.68

710

0.0

1.59

410

0.0

Cop

rolit

e no

.14

1719

2022

2434

3537

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%w

t%

wt

%Fi

sh b

one

0.77

986

.20.

231

68.3

0.72

036

.10.

122

26.8

0.11

824

.81.

134

76.2

0.48

768

.30.

119

12.4

0.28

378

.8Fi

sh t

eeth

0.02

22.

4Pl

ant

0.00

50.

60.

014

4.1

0.21

010

.50.

031

6.8

0.01

12.

30.

005

0.3

0.00

71.

00.

050

5.2

0.00

20.

6C

harc

oal

0.00

70.

80.

008

2.4

0.61

130

.60.

152

33.4

0.01

94.

00.

015

1.0

0.01

11.

50.

097

10.1

0.00

51.

4G

rit

0.09

110

.10.

085

25.2

0.45

622

.80.

150

33.0

0.32

868

.90.

333

22.4

0.20

729

.30.

607

63.4

0.06

919

.2Sh

ell

0.00

10.

1H

air

Oth

er0.

001

0.1

0.08

48.

8To

tal

com

pone

nts

0.90

410

0.1

0.33

810

0.0

1.99

710

0.0

0.45

510

0.0

0.47

610

0.0

1.48

910

0.0

0.71

310

0.2

0.95

799

.90.

359

100.

0

222 Kohika

Figure 13.1Components ofKohika coprolitesamples, per-centages byweight

Plate 13.2Fishboneextracted fromcoprolite no.24.

and six placoid ones; the latter could have come from a variety of species such asyellowtail, trevally or mackerel. In general, the fish bone looked like scraps fed bypeople to dogs. However, some bone of very small fish less likely to have been eatenby people may indicate that dogs ate fish guts.


Table 13.4 Incidence of fish body parts in Kohika coprolites

Coprolite 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 19 20 22 24 34 35 37no.

Head x x x x x x x x x xPelvic girdle xVertebrae x x x x x x x x x x xRays/spines x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xScalesPlacoid x x x x xCycloid x x x x x x x x x

Teeth x x

Seeds

Nine of nineteen coprolites contained seeds, which were identified by means of a ref-erence collection compiled by I. Lawlor (1979) with the assistance of L. Scott of theformer Botany Division, DSIR, Mt Albert, Auckland. Because the seeds have negli-gible weight, they are quantified in Table 13.5 by number. Lawlor (1979) found remainsof all of the same species in his study of the peat swamp adjacent to the site. Carexsecta (nigger-head), Cyperus ustulatus (giant toetoe), Eleocharis acuta (spike rush) andPolygonom decipiens (swamp willow weed) all grow in wet or periodically inundatedhabitats (Lawlor 1979, Mason 1976). Coriaria arborea (tutu), Sonchus littoralis (thistleor puha) and Solanum nodiflorum (small flowered nightshade) all grow in disturbedareas (Eagle 1978). Thus these plants were probably growing near or on the site itself.The use of puha and tutu as food plants is discussed below.

Table 13.5 Seeds from Kohika coprolites

Coprolite no. 2 6 10 11 19 22 24 34 37

SpeciesCarex secta 1Coriaria arborea 1 1 2 1Cyperus ustulatus 1Eleocharis acuta 1Polygonum decipiens 1Solanum nodiflorum 1Sonchus littoralis 1Unidentified a 1Unidentified b 1Total 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1

Other plant material

Other plant material was present in all 19 coprolites, but in just four specimens was itmore than 5 per cent by weight of total components, and in seven there was less than1 per cent plant material (Fig. 13.1). The material is represented by fragments of tis-sue, mostly pieces of leaf and stem. Many of the coprolites contained other uniden-tified woody tissue; some had what was probably bark and some the remains of nutshell. Five specimens (numbers 2, 17, 19, 22 and 35) contained bracken (Pteridiumesculentum) leaf and stem fragments, some of which were charred.

Charcoal

The percentage of charcoal in the specimens ranged from 33.4 per cent in no.20 to0.7 per cent in no.1, with the average being 9.5 per cent by weight of the components

224 Kohika

(Fig. 13.1). Considering how light charcoal is for its bulk, these figures representconsiderable amounts of charcoal in the coprolites and some pieces were quite sub-stantial (Plate 13.3). Mostly it is burnt woody tissue and represents fuel remains ratherthan burnt food remains. Again, this indicates ingestion by dogs rather than people.

Grit

Grit was found in all specimens, ranging from 6.1 per cent to 68.9 per cent by weight;the average was 33.2 per cent. In five samples, grit comprised more than 50 per cent.The grit was compared with samples of sediments collected from around the Kohikasite by I. Lawlor (1979) and was found to be generally consistent with the presenceof marine sand of the former dune and reworked tephra. All samples except numbers2 and 12 also contained small pieces of water-rolled obsidian, a natural componentof the local sediments. The simplest explanation for the considerable amounts of gritis dogs eating off the ground.

Shell

Three coprolites, numbers 6, 11 and 24, contained fragments of marine shell, and ofthose all four pieces in no.6 and one of the pieces in no.11 had been burnt. Becauseof the small size of the fragments, none was identified as to species, although the shellin no.6 is probably bivalve similar to tuatua (Paphies subtriangulata), which is com-mon in the Kohika middens.

Hair

Several hairs and other fibres found in the coprolites were probably the result ofcontamination during analysis, but in one sample a hair was found that was not

Plate 13.3Charcoalextracted fromcoprolite no.19.


(Williams 1980:82–3). This hair could have been from rat or dog only, but compari-son with reference samples did not find a match. However, the characteristics ofdog hair can vary from one part of the body to another (Coutts and Jurisich 1973:74).Additional analysis such as DNA characterisation could take the matter further, ifit were of sufficient interest.

Insects

In four coprolites were the remains of insects, including a thorax from no.1, a possibleantenna from no.2, some chitinous material from no.7 and a possible fly pupa casefrom no.19.

Organic component loss-by-ignition tests

Eight coprolites were tested to determine the proportions of the organic and inorganiccomponents. The samples were selected according to apparent variations in coprolitetexture, and the results are shown in Table 13.6. This shows that the inorganiccomponent ranges from 77.4 per cent to 85.9 per cent by weight. The percentages ofinorganic material are higher and less variable than those for grit (Table 13.3), andit could be inferred that specimens with low values for grit contained larger amountsof inorganic material of finer grain size, such as silt. Further discussion of the testis available in Williams (1980:80–81).

Table 13.6 Percentages of inorganic material

Sample no. 2 5 6 7 17 19 34 35

Dry weight (g) 0.5986 1.9177 0.5860 1.8833 1.4999 0.3963 2.7404 2.5685Combusted weight 0.4632 1.6173 0.4714 1.6095 1.2647 0.3142 2.2821 2.2075Weight lost 0.1354 0.3004 0.1146 0.2738 0.2352 0.0821 0.4583 0.3610Inorganic % 77.38 84.34 80.44 85.46 84.32 79.28 83.28 85.95

Variability within coprolites

It is established that coprolites can contain residues from more than one meal andvary in content. Specimen no.19 was selected to test the possibility, as it was a well-formed, long stool that could be expected to exhibit such variation. Two samplesof the same weight, 19a and 19b, were taken from each end of the coprolite. Theweights and percentages of the identified components are shown in Table 13.7. Whilethe results are basically similar, the proportions of the components in different partsof a single coprolite can vary perhaps as much as different coprolites (from the samecontext) vary from one another. Further tests for variability in specimens are de-scribed in the analysis for pollen (below).

Table 13.7 Variation in coprolite no.19

Sample no. 19a 19bweight % weight %

Fish bone 0.411 40.5 0.306 31.2Plant 0.078 7.7 0.130 13.3Charcoal 0.326 32.2 0.284 29.0Grit 0.199 19.6 0.260 26.5Seeds x x x xFly pupa case xTotal components 1.014 100.0 0.980 100.0

226 Kohika

Parasite eggs in Kohika coprolitesAn initial study by H.J. Hall was included as an appendix in Williams (1980). Hallhas recently reviewed that study and the complete results are presented here.

Methods

Samples of all nineteen specimens analysed by L. Williams (1980) were received byH.J. Hall in formalin solution. The faecal sediment was sampled at various depthsusing a pipette and the material transferred to glass microslides. No ova concentra-tion techniques were used. Five microslides for each of the nineteen specimens wereprepared and systematically searched with a Leitz SM-Lux laboratory microscope usingappropriate lenses. Selected samples were photographed.

Results

Two types of parasitic helminth eggs were identified. One coprolite (no.1) yielded oneascarid egg. Two other specimens (numbers 5 and 14) contained eggs of the genusCapillaria hepatica.

Ascarid: Toxocara canis

Specimen no.1 yielded one parasite egg whose morphology places it within the nematodefamily Ascaridoidea, which contains numerous species that parasitise a wide range ofvertebrates. The egg is ovoidal and measures 80 x 70 microns (Plate 13.4), and mostclosely resembles Toxocara canis, an ascarid of dogs that is cosmopolitan in distribution(Faust et al. 1968:235). The eggs of this parasite measure (on average) 85 x 75 microns,while those belonging to the ascarid of cats, T. cati, are a little smaller (on average,75 x 65 microns). The Kohika specimen exhibited the characteristic pitting of theshell (Plate 13.5) that is shared by both T. canis and T. cati but is not found in Toxocaris,another ascarid found in dogs and cats (Chandler and Read 1961:456). We can elim-inate the possibility of T. cati, as cats were not present in prehistoric New Zealand.

Plate 13.4Egg of Toxocaracanis.


Plate 13.5Egg of Toxocaracanis, showingcharacteristicpitting of theshell.

Plate 13.6Egg ofCapillariahepatica.

Infection by T. canis is acquired by ingesting infective eggs in soil, by eating paranetichosts, by ingesting larvae passed in the faeces of unweaned pups, or by prenatal infec-tion (Faust et al. 1968:235). In the last case, eggs swallowed by a pregnant bitch travelto the intestines of foetuses, often causing the death of the pups. If the egg recoveredfrom the Kohika material does belong to Toxocara canis, which is very likely, itspresence argues most strongly that dogs deposited the coprolites.

228 Kohika

Capillaria hepatica

Sample no.5 yielded large numbers (more than five per slide) of barrel-shaped eggswith opercula at both poles whose shells exhibited radial striations (Plate 13.6). Fourothers recovered from Sample no.14 were identical in morphology. The eggs on aver-age measured 59 x 30 microns, although the range varied from 56 to 63 microns longby 28 to 32 microns wide.

General morphology places them within the group of primitive aphasmid nema-todes of the order Trichuridea (Yamaguti 1961). Details identify them as the genusCapillaria and possibly the species C. hepatica. Although the case for C. hepatica inthe Kohika specimens cannot be made with absolute certainty, since eggs of some otherCapillaria species resemble those of this species (Skjrabin et al. 1957), it remains themost likely proposition given both the morphological detail and the New Zealandcontext. This species, although chiefly a parasite of rats, has been recovered from awide range of vertebrates, including rodents, carnivores, insectivores, lagomorphsand primates, including humans (Beck and Beverley-Burton 1968, Skrjabin et al. 1957).Furthermore, it is cosmopolitan in distribution.

Capillaria hepatica has an unusual life-cycle. Eggs are deposited in the host’s liverand are liberated only when the host dies. Thus they are released either when the hostdies and the liver decomposes, or when the liver is eaten by a carnivore or scavengerand the eggs passed out in faeces (Faust et al. 1968:225). The eggs must be exposed tothe air for four to six weeks before development of the infective stage. Mammals be-come infected only after ingesting embryonated ova that have developed in soil for aperiod of weeks. Once ingested, the eggs hatch and the larvae travel to the liver, wherethey mature into adult worms. However, eggs ingested before the infective stage isreached can pass through the gut without causing infection.

The species occasionally infects dogs (Stokes 1973) and very rarely has been re-ported in humans (Cochrane et al. 1957), but its most common hosts are rats andother rodents (Smit 1960, Waddell 1969, Wright 1961). Of the above three mammalsat Kohika, the most likely host would have been the rat. Certainly, rats were usedas food by Maori and have been recovered from New Zealand archaeological sites(Matisoo-Smith et al. 1998). Polynesian rats were probably infected with C. hepaticawhen they came to New Zealand.

If, on the one hand, dogs ate rat offal, the eggs of this worm would be expected toshow up in examinations of dog faeces. If, on the other hand, humans ate rat livers,the eggs would be found in human faeces, and in this case, one would still expect tofind the eggs in dog faeces because dogs scavenge human ones. Dogs could becomeinfected with the parasite by ingesting the faeces of other dogs that had eaten doglivers (or infected rat livers). However, dogs would be unlikely to wait long enoughfor the eggs to reach the infective stage. The conclusion is that, given the triangularhuman–dog–rat relationship in the Maori way of life, the presence of Capillaria hepaticameans that it is most likely the coprolites are dog. However, given the life-cycle ofthe parasite, its host was probably the rat.

Summary

Two taxa of parasitic helminths are represented by eggs in the Kohika coprolites. Oneis a species of Capillaria, most probably C. hepatica, a common parasite of rats. Theother belongs to an ascarid and most closely resembles Toxocara canis, an intestinalroundworm of dogs. The presence of both in this material, in the New Zealand con-text, points to a canine origin for the coprolites. Although both identifications shouldbe treated with caution until further evidence from similar studies is found in prehis-


toric New Zealand samples, the result is significant. Not only does it represent thefirst recorded cases of these parasites in a prehistoric context, it greatly aids theassessment of coprolite origin. The discovery may in future prove to be of value inoutlining the etiology and epidemiology of infection by these species throughout thePacific and Southeast Asian regions.

Pollen analysisMethods

Sixteen coprolites were sampled for pollen analysis. To investigate intra-coprolite pollenvariation, two sub-samples (7a and 7b) were taken adjacent to each other from onecoprolite, and two more (12a and 12b) were taken from either end of another relativelylong (5.7 cm) coprolite. Pollen samples were prepared for analysis by the standardacetylation and hydrofluoric acid method (Moore et al. 1991).

Results

In Figure 13.2, the number of each pollen type counted within each sample is given asa percentage of the total in the pollen diagram. M. McGlone analysed fourteen sam-ples (1–37) and M. Horrocks the remaining two (DD and D1E4). The coprolites aregenerally similar to one another in their pollen assemblages. One or more of fourspecific pollen types tend to dominate in each sample: puha (Sonchus) type pollen,sedge (Cyperaceae) pollen, raupo (Typha orientalis) pollen and bracken (Pteridiumesculentum) spores. Puha-type and raupo occur in extremely high numbers in somesamples. Tutu (Coriaria) pollen was also found in significant amounts in several sam-ples. Brassicaceae pollen was found in small amounts in half of the samples. Myrio-phyllum pollen and Anthoceros spores were found in Samples DD and D1E4.

