Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T21:26:36.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Last Decade in New Zealand Archaeology. Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Abstract

Clearly this is a major problem in New Zealand culture history. One of the present writers has recently outlined the problem and assembled the archaeological materials available for its solution, using excavated evidence for the Moa-hunters and, in the absence of dependable archaeological data, inferring the Maori culture traits relevant to the comparison from a variety of sources, mainly descriptions, drawings and collections made by Europeans in the early days of contact. The result has been to isolate the common elements, point out the distinguishing ones, and define the areas of our present ignorance.

The latter include, besides the question of agriculture already discussed, that of warfare. Though none of the evidences to be expected for this—weapons, defensive arrangements, or cannibalism—has been found in unequivocal Moa-hunter contexts, it must be admitted that the search has been restricted. Fortified sites (pa) are a prolific feature of the North Island cultural landscape, but very few have been properly excavated. The results of such investigations as have been made are hardly conclusive, and although the argument favouring Moa-hunter fortification in the Bay of Plenty cannot now be sustained, it would be well to keep the question open. The absence of weapons from Moa-hunter sites is a factor of some importance in this argument, but the Polynesian armoury was rendered almost exclusively in wood, and only stone or bone weapons of the patu type (FIG. 8) will be commonly found in archaeological deposits. Limited excavations on six undeniably fortified sites in the Auckland province have, however, failed to uncover a single weapon. The only piece of positive evidence for Moa-hunter weapons is the Horowhenua bone patu (FIG. 7) associated in a grave with a rare type of amulet, definitely known to the Moa-hunters though not necessarily distinctive of them.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkin, G. L. 1960. ‘An Adequate Culture Nomenclature for the New Zealand Area’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 69: 228238.Google Scholar
Ambrose, W. 1962. ‘Further investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati’, New Zealand Arch, Assoc-Newsletter, 5, No. 1, 5657.Google Scholar
Ambrose, W. and Davis, F. 1958. ‘Interim Report on the Recording of Maori Rock Shelter Art at Benmore’. National Historic Places Trust, Annual Report: 1123.Google Scholar
Ambrose, W.. 1960. ‘Final Report on the Recording of Maori Rock Shelter Art at Benmore’. National Historic Places Trust, Annual Report: 1416.Google Scholar
Ambrose, W., Ambrose, J., and Davis, F. 1959. ‘Further Report of the Recording of Maori Rock Shelter Art at Benmore’. National Historic Places Trust, Annual Report: 1924.Google Scholar
Bell, R. E. 1958. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society : 4—Dendrochronology’. New Zealand Science Review, 16: 1317.Google Scholar
Burrows, E. G. 1938. ‘Western Polynesia. A Study in Cultural Differentiation’. Etnologiska Studier, 7: 1192.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1944. An Autobiography. London, Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Gathercole, P. W. 1960. ‘The Fifth Annual Conference of the New Zealand Archaeological Association’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 69: 160163.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1955a. ‘New Zealand Archaeological Association’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 64: 155156-Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1955b. ‘New Zealand Archaeological Association’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 64: 349352.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1956. ‘New Zealand Archaeological Association. First Annual Conference. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 65: 7781.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1957a. ‘New Zealand Archaeology, 1957’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 66: 271290.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1957b. ‘The Contribution of the Natural Sciences to Archaeological Research’. New Zealand Science Review, 15: 5660.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1959a. ‘Culture Change in Prehistoric New Zealand’. In Anthropology in the South Seas, ed. Freeman, J. D. and Geddes, W. R., 2974. New Plynouth, Thomas Avery & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1959c. ‘The Fourth Annual Conference of the New Zealand Archaeological Association’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 68: 150152.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1959d. ‘L’Archéologie du Pacifique Sud: Résultats et Perspectives’. Journal de la Société des Océanistes, 15: 554.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1960. ‘Archaeology, Tradition, and Myth in New Zealand Prehistory’. Journal of the Poly nesian Society, 69: 380402.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1961a. ‘A Radiocarbon Date from Mt. Wellington’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 4, No. 2: 51.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1961b. ‘Notes on Artifacts from the Manukau Pa’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 4, No. 2: 6163.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1961c. ‘Review Article: Polynesian Culture History’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 70, 498508.Google Scholar
Golson, J. and Green, R. C. 1958. A Handbook to Field Recording in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand Archaeological Association, Handbook No. 1.Google Scholar
Golson, J. Melvin, L. W., Schofield, J. C, and Pullar, W. A. 1961. ‘Investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati, Western Bay of Plenty’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 4, No. 2: 1341.Google Scholar
Harris, W. F. 1958. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society: 5—Pollen Analysis and Archaeology’. New Zealand Science Review, 16: 2728.Google Scholar
Hunter Blair, P. 1956. An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge, University Press.Google Scholar
Kear, D. 1957. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society: 2—Geological Techniques in Dating New Zealand’s Prehistory’. New Zealand Science Review, 15: 7679.Google Scholar
Mckelvey, P. J. 1958. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society: 6—Forest History and New Zealand Prehistory’. New Zealand Science Review, 16: 2832.Google Scholar
Mumford, W. 1959. ‘Field Recording Scheme’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 2, No. 4: 712.Google Scholar
Mumford, W. Daniels, J. R. S., and Smart, C. D. 1960. ‘Revision of the Site Recording Scheme’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 3, No. 4: 3335.Google Scholar
Phelan, E. L., Davidson, J., Smart, C. D. and Gathercole, P. 1961. ‘The Extended Annual Meeting, 1961’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 4, No. 3, 321.Google Scholar
Rafter, T. A. 1957. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society: 3—Radio-carbon Ageing in New Zealand’. New Zealand Science Review, 15: 9396.Google Scholar
Scarlett, R. J. 1957. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 1, No. 2: 15.Google Scholar
Scarlett, R. J. 1958. ‘Talks at Whanganui Conference’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 1, No. 4: 23.Google Scholar
Scarlett, R. J. 1959. ‘Report on Conference’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 2, No. 3: 28.Google Scholar
Scarlett, R. J. 1960. ‘Conference Report 1960’. New Zealand Arch. Assoc. Newsletter, 3, No. 3: 311.Google Scholar
Suggs, R. C. 1960. The Island Civilisations of Polynesia. New York, The New American Library.Google Scholar
Suggs, R. C. 1961. ‘The Derivation of Marquesan Culture’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 91: 110.Google Scholar
Taylor, N. H. 1958. ‘Proceedings of the New Zealand Archaeological Society: 7—Soil Science and New Zealand Prehistory’. New Zealand Science Review, 16: 7179.Google Scholar