Keywords

Compared to Europe and the Americas, the indigenous , European and Chinese settlement history of New Zealand is relatively short, and the country is one of the last places on earth to have been colonised in both pre-European and European histories. The genesis of bioarchaeology as a discipline in New Zealand is complicated and to some extent entwined with the fates of the indigenous people of the land, the Māori .

The current population of New Zealand is around 4.9 million people and is comprised largely (over 70%) of people of European heritage (Pākeha) most of whom are descended from British colonial settlers, while Māori make up only 14.9% of the population (Aotearoa 2013). The pre-European colonisation of New Zealand began in the late thirteenth century AD from the tropical eastern Polynesian islands; hence, Māori are of Polynesian heritage (Walter and Jacomb 2007; Walter et al. 2010). The first contact of Māori with Europeans occurred in 1642 with a fleeting interaction with Abel Tasman , but it was not until Captain James Cook’s first voyage to New Zealand in 1769 that contact and interaction with Europeans became more frequent (Davidson 1984). This contact ultimately led to British colonisation of the country, which was formalised in 1840 with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi by some Māori communities (Iwi) and representatives of the Crown (Pool 2015). During the period of European colonisation (pre-1907) and up to 1940, the health and life expectancy of non-Māori living in New Zealand was considered to be the best in the world, due to a relative abundance of food, low levels of urban crowding and improvements in child mortality and maternal health (Woodward and Blakey 2014). However, this healthy lifestyle of Pākeha was not matched by the health and survival of the Māori population. The introduction of firearms (fuelling intertribal warfare) and new pathogens rapidly and dramatically reduced the indigenous population to after first European contact (the exact decline depends on which demographic estimates one follows: estimates of initial indigenous population size range from 86, 000 to 500,000) (Woodward and Blakey 2014; Pool 2015). Despite this catastrophic decline in population numbers, Māori still made up 98% of the population in 1840 as the new colony became established, but by 1901 the combination of high Māori mortality and high European immigration meant that the proportion of Māori had shrunk to about 6% of the total population (Pool 2015).

While the transfer of lethal pathogens to Māori was unintentional, the institutional marginalisation of Māori that followed led to further depopulation, poor health and a complete loss of political control along with the marginalisation of their language and culture. The greatest impact was the loss of land, as this was desired by the European settler society, and large tracts were either confiscated or purchased from Māori at extremely low prices. This loss of land caused both social dislocation and the loss of food- and resource-gathering areas and was devastating for Māori society. There was also an official policy of assimilation of Māori into colonial society, which removed Māori control over many aspects of their culture and discouraged the teaching of Māori language in schools (Pool 2015). Even today, with the great suite of political reforms benefiting Māori, life expectancy is lower than Pākeha and Māori have increased risk of mortality from all the ‘modern diseases’ such as cardiovascular disease and various cancers (Woodward and Blakey 2014).

The story of how human skeletal remains (kōiwi tangata) were treated and used in research by colonial curio hunters and adventurers mirrors the treatment and eventual re-empowerment of Māori. Human skeletal remains hold a special place in all New Zealanders’ cultural identity , but for Māori, such remains are the physical embodiment of their genealogy representing a direct link to the land on which their ancestors lived and died for the last six or so centuries. For descendants of the nineteenth-century European colonial settlers, and gold rush Chinese of the 1860–1880s, it is arguable that the skeletal remains of their ancestors are viewed with a similar level of reverence and importance to how the Māori view their ancestors.

In New Zealand, scientific engagement with human skeletal remains is on several different levels. Human skeletal remains, usually of pre-European Māori, may be discovered accidentally and analysed as a result of coastal or other erosion, through industrial development, and accidentally during archaeological excavations. This chapter briefly reviews the history of biological anthropology in New Zealand and outlines the current legislative and social context of this research; the legislative and social contexts are expanded on in more detail elsewhere (Ruckstuhl et al. 2016). The professional genealogies and research foci of current biological anthropologists in the Department of Anatomy, University of Otago , Dunedin , are also outlined which highlight the perhaps unique position of this country in global bioarchaeology practice. Two case studies of recent bioarchaeology research carried out in collaboration with local communities are also presented, representing the current state of play for the University of Otago.