All samples contained microscopic charcoal fragments. In samples DD and D1E4,these fragments included tracheids (a type of wood cell) of manuka (Leptospermum)type.

The pollen counts in sub-samples 7a and 7b, from adjacent to one another in thesame coprolite, are in close agreement. The pollen counts in sub-samples 12a and12b, from opposite ends of another coprolite, agree to a lesser extent, with minordifferences including more manuka-type pollen, less raupo pollen and no Coprosmaor puha-type pollen found in 12a. This is discussed below.

Phytolith analysisMethods

Phytolith and diatom samples (DD and D1E4 only) were prepared for analysis by acombination of methods given in Pearsall (1989). As phytoliths and diatom remainsare both composed of silica, they are extracted using the same process. Organic matteris removed with nitric acid and potassium chlorate, the <5 �m fraction removed bygravity sedimentation, and the phytoliths and diatoms density-separated with sodiumpolytungstate. Sponge spicules were recorded with phytoliths but are excluded fromthe phytolith sum.

Results

The two coprolites analysed for phytoliths (D1E4 and DD) are generally similar intheir phytolith assemblages (Fig. 13.3). The phytolith sum is dominated by spherical

230 Kohika

Figure 13.2Percentagepollen diagramfor Kohikacoprolitesamples


Figure 13.3Percentagephytolithdiagram forKohika coprolitesamples

Figure 13.4Percentagediatom diagramfor Kohikacoprolitesamples

232 Kohika

verrucose (from trees), elongate (from grasses) and unknown type 1 phytoliths. Phyto-lithic fragments of fern tissue are present in both samples. Several types of grassphytolith (i.e. the three sheet element types) and sponge spicules present only in D1E4differentiate the two samples. This is discussed below.

Diatom analysisMethods

These were extracted as for phytolith analysis.Five diatom groups are defined according to life habit after Denys (1991), as follows:

benthic, meaning diatoms that live on the floor of an aquatic environment such as alake or stream bed; epontic, diatoms that live firmly attached to a hard substrate suchas a plant, rock or sand grain; tychoplanktonic, diatoms that readily occur in the watercolumn but derive from other habitats; euplanktonic, diatoms that complete their en-tire life-cycle in the water column; and those of unknown life habit.

Results

The two coprolites analysed for diatoms (D1E4 and DD) are generally similar in theirdiatom assemblages (Fig. 13.4), comprising species that are recognised as freshwater(oligohalobous) types commonly found in lakes and streams of the North Island ofNew Zealand (Foged 1979). The diatom sum in both samples is dominated by Melosiraitalica (a tychoplanktonic diatom of benthic origin) and the epontic diatoms Nitzschiaamphibia and Cocconeis placentula. Achnanthes hungarica, another epontic diatomfound in significant numbers, was present in Sample DD only. Except for the benthicdiatom Nitzschia hungarica in Sample D1E4, benthic and euplanktonic species havelow values.

Starch and xylem analysisStarch is a complex insoluble carbohydrate and is the main substance for food storagefor plants. It is commonly found in underground rhizomes and tubers. Xylem consistsof vascular tissue through which water and minerals are conducted. M. Horrocks car-ried out starch and xylem extraction by density-separation for two coprolite samples,D1E4 and DD, using the method described in Horrocks et al. (in press). Starch grainsfrom bracken fern were found in both samples. Also present were xylem tracheidsmatching those of reference bracken rhizomes. Bracken fern has figured largely intheoretical discussions of prehistoric Maori subsistence but this is direct evidence forits use as food. An earlier, less firmly identified instance of fern root from a latrine atOtakanini pa was reported by Bellwood (1971:71). No other starch or xylem typeswere found in the Kohika coprolites.

Discussion of microfossil resultsIntra-coprolite variation

It is established that coprolites contain the residues from more than one meal and thatthere will be variation between coprolites and even between the different ends of thesame ones. The macroscopic analysis found that, while the identified components from


the two ends of coprolite no.19 were generally alike, their relative proportions variedas much as those of different coprolites from Kohika. With regard to the pollen study,and bearing in mind that the sample size was small, the close similarity of adjacentsub-samples from coprolite no.7 suggests that pollen variation within the same area ofa coprolite is negligible. Some difference might be expected between the pollen assem-blages from either end of a coprolite, and the minor differences between samples 12aand 12b may indicate that this is the case. However, these two sub-samples have lowtotal pollen counts (58 and 145) relative to most other coprolites, so the minordifferences found may not be meaningful.

A dog origin for the coprolites

The macrofossil and parasite evidence pointed to dogs, and so does the pollen. Peopleingest pollen almost exclusively from the air they breathe or the food and water theyconsume. Pollen in the air is restricted largely to wind-pollinated types, and there isa much greater range on the ground because the pollen of animal-pollinated plantssettles mostly within a few metres of parent plants. Dogs, by constantly sniffing theground and eating off it, and grooming themselves with their tongues, producecoprolites that are treasure chests of pollen and other microfossils.

Low values for grass pollen in the samples combined with high values for a type ofgrass phytolith (elongate) provide further evidence for dog origin. As grass pollen isnormally produced in abundance and widely dispersed, low values for this pollentype suggest that grasses were not a major component of the local vegetation. Thehigh values for grass phytoliths may indicate deliberate ingestion of grass leaves,and dogs were more likely than people to eat grass (Crowe 1981, Riley 1988).

The age of the coprolites

The absence of European pollen, and especially the abundantly produced and widelydispersed pine Pinus and narrow-leaved plantain Plantago lanceolata types (Tauber1965, Faegri and Iversen 1989), obviously supports a pre-European age, as do lowvalues for grass (Poaceae) pollen (which is shown only for samples DD and D1E4).

The relative lack of background pollen from forest trees in Kohika coprolites matchesthe upper part of the pollen sequence from Square D17 described in Chapter 3, andindicates that they followed widespread deforestation. Several common forest trees,especially beech Fuscospora and rimu Dacrydium cupressinum (McGlone 1988) pro-duce abundant, widely dispersed pollen that could be expected to have been ingestedby dogs had it been present.

Aspects of diet indicated by the coprolites

Some of the more abundant taxa in the coprolites were used as food by prehistoricMaori (Best 1925, Crowe 1981, Riley 1988), including puha (eaten as leaves and youngshoots), raupo (eaten as young shoots, roots and pollen), tutu (petals and juice ofpetals) and bracken (rhizomes and young fronds). However, questions arise about de-liberate as against accidental ingestion and the interaction between humans and dogs.

Both raupo and puha pollen are produced naturally in abundance, but the extremelyhigh values for raupo pollen in sample numbers 1 and 6, and for puha-type pollen insample numbers 19 and 25, would seem to preclude accidental ingestion as back-ground pollen. The fact that neither of these two pollen types is well dispersedstrengthens this supposition. Furthermore, percentages for all pollen types from theentire coprolite assemblage are in close agreement with the pollen diagram of the sedi-mentary core from Square D17 – with one major exception, puha. This type comprises

234 Kohika

31 per cent of the total pollen content of the coprolites, but only 1 per cent of that inthe swamp, lending weight to our suggestion that its high frequency in the coprolitesis a result of eating puha plants and/or human faeces.

We take the discovery of bracken-fern starch grains and bracken-fern xylem tissueas evidence for human preparation and consumption of fern root followed by recyclingby dogs. The contention that bracken fronds were ingested as food could be supportedby the presence, albeit in small amounts, of fern phytoliths in the two coprolites ana-lysed for this, but whether the fronds were eaten by people, or only by dogs, is an openquestion. However, there is a strong likelihood that some of the bracken spores in thecoprolites were ingested as background pollen, because bracken forms extensive standsafter repeated burning (McGlone 1983) and produces abundant spores that are welldispersed in the atmosphere (McGlone 1988).

The microfossil evidence for ingestion of particular plants at Kohika is supportedby macrofossil evidence (Williams 1980). A puha Sonchus littoralis seed was foundin sample no.19, and tutu Coriaria arborea seeds in sample numbers 2, 6 and 10. Inaddition, fragments of bracken leaf and stem were found in numbers 2, 17, 19, 22and 35.

It is possible that some of the raupo pollen may have been consumed incidentallyby dogs drinking swamp water. This is supported by the coinciding presence of swamp-derived diatoms and the pollen of Myriophyllum (an aquatic plant) and sedge, whichdo not figure significantly in Maori diet.

The presence of traces of Brassicaceae pollen in half of the coprolite samples mayindicate that plants of this family were part of the local diet. If this was the case,the likely candidate is poniu (marsh cress) Rorripa palustris, the leaves of which wereeaten all year by prehistoric Maori (Crowe 1981). As this plant is insect-pollinatedand produces relatively small amounts of pollen that is not well dispersed in the atmos-phere, its presence as only a trace if ingested along with parent plants would not beunexpected.

The charcoal fragments in the coprolites are most likely a result of eating foodcooked over an open fire, and the manuka-type tracheids present in the charcoal ofSamples DD and D1E4 suggest the use of this shrub or small tree as fuel. The largerpieces of charcoal are surely the result of dog scavenging.

As the phytolith flora of New Zealand and elsewhere (Pearsall 1989) has been littleresearched compared with the pollen flora, the phytolith evidence from the Kohikacoprolites is more difficult to interpret. As with the pollen, an uncertain but probablygreater proportion of the phytoliths in the coprolites may be background phytoliths.According to Piperno (1988), phytoliths may sometimes comprise as much as 50 percent of topsoil volume, so the potential for them to become wind-borne dust is high.Thus they could be expected to be ingested as background phytoliths by dogs in greateramounts than pollen and – unlike pollen, which is released seasonally – at all timesof the year. This is probably the case for one of the more abundant phytolith types,spherical verrucose, in the two coprolites analysed. According to Kondo et al. (1994),spherical verrucose is found in New Zealand in the leaves and wood of beech (Fusco-spora) and rewarewa Knightia excelsa, and in the rushes Empodisma minus andLeptocarpus similis, none of which figure in Maori diet. The presence of sponge spic-ules in Sample D1E4 reflects the close proximity of the site to the sea.

Seasonality of the coprolites

Coprolites can be considered as snapshots of periods of time no longer than a fewdays and they provide evidence for the season of site occupation. Puha plants releasetheir pollen from late winter to autumn, or August to April (Allan 1961), so it is likely


that the coprolites studied belong to this rather broad span. The presence of significantproportions of tutu pollen in some samples may narrow this down to spring–summer,or October to March (Allan 1961), and the presence of raupo pollen constrains thisfurther, suggesting that they were deposited in mid-summer, or December and January(Allan 1961). In the American southwest, Williams-Dean and Bryant (1975) foundbulrush pollen of the same genus as raupo (cattail Typha latifolia) in human coprolitesfrom the site of Antelope House, and suggested that some of it could have come fromeating fresh cattail heads or from eating pollen in pure form. However, as variousparts of puha and raupo plants were eaten all year by Maori (Crowe 1981, Riley1988), it is possible that pollen of these taxa adhering to parent plants would havebeen ingested if the plants were eaten after the flowering period.

Indications for the local environment

Rheinhard and Bryant (1992) suggest caution when looking for palaeoenvironmentalsignals in pollen assemblages in human coprolites because humans are highly mobileand selective. However, on the island of Kohika, the dogs were effectively maroonedfor most of the time. The close agreement of the percentages of each pollen type (exceptpuha) in the entire coprolite sample with the general pollen diagram from SquareD17 indicates that dog coprolites are potentially valuable in providing detailed evidenceof palaeoenvironmental conditions.

The paucity of tree pollen and the abundance of bracken spores suggest a defor-ested landscape. So does the presence of Anthoceros (a hornwort) spores, because thistaxon typically colonises freshly exposed soils. However, the possibility that some ofthe coprolites were deposited in winter, when forest trees and many other types ofplant would not have been releasing pollen, cannot be ruled out entirely.

Significant amounts of raupo, sedge and Myriophyllum pollen in the Kohika cop-rolites indicate that wetlands containing these taxa were within the habitat range ofthe individuals who deposited them. This was most likely the swamp directly adjacentto Kohika.

Diatoms provide further clues as to the nature of the swamp system. The assem-blages are characterised by two life-habit groups that signal a common pH level forthe local water source. First, the dominance of the freshwater tychoplanktonic taxonMelosira italica indicates alkaliphilous (or base-rich) to circumneutral waters with apH range of 7–8 (Denys 1991). Second, the dominant taxa within the epontic group,Nitzschia amphibia, Cocconeis placentula and Achnanthes hungarica, are also knownto prefer alkaliphilous waters (Denys 1991). Because these groups comprise a majorproportion of the diatom sum, the Kohika swamp was probably weakly alkaline. Asthese species also indicate algal growth on firm surfaces such as plants, sand grainsor rocks, it is likely that the water source was vegetated by aquatic plants (a notionsupported by the coinciding presence of Myriophyllum pollen) and possibly had asandy substrate. Both marine sand deriving from a former shoreline and sandy tephraare locally abundant.

SummaryIt is clear that analysis of dog coprolites can provide evidence that bears on prehistorichuman diet, site environment, chronology, season of occupation and health.

At Kohika the macrofossil evidence indicates that fish and certain gathered plantswere part of the regular diet. There is microfossil evidence for bracken fern, puha,raupo and marsh cress. It is now known that dogs in New Zealand prehistory suffered

236 Kohika

infestations of an identified round worm, and the rat was host to another specificparasite. By the time of occupation of Kohika, much of the forest had been clearedand there was lake and swamp in the immediate vicinity. Many of the coprolites be-longed to summer and some of these to mid-summer.

ReferencesAllan, H.H., 1961. Flora of New Zealand, Vol. I. Wellington: Department of Scientific and

Industrial Research.Beck, J.W. and M. Beverley-Burton, 1968. The pathology of Trichuris, Capillaria and Trichinella

Infections. Helminthological Abstracts, 37:1–26.Bellwood, P.S., 1971. Fortifications and economy in prehistoric New Zealand. Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society, 37:56–95.Bellwood, P.S., 1972. Excavations at Otakanini Pa, South Kaipara Harbour. Journal of the

Royal Society of New Zealand, 2:259–91.Best, E., 1925. Maori agriculture. Wellington: Dominion Museum Bulletin No.9.Bryant, V.M., Jr, 1974a. Pollen analysis of prehistoric human feces from Mammoth Cave, Ken-

tucky. In P. Watson (ed.), Archeology of the Mammoth Cave area. New York: AcademicPress, pp.203–9.

Bryant, V.M., Jr, 1974b. Prehistoric diet in southwest Texas: the coprolite evidence. AmericanAntiquity, 39:407–20.

Bryant, V.M., Jr, and D.L. Larson, 1968. Pollen analysis of the Devil’s Mouth Site, Val VerdeCounty, Texas. In B. Sorrow (ed.), The Devil’s Mouth Site: the third season. Austin: Papersof the Texas Archaeological Salvage Project, No.14, pp.57–70.

Bryant, V.M., Jr, and G. Williams-Dean, 1975. The coprolites of man. Scientific American,232:100–9.

Byrne, D.R., 1973. Prehistoric coprolites. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.Chandler, A.C. and C.P. Read, 1961. Introduction to parasitology. New York: John Wiley.Cochrane, J.C., L. Sagorin and M.G. Wilcocks, 1957. Capillaria hepatica infection in man.

South Africa Medical Journal, 31:751–5.Coutts, P. and M. Jurisich, 1973. Canine passengers in Maori canoes. World Archaeology, 5:2–

85.Crowe, A., 1981. A field guide to the native edible plants of New Zealand. Auckland: Collins.Denys, L., 1991. A check-list of the diatoms in the Holocene deposits of the western Belgian

coastal plain with a survey of their ecological requirements. Service Géologique de Belgique,Professional Paper 1991/2, p.246.

Eagle, A., 1978. Eagle’s 100 shrubs and climbers of New Zealand. Auckland: Collins.Faegri, K. and J. Iversen, 1989. Texbook of pollen analysis. Chichester: John Wiley.Faust, E.C., P.C. Beaver and R.C. Jung, 1968. Animal agents and vectors of human disease.

Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Foged, N., 1979. Diatoms in New Zealand, the North Island. Bibliotheca Phycologica, 47.

Vaduz: J. Cramer.Gremillion, K.J. and K.D. Sobolik, 1996. Dietary variability among prehistoric forager-

farmers of eastern North America. Current Anthropology, 37:529–39.Hall, H.J., 1978. Antelope House: a paleoscatological perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis,

University of Chicago.Horrocks, M., G.J. Irwin, M. McGlone, S. Nichol and L. Williams, 2003. Pollen, phytoliths

and diatoms in prehistoric coprolites from Kohika, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 30:13–20.

Horrocks, M., G.J. Irwin, M. Jones and D.G. Sutton, in press. Starch grains and xylem ofsweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and bracken (Pteridium esculentum) in archaeological de-posits from northern New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Kondo, R., C. Childs and I. Atkinson, 1994. Opal phytoliths of New Zealand. Lincoln:Manaaki Whenua Press.


Large, M.F. and J.E. Braggins, 1991. Spore atlas of New Zealand ferns and fern allies. NewZealand Journal of Botany (Suppl.). Wellington: SIR Publishing.

Lawlor, I., 1979. Palaeoenvironment analysis: an appraisal of the prehistoric environment ofthe Kohika Swamp Pa (N68/140), Bay of Plenty. Unpublished MA thesis, University ofAuckland.

McGill, C.A., 1989. The identity of defecators in prehistoric coprolite studies: towards a solu-tion by biochemical research. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Otago.

McGlone, M.S., 1983. Polynesian deforestation of New Zealand: a preliminary synthesis.Archaeology of Oceania, 18:1–10.

McGlone, M.S., 1988. New Zealand. In B. Huntley and T. Webb (eds), Vegetation history.Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.557–99.

Martin, P.S. and F.W. Sharrock., 1964. Pollen analysis of prehistoric human feces: a newapproach to ethnobotany. American Antiquity, 30:168–80.

Mason, R., 1976. Aquatic weeds. In J. Healy (ed.), Identification of weeds and clovers.Wellington: Editorial Services.

Matisoo-Smith, E.G., G.J. Irwin, R.M. Roberts, J.S. Allen, D. Penny and D.M. Lambert, 1998.Patterns of prehistoric human mobility in Polynesia indicated by mitochondrial DNA fromthe Pacific rat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 95:15145–50.

Moore, P.D., J.A. Webb and M.E. Collinson, 1991. Pollen analysis. London: Blackwell.Pearsall, D.M., 1989. Paleoethnobotany: a handbook of procedures. San Diego: Academic Press.Piperno, D.R., 1988. Phytolith analysis: an archaeological and geological perspective. San

Diego: Academic Press.Rheinhard, K.J., and V.M. Bryant Jr, 1992. Coprolite analysis: a biological perspective on

Archaeology. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological method and theory. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press, pp.245–88.

Riley, M., 1988. Maori vegetable cooking: traditional and modern methods. Paraparaumu: VikingSevenseas NZ.

Riskind, D.H., 1970. Pollen analysis of human coprolites from Parida Cave. In B. Alexander(ed.), Archaeological excavations at Parida Cave, Val Verde County, Texas. Austin: Papersof the Archaeological Salvage Project, No.19, pp.89–101.

Roe, N., 1969. Archaeological investigations. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.Round, F.E., R.M. Crawford and D.G. Mann, 1990. The diatom: biology and morphology of

the genera. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schoenwetter, J., 1974. Pollen analysis of prehistoric human feces from Salts Cave, Kentucky.

In P. Watson (ed.), Archeology of the Mammoth Cave area. New York: Academic Press,pp.203–9.

Skrjabin, K.I., N.P. Shikhobalova and I.V. Orlov, 1957. Trichocephalidae and Capillariidae ofanimals and man and the diseases caused by them. In K.I. Skrjabin (ed.), Essentials ofnematodology, Vol. VI. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR (translated from Russianin 1970 by A. Birran for Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem).

Smit, J.D., 1960. Capillaria hepatica infestation in a dog. Onderdestepoort Journal of VeterinaryResearch, 28:473–8.

Stapleton, A.M., 1969. The survival of organic residues after human consumption. Unpub-lished research essay, University of Otago.

Stokes, R., 1973. Capillaria hepatica in a dog. Australian Veterinary Journal, 49:109.Tauber, H., 1965. Differential pollen dispersion and the interpretation of pollen diagrams.

Geological Survey of Denmark II, Series 89.Waddell, A.H., 1969. Methyridine in the treatment of experimental Capillaria hepatica infection

in the rat. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 63:63–5.Webb, C.J., W.R. Sykes and P.J. Garnock-Jones, 1988. Flora of New Zealand, Vol. IV.

Christchurch: Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.Werner, D., 1977. The biology of diatoms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Williams, L., 1980. Kohika coprolites. Unpublished MA research essay, University of

Auckland.

238 Kohika

Williams-Dean, G. and V.M. Bryant Jr, 1975. Pollen analysis of human coprolites from Ante-lope House. The Kiva, 41:97–111.

Wilson, S.M., 1985. Phytolith analysis at Kuk, an early agricultural site in Papua New Guinea.Archaeology of Oceania, 20:90–97.

Wright, K.A., 1961. Observations on the life cycle of Capillaria hepatica (Bancroft 1893) witha description of the adult. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 38:167–82.

Yamaguti, S., 1961. Systema Helminthum, Vol.III: The Nematodes of Vertebrates, Parts 1 and2. New York: Interscience.

239

14 Kohika as a late northern Maori lake village

G.J. Irwin

The excavations at Kohika make an important contribution to our understanding oflate prehistoric Maori culture in the North Island, because of the great diversity ofevidence recovered from a wetland environment and the amount of specialist analysisdone on the material. This chapter reviews information about environment, settlementpattern, site stratigraphy, material culture, economy, household structure and sitefunction. The aim is to present an integrated picture of Kohika as a late northernMaori lake village in the Bay of Plenty.

EnvironmentKohika was conveniently located for coastal travel by canoe, and lay near the junctionof the Tarawera and Rangitaiki rivers, which were at the start of routes inland. Ithad ready access to the diverse foods of coastal and inland dunes, lakes, backswamplowlands and peat swamps, levee systems of rivers and floodplains of alluvium.Geomorphology shows that this landscape was formed over millennia by continuingprocesses of coastal progradation, land subsidence, alluvial infilling, swamp growthand the formation of shallow freshwater lakes. Sudden events included occasionaltephra showers and earthquakes, and frequent floods. The people of Kohika lived inan environment of hazards that gave no warning. There was an earthquake centredon the nearby Matata Fault while people lived at Kohika, and they abandoned thevillage following a flood. In the short span of recorded history, Mt Tarawera eruptedin 1886, European settlers were driven from the plains by the 1892 flood, and theEdgecumbe earthquake occurred in 1987.

Vegetation history shows that the pre-human Bay of Plenty lowland was denselyforested, and diverse scrub and forest grew on the levees and sand dunes of the Rangi-taiki Plains. Long before Kohika was settled, repeated Maori burning changed thenatural vegetation to scrub and fernland, and wetlands covered with raupo, reed,sedge and fern. Destruction of forest improved access to the hinterland and assistedthe spread of valued carbohydrate foods, such as bracken fern, ti and tutu. With afavourable climate, cultivation took place on fertile lowland soils, the dunes andthe fans of the rivers and streams flowing on to the plains. However, plant remainsrecovered from the archaeological site indicate continuing use of remaining forestpatches. Freshwater swamp resources, such as flax, raupo, puha, fish and water birds,were also important, and some of these were increased and made more accessible bycontinued burning. Marine resources were available on the adjacent coast, and manyof the fish species found at the site could have been caught in Te Awa o Te Atua, theestuary of the combined Tarawera and Rangitaiki rivers.

240 Kohika

Settlement patternThe distribution of archaeological sites in this part of the Bay of Plenty shows thatMaori generally preferred to live on the coast, especially near harbours, or at inlandsites with good gardening soil, defensible uplands and access to rivers. What is unusualabout Kohika is its setting. Only a small number of sites is known in the interior ofthe Rangitaiki Plains (including pa dating from the musket wars), and Kohika is theonly recorded site of its kind. Certainly, there cannot have been many others.

Site stratigraphy and ageExcavation involved unravelling natural sediments and cultural deposits. Kohika wasa remnant of the 2000 BP shoreline and had a core of dune sand. The Taupo, Kaharoaand Tarawera tephras were present, plus the Taupo sea-rafted pumice. These had beenmixed into the soil of the dune but survived intact as beds in the surrounding swamp,where they were interstratified with peats, silts and diatomaceous earth. In the peataround the site, a layer of cultural material occurred between the Kaharoa and Taraweratephras in the upper part of the deposit. This ended when a band of alluvium wascarried in by a local flood.

Initial investigations by members of the Whakatane and District Historical Societywere followed by University of Auckland excavations of Areas A–D. Area A was ontop of the mound. Areas B, C, D and the HS Area all reached the swamp edge, whichenabled close stratigraphic integration. Area B had encroached over the natural swampstratigraphy by the spread of sediment and occupation debris from around Area A.Part of Area C was located in the swamp, where people never lived, and the remainderon the mound, where it was similar to Area A. Area D was low-lying and had threesuperimposed artificial floors, with houses and other buildings on them. The floor ofa house built on the Yellow House horizon faulted during an earthquake, and thathouse was replaced immediately by another, on the White House floor. The later housewas still standing at the time of the flood. Our reconstruction for the HS Area suggestsa similar situation to Area D.

A Bayesian analysis of the radiocarbon dates shows that Kohika was probablyoccupied during the second half of the 17th century. However, geomorphologicaland archaeological data suggest a more restricted period of one to two humangenerations.

Material cultureThe comprehensive range of artefacts found, all in close association and from a restrictedperiod of time, provides a detailed picture of late Maori culture in the Bay of Plenty.This has implications for other parts of the North Island.

Wooden artefacts

These provide insights into several aspects of life. Some artefacts were finely madeand reflect social value but others were casually made for day-to-day use. The collectionof food is indicated by bird spears, digging and weeding tools, and the preparation offood by beaters and bowls. Woodworking is represented by adze and chisel handles;wedges and wood chips show that many wooden items were made on the site. Therewere many fibre-working tools, including thread reels and net gauges. Canoes, com-plete with thwarts, paddles and bailers, were the means of transport. Weapons were

Kohika as a late northern Maori lake village 241

absent, apart from javelins or darts, but palisade posts and coils of lashing vine reflectdefence. Items of status, ornamentation, religion, art and play were represented bycarved house parts, hair combs, spinning tops and a flute.

Houses and pataka

There was one elaborately carved house made of dressed planks as well as other moresimply constructed pole-and-thatch sleeping houses with minor decoration. While theprehistoric status of pataka has been uncertain, they were present at Kohika. TheNew Zealand climate and the availability of suitable trees seem to have favoured thedevelopment of well-insulated houses sometimes built of squared timbers and planks.The timbers from the site reveal the concealed methods by which superior houses wereassembled and lashed together, which helps explain gaps in the ethnographic literature.The masking of construction details by adopting techniques that resemble those usedin canoe-building may have contributed to the persistence of the traditional meetinghouse into modern times.

Woodcarving and carving styles

Carving signifies religion and world-view, as well as art. Very few prehistoric or earlycontact-period stone-tooled carvings are documented for the Bay of Plenty, but thepeople of Kohika possessed a rich and varied tradition of woodcarving. Within theassemblage, the work of at least four individual carvers can be distinguished. The dis-covery of a prehistoric house with four poupou, a poutahuhu and poutokomanawa,all carved by the one artist, is exciting. Yet, while his carving style was distinctive, itcannot be closely linked to any other known early styles from the Bay of Plenty andEast Coast, whether from Ngati Awa or further afield. This may suggest that the spe-cific tribal styles of the Bay of Plenty are a more recent development. One other carvermay have had connections with the Hauraki area.

It seems likely that the concept of carved houses was widespread in late prehistory.They may have existed at comparable settlements, although dryland archaeologicalsites are unlikely to produce the evidence. Moreover, the relative isolation of regionsand communities probably encouraged regional divergence of carving styles. Later on,the geographically variable stimulus of European contact would lead to other changes.

We are unable to tell whether any of the carved timbers from the swamp (excludingthe six by the single carver mentioned above) came from pataka, but this is possible.One piece of fretwork carving, KOH345, could be from a canoe, and a carved paddlewas found in the same (HS) area. It is also considered likely that some of the roofedstorage pits in Area A had carvings over the doorways, but the timbers from this drypart of the site did not survive.

Fibre

The waterlogged assemblage included nets and cordage, both two-plied and braided.A rope-making technique identified as ‘two-ply spiral-wrapped’ appears to be un-recorded elsewhere. Woven items included both fine twill work and wider plaiting.

Miscellaneous artefacts

A small assemblage of artefacts made of bone, tooth, pumice and pounamu providesuseful comparisons with other late sites in the Bay of Plenty and elsewhere. Kohikahad only a narrow range of forms confined to a relatively short period of time.

