Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8

From: Craig.

Date: Wednesday, 3 September 2003 16:43

Subject: pre-celtic NZ

Martin,

Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find one of the skeletons so you can DNA test it?

This argument has been going on far too long.

Can't testing of today's Maoris come up with some answers?

I agree with most of what you say about racism against Europeans from so called Maori, who choose to reject their own ancestors in a very disrespectful manner.
So much for respecting their tupuna; usually European tupuna are denied.

I have studied Maori culture all my life, but am often the subject of anger from Maoris, often because I know more than them, but also because I am outspoken in my views.

One of these views is that the Maori language is unfortunately mostly dead, and what is being taught in schools and wanaga's and universities is usually incorrect.

I have been learning to speak Cook Island's Maori from a friend who only started learning English when he was late teens. There is a vast difference between how you WRITE Cook Island and how you SAY it, I am positive it is the same with NZ Maori.

I have learned that you really need to HEAR it spoken from a NATIVE speaker before you can say you can speak it.

Many people today speak it with an appalling kiwi accent.

I also often have arguments with Maori who get annoyed because I will say Rotorua or Tauranga with an English accent when I am speaking English, yet it is okay for them to pronounce America, "Amerika", or Auckland, "Akarana", or tractor for that matter, "Tarakihana"

I found a really interesting article on the net a while ago that mentioned that early Europeans found that Maori used many different consonants, including B and L and S, D and SH and CH etc...

This is the same in Cook Islands Maori. There was a tale of a native of Stewart island complaining that since the arrival of Europeans Maoris pronounced Stewart island as "Rakiura", but that when he was a boy it was, "lakiula"

The saddest thing is that apparently now grandparents cannot understand their mokopuna speaking school taught "Maori", it is so different from the language they grew up with.

Another point is that some older Cook island friends of mine report being able to converse freely with native speakers of NZ Maori, but are not able to understand, or be understood by school taught ones. Te Karere is apparently, in the main, just gobbledegook.

Although this digresses from your theories, I still thought you might like to hear of my experiences. I am truly sad that they have lost their lingo; I just pray my Cook Island friends don't make the same mistake.

Whoops, I almost forgot. I read about the allegation that the strap in school killed the Maori language.
Cook Island school kids to my knowledge are STILL strapped for speaking the lingo in school, yet the Cook Island language is still alive. What is the difference?

Maori made the mistake of NOT TEACHING their children the language, hence it's death.

Another thing I have noticed is that Cook Islanders really converse in their language, and joke around, and swear at each other in it for a laugh. You won't hear THAT on many marae's anymore.

For the record, my daughter is part Nga Puhi. Like you I am NOT racist, in fact I am fascinated with pre-Euro Maori, but I think that in the main they were a vastly different people than they are today. I think that you are being accused of being so because you DARE to express your opinions. It is too easy to call us racists. It tends to win the argument for them without them actually having to put up a fight.

Ignorant white kiwis will also call us racist because they like to take part in that guilt we are taught to feel. I wish our TRUE history would come out, and by that I mean POST European history.

I have no opinion about what you're saying. A DNA test would swing my opinion.

Cheers,
CRAIG

Hi Craig,

You raise a number of issues and, in the interests of brevity, I'll only comment on some of them.

The whole DNA and skeletal evidence subject is a difficult one, not because of a lack of specimens to test, but because of the "laws" governing the gathering of specimens and having them tested. Only certain designated people are allowed to gather specimens and that doesn't include you or I. Should you wish to go and gather specimens, I can tell you of 3 sizable locations where there are graves of the "tall ones"...the Caucasoid people who predated Maori to these shores by thousands of years. The gravesites are unknown to Maori and there is no Maori "wahi-tapu" covering them as a result...these are not and have never been Maori burial grounds. The iwis don't even know they're there or, if they do, they're not telling anyone... and that's the situation all over New Zealand. I know some Maori people who have been involved in the "relocation" of remains of this type. Most iwi representatives of higher rank could take our scientists to these ancient burial locations without difficulty...but why should they?...there's considerably more financial advantage to be gained in the present political climate of keeping it all hushed up.

By taking away specimens or samples of these non-Polynesian bones, you've just committed your first offense and are liable to crippling fines...unless you're Maori.... in which case it's OK to destroy the remains. If you send samples to New Zealand scientific facilities you'll receive a letter back stating something like this one, from Mr. Roger Sparks of The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences in Lower Hutt:

'For several years now we have had a policy of accepting samples based on human remains only if they are accompanied by documentation from the appropriate authorities giving approval for the analysis to be carried out..... we would need some confirmation that representatives of the local iwi had been consulted and given approval for the tooth to be dated....The opinion of Dr. Kalmeyer that the bone is European does not change the situation here... we need to take this matter seriously, otherwise we risk damaging the reputation of the laboratory in the eyes of the local archaeological community...' (August 1997).

An individual I know had found Caucasoid skeletons in a cavern and had taken specimens, including a jaw for professional examination, to the Auckland University Medical School. After the visual evaluation confirmed that the item was of European Caucasoid ethnicity, a molar was sent to Lower Hutt for carbon dating and amino acid testing ....result ... "Not allowed to be tested".

But it gets worse than this. People like Dr. Robin Watt have supposedly assessed about 2000 skulls and found all of them to be Polynesian...so that tells us a lot...or does it? There are ethnicities classified under the headings, Indo-nesians, Micro-nesians, Melan-esians, etc.,...and then there are Poly-nesians, which are a mix of many ethnic groups. The definition of Poly is: poly... many or much... having an excessive or abnormal number or amount. The term Poly-nesian means "many islands" and also denotes "many ethnicities"

We believe it is the Intermixing of these Peoples - the South East Asians, Indonesians, & Melanesians which had borned a New People of the Pacific Ocean, the POLYNESIANS. Poly = Many, Nesia = Islands, also many origins. The largest Samoan Island of SAVAI'I ( the breeding ground) has a history of Samoans, Tongans & Fijians as blood intermixed peoples and coinhabitants, both in war & peace times. Mixed blooded Samoans with Tongan or Fijian lineage populated Savai'i, SAMOA. http://www.samoa.co.uk/q-and-a/6319.html

So, physical anthropologists like Dr. Watt and others can, undoubtedly, stay out of hot water simply by not having to be too specific or by not having anything but "approved" skull types come into their possession for scientific scrutiny. Even Phillip Houghton, an adept physical anthropologist who wrote, The First New Zealanders, 1980, appears to have assessed only "approved" skeletal research specimens, which were supplied through Maori sources. Given the diversity of ethnicities that make up Maori, if physical characteristics of a skull shows a leaning more to one ethnicity than another, it can still be categorised as "Polynesian". It's a bit like the term "Maori" itself, which simply means "human being", as opposed to "huhu bug" or fern frond.

All things are possible when you don't have to be too specific and can keep the terms of reference reasonably ambiguous. To explain away the high incidence of red hair observed on many New Zealand burial cave skeletons since early colonial times, Dr. Robin Watt, attributed it all to black coloured Polynesian hair turning red by a pigmentation breakdown as the physical remains deteriorated after death. Well... that's a convenient and a pat way of burying the problem, but I doubt that it's actually true or that it occurs to any great degree in the real world. Here are some quotes related to mummies located in Egypt that are about 5000 years old:

The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
-------
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889,
p.216

-------
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99

------
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26

And what about all of the living specimens of "Maori" observed in New Zealand since the earliest colonial times with the red hair and freckles? And what about the hair samples themselves? European hair is, physically, very different than the hair of other ethnicities. Where's the scientific research paper describing the physical characteristics of the New Zealand red hair, to determine ethnicity? http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Human Hairs

To all of this one can add reference to the large number of Caucasoid mummies of the Tarin Basin of China or the Canary Islands, etc., which have retained their hair pigmentations for many thousands of years!

It is an indisputable fact that there were large groups of red headed, brown headed and blond people in this country before the coming of the Maori and that Maori lived contemporaneously with them for what could be several centuries before overwhelming and annihilating them. Maori oral traditions about these people abound and "throwback" traits to these early people were very much in evidence throughout the 1800's before Maori had interrelated, to any great degree, with incoming colonial Europeans. A traditional exclamation amongst Maori, when a newborn showed light complexion traits or developed blondish and reddish hair hues was, "Ah... Turehu"! ...which denoted the genetic link to the white ancestors absorbed by conquest into the Maori tribes. Sir Peter Buck (a Maori anthropologist) mentioned these ancestors. He also commented upon physical evidence (woven or platted coloured hair samples from ancient rock shelters) in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. In accordance with Dr. Robin Watt's theory, all of these multicoloured samples had once been black, but had decided to change to several varied hues while deteriorating in the selfsame dry tomb environment.

But, OK Craig, you want a skull, so here's a very old one, photographed in a remote New Zealand cave:


There are many features of a skull that can be compared in order to determine ethnicity. This is the science of craniology, used by forensic experts and criminologists when identifying human remains. The jaw (mandible) to the left is typical of Europeans and other ethnic groups, like Asians. The jaw to the right is typical of most Polynesians and Maori of Polynesian descent. It's called a rocker jaw and when it's placed upon a flat surface it can rock back and forth, as it has a continuous curve on its lower border. But Maori had a mysteriously high incidence of racial diversity, including Caucasoid dolichocephalism, accompanied by leptorrhine physical traits (long thin nose) when the first European maritime explorers of the colonial era arrived in New Zealand. Much within the physiology of particular tribal groups indicated a large degree of admixture with European blood. The question must therefore be asked, where did this enigmatic element come from, especially if it wasn't observed to be anywhere near as prevalent in the Islands from whence Maori had so recently come? The answer lies in the fact that it was already in New Zealand, along with a very refined culture, when Maori arrived. The Caucasoid traits were later forcibly absorbed into Maori physiology after the former European people were conquered and enslaved.

