D:\533568914.doc
GUIDELINES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS OF
EFFECTS
Contributed by
Tony Walton
July 2002
1
D:\533568914.doc
GUIDELINES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS AND
ASSESSMENTS OF EFFECTS
1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 4
LEGISLATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL FRAMEWORKS......................................................................... 4
PROJECT BRIEF ........................................................................................................................... 6
CODE OF ETHICS ......................................................................................................................... 7
2
APPRAISAL .................................................................................................................................. 7
3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION ...................................................................................... 8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4
SITE SURVEY............................................................................................................................... 9
SELECTION OF AREA TO BE SURVEYED ........................................................................................ 9
INTENSITY OF SURVEY................................................................................................................. 9
TESTING SITES ........................................................................................................................... 10
ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................... 10
4.1
4.2
4.3
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................... 11
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 11
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................................................ 12
5
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ................................................................................................... 12
6
REPORT WRITING .................................................................................................................. 13
6.1
6.2
STANDARD ................................................................................................................................ 13
REPORT CONTENT ..................................................................................................................... 13
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 14
8
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 14
2
D:\533568914.doc
1
Introduction
These standards and guidelines seek to define best practice for undertaking
archaeological evaluations and assessment of effects, and concomitant reporting, in
line with current legislation, the appropriate codes of ethics of the New Zealand
Archaeological Association, and the relevant ICOMOS charters. The best practice
guidelines apply to all situations where development proposals may affect the
archaeological resource within a specified area. The purpose of this document is to
assist archaeologists to carry out archaeological evaluations and assessments of effects
to an acceptable professional standard. The document is based in part on current New
Zealand practice as documented in a sample of consultants’ reports and in part on
relevant professional practice overseas. In particular, extensive use has been made of
the publications of the Institute of Field Archaeologists [U.K.] (IFA 1994), and
various manuals and guidelines from particular countries, including Apland and
Kenny (1989), and Davis (1994). Adoption of the guidelines should result in greater
consistency in the approach taken by different practitioners working in New Zealand.
An archaeological evaluation and assessment of effects is initiated in response to
development proposals that may potentially disturb or alter the landscape and thereby
endanger archaeological sites. An archaeological evaluation and assessment of effects
will usually be produced in response to the requirements of Historic Places Act 1993
(the “HPA”) or the Resource Management Act 1991 (the “RMA”). These acts operate
independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are
considered in project planning and implementation. An archaeological evaluation and
assessment of effects may also be prepared for management purposes under the
Reserves Act 1999 or the Conservation Act 1987.
The archaeological assessment process is usually composed of three components:
identification and documentation of the resource, assessment of significance, and
assessment of effects. Most development proposals go through a number of stages of
planning and implementation. An archaeological assessment beginning in the early
stages of the planning process produces the best outcomes for all concerned. The stage
the development proposal has reached will result in what archaeological work is
required, the level of detail sought, and the reporting requirements. The details of each
assessment will necessarily be tailored to meet individual circumstances.
There is no formal definition of what constitutes an archaeological evaluation and
assessment of effects, but a staged process of appraisal, evaluation, and detailed
evaluation has been suggested as a framework for discussing the process (Walton
1999). The core stages of appraisal and evaluation are discussed in sections 2 and 3.
The detailed evaluation stage addresses any outstanding issues identified at the
evaluation stage, and provides additional information required to enable a firm
recommendation to be made for the destruction, mitigation, or protection of the
archaeological remains. The investigation will usually involve invasive techniques,
such as machine trenching, so will require prior approval from the New Zealand
Historic Places Trust. These standards and guidelines deal only with the process of
appraisal, evaluation and detailed evaluation: they do not deal with other work that
may be undertaken by archaeologists.
3
D:\533568914.doc
Archaeological values are likely to be only one of a number of potential heritage
values to be considered in an assessment. This may also include aesthetic, historical,
scientific and social values, including significance to Maori. The extent to which these
other values are dealt with will depend on circumstances and, specifically, on the
client’s instructions. These guidelines deal with archaeological values and the
completion of an archaeological assessment does not necessarily limit, remove or
replace the need for the assessments of other values.
1.1
Purpose
Archaeological evaluations and assessment of effects may be instigated or
commissioned by a number of different individuals or organisations, including
territorial local authorities, government agencies, iwi, private landowners, and
developers or their agents.
Irrespective of the commissioning agency, an archaeological evaluation and
assessment of effects will determine, as far as is reasonably possible, the nature of the
archaeological resource within the specified area. This will be done using appropriate
accepted methods and practices.
The archaeological evaluation will gather information about the known or potential
archaeological resources within the given area including, but not limited to, its:
 Presence or absence;
 Character and extent;
 Age;
 Integrity;
 State of preservation;
 Relative quality.
This will allow an assessment of the archaeological significance of a place and
identification of the effects or potential effects that a proposed activity may have, and
identify ways in which any adverse effects may be avoided, reduced, or mitigated.
This process will then lead to the formulation of:
 A strategy to ensure the recording, conservation or management of the resource; or
 A strategy for further investigation, whether or not intrusive, where the character
and significance of the resource is not sufficiently defined to permit a mitigation
strategy or other response to be devised; or
 A proposal for further archaeological investigation within a programme of
research.
In general terms, basic information should be recorded on all historic heritage places
more than 30 years old in the project area.
1.2
Legislative and professional frameworks
4
D:\533568914.doc
Assessments are undertaken for authorities under the HPA or resource consents under
the RMA, for registration or listing of historic places under the provisions of either of
these two pieces of legislation, or for the purposes of management or conservation
plans.
Best practice involves working as far as possible within the framework of relevant
ICOMOS charters (see Pearson and Sullivan (1995) for an overview of this approach).
The ICOMOS framework is an inclusive one and stresses that all relevant values
should be assessed before a judgement of overall significance is reached.
Archaeologists will usually restrict their advice to their areas of expertise but should
advise their client if there are other relevant values that need to be addressed.
Whilst general guidance is given, this document cannot be exhaustive, particularly in
its treatment of legislative issues. Archaeologists must ensure that they are familiar
with the specific legislation and common law pertinent to their areas of expertise. The
onus is on the client to specify what is required, with guidance from the archaeologist
if necessary. The archaeologist’s role is usually to make recommendations to the
client or to the relevant authorities: archaeologists are seldom the decision-makers.
Historic Places Act 1993
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has indicated what information it requires to
process an authority application (Gumbley 1995). These include:
 A description of the archaeological site or sites for which an authority is sought
 An assessment of the archaeological values which the site or sites contain
 An assessment of the effect which the proposed activity will have on those values
Information supplied must be current and the methods employed, and limitations of
the results, must be stated. Any conclusions reached must be justified on the evidence.
Maps, plans, and photographs of the site(s) and their locations and settings are
essential.
Archaeological values should be assessed in terms of the potential of a site to provide
evidence relating to the history of New Zealand.
Recommendations should be made for avoiding, reducing or mitigating adverse
effects.
An authority application must also describe consultation undertaken with relevant iwi
or hapu and detail the Maori values of the site, matters not necessarily handled by an
archaeologist.
Resource Management Act 1991
The RMA explicitly focuses on effects and, more particularly, on adverse effects
(Ministry for Environment 1999: 20). The Act requires that all persons applying for
resource consent must provide certain information, including an assessment of
environmental effects, of their proposed activity. An archaeologist may be involved at
a number of different stages and in a number of different ways in this process.
5
D:\533568914.doc
The way in which an assessment of environmental effects is prepared must relate
directly to the provisions of RMA. Most applications for consents are non-notified,
that is, the Council considers that the effects are minor and that other parties are not
disadvantaged.
Section 75(1)(f) requires the district plan to specify the information that should be
submitted with an application for a resource consent. The Fourth Schedule lists the
matters to be considered when preparing an assessment, but this is subject to the
provisions of the district plan. An assessment of environmental effects should include
the following (unless the District Plan specifies otherwise):
 A description of the proposal;
 An assessment of actual and potential effects of the proposal on heritage sites;
 Where the effects are likely to be significant, a description of available alternatives;
 A description of how adverse effects may be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.
In some local authority jurisdictions there may be general provisions dealing with
historic heritage and specific ones dealing with scheduled sites. Where there are such
provisions these may be relevant to matters dealt with.
Archaeological values may have to be incorporated in a broader review of values,
sometimes incorporating both historic and natural heritage. In some projects
developers will make trade-offs where one impact is accepted or aggravated as a trade
for another one which is lessened. It may be necessary to advocate for historic
heritage, as against other values, with a client.
An archaeological assessment may be all that is required by the practitioner, but
archaeological sites often have other values that need to be considered. The
assessment of other heritage values, such as Maori values, may be required. The
primary role of archaeologists is in relation to archaeological values, but they may be
asked to contribute to a process for determining overall significance. The client will
advise what is required.
1.3
Project Brief
An oral brief may be acceptable for a small project, providing the task and the
instructions are straightforward. The instructions received should be clearly stated in
the written report. The onus is on the client to make their requirements known.
For larger projects, an adequate written project brief is essential. This should be
negotiated by the parties and should spell out explicitly what is required. It should
contain information relating to:
 Area;
 Context;
 General and specific aims of project;
 Requirements relating to evaluation and assessment of effects;
 Outcomes of project (report contents);
6
D:\533568914.doc







Proposed study methods (preliminary research and fieldwork);
Copyright;
Publication and dissemination proposed;
Timetable;
Staff;
Health and safety;
Iwi consultation (for Maori heritage sites).
Variations from the agreed project brief should be confirmed in writing.
Archaeologists should not accept instructions or briefs that are inadequately funded
for the level of work required. Any deviation from accepted practice caused by
inadequate time or budget should be explicitly stated as a limitation of the results of
the work undertaken. Archaeologists should not accept instructions or briefs that
involve matters outside their range of expertise or experience.
Requirements for confidentiality must be respected, but a professional obligation to
make the archaeological information available to the wider archaeological community
within a reasonable time must also be taken into account. Generally archaeological
information should not be treated as confidential. ‘What is done openly is more likely
to be done with integrity – and more competently’ (Kerr 1999: 11).
1.4
Code of Ethics
An archaeologist undertaking archaeological evaluations should adhere to the
principles enshrined in the ‘Principles of Archaeological Ethics’ and ‘Code of
Professional Ethics’ adopted by the New Zealand Archaeological Association to guide
professional practice in New Zealand (McGovern-Wilson and Walton 1999;
http://nzarchaeology.org/ethics.html).
The minimum qualifications required to ensure professional treatment of
archaeological resources are:
 MA in archaeology or anthropology with speciality in archaeology, or BA with
equivalent combination of training and experience;
 Demonstrated ability to direct and conduct archaeological research, and to
complete a final report in a timely manner;
 Relevant field experience.
2
APPRAISAL
An archaeological evaluation and assessment of effects begins with a review of
relevant previous work and information already on record. This process may be
undertaken as a distinct stage in the assessment process or as the essential first part of
an evaluation. Except in exceptional circumstances, this research should be completed
before any fieldwork is undertaken, as it will help give direction to the fieldwork to
follow.
7
D:\533568914.doc
An appraisal or initial information review involves checking development proposals
to identify potential risks to archaeological sites. This is essentially a preliminary
screening mechanism using archaeological expertise, existing records, and
identification of any archaeologically sensitive areas as a guide to the presence or
likely presence of sites within the area of proposed development. Documentary
evidence may also be important for identifying and assessing possible impacts on 19th
and 20th century historic places. The appraisal must begin with a review of
information on sites already on record in the New Zealand Archaeological Association
Site Recording Scheme before any fieldwork is started.
Preliminary research should establish what is already known about the area, including
the adequacy of the existing site records and plans, and identify any gaps in
information. As information in the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site
Recording Scheme is constantly being added to and updated, a check needs to be
made anew for each project. Relevant written and other sources of information on the
survey area should be consulted. These may include, but are not restricted to:
 Published accounts of the Maori oral traditions of an area;
 Early historical accounts;
 Early maps and surveyors’ field books;
 Photographs;
 Local histories;
 Published and unpublished archaeological surveys;
 Theses.
In using these and other resources, the key questions are:
 How much information is required?
 What are the gaps in existing knowledge?
 What are the main research questions?
3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
This stage is to determine - as far as is reasonably possible - the nature and extent of
the archaeological resource within a specific area. Existing sources employed may
include New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Records, maps, aerial
photographs, published literature and historical documents as listed in the previous
section. Fieldwork may include site survey, mapping, probing, augering, cleaning
down exposed sections, or test-pitting, depending on circumstances. (Test-pitting may
require an authority under s18 of HPA if archaeological deposits will be affected.) An
evaluation involves defining the location, extent, nature and importance of the
archaeological values of a place and determining the likely impact of development
plans. Enough information is obtained to form a view of the significance of the values
but usually without invasive subsurface investigations. An evaluation as defined here
would normally satisfy the information requirements of the HPA authority or RMA
consent processes or provide sufficient evidence for the purposes of a conservation
plan. If an evaluation does not produce sufficient information then a further, more
detailed, stage of assessment may be warranted and the client so advised.
8
D:\533568914.doc
An archaeological evaluation is normally based on archaeological site survey and a
close inspection of surface evidence. Some limited sub-surface investigation may be
undertaken to answer specific questions. The limitations of this approach should
always be made clear in the final report.
3.1 Site survey
Site survey involves the inspection of an area for the purpose of locating and
documenting archaeological sites. The objects are to:
 Determine the presence or absence of sites in areas where there are few or no
surface indications of archaeological remains;
 Investigate and describe the extent and character of archaeological remains ;
 Evaluate the potential of identified sites to provide further information.
Site surveys collect information on the pattern of past human activity within the area
of interest. Areas covered vary depending on the purpose of the survey. Methods and
techniques used will vary with the amount of information already known about the
sites and the landscape, the information required by the client, and the kinds of data to
be collected.
3.2 Selection of area to be surveyed
In many cases, the boundaries of the survey area will be determined by the area of
likely impact of a proposed development or will coincide with the legal boundaries of
land owned by a company or individual. It is advisable to obtain information on the
wider archaeological and environmental context by collecting information about
neighbouring properties. How far beyond a project boundary it is possible or
necessary to consider depends in part on what is already known about the project area
itself and what additional information is required to make sense of it. This must be
authorised by the client.
3.3 Intensity of survey
The methods and techniques used will vary with the purpose of the survey and the
information required. The intensity of coverage of the survey area will depend on
variables such as:
 The amount and quality of information already on record;
 The ground cover;
 The visibility of various classes of site;
 The likelihood of unrecorded sites;
 The anticipated use of the data.
In general, the more information that is collected, the more useful and reliable the
resultant recommendations are likely to be. No matter how intense the inspection or
survey, however, it is unlikely that all evidence of past human occupation will be
identified in any given area. The evidence may not be visible at the surface, or it may
be hidden by vegetation or not be recognised. Evaluation often involves sampling in
9
D:\533568914.doc
one form or another. The basis for judgements made must be made clear in reporting
the results.
3.4 Testing sites
There is a wide range of archaeological techniques available to test sites if, for
example, a detailed evaluation is undertaken. It may be necessary to use several
techniques, the selection of which must be fit for the purpose defined. Wherever
possible, the first options considered should be the non-intrusive methods.
Testing sites includes the following non-intrusive methods: topographical survey,
geophysical survey, remote sensing, geo-chemical survey, surface artefact recording
(but not collection of artefacts), and standing structure survey.
In most investigations these techniques alone may not be sufficient, or too timeconsuming, to provide the results required. To provide an adequate evaluation, a more
invasive technique may need to be employed. These invasive methods include
probing, augering, hand-excavated test pits, hand-excavated trenches, machineexcavated test pits, machine-excavated trenches and surface artefact collections.
Sites are tested to find out if there is any archaeological material, or recognisable
archaeological features, below the surface. If there is, the nature of the structure,
content, integrity, and quality of such material and/or features must be ascertained. If
the investigation will modify, damage, or destroy archaeological evidence then an
authority will be required from the Historic Places Trust.
Different kinds of tests can provide different kinds and amounts of information on site
structure, content, integrity, extent, and quality.
4
ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Places are often significant for more than one reason. Legislative criteria of
significance usually do not provide a practical basis for assessment (Kerr 1996: 11).
They are usually open in their approach, allowing for the inclusion of a wide range of
independent and overlapping values and requiring the formation of more precise
policy by the administering agency. Archaeological values are likely to be only one of
a number of potential values to be considered. The client will provide guidance on
what other values are being considered and the implications of this for the work. This
document deals only with archaeological values.
Archaeological resources should be assumed to be relevant until proven irrelevant; or
significant until proven insignificant. The more limited the information available, the
more necessary it is to begin with this assumption. This is, however, the starting point
and not the end-point. The ability to characterise a site based on size, form, likely age,
function, integrity, and context forms the core of any evaluation.
It is implicit in most legislation and practice that not everything can or must be saved.
Priorities must be established by assessing significance. An archaeological assessment
10
D:\533568914.doc
is primarily concerned with the importance of a site as evidence of past human use or
as a representative of a class of archaeological phenomena. Significance is not
immutable and requires matching of the archaeological resource with current
knowledge and research problems. The degree of detail and the formality of the
process will vary according to circumstances. When the purpose of an assessment is to
make and defend recommendations about archaeological values in the face of changes
in land-use, an assessment will usually need to spell out clearly and precisely the
nature and level of significance of a place in terms of an explicit set of criteria.
4.1
A framework for assessing significance
Assessment begins with the identification and description of a place and involves
placing the resource in a context of existing knowledge and timely and specific
research questions. Any assessment must, therefore, incorporate sound knowledge of
the relevant literature, including a critical assessment of what has previously been
accomplished.
The theoretical and substantive knowledge of the discipline provides a context for the
consideration of the criteria of significance. Syntheses of the archaeology of an area or
type of site, or review of the current literature, may provide a statement of what is
known and what is not known about a place or class of places or region of interest and
what further work is needed. Such statements are often termed research designs or
research agendas. Values cannot be assigned independently of such explicit or implicit
research agendas.
Any system of assessment is crucially dependent on good information, including good
inventory. The quality of the inventory for the area under consideration should be
evaluated as part of the assessment process.
4.2
Criteria for assessing significance
The criteria used in an assessment of significance must be clearly stated. Where no
specific guidance is provided on assessing archaeological values any established
method may be employed. Eight useful non-statutory criteria for assessing
archaeological significance are: period, rarity, documentation, group value,
survival/condition, fragility/vulnerability, diversity, and potential. The criteria are
versatile and potentially have wide application in the assessment of archaeological
values. They can be used to address issues of potential to provide evidence and of the
representativeness of the resource. They can be applied in a national, regional or local
analytical context, although internationally a regional focus is usually regarded as the
most satisfactory. Table 2, provides an example of an assessment. Other standards or
guidelines that may be more relevant to particular circumstances may be available
(e.g. Auckland Regional Council 1997). Some will be narrower and more restrictive
than general, professionally accepted, criteria.
11
D:\533568914.doc
Archaeological features often have both historic and aesthetic aspects and
archaeological research usually creates or informs social and aesthetic values. There
will be cases where archaeological and non-archaeological values reinforce each other
and give a place a greater overall significance than it would otherwise have had.
4.3
Level of significance
Some assessments require the level of significance to be stated in terms of a hierarchy
of categories. The top category is usually for places of ‘exceptional significance’,
followed by places of ‘considerable significance’, ‘some significance’, and ‘little
significance’ (Kerr 1996: 19). It is difficult to achieve any degree of rigour when
assessing only one or two places in the context of a proposed development. This
situation requires a focus on the immediately known potential of the site under threat
and, since almost any action has financial implications, has a more restricted range of
likely outcomes. In many contexts, ranking is an entirely superfluous exercise. It is
counter-productive if it encourages lower ranked sites to be devalued.
Assessment is often based on an incomplete knowledge both of the archaeological
values of the historic place concerned and the wider context. Ranking tends to set one
place against another, and have usually been avoided in New Zealand archaeological
practice. It has been employed for large-scale developments such as forestry, which
may involve impacts spread over a considerable area. One system of ranking puts sites
in one of three categories either for protection, further evaluation, or no further action.
It represents a pragmatic solution to problems of dealing with large-scale
development.
5
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
There is considerable emphasis in the RMA, and administrative practice stemming
from it, on avoiding, mitigating, and remedying adverse effects. An assessment of
effects has a number of aspects (Apland and Kenny 1989) that need to be addressed:
Magnitude: The amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected.
Resultant loss of archaeological value is measured either in amount or degree of
disturbance.
Severity: The irreversibility of an impact. Adverse impacts, which result in a
totally irreversible and irretrievable loss of archaeological value, are of the highest
severity.
Duration: The length of time an adverse impact persists. Impacts may have shortterm or temporary effects, or more persistent, long-term effects.
Range: The spatial distribution, whether widespread or localised, of an adverse
effect.
Frequency: The number of times an impact can be expected.
Diversity: The number of different kinds of project-related actions expected to
affect a site.
Cumulative effect: A progressive alteration or destruction owing to the repetitive
nature of impacts.
12
D:\533568914.doc
Rate of change: The rate at which an impact will effectively alter the integrity, or
physical condition of a site.
The best outcome is the avoidance of any impact on archaeological values. Mitigation
is required only in situations where unavoidable conflicts are identified between the
archaeological resources and a proposed development. Mitigation refers to measures
to reduce the adverse effects of a proposed development on archaeological resources.
Mitigation by investigation of the archaeological resource under threat, either before
construction work begins or while this work is under way, should be seen as a last
resort. Options for mitigation depend on:
 The significance of the resource;
 The nature and extent of the resource;
 The effectiveness of mitigation;
 Research and resource management priorities and needs;
 Project objectives, conditions and constraints.
The extent of the investigation required will depend on the number of sites involved,
their significance, size and complexity, and the level of adverse effect.
6
REPORT WRITING
6.1 Standard
A formal written report is an important end-result of fieldwork whether or not sites are
found during the evaluation exercise. The report should provide all information
required to document the nature of the archaeological resource within a specified area,
the methods used, the potential effects that a proposed development activity may have
on the archaeological resources, and the ways in which any adverse effects may be
avoided or mitigated. The report should be written for lay people and explain any
technicalities in appropriate language.
6.2 Report content
The report should succinctly state the instructions received from the client. The area
actually walked, the nature of the ground cover, and the time involved should be
indicated so that the results of the fieldwork can be evaluated in light of these
constraints. A report should contain most or all of the elements listed in Table 3.
The level of detail should be commensurate with the size and complexity of the
project. Any confidential elements should be stand-alone and detachable so the nonconfidential parts of the report can be distributed to other interested parties. Copies of
the report should be lodged with New Zealand Archaeological Association, New
Zealand Historic Places Trust and in public repositories such as university or museum
libraries.
13
D:\533568914.doc
Site Record Forms should be completed for sites visited, including those previously
recorded. Updated forms should be lodged with the relevant New Zealand
Archaeological Association filekeeper at the conclusion of the project.
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These guidelines are based in part on current New Zealand practice as documented in
a sample of consultants’ reports and overseas practice as documented in published
manuals and guidelines. Thanks to Stuart Bedford, Rob Brassey, Sue Bulmer, Rod
Clough, Garry Law, Ian Lawlor, Lucy Macintosh, and Kath Prickett for comments on
earlier drafts.
8
REFERENCES
Apland, B., Kenny, R. (Eds) 1989. Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, Province of British
Columbia.
Auckland Regional Council
1997. Guidelines: Assessing Cultural Heritage
Significance (Cultural Heritage 3). Auckland Regional Council, Auckland
Darvill, T., Saunders, A., Startin, B. 1987. A question of national importance:
approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments
Protection Programme in England. Antiquity 61: 393-408.
Davis, H. (Ed) 1994. A State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources
in Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 21.
Gumbley, W. 1995. Guidelines for provision of archaeological information and
assessment for authority applications under Section 11 or Section 12 of the
Historic Places Act 1993. Archaeology in New Zealand 38 (2): 100-105.
IFA [Institute of Field Archaeologists, U.K.] 1994. Standard and Guidance for
Archaeological Field Evaluations.
Kerr, J.S. 1996. The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation
Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance. National Trust of
Australia, Sydney.
Kerr, J.S. 1999. The Conservation Plan. In K. Clark (editor), Conservation Plans in
Action: Proceedings of the Oxford Conference: 9-19. English Heritage,
London.
McGovern-Wilson, R., Walton, A. 1999. Codes of ethics and standards for the
practice of professional archaeology in New Zealand. Archaeology in New
Zealand 42 (1): 3-36.
Ministry for the Environment 1999. A Guide to Preparing a Basic AEE. Ministry for
the Environment, Wellington.
Pearson, M., Sullivan, S. 1995. Looking After Heritage Places: The Basics of
Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators. Melbourne
University Press, Melbourne.
Walton, T. 1999. Assessing the Archaeological Values of Historic Places:
Procedures, Methods and Field Techniques. Science & Research Internal
Report 167. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
14
D:\533568914.doc
Table 1. Criteria for assessing archaeological values
The criteria adopted for the Monuments Protection Programme (Darvill et al. 1987)
fall within three broad categories: (1) Characterisation - criteria which provide a
context by characterising the class of place; (2) Discrimination - criteria which assist
in comparing one place relative to other similar places; (3) Assessment - criteria
which address the situation, condition, and setting of a place. The criteria are listed
here in a modified form but work from the general to the specific: from class of site to
the characteristics of the particular example.
Characterisation
 period (currency): the likely age and duration of use of the particular class of
place.
 rarity: the extent to which a class of place is represented by few surviving or
known examples.
 diversity (form): the extent to which a class is diverse in form.
 period (representivity): the extent to which this class of place is representative of
a given period.
Discrimination
 survival: the extent to which a place has survived in comparison with other
examples of this class of place.
 group value (association): the association with places of other classes or as part of
a relict landscape.
 documentation: the level of documentation, historical and archaeological.
 potential: the extent to which place is likely to contain recoverable information.
 group value (clustering): the association with other places of the same class.
 diversity (features): the extent to which a place contains features characteristic of
the class as a whole.
 amenity value: the extent to which a place has symbolic or educational value or
commemorates people and events of the past.
Assessment
 condition: the extent to which a place has been damaged.
 fragility: the fabric, form, and structure of a place and the effect of this on its
survival.
 vulnerability: the situation within the landscape and vulnerability to deterioration
or destruction.
 conservation value: the extent to which archaeological values form part of a wider
group of values.
15
D:\533568914.doc
Table 2. Summary statement of archaeological values
Name of site
Opepe Stockade
Criteria
Currency
Rarity
Diversity
Representivity
Survival/Condition
Diversity
Group Value
Documentation
Potential
Condition
Vulnerability
Land Status
Scenic & Historic Reserve
NZAA Site No:
U18/ 29 (N103/1)
Comments
Considerable numbers of redoubts, stockades, and blockhouse
were built in the period from 1840s to 1880s, but
particularly in 1860s.
Many examples of redoubts and stockades survive, but stockades
are rarer than redoubts.
A complex class with many different attributes. Some variation in
layout and change through time but considerable
uniformity in basic design.
An important class of sites, representative of the NZ Wars period.
Stockade, built 1870, as one of seven posts along the strategic
Napier/Taupo Road. Two others, Tapuhururu and
Runanga survive in reasonable condition.
Long duration of occupation of Opepe stockade is very unusual.
There are graves nearby from the attack on an encampment at
Opepe in 1869 associated with the campaign against Te
Kooti. A settlement formed adjacent to the stockade from
early 1870s and there is extant evidence of hut sites and
roads from this.
Good. Informative contemporary photos and documentation.
Large scale site plan completed (DOC). Historical and
archaeological context is well documented.
Confirmed by 1983 excavations and SRU mapping project.
Some damage to walls but retains a range of features including
fragile detail of construction of stockade. Has not been
subject to ploughing.
Stockade is located in a scenic and historic reserve and is
managed for its historical and archaeological values
Summary
Site is of considerable significance in terms of its archaeological
values.
This model is intended to provide some ideas on the appropriate use of criteria for
assessment. No single version will be appropriate to every type of site or set of
circumstances.
16
D:\533568914.doc
Table 3. Checklist of report contents
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Previous archaeological work
Environmental setting
Project Details
Significance
Mitigation
Appendices
Report title (indicating project and location)
Author (s) (including addresses and affiliations)
Client or sponsor, if any
Date of report
Details of copyright
Synopsis of the report
Instructions received/Project Brief
Description of project area and its setting
Nature of fieldwork undertaken and the date of
fieldwork
Actual commitment of time in fieldwork and
writing-up
Constraints on fieldwork and documentary
research
Extent of previous fieldwork
Written sources
Known sites
Present environment and constraints on fieldwork,
including delimiting areas not covered because of
difficult conditions
Environment in the past and the effect of this on
settlement at earlier times
Objectives and the purpose of the inspection or
survey
Fieldwork
methods
employed,
including
justification for choices made
Results of fieldwork
If no sites are found, what is the likely
explanation?
Identification of information gaps
Predictions of kinds and number of archaeological
sites
Nature, distribution and potential significance of
archaeological sites
Potential impacts and options for managing these
Brief biographical sketch of personnel involved
including summaries of academic training and field
experience
Lists and brief descriptions of recorded sites
Copies of Site Record Forms produced as a result
of the survey (only if appropriate)
17