A Brief History of Research on Archaeological Human Skeletal Remains in New Zealand

From the very first visit of Europeans to New Zealand, the origin of the indigenous people, the Māori , and Polynesians in general, was a source of much interest to Western scientists and anthropologists (Smith and Aranui 2010). In response to this interest, the foundations of the field of biological anthropology were laid early in New Zealand’s history, with the purpose of researching these origins, but were essentially only part of the curio collecting activities of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century colonialists (Forster 1996; Howe 2003). As is the case with many colonised countries, this research attempted to identify Polynesian origins and also to place them in the nineteenth-century human taxonomy (Roberts 2006). The methods used were those employed universally at the time to categorise human populations from their skeletal remains, principally craniometrics (Buck 1938; Smith and Aranui 2010).

Human skeletal remains were acquired for research by means that were perceived at the time to be justified: collecting of curios to delight people back ‘home’ and to chronicle the passing of the colonised indigenes (Buck 1924). Initially the collecting and sale of Māori body parts was limited to the preserved and tattooed heads (Toi moko) that fascinated Europeans and were seen as evidence for the practice of cannibalism (Smith and Aranui 2010). The trade was largely conducted by sailors and adventurers, and the motivation was purely pecuniary (Smith and Aranui 2010). This trade in tattooed heads was eventually banned by an Act of Parliament in 1831 but was quickly replaced by human skeletal remains being sold or donated to museums throughout the British Isles and Europe (Smith and Aranui 2010; King 1981). The forces behind this acquisition of human skeletal remains included the international museum trade that sought to meet the demand for specimens of indigenous peoples, including Māori, who were considered to be a ‘dying race ’ (Fforde and Hubert 2006). Consequently, hundreds of crania of Māori were curated in museums in the United Kingdom , Ireland , Germany , Austria , Australia , Italy , France and Sweden . People involved in this trade ranged from curio hunters to scholars engaged in anthropological research of the day (Tapsell 2005; Fforde and Hubert 2006; Tayles 2009 ; Smith and Aranui 2010). For example, several former medical students of the University of Edinburgh donated skulls to the institution and Dr. William Will , a medical practitioner in Dunedin , donated a skeleton he excavated from the lower south island of New Zealand to Trinity College in Dublin (Smith and Aranui 2010). However, probably one of the most prolific collectors of human skeletal remains in the south island of New Zealand was Sir Julius von Haast, a German geologist and the founding director of the Canterbury Museum in Christchurch . Von Haast also engaged others to collect skeletal remains for him, and these were later sent to various European institutions in Italy, Sweden , Austria and Germany (Smith and Aranui 2010).

Those involved in research on collected bones included academic staff at the Medical School at the University of Otago , Dunedin , where the morphology and origin of Māori were among the first research topics established at this institution. The University of Otago opened in 1871, only 10 years after the initial Otago Gold Rush. Two years later, in 1873, the Medical School was opened to train the first four students, so they did not need to return ‘home’ (i.e. to Britain) . After a shaky start for the fledging Medical School, largely due to a lack of recognition for the degree from the home institutions, the second Professor of Anatomy, John Halliday Scott , was appointed in 1877 marking the birth of biological anthropology in New Zealand (Neuman 1993). Professor Scott’s passion was for anthropology, and he collected hundreds of Māori and Moriori (the tribal group living in the Chatham Islands to the east of the south island of New Zealand) skulls and skeletons. These crania were displayed in the Anatomy Museum in glass-fronted cases, a practice that would be considered abhorrent today. Scott published a major research paper on Polynesian cranial morphology based on this collection. Some early research stepped outside the categorisation concept and took an interest in prehistoric Māori dentition that had unusual patterns of wear and a lack of dental caries (Pickerill 1912; Pickerill and Champtaloup 1912; Taylor 1962a, b, c, 1963, 1970). The earlier works by Pickerill were arguably quite visionary for the period as they were concerned with using pre-European population-based patterns of dental disease for understanding present-day health problems. This was at a time when in Britain most anthropologists were still using the skulls of indigenous peoples to justify eugenics -based paradigms (Roberts 2006). Both Pickerill and Taylor were dental practitioners, and Māori patterns of dental wear and other characteristics were very different from anything observed in Europe , possibly explaining their interest.

One later researcher, Professor Philip Houghton , described the singular characteristics of Māori and Moriori cranial and postcranial morphology (Houghton 1980, 1996) and developed a theoretical basis for the cranial morphology with collaborator Martin Kean (Kean and Houghton 1982, 1987, 1990) as well as an adaptive hypothesis explaining the distinctive Polynesian postcranial phenotype (Houghton 1990, 1991a, b, c, 1996).

While over 60 publications and research theses resulted from the Otago collection, few authors were Māori, with the only known indigenous researcher, Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck) , publishing a paper in 1925 on the diet of prehistoric Māori that drew on evidence from the collection published by Scott (1893: 20).

The Genesis of Bioarchaeology in New Zealand

New Zealand archaeologists continued to excavate Māori human skeletal remains until the 1970s, but these were largely single inhumations or small samples, negating population-based research questions (Davidson 1984). The discovery of burials during archaeological investigations was invariably incidental and conducted without bioarchaeology specialists on site or analysing the human remains (Leach and Leach 1979). This lack of bioarchaeologists involved in excavations was largely due to an absence of osteology training at New Zealand universities, probably driven by cultural sensitivities around excavating human skeletal remains. Until the early 1990s, Professor Philip Houghton was essentially the sole osteologist for the country and was responsible for writing at least 75 unpublished reports to the Historic Places Trust , the police and local councils on finds of human skeletal remains, and a small number (four) were specifically for tribal groups. The reports are largely descriptive and provide information driven by archaeologists’ questions regarding ancestry, cause of death and age at death. As was the case with British osteology research at the same time (Roberts 2006), Philip Houghton was clinically trained with no anthropology background. His research questions were therefore biologically driven, but his 1980 book The First New Zealanders attempted to place the cohort of skeletons he had assessed into the biocultural framework of New Zealand (Houghton 1980).

The discipline of bioarchaeology in New Zealand today is unusual as most field-based research projects are conducted in the Asia-Pacific region , outside of New Zealand. This practice began with Houghton’s involvement in the excavation of prehistoric skeletons from the Sigatoka Sand Dunes in Fiji in the 1980s (Best 1987). However, it was Houghton’s graduate student, Nancy Tayles , who truly founded bioarchaeology in New Zealand as an internationally recognised centre of population-based biocultural research in the Asia-Pacific region. Associate Professor Tayles trained in anthropology under the four-field system at Auckland University in the 1980s. She received her Doctor of Philosophy in 1992, the research for which analysed the quality of life of the people of Khok Phanom Di , a large prehistoric coastal cemetery site in Thailand (Tayles 1992, 1999). Now retired, Tayles trained almost all the bioarchaeologists currently active in the Asia-Pacific region (Buckley et al. 2016). These researchers collaborate with field archaeologists to gain research funding (mostly Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund grants and Australian Research Council funding) and implement research projects embedded in a biocultural framework analysing the human skeletal remains from sites in this region. Associate Professor Kathryn Domett (PhD 2000), James Cook University , Australia , came from a background of biomedical sciences and conducts research on human skeletal remains in Thailand , Cambodia and Laos . Professor Hallie Buckley (PhD 2001) studied anthropology at Auckland University as an undergraduate and conducts field-based bioarchaeology projects in the Pacific Islands, Thailand and Indonesia and has contributed to projects in Cambodia and Vietnam with Australia -based researchers. Dr. Sian Halcrow (PhD 2006) also studied anthropology at Auckland University and undertakes research in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos . Buckley and Halcrow are now permanent academic staff (tenured) in the Department of Anatomy, University of Otago. Biological anthropology at Otago is currently taught in the Department of Anatomy, where it has its origins. Courses in biological anthropology had been taught in the Department of Anthropology during the 1990s, but graduate research projects in bioarchaeology had mostly been undertaken out of Anatomy. There is currently no undergraduate Major in Biological Anthropology at the University of Otago; however, there is a thriving graduate research programme with the group consisting currently of 12 PhD and master’s level students. With this brief history in mind, it could be argued that biological anthropology in New Zealand has its roots in the British ‘osteoarchaeology’ tradition but has evolved into hypothesis-driven ‘bioarchaeology’ of the American tradition (Roberts 2006).

At present there are no academic biological anthropology staff of indigenous Māori descent at New Zealand universities; however, Māori researchers are active in repatriation programmes run through the different museums, such as the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa in Wellington (e.g. Smith and Aranui 2010). With this historical context in mind, the next section outlines social and cultural changes within New Zealand society that affected the legislation and procedures relevant to archaeological human remains.

Current Social and Legislation Context of Bioarchaeology

Social and legislative changes within New Zealand society eventually facilitated a change in approach and a review of how and if research on human skeletal remains could be conducted. One of these changes was the evolution of ethical practice within the field globally. The New Zealand Archaeological Association published a code of ethics in 1993, drawing on the 1991 World Archaeological code, which acknowledged the special importance of human skeletal remains to Māori (Association 1993).

The second driver of change was a challenge to the previous assimilationist government policy. Protests concerning land confiscations and social inequality have a long history in New Zealand, stretching back as far as the earliest days of colonisation and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (Byrnes 2006). In 1975, an act of parliament established a permanent commission of enquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal, to investigate and make recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown which breached the Treaty (Ministry of Justice), thus shaping relationships between Māori and the State. This took administrative effect through various judicial and policy procedures requiring State agencies to consider, consult with or include Māori in the formulation, implementation or delivery of public policy by adhering to a set of principles. These included concepts such as protection of Māori taonga (treasures), partnership, good faith, the duty to consult, the right to development and self-regulation, the principle of redress and the recognition of Māori tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) (Byrnes 2006, p. 91). These principles have influenced legislation and procedures that govern archaeological practices and, by implication, how skeletal remains are managed from all perspectives. Combined with the changes in ethical approach in the profession as a whole, these principles guide New Zealand archaeology and biological anthropology research activity in relation to Māori.

A series of Historic Places Acts have provided the legal framework for the protection and administration of archaeological sites (including human skeletal remains) in New Zealand by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (now Heritage New Zealand) , and these Acts have taken an increasingly inclusive approach to Māori involvement in the process. The Historic Places Act 1980 required that one member of the New Zealand Historic Places Board of Trustees be a Māori and be appointed by the New Zealand Māori Council (Section 7b). The Historic Places Act 1993 established the Māori Heritage Council, with its role being to ensure that ‘in the protection of wahi tapu [sacred places], wahi tapu areas, and historic places and areas of Māori interest, the Trust meets the needs of Māori in a culturally sensitive manner’ (Section 85(a)). All applications to carry out work on archaeological sites that were of interest to Māori were required to be submitted to the Council (Section 14(3)). The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 has further strengthened this requirement for Māori cultural involvement, and the principles of the Act state that the ‘relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tupuna, wahi tapu and other taonga’ must be recognised in all dealings (Section 4(d)). Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) is responsible under the 2014 Act for the identification, recording, protection, conservation, and management of, and advocacy for, historic places including archaeological sites.

Although the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act (2014) does not refer specifically to human skeletal remains, a location at which they are found is defined as a wāhi tapu (sacred place), whether or not the location is recognised as a Māori cemetery. An archaeological site is defined by the Act as ‘any place in New Zealand … that was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900’ (HNZPT Act 2014: Clause 43), and therefore human skeletal find locations become archaeological sites under HNZPT management. The Act gives HNZPT the right to issue authority for any archaeological site to be destroyed, damaged or modified (HNZPT 2014 Clause 42 (1)). Any application for authority must provide evidence that tāngata whenua (local Māori) have been consulted (HNZPT 43 (2)(h)), and any scientific investigation of a site of interest to Māori must have the consent of the appropriate iwi or hapū (HNZPT 43 (3)).