The general biological anthropology of the Pacific is as follows:

"Negrito": oldest Polynesians - Northern Hawaiian chain (brachycephalism [short head] and platyrrhine [broad and flat-brideged nose])

"Negroid": confined to marginal islands of eastern Polynesia (dolichocephalism [long head] and platyrrhine)

"Malay": western Polynesia and southern Hawaii (brachycephalism and leptorrhine [long, narrow nose])

"Caucasoid": New Zealand and Hawaii (dolichocephalism and leptorrhine)

The Chatham Islanders (Moriori) – long heads, narrow noses, no prognathism, moderate stature = “primitive Caucasoid” type

Marshall and Snow’s Conclusions:

There is a distinguishable ‘Polynesian’ type, which appears morphologically homogeneous but metrically shows a west-east dichotomy

Ø “Rocker jaw”

Ø Pentagonal head

Ø Generally brachycephalic with some sporadic dolichocephaly

Ø General platyrrhine with some sporadic leptorrhine, especially in the east

http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ant/316/Lecture%2012%20overheads.htm

When you're next in a remote burial cave and encounter skeletons, it should be relatively easy to determine ethnicity. I'd suggest you get a copy of, The First New Zealanders, by Phillip Houghton, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, Auckland, London, Sydney, 1980. It will give you all of the major physical trait differences to look for between Polynesian-Maori and European skeletons. If, after a cursory glance you see a "rocker jaw" (right picture), simply pay your respects and move on. If, however, you see the distinctly apparent European physiology (left picture) tarry a while, take photos, as well as measurements and get acquainted with your long lost cousins... who aren't allowed to be remembered in this country or political climate.

Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find one of the skeletons...?

Already have...now it's your turn. I wish about 10,000 New Zealanders of both European and Maori extraction would do the same and let these ancient regional people, as well as their history and accomplishments, be recognised.

Can't testing of today's Maoris come up with some answers?

Absolutely!, but you can only get access to the " restricted, selective and politically desirable" results. The Caucasoid aspect is very conspicuous by it's absence and it's only the Taiwanese route pedigree that gets any exposure or recognition. The South American admixtures are also conspicuous by their absence. Although hugely important South American cultural symbolism and cultivated, edible plants are present in New Zealand, they apparently arrived without people...very much like the Kiore rat....which must've swum here a couple of thousand years ago.

Taking photos is about all you can do to show the pre-Maori skeletal evidence. Exporting specimens is an option, but how are you then going to publish your results without getting into serious strife?

A few years ago a 9,300 year old Caucasian skeleton was found by the Columbia River, in the State of Washington, USA ...a most unwelcome find that threatened the American Indian claim of being the first North American residents. Every legal effort was exhausted by the Indians to stop any scientific scrutiny of the remains and to wrestle possession of them back into the hands of the Indians. The bones that did go back were covered in foreign, modern organic material during "religious observances", which, effectively, contaminated the samples (deliberately) such that they could never be effectively tested. The Army Corps of Engineers buried the discovery site, deliberately incorporating burlap sacking fibre material (organic ground stabiliser) and huge boulders to both contaminate any residual bones and make further excavations impossible.

We are given the illusion that we live in an enlightened scientific age, but the truth is that we are still very much in the dark ages. Every trick, deception, legal ploy and intervention, disallowing the advancement of "inconvenient" knowledge in the USA is also in force here in New Zealand. Our scientists are mostly, "play along whores", who work in very effectively with our "media whores" and scholarship in this country has long since been replaced by social engineering and propaganda.

Oh, by the way, the closest craniological match for the skull type of Kennewick Man was Chatham Island's Moriori.

Martin.

From Paula

Date Tuesday, 16 September 2003 14:54

Big Sigh
I think we have now reached the point where NZ is too politically correct. We are too scared to voice our opinions in case we are seen as 'racist'.
Sadly from my experience it is a double standard in NZ. If Pakeha say something against a person who is Maori in origin, then they have to be racist, whereas Maori can say what they like against Pakeha and it is okay. (I am even dubious about what they term Pakeha actually means - is it derogatory?).

I am definitely not an expert on Maori life, but I am a Kiwi and as far as I am concerned we are all New Zealanders and should treat all with respect and dignity - we are one people. Many of my friends are Maori and are wonderful, but unfortunately there are a hard core of Maoris in New Zealand who are very racist against Pakeha and are, I think, very ignorant.

I don't think Martin is being racist with this site, he is simply opening up other possibilities that we should all embrace. Wouldn't it truly be wonderful if NZ had more history to be told than there is? Wouldn't it truly be wonderful to find out all that there is to know about NZ?

The language thing is a strange one. I now hear news presenters changing the way they say 'Taupo, Taranaki, Tauranga etc., etc'. I know of one Maori elder who just shakes her head when she hears it. She says it is pronounced wrong and even the new generation of Maori are pronouncing it wrong. It is a shame, I would hate to see the real essence of Maori language lost, which I think it is, or maybe it is simply evolving like English has over thousands of years?

I think it is time not to be afraid and embrace what NZ was and look forward. A DNA test on the red headed ancestors is a must and it makes me angry that we are denied the true history of NZ.

Maybe I have an ignorant and simplistic view, but I don't care, it is still my opinion and I am entitled to it whether I am Maori, Pakeha or a New Zealander.
Paula

Hi Paula

I'm an old wrinkly who started my working life as a young carpenter in 1964. As it turns out, I still hold to the same general views about New Zealand history as I had at that time and will continue to do so until convinced otherwise. Much of the history and many of the stories were taught to me directly by older, very knowledgeable Maori people and many of my present views were once the common, day-to-day, vocalised knowledge of most Maori.

So, the very hypocritical side of it all is that it is not me, or indeed others of my generation, who have changed our point of view, but the people who rail against us for not succumbing to their recently manufactured, "forced amnesia" programme.

Name calling specialists like Professor Kerry Howe seem to be very irritated that many of us won't roll over compliantly and accept their new, approved and much santitised plastic version of history. According to Howe and his ilk, if we continue to hold to the views that, seemingly, everyone, both Maori sages and Europeans alike, adhered to in the sixties, or for generations before that time, then we're radicals, racists, new diffusionists and new age idiots, etc. The slander-dripping lengths that this name calling evangelist of the new gospel will go to to debase the nonbeliever heretics are boundless. He's said publicly on national radio that I believe we all came from outer space...eh what?...where and when have I ever expressed such views? A large percentage of his recent, book is devoted to calling people derogatory names.

Thor Heyerdahl's, American Indians in the Pacific, 1952 should be read alongside Howe's recent, Quest for Origins, and the explanations compared. Heyerdahl provides layers of evidence in every category to support his contention, almost to the point of overkill and oppression. Howe, by consequence, talks around, glosses over or outrightly omits to mention many regional anomalies, as if they don't exist or don't rate any degree of in-depth discussion. He then resorts to name calling those who want thorough, factual investigation of the outstanding anomalies, as if "pulling rank" with his credentials is sufficient to silence the dissident questioners. Some historians "command" respect ...others "demand" respect. Whereas Howe's book will be very appealing to the gaggle of social engineers engaged in molding the minds of the dumbed down, shifting herd, most old Maori elders and sages would consider that major historical points, of great importance, are conspicuous by their absence and non-mention in Howe's work.

Unfortunately for this "brave new generation" of social and historical reformers, our older general knowledge was gleaned from whakapapas and carefully rehearsed, reliable, oral traditions that had been religiously preserved and handed down. There were also innumerable historical treatises written by early colonial mariners, adept observers, historians, land court recorders or anthropologists who had direct, face to face interviews with the old tohungas, chiefs and learned elders. These early writers, including individuals like Governor Sir George Grey, also meticulously recorded what they saw with their own eyes or heard with their own ears, in the first person, as opposed to latter-day, twisted, politically convenient and biased suppositions, generations removed from the facts related to incidents.

Here are some old quotes from the books of yesteryear:

'It is most certain that the whites are the aborigines. Their colour is, generally speaking, like that of the people of Southern Europe and I saw several who had red hair. There were some who were as white as our sailors and we often saw on our ship a tall young man who by his colour and features might easily have passed for a European' (see Voyages To Tasmania & New Zealand, by Lt. Croset)...The above observation was made in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand.

'The Maori regales us with several tales that are supposed to illustrate a period when the Maori people were living here on sufferance, as it were, under the mana of the Turehu or Patupaiarehe, the true lords of the soil. Many different names are used to denote this forest folk or fairies as our writers often term them, though the Maori concept is not that of a diminutive fey or elf like folk, but rather that of a people of ordinary stature and appearance, save they are said to have been fair-skinned and fair haired' (see Maori Religion, by Elsdon Best). It should be noted that Elsdon Best lived with the Maori people for over twenty years and was taught the deepest aspects of their history, religion and culture, to the extent that he was recognised as, or accorded the honour of becoming, a Kaumatua (learned elder).

Patupaiarehe is the name applied by the Maoris to the mysterious forest dwelling race. An atmosphere of mysticism surrounds Maori references to these elusive tribes of the mountains and the bush....The Patupaiarehe were for the most part of much lighter complexion than the Maoris...their hair was of a dull golden or reddish hue, "uru-kehu", as is sometimes seen amongst the Maoris of today...This class of folk-tales no doubt originated in part in the actual existence of numerous tribes of aborigines. This immeasurably ancient light haired people left a strain of uru-kehu in most ancient tribes' (see The Journal of the Polynesian Society, volume 30, article by James Cowan.

Commenting on a later era, Cowan interviewed an old Maori elder who spoke of the Patupaiarehe of Mt. Ngongataha, Rotorua District. This partially wooded area rising above the south-west shore of Lake Rotorua was the main regional settlement of the Patupaiarehe, whom the old elder called, Ngati-Hua (hua means "bastard" in Maori and "Ngati" is generally placed before tribal names). The old elder described the former residents in the following way:

'The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero (reddish skin) and their hair had a reddish or golden tinge we call uru-kehu. Some had black eyes, some blue like Europeans. Some of their women were very beautiful, very fair of complexion, with shining fair hair...'

Cowan was told by other Maori elders of the district that, many generations previously, the Maoris set fire to the fern and forest on the slopes of the mountain, causing much anguish to the Patupaiarehe tribe and most of them departed northward. It's interesting to note that many very ornate little pataka buildings, like the ones in the Auckland War Memorial Museum, were seen abandoned and deteriorating, by early colonial observers, in the high country of Mt. Ngongataha.

In a recent posting on a Waitangi Tribunal discussion site, these words appeared:

'The Taniwha races are early Maori; many of my people descend from these ancient people. They all come from Tiki the ancestor of creation, later married into Maui a tikitiki a taranga* the ancestor of Kahungunu*. The ancient people spoke ancient Maori, some were fair skin with red and silver blond hair, a race of peace people and healers. That is where Maori rongoa comes from. The Polynesians who arrived married into these people so we the Maori enjoy the status of tangatawhenua tuturu*.
The plants and animals, be it fish or on land, are related to Tiki by whakapapa*. When the remaining land mass arose from the sea and joined with the existing islands-now we know the north island as te ika a Maui*. This information is spiritually protected....(not to be misused), but to help and heal people - kaipai tou mahi - for the benefit of all. For this is the nature of taputaputapu... Huriana Lawrence, mokopuna o Rangatira o Ngati Kahu-ngunu'.

huriana.lawrence@twor.ac.nz
27/02/03

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/news/ShowMessage.asp?ID=38&DiscussionId

*Maui-tikitiki-o-taranga (Maui [weary] of the hair-knot on
the head of Taranga--time of power).

*Kahu-ngunu (garment of the dwarf).

*Te ika a Maui (the fish of Maui).

*Whakapapa (genealogy-lineage).

*Tangatawhenua tuturu (Lords of the soil {original people} nationality).

In weighing up the totality of evidence, many of us have chosen to stay with the more reliable, balanced and unbiased views expressed from a wide variety of informed, honest sources of yesteryear. Some questionable theories about migrations or the like, popular in the raw scholastic concepts of the 1800's, can be laid to rest as improbable, but you "don't throw out the baby with the bath water". It's insufficient and quite disgusting to label the old Maori oral traditions as "unreliable"... or inconvenient references to pre-Maori groups as deliberate distortions based upon "Eurocentric" tampering, designed to divest Maori of prestige and mana....what a load of academic or Maori activist cogswallop!

To date, I've seen nothing come along of sufficient merit for me to abandon many acceptable concepts of 35-years ago and prior, related to earlier New Zealand civilisations. Unbeknown to our scientists, there are sophisticated cairn marked geometry's and overland surveying systems, running from hill to hill across the expanse of New Zealand. I've seen them, taken GPS coordinate fixes on cairn positions and tested those coordinates within the exacting confines of AutoCAD. Within our valley landscapes there are 3,4,5 triangles, equilateral triangles, 90-degree triangles with coded distance sides and lying at significant azimuth angles like 51.84-degrees or 59.0625-degrees, etc. The same distances and angles are found within the dimensions of ancient astronomical/ navigational based edifices of Egypt, Britain or North America, etc. Researchers like myself don't pretend to know all there is to know about these regional landmarking systems, but have detected sufficient within them to establish a link between an ancient New Zealand Stonebuilder civilisation, to counterparts within the Mediterranean Basin and Europe. If our scientists could spare a day of their precious time to assess the cairn marker system of the Waitapu Valley in Northland, they'd learn for themselves that careful surveying and ground marked geometry was present within the distribution of cairns, standing stones, mounds and sighting pits, etc., of the Waitapu and adjacent valleys or nearby marked hills.

There is no question but that virtually everyone around New Zealand in the sixties and before knew of the Moriori and other, older groups like the Patu-paiarehe, Turehu and general Stonebuilder populations called Tangata Whenua (lords of the soil). In those years of my misspent youth, I sat and talked at length to red headed Maori people with freckled faces who told me of their Patu-paiarehe lineage. Their words were verified by other Maori of Polynesian lineage, sitting in on the conversations. There were still a lot of waka blonds around in those years and open acknowledgment within Maoridom about who was who and what had happened in the earlier conflicts and clashes.

The work I do in surveying the old stone structures on our New Zealand landscape does nothing but further reinforce and verify the old stories about the "Stonebuilders". I've yet to find one thing that "doesn't add up" or fit the generalised descriptions of who was supposed to be here before Maori, as recounted by the learned elders themselves. The deeper one probes, the more the oral tradition stories are verified and supported by evidence...much of which is, surprisingly, mathematical.

My advice to young Maori wanting to learn the true history is to forget about consulting with the corporate kaumatuas or their, "in tow", white "Uncle Tom" historian lackeys. The manipulators are oftimes only using the hotheaded, excitable, "go sic 'em" potential of ill-informed youth to further their own political or big business financial agendas. The better and very reliable option for learning true long-term history is to return to the traditional fountain of knowledge...the learned old people. Ask the Rangitiras and Kuias, politely, about the pre-Maori groups and the history related to encounters or contact with the uru-kehu and kiri-puwhero people.

Here in New Zealand we used to have an "apprenticeship" tradition that created well rounded and adept tradespeople. That got severely disrupted a few years ago by some bright spark who, "knew a better way" (probably the same genius who dreamt up the "short-lived" idea of affixing car registration stickers to the outside of the windscreen instead of the inside). The same thing appears to have happened within the ranks of Maoridom, wherein young "movers and shakers" who weren't content to serve the hard yards apprenticeship and become learned elders in the traditional way, decided to jump the queue and displace the influence of the royal families or elders. If a concerted effort is not made soon to relearn the true history from the dwindling few who still know it, then large bodies of irretrievable knowledge will be lost from this earth forever as the old people pass away. All that will then be left to fill the void is modern, fantasy based, touchy-feely, love is warm puppies, I'm a victim, plastic history/ propaganda.

In old Maori the term "Pakeha" can, apparently, mean the itchy, irritating white lump on the skin, that appears after one has been bitten by a flea.

As a courtesy and because it is my personal preference, I try to pronounce Maori words or placenames reasonably close to the correct sound. My renditions are still something of a hatchet job to the language, despite the best of intentions and I'm too lazy to go into tongue and throat contortion extremes to get it 100% right, as stipulated by the NZ Broadcasting Commission. The main thing is to communicate and a fair attempt is generally considered acceptable. Maori language has regular and easy vowel sounds and is pronounced pretty much as it is spelt. By contrast, it must be a huge headache to learn and remember all of the sound variations of "ough" in English, as found in, tough, bough, thought, cough, etc.

Martin.


From: Mark
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Maori heads.

There are, or were until recently, a number of 'Maori' heads in overseas collections. Has there ever been any attempt to test the DNA in any of these?
On the subject of the Maori language. My son learnt basic Maori at primary school. Among other things he learnt the names of the days of the week. Two years later when my daughter learnt the Maori days of the week they were totally different words!!
Finally, are there any interesting sites in the lower North Island?

Mark

Hi Mark,

To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to analyse the DNA of the many heads that are still in the collections of overseas museums.

This should be done and the macabre irony of it all is that the ancient victims might yet "have the last laugh"...as the existence of these specimens will go a very long way toward proving the pedigrees of those who were in New Zealand long-term, despite current attempts to deny their existence. The apparent worthlessness of these people in life does not follow them in death and they are now a very potentially valuable resource of scientific information. Several Maori spokespeople expressed the viewpoint that the "heads" returned to New Zealand amidst much ceremony and lamentation by, then, Minister of Maori Affairs, Tau Henare in 1998, were "rubbish" and were the remains of former slave individuals without significance or mana. Their assessment was that the heads should never have been repatriated to these shores.

A % of these grisley souvenirs, sold to whalers and other maritime visitors, will have the Patu-pai-arehe/ European DNA, and display the non-Polynesian physical traits. These unfortunate specimens of former New Zealand humanity are over 200-years old and, considering the fact that they were mature adults when decapitated, were born in an era when it was extremely unlikely that they could have been fathered by European explorers.



This is one of 11 mummified heads repatriated to New Zealand in 1998 by Minister of Maori Affairs, Tau Henare. Is this the head that a British Museum was reluctant to include, as they felt it was European and should remain with Europeans? The Maori warriors sold these heads to whalers about 200 years ago and the individual was born about the time of Captain James Cook's second exploratory voyage to New Zealand. The light complexion, reddish hair and facial contours suggest a person of European descent. These people, who were once numerous, were referred to, by Maori, as "kiri-puwhero" (light complexioned skin) with hair that was "uru-kehu" (reddish, golden tinged).

In all categories of DNA, hair coloration and physical characteristics of the hair fibres (pigmentation channels), skull form (craineology), etc., these specimens are a valuable resource for determining pre-colonial ethnicities resident in New Zealand.

I sincerely hope that overseas scientists will do the tests on the 1000 or so heads that are still outside of the controlling confines of New Zealand. There is no hope of any such testing being done in New Zealand and, even if it was, I'd be very suspicious of any results released to the public.

I'd have to go through my records to find references to sites in the southern belt of the North Island. By reading descriptions of typical landmarker structures, as described in my website, you'd assuredly locate sites yourself with relative ease. The best approach is to get a map and see where archaeological sites are marked. In most cases a site marked as an old, historically obscure, Maori PA, featuring cut terraces and laboriously sculptured terrain, will predate Maori and be a remnant structure that is, quite probably, thousands of years old.

In the surrounding hills or valley flats adjacent to the PA, look for individual boulders that appear to have been hauled in to the area and placed to serve some purpose. Also look for cairn heaps, serving a landmarking purpose. Look for small pit depressions (sighting pits) from which there is a good view to distant features (especially prominent mountains or high hills in the vicinity).

These local structures will relate to astronomy (primarily equinox and solstice sunrises and sunsets) or overland mapping and the encoding of specialised geometric principles into the landscape. Distances and angles between cairns or former standing stone markers within a valley will relate to "old world" navigation or cyclic astronomy for calendar determinations.

Look also for strange little mounds that sit on the crests of elongated hill ranges, which stick up like pimples. These are "tor mounds" and were used for overland mapping...as visually conspicuous alignment markers, seen for vast distances overland.
Good hunting!

Martin.

From: Hemi

Date: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:56

Subject: Your banana

Martin you white racist, Hemi here, direct descendant of Nga Puhi chief, would you please explain the following contradictions in your statements. Quotations from your writtings are underlined, the first paragraph here contradicts the second and third paragraph.

"There yet remain many such ancient skeletons in remote burial caves, but on-one is allowed to do a proper scientific evaluation of them and no modern-day professionals will overtly proffer commentary related to such finds..."career suicide!" " SEE: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/hot_mail.html (about the 12th paragraph from the end of the article - or use the 'find on this page' feature of Internet Explorer, MS web browser, in the Edit menu.)

"The short answer as to why there is suppression of true archaeological and historical evidence in New Zealand appears to be due, in part, to the ambitions of big business and the multinationals. Using "indigenous rights" legislation as leverage, large parcels of New Zealand natural resources and wealth are wrestled out of the hands of the New Zealand populace. They then fall into the hands of a small number of corrupt, so-called, "indigenous" leaders/ representatives, who turn around and sell "exploitation rights" to big business. "

"Privately owned farms and large tracts of land are being gobbled up by the "Waitangi Tribunal" and big business is the final beneficiary. Our corrupt politicians are little more than an executive arm to the multinationals and take their orders from the World Bank." SEE: http://www.viewzone.com/oklahoma.southend.html (5th and 3rd paragraph from the end of that article).

Martin (what a white name), would you also explain and name the indigenous leaders you talk about and name just one instance of so-called exploitation rights having been sold by them, and then explain how in that example archeological evidence was suppressed as you claim.

Martin, why don't you explain to the readers about the Treaty of Waitangi, so they can know what the real background is all about. In truth, suppression of this type of archeological evidence appears to be a world wide phenomenon/problem (see: Lisa's story at the bottom of http://www.viewzone.com/oklahoma.southend.html where your article and link lays, or should that be lies?), and I just don't think that despite being the only so-called indigenous peoples (a very white term) world wide to have managed to force the colonists into signing such a treaty, the Maori influence does not (as yet) extend to world wide suppression of such evidence nor to infiltration and control of the FBI etc. (Eh, what? Hemi...you've lost me here...I don't know what the "Sam Hill" you're talking about... Martin).

Come on Martin, admit it, you are just another part of the culture problem in NZ. If you could get rid of that aspect of your character (not that you have much) then I would be an admirer, instead I am forced to defend my children's children against your psychological tyranny.

Incidentally, my mother was full blooded Maori, despite living in the time when it was begun to be claimed according to the white man there was no such person as that, that myth continues today and, my son has red hair. So na na banana, stick it up your karma (sorry just acting as stupid as you white folks claimed us Maori were).

Ka kite

HEMI.

Hi Hemi,
When I was very young, my well intentioned, but devoutly religious father might as well have taken me on his knee and said outwardly and blatantly, 'Son, there's a big, wide exciting world out there, full of adventures, absorbing information and scientific pursuits, sufficient to keep you happy and stimulated for a lifetime…but none of that is for you, son, because I've got a completely different course mapped out. I'm going to cram so much meaningless, backwards religion into your impressionable little mind, that it'll take you years to swim free of the brainwashing and disinformation'.

If there's any one lesson that I learnt from the course charted for me in life by my overly zealous father, it's that things are not always what they seem. There are all manner of ulterior motives out there in the big wide world and "truth" is a very rare, precious and elusive commodity. We're all living in a never-ending "infomercial", designed to turn us into mindless, compliant zombies.

So, at what level of understanding are you traipsing your course in life Hemi? Are you seeing only what's on the surface or are you peeling back the layers to see what's underneath? Who's manufacturing the information that you're being force fed… the stuff that constitutes your belief system and view of the world…and why do you believe what you believe?

The Treaty of Waitangi is a very fine, outstanding document, written in an 1840's historical context, and is as applicable today as it was then. It was fashioned for the protection and well-being of all New Zealanders, but self-serving liars and traitors in Maoridom, aided and abetted by (oftimes) fat-cat white lawyers or other opportunists who spurn them on, are twisting, distorting or outrightly deleting its simple clauses, such that New Zealand is open for plunder. Did you know that the defining Preamble has been dropped, along with Articles 1 & 3? The 2nd Article has been so twisted and deliberately misinterpreted as to render it unrecognisable. Also, a fraudulent English text is being used, based on a 3rd of February, 1840 rough draft, when, in fact, that version was replaced by a 4th of February final English draft. The true English text says the same as the Maori text, whereas the false English text is nothing like the Maori text, but is the version that self-serving liars and control-freaks wish to push and promote so that they can "rip off" New Zealand. To read all about Hobson's true, final English draft and to view photos of it, go to: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/The%20Littlewood%20Treaty.htm or: www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

The activists who are constantly referring verbally to the Treaty of Waitangi don't ever use it's clauses and articles. What they use is "The Five Legal Principles", which have absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty, but were put in place expressly to plunder New Zealand.

Martin.

From G anja

Date: 6th of February, 04.

hi , i recentley found a flyer on my vehicle regarding the "littlewood treaty" , if you ever place another such pice of crap on my car again il break your face and both your kneecaps , understand? marty vroegop
p.s "NICE TRY , DAIL 018 AND ASK FOR SOME - ONE WHO CARES " THANKYOU

Hi Ganja,
I've never produced a "flyer" about the Littlewood Treaty or even heard of one being in existence, but it's nice to know someone's so passionate about the true Treaty of Waitangi text that they're spreading the word. Thanks for informing me. Hope you can get professional help...you're obviously a certifiable sicko.

Martin.

From: Anthony

Date: Sunday, 13 June 2004 7:01 p.m.

To Mr M. Doutre

Sir, I am older than you and, even worse, I lived and worked in Africa. I am “ A Colonial “— and after 50 years I still feel tears arising as I see what is happening to those who I grew to care for. Worse still:- I am a retired priest who was ordained to be colour blind and see only individual human beings.

I can’t find words strong enough to convey the fullness of my appreciation for your web page. The depth and balance is mind boggling. Thank you so much and also to those who have responded. It is a privilege to be able to share in their research, scholarship and knowledge. Equally so to those of shallower understanding, for their contributions help one to ‘keep ones feet on the ground’. It mystifies me that Truth and Fact can be so rejected. If we all, as a country, understood, acknowledged and were taught the truth of our past how different today would be.