Obsidian

Most of the obsidian came from Mayor Island and people at Kohika had either direct

242 Kohika

access to the island or close contact with its residents. Only a very small quantity ofgrey obsidian came from Maketu and Taupo. Maketu pebbles could have been pickedup on the way to or from Mayor Island, and were found mainly in Area A, with a fewpieces in Area B. The Taupo artefacts do not seem to have been introduced to thesite as raw material, but appear to be tools discarded or lost by individuals. They weremost frequent in Area B, with smaller numbers in Areas A and D, and just a singlepiece found in the HS Area. This may indicate late prehistoric social relationshipsbetween people in the Rangitaiki Plains (specifically, the people of Area B at Kohika)and Taupo, as reported in historic times by the missionary T.S. Grace.

The distribution of obsidian in the site presents us with the further possibility thatone of the Kohika households was more involved in obsidian trade than the others. Atotal of approximately 20.5 kg of obsidian was recovered from the site: 2.63 kg fromArea A, 2.74 kg from Area B, 0.01 kg from Area C, 2.76 kg from Area D and 12.19kg from the HS Area containing the carved house. Many of the largest flakes camefrom around the carved house, and some unworked (and unweighed) blocks weresouvenired by visitors. The abundant large flakes in the HS area indicate where largeblocks of obsidian were initially worked. They may represent a cache of large flakesstored at the site, but more probably were intended for trade.

The large Kohika assemblage suggests that obsidian was reduced in a systematicmanner. While there is little evidence that flakes were subsequently shaped to produceparticular tool forms, larger flakes tended to be used more frequently, giving rise tomacroscopic edge-damage. The separate areas of the university excavations displaydifferent concentrations of flakes and debitage, suggesting that the material was workedprimarily in Areas B and D, and that a higher proportion of large flakes was used inArea A.

Weapons

The only class of portable artefacts not found at Kohika was weapons. Given the scaleof excavation and artefact recovery, it is likely that the absence of weapons was genuineand not the result of sampling error. The number of adzes found also seems anomal-ously low.

The economyThe resources of the environment provide the context for the study of diet. The wet-land conditions at Kohika allowed the survival of food remains such as gourd shell,seeds and coprolites. The waterlogged artefact assemblage provides rich evidence forfood procurement and preparation.

Faunal remains

The faunal assemblage is not remarkable except for its large sample of dogs. Mammalbones show that dogs, a whale, a seal and possibly humans were eaten, and theirbones made into tools. The preservation was generally excellent, apart from gnawingby both dogs and rats. Dogs would also have supplied teeth and skins. The bird bonesrepresent food waste, occasional artefacts and, in the case of albatross, possibly trade.

Some fifteen species of fish were identified and, while it is clear that people fishedat sea, some 80 per cent of the catch could have been taken in the river estuary. Netsand bait hooks could account for most of the fish caught, and both have been foundin the site. Eel bones were anomalously absent. Most of the fish could have been takenall year round, and the estuary would have been sheltered in winter. Some nineteen


species of shellfish found represented open coast, mudflat, sheltered soft-shore andlake environments, and the remains were fairly constant through time.

Coprolites

Various analyses of dog coprolites provide evidence for human diet, site environment,season of occupation and health. The macrofossil evidence indicates that dogs atescraps and that fish and gathered plants were part of the regular human diet. There ismicrofossil evidence for bracken fern, puha, raupo and marsh cress. It is now knownthat dogs in New Zealand prehistory suffered infestations of a roundworm, and therat was host to another parasite. There are indications that much of the forest hadbeen cleared and that there was lake and swamp in the immediate vicinity. Many ofthe coprolites belonged to summer, and some of these to mid-summer.

Household layout and compositionSome of the most striking remains were houses. Drawing the strands of other evidencetogether makes a compelling case for the existence of households, which are archaeo-logical units that clearly had a social dimension (e.g. Davidson 1984, Kirch and Green2001). One was found in Area D and fully exposed by areal stripping. Members ofthe Historical Society encountered another in their Squares 1 and 2, although this wasnot properly understood until later. The excavation of Area B intruded on part of athird one. The excavations elsewhere documented other aspects of occupation, butnot households.

The three known households were set some distance apart around the northern andeastern sides of Kohika, where the lake reached the former dune and canoes couldland. Area D was located in a small natural embayment that provided shelter for mooredand beached canoes (Fig. 4.1). In the HS Area an irregular shoreline useful for canoelanding was indicated by the excavations of Squares C1 and C12, and there were twosmall islets of relict dune in the lake adjacent to Area B. There was room for otherhouseholds on the site, although any in the southwestern area, which was swamp atthe time, could not have been approached by canoe except along meander channels.

The one activity not found in these low-lying areas was underground storage, be-cause any pits would have been flooded. Pits and bins were found in Area A, an ele-vated central part of the site, where there was also extensive cooking activity withpossible fences for shelter. No buildings were found on top of the mound, althoughthey could have existed in areas not investigated. However, no artefacts, apart fromobsidian pieces, were found in Area A, which reduces the likelihood that householdswere located there.

The household in Area D

The floor plans and timber remains of two successive pole and thatch houses withminor decoration (six items) were found in Area D, one house having been rebuiltimmediately above the other without delay (there may have been an earlier buildingas well). The excavated plans of this household are shown in Figures 4.15 and 4.16.There were floor plans and timbers from cooking shelters that stood beside the houses.Pataka were represented only by timbers: KOH231 was a ladder, KOH19 and 20 anepa tied to a flashing, KOH32 a possible epa, and KOH34–36 three rafters muchtoo short for the house floors.

Figure 14.1 is a general schematic reconstruction of the layout of Areas D and HS,drawn by R. Wallace and based on the excavated evidence. In the foreground is Area

244 Kohika

Figure

14

.1 A

sch

emat

ic v

iew

nor

thw

ards

ove

r Are

a D

acr

oss

the

lake

to th

e du

nes

and

the

sea.

In th

e le

ft fo

regr

ound

is a

reco

nstru

ctio

n of

Are

a D

dur

ing

the

Yello

w H

ouse

hor

izon

.Th

e ho

uses

, can

oes,

net

s and

rack

s on

the

right

repr

esen

t the

arte

fact

s and

bui

ldin

g tim

bers

foun

d in

the

His

toric

al S

ocie

ty A

rea.

The

pal

isad

e fo

llow

s the

topo

grap

hy a

roun

d th

e la

ke. T

hela

kesh

ore

vege

tatio

n of

raup

o, fl

ax a

nd c

abba

ge tr

ees w

ith p

atch

es o

f kah

ikat

ea a

nd k

anuk

a sc

rub

is b

ased

on

the

polle

n re

cord

. The

roof

ed p

it an

d tw

o sm

all c

over

ed b

ins i

n th

e bo

ttom

right

wer

e ac

tual

ly fo

und

in A

rea

A.


D, with the palisade running approximately north–south, and showing the YellowHouse with its back to the lakeshore and against the palisade. The house faces eastand its artificially laid sand floor extends on both sides, as well as for several metres infront. Sheltered from the lake on the southern side of the house were cooking ovensand the remains of huts. The decorated front of the house faces an open space, withno evidence for buildings, and with ritual significance as implied by ethnohistoricalliterature. (Note that the roofed pits and bins at the right of Figure 14.1 were actuallylocated in Area A, and not in D.) The actual location of the pataka in Area D is un-known and in Figure 14.1 is simply a matter of guesswork. However, its presence inthe vicinity is indicated by distinctive wooden parts. Canoes and canoe parts werefound in the area, both inside and outside the palisade, and there was most likely anentrance in the palisade.

Among the wooden artefacts various ko, spades and weeders indicate gardening,while spears show hunting. Bowls and fern-root pounders reveal food preparation.Fibre-working tools, thread reels and net gauges show that craft activities took placein the household and among the fibre items were the remains of kits, fishing nets andropes. Spinning tops and possibly darts show leisure activities and where there weretoys there were presumably children and families. Other artefacts in Area D includeda pendant made from a human tooth, three one-piece fishhooks and a blank of humanbone, a bird-bone awl, two dog-bone chisels/awls and a chip from the corner of apounamu adze.

Much obsidian-working and woodworking, very possibly including canoe-build-ing, took place on the artificial sand floors of Area D. There were a very finely madecanoe bow, numerous canoe seats, paddles, a bailer and lengths of rope. At theswampy edge of the household there were food and other organic remains. Concen-trations of dog faeces in particular places outside the palisade suggest that dogssometimes gathered or were restrained there.

Historical Society Area

Our reconstruction of the Historical Society data suggests that the carved house stoodin the vicinity of Squares 1 and 2. Many of the contents were of fine quality and thecontext implies occupants of substance and rank. Three timbers identified as beingfrom pataka came from Square 1, two from Square 2, three have no provenance andone was found in Square 4. As with Area D, the inventory of personal and domesticitems provides evidence for art, craft and leisure. Among the valuable items from thesame area as the house were a hei tiki pendant of human bone, two wooden haircombs and a possible plain wakahuia lid. Toys included spinning tops. Of the six dartsfound at Kohika, the three found here included the only barbed or carved ones(KOH120 and 121). Craft items included three fibre-working tools and a folded,finely plaited mat. Domestic items included two wooden bowls, one with a pouringspout, and a fern-root beater. Hunting tools were represented by many pieces ofbird spear, including one two metres long, that did not survive intact. Gardening toolsincluded a ko, a ko footrest, the carved top of a possible ceremonial ko, two otherdigging tools and a shaft-end knob. There was a carved pumice kumara god.

Also found in the vicinity of the carved house in Squares 1 and 2 were the largestpieces of obsidian on the site, which suggests that someone living in the house had animportant role in its acquisition and trade. The Historical Society’s notes record‘barrowloads’ of wood chips in the squares further from the house. Thus there was abasic separation of obsidian storage and working, possibly in or near the house, anda zone of woodworking nearby.

Beside the house at the lakeshore (in Squares 1 and 2) were parts of two canoes,

246 Kohika

one an unfinished bow section. Paddles were found in both of these squares, includingthe only carved example (KOH162), and various canoe fittings in Squares 0 and 2.Pointed posts were consistent with a palisade being in the vicinity, but this was notlocated.

Further away from the house, in Squares 3–5, cultural items were more scatteredand at lower density. However, they included a greenstone adze, sharpened posts anda bird spear, all from the modern agricultural drain. Also in the area was a pumicebowl with a face carved in the back, another spinning top, two fibre-working tools,a fern-root pounder and digging tools. There were two more fragments of canoe(Square 4), two paddles (Squares 3 and 4), a bailer (Square 4), various possible canoeseats and fittings (Squares 4 and 5) and miscellaneous rope.

Unprovenanced items from the HS Area were a flute, a bone toggle, a woodenchisel handle, parts of bowls or bailers and more digging sticks. No evidence for fooddebris was reported, although it was surely present.

Area B

The deposit here was quite rich but the area of excavation too small to demonstratethat a house was present, as seems likely. Timbers found included plank fragmentsand an epa or poupou (KOH26). However, three standing posts excavated in SquareB1 were very possibly the remains of another pataka. When the modern agriculturaldrain was dug, the artefacts thrown out with the spoil included wooden hair combsfound by the Historical Society. The university excavated a small greenstone chiseland pendant, and waterlogged items including a bird spear fragment, a fibre-work-ing tool, various pegs, wedges and wood chips, and pieces of rope. Artefacts of othermaterials included a dog-tooth fishhook point, two needles (of bird bone and dogbone), an awl (seal bone), a chisel (dog bone) and a sandstone file. Outside the palis-ade in the swampy lake edge were a large unfinished steering paddle (KOH161) anda small but neat stack of long kanuka posts. Coils of vine were stored in the lake tokeep them supple.

Further support for the likely presence of a household in Area B is to be found insimilarities with Area D, in terms of the patterns of faunal remains, coprolites andin the use of obsidian.

Issues of site function and locationKohika was a settlement. The rare wood and fibre artefacts found were incidental tooccupation. They were not buried as votive offerings, as in many wet sites in north-western Europe (Coles and Coles 1996), or for storage, as in a small number of casesin New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2002). We can suppose that many of the same artefactsexisted at dryland sites and it is only their survival that is unusual. The site was nota refuge hidden in the swamp for security, because its fires could have been seen atnight from the hills near Matata, and its smoke from all over the plains during theday. Nor was it a stronghold, as its light palisade would have been defence against asudden attack but not a sustained one. While it could have been difficult for strangersto navigate through the waterways of the swamp, it was very accessible by canoefor those who knew where it was. Kohika was not a temporary camp, because it hadsubstantial buildings and evidence for diverse activities. It was not a settlement oflow status, for it had fine artefacts, including carvings, and there was evidence of peopleof rank.

Kohika was part of a wider sphere of communication, as shown by wooden items


made of kauri (a canoe hull and fern-root beaters) that had probably grown north ofthe Bay of Plenty. The woodcarvings have a range of individual styles linking to dif-ferent areas of the North Island. Coastal items such as the albatross/mollymawk bonesfound at the site could have been moving inland. More obviously, the amount ofobsidian at Kohika far exceeded domestic needs. Most of it was from Mayor Island,with very small amounts from Maketu and Lake Taupo. The presence of Taupo obsidiandemonstrates movement from the interior of the North Island, and the abundant andlarge pieces from Mayor Island could have been taken inland. It would seem thattrade in obsidian was organised at the level of the household and not at the level ofthe community.

One might be misled into thinking that the people of Kohika chose to forgo moreusual kinds of site location for access to the resources of the swamp itself, but ease oftravel and, more particularly, ease of canoe transport meant that they retained accessto most of the resources of dryland sites. Cargoes of food and industrial materialscould be brought to the shores of Kohika that would have to be carried to the sites inthe hills around Matata. Canoes, paddles and fittings were found in the households ofArea D and the HS Area. An unfinished paddle measuring 2.73 metres long was foundin Area B. Such a paddle could not have been used for normal paddling, nor for polingin the shallow waters of the swamp. It was more plausibly intended for steering acanoe under sail on the coast. The fine twill plaiting which our reconstruction ofthe HS Area places in the carved house could have been sailcloth as easily as mattingor bedding.

SummaryThe general picture that emerges from the evidence is a lightly defended lake villagewith a diverse economy based on fishing, fowling, gathering shellfish and plant foods,and gardening. The community practised a wide variety of industrial, craft, social andcultural activities, and had time for leisure. Trade in coastal produce, especially ob-sidian, was conducted along the rivers leading to the central North Island. Carvingstyles suggest external connections to people from other areas.

Summer occupation is indicated but year-round occupation was entirely possible.All of the elements required for permanent settlement, both material and social,existed at Kohika. However, although this was a permanent village, questions aboutthe mobility of the village population and the permanence of occupation are notanswered by the archaeological evidence, unusually rich though it is.

The site has clear evidence of functional and social differences. The evidence tohand indicates open, possibly communal land used for storage and cooking on top ofthe mound. Closer to the lake were households, most probably family units, identifiedby a range of buildings, diverse domestic and personal equipment. Evidence for craftand industrial activities included obsidian knapping, woodworking, house-buildingand canoe-making.

The households in Areas D and HS show clear status differentiation in the qualityof the buildings, their carvings and their contents. Individuals of rangatira classoccupied the carved house and were leaders of the community. There was further intra-site differentiation. The evidence that the household in the HS Area played a dominantrole in trade in Mayor Island obsidian is plain. However, the distribution of Maketuand Taupo obsidian in the site may suggest diverse external social relationships fordifferent households. It is hoped that more detailed oral history will become availablein the future to shed more light on the identity of the residents of this village.

248 Kohika

Risks faced by the community are to be seen in the palisade defences and in thehazards of the natural environment. Evidently, the people recovered from an earth-quake but they left after a flood. The abandonment was caused not so much by theflood itself as by its consequences. Floods must have been fairly common, but on thisoccasion the lake around the shore filled with alluvium, which cut off direct canoeaccess to lake, stream and river. Without this the site was untenable.

When people left, they evidently took their weapons. It could also be a sign of po-litical stress that no one retrieved the wooden carvings, even though the carved housecollapsed gradually, and the tops of the timbers left standing were burnt off by firepassing through.

Kohika was probably occupied late in the 17th century. Its occupation endedsuddenly around AD 1700 and its remains were fortuitously preserved in wetland.People returned in prehistory to bury their dead, but then the site was virtually for-gotten until rediscovered in late 1974. The site is now regaining its mana and culturalheritage value.

Kohika demonstrates the special value of wetland archaeology. A major excavation,conservation and a series of specialist analyses of diverse materials now make a newand important contribution to our understanding of late prehistoric Maori subsist-ence, settlement and society.

ReferencesColes, J. and B. Coles, 1996. Enlarging the past: the contribution of wetland archaeology.

Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series No.11. Exeter: Short Run Press.Davidson, J., 1984. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.Kirch, P.V. and R.C. Green, 2001. Hawaiki, ancestral Polynesia: an essay in historical anthro-

pology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Phillips, C., D. Johns and H. Allen, 2002. Why did Maori bury artefacts in the wetlands of

pre-contact New Zealand? Journal of Wetland Archaeology, 2:39–60.

249

Appendix Inventory of wooden and fibre itemsfound at Kohika

R.T. Wallace and G.J. Irwin

The main inventory numbers have a KOH prefix (e.g. KOH120). Other numbers are present.Those with a WM suffix (e.g. 88/WM) denote items from the Whakatane and District HistoricalSociety excavation area. Those with an AU suffix (e.g. 223/AU) denote items from the AucklandUniversity excavations. Provenance details are shown in square brackets. Note that some WMitems have no detailed recorded provenance. All AU items with no further provenance shownare from the peat swamp in Area D, and associated with the White House and Yellow Househorizons. Note that departures from serial order in the Appendix result from reclassification ofitems by functional category, or the late addition or deletion of a small number of items.

Carved pieces of houses

KOH1 88/WM [Square 2]. Board fragment, elaborately carved on both sides, 435 by 120by 43 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.7).

KOH2 223/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Board fragment, elaborately carved on both sides,100 by 85 by 30 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.11).

KOH3 79/WM [Square 1, north]. Board fragment, elaborately carved on both sides, 172by 45 by 43 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.8).

KOH4 136/AU [D1 White House]. Long, narrow plank fragment with incised pattern vis-ible, 459 by 32 by 18 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.13).

KOH5 481/AU Slab of wood with incised line drawing on one side. Totara. (Fig. 7.10).KOH6 148/AU [D2 White House]. Weathered fragment with incised carving visible, 325 by

70 by 65 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.10).KOH7 32/WM [Square 1, north]. Human poutokomanawa figure executed in the round,

probably central house post, 11030 by 280 by 155 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.10).KOH14 214(a)/WM [Square 1]. Carved poupou base with burnt-off top, 345 by 205 by 30

mm. Totara. (Plate 7.1).KOH44 214(b)/WM [Square 5]. Carved poutahuhu base with burnt-off top, 290 by 175 by

85 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.5).KOH16 27/WM Carved poupou base with burnt-off top and chisel-ended base, 460 by 240

by 40 mm. Totara. (Plate 7.2).KOH17 29/WM Carved poupou base with burnt-off top, 425 by 280 by 35 mm. Totara.

(Plate 7.3).KOH18 25/WM Carved poupou base with burnt-off top, 365 by 220 by 37 mm. Totara.

(Plate 7.4).

House boards

KOH9 34/WM [Square 1]. Nearly complete poupou with bottom rotted off, a square notchin the upper end and a face eyelet below, 765 by 165 by 24 mm. Kauri. (Fig. 7.5).

KOH10 37/WM Poupou or poutahuhu, roughly constructed slab from the outer surface oftree dressed on sides and the inner surface, with notched top and three plain lashingholes along one side, 970 by 146 by 39 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.5).

KOH11 41/WM [Square 1]. Epa, top cut at c.50 degrees from the horizontal and with three

250 Kohika

simple lashing holes along one edge and two along the other, 930 by 115 by 25 mm.Totara. (Fig. 7.8).

KOH12 63/WM [Square 1]. Wall slab, poupou or epa with top burnt off square and twoedge eyelets opposite each other near top, 500 by 155 by 32 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.5).

KOH13 26/WM House wall slab fragment with burnt-off top, rotted-off base, a single edgeeyelet lashing hole at one edge, 560 by 225 by 40 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.5).

KOH15 214/WM [Square 3?]. Amo, 70 by 280 by 41 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.5).KOH19 461(1)/AU [Area D]. Epa fragment possibly of pataka with five neatly chiselled holes

along its edge, 562 by 76 by 20 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.14).KOH20 461(2)AU [Area D]. Pataka epa flashing strip semi-circular in cross-section. Former-

ly attached to KOH19, 555 by 15.5 by 8 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.14).KOH21 86/WM [Square 1]. Epa? fragment with two simple lashing holes, 310 by 85 by 25

mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.8).KOH22 92/WM [Square 1]. Plank in three pieces with simple lashing holes at each surviving

corner, 720 by 155 by 25 mm. Pukatea. (Fig. 7.8).KOH23 1/WM Epa or poupou split from outside of tree trunk, 1420 x 166 x 43 mm.

Pukatea. (Fig. 7.9).KOH24 2/WM Epa or poupou split from outside of tree trunk, 1033 x 140 x 27 mm.

Pukatea. (Fig. 7.9).KOH25 23/WM Epa or poupou split from outside of tree trunk with chisel end, 1827 x 226

x 60 mm. Pukatea. (Fig. 7.9).KOH26 344/AU [B3 peat below alluvium]. Epa or poupou split from outside of tree trunk

with chisel end, 1480 x 172 x 49 mm. Pukatea. (Fig. 7.9).KOH27 501/AU Epa or poupou plank split from outside of tree trunk, 440 mm long.

Pukatea.KOH28 502/AU Epa or poupou fragment split from outside of tree trunk, 675 by 295 by 100

mm. Pukatea.KOH29 33/WM [Square 1, north]. Poupou split from the outer surface of trunk with

square hole in top, 600 x 180 x 53 mm. Pukatea.

Miscellaneous house pieces

KOH30 512/AU House plank with three large and two small holes, 700 by 200 by 30 mm.Totara. (Fig. 7.14).

KOH31 524/AU Slab with ends bevelled on alternate sides, 450 by 130 by 33 mm. Totara.(Fig. 7.14).

KOH32 511/AU Epa from end of wall? Triangular board with seven holes. Pukatea. (Fig.7.14).

KOH33 463/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Plank in fragments with curved outline, 855 by 200by 35 mm. Pukatea.

Rafters

KOH34 135/AU [D2 White House]. Rafter with three face eyelets, five holes along edge,tenon joint one end, bevelled on other, 1455 by 70 by 30 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.11).

KOH35 528/AU Rafter with ten eyelet holes, tenon joint one end, bevelled end on other,1420 by 85 by 35 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.11).

KOH36 529/AU Rafter with three eyelets, tenon joint one end, other end bevelled, 1420by 70 by 35 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.11).

Maihi?

KOH37 531/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Maihi plank with L-shaped cross-section in fivefragments, 2160 mm long. Kahikatea.

KOH38 530/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Maihi plank with L-shaped cross-section (part ofKOH37), 2160 mm long. Kahikatea.

Inventory of wooden and fibre items found at Kohika 251

Battens

KOH39 139/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Short batten with one end bevelled. Totara.KOH40 50/WM [Square 2]. Plank fragment. Totara.KOH41 509/AU Short batten with three lashing holes, 310 mm long. Totara.KOH42 3/WM [Square 1, north]. Wall batten (tumatahuki) with hole in end. Totara.

(Fig. 7.7).KOH43 4/WM [Square 1]. Wall batten (tumatahuki) with hole in end. Totara. (Fig. 7.7).KOH45 5/WM [Square 1]. Wall batten (tumatahuki) with hole in end. Totara. (Fig. 7.7).KOH46 6/WM [Square 1, north]. Wall batten (tumatahuki) with hole in end. Totara.

(Fig. 7.7).KOH47 7/WM [Square 1, north]. Wall batten (tumatahuki) with hole in end. Totara.





(Fig. 7.7).KOH52 62/WM Wall batten with a hole in both ends (or canoe seat?). Pukatea. (Fig. 7.7).

Doors and windows

KOH53 89/WM Pare fragment very elaborately carved, 265 by 65 by 25 mm. Totara. (Plate7.6).

KOH54 273/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Window facing board (korupe) with four holes andzigzag upper margin, 350 by 95 by 25 mm. Pukatea. (Fig. 7.10).

KOH55 35/WM [Square 1, north]. Pare with zigzag upper margin, unfinished, 575 by 135by 20 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.6).

KOH56 515/AU Window sill or lintel, U-shaped in cross-section, 398 mm long. Totara.(Fig. 7.10).

KOH57 31/WM Door sill with deep U-shaped hollow along its length, 108 by 64 mm. Totara.(Fig. 7.6).

KOH58 43/WM [Square 1]. Door jamb with two large cut square holes and eyelet holesalong one edge, 535 by 1230 by 20 mm. Totara. (Fig. 7.6).

Slats

KOH59 61/WM [Square 1]. Wooden slat with slight taper, 1545 by 40 by 10 mm. Kahikatea.KOH60 319/AU [D4 White House]. Slat bevelled at each end, 860 by 50 by 10 mm. Rimu.

Plank fragments

KOH61 513/AU Plank fragment, 410 by 110 by 40 mm. Totara.KOH62 538/AU [D13 Layer 2]. Plank fragment, 410 by 38 by 8 mm. Kauri.KOH63 AU [B3 sump]. Plank fragment, 90 by 35 mm.KOH64 263/AU [B4 peat below alluvium]. Plank fragment. Conifer spp.KOH65 100/WM Plank fragment. Pukatea.KOH66 535/AU Plank fragment, 370 by 28 by 18 mm. Totara.KOH67 534/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Plank fragment, 390 by 120 by 15 mm. Totara.KOH68 537/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Plank fragment, 440 by 50 by 8 mm. Totara.KOH69 598/AU Plank fragment, 535 by 60 by 23 mm. Totara.KOH70 527/AU Plank fragment with one lashing hole, 265 by 100 by 30 mm. Pukatea.KOH71 103/WM Corner of large plank with three lashing holes. Totara. (Fig. 7.8.).KOH72 82/WM [Square 4]. Plank fragment with simple lashing hole. Kahikatea. (Fig. 7.8).KOH73 93/WM Board fragment with three holes. Pukatea. (Fig. 7.8).KOH74 123/WM Plank fragment with one lashing hole. Totara.

252 Kohika

KOH75 605/AU Plank fragment with two lashing holes, 328 by 28 by 17 mm. Totara.KOH76 419/AU See entry under ‘Miscellaneous pieces’, below.KOH77 533/AU Plank fragment, 185 by 130 by 12 mm. Totara.KOH78 506/AU Plank fragment, 365 by 60 by 20 mm. Totara.KOH79 385/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Plank fragment. Totara.KOH80 492/AU [B3 sump]. Plank fragment.KOH81 429/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Plank fragment. Pukatea.KOH82 499/AU Plank fragment, 105 by 10 by 40 mm. Pukatea.KOH83 500/AU Plank fragment, 300 mm long. Pukatea.KOH84 13/WM Plank fragment, triangular shaped. Totara.KOH85 505/AU Plank fragment, 395 by 50 by 20 mm. Totara.KOH86 101/WM Plank, butt end. Pukatea.KOH87 508/AU Plank fragment, 380 by 35 by 25 mm. Totara.KOH88 510/AU Plank fragment, 130 by 45 by 25 mm. Matai.KOH89 514/AU Plank Fragment, 880 by 45 by 30 mm. Totara.KOH90 606/AU Palisade post butt, sawn off by WM. Pukatea.KOH349 AU/599 Plank fragment, 85 mm long, 30 mm thick. Totara.

Miscellaneous pieces

KOH91 108/WM Y-shaped stick. Manuka.KOH92 Carefully made wedge for adze lashing? Totara. (Fig. 6.26).KOH93 Carefully made item. Totara. (Fig. 6.26).KOH94 79/WM [Square 1, north]. Carefully made item. Totara. (Fig. 6.26).KOH95 375(2)/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Carefully made item. Totara. (Fig. 6.26).KOH76 419/AU [D6 Yellow House]. Fragment. (Fig. 6.26).KOH96 138/AU [D2 Yellow House]. Chopping block. Kanuka.

Gourd shell

KOH97 443/AU [B4 peat below alluvium]. Gourd.KOH98 372/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Gourd.KOH99 WM Glued fragment of gourd.KOH100 WM Two gourd fragments.

Combs (heru)

KOH101 451/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).KOH102 452/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).KOH103 453/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).KOH104 454/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).KOH105 455/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).KOH106 456/AU Hair comb. Rimu. (Fig. 6.14).

Flute

KOH107 130/WM Flute (putorino) fragment, front end of one side. Rimu. (Fig. 6.19).

Wakahuia lid

KOH108 42/WM [Square 2]. Wakahuia lid? 315 by 111 by 13 mm. Totara.

Adze and chisel handles

KOH109 445/AU Adze handle rough-out, 580 mm long, 25 mm in diameter. Rimu. (Fig.6.17).

KOH110 112/WM Chisel handle, 121 by 17 mm, socket 25 mm long by 11 mm wide.Kanuka. (Fig. 6.18).

