Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: Kennedy Point
Marina, Waiheke
R11/663, CHI 551
Figure 1: View onto Kennedy Point bay beach from wharf (photo: Hans-Dieter Bader).
Prepared for:
Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited
32 Audrey Road
Takapuna
AUCKLAND
Prepared by:
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
PO Box 48134
Blockhouse Bay
AUCKLAND 0644
phone: (09) 626 7860
e-mail: [email protected]
Date: July 2016
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
1. Executive Summary
The proposed development does not impact onto known heritage sites. Two heritage sites,
one archaeological site (S11/663) and one Cultural Heritage Inventory item of the Auckland
Council (CHI #551) are located close to the development.
The archaeological site consists of a shell midden on the southern half of the beach at
Kennedy Point bay. However its current extent is some distance from the proposed works,
although in the past it may have extended further along the beach. Stormwater works and
the link between the road and the car ferry landing have disturbed the topsoil all along the
northern half of the beach and no surface or sub-surface remains of any shell midden
material was detected during the survey. A survey in 2002 recorded the shell midden with
the same extent and in the same location as this recent survey.
The ferry landing ramp, wharf and carpark on the wharf are recorded as a coastal site in the
Cultural Heritage Inventory of the Auckland Council as #551. The road reserve for it was
created in 1969 and construction was undertaken in 1970/71. The ramp must have been resurfaced since the original recording in 1993 and a breakwater added. The new proposed
wharf structure will be constructed alongside the breakwater and will not impact onto the
originally recorded wharf and car ferry ramp.
It is considered therefore there will be no adverse effects onto the archaeological or heritage
resource, as observed and recorded, by the proposed development.
The probability of encountering any unobserved shell midden underneath the existing road
is very small but can not be ruled out categorically. It is therefore recommended to apply for
a general authority to modify unknown archaeological features with Heritage NZ Pouhere
Taonga under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.
Induction of all contractors and spot monitoring by the project archaeologist should be
sufficient to deal with the low risk of encountering any archaeological features.
2
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Quality Information
Title:
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Waiheke
R11/663, CHI 551
Reference:
ASL16_05
Author(s):
Dr. Hans-Dieter Bader
Revision History:
Draft
15/5/2016
Bader
Review
19/5/2016
Adamson
Final
11/7/2016
Bader
© Archaeology Solutions Limited 2016
The information contained in this document produced by Archaeology Solutions Limited is
solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has
been prepared and Archaeology Solutions Limited undertakes no duty nor accepts any
responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this documents.
All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this
document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written
permission of Archaeology Solutions Limited.
3
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Contents:
1.Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................2
Contents:..............................................................................................................................................4
2.Glossary............................................................................................................................................7
3.Introduction......................................................................................................................................8
3.1.Brief.............................................................................................................................................9
3.2.Location & Legal description of land affected.......................................................................9
3.3.Previous archaeological work within the area affected......................................................11
4.Statutory Requirements................................................................................................................12
4.1.Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014..............................................................12
4.2.Resource Management Act 1991...........................................................................................13
5.Methodology..................................................................................................................................14
5.1.Investigation Procedure.........................................................................................................14
5.2.Site Investigation.....................................................................................................................14
6.Background.....................................................................................................................................14
6.1.Physical Environment............................................................................................................14
6.2.Historical Context...................................................................................................................15
6.3.Archaeological Background...................................................................................................19
7.Results.............................................................................................................................................21
8.Discussion.......................................................................................................................................29
9.Constraints and Limitations.........................................................................................................31
10.Archaeological Values.................................................................................................................32
10.1.Assessment Criteria..............................................................................................................32
10.2.Archaeological Values Assessment.....................................................................................34
10.3. Additional values assessment............................................................................................35
11.Assessment of Effects..................................................................................................................37
11.1.Site Management & Mitigation...........................................................................................38
12.Conclusions & Recommendations.............................................................................................40
13.Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................40
14.References.....................................................................................................................................41
15.Appendices...................................................................................................................................42
4
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figures:
Figure 1: View onto Kennedy Point bay beach from wharf (photo: Hans-Dieter Bader)..........1
Figure 2: Artists impression of the proposed development. The breakwater on the right is
part of the existing structure of landing ramp and wharf.............................................................8
Figure 3: Location of the proposed development...........................................................................9
Figure 4: Location of the proposed development on Waiheke...................................................10
Figure 5: SO 44930 (drawn 1965, declared as road 1967) showing the road and ferry landing
area.....................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 6: Waipapa formation in blue for most of Waiheke. (Copyright GNS:
http://data.gns.cri.nz/geology/)..................................................................................................15
Figure 7: DP 3923 (1907) showing a farm north of Kennedy Point bay.....................................16
Figure 8: A 155 (1881) showing the farm in Putaki bay...............................................................17
Figure 9: SO 44930 (1965) survey of the road reserve leading to the ferry landing..................18
Figure 10: Recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of Kennedy Point Bay.......................19
Figure 11: Location of the recorded shipwreck of the scow Pahiki in the inner bay................21
Figure 12: Location of the proposed development in relation to NZAA S11/663 and CHI 551.
.............................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 13: Proposed wharf and site S11/663.................................................................................22
Figure 14: Proposed wharf and maritime site CHI # 551.............................................................23
Figure 15: View over the bay...........................................................................................................23
Figure 16: View onto the bay from the water................................................................................24
Figure 17: Pohutukawa tree in the middle of the bay. The midden starts just on the right of
the picture and continues well beyond the left of the picture.....................................................24
Figure 18: Shell midden between the tree roots of the Pohutukawa tree..................................25
Figure 19: Shell midden layer at the southern end of the bay.....................................................25
Figure 20: Soil layers at the northern end of the bay: beach deposits over modern fill, no
topsoil visible.....................................................................................................................................26
Figure 21: Re-surfaced landing ramp.............................................................................................26
Figure 22: Remnants of old surface of the landing ramp.............................................................27
Figure 23: Successive layers of the landing ramp.........................................................................27
Figure 24: Overview of the landing ramp......................................................................................28
Figure 25: Sites in the vicinity of the proposed development.....................................................30
Figure 26: Contours indicating the landscape around Kennedy Point Bay...............................30
Figure 27: Area close to the proposed development....................................................................31
5
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Tables:
Table 1: Archaeological terms...........................................................................................................7
Table 2: Previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity (from NZAA SRS and CHI),
see Figure 10......................................................................................................................................20
Table 3: Summary of archaeological values. Shell midden..........................................................34
Table 4 Historic Heritage values assessment relating to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(ChB:4.1).............................................................................................................................................36
6
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
2. Glossary
Table 1: Archaeological terms.
C14
Dating method using the deterioration of Carbon 14 in living organisms
Firescoop
Fireplace used for various reasons (cooking, warming, etc.)
Hangi
Subterranean cooking oven using heated stones
Hapu
Maori sub tribe, part of a larger tribal federation
Kai moana
Seafood exploited by Maori including fish, shell fish and crustaceans.
Kainga
Maori undefended open settlement.
Kaumatua
Male elder(s) of a hapu (sub tribe)
Kuia
Female elder(s) of a hapu (sub tribe)
Mana Whenua
People of the land with mana or customary authority
Midden
Refuse from a settlement, mainly shell fish.
Pa
A site fortified with earthworks and palisade defences.
Modern meaning differs from archaeological use of the word.
Pit
Rectangular excavated pit used to store crops by Maori
Posthole
Archaeological remains of a post used for various reasons
Prehistory
Period before European arrival
Rohe
Settlement area of a Maori sub tribe (hapu)
Terrace
A platform cut into the hill slope used for habitation or cultivation
Urupa
Burial ground
Wahi tapu
Sites of spiritual significance to Maori
Whare
Traditionally built Maori sleeping house
7
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
3. Introduction
Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited proposes a marina development in Kennedy Point bay
adjacent and to the south west of the existing breakwater for the car ferry landing.
A wharf is proposed parallel to the breakwater with a wharf structure constructed off the
existing access road to the car ferry landing, car park and wharf. Only a short stretch of the
intertidal zone is impacted by it. All other elements of the development are on the water.
Figure 2: Artists impression of the proposed development. The breakwater on the right is part of
the existing structure of landing ramp and wharf.
8
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
3.1. Brief
Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited instructed Archaeology Solutions Ltd (ASL) to
undertake an archaeological survey and assessment of the marina project.
The assessment was undertaken to investigate and identify any recorded and unrecorded
archaeological remains in the vicinity of the proposed works and to assess how the
proposed works will affect the heritage values of the structures.
This report outlines the results of the investigations.
This assessment of archaeological values has been prepared for an authority application
with Heritage NZ under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and to be part
of an application for a Resource Consent under the Resource Management Act 1991.
This survey and report do not necessarily include the location of wahi tapu and/or sites of
cultural or spiritual significance to the local Maori community who may need to be
consulted for any information or concerns they may have regarding the proposed works.
3.2. Location & Legal description of land affected
The location is at Kennedy Point bay on Waiheke Island. The wharf is planned to connect to
the existing road reserve of Donald Bruce Road which was Pt. Allot. 7, Parish of Waiheke.
Figure 3: Location of the proposed development.
9
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 4: Location of the proposed development on Waiheke.
Figure 5: SO 44930 (drawn 1965, declared as road 1967) showing the
road and ferry landing area.
10
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
3.3. Previous archaeological work within the area affected
Site recording resulted from site surveys on Waiheke Island during the 1970s and 1980s. As
late as 2002 a review was undertaken.
To the best knowledge of the author no archaeological work before or after the Historic
Places Act (1993), now replaced by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, has
taken place beyond the surveys in the vicinity of the proposed development.
11
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
4. Statutory Requirements
There are two main pieces of legislation in New Zealand that control work affecting
archaeological sites. These are the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA)
and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
This assessment considers only archaeological sites as defined in the HNZPTA as outlined
below.
4.1. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZ) administers the HNZPTA. The HNZPTA
contains a consent (authority) process for any work affecting archaeological sites, where an
archaeological site is defined as:
“6(a)
any place in New Zealand, including any building or
structure (or part of a building or structure), that—
(i)
was associated with human activity that occurred
before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any
vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900;
and
(ii)
provides or may provide, through investigation
by archaeological methods, evidence relating to
the history of New Zealand; and
6(b)
includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)”
Any person who intends carrying out work that may damage, modify or destroy an
archaeological site, or to investigate a site using invasive archaeological techniques, must
first obtain an authority from HNZ. The process applies to sites on land of all tenure
including public, private and designated land. The HNZPTA contains penalties for
unauthorised site damage or destruction
The archaeological authority process applies to all sites that fit the HPA definition,
regardless of whether:

The site is recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme or
registered by HNZ,

The site only becomes known about as a result of ground disturbance, and/ or

The activity is permitted under a district or regional plan, or a resource or building
consent has been granted
HNZ also maintains the List of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu
Areas. The List can include archaeological sites. The purpose of the List is to inform
12
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
members of the public about such places and to assist with their protection under the
Resource Management Act (1991).
4.2. Resource Management Act 1991
Under Section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) it is stated that the protection of
historic heritage is a matter of national importance,
“In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it,
in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical
resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:
[…]
(e)the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water,
sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga
(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.”
“Historic heritage” is defined in the RMA as being “those natural and physical resources that
contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand's history and cultures”
and includes archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scientific and technological
qualities.
Historic heritage includes:

historic sites, structures, places, and areas

archaeological sites;

sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu;

surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources (RMA section 2).
These categories are not mutually exclusive and some archaeological sites may include
above ground structures or may also be places that are of significance to Maori.
Where resource consent is required for any activity the assessment of effects is required to
address cultural and historic heritage matters (RMA 4th Schedule and the district plan
assessment criteria).
Section 17 of the RMA states “Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse
effect on the environment arising from an activity carried on by or on behalf of the person” , and this
includes historic heritage.
13
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
5. Methodology
5.1. Investigation Procedure
For this investigation aerial photographs, historic maps, secondary literature dealing with
the history of Waiheke Island and the New Zealand Archaeological Site Recording Scheme
have been consulted. Two site visits were carried out and information recorded using
handheld GPS and digital photography. A probe was used to test for sub-surface shell
midden.
5.2. Site Investigation
A walkover along the beach and around the ferry landing and wharf was undertaken. Close
to the shell midden in the southern half of the bay a gum spear was used to probe for the
sub-surface extent of the midden. The probe was also used to test sporadically for subsurface shell midden along the northern half of the bay right up to the road, that has been
built on stilts in this part of the bay.
6. Background
6.1. Physical Environment
The geological subsoil is Waipapa group sandstone. It is of volcanic origin and includes
argillite and chert, both used by Maori for tool making.
A high ridge line forms a long head land. A number of bays were formed on either side
along the foot of the head land. One of it is Kennedy Point bay. It is relatively unprotected
compared with the bays further inland. The steep beach allowed canoes to land but there
they were exposed to southerlies winds.
14
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 6: Waipapa formation
http://data.gns.cri.nz/geology/)
in
blue
for
most
of
Waiheke.
(Copyright
GNS:
6.2. Historical Context
Early Maori settlement on Waiheke probably began with the first Polynesian voyagers or
their immediate descendants. Ideally located at the cross roads of water highways north,
east and west and close to portages into the Manukau harbour and Waikato River, Waiheke
has always been a desirable habitation place for many people over the centuries. This is
clearly expressed in its earliest known name Te Motu arai roa – The long sheltering island.
Plenty of food sources on the island or within the many bays of the island as well as sources
for stone tools made it into an ideal place for Maori settlements.
The earliest known settlers were Te Uri Karaka, who were followed by Ngati Huarere from
the
Coromandel
(http://www.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/EN/heritage/localhistory/
suburbs/waiheke/Pages/waiheke.aspx). Many pa seemed to have been built during this
time. Eventually in the 18th century Ngati Paoa gained control over the island. But many
other iwi had links to it. In 1821 Ngapuhi attacked amongst other places Waiheke and
destroyed many of the settlements. By 1830 many people of Ngati Paoa who fled then
returned to the island.
In 1838 the first European land purchase took place, until in 1868 only the Te Huruhi block
remained in Ngati Paoa hands.
The initial European settlement was driven by the kauri trade which finished around 1850.
Farming took over from it and later early tourism.
An early historic map of the area around Kennedy Point (1907) shows what seems to be a
farm around the next bay to the north of Kennedy Point bay, as well as the first road layouts
(DP 3923). This farm seem to have been established by 1881 in Putaki Bay (155A).
The road towards the car ferry landing was surveyed in 1965 and the landing seemed to
have been built in 1970/71. Subdivision along the ridge line followed in 1975 (see site
record S11/16).
15
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 7: DP 3923 (1907) showing a farm north of Kennedy Point bay.
16
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 8: A 155 (1881) showing the farm in Putaki bay.
17
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 9: SO 44930 (1965) survey of the road reserve leading to the ferry landing.
18
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
6.3. Archaeological Background
The first systematic archaeological survey on Waiheke Island was undertaken in 1963, the
second in 1974 -75 (when a number of sites along the Kennedy Point ridge line were
recorded) and a third one in 1980/81 (Rickard 1981).
A re-survey was undertaken in 2002 (see site records updates).
A site with storage pits and artificial terraces was recorded just to the north of Kennedy
Point (S11/11) and a paa site to the west (S11/14), overlooking Huruhi bay. A shell midden
was probably destroyed during the subdivision works in 1975 on the ridge line between
those two sites (S11/16).
The closest archaeological site to the proposed development is a shell midden in the
'southern half of the bay [Kennedy Point bay]' (site record S11/663 and Chambers 1980).
Of note for the purpose of this report are two further recorded paa sites on small islands at
the entrance to Putiki Bay (S11/661 & 662).
Figure 10: Recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of Kennedy Point Bay.
All archaeological sites in the SRS are also recorded in the Cultural Heritage Inventory
(CHI).
19
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Table 2: Previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity (from NZAA SRS and CHI), see
Figure 10.
CHI #
NZAA Site
Record
S11/
Type
Context
11
7713
Pits, terraces
A kainga on top of the ridge,
maybe a single whanau place.
Overwinter storage of crops.
14
9141
Pa
Defended headland, overlooking
Huruhui bay.
16
6418
Shell midden
Along the ridge line. Now
probably destroyed. Not relocated.
Position approximate
661
9150
Pa
On island. Guarding entrance to
Puriki Bay
662
6992
Pa
On island. Guarding entrance to
Puriki Bay
663
6496
Shell midden
On southern half of Kennedy Point
Bay, about 60 m long. Detailed
description in 2002 re-survey.
One more site is recorded in the CHI as a Maritime Site, #551, Landing ramps at the car ferry
landing in Kennedy Point. As they were built in 1970, they do not fall under the definition of
an archaeological site under the HNZPT Act 2014 and have not been gazetted as an
archaeological site later than 1900. The site is described as the car ferry landing ramps, the
carpark and a wharf structure in 1993. Since then a breakwater has been added and the
access road has probably being enlarged. The landing ramps also were re-surfaced.
No shipwrecks are reported in the vicinity of the proposed development in the New
Zealand
databases,
but
the
Australian
National
Shipwreck
database
(https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/historic-shipwrecks/australian-nationalshipwreck-database) records the scow Pahiki scuttled in 1949 in the inner bay near the
causeway (see map below). This is far from the proposed development, furthermore this
wreck does not fall within the provisions of the HNZPTA 2014 as an archaeological site as
the wreck occurred past 1900.
The locations of most historic shipwrecks around New Zealand are not accurate enough to
be recorded within the archaeological database or are not known, therefore there is always a
very small chance that an unrecorded shipwreck is close by. But so close inshore as the
proposed development is located, stories of snapped fishing nets and fishing lines and local
knowledge from divers would have us alerted to the presence of such in Kennedy Point Bay.
20
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 11: Location of the recorded shipwreck of the scow Pahiki in the inner bay.
7. Results
No new archaeological sites were encountered. The site S11/663 was re-located and
accurately surveyed. The CHI maritime site 551 was also visited and a set of new
photographs taken.
The site S11/11 is separated from the proposed development by a 40 m high bank and is
situated on private land.
The entire beach along Kennedy Point Bay was carefully investigated by a walk over and
regular probing with a gum spear. The sub-surface extent of the site S11/663 was probed
and recorded. It does not continue far from where it is seen in the beach bench. The dripline
of the pohutukawa tree in the middle of the bay is about as far as it reaches north. Beyond
the tree the slope has been disturbed by either waste water or storm water works and
further along by a concrete path and the earthworks for the access way onto the car ferry.
Occasional soil profiles in the northern part of the bay indicate that the original topsoil has
gone and modern fill replaces it.
It can not be completely ruled out that some shell midden lies underneath the access road,
but it is very unlikely. The extensive earthworks to construct it would probably have
destroyed all archaeological features within its footprint.
The proposed development shows a wharf branching off the access road to the car ferry
landing close to the beach. The entire remaining structures are in the water of the bay. There