The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 , administered by the Ministry of Health , states that it generally ‘shall not apply to Māori burial grounds or to the burial of bodies therein’ (Clause 3) but paradoxically requires that a disinterment licence be obtained from the local Public Health Unit to ‘remove any body or the remains of any body buried in any cemetery, Māori burial ground, or other burial ground or place of burial’ (Clause 51(1)). Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga produced a series of Archaeological Guidelines of which No. 8 (2010) relates to human skeletal remains which details the process to follow when human remains are discovered and provides precise steps to be taken by the finder, including an archaeologist, during the excavation of an archaeological site under an HNZPT authority. The Ministry of Justice Coronial Services have a fact sheet on kōiwi/historic human remains, the original of which advised that accidentally found human skeletal remains be left in place and the police notified. An earlier version of the Coronial Services fact sheet stated that coroners may call on an ‘anatomist or anthropologist’ to ‘confirm that the bones are human’. However, the updated page (June 2016) now states that ‘an archaeologist’ may be consulted regarding the age of the bones. There is no reference to biological anthropologists assisting with identification, but there is a link to the HNZPT guidelines for human remains (Ministry of Justice Coronial Services and https://www.coronialservices.justice.govt.nz/about/finding-human-bones).

Today, human skeletal remains of Māori descent are not purposefully excavated for research purposes, but in some cases, they may be vulnerable to further exposure (especially by coastal erosion) or damage through development and must be moved to a safer place. Where exhumation is necessary, HNZPT states that it is highly recommended for a biological anthropologist to assist with exhumation, but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Where human skeletal remains are held in museum collections, there is no national legislation controlling their management, although some museums have specific, publicly accessible policies. For example, Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand’s national museum, has a policy regarding human remains (kōiwi tangata) (Te Papa Tongarewa 2010) that ‘….states the position of Te Papa as kaitiaki or guardian in regard to the management and repatriation of kōiwi tangata Māori and Moriori ’. The policy is designed to ensure that the kōiwi will be managed and cared for in a ‘consistent and culturally appropriate manner’ and includes any repatriation from international institutions.

Canterbury Museum Trust Board adopted formal Koiwi Tangata/Human Remains Policy and Procedures in 1998. In that document, the guiding principles of the Ngāi Tahu Kōiwi Tangata Policy (1993) were adopted by the museum to cover skeletal remains of Ngāi Tahu (the major tribe of New Zealand’s south island) and also all other Māori human skeletal remains held within the museum. The Ngāi Tahu policy was the first of its kind implemented by a tribal group and has formed the basis for policy in other New Zealand museums (Gillies and O’Regan 1994).

There are no national guidelines for universities relating specifically to human skeletal remains, although changes in ethical practice within New Zealand have become mandated within these institutions. For example, at the University of Otago , researchers are required by the university to submit research applications to the Ngāi Tahu Research Consultation Committee , an advisory body drawn from members of the local hapū (subtribe), whose role is to comment and offer suggestions about research proposals from a Māori perspective. This committee, unique to the University of Otago , has been in place since 2001 when a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the University and Ngāi Tahu, which was a response to changes in the Education Act (1989) requiring all tertiary education providers to address the ‘development goals of Māori and other population groups’.

Engagement between biological anthropologists and Māori in relation to the handling of skeletal remains is conducted in accord with what has become the Historic Places Trust Kōiwi Tangata Guidelines mentioned above (2010). If iwi decide they wish to learn more about particular human remains through bioarchaeological analyses, academic staff from the University are consulted. Information from any analyses is communicated to iwi, and the relevant government offices, by way of a written report and, in some cases, a verbal report on a marae (traditional meeting places). In most cases, the information is not disseminated any further than the rūnanga (governance group) involved and is not published in the academic arena or the wider public, unless this is initiated by the relevant Māori group. Such information is considered by the academics involved to ‘belong to’ the rūnanga who have guardianship over the information as much as over the physical remains. The fact that iwi are able to trust that the stories of their ancestors will not reach the wider public and become public knowledge may have helped, at least in the case of the Ngāi Tahu-University of Otago relationship, to build the foundations of a solid working relationship between iwi and academics.

