New Zealand's archaeology started in the early 1800s and was largely conducted by amateurs with little regard for meticulous study. [2] However, starting slowly in the 1870s detailed research answered questions about human culture, that have international relevance and wide public interest. [3] Archaeology (here used in a broad sense) has, along with oral traditions, defined New Zealand's prehistory (c. 1300 – c. 1800) and has been a valuable aid in solving some later historical problems. New Zealand has one of the shortest prehistoric periods in the world and in the popular culture the term typically extends back to the breakup of Gondwana, not the stone age. [4] However, academically New Zealand's human prehistory is broadly divided into Archaic (~paleolithic then ~mesolithic) after c. 1300 AD and Classical (~neolithic) after c. 1500 AD periods, based on Māori culture. Eurasian labels do not perfectly fit as some level of horticulture was always present in northern New Zealand, even existing at the same time as megafauna. More simply it can also be divided into time periods of pre and post European contact. Large poorly documented sections of New Zealand's more recent history have also been supplemented by archaeological research, such as at old battle sites or early urban centres. [5] [6]
Many questions about prehistoric New Zealand have been answered by archaeology and for most it is unlikely that new information will radically change our understanding. However some questions are still debated in the recent academic press in the hope that a new argument or data may bring resolution.
It is unlikely that datable evidence of the very first human arrival will ever be found. Therefore it would be expected that the age of first settlement would become older as new artifacts were uncovered, the reverse has been true. In 1989 changes in the New Zealand biota was inferred to have occurred around 1000 AD and was linked to early settlement. [7] This was later also found by using radiometric methods in 1993 and a model of a "middle" age of settlement developed. [8]
In 1999 a sample from the Wairau Bar site gave a "late" age of 1230–1282 AD age [9] which was approximately confirmed by the study of charcoal and pollen that same year. [10] The Wairau Bar settlement is early in New Zealand settlement due to the presence of remains of people born in tropical Polynesia and tool of the same origin. [11] At this time a number of unusually early dates from rat skeletons were being recorded (possible as early as 50 AD). This was first used as evidence for separate rat and human migrations as the post 1000 AD age was well established. [12] However, some speculation did occur that Māori may have come to New Zealand at that "early" date even if they did not settle.
By 2004 these early dates were becoming suspect due to methodological error and rat-gnawed seeds were confirming the late date. [13] By 2008 there was little doubt that rats came to New Zealand with Māori around 1280 AD. [14] This was confirmed in 2011 by a meta analyses of dates from throughout the Pacific that showed a sudden pulse of migration leading to all of New Zealand being settled (including the Chatham Islands by 1290 AD). [15]
More recent papers (2014 and 2017) have subtly disputed this date, preferring a post 1300 AD arrival, using as evidence moa egg shells and the Kaharoa eruption of Mount Tarawera (1314±6 AD), which they say is below all well dated sites. [16] [17] [18] In spite of this some researches (2018) considered the debate over, in favour of the late 13th century date. [19]
The debate over Māori population size has two main areas of interest, how many settlers came to New Zealand and what was the population when European contact occurred. The second number is partly an historical questions and estimated populations have not strayed far from Captain Cook's first estimate of 100,000, [20] with some researches going up to 150,000. This number coupled with an inferred low growth rate has led researchers to require either a large founding population (>300 people) or an early settlement date (600-850 AD). [21] [22] Therefore a date of c. 1300 AD requires a mass migration from tropical Polynesian, [17] even though mitochondrial DNA implies a medium number of approximately 70 women settlers. [23]
This story is further complicated by the South Islands slow growth rates throughout prehistory. [24] This is because kumara was extremely difficult to grow in the South Island even during warm climatic periods. [25] [26] There is evidence that the "little ice age" effected New Zealand and caused a shrinking of the population. [19] The extent of this cold period in New Zealand is unknown but it may have peaked in the early 18th century. [27] By 1886 diseases like measles, war and disruption led to a Māori population of about 40,000 and 2000 in the North and South islands respectively. [28]
Māori culture has been in constant adaptation to New Zealand's changing environment. From the late 1950s onward the term Archaic and Classical culture have been used to describe the early and late phases of the prehistoric Māori. [3] Archaic replacing the older term "Moa Hunter" as the hunter-gatherer society lasted beyond the mega fauna (as with Eurasia's Mesolithic).
The Archaic and Classical labels were intentional chronological and not descriptive. They did not offer a definitive definition of either culture that could be used across time and space. Particularly in locations like the southern South Island where Classical tribes may migrate to regions where only an Archaic life was possible. [2] Various transitional cultural artifacts and models have been proposed, however, there is still a dearth of evidence for a clear middle phase. [29] Currently the Archaic culture is seen as semi nomadic hunter-gatherers with small gardens and populations, while the later Classical culture had large gardens and fortified permanent villages. Kumara until the classical period remained in the north until the building of storage pits and gardening methods allowed its storage over winter further south. [29] In many sites in New Zealand the absence of a middle phase or the constraint of only two options has led to other interpretations, including a seven fold evolution of boom and bust cycles. [30] Growing kumara would have been possible in the South Island during some climatic condition, but very difficult on northern south island. [25]
Topic [29] | Archaic | Transition | Classical |
---|---|---|---|
Environment | Original landscape (some fire) throughout New Zealand | Fire and deforestation | Modified landscape mostly in North Island |
Lifestyle | hunter gather over large areas of New Zealand, but limited mass migration across country. Undefended settlements and little warfare, little slavery, burial near settlements | Climatic and economic change | Localised living, with mass migration, Pā and warfare, slavery common, cannibalism?, hidden burial far from village |
Tools | Conservative continuance of older Polynesian culture | Adaptation to new environment | Pounamu (jade) carving |
Houses | Seasonal (wharerau) | Over hunting and extinctions | Permanent (wharepuni) |
Food | Big game hunting and small gardens | Commodification of production | Small game hunting and large gardens |
Politics | Small groups (whānau to hapū) | Increasing social complexity | Large groups (hapūto iwi) |
As early settlers to New Zealand came in great numbers with supplies for planting numinous crop types it is speculated that it was a planned migration to a known location. However, evidence for continued communication between New Zealand and tropical Polynesia is absent in the archaeological record. The Māori did, however, maintained the technology for long sea voyages reaching the Chatham Islands in the 16th century. There is also no evidence for domestic pigs and chickens from the Pacific making it to New Zealand and it can be inferred that they would have, should trade networks have been built. [20] If this were true New Zealand is the only Polynesian archipelago not to communicate with the other ones. [31]
There is some speculation that migration to New Zealand continued throughout the Archaic period from non archaeological sources. [32] The Māori language has changed little in the 700 years since it separated from Cook Islands Māori.
