WHY MANY NEW ZEALANDERS STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE LONG-TERM, PRE-MAORI INHABITANTS IN NEW ZEALAND
Since the dawn of the colonial era of New Zealand, many anomolous structures have been found scattered across the length and breadth of New Zealand indicating pre-Maori inhabitants who existed in the country for many thousands of years.
THE MARXIST MEDIA SLANT ON NZ HISTORY
Periodically, lightweight, poorly researched articles appear in the dumb-down media, for the express purpose of reinforcing correct-thinking about the long-term history of New Zealand.
Instead of presenting a body of compelling, factual evidence addressing the ever-growing list of outstanding anomalies, the articles attempt only to shame or deride (guffaw-guffaw) 19th century – early 20th century historians for their silly flights-of-fancy and, nowadays, out-of-vogue conclusions. There is no attempt at anything resembling “investigative journalism”, only derision heaped upon researchers diligently seeking to understand the origins and interactions of the pre-colonial Maori people. The conclusions arrived at by these early anthropologists were largely based upon in-depth interviews with the Maori tohunga priests and learned elders, recounting memorised oral histories passed down for generations. Coupled with that was the archaeological evidence of a pre-Maori Moa-Hunter civilisation, scattered across the length and breadth of New Zealand.
However, since the passage of one or two centuries after the carefully recorded interviews took place, that very passé information gathered is now considered to be politically-incorrect and not in keeping with a preferred-history or more sanitised body of information that disallows any mention of earlier long-term inhabitants, their structures and culture being encountered by the newly arriving Polynesian-Melanesian Maori.
Apparently, according to a gaggle of new-age journalists, the learned Maori elders of the past or their present day progeny who continue to recount the same oral histories, were and still are despicable liars.
As it turns out we older New Zealanders were raised up reading altogether different history books than the cultural-Marxist ones that have come into existence since about 1975 and thereafter. The authors we read included Leslie Adkins, Elsdon Best, Edward Tregear, James Cowan, John White, the papers of Sir George Grey (based upon interviews with learned Tohunga) or Joshua Rutland, The Journals of the Polynesian Society (before it got hijacked), books by early missionaries like Richard Taylor (Te Ika a Maui) recounting Maori oral histories, as well as something like 200 books by AH & AW Reed devoted to Maori historical subject matter, etc., etc.
In the ultimate reversal of titles (what came first, the chicken or the egg?), the older, once universally acceptable conclusions arrived at are now labelled as “revisionist-history”, whereas the new, sparse & sterile, revised history is represented as the only approved port-of-call. The irony is that any of us who still lean towards the older accounts are, in typical, put-down Marxist-speak, called “revisionists”.
As a young carpenter of 17-years of age (1964) I lived and worked in the small Maori hamlet of Manutuke, Gisborne and was billeted in the home of Charlie Nepia and his family for about 5-months. I was on the Marae virtually every weekend and often conversed with the old elders and kuia of the district. My work-gang mates were predominantly Maori and all-in-all I spent about 4-years of my youth absorbed in Maori culture and, listening to the stories told to me by the old people. In those years there were many elderly Maori kuia with the chin moko, and oft-times they spoke little or no English.
On a work gang was a red headed, light-complexion, freckle-faced Maori who said to me during smoko, ‘yes, I am Maori, but of a different lineage to the other Maoris … to which one of the others at the table stated, ‘yeah! …we used to go up and eat those fellas’. These were the very well-known-about “waka blonds”, of whom there were still many to be seen in the back-block communities around New Zealand in the 1950s & 60s.
Also in Manutuke was a tall woman with a very white complexion and freckles. She was about 70-years old, still had the last remnants of ginger-red hair, had a full chin moko and spoke no English. Charlie told me she was one of the original people, adopted as a child by the local iwi in the 1890s and raised by them.