is no archaeological site under water now, for example an old wharf or a shipwreck.
Nothing is noted on any historic map.
21
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 12: Location of the proposed development in relation to NZAA S11/663 and CHI 551.
Figure 13: Proposed wharf and site S11/663.
22
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 14: Proposed wharf and maritime site CHI # 551.
Figure 15: View over the bay.
23
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 16: View onto the bay from the water.
Figure 17: Pohutukawa tree in the middle of the bay. The midden starts just on the right of
the picture and continues well beyond the left of the picture.
24
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 18: Shell midden between the tree roots of the Pohutukawa tree.
Figure 19: Shell midden layer at the southern end of the bay.
25
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 20: Soil layers at the northern end of the
bay: beach deposits over modern fill, no topsoil
visible.
Figure 21: Re-surfaced landing ramp.
26
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 22: Remnants of old surface of the landing ramp.
Figure 23: Successive layers of the landing ramp.
27
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 24: Overview of the landing ramp.
28
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
8. Discussion
The shell midden site on the southern end of the beach at Kennedy Point Bay was observed
over the decades in very much the same location and with the same extent. It is therefore
unlikely that we have lost much of it due to modern construction works.
It also lies in front of the only flat area in the bay. The northern part of the bay is a steep
slope ending directly on top of the high water mark. The southern part where the site is
observed a small flat area, probably about 30 metres wide at the widest point, can be seen
above the high water mark below the steep slope. This seems to be the only part of the bay
that is conducive for a Maori fishing camp of which the shell midden would be the refuse
area. Again it seems unlikely that the shell midden would have been continuing all along the
entire bay.
Nonetheless it can not be completely dismissed that patches of shell midden could have
existed within the area which is today covered by the road. If this was the case it seems
unlikely that they would have survived the earthworks for the road. But it can not be ruled
out completely. It is at this area where the proposed new wharf would be added to the
existing structures.
The maritime site of the landing ramp (CHI #551) will not be touched as the existing
breakwater separates the area of the site from the area of the proposed development.
Within the wider archaeological landscape Kennedy Point Bay seems to be bypassed by the
communication pathways used by Maori. The inner Putiki Bay has many more sites and was
likely used for shell fish exploitation and net fishing. The pathway to culturally important
sites of Ngati Paoa (see cultural values assessment) also leads deep into the northern end of
the bay. The two island pa sites (S11/662 and 661) are well suited to protect this waterway
into the inner bay but would have little use to protect a landing place at Kennedy Point Bay.
The sites S11/11, a kainga, and the pa, S11/14, are both orientated towards Huruhi Bay on
the northern side of the ridge line running towards Kennedy Point.
All sites in the vicinity of the proposed development indicate that Kennedy Point Bay was
not an important part of the archaeological landscape and was bypassed by important
communication pathways, but the existing site indicates that it was used from time to time
possibly by a whanau group for shell fish gathering and fishing.
Most of the proposed development will be impacting upon the ground of the open sea
within the bay. We have no knowledge of any historic structure or shipwreck under water.
A side scan sonar of the proposed development area could close this gap in our knowledge.
29
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Figure 25: Sites in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Figure 26: Contours indicating the landscape around Kennedy Point Bay.
30
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
Figure 27: Area close to the proposed development.
9. Constraints and Limitations
Developments since the 1970s might have changed the land surface. However it seems
unlikely that either a site was covered over by those developments or – if it existed – would
have survived the earthworks.
The shell midden site recorded during the earthworks of the subdivision along the ridge line
(S11/16) has never been relocated and might well have been destroyed since the recording.
31
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
10. Archaeological Values
10.1. Assessment Criteria
“Archaeological values relate to the potential of a place to provide evidence of the history of
New Zealand. This potential is framed within the existing body of archaeological knowledge,
and current research questions and hypotheses about New Zealand’s past. An understanding
of the overall archaeological resource is therefore required” (NZHPT 2006).
The following value assessment is based on Gumbley 1995, Walton 1999 & 2002.
The assessment criteria are split into two sections: Main Archaeological values and
Additional values:
The first archaeological values look at an intra (within the) site context.

Condition:
How complete is the site? Are parts of it already damaged or destroyed?
Condition varies from undisturbed to destroyed and every variation in between. It is
also possible that the condition of various parts of the site varies.

Rarity/Uniqueness:
Rarity can be described in a local, regional and national context. Rarity can be rare as
a site, or rarely examined or today a rare occurrence in the records.

Information Potential:
How diverse are the features to be expected during an archaeological excavation on
the site?
How complete is the set of features for the type of site?
Can the site inform about a specific period or specific function?
The second set of archaeological values are inter site (between sites) context criteria:
32

Archaeological landscape / contextual value:
What is the context of the site within the surrounding archaeological sites?
The question here is the part the site plays within the surrounding known
archaeological sites. A site might sit amongst similar surrounding sites without any
specific features. Or a site might occupy a central position within the surrounding
sites. Though a site can be part of a complete or near complete landscape, whereby
the value of each individual site is governed by the value of the completeness of the
archaeological landscape.

Amenity value:
What is the context of the site within the physical landscape?
This question is linked to the one above, but focuses onto the position of the site in
the landscape. Is it a dominant site with many features still visible or is the position
in the landscape ephemeral with little or no features visible? This question is also
concerned with the amenity value of a site today and its potential for onsite
education.

Cultural Association:
What is the context of the site within known historic events or to people?
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
This is the question of known cultural association either by tangata whenua or other
descendant groups. This question is also concerned with possible commemorative
values of the site.
Additional values can include (NZHPT 2004):
1 Architectural
2 Historic
3 Scientific
4 Technological
5 Aesthetic/Visual impact
6 Cultural
The last value, cultural, acknowledges if there is an impact onto Maori cultural values. This
assessment will not evaluate these, but rather state their relevance in relation to the other
values.
In addition, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Part 1, Chapter B: 4.1) outlines a place as
having historic heritage value if it has one or more of the following values:
a) Historical: The place reflects important or representative aspects of national, regional
or local history, or is associated with an important event, person, group of people or
idea or early period of settlement within New Zealand, the region or locality.
b) Social: The place has a strong or special association with, or is held in high esteem
by, a particular community or cultural group for its symbolic, spiritual, commemorative, traditional or other cultural value.
c) Mana Whenua: The place has a strong or special association with, or is held in high
esteem by, Mana Whenua for its symbolic, spiritual, commemorative, traditional or
other cultural value knowledge: The place has potential to provide knowledge
through scientific or scholarly study or to contribute to an understanding of the cultural or natural history of New Zealand, the region, or locality.
d) Technology: The place demonstrates technical accomplishment innovation or
achievement in its structure, construction, components or use of materials.
e) Physical attributes: The place is a notable or representative example of a type, design
or style, method of construction, craftsmanship or use of materials or the work of a
notable architect, designer, engineer or builder.
f)
Aesthetic: The place is notable or distinctive for its aesthetic, visual, or landmark
qualities
33
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
10.2. Archaeological Values Assessment
No recorded archaeological site is impacted by the proposed development. But it can not be
completely ruled out that some shell midden might be uncovered by the development. The
archaeological value assessment is therefore based on the site S11/663, a shell midden and
the site closest to the proposed development.
Table 3: Summary of archaeological values. Shell midden.
Sites
Value
Assessment
S11/663,
and possible
unrecorded
sites
Condition
Continuing coastal erosion leaves the shell midden
in poor condition. Modern activities like storing
dinghies on the beach also added to the poor
condition of the site.
Rarity/
Uniqueness
Shell midden are the most frequently recorded
archaeological sites on Waiheke and probably
nationwide.