There are two levels of analyses which may be undertaken on the skeletal remains if they reach the laboratory at Otago. The first is macroscopic observations of age, sex and health and metric analyses. This level will also include radiographic and computed tomography (CT) imaging . The second level of analysis involves the destruction of small amounts of bone and teeth for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating, isotope analysis of diet and migration and extraction of aDNA . Whether any destructive analyses are carried out is decided solely by the Māori group concerned. Consideration is also given to the cultural requirements of a particular tribal group. For example, it is common in Māori protocol that when the dead arrive at or exit from a location, they are welcomed into and bidden farewell from that place through specific rituals . There is also a distinction made between the living and the dead, so that when the dead depart, the room is spiritually cleared and those who exit wash their hands to signal that they are ‘freed’ from death. This is then finalised by the sharing of food that ensures that those who have been in a state of tapu (suspension from the day-to-day) are returned to a state of noa (the everyday). These protocols form part of the process of examination, giving permission to the researchers to carry out their technical analysis with the knowledge on both the Māori and researcher side that the analysis is respectful and spiritually safe.

Today, human skeletal remains enter the university by various means. Sometimes they come directly from a tribal group who have exhumed the remains and wish analysis to be undertaken. Alternatively, they arrive through Heritage New Zealand at the direction of the tribe or the New Zealand Police who need confirmation of antiquity and ancestry of remains, usually also with consent of the tribe. Having described the procedural elements involved, two case studies are outlined below that demonstrate the types of engagement between indigenous and Pākeha (European New Zealanders of nonindigenous descent) communities in relation to research-driven bioarchaeology projects.

Community-Driven Bioarchaeological Research: Two Case Studies

Case Study 1: The Wairau Bar

The site of the Wairau Bar, at the mouth of the Wairau River, north coast of the South Island (Fig. 7.1), holds a special place in the prehistory of New Zealand (Wilmhurst et al. 2008). The dating of this site places the people of Wairau Bar as a very early, possibly initial colonising population of New Zealand (Walter et al. 2010).

Fig. 7.1
figure 1

Map of New Zealand indicating the location of Wairau Bar and Milton

Full size image

A collection of skeletons from the Wairau Bar was held in the Canterbury Museum as a result of several excavations during the 1940–1960s. Over a period of about 20 years, Rangitāne o Wairāu, the iwi (tribe) with guardianship over the site, approached the Canterbury Museum regarding return of the remains. In early 2008, the museum agreed to the reburial of the skeletons on the proviso that a full scientific reanalysis of the collection was undertaken. Once the political negotiations had been concluded, all parties agreed to the analysis, with Rangitāne agreeing that the University of Otago should undertake the research.

Canterbury Museum had separately approached staff at the Anatomy Department of the University of Otago to develop a research proposal outlining the scope of analyses that could be conducted using modern technology. The reburial process also involved further excavation of the site to prepare the ground for reinterment (Brooks et al. 2009). In August 2008, the proposals for further research, including destructive analyses, and the excavation strategy were verbally presented to Rangitāne by university staff in Christchurch . Following further discussions between Rangitāne and the research project leader, Hallie Buckley , a research protocol was agreed. A wider Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the University of Otago , Rangitāne and the Canterbury Museum was also developed and signed by all parties in December 2008. This tripartite MoU represented the first mutual agreement between scientists and iwi (tribes) for the analysis and public reporting of scientific findings and as such was the first of its kind in New Zealand.

The collection of 41Wairau Bar individuals was transported to the University of Otago in October of 2008 and received at the Anatomy Department from the Canterbury Museum in a formal ceremony. This project was essentially an exercise of information gathering for posterity prior to reinterment . However, given that these remains represent the only sample of initial Polynesian colonisers of a size allowing population-based health and disease analysis, the research objectives were focussed on addressing bioarchaeological questions of origins, diet and quality of life. The Wairau Bar burials had been analysed macroscopically previously by Prof. Phillip Houghton (Houghton 1975), and the 2008–2009 research programme involved macroscopic observations of bones and teeth, radiographic and CT imaging of much of the material and destructive chemical and molecular analyses.

One of the long-held questions regarding this site was that seven of the individuals were interred with much ‘richer’ grave goods than the rest of the sample and the people had been variously interpreted as the initial colonising group or as people of higher status (Duff 1977; Anderson 1989). Isotope analyses of diet and migration were applied to test these assumptions (Kinaston et al. 2013) and found that these seven individuals had distinct dietary and strontium isotope signatures foreign to the environment of Wairau Bar and indicated that they were most likely the first pre-European settlers to the region (Houghton 1975). Overall the analysis has so far yielded publications on the macroscopic findings on health (Buckley et al. 2010) , the aDNA of the humans (Knapp et al. 2012), isotope studies of diet and migration (Kinaston et al. 2013), facial approximation (Hayes et al. 2012) and a 95-page written report presented to Rangitāne (Buckley et al. 2009) . aDNA research on the genetic affinities of the dogs excavated from Wairau Bar have also been published (Greig et al. 2015). A new model for pre-European colonisation of New Zealand has resulted from a synthesis of this body of work and oral traditions of settlement are forthcoming.

Analysis of the skeletal remains was completed in early 2009, and in April of that year, they were returned to Rangitāne for reburial . The reinterment generated huge national and international media interest (Blundell 2013) and was attended by several hundred members of the tribe along with local community dignitaries, members of Parliament, Canterbury Museum staff and the University of Otago researchers.

The positive relationship between the University of Otago and Rangitāne cannot be underestimated in relation to the effect that this has had on establishing Māori trust in biological anthropologists and research in general. In the last few years, a collaborative study of the DNA of modern Rangitāne is being conducted to help with understanding their connection to their ancestors buried on the Wairau Bar (Matisoo-Smith 2016) which would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. Since that time, other tribal groups have approached the university for the examination of their ancestral remains demonstrating the benefits of such an approach for both science and iwi (Ruckstuhl et al. 2016).

Excavation of Nineteenth-Century European Settlers’ Cemetery

After European colonisation, the burial grounds of Māori were largely kept separated from those of the colonisers in areas of spiritual significance. While legislation today is primarily set up for the protection of Māori skeletal remains, pre-1900AD burials of European or Chinese ancestry are considered ‘archaeological’ and therefore come under the same rules as kōiwi tangata . St. John’s Cemetery (archaeological site H45/56) is located near Milton in South Otago and was established in 1860 as an Anglican burial ground for the local European settler community. The cemetery has been disused since 1926 and was formally closed in 1971. For many years it has been in a state of disrepair, and recently a local community group, Tokomairiro Project 60 (TP60), was formed with the intention of restoring the cemetery. Their intention was to repair the remaining headstones, to identify the extent of graves within the cemetery (as the existing post and wire fence does not follow the legal or actual boundaries of the original cemetery) and ultimately to create a well-maintained lawn cemetery. The TP60 group contacted Dr. Petchey (Department of Anthropology and Archaeology , University of Otago) and Professor Buckley to seek assistance in defining the cemetery boundaries and finding the ‘lost’ graves. The outcome was an opportunity to investigate an early farming community from archaeological and bioarchaeological perspectives. The research objectives of this project were threefold. Firstly, driven by the community’s need to identify the boundaries of the cemetery and attempt to positively identify those buried there, the first objective was to search for burials in the fields surrounding the fenced cemetery, with the result that 16 unknown burials were found. Second was an attempt to positively identify those buried there, by matching of biological information (osteology, DNA and isotopes) from the excavated skeletons with historical records of people known to have been buried there. Thirdly, British propaganda of the period hailed settlement in New Zealand as a more healthy option than ‘home’. Therefore the overarching research aim of the project was to test whether this assertion was valid in the context of South Otago.

Prior to this, research-driven bioarchaeological excavations of historic cemeteries had not been conducted in New Zealand, so the project raised a number of ethical and legislative issues. As the cemetery is located on land owned by the Anglican Church , the bishop of the diocese was approached in the first instance, and support was granted to initiate public consultation. After extensive public engagement involving press releases, a public meeting and consultation with local Māori , an archaeological authority (No. 2017/171) from Heritage New Zealand and a disinterment licence (No. 17-2016/17) from the Ministry of Health were obtained. The archaeological excavation of part of the cemetery took place between 28 November and 16 December 2016.