MANY NEW ZEALANDERS STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE LONG-TERM, PRE-MAORI INHABITANTS IN NEW ZEALAND
In 1939, 13-year old Jim Eyles of Wairau Bar, Blenheim, discovered on the family farm what has long been purported to be the most ancient and important archaeological site in New Zealand. The location was touted to be first occupied by the earliest known inhabitants of New Zealand, arriving in from Polynesia about 700-years ago around the year 1300 AD.
For political-expediency, this untenable date of occupation has, in recent years, been pushed back slightly further and there’s now the added suggestion that a very small, pre-colonising group of Eastern Polynesians, composed of say, 7-people might have arrived on New Zealand shores in early 1200 AD and grown to about 100 people by circa 1300 AD.
Many unique features came to light as professional archaeological digs commenced at Wairau Bar and continued over the decades, which hinted strongly that the site and the burials of humans within it pre-dated the Polynesian Maori epoch by many centuries or millennia. One such feature was a burial uncovered by Eyles at a depression he found, which turned up a giant Moa egg from the long extinct Euryapteryx gravis (or Curtus), also known as the broad-billed, stout-legged moa or coastal moa. Subsequent digging at the same spot revealed a human skull, a sperm whale tooth necklace, and Moa bone reels (hollowed out pieces of leg bone).
To the left is seen the female, Moa Hunter skull and artefacts first found by 13-year old James Eyles at the Wairau Bar, family farm in 1939. In more recent times the skull has been subjected to a 3D CT scan and a forensic facial reconstruction “approximation” of what the individual looked like in life. That the woman lived contemporaneously with abundant Moa birds is attested by the large Moa egg found in this grave. Other grave goods included a whale tooth pendant and intricate necklace reels carved from Moa leg bones. To the right is seen a similar necklace, but this time the “whale-tooth” is imitation and has been laboriously carved from greenstone. Four other necklaces were found, all featuring carved bone teeth fashioned to look like whale teeth. Obviously the whale was venerated as an animal of high esteem in this society.
Reel ornaments, somewhat resembling spools, are reported from Hawaii, Tonga, Fiji, Rotuma and Atiu in the Cook Islands, but also in North America and especially in the Ohio region.
When the skull was first found by Eyles, Rangitane Elder, Manny MacDonald, said, “It’s nothing to do with us … He’s not one of us”.
This kind of freely proffered admission used to be common and prevalent amongst the learned Maori elders: Historian Edward Tregear observed:
“The Maoris used to pay great respect to the bones of their dead, yet here and there may be found among sandhills, etc., human remains uncovered by the wind, and of these no tradition remains, as there would certainly be if the relics were those of ancestors. The natives say, “These are the bones of strangers.” So also mortuary-caves are found concerning the contents of which the Maoris make the same remark, and regard them with indifference (See, The Maori Race, by Edward Tregear, pp. 562-563).
This initial exhumation, featuring a human burial with a large Moa egg ritually placed adjacent to the deceased, recurred many more times as other graves were found and exhumed. In fact, the first of these ritual burials of a Moa hunter skull and Moa egg to be found together in situ was in the 1850s, during excavations for the foundations of Mr. George Fyffe’s Kaikoura district home. (See: Old Marlborough, by TL Buick, 1900, page 384).
It was rare to find complete or intact Moa eggs in the graves, as most had crushed under the weight of overburden soil. Some found in various locations around New Zealand were of such great age that the shell fragments quickly crumbled to powder once exposed to oxygen.
To the left is seen an ancient Moa egg dwarfing an Emu egg. To the right are seen four sets of whale-teeth necklaces, only one of which is made from real whale ivory. What cultural importance did the whale have to account for such a degree of laborious carving?
Wairau Bar skeleton 5 was missing its skull, except for the jaw – this was probably taken post-burial for some reason. A cache of 5 adzes (A-E) was nearby. Adze F is particularly unusual. It had a necklace of imitation whale teeth, made of Moa bone, wrapped around it (6). A piece of Moa leg bone was placed upright between the feet (3) as some kind of burial offering. 7 is a broken egg.
In the above archaeological drawing, the mandible (jawbone) is clearly seen to have an upwards running curve at the lower border. Photographs taken at the site also confirm the flat jaw type. This is, therefore, not a Polynesian individual, whose jawline would exhibit a continuous downwards curve on the lower border of the mandible (rocker jaw).
To the extreme left is the slightly upwards curved mandible of a European, shown adjacent to a pre-colonial Polynesian-Maori skull (centre). To the right is seen a skull photographed in situ within a very remote cave of the central North Island.
The skeleton had previously been assessed by a professional archaeologist, as the very old, “Moa-Hunter” physical type in his statement to the farmer upon whose property it was found. The jawline is the flattish, upwards curved mandible and positively not a rocker jaw. Also, the line from the chin, past the nasal cavity misses the brow by a reasonable distance, whereas the same line would touch the brow on the pre-colonial Maori skull. (See: The First New Zealanders, by Phillip Houghton, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, Auckland, London, Sydney, 1980). It will provide all of the major physical trait differences to look for between Polynesian-Maori and European skeletons.
The top row shows a Polynesian-Maori male skull that displays the following typical, basic features of Polynesian physiology: In the lateral view, the vault is high, coming to a point; the lower border of the mandible (jaw) has a continuous convex curve, without an angular notch; the facial profile is vertical and straight, with the chin point well forward to form a flat face, where the line from the chin passing the nasal cavity touches the brow. Viewing the skull from above or from behind shows it to be pentagonal and quite distinctive in its general physiological features.
By comparison, the face of “Aunty” (bottom row), as well as the male skulls from Wairau Bar that were similarly analysed, do not display the high, pointed vault, nor do they show a rocker jaw. The lower border of the jaws are flat, whereas the facial profile is not. A line running from the chin, then touching the nasal cavity protrusion would miss the brow by a significant margin.
The all-too-convenient classification of Aunty as “Polynesian” or “Polynesian-Maori” seems to have been motivated by the obligatory imposition of politically-correct outcomes designed to fudge the archaeological results, unless the terms of reference as to what defines a “Polynesian” physical type are so wide-open that no craniological guidelines apply.
The jaw (mandible) sitting below the centre skull does not actually go with that skull, which is female. The other two skulls are male.
These are the 3 ancient Lapita skulls given facial reconstruction by Susan Hayes. The skull and jaw shapes seem to closely resemble that of “Aunty” from Wairau Bar, New Zealand. The jaw sits firmly on a flat surface, whereas the Polynesian rocker jaw would not. DNA tests showed the Lapita People to be absent of a DNA marker that 95% of Polynesians have.
Secondly, with regards to “Aunty” at Wairau Bar … as Dr Knapp and the Internet state:
Mitochondrial (mtDNA HVR1) testing will only show a 'basic maternal ancestry'. This level of analysis is nowhere near as comprehensive as Nuclear DNA genome testing. Mitochondrial DNA testing can even have results as far flung as having two siblings with no matching results, and it is well known that this test is the most simplistic and basic of the two. Items that should have been made available for a more comprehensive Nuclear DNA test have now been buried by the Rangitane iwi as of 2009, and until the final results were undertaken the tribe certainly had no moral right to do so.
The coffins seen above were photographed in 1919 high up a cliff-face at a very remote and rugged part of New Zealand. Each coffin was hewn-out by stone tools from a single log, like a dugout canoe.
These coffins were not planked or made from sawn timbers, as one would expect colonial-European coffins to be fabricated at any point during the colonial era. The lids were also hewn from a single, thick plank, with the edge lip (used for locking the lid firmly onto the coffin box) laboriously carved by scalloping out the central region. The cultural habit of carving coffins in this manner, as single hewn pieces, is reminiscent of the mummy-boards of Egypt, which fully encased the body of the deceased. One skeleton lies on what appears to have been the base of an old canoe.
These skeletons display recognisable European physiology. They were already very old when found in isolated country, far from the consecrated ground of a churchyard. The deceased people were, undoubtedly, the white Ngati Hotu, known in local Maori and European folklore to have hidden from the cannibals for centuries in this inhospitable region. The location was less than 50-miles further into the rugged 'bad-lands’ interior from where the last of the Ngati Hotu tribe were defeated and cannibalised in the “Battle of the Five Forts” at Pukekaikiore (hill of the meal of rats).
A blow-up of the picture positively shows a side view of a jaw (mandible) adjacent to the canoe base, which is not the Maori-Polynesian rocker jaw with a continuous downwards curve on the lower border. Further to that, the craniums are very round. The face line from the jaw past the nose and brow is inconsistent with the Maori flat facial profile.
Phillip Houghton, in his book, The First New Zealanders, 1980, offers comparisons between the Maori-Polynesian physiology and that of other racial groups (yellow lines & numbers added).
The cranial image to the left is typically European, showing the face line, straight set of the teeth and upward indented or straight-flattish mandible. The skull to the right is Polynesian Maori, which varies markedly from these features, including the very distinctive rocker jaw and general shape of the cranium. For anyone seeking a comprehensive description of skeletal differences, Houghton’s book is a valuable resource.
Houghton writes: 'When the Polynesian skull is placed beside that of a European, or any other race, differences can be seen. The Polynesian head, particularly of the male, is more angular, appearing distinctly pentagonal from above or behind, compared with the rounder contour of the European. The region of the temples is particularly flat in the Polynesian, and the bridges of bone known as the zygomatic arches stand well clear of the cranial contour, being visible from above. In the heads of most races these arches are usually concealed by the cranial contour in this view.
Viewed from the front the face appears flat-sided with the cheekbone turning back at right angles to the facial surface. Viewed from the side the face of the Polynesian appears flat, vertical in profile, and not usually with any projection of the front teeth and their supporting bone as commonly seen in Negroes, in whom also the point of the chin may be set back so that the whole of the mid-face appears to project forward. The vault of the Polynesian cranium is high. And from the side view is seen what is probably the most distinctive Polynesian feature of all, the shape of the mandible. The lower border of this bone shows a continuous and marked convex curve from front to back. This means that when the isolated bone is placed on a flat surface it makes contact at only two points, and therefore rocks when disturbed. This has given rise to the term familiar to Oceanic anthropologists as describing the Polynesian mandible - the rocker jaw.' (See The First New Zealanders, pp. 41-44, with illustrations).
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/SolarObservatoriesNZ/taupomap3.jpg
A 1920s tourist map of Lake Taupo provides snippets of, what these days would be, censored history that goes unmentioned in the cultural-Marxist versions taught in our schools. It makes mentioned of the once well-known fact that there was a long-established civilisation living in New Zealand before Maori arrived from Polynesia-Melanesia in about 1250 AD - 1300 AD. The original inhabitants of the Taupo region were called, by Maori, Ngati-Hotu.
Here are a few sample descriptions of what the pre-Maori people looked like, as recounted by the learned Maori elders of seemingly every iwi throughout New Zealand:
‘Generally speaking, Ngati Hotu were of medium height and of light colouring. In the majority of cases they had reddish hair. They were referred to as urukehu. It is said that during the early stages of their occupation of Taupo they did not practice tattooing as later generations did, and were spoken of as te whanau a rangi [the children of heaven] because of their fair skin.
There were two distinct types. One had a kiri wherowhero or reddish skin, a round face, small eyes and thick protruding eyebrows. The other was fair-skinned, much smaller in stature, with larger and very handsome features. The latter were the true urukehu and te whanau a rangi. In some cases not only did they have reddish hair, but also light coloured eyes.’ (See Tuwharetoa, chapter 7, page 115, by Rev. John Grace).