The earliest archaeological sites in New Zealand have implements from tropical Polynesia. [33] There is also evidence that obsidian was traded throughout New Zealand from soon after arrival. However it was only in the sixteenth century that pounamu (jade) was traded around New Zealand, with a different supply network to the obsidian. [34] Earthquakes caused changing living patterns and the movement of people. [35]
The ability of prehistoric Māori to manage resources and foresee ecological collapses has been the source of much debate. [2] [36] Natural fires were rare in New Zealand, yet much of the country was covered in dry forest, early Māori didn't protect fire‐prone areas and there is no evidence of systematic burning of less fire‐prone ones. [37] Many New Zealand species may have been heading for slow extinction after Polynesian settlement. [2] The extension of the mega fauna (moa) seems to have occurred quickly, within 100 years. [38] The first settlers came to New Zealand from tropical Polynesia and adapted to a temperate environment while preserving many of their old practices. Some conservative use of tropical Polynesian methods lasted well into the Archaic period. [39]
Historical archaeology in New Zealand started late and grew slowly, it was only by the 1960s that European structures were being systematically excavated. [40] [41] Although it has been used to solve some historical questions, such as the Taranaki Māori political prisoners in the Dunedin jail work on Pounamu in the late 1800s. [42] There is also interest in the study of post contact Maori sites. [43]
Early archaeology in New Zealand was performed by anthropologists and private collectors of Māori artifacts. Many sites where destroyed by caress scavenging or poorly documented research. [2] [44] Systematical research was first conducted by the museums from the main cities, followed by anthropology departments in the universities of Auckland and Otago. In 1955 the New Zealand Archaeological Association was founded. [45]
During this time in New Zealand the study of Māori oral tradition was more influential than archaeological techniques. The coming of the Māori "Great Fleet" to New Zealand was inferred to be in 1350 AD solely from traditional evidence (similar to modern estimates from carbon dating). [44]
In the 21st century high resolution Landsat data was being used to interpret archaeological sites, [46] although there was some doubt about the effectiveness of some modern tools. [47] Archaeology departments conduct research from the university of Otago, Auckland and Canterbury. New Zealand archaeology is published in the Journal of Pacific Archaeology, the Journal of the Polynesian Society and in other international journals.
Exceptional archaeological sites are included in the national register (administered by Heritage New Zealand) in five groups: historic places (Category 1 and 2), historic areas, Wāhi Tūpuna (practical sites), Wāhi Tapu (spiritual sites) and Wahi Tapu areas. [48] New Zealand has thousands of prehistoric sites, many of which are documented by the Historic Places Trust. Only a small fraction of these have detailed published archaeological reports. For example in the South Island there are 550 rock art sites and 107 in the North Island and 6956 Pā in all New Zealand. [49] [5] The types of features present in New Zealand pre European archaeology are pā, storage pits, gardens (stone rows and banks), house floors, terraces, trenches, umu (earth ovens), middens, quarries, rock art and changes to the local flora. [5]
Date | Period | Site name | Type | Region | Research | Photo | Grid reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
c. 1750 [50] | Classical | Huriawa Peninsula [51] | Pā | Otago | Te Pa a Te Wera, reserve, and archaeological sites | 45°38′26″S170°39′59″E / 45.640617°S 170.666309°E | |
Kaingaroa rock art [52] | Rock art | Taupo | 38°27′S176°43′E / 38.45°S 176.71°E | ||||
Both | Motutapu Island [53] | Pā and settlement | Auckland | Transition from Archaic to Classical with well dated ash layer from Rangitoto (left in image). | 36°46′07″S176°42′28″E / 36.768654°S 176.707640°E | ||
Both | Opihi rock art [54] | Rock art | South Canterbury | List number 9784 Historic Places Trust. [55] | 44°11′50″S171°01′09″E / 44.197327°S 171.019271°E | ||
c.1206 (from 1974) [56] | Archaic | Papatowai [57] | Settlement | Otago | Important early site for the study of Polynesian archaeology. | 46°33′43″S169°28′34″E / 46.562°S 169.476°E | |
Rangikapiti [5] | Pā | Northland | Pre-European contact fortified village | 34°59′06″S173°31′32″E / 34.984874°S 173.525565°E | |||
1300s [58] | Archaic | Shag River mouth | Settlement | Otago | Seasonality of fishing [59] | 45°28′54″S170°48′57″E / 45.481573°S 170.815767°E | |
Classical | Te Kora | Pā | Taranaki | Large Pā complex, site of early work by Elsdon Best. [60] | 39°07′59″S173°59′19″E / 39.132972°S 173.988664°E | ||
1288–1300 | Archaic | Wairau Bar [11] | Settlement | Marlborough | Most thoroughly studied Archaic settlement. [61] | 41°30′30″S174°03′53″E / 41.508458°S 174.064800°E |