KOH111 457/AU Chisel socket for composite haft, 98 by 20 by 9 mm. Puriri. (Fig. 6.18).


Spinning tops (potaka)

KOH112 120/WM Spinning top, 94 by 47 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.16).KOH113 121/WM Spinning top, 118 by 38 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).KOH114 105/WM Spinning top, 89 by 43 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).KOH115 550/AU Spinning top, 65 by 31 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).KOH116 119/WM Spinning top. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).KOH117 549/AU [D13]. Spinning top, 72 by 25 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).KOH118 551/WM Spinning top, 59 by 24 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.16).

Javelins/darts

KOH119 45/WM [Square 1, north]. Complete dart, 1160 by 24 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.15).KOH120 116/WM [Square 1, north]. Barbed dart point, 259 by 20 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.15).KOH121 76/WM [Square 1]. Dart front end, tip missing, 513 by 28 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.15).KOH122 261/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Dart front end, tip missing, 368 mm long.

Manuka.(Fig. 6.15).KOH123 53/WM [Drain ext.]. Front end of dart, tip missing, 385 by 29 mm. Manuka. (Fig.

6.15).KOH124 597/AU Most of a dart, tip and base missing, 794 by 20 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.15).

Bird spears

KOH125 564/AU Bird spear section, 680 mm long, 17 to 12.5 mm in diameter. Kanuka.(Plate 6.1).

KOH126 496/AU [D1]. Bird spear section, 895 mm long, 18 mm thick, tapering rapidly toblunt point. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).

KOH127 565/AU Bird spear section, 1390 mm long, 17 to 14 mm wide. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH128 566/AU Bird spear section, end of spear 510 mm long, 14 mm wide tapering

smoothly to point. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH129 567/AU Bird spear section, 1175 mm long, 18 mm thick. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH130 569/AU Bird spear section, 375 mm long, 16 mm thick. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH131 278/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Bird spear section, 620 mm long, 18 mm

thick. Kanuka (Plate 6.1).KOH132 291/AU [D2 White House]. Bird spear section, 595 mm long, 10–16 mm thick.

Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH133 614/AU Bird spear section, 137 mm long, 17 mm thick. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH134 583/AU Bird spear section, 820 mm long, 14 mm thick. Kanuka. (Plate 6.1).KOH135 568/AU Bird spear section, 285 mm long, 19–15 mm thick. Maire. (Plate 6.1).KOH136 68/WM [Square 0]. Bird spear section, tapering to lap joint, 730 mm long, 18.5

mm wide. Rimu (mapara). (Plate 6.1).KOH137 540/AU [B3 peat above alluvium]. Bird spear section, 265 mm long, 16–9 mm

wide tapering to point. Rimu (mapara). (Plate 6.1).KOH138 69/WM [Square 0]. Bird spear section, 700 mm long, 10–16 mm thick. Rimu

(mapara). (Plate 6.1).KOH139 595/AU Barbed bird spear point, 167 by 7 by 3 mm. Tree-fern trunk wood. (Figure

6.1).

Canoe hull pieces

KOH140 19/WM, 20/WM, 21/WM and 22/WM [Square 2]. Canoe bow or stern piece infive pieces, 977 by 440 by 282 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.11).

KOH141 212/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Detachable canoe bow or stern piece, 562 by305 by 200 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.11).

KOH142 24/WM [Square 4, north]. Hull fragment, 710 by 175 by 120 mm. Totara. (Fig.6.11).

KOH143 64/WM Canoe gunwale fragment, 325 by 111 by 38 mm. Kauri. (Fig. 6.11).KOH144 78/WM Canoe gunwale fragment, 391 by 108 by 30 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.11).KOH335 310/AU Canoe gunwale fragment, 150 by 43 by 27 mm. Totara.

254 Kohika

Canoe fittings

KOH345 WM Fragment from elaborate carving, possibly broken from spiral fretwork.Totara. (Plate 7.9).

KOH145 40/WM [Square 2]. and 49/WM Canoe bulkhead, 12 mm thick plank with D-shaped outline and six lashing holes. Rata or pohutukawa. (Fig. 6.12).

KOH146 96/WM [Square 5]. Canoe seat, fragment, 420 by 70 by 30 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.12).KOH147 593/AU Canoe seat, 980 by 55 mm diameter. Manuka.KOH148 594/AU Canoe seat, 780 by 60 mm diameter. Tawa.KOH149 54/WM [Square 0]. Canoe seat. Ramarama. (Fig. 6.12).KOH150 97/WM [Square 4]. Canoe seat. Ramarama. (Fig. 6.12).KOH151 594/AU Canoe seat, 785 by 70 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.12).KOH152 593/AU Canoe seat, 975 by 55 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.12).KOH153 590/AU Canoe seat fragment, 200 by 25 mm. Coprosma spp. (Fig. 6.12).KOH154 587/AU Canoe seat fragment, 190 by 30 mm. Coprosma spp. (Fig. 6.12).KOH155 591/AU Canoe seat fragment, 230 by 25 mm. Vine rata. (Fig. 6.12).KOH156 592/AU Canoe seat fragment, 810 by 18 mm. Vine rata.KOH157 124/AU Canoe seat fragment. Manuka. (Fig. 6.12).KOH158 588/AU Canoe seat fragment, 435 by 30 mm. Fivefinger. (Fig. 4.12).KOH159 586/AU Canoe seat fragment, 307 by 45 mm. Taraire. (Fig. 6.12).KOH160 589/AU Canoe seat fragment, 858 by 28 mm. Mahoe.

Paddles

KOH161 288/AU, 289/AU, 289/AU, 291/AU and 619/AU [Square B3 peat below alluvium].The parts of a rough-out of a large steering paddle, 2730 by 150 by 50 mm. Tawa.(Fig. 6.9).

KOH162 38/WM [Square 1], 65/WM [Square 1]. Four parts of a nearly complete canoe paddlewith decorative carving on handle base, 1670 by 306 by 40 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).

KOH163 316/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Paddle with simple double-spiral pattern incised onhandle top, 95 by 26 by 26 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).

KOH164 57/WM [Square 3]. Paddle handle, 820 by 41 by 32 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).KOH165 554/AU Paddle handle, 745 by 25 by 26 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).KOH166 556/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Paddle blade fragment, 629 by 78 by 32 mm to-

gether with 389/AU also a paddle blade fragment, 479 by 62 by 12 mm. Tawa.(Fig. 6.10).

KOH167 555/AU Paddle blade, 575 by 88 by 19 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).KOH168 157/AU Paddle blade fragment, 290 by 68 by 5 mm. Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).KOH169 486/AU(a) [D15]. Paddle tip, 184 long by 94 wide by 8 mm thick. Tawa. (Fig.

6.10).KOH170 486/AU(b) [D15]. Fragment of paddle blade and probably part of 486/AU(a),

75 by 56 by 10 mm. Tawa.KOH171 176/AU [C1 peat below alluvium]. Paddle blade fragment, 434 by 25 by 8 mm.

Tawa (Fig. 6.10).KOH172 557/AU and 618/AU Paddle blade fragment in four pieces, 370 by 55 by 8 mm.

Tawa. (Fig. 6.10).

Bowls and bailers

KOH174 613/AU Bailer with projecting handle, knob with carved human face, damaged.Totara. (Fig. 6.13, Plate 7.14).

KOH175 83/WM [Square 1, north]. Narrow bowl, complete with spout. 482 by 80 by 38mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.8).

KOH176 80/WM [Square 1, north]. Half a bowl, 437 by 173 by 65 mm with 10 mm thickwalls, oval. Totara. (Fig. 6.8).

KOH177 107/WM Bailer rim fragment, 341 by 53 by 10 mm. Totara.KOH178 74/WM Bowl fragment, 227 by 101 by 55 mm; side wall 10 mm thick, end wall

up to 55 mm, burnt. Matai. (Fig. 6.13).


KOH179 98/WM [Square 4]. Bailer scoop fragment, 285 by 51 by 41 mm; 10 mm thickside walls, end wall 35 mm thick. Totara. (Fig. 6.13)

KOH180 84/WM Rim fragment indicating the original bowl was c.465 by 58 by 20 mmwith 5–10 mm thick walls. Totara. (Fig. 6.8).

KOH181 109/WM Bowl fragment, 398 by 36 by 17 mm with 10 mm walls. Totara. (Fig.6.8).

KOH182 94/WM Bowl fragment, canoe shaped, 73 by 59 mm, with walls 10–20 mmthick. Matai.

Fern-root beaters (patu aruhe)

KOH183 90/WM [drain]. Complete beater, 235 by 42 by 40 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH184 353/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Complete, worn beater, 289 by 52 by 42 mm.

Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH185 154/AU and 315/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Two pieces found separately from

nearly complete beater, 287 by 65 by 41 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH186 78/WM (note: 78/WM is recorded twice). Complete beater, 341 by 52 by 32 mm.

Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH187 544/AU Beater with broken blade, 225 by 41 by 24 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH188 489/AU Complete beater, 297 by 40 by 30 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH189 279/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Beater fragment, 221 by 45 by 25 mm. Maire. (Fig.

6.7).KOH190 488/AU Damaged beater, 101 by 43 by 27 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH191 472/AU Damaged beater, 90 by 38 by 23m. Maire. (Fig. 6.7).KOH192 545/AU Complete beater, 333 by 49 by 43 mm. Kanuka. (Fig. 6.7).KOH193 155/AU Complete beater, 243 by 35 by 35 mm. Rata. (Fig. 6.7).KOH194 81/WM [Square 3]. Complete beater, 214 by 55 by 57 mm. Kauri. (Fig. 6.7).KOH195 546/AU Weathered complete beater, 268 by 60 by 50 mm. Kauri. (Fig. 6.7).KOH196 547/AU Weathered beater, 200 by 67 by 47 mm. Kauri. (Fig. 6.7).KOH197 548/AU Fragment of beater blade. Kauri. (Fig. 6.7).

Ko

KOH8 77/WM [Square 1, north]. Carving of three-fingered hand from top of ceremonialko. Totara. (Fig.6.5)

KOH198 580/AU Ko, 2485 by 60 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH199 578/AU Ko, 2340 by 65 mm. Kanuka.(Fig. 6.2).KOH200 579/AU Ko, 1889 by 65 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.2).KOH201 576/AU Ko, 1652 by 35 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH202 498/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Ko, 1620 x 40 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH203 60/WM [Square 1] Ko top, 1580 by 23 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH204 582/AU Ko top, 585 by 35 mm, burnt. Kanuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH205 571/AU Double-ended ko, 1342 by 35 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH206 572/AU Ko tip, 372 by 38 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH207 573/AU Ko tip, 670 by 27 mm. Kanuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH208 577/AU Ko tip, 860 by 30 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).KOH209 615/AU Ko tip, 545 by 35 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.2).

Other digging tools

KOH211 91/WM [Square 1]. Teka (ko foot-rest). Mahoe. (Fig. 6.2).KOH212 581/AU Ketu blade, 460 by 75 by 10 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.3).KOH213 39/WM [Square 1, north]. Spatulate ko, 1817 mm long. Manuka. (Fig. 6.3).KOH214 55/WM Composite digging tool handle, 998 by 27 mm. Pohutukawa or rata. (Fig.

6.3).KOH215 617/AU Composite digging tool shaft, 780 by 38 mm. Mahoe. (Fig. 6.3).KOH216 575/AU Composite digging tool shaft (?), 670 by 37 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.3).KOH339 575/AU Composite digging tool shaft (?), 1020 by 30 mm. Manuka.(Fig. 6.3).

256 Kohika

KOH217 596/AU Composite digging blade, 509 by 102 by 21 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.4).KOH218 561/AU Composite digging blade, 306 by 91 by 18 mm. Pohutukawa or rata.

(Fig. 6.4).KOH219 560/AU Composite digging blade, 251 by 57 by 20 mm. Pohutukawa or rata.

(Fig. 6.4).KOH220 559/AU Composite digging blade, 194 by 55 by 15 mm. Pohutukawa or rata.

(Fig. 6.4).KOH221 73/WM Composite digging blade, 224 by 50 by 17 mm. Rimu (mapara). (Fig. 6.4).KOH222 478/AU Composite digging blade, 170 by 45 by 16 mm. Rimu (mapara). (Fig. 6.4).KOH223 292/AU [D1 White House]. Composite digging blade, 189 by 41 mm by 17 mm.

Rimu (mapara). (Fig. 6.4).KOH224 158AU–458/AU Composite blade rough-out, 553 by 78 by 22 mm. Maire. (Fig.

6.4).KOH355 Edge split off detachable digging tool blade (?), 200 by 25 mm by 15 mm. Rata

or pohutukawa. (Fig. 6.4).

Shaft end knobs

KOH225 117/WM [Square 1, north]. Broken top of shaft, 304 by 32 by 27 mm with plainterminal knob. Matai. (Fig. 6.6).

KOH226 620/AU Broken top of shaft with plain terminal knob, 110 by 35 mm. Matai. (Fig.6.6).

KOH227 469/AU Broken top of shaft with phallic knob, 248 by 35 by 30 mm. Rata orpohutukawa. (Fig. 6.6).

KOH228 570/AU Broken top of shaft with flared knob, 195 mm by 30 mm. Kanuka.(Fig. 6.6).

KOH229 584/AU Burnt top of shaft with plain knob, 259 by 31 mm. Kanuka. (Fig. 6.6).KOH230 585/AU Broken top of shaft rough-out, 353 by 46 mm. Kanuka. (Fig. 6.6).KOH347 Knob from end of shaft. (Fig. 6.6).

Ladder

KOH231 303/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Ladder with four steps, trunk-wood, 1205 by 100mm. Mahoe. (Fig. 6.23).

Wedges/pegs

KOH232 623/AU Wood-splitting wedge, 233 by 51 by 36 mm. Maire. (Fig. 6.24).KOH233 621/AU Casually made wood-splitting wedge, 182 by 66 by 27 mm. Totara.

(Fig. 6.24).KOH234 622/AU Casually made wood-splitting wedge, 218 by 44 by 45 mm. Totara.

(Fig. 6.24).KOH235 283/AU [B4 peat below alluvium]. Wood-splitting wedge, 150 by 31 by 26 mm.

Totara. (Fig. 6.24).KOH236 101/WM Wood-splitting wedge or peg, 210 by 28 by 27 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.25).KOH237 156/AU Wood-splitting wedge or peg, 222 by 41 mm. Mahoe (Fig. 6.25).KOH238 624/AU Wood-splitting wedge or peg, 226 by 39 mm. Rata. (Fig. 6.25).KOH336 310/AU(a) Wood-splitting wedge (?), 210 by 35 by 27 mm. Totara (Fig. 6.24).KOH337 310/AU(b) Wood-splitting wedge (?), 118 by 40 by 22 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.24).KOH343 188/AU [B1 brown silt shown in Fig. 4.6]. Peg, 229 by 29 by 20 mm. Totara

(Fig. 6.25).KOH249 563/AU Peg, 213 by 23 by 20 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.25).KOH348 Peg, 20 by 90 mm. Manuka. (Fig. 6.25).