Contextual Value
As far as we can know, the function of the site is a
refuse part of a small fishing/shell fish gathering
camp that could occur on any bay along the New
Zealand coast line. Its specific relationship to sites in
the vicinity like the pa site S11/14 is unknown.
Information
Potential
The information potential of the site is restricted to
the selective function of the site as probably a
seasonal camp.
Amenity Value
The layer of darkened soil packed with shell has no
amenity value without on site interpretation.
Cultural
Associations
Apart from the obvious mana whenua relationship
with the site, without dating a number of Maori
groups could be the originators of the site. Waiheke
has been fought over a number of times in the last
few centuries.
34
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
10.3. Additional values assessment
There are no additional values to be considered on the shell midden site.
The possibility of a burial site is excluded from the value assessment as separate procedures
would come into play on the event of discovering a burial.
35
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
Table 4 Historic Heritage values assessment relating to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(ChB:4.1)
Site
Value
Assessment
S11/663,
and possible
unrecorded
sites
Historical
Apart from the assumption that the site is precontact, no further historical context is known.
Social
As there are no amenity values associated with
the site, it has no social impact.
Mana Whenua
Waiheke has been fought over in the past many
times and a number of iwi have relationships
with the island. Ngati Paoa as the katiaki of the
cultural heritage of the island will have an
interest in preserving the ancient footprint all
Maori groups have left on Waiheke.
Knowledge
Potential knowledge to be gained from the site is
restricted to the narrow function of it as a
seasonal camp.
Technology
There are no specific technological values
connected to these sites
Physical Attributes
No physical attributes other than darkened soil
form the haangi rake out and shell layer are
visible of the site.
Aesthetic
No aesthetic value can be contributed to the site.
Context
Without a date, the specific context of the site can
not be evaluated. The general context is of kai
moana exploitation on Waiheke Island.
36
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
11. Assessment of Effects
The assessment of effects follow the basic guidelines for preparing assessment of
environmental effects that includes a discussion on the nature of environmental effects (MfE
1999). It should be remembered that an archaeological excavation of a site mitigates only the
loss of archaeological information but not the loss of the site and its contextual, cultural and
educational values (NZHPT 2006).
Effects must be considered,
of how much of the site will be affected
if the future risk of damage is increased
whether a design change may avoid adverse effects on the site(s)
The proposed development has no physical impact onto the recorded archaeological site
S11/663 or the maritime site CHI #551.
37
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
11.1. Site Management & Mitigation
Possible methods to protect sites, and avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects will be
discussed.
Appropriate methods may include:
•
Specifying sites to be avoided by earthworks.
•
Specifying methods of protecting sites from accidental damage during works,
such as no vehicle crossings, taping, signage, fencing.
•
Specifying methods of protection for the long term, e.g. site burial.
•
Mitigation for information loss, including recording, analysis and reporting by an
archaeologist prior to or during earthworks.
•
Archaeological investigation of significant archaeological sites, if likely to be
damaged or destroyed. In this case, a research strategy may be appended to the
assessment, to establish the research aims of the investigation for the NZHPT and
to set out the costs for the client.
•
Briefing of contractors by an archaeologist before works commence.
•
Accidental discovery protocol for contractors to follow, if sites are discovered
unexpectedly.
•
Legal protection for significant sites, such as covenants or consent notices.
•
Public display of historic artefacts in new buildings on site.
•
Adherence to the principles and practices of the NZ ICOMOS Charter where
proposals involve remediation, replication or removal of structures or archaeological
sites.
The recorded archaeological site S11/663 is not impacted by the proposed development.
Unrecorded archaeological features are very unlikely to be discovered.
The following mitigation process for the small risk of uncovering unrecorded archaeological
features is proposed:
38

Archaeological induction of all contractors.

Spot monitoring of the wharf construction.

Sample, record, analyse and date any archaeological features using standard
archaeological methods.
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina

Undertake a side scan sonar survey of the underwater surface within the proposed
development to minimise the risk of damaging an unrecorded heritage structure or
shipwreck.
To allow for this suggested mitigation process a general Authority to Modify unrecorded
archaeological sites is to be sought from HNZPT under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga Act 2014.
39
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
12. Conclusions & Recommendations
It is considered no recorded archaeological or heritage site will be impacted upon by the
proposed development.
There is a small risk of encountering unrecorded shell midden and/or an unrecorded
shipwreck.
It is recommended to apply for an Authority to Modify Archaeological Sites with Heritage
NZ to minimize the risk of construction delays.
13. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Ngati Paoa for their active contribution to the survey and
discussions to help understand the cultural landscape of this part of Waiheke Island.
40
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
14. References
Auckland Council:
Aerials and various GIS layers.
CHI information
Chambers, C., 1980, Archaeological Site Survey, Waiheke Island. Putiki Bay and Kennedy
Peninsula, manuscript and overview map.
Gumbley, W. 1995. ‘Guidelines for the provision of archaeological information and
assessment for authority applications under section 11 or 12 of the Historic Places
Act 1993’. Archaeology in New Zealand 38(2): 100-105.
Land Information New Zealand:
SO 44930
DP 3923
A 155
Ministry for the Environment (MfE). 1999. A guide to preparing a basic assessment of
environmental effects. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/basic-aee-prepguide-mar99.pdf
New Zealand Archaeological Association:
overview map of archaeological sites
various site records
NZ Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). 2004. Heritage Management Guidelines for Resource
Management Practitioners.
http://www.historic.org.nz/publications/HM_guidelines.html
NZ Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). 2006. Archaeological Guidelines Series No.2: Guidelines
for Writing Archaeological Assessments.
http://www.historic.org.nz/ProtectingOurHeritage/Archaeology/Arch_Guidelin
es.aspx#assessment
Rickard, V., 1981, Archaeological Sites of Waiheke Island, unpublished report to NZ Historic
Places Trust, Auckland.
Walton, T. 2002. ‘Assessing archaeological value’. Archaeology in New Zealand 45(3): 220-236.
41
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
15. Appendices
•
42
Site Record Forms
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
43
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
44
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
45
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
46
Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Effects: : Kennedy Point Marina
47
Archaeology Solutions Ltd
48