There would be no racism, no ‘chip-on-the-shoulder’ and The Treaty would be irrelevant, an incident in our evolution as world citizens where race/ ethnicity/ language would be regarded as a mere accident of birth in an imperfect world to be overcome as we strove top create a happy future. Your site is a small step in that direction . Again, my thanks and appreciation.

Anthony.

Hi Anthony,

Many thanks for your encouraging comments.

It is my hope that this website provides an "all-too-rare" arena where we can "mention the unmentionables", keep the old regional stories and oral traditions alive (despite the organised programme to kill them off) and explore new bodies of compelling evidence. There are huge chasms that divide us unnecessarily and we need forums of open discussion, where we can dissect and analyse historical and archaeological issues honestly.

Recently, you'll remember, we were subjected to a carefully orchestrated piece of TV propaganda called "State Of The Nation", which most New Zealanders agree was a dismal failure and media con job. We'd been led to believe that we were going to have a "no holds barred, vent your spleen, knock down-drag-out" debate, where we could get a whole lot of issues off our chests. Instead, within minutes of the programme opening, it was evident we'd all been conned once again, especially when the carefully contrived, grievance industry pseudo-history imfomercials started up. Virtually every statement made in these utterly unwarranted, "set the stage", NZ plastic history-clips was a huge distortion or outright barrage of lies about the true events of our colonial history.

I was especially appalled by the way the history of Taranaki was misrepresented and how Wiremu Kingi, the lout who started the Taranaki wars, was "Deified", almost to the point of "Sainthood". Maybe someone should have read what other contemporary paramount chiefs of New Zealand said about Kingi at the Kohimarama Conference, initiated by Governor Gore Browne, who was seeking their counsel.

Many people immediately switched channels to avoid the two hour torture session of "everything's wonderful in the garden" PR clap-trap and drudgery. One Aucklander summed it up perfectly in his letter to "Scoop":

The "State of the Nation" live debate on New Zealands race relations status was beyond disappointing. The programme producers lofty goal of having a "long overdue" discussion was not realised - just tired old rhetoric and politically correct platitudes espoused by the vocal minority.
What was revealed was the level to which the New Zealand public (particularly Pakeha apologists) have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated with lies about our land and our history. Supposed "Principles" of the Treaty? "Taonga" meaning "treasure"?

No mention of the existence of the National Archives-ratified Littlewood Treaty, which will single-handedly eliminate the Treaty grievance industry once enough people know of its content? Clearly, the truth was a negotiable commodity this night.
What a great shame. All we really learnt was that the "State of the Nation" is simply two entrenched and divided rac aty of Waitangi - something I thought that we already knew. Thanks for nothing.
Yours faithfully
Dylan Tipene - Auckland NZ.

With the exception of audience members, Allan Duff or Lila Smith, who both tried to say something "Real", but were immediately shouted down in the process, most others in the audience never even came close to representing the "average kiwi", let alone expounding what people really felt or wanted to say.

And so, Anthony, What the media won't provide, New Zealanders have to provide for themselves in websites like this one... or: www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

We have many huge archaeological mysteries in our region, in need of an explanation, which our scholars are, quite deliberately, turning a blind eye to and not addressing. DOC representatives are aware of the evidence, as they recently admitted to Journalist Leighton Keith of the Advocate:

'Northland Conservation Board chairman, Lew Ritchie said most board members were already aware this evidence existed, but the board was too busy to investigate further'.

I personally know of several archaeologists who will admit to the same knowledge behind closed doors, but not in public.

I get a lot of very nice, supportive letters like yours Anthony, but have a "wicked" tendency to show the highly critical or accusative ones, as they're more fun or a challenge to deal with. Please know that people writing in are, mostly, down to earth, humane, honest and open individuals like yourself, yearning for the truth and very aware that our "politically aligned" experts are withholding significant parts of it from us.

Regarding the plight of "white" people in South Africa...15,000 have been murdered in recent times and it appears there will be mass genocide very soon, but still our New Zealand media will say nothing. Zimbabwe's "ethnic cleansing" programme proceeds on track without interference or anything other than "token" protest from the world's governments. Here's a quote from the Jeff Rense website in the United States:

Ms Allan warned that the 4.5 million Afrikaners are being 'ethnically-cleansed' by the Mbeki regime and that their plight was growing increasingly desperate each week.

"More than 15,000 white South Africans have already been slaughtered just since the start of the current American war in Iraq," she pointed out. "That's more than twice as many as the number of Iraqi civilians officially said to have been killed in the war so far."

She warned that SA President Mbeki has "a total obsession with race," that he hates Afrikaner people and that he's obsessed with what he terms "colonial oppression."

Ms Allan pointed out, however, that the Afrikaners aren't colonials -- they are indigenous to South Africa, having been there some 350 years - three and a half CENTURIES - and that they are "totally trapped on the continent of Africa, and have no means of escaping" without the help of America.

God help them...as the governments of the world won't and have delivered them up for slaughter...where's that local visionary for a perfect world, John Minto, now?

Best wishes,

Martin.