This section looks at four different issues relating to the protection or exploitation of the domain, and highlights a general failure to recognise the cultural and environmental value of the reserve. Two examples are provided of recent consultation with Whanau a Tauwhao, as per the requirements of the Resource Management Act, but it will be seen that the views of tangata whenua have not always been taken into account when decisions were made. Before 1991 there is no record of local Maori being consulted with about planned developments in the domain, and claimants may wish to provide evidence to the Tribunal on any issue that has been of concern to them relating to the management of the domain.
The Recognition and Protection of Archaeological Sites
There are three major pa sites on Bowentown Heads (see figure 7). The most notable is Te Kura a Maia. It overlooks the northwestern entrance to Tauranga Harbour, and provides views of the harbour, Orokawa Domain, the Waihi Beach township, Mayor Island and the upper harbour. This pa is easily accessible to the public from the headland car park and from Anzac Bay. The pa on the east headland is called Te Ho, and in 1974 George Bryan, a Whanau a Tauwhao kaumatua, was reported as saying that important ancestors were buried on the summit where they could look towards their former home of Tuhua (Mayor Island).108 The third pa, Te Pa o Auturourou, is on the north-western boundary of the domain and the Maori reserve. Throughout the low lying sections of the domain and on the flat areas above Anzac Bay and Shelly Bay (Paraparaumu) there are numerous shell middens indicating long term Maori occupation. Archaeologists B.G. McFadgen and A.M. Williams describe Te Kura a Maia as:
a good example of a headland pa. The pa was originally much larger … Radiocarbon dates from shells indicate that the topmost terrace was built between about 250 and 350 years ago. This ditch and bank cut across the terraces and reduced the size of the pa.109
Over the years the attitude of various domain boards and government departments towards the pa sites has been to pay lip service to their significance by recognising their existence in the yearly management plan. Archaeological sites were included in the management plan in 1976 on the advice of the Archaeological Association.110 Nevertheless, this has done little, if anything, to protect these sites for future generations. The Historic Places Trust and a number of archaeologists and universities have shown an historical and scientific interest in the area but these initiatives seem to have come from the individuals and institutions themselves, rather than the board which seemed surprised and embarrassed when contacted by these groups about damage to historic sites. The board, rather than acting on this expert advice, tended to note year after year the historic significance of the area and then continue to make the same mistakes, whether it be creating roads and firebreaks over
108Bay of Plenty Times, 1 June 1974
109 McFadgen, p 9
110 New Zealand Archaeological Association to Director of Planning and Development, 3 August 1978, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC
