I was intrigued to see a new episode of “Time Team” from series 20 on New Zealand television excavating on Salisbury Plain, known locally by the squaddies as The Place God Forgot. In the middle of the plain was a mound surrounded by trees and known as “Barrow Clump”. 

This brought back memories of my military service when I was posted to 10 Field Workshops with the 13/18 Hussars to work on their Chieftain tanks. We were based on the eastern edge of Salisbury Plain.

This last season of Time Team no longer has Mick Aston (God bless him) or many of the long-serving regulars. Tony Robinson, Phil Harding, Raksha Dave, John Gater (geophysicist) and Jackie McKinley (bone specialist) were there and also Helen Geake who was the Saxon specialist. They had come to help The Rifles Archaeology team with a special project called “Operation Nightingale”. This military project was designed to help rehabilitate wounded and shell shocked soldiers from Afghanistan. They worked alongside serving soldiers and the Military archaeology team. Time Team arrived to continue the excavation with them for 3 days.

Barrow Clump was originally a Bronze-age burial mound sticking out of the plain and had then been used later by the Saxons to bury their own dead. It was dated to be around 2000years BC. The Saxons deliberately chose ancient places to bury their dead. There had been many finds including shield bosses, spear heads, knives and jewellery, and 25 skeletons had been unearthed before Time Team arrived.

The Mound was 95 metres round and was a cemetery for Saxon warriors and their families. While Time Team were there, 7 more skeletons were found, the men having a shield covering their face with the boss facing upwards (the centrepiece to protect against weapon attack) Brooches, amber beads and a silver and bronze ring were found, all a sign of Saxon wealth.

Portable x-ray equipment that had been used in a war theatre in Afghanistan was used to look at artefacts that were covered in mud before cleaning them.  It was found that the weapons buried with the skeletons were mainly in good condition; this was thought that the men hadn’t seen extensive fighting action, but wanted to be seen as warriors with their weapons beside them.

The first burial at the centre of the mound was dated by pottery around it to 2100BC.

This project to help rehabilitate the soldiers was found by all to be a life saving and life changer and helped to build their self esteem. They felt they were digging up the warriors of the past.

I think it was good to see damaged soldiers starting to live again, being helped by consummate professionals. Maybe Salisbury Plain will lose the name as the Place God Forgot! 

Barry

How Significant was the Brown Decision to the Civil Rights Movement?

The Brown vs Board of Education decision has been seen by many historians as a key moment in the Civil Rights movement, setting a benchmark on what can be achieved through the legal court system. The actions of Oliver Brown, a black parent who objected to the fact his daughter Linda was denied entry to an all-white school and had to travel a mile to go to an all-black school, demonstrated that the methods of taking issues through the Supreme Court could get a ruling in their favour, highlighting the significance of the event. However the Brown decision did have its faults and its results were not as far reaching. Showing it may not be that significant. Discrimination in education continued to happen. One can use as evidence an incident in Little Rock in 1957 when racism was demonstrated by White people when the ‘little rock nine’ were denied entry to an integrated school.

A strong reason that the Brown decision was significant is that it showed that a result could be made for Black rights if it was taken for consideration by the Supreme Court. This can be supported by Cathy Warren who states that ‘The Brown verdict was a milestone for civil rights: it showed that the legal route could get results.’ This legal result was much of the work of Earl Warren the new chief justice who gave his wholehearted response in supporting desegregation. As he said ‘We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place’.  This shows that by law Linda Brown and other Black students should be able to go to a White school as in effect all-white schools were illegal. The Brown case set a benchmark for other Black people to take all sort of issues through the Supreme Court. As Vivienne Saunders states ‘…Brown meant that Blacks no longer had to wait for justice from the courts. They would demand it themselves now that the law was on their side.’ Having the law on side meant a glimmer of hope that change could happen.

However the Brown decision did not go far enough and as a result weakens its significance. ‘There was a big difference between winning a legal case and changing the situation in practice’ writes Cathy Warren. This is a strong argument. After Brown the Civil Rights movement faced problems at a Little Rock school. Although some border states like Missouri co-operated the Governor of Arkansas did not. He employed many tactics that bent the Supreme Court rulings. White councils popped up to challenge the rulings of the Supreme Court and there was a spike of popularity and admissions to the Ku Klux Klan. In essence Cathy Warren highlights that the ‘opposition to desegregation and integration was highly effective’. At Little Rock the authorities made it difficult for students to pass the entrance exams to get into school. They also had to walk the gauntlet of racist chants and abuse trying to get into school. This is what happened to the Little Rock Nine. She goes on to state other similar tactics such as ‘Sometimes financial aid was withdrawn from schools that allowed black students in.’ This shows that despite the benchmark set by Brown stating that separate schools were wrong they had no way of making sure Black pupils could go to school or punishing those that ignored its rulings. It was just empty words without someone to force it. Arguably this could be done by the president but President Eisenhower was ‘neither emotionally nor intellectual in favour of combating segregation.'

It could also be argued that it was other events that limited its scope. The ruling only talked about education. It did not protect Black people’s right to marry who they wanted or the quality of housing they wanted. It also could not curb the racist views that people had and as such had no way of stopping the ‘white citizen’ councils or ‘Southern manifestos’ popping up. This shows that what the courts said was wrong was never protected in practice.

In conclusion we cannot exaggerate the significance of Brown as it was limited in its impact on the Civil Rights Movement. It did not end racism overnight as it still was evident at Little Rock in 1957 with the abuse hurled by white men and women when students tried to enter school and also receiving racist abuse by White Northerners as Black citizens moved to the North where less places were segregated (Dierenfield). The ruling made by the Supreme Court had an impact on paper but was less effective when people disobeyed it. It didn’t stop White councils popping up or a Southern manifesto highlighting their determination to stop integration. More was needed to make sure Black citizens were protected.

Chris

In 1835, the British authorities encouraged the Maori tribes of New Zealand to declare independence, and after this was signed "The United Tribes of New Zealand" was set up, complete with its own flag.  Five years later the British Government were pushing for a new treaty with Maori, one that would hopefully allow British settlement in the islands, and the creation of a "Britain of the South Seas". The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was probably THE key event in the formation of a modern New Zealand, and yet the motives that lay behind it and the consequences of it are at best misunderstood, or even ignored by large numbers of Kiwis.

I would like to try and shed some light on this important event.

In the day to day running of the Colonial Office in London during the first years of the nineteenth century, the islands of ‘New Zealand’ would have scarce raised an eyebrow, and yet by 1840 the largest Empire that mankind had ever seen was preparing to enter into an agreement with the native Maori population to annex these pacific islands and to allow the native Maori the "rights and privileges of British Citizens". This was a hugely significant event, both for the tribal chiefs who signed the Treaty, and the British administrators who had hurriedly prepared the document. The Treaty of Waitangi was to shape the course of New Zealand history for the next century, and the repercussions of this document still play a part in our lives today. The reasons why the Colonial Office entered into such an agreement, as well as the consequences of the decision for the native Maori, make for an interesting debate.

By 1831 the presence of British Sealers, Whalers, Loggers and general traders had already had a major impact on the Maori population of New Zealand, as did the later arrival of Missionaries spreading the word of a Christian, Anglican God. Many trade deals had been entered into ranging from Land sales to the setting up of ‘safe’ areas on the seashore for the use of the Sealing and Whaling gangs. The relationship on the whole between these early Pakeha (the name given to the early white settlers) and Maori has been described by historians such as James Belich as ‘good’, with  sex often being used to cement deals between groups…"a treaty made in Bed". However, although the headline relationship between Maori and Pakeha was good, outside of the trade arena, issues were being raised that dealt with the behaviour and lawlessness of  the Pakeha sailors and even escaped convicts from Australia that had quickly made the small port of Kororareka (modern day Russell)  in the Bay of Islands the unofficial capital of European New Zealand and famously "The Hell Hole of the Pacific". In 1831 a petition was signed by 13 northern Maori chiefs who had decided that the drunkenness and debauchery of Kororareka had to be addressed and this was sent to King William IV in Britain, asking for protection, the implementation of law for the Europeans, and recognition of their special trade and missionary contacts with Britain. The 1831 Petition also raises the fear of nations other than Britain taking an interest in New Zealand affairs, stemming from the increasing presence of American and French sailors in New Zealand waters. The Petition directly led to the arrival of James Busby as ‘Official British Resident’ in New Zealand, an event that was to shape the fledgling relationship between the British Empire and Maori New Zealand.

James Busby has been described as a "Man ’o War without guns" by Maori following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1832, and it is easy to see that his job description which included arbitrating between Maori tribes, catching escaped convicts for Australia, and promoting British trade made him a very busy man. All the more so as he had no Police to aid him in keeping order and any bribes paid had to come from his pocket. Nevertheless, Busby had an immediate and dramatic impact on the future of these Islands. By 1834 Busby used the excuse of ships being built in New Zealand waters to encourage Maori chiefs to decide on a flag, the design of which Busby took care of. This is the flag that shares the masthead on the Waitangi Treaty grounds today. The very next year, 1835, James Busby took steps that would eventually in 1840 create a dilemma for the British Colonial Office, and bring New Zealand and Great Britain ever closer to each other.

The signing of a Declaration of Independence in 1835 came as a result of the overreaction on the part of Busby towards the threats coming to him from the Frenchman Baron Charles de Thierry, self-styled "King of New Zealand". De Thierry had approached various European powers with the proposal that he would acquire large tracts of land in the northern parts of New Zealand around the Hokianga from pliant Maori chiefs, and then set himself up as "King" allowing preferential treatment for whatever nation backed him. He was ignored by all the imperial powers, and so set out on his own to achieve his aim. The news that de Thierry had indeed purchased land and was on his way to New Zealand sent Busby into a spin, and was to finally trigger a debate in London as to the future of the country. "The Declaration of the Independent Tribes of New Zealand", Busby’s brain child, gave Britain a ‘Fatherly’ role over the growth of the new country, a New Zealand that although supervised by Britain was nevertheless very much a Maori nation. For Maori chiefs, the presence of a Flag and a Declaration of Independence seemed to signify that they had achieved a measure of self-determination, although it is crucial to note that there was no concept of ‘Maoridom’ at this time, rather a loose group of often bickering tribes, for example the Musket Wars that devastated the country in this period showed how tenuous inter-tribal relations could be. How these independent minded tribes came to sign the Treaty was to have a major impact on the development of New Zealand.

Once the fear of De Thierry and French influence had been highlighted by Busby, the Colonial Office in London decided they need to lock the infant nation of New Zealand into a stronger relationship with the British Empire. The man in charge of Colonial affairs, Lord Normanby, issued a series of guidelines for his representative, the naval commander William Hobson, who was tasked with obtaining the knowing agreement of the Maori. "They (Maori) must not be permitted to enter into any Contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves." It is important to note that many of the men responsible for framing the Treaty of Waitangi were veterans of the Anti-Slavery lobby of recent years, and this early idea of ‘Fairness’ was evident in the way the Treaty was phrased as an agreement rather than an ultimatum. However, it is also true to say that Britain, having already agreed to watch over New Zealand as part of the Declaration of Independence, meant that the Colonial Office could not in good faith annex a country they had sworn to protect. The issues surrounding the wording and translation of the Treaty are well known, and it is clear that both sides were signing a slightly different document from each other. For example, overall British Sovereignty was a concept that Maori would have found difficult to agree, so the Treaty tiptoes around the issue by calling it "Kawanatanga", broadly meaning Government of the land, a very different meaning from complete sovereignty. The Treaty was finally signed on February 6th 1840 on the grounds of James Busby’s house in the Bay of Islands, and the tensions that grew out of the misinterpretation of the treaty began.

While it may be fair to say that the aims of the treaty may well have been based on obtaining knowing agreement for the proposals from the Maori, in the rush to get the signatures, key elements were distorted. These elements were to cause a lot of friction between the two parties in the coming years. For Maori, it became clear that the idea of British Crown preemption, which meant all land being sold to the crown before deals were struck with the final purchasers, was not fully understood. Land sales became a major source of friction in New Zealand, and have even led to the conflicts of the 19th century being called "The Land Wars". If land was a major cause of tension, so too was the perceived slight on Northern chiefs, in particular Hone Heke of Nga Puhi. The first Maori chief to sign the treaty, Heke and fellow chief Kawiti, felt let down by the British decision to move the capital of British New Zealand down to Auckland away from the Bay of Islands. This loss of trade revenue seemed to signal a lack of respect and a betrayal of trust on the part of the British authorities. The following conflict over the flagstaff in Korerareka was the first of a number of Maori attempts to challenge the Treaty using active, sometimes violent, means. Within a few short years, the optimism of the Treaty had been replaced in the minds of both Maori and Pakeha with a sense of regret. Maori did not see any evidence that they were being afforded the same rights as British citizens as the Treaty had promised in the third article, and the Pakeha continued to purchase land with little care over the legitimacy of the deal in much the same way as before 1840. Given these issues, what impact did the offer of a treaty eventually have on those left to share the lands of New Zealand?

So, having looked at the coming of a Treaty to New Zealand, we are left with the issue of what impact the Treaty finally had on the people of these Islands? From the evidence so far the answer seems to depend on what group we look at. Certainly for Britain the Treaty was a cautious success.  Britain had secured a valuable colony in the Pacific, had begun to bring in colonists to major centres such as Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch. Farming and the production of wool fleeces was fast becoming a major industry and immigration was starting to have a huge impact on New Zealand. For Maori, the promise of the Treaty was never really met. Certain areas may have gained wealth from trade at the very start, for example the Bay of Islands, but this soon faded. The issue of lands sales continued to be a major bone of contention between the two groups long after the ink had dried on the Treaty, and many Maori chiefs were left wondering what exactly they had given up by agreeing to a merger with the British Empire in 1840. In the final analysis, Britain had entered into a formal agreement with Maori to prevent what was in many ways a mere ‘Phantom’ threat from France. Maori had been, at best, misled by the rushed wording of the document and had given up sovereignty of these islands to the Europeans without a shot being fired. But as the next few decades would show, both sides would have to resort to violent methods to attack or defend the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Tony