Fairly close by at Lake Rotorua the original inhabitants there were described in similar terms:
An old Maori elder said the following to historian James Cowan about the former, vanquished Ngati-Hotu of Mt. Ngongotaha in Rotorua district:
‘The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero and their hair had the 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…'
Here’s an account of their final demise:
The battle of the five forts
‘Ngāti Hotu were found living around the shores of lakes Taupo and Rotoaira by the Ngāti Tūwharetoa iwi (tribe) in perhaps the 15th century. Ngāti Tūwharetoa were then resident at Kawerau and associated with Te Arawa iwi which today occupies the area from the Bay of Plenty coastline to the Lake Taupo district.
Ngāti Hotu suffered a major defeat at the battle of Pukekaikiore ('hill of the meal of rats')* to the southwest of Lake Taupo where Ngāti Tūwharetoa devastated them, causing the few survivors to flee.
Apparently some of the survivors settled around the village of Kakahi ('freshwater mussels') which lies 30 kilometres west of Lake Taupo. They were discovered there by a party of Whanganui Māori journeying up the river of the same name who soon called up reinforcements to attack the settlement.
The Ngāti Hotu set up a ring of five forts around Kakahi which the Whanganui Māori attacked and took one by one until finally the last two, Otutaarua and Arikipakewa, fell. The final, brutal episode of the battle was played out on the flats between Kakahi and the Whanganui river when the now, effectively victorious Whanganui Māori hung the legs of fallen Ngāti Hotu warriors from poles mounted in the forks of trees - a gesture at which their remaining enemies broke and fled off into the depths of the King Country to vanish from history.
The battle is estimated to have occurred circa 1450 and its story has since been handed down through 15 generations to the Whanganui kaumatua Takiwa Tauarua, who related it to prominent New Zealand artist Peter Mc Intyre in the 1960s.’
*Footnote: The “hill of the meal of rats” refers to the fact that the defeated Ngati Hotu were cannibalised. Also, it was common for the pre-Maori people to live in underground dwellings and these can still be found in their thousands around the Rotorua lakes, Taupo and at many defensive enclosures like Koru PA, etc. I’ve been told that Maori used to say or complain that the pre-Maori people, “ tunnelled like rats”, hence, the term, Pukekaikiore.
See: McIntyre, Peter (1972). Kakahi, New Zealand. Reed, ISBN978-0589007423
Similar descriptions as to the physical appearance of the original New Zealanders are found in the oral-traditions of Maori tribes across the length and breadth of New Zealand, but in this new age of grand enlightenment, for racial sensitivity reasons, these most ancient, long-term inhabitants are not allowed to be remembered!
The more general umbrella terms for these people were Patu-paiarehe and Turehu, although Maori tribes had many other regional names for the original inhabitants hiding out in the high country after being forced to abandon their former lands of possession to Maori conquerors.
The following quotes, in part, Hone Mohi Tawhai, son of the Hokianga-based tohunga chief, Mohi Tawhai:
‘Well instructed men among the descendants of the Matahourua migration say that when their ancestors arrived in Hokianga they found a people known as "Turehu." Here again we meet with a similar idea to that prevailing among the Aotea people.
The Turehu were said to be "He iwi wairua" (a ghostly people). But side by side with this statement we have an admission. When a child was born [among the northern people] with reddish hair and a fair skin, it was commonly exclaimed "Ae he Turehu" (yes, this child is a Turehu).
The late Hone Mohi Tawhai, who had been carefully instructed by his father, Mohi Tawhai, a renowned priest and warrior of Hokianga, said on one occasion to the writer ;
"What do you think will be the destiny of the Maori people?" We replied: "They will be ultimately absorbed in the European people." The reply came: "I think you are right. When the ancestors of the Maori people came to this land they found a people called "Turehu" and they fought with them and-intermarried with them, and they were lost in our race. The Europeans have fought with the Maori people and inter-married with them, and we shall be lost in your race."
Under other circumstances Tawhai would probably have spoken of the "Turehu" as a ghostly people and charmed his hearers with many fairy tales of this marvellous people, who formerly lived in the mountains, and time and again came down in the gloaming and spirited away children of the Maori people who resembled their own race’.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HNS19151119.2.3
UNDERGROUND HOUSES
Inside a souterrain dwelling at Lake Okataina, Rotorua district.
These are around the Rotorua lakes and elsewhere in their thousands, but many of the as-yet detectable entrances are now half-full of detritus due to centuries of neglect and abandonment.
They were the underground domiciles of the Ngati Hotu fairy folk, subsisting around the lakes of the inhospitable Central Volcanic Plateau after being vanquished from their coastal settlements at Hawkes Bay. The incoming Arawa and Tuwharetoa invaders finally ousted them from this district as well, forcing survivors to flee into the yet more rugged and inhospitable hinterlands above the Whanganui River.
Part 2
OTHER ANCIENT NEW ZEALAND CRANIUM TYPES.
Here’s yet another non-Maori cranial-type which appears to be very ancient. The eye-sockets are strangely oval in shape.
This is undoubtedly the physical-type commented about by Trevor Hosking in his book, A Museum Underfoot ISBN 978-0-473-12308-6.
During the building of the Tokaanu race and power station at the extreme southern shores of Lake Taupo (1966) Trevor was informed of a skeleton find that he was called upon to investigate. He writes:
‘THE DISCOVERY OF A TOMO BURIAL
‘As project archaeologist I was constantly researching and recording sites throughout the scheme from Waiouru in the south to Tokaanu in the north and all points to the east and west. I was also on call to anywhere in the area should anything of interest turn up. This account covers just one of many incidents.
The phone rang while I was writing up my daily work book. Bones had turned up in a borrow pit near the tokaanu Stream just over the bridge on the left hand side, and off I went. An engineer was present, as well as a half loaded truck with its driver, a three yard bucket loader with engine running and a load of spoil but no sign of its driver.
It was hardly surprising as the driver was Maori and there sitting on the top of his last bucket of spoil were three human skulls.’ …I never did find out if the scoop driver returned to the job.’ ‘The priority was then to clear the tomo site of bones. Some eight feet of pumice had been removed before the bones were discovered. The skull shapes were quite different to those of modern humans and I was fortunate to have access to the late Lesley G Adkin who provided me with his research papers on the Horowhenua burials and the types of skulls found in that area.
Adkins information tied in exactly with what I had been turning up while working throughout the Turangi area. The loader driver had unearthed the skulls of a very early, pre-Polynesian people. These early skulls had a loaf shape when viewed from the rear. The skull widened from the bottom of the parietal – about the level of the top of the ears. It then curved in and up to a pronounced crestal ridge. From the front the jaw was broad and solid with a pronounced ridge above the eye socket, from which the skull sloped slightly backwards. The skull also had a very thick bone structure and is typical of an archaic people whose remains have been found alongside Moa bones. On the other hand more recent people have a more rounded skull when viewed from the rear, a little like a basket ball. The forehead is more vertical and there are no eyebrow ridges.
Note: This description of basketball shaped skulls and no eyebrow ridge is uncharacteristic of the Polynesian skull (with its pointed vault and eyebrow ridge), but very characteristic of Lake Taupo vicinity, Ngati-Hotu skulls as in the “coffin” picture above. Trevor Hosking continues:
‘The controversy over the date of first settlement of New Zealand continued. Elsdon Best, a prolific author of New Zealand pre-history, calculated the date of arrival of the fleet based on stated generations given by Maori elders. He was well out because in the telling of whakapapa, only male births are remembered. Families with all female members were not accounted for. Consequently his 1350 date clashes with the C14 date for people who visited the cave at Whakamoenga Point, Taupo. I excavated and recorded the evidence that proved the people used the cave and ate Moa while there.’
