The Year That Was: New Zealand Archaeology

-
"There's archaeology in New Zealand???"

This is fairly typical of the response I get when I tell people that I work as an archaeologist in New Zealand.

Strictly speaking, of course we have an archaeological record - people lived here in the past and as with all other places in the world where people have lived they left their mark on the landscape! Of course, one thing that New Zealand's human history lacks in comparison to other places in the world is a long antiquity - the present consensus amongst archaeologists that work in this country, based on the (credible!!) evidence available, is that people have lived here for less than 1000 years. 

Although that may not sound particularly impressive to a layperson, to archaeologists working here New Zealand's archaeological record provides a rare opportunity on the global scale to study the processes of colonisation in a landscape previously untouched by humans at such high resolution. And what's more, a colonising group of people who were the direct ancestors of the people (Māori) living here when European explorers reached New Zealand only a few hundred years later. In addition, the archaeological record provides an alternative source to the potentially quite biased written accounts of the earliest Europeans about the earliest period of contact between two cultures and world views and the development of New Zealand society as we know it today.

And 2017 has certainly proven to be an interesting year for archaeological discoveries in New Zealand. In no particular order, here are some of the highlights:


The Northern Advocate reported on the excavation of what is thought to be a very early New Zealand site in the Bay of Islands (northern New Zealand) in January: Dig Uncovers New Zealand's Earliest Arrivals


In August, the New Zealand Herald reported the discovery of a Māori village (kāinga) during roadworks at Papamoa in the Bay of Plenty region: Ancient village unearthed at Papamoa roundabout


Roadworks in the Bay of Plenty had earlier also lead to the interesting find of a defensive ditch from the period of the New Zealand Land Wars in the 19th century, reported by Radio New Zealand: 'We expected to find kumara and fire pits ... we did not expect this'. And while we are on the subject of the New Zealand Land Wars, here is a more recent report of the re-discovery of a lost grave containing the bodies of 12 British Army soldiers killed at the Battle of Ruapekapeka in Northland: British soldiers' lost graves uncovered at Ruapekapeka


Stuff.co.nz reported the discovery of some of the earliest infrastructure in Wellington, New Zealand's capital city - a section of a drain laid prior to 1850: Discovery of early Wellington infrastructure will contribute to understanding of early settlements


Just a couple of days ago the Otago Daily Times reported the discovery of a unique piece of early Dunedin architecture - a series of elegant subterranean inverted arches designed by prominent local architect Robert Lawson, known for his work on Dunedin landmarks such as Larnach's Castle and the First Church of Otago: Discovery of R.A. Lawson inverted arch.


Meanwhile, as work continued on the rebuild of Christchurch following a devastating earthquake in 2011, archaeological insights into the early days of the city continued to be uncovered: Bears Grease among early 19th century artefacts found at Christchurch convention centre site.  


And finally, earthquake recovery work has also led to the discovery of significant Māori archaeology along the Kaikōura coast: Heritage on the highway: roadworkers unearth lost villages along Kaikōura coast.


Thanks for reading and a safe and happy holiday season to all!

Nick
   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Importance of Context in Archaeology

-
Image
In my last post I mentioned the importance of context to archaeological research. That is, knowing PRECISELY where an object was found and its relationship to other objects in the archaeological record.  The goal of archaeology is to understand past human behaviour and how that behaviour changes over time. The primary (and in some cases, the only!) source of evidence available to help achieve this goal is the archaeological record, or the material record of that behaviour. So, how do archaeologists get from ruins, pieces of dirty stone and pottery and patterns of dark patches in the soil to an understanding of human behaviour in the past and how this changes over time? This is where context is important!   To recap from the last post - Excavation, the principal method of data acquisition in archaeology, involves the systematic uncovering of archaeological remains through the removal of the deposits of soil and other material covering them and accompanying them. Two types of infor
Read more

Motupore Island continued

-
Image
The following is a slightly edited version of a report I originally wrote for PAST, the newsletter of the Prehistoric Society , which provided me with some funding to attend the Motupore Island excavation in Papua New Guinea in 2016. This did not end up appearing in PAST, so I thought I would post it here. In June 2016 the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) ran an archaeological field school on Motupore Island, Papua New Guinea (PNG). Because my research as a graduate student at the University of Otago had looked at the archaeology of sites and regions thought to be linked to Motupore Island, I was invited to attend as an overseas student. A short report on the excavation follows.  Motupore Island in Bootless Bay is a small, waterless island located some 16km east of Port Moresby, the national capital of PNG. The island is about 800m long, 275m wide at its widest point, and rising to a maximum 61.4m above sea level. On the protected northern (shoreward) end of the island, a cuspat
Read more

Problems with Prehistory

-
Within archaeology, prehistory has a fairly straightforward meaning: prior to recorded (i.e. written down) history. In theory, the use of this term within the field to describe a time period in the past is free of value judgments. The key distinction between prehistoric and historical archaeology is one of differences in the resources that are available to archaeologists when trying to piece together peoples' behaviour in the past. In both cases, we are interested in the material remains of that behaviour. That is, in a nutshell, the definition of archaeology: the investigation of the human past by the study of the material remains left behind. British archaeologist Stuart Piggott once called archaeology 'the science of rubbish' because it predominantly involves the study of things that people have thrown away. Historical Archaeology In historical archaeology the study of material remains is complemented by the study of historical records - whether they be written histo
Read more