Thread reels

KOH239 482/AU(a) Flat strip with zigzag outline. Totara. (Fig. 6.21).KOH240 482/AU(b) Flat strip with zigzag outline. Totara. (Fig. 6.21).


Net gauges

KOH241 636/AU Net gauge (?), 131 by 35 by 5 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.20).KOH243 480/AU Net gauge (?). Totara. (Fig. 6.20).

Bevelled strips

KOH242 401/AU [D7 White House]. Eight strips bevelled on one face, 16 by 3–4 mm and25–150 mm long. Totara.

Fibre-working tools

KOH244 192/AU [C12 lower peat]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui), 219 by 45 by 13.5 mm.Totara. (Fig. 6.22).

KOH245 542/AU [D10]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Totara. (Fig. 6.22).KOH246 562/AU Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Totara. (Fig. 6.22).KOH247 231/AU [B2 spoil from drain]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui), 155 by 15 by 11 mm.

Totara. (Fig. 6.22).KOH248 189/AU [C12 lower peat]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui), 15 by 13.5 by 7 mm. Totara.

(Fig. 6.22).KOH250 538/AU Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Totara. (Fig. 6.22).KOH251 232/AU [C12 lower peat]. Marlin spike, 115 by 27 mm. Totara. (Fig. 6.22).KOH252 132/WM [drain]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH253 131/WM [Square 1, north]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH254 541/AU Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH255 133/WM [Square 1, north]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH256 113/WM [drain]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH257 129/WM [Square 1, north]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH258 412/AU [D6 Yellow House]. Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH259 291/AU Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka. (Fig. 6.22).KOH260 539/AU Pointed weaving tool (kaui). Manuka.KOH261 479/AU Finely made kaui. Totara (Fig. 6.22).KOH338 310/AU Weaving tool (?), 52 by 8 mm. Manuka (Fig. 6.22).

Posts, stakes and pointed sticks

KOH262 11/WM Stake adzed to point. 1360 by 80 by 40 mm. Matai.KOH263 634/AU Pointed stick.KOH264 275/AU [D1]. Post tip, broken off, 670 mm long.KOH265 276/AU [D1]. Post tip, broken off, 1240 mm long.KOH266 Post tip, broken off, 950 mm long.KOH267 370/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Post tip, broken off, 465 mm long.KOH268 52/WM [Square 1]. Sharpened stick. Mahoe.KOH269 627/AU Sharpened stick. Manuka.KOH270 347/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Stake.

Adzed fragments

KOH271 342/AU [D2 Bright Yellow floor]. Wood, adze marked.KOH272 601/AU Fragment of adzed timber, 775 by 95 by 40 mm.KOH273 602/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Fragment of adzed timber, 460 by 75 by 70 mm.KOH274 603/AU Fragment of adzed timber, 710 by 140 by 110 mm.KOH275 604/AU Fragment of adzed timber.KOH276 15/WM [Square 1, north]. Small flat stick.KOH277 30/WM Adzed wood chunk.KOH278 170/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Adzed log.KOH279 Adzed stick.KOH280 127/AU Adzed chunk.KOH281 494/AU [D2 yellow House]. Adzed stem.KOH282 633/AU Adzed stick.

258 Kohika

Coils of vine

KOH283 637/AU [D12]. Two coils of lashing vine.KOH284 220/AU [D2 sump]. Coil of vine.KOH285 229/AU [B1 brown silt shown in Fig. 4.6]. Coil of vine.KOH286 230/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH287 247/AU [B1 brown silt shown in Fig. 4.6]. Coil of vine.KOH288 266/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH289 324/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH290 328/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH291 371/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH292 381/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coils of vine.KOH293 208/AU [D2 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.KOH294 324/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Coil of vine.

Fibre artefacts

KOH295 AU [B3 peat below alluvium]. Rope sections.KOH296 AU [D12 Yellow House]. Rope sections.KOH297 490/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Rope and netting.KOH298 AU [D2 Yellow House]. Rope, various.KOH299 AU [D1 Yellow House]. Rope, various.KOH300 AU [D2 Yellow House]. Rope, various.KOH301 AU [D2 Yellow house]. Woven material, kit or net.KOH302 WM Rope fragments.KOH303 WM Rope and matting fragments.KOH304 WM Fine matting.KOH305 WM Fine matting.KOH306 WM Fine matting.KOH307 WM Rope and matting.KOH340 WM Rope, two plaited pieces.KOH341 WM Rope, two-ply twist.

Wood chips

KOH308 99/WM Wood chip.KOH309 310/AU [D1 Bright Yellow floor]. Wood chip.KOH311 149/AU [D2]. Wood chip.KOH312 188/AU [B1 brown silt in Fig. 4.6]. Wood chips, burnt.KOH313 226/AU [C12 lower peat]. Wood chips.KOH314 394/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Wood chip.KOH315 118/WM Bag of wood scraps.KOH316 396/AU [D7]. Wood chip.KOH317 151/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood splinter.KOH318 135/AU [D2 White House]. Wood chip. Totara.KOH319 352/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chip.KOH320 372/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chips.KOH321 287/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Worked wood.KOH322 160/AU [D2 Yellow House]. Bag of wood chips.KOH323 397/AU [D7]. Wood chips.KOH324 321/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chips.KOH325 388/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Wood chip.KOH326 361/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chips.KOH327 365/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chips.KOH328 122/WM Wood chips.KOH329 95/WM Wood chip.KOH330 420/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Wood chip.KOH331 401/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Wood chip.


KOH332 319/AU [B4 peat below alluvium]. Wood chip.KOH333 161/AU [D2 Yellow House]. Wood splinter.KOH334 259/AU [C1 upper peat]. Wood chip.KOH346 87/WM and 150/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Nine chopped-off pieces of manuka.KOH351 AU [B3 sump]. Four wood chips with one side adzed.KOH352 293/AU [D1 sump]. Wood chip with one side adzed and other flake scars.KOH353 296/AU [D1 Yellow House]. Wood chip with one side adzed and other flake scar.KOH354 302/AU [D7 Yellow House]. Wood chip with one end adzed, the other smashed off.

260

Index

adzed fragments, 118adzes

handles, 110–1pounamu, 74, 165, 166, 167

adzing technology, 118–9albatrosses, 161, 203, 204alluvium, 16, 17, 18, 29, 31, 37, 38, 41, 46,

51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63, 76, 239, 248amo, 122, 126, 131architecture, Maori, 122, 123–8artefacts, 46, 69, 71, 72, 77. See also

obsidian artefacts; wooden artefacts; andspecific artefactscurated, 177expedient, 177manufacture, 119–20

arts, 120Auckland Museum, 84, 98–9, 107, 109, 111,

127, 135, 144, 146Awaiti Paku Stream, 14Awaiti Stream, 1, 14awls, 164, 167

bailers, 69, 104, 146banded rail, 203, 204Banks Peninsula, 149barracouta, 206–7, 209battens, 126, 135–6, 140Bay of Plenty, 4, 6, 163, 204, 240. See also

specific placenames and site namescanoe paddle style, 100carving styles, 146, 147, 241cyclonic weather systems, 55earliest ages of archaeological sites, 40political/social relations with central

North Island, 1, 3, 175, 194, 242, 247timing of permanent Maori settlement,

42–3vegetation, 20–44, 239

Bayesian calibration, 78–82, 240beaters, fern-root, 69, 84, 92, 94–6Ben Lomond, Taupo, obsidian source, 171,

172, 173, 174–5, 176, 193–4, 242, 247

bevelled strips, 114bins, 1, 49, 160, 243, 245bird bone, 69, 161, 164, 203–4bird spears, 69, 74, 85–7bone, 54, 69

bird, 69, 161, 164, 203–4dog, 30, 164, 167, 198, 200–2, 203fish, 55, 69, 205–210human, 160, 162, 163, 198, 199, 203seal, 164, 198, 199–200, 203whale, 198, 199, 203

bone artefactsawls/chisels, 164, 167fishhooks, 163, 167needle, 164, 167pendants, 160, 161, 162toggle, 161, 167

bowls, 96, 97, 119bracken, 19, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39,

40, 42, 55, 69, 70, 78, 235, 239as food, 217, 223, 229, 232, 233, 234

braided cordage (whiri), 149, 152–4, 158Bright Yellow floor, 63–4, 68–9, 78, 122, 123

faunal remains, 199, 202, 205, 206, 210,212, 213, 214

broadleaf woods, 96, 102. See also specificwoods

buildings, 119, 122–48. See also houses;pataka

burials, 46, 47, 50, 51, 74, 77, 167, 198, 248

cabbage trees, 19, 22, 40, 60, 244Cambridge University, Oldman Collection,

100canoe fittings, 102–3canoe hull pieces, 66, 100–2, 145canoe paddles, 69, 74, 96–100, 247

carvings, 145–146canoes, 46, 66, 69, 74, 127, 130, 240, 245–

6, 247carvings from, 145construction, 119, 141–2

Canterbury Museum, 146, 150

Index 261

capillaria hepatica, 228–9carvings. See woodcarvingscharcoal, 21, 29, 24, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39–

40, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 67, 69, 70, 71,74, 77in coprolites, 223–4, 229, 234

Chartwell, Hamilton, 127chisels

bone, 164, 167handles, 110–1pounamu, 46, 53, 164, 166, 167

Classic Maori culture, 77, 120, 203climate, 18coastal progradation, 12, 37combs. See hair combsconservation techniques, wooden artefacts,

61, 83–4Cook, James, 42, 100, 105, 146, 160cooking structures, 1, 46, 50, 60, 65, 77,

136, 141, 243, 245cooking stones, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 65,

65, 69, 70, 71, 74Cooks Beach, 171, 174coprolites, 57, 69, 200, 209, 217–38, 243

age of, 233diatom analysis, 232macroscopic analysis, 218–25palaeoenvironmental indications, 235parasite eggs in, 226–9, 243phytolith analysis, 217, 218, 229, 231–2,

233, 234pollen analysis, 217, 218, 229, 230, 233–4seasonality, 234–5starch and xylem analysis, 232variation, 225, 232–3

cordage, 69, 158–9single ‘spiral-wrapped’, 149, 150three-ply braids, 152–4, 158‘two-ply spiral-wrapped’, 149, 150–2,

158–9Coromandel Peninsula, 94, 102, 146, 174curated technology, 177

darts, 108–9defence, 120, 240–1, 248deforestation, 40–1, 42, 233diatom analysis of coprolites, 217, 232, 235diatomaceous earth, 16, 17, 18, 22, 46, 54,

55, 59, 64, 65, 249diet, 92, 217, 222, 228, 233–4, 242, 243. See

also food acquisition and preparationdigging tools, 87–92dogs

bone, 30, 164, 167, 198, 200–2, 203coprolites, 57, 69, 200, 209, 217–38, 243

door jamb, 135door sills, 126, 134–5doors, 126, 138dunes, 13, 16, 17–8, 37, 42, 45, 46, 47, 51,

53, 56, 57, 63, 64, 71, 76, 92

earthquakes, 11–2, 18, 64–5, 66–7, 68, 239,248

East Coast, 42, 100, 146, 147, 241Edgecumbe, 38Edgecumbe earthquake, 11, 64, 239eel, 206epa, 125, 130, 135, 136, 140expedient technology, 177

Fanal Island, 171faulting, 11–2, 64–5, 76faunal remains, 198–216, 242–3. See also

birds; fish bones and scales; mammals;shellfish

Fermah Rd, 38fern root, 92, 217, 232, 233, 234fern-root beaters, 69, 84, 92, 94–6fibrework, 149–59, 241fibre-working tools, 112–3, 120, 240, 245file, sandstone, 166, 167Fiordland, 149fire, impact of, 38–41fire-pits, 50, 59firescoops, 50, 65, 77fish bones and scales, 55, 69, 205–210

in coprolites, 218, 219–23fishhooks, 163, 167fishing, 208–10, 242flax (harakeke), 19, 29, 30, 40, 41, 148, 150,

158, 239, 244. See also cordage; netting;plaiting

floods, 29, 31, 38, 41, 55, 239during occupation of Kohika, 1, 18, 46,

51, 54, 55–6, 57, 59, 63, 65, 74, 76,239, 248

floors, artificial, 46, 51, 53, 60, 63–4, 71.See also Bright Yellow floor; White Househorizon; Yellow House horizon

flute, 111, 146food acquisition and preparation, 65, 77,

119, 160, 166, 177, 240, 245. See alsocooking structures; diet

gardening, 18, 40, 42, 47, 59, 74, 92, 177,239, 245

geomorphologyKohika, 46, 239Rangitaiki Plains, 11–19

gourd shell, 58–9, 69, 74, 242

262 Kohika

Great Barrier Island, 171–2, 174, 176, 196greenstone. See pounamu

Hahei, 171, 196hair combs, 46, 55, 105–8, 167

manufacturing method, 108hangi. See cooking structuresharakeke (flax), 19, 29, 30, 40, 41, 148, 150,

158, 239, 244. See also cordage; netting;plaiting

Haulashore Island, 203Hauraki area, 144, 146, 147, 149, 241Hawai Bay, 23. See also Tunapahore A;

Tunapahore BHawkes Bay, 42hei tiki, 160, 161, 162, 167heke (rafters), 125–6, 138–40heke ripi, 126, 138heru (hair combs), 46, 55, 105–8, 167

manufacturing method, 108Holdens Bay, 38hotu, 87, 89, 92Houhora, 196households, 128, 149, 160, 167, 247

layout and composition, 243–6houses (whare), 1, 50, 51, 62, 63–4, 65–8,

122–3, 128–40, 241, 243–6. See alsoBright Yellow floor; White Househorizon; Yellow House horizoncarved house (whare whakairo), 1, 74,

122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 134, 137,141, 245, 247, 248

construction methods, 77, 124–6, 141–2,243

earliest known NZ carved house, 1, 74human bone, 198, 199, 203hutu, 30, 31, 38

jack mackerel, 206, 207, 208, 209–10javelins, 108–9Jessop, P., 6, 9, 46john dory, 206, 207

Kaharoa eruption, 11, 14, 17, 19, 30, 39, 40,42, 51

Kaharoa Tephra, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21,22–3, 24, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46,76, 79, 240Area A, 47Area B, 51, 54, 55Area D, 63, 64Historical Society excavations, 72

kahawai, 206, 207, 208kahikatea, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38,

140

kaho, 126kaho-paetara, 126, 135kanuka, 37, 86, 87, 92, 94, 96, 98, 110, 140kaui, 112kauri, 30, 37–8, 39, 84, 94, 96, 102, 140,

247Kauri Point, 40, 105, 107, 108, 109, 163,

196Kawerau, 13, 38ketu, 59, 69, 87, 89, 91, 92ko, 87–8, 91, 92Kohika. See also specific aspects of the

excavation, e.g. artefacts; faunal remains;housesabandonment, 1, 51, 53, 54, 59, 63, 65,

74, 77, 248Area A, 46, 47–51, 76, 137, 160, 166–7,

188–91, 192–3, 195–6, 198, 199, 205,211, 240, 242, 243

Area B, 46, 51–7, 76, 128, 137, 140, 149,160, 167, 188–91, 192–3, 195–6, 198,199, 200, 201, 202, 211, 240, 242,243, 246

Area C, 46, 57–60, 76, 167, 188, 198,211, 240, 242

Area D, 46, 60–71, 76, 122, 128, 134,137–40, 149, 160, 167, 188–91, 192–3, 195–6, 198, 200, 201, 202, 205,211–4, 240, 242, 243–5

chronology, 48–51, 76–82economy, 242–3, 247excavations and site history, 6–9, 45–75features, 48–51first human impact, 39function and location issues, 246–7geomorphology, 46, 239history and tradition, 3–4local environment, 235, 239radiocarbon dates, 22–3, 77–82, 240settlement pattern, 240stratigraphy, 16–7, 18, 46, 47–8, 49, 51–

3, 56–7, 58, 61–4, 69, 70–1, 72, 74,76, 240

vegetation, 21–3, 24–30, 37, 38, 40, 41volcanic ash and disturbance, 47

korupe, 126, 134, 137kowhai, 98kowhaiwhai, 145kuaha, 126kumara god, 166, 167kuri. See dogs

ladder, 114, 122lashing vine, 55, 56, 69, 118, 241lintels, 126, 137

Index 263

mahoe, 91, 114, 118maihi, 122, 126maire, 30, 37, 86–7, 92, 94, 96, 98, 114Maketu Basin, 37, 38, 39Maketu obsidian, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175,

176, 193–4, 242, 247Mamaku Plateau, 37mammals, 198–203, 242. See also dogs;

human bone; seal bone; whale bonemanaia, 145Mangakaware, Lake, 123–4manuka, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 37, 87, 91, 98,

102, 109, 112, 118, 140Maori settlement, impact of, 40–3, 239mapara (heart rimu), 86, 87, 91, 107, 111mataaho, 126matai, 37, 92, 96, 104, 114, 140Matakana Island, 37, 39matapihi, 126Matata, 2, 3, 9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 170Matata Fault, 11–2, 18, 64–5, 67, 76, 239matting, 74Mayor Island obsidian, 169, 174, 175, 182,

183, 185, 188–90, 192, 193, 194–5, 196,241–2, 247

midden, 6, 30, 65, 69, 70, 71, 211Miranda, 127, 144Mokoia Island, 146Motu River, 37Motuhora Island, 203Moutoki Island, 203muka, 150, 158Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa,

144, 203mussels

freshwater, 54, 57, 69, 211, 212, 213marine, 69, 211, 212, 213

needles, 164, 167net gauges, 111–2netting, 69, 149, 150, 155–7, 158, 209, 210New Zealand Archaeological Association, 5New Zealand Historic Places Trust, 5, 6Ngaropo, P., 9Ngaroto, 64Ngati Awa, 3, 9, 77, 147, 159, 241Ngati Porou, 146Ngati Tuwharetoa, 3North Island Shear Belt, 11

obsidian artefacts, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 68,70, 71, 74, 241–2, 245, 247chemical analyses, 172–4, 176core reduction sequence (scar patterns),

179–81, 182–7, 190, 194–5, 196

debitage, 185–6, 196flake edge modification, 181, 187–8, 189,

192, 194, 196flake size and proportions, 174–5, 182,

185, 186, 187, 188–93, 195, 196–7green, 168–9, 182‘other grey’, 169, 170–2, 172, 173, 174–6‘pebble-type grey’, 169, 170, 172, 173,

174–6sources, 168–76technology and distribution, 177–97

obsidian hydration dates, 40, 47Ohiwa Harbour, 40Omarumutu, 146Omeheu, 19Opouriao Plains, 40Orini Stream, 14Oruarangi, 127, 135, 160, 161Otago Museum, 98, 100Otamarakau, 170Otoroa, 171ovens. See cooking structures

paepae, 126, 127, 131pahautea, 30, 37, 38palaeosol, 17, 55, 59, 69palisades, 46, 47, 51, 53, 57, 59, 66, 74, 78,

140, 241, 244, 245, 248western, 72

Palliser Bay, 196Papamoa Bog, 38, 39pare, 126, 129, 131, 134, 137, 144, 145, 147pataka, 1, 46, 65, 114, 122, 123, 125, 136,

137, 138, 140, 141, 241, 245, 246. Seealso housesarchitecture, 127–8

patu aruhe, 84, 92, 94–6peat, 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 29, 30, 37,

39, 46, 54, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 149Lower Peat, 51, 55, 57, 58Upper Peat, 51, 54, 55, 56–7, 58, 59

pegs, 114, 116pendants

bone, 160, 161, 162, 167pounamu, 160, 162, 167tooth, 160, 167

phytolith analysis of coprolites, 217, 218,229, 231–2, 233, 234

pigment pot, 166, 167pihunga, 126pipi, 210–1, 212, 213–4pits, 1, 49–50, 77, 141, 160, 243, 245plaiting (raranga), 59, 149, 154–5, 156, 157,

158podocarp forest, 19, 31, 60

264 Kohika

pohutukawa, 37, 91, 92, 102pollen analysis of coprolites, 217, 218, 229,

230, 233–4pollen stratigraphy, 21–37

Kohika, 21–3, 24–30Thornton-Atkinson archeological

complex, 22, 23, 31, 32–3Tunapahore A, 22, 24, 31, 34Tunapahore B, 22, 24, 31, 35–6

Polynesiaarchitecture, 125, 127, 141, 142impact of settlement from, 20–44

poniu, 234Ponui Island, 203postholes, 50, 52–3, 54, 55, 60, 66, 122,

124, 126, 137posts, 52–3, 55, 63, 65, 66, 69, 74, 78, 83,

114, 140, 167, 241. See also palisadespotaka, 109–10pou matua, 126pounamu

adzes, 74, 165, 166, 167chisels, 46, 53, 164, 166, 167pendants, 46, 53, 160, 162, 167

poupou, 74, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 130,134, 140, 143–4, 146, 147

poutahuhu, 129, 131, 143–4, 147poutokomanawa, 122, 130, 133, 144–5, 147Poverty Bay, 100, 145–6puha, 217, 229, 233–4, 239pukatea, 29, 37, 98, 114, 134, 136, 137, 140pukeko, 203pumice, 48, 54, 55, 69, 74. See also Taupo

pumicecontainers, 166, 167kumara god, 166, 167

puriri, 92, 98, 110putorino, 111puwerewere, 144

radiocarbon datesearliest ages, Bay of Plenty archaeological

sites, 40Kohika, 22–3, 77–82, 240Matata Fault, 11, 64–5Thornton-Atkinson archaeological

complex, 23Tunapahore A, 24Tunapahore B, 24

rafters (heke), 125–6, 138–40Rangitaiki Plains. See also specific

placenames and site namesarchaeological site distribution, 4–6climate, 18drainage, 4, 14, 18

geomorphological context, 11–9history and tradition, 3political/social relations with central

North Island, 1, 3, 175, 194, 242, 247river courses, 2, 3, 13–5vegetation, 38, 39, 41

Rangitaiki River, 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22,24, 29, 64, 239

raranga (plaiting), 59, 149, 154–5, 156, 157,158

rata, 29, 31, 32, 39, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 102,118

rats, 42, 198, 201, 228, 243Raupa, 196raupo, 22, 29, 30, 31, 41, 59, 60, 72, 235,

239, 244as food, 217, 229, 233, 234, 235as insulation material, 126

rauponga surface decoration, 145reeds, 19, 55, 57, 58, 59, 69, 70, 72, 239ridgepoles (tahuhu), 122, 125–6, 129, 130rimu, 31, 37, 86, 87, 91, 107, 110, 111, 112,

114, 140rope. See cordageRotoaira, Lake, 109Rotorua, 146rua, 5–6Rurima Island, 203

seal bone, 164, 198, 199–200, 203sedges, 30, 31, 40, 229, 235, 239seeds, in coprolites, 223shaft knobs, 92, 93shellfish, 57, 78, 210–5, 243. See also

musselssnapper, 206, 207, 208, 209soils, 16–17

Area A, 47–8Area B, 51–2, 53, 56–7Area C, 58Area D, 61, 62–4

spears, 69, 74, 85–7spinning tops, 109–10starch analysis of coprolites, 232sticks/stakes, 58, 118stone file, 166, 167storehouses. See patakastratigraphy

Kohika, 16–7, 18, 46, 47–8, 49, 51–3, 56–7, 58, 61–4, 69, 70–1, 72, 74, 76, 240

pollen, 21–37supplejack, 126

tahuhu (ridgepole), 122, 125–6, 129, 130Tairua, 174

Index 265

tapu, 105, 127taratara-a-kai surface decoration, 145, 146,

147Tarawera eruption, 1886, 239Tarawera River, 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22,

29, 45, 46, 55, 63, 170, 239Tarawera Tephra, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21,

22, 23, 24, 30, 38, 46, 72, 76, 79, 240Area A, 47Area B, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58Area C, 59Area D, 61, 65, 66Historical Society excavations, 72, 74

Tasman, Abel, 100tatau, 126Taupo, 146Taupo eruption, 11, 19, 29, 38–9Taupo obsidian, 171, 172, 173, 174–5, 176,

193–4, 242, 247Taupo pumice, 13, 14, 17, 29, 46, 48, 74,

240Taupo Tephra, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 38–9,

46, 47, 48, 240Taupo Volcanic Zone, 11tauwhenua, 126, 130, 138tawa, 31, 32, 42, 96, 98, 99–100, 102, 114,

140Te Ahumata, Maketu, obsidian source, 171–

2, 174, 176, 193–4, 242, 247Te Arawa, 3Te Awa o te Atua, 1, 14, 206, 208, 215, 239Te Kaha, 127, 146Te Puke, 37teka, 87, 88, 92tephra, 12. See also specific tephrateremu, 125Thornton-Atkinson archaeological complex

doorway carvings from, 144, 146radiocarbon dates, 23vegetation, 22, 23, 31, 32–3, 41

thread reels, 112Three Kings Islands, 204tiki, 160, 161, 162, 167Tikopia, 111toggle, bone, 161, 167toitoi, 126Tokata Island, 203Tokitoki site, 40tokoihi, 144Tokoroa, 196Tolaga Bay, 42, 146tooth

fishhook, 163pendant, 160, 167

topsoil, buried, 63, 65

totara, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 96, 98, 100, 102,104, 110, 111, 112, 114, 119, 129, 134,135, 140

toxocara canis, 226–7, 228–9toys, 120, 245trade, 1, 247transport, 1, 120, 240, 247. See also canoestuatua, 210–1, 212, 213–4tukutuku panels, 126, 135, 141tumatahuki, 126, 135, 136Tunapahore A

first human impact, 39–40radiocarbon dates, 24vegetation, 22, 24, 31, 34, 37, 38–9

Tunapahore Bfirst human impact, 39–40radiocarbon dates, 24vegetation, 22, 24, 31, 35–6, 37, 38–9

tutu, 24, 30, 31, 40, 229, 233, 234, 235,239

Twilight Beach, 202twill work, 154, 155, 157

unidentified items, 117, 118University of Auckland, 6, 9, 83–4, 85, 172

vegetation, 19impact of first human settlement, 39–40impact of Maori settlement, 40–3, 239impact of Polynesian settlement, 20–44impact of volcanic disturbance and fire,

38–9, 41, 239Kohika, 21–3, 24–30, 37, 38, 40, 41prehistoric, 37–8, 239

vine coils, 55, 56, 69, 118, 241volcanic ashes. See tephra; and specific

tephrasvolcanic eruptions, 11, 12. See also Kaharoa

eruption; Tarawera eruption; Taupoeruptionimpact on vegetation, 38–9, 41

Waihi, 37, 38, 174Waihi Beach Swamp, 38, 39Waioeka, 144, 146Waipa, 134Waitahaarikikore, 3Waitakere Ranges, 105, 107, 108, 149Waitara, 123wakahuia lid, 113Warrington, 203weapons, 120, 240, 242, 248weaving tools, 112wedges, 114, 115weeding tools, 59, 69, 87, 89, 91, 92

266 Kohika

wetland archaeology, 1, 120, 248Whakamaru, 171Whakarewarewa, 171Whakatane, 9, 11, 40

climate, 18Whakatane and District Historical Society, 6,

9, 149, 150, 167, 200, 201excavation area, 46, 47, 57, 59, 72–4, 76,

122, 123, 128, 128–37, 149, 154, 160,199, 202, 205, 240, 243–4, 245–6

obsidian artefacts, 177, 178, 184, 188,189, 191–2, 193, 195–7, 242

wooden artifacts, 83, 85Whakatane Ash, 13Whakatane Graben, 11, 64Whakatane Hill Soil, 24Whakatane Museum, 146Whakatane River, 5, 11, 12, 14whale bone, 198, 199, 203Whangamata, 171Whangara, 41, 42, 146whare. See houseswhata, 127whatitoka, 126whiri (braided cordage), 149, 152–4, 158White House horizon, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67–8,

70, 77, 78, 114, 122, 123, 137, 163, 240faunal remains, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207,

210, 211, 212, 213, 214Whitipirorua, 196windows, 126wood chips, 30, 54, 55, 58, 67, 68, 69, 70,

71, 74, 118–9wood, worked, 55–6, 58woodcarvings, 74, 77, 122, 123, 127, 129–

30, 131, 132–3, 138, 141, 143–6, 241,248.styles, 146–7, 241, 247

wooden artefacts, 83–121, 240–1, 245field treatment and laboratory

conservation, 61, 83–4overview, 119–20reassembly and identification, 84–5

woodworking, 59, 118–9, 240, 245

xylem analysis of coprolites, 232

Yellow House horizon, 63–4, 65–8, 69, 70,76, 77, 78, 122, 123, 137, 149, 163, 240,243–4faunal remains, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205,

206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

geoffrey irwin - the archaeology of a late maori lake village

Documents