The project exposed a total of 29 grave cuts (Fig. 7.2) and excavated 25 graves to recover the remains of 27 individuals (2 of the infant/child burials contained double burials). A broken and buried headstone was also found that identified Mr. Henry Pim (Fig. 7.3), and as the permissions were for unmarked and unidentified burials, this interment was left untouched. Four individuals were identified in situ by the preservation of painted iron plates on the lids of the coffins. As already mentioned 16 of these graves were found outside the fenced area, confirming suspicions that the cemetery was larger than it appeared. The layout of these ‘lost’ burials continued in the rows from the known cemetery.

Fig. 7.2
figure 2

Plan drawing of the St John’s Anglican historic cemetery with burial locations indicated

Full size image
Fig. 7.3
figure 3

The early stages of the St John’s cemetery excavation outside of the modern fenced boundary with grave cuts appearing under the topsoil

Full size image

The preservation of the human remains was highly variable across the site, partly due to equally variable ground conditions, and all ages from young infants to adults were found. An intensive laboratory examination of the skeletal remains is currently underway and includes chemical and molecular analyses of bones, teeth and hair. The death certificates and other historical information of 75 individuals known to be buried at the cemetery, including those positively identified during excavation, are being utilised for building a holistic biocultural picture of Victorian period quality of life in the new colony.

At completion of the excavation, the locations of all identified graves were marked with 2-inch square posts prior to backfilling of the site, and it is anticipated that the reinterment of the skeletal and artefactual material will be into the original grave locations. The range of skeletal and artefactual material that has been found will allow a detailed examination of the people, their origins, health and cultural traditions, especially those relating to death which was a Victorian preoccupation.

While the motivations and outcomes of these two case studies are different, they share some fundamental characteristics. Firstly, both samples represent early colonisers into new environments which raise interesting questions of biocultural adaptation during two key periods of human settlement of New Zealand. They were both also initiated by the community for different reasons but with the motivation of establishing appropriate custodial care of the remains of their ancestors . Both of these projects have brought the benefits of collaborative bioarchaeological research to public attention through media and community engagement, and both communities have warmly embraced the different insights given into their past. Finally, the social and legislative contexts in which the two projects were undertaken were completely different and reflect how Māori were viewed within New Zealand society in the past and the foundation of the archaeological discipline. The original burials were found at Wairau Bar by an amateur enthusiast, and for later excavations at the site, it was not legally required to consult and collaborate with Māori as was the case with all excavations involving human remains. As awareness grew in the archaeological community of the distress excavating Māori human remains caused, field archaeologists avoided them even after the legislation gave back the rights of decision-making to Māori, thus respecting the special importance of the dead in the Māori worldview. It is of note that this reticence in archaeological research towards human remains has extended to European burials as well, possibly partly due to their relative recent origin (especially when compared to burials in the Old World) but also possibly because of the wider adoption of Māori mores towards death and the dead in late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century New Zealand society as well.

As explained, Māori skeletal remains are not purposefully excavated for research purposes today, but there is increasing interest from Māori for the stories their ancestors can tell. Interestingly, while St John’s project has received overwhelming positive support from the local European and Māori community, some members of the archaeological community and public remain uncomfortable with purposeful excavation of human remains (Huffadine 2015; Mackenzie-McClean 2015), regardless of their ancestry or antiquity. With future plans to enlarge the investigation of European and Chinese gold miners and settlers in New Zealand, bioarchaeology is evolving and will no doubt continue to garner robust ethical debate around the value and protection of our ancestral voices as told through kōiwi tangata (human remains), whether they be Māori , Chinese or European.

Final Remarks

The pre-European and European colonising history of New Zealand is unusual compared to that of Old World Europe and has shaped the worldview of both the colonised and colonists with respect to how the dead are perceived. While it is still early days, from recent experience, it would seem that New Zealand is entering a new age of mutual trust and collaborative research between scientists and the varied communities they serve . This new age will hopefully be of benefit to the community engaged in these collaborations and the wider public.