THE TALL ONES
On the West Coast of the North Island, ranging from Waikato Heads to Mitimiti and beyond were people that achieved heights of 7-8 feet. Maori oral traditions speak of these people and their eventual annihilation. This photo of a giant skull was taken in the vicinity of Waikato Heads. For a more comprehensive study of the wide diversity of “Maori” physical-types observed by early colonial anthropologists see , Physical and Mental Characteristics of the Maori, Volume 1, by Elsdon Best, 1924.
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Bes01Maor-t1-body-d1.html
NOW, BACK TO WAIRAU BAR.
THE ANCIENT LAPITA PEOPLE OF OCEANIA WHO PRE-DATED THE POLYNESIAN MAORI BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS
There were yet other peoples who ranged all over the Pacific Ocean long before there were any Polynesians. These much earlier inhabitants (1500 to 500 BC) were known as the Lapita People and their funerary practices, as well as grave goods placed with the deceased, show similarities to the burials at Wairau Bar.
Inexplicably, a worked or carved shell (Acus Crenulatus) purportedly from the much warmer regions of East Polynesia, but said to be not indigenous to New Zealand or periodically washed up on New Zealand shores during storms (like some shells as far away as Mexico), was also found at Wairau Bar. To the left are seen two examples of Acus Crenulatus shells, the bottom one of which was found in a grave at Wairau Bar.
The species is not indigenous to the colder, sub-tropical waters of New Zealand.
To the right are seen a Lapita grave goods jewellery box from circa 1000 BC or before. Note the array of cut circular objects, including a small burial pot and ringlets.
The grave also contained shell bracelets and the Lapita artisans were slicing large shells into sections for this purpose. Objects seen within the jewellery box are pendants with holes drilled through them. Such beautifully fashioned ringlets served as conus-shell currency in many ancient societies, ranging from Angola to the Sudan in Africa, to the Americas and all the way across Oceania to New Guinea. The giant stone money discs of Yap Island in the Caroline group of Micronesia were in the ancient Lapita sphere of cultural influence and the ancient tradition of making the huge discs, or the Nan Madol stone city at Pohnpei, undoubtedly stems from the Lapita-era of habitation.
In the article, Connections With Hawaiiki: the Evidence or a Shell Tool from Wairau Bar, Marlborough, New Zealand, by Janet Davidson, Amy Findlater, Roger Fife, Judith MacDonald and Bruce Marshall, Journal of Pacific Archaelogy-Vol. 2, No. 2, 2011, considerable effort is made to convince the reader that this solitary worked Acus Crenulatus shell proves that the Wairau Bar people came directly from East Polynesia, in 1250-1300 AD (700-years ago) bringing the shell with them. Dr Janet Davidson, however, was unwilling to nominate a Pacific Island source from which this particular shell species could have originated.
It almost smacks of desperation on the part of Davidson et al to base such a huge, far-reaching but singular conclusion on such a flimsy piece of very selective evidence, for the following reasons:
The primary or best known source of this shell species is the Red Sea region bordering Egypt , extending to the Indian Ocean bordering countries, the Maldives, Madagascar, the Mascarene Basin and Tanzania. The species is also found in the extreme Eastern Pacific Ocean on islands off Mexico.
The Red Sea region is the point of origin where this particular variation of the sharply-pointed, worm mollusc is considered to be indigenous or most prolific, so why didn’t Davidson et al advance an alternative migration theory relative to that theatre, half a world away from Polynesia?
The Maldives, especially, was world renown as the source of shell-money (mainly cowrie shells) used as a valuable item of exchange in the BC & AD epochs, from Egypt and Mesopotamia, extending as far North of the Persian Gulf as the Finnish-Urgic regions, the Caspian Sea and Northern Norway on the Arctic Circle. Some of the money shells from the Red Sea, found within Indus Valley graves, date to 1500 BC.
One group of the earliest known inhabitants or the Maldives Islands were the Redin or lion people, who occupied the Islands from, possibly, as early as 2000 BC until about 500 BC.
In Maldives oral tradition, they were described as people with red or blond hair and blue eyes or of Caucasoid-European physiology, just as their surviving busts and statuettes attest.
The ancient Redin civilisation of the Maldives wore moustaches (like the Lapita people) and used ear-disc weights to elongate their ear lobes, which hung almost to shoulder length in exactly the same way as displayed on the giant moai statues of Easter Island half a world away in the Pacific. They were also depicted as having lion’s fangs protruding from each side of the mouth. Their beautifully fashioned stone temples contained lion statuettes, although there were no lions in the Maldives. Motifs on walls depicted sun-wheels, swastika sun symbols and other designs consistent with early Indus Valley civilisations and sun worship.
The Redin of the Maldives were supplanted by an incoming Buddhist civilisation in about 500 BC and most of these seafaring folk chose to abandon the Maldives and seek other homelands elsewhere.
There were many choices available for destinations to the 4 quarters of the Earth and its secondary points, according to the monsoon method of sailing that would have been well known to this maritime civilisation living amidst their 1200 island’s group. One seasonal current could take them down the coast of Africa and into the Atlantic, carrying them to South America and the Gulf of Mexico.
Murals at Chitzen Itza seem to tell us the final fate of the progeny of these long-eared people who chose that destination.
Left: The long-ears of the Yucatan Peninsula, defeated, stripped of their possessions and led into slavery or sacrifice upon the altars of their Mayan conquerors. See: Mural from the Temple of the Warriors, Chtizen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico.
Right: One of the few surviving “long-ears” found at Easter Island (Rapanui) when the first European exploration ships arrived.
Obviously a branch of the same long-ear civilisation managed to survive at Easter Island until more recent centuries, until decimated by the incoming Polynesians.
Left: From Mexico to Peru bearded human figures were depicted with earplugs adorning the earlobe holes. This practice was general amongst royalty especially. Right: one of the South American earplugs.
It’s certainly probable that escapees from Easter Island made it to New Zealand and Waitaha oral traditions seem to support that. However, if the practice of ear elongation carried on in New Zealand, how would we know? It was not practiced by the Polynesians, although, in New Zealand, long greenstone ear pendants were carved by the earlier inhabitants and the practice of wearing them was adopted by Maori as symbols of prestige and office. The long pendants seem to be in similitude to the ear lobes of the long-ears that extended to the shoulders.
Also, a variety of circular Moa bone or shell discs found at archaeological sites in New Zealand might suggest that they functioned as earplugs within enlarged ear-lobes. However, any such identification would be a most unwelcome find, vehemently discounted by our politically-correct and racially sensitive experts, with artefact evidence made to disappear from public view, like a variety of other anomalous items.
To the left is seen a ceramic earplug worn by the long-ears of South America. Centre is seen a stone artefact of unknown use found in New Zealand. Could this possibly be a long-ears plug with provision for additional cord suspension and support over the ear-top? Why was it laboriously carved from stone? Right: At least some earlobe elongation was practiced in New Zealand into the colonial era and the many long stone ear pendants seem reminiscent or in similitude of the dangling earlobes of the Easter Islanders or their South American predecessors.
The triple circle-grooved object to the left was found at Wairau Bar in New Zealand's South Island and is made of stone.
The one on the right, is fashioned in shiny black argillite stone and was found at Oruarangi, Hauraki, Auckland district, North Island.
Both are attributed to the early "Moa-Hunter" epoch of New Zealand and are called neck pendants, although Roger Duff has mistakenly given a width measurement for the reel on the right as 38 cm when it should read 38 mm. It's more likely, given the central reel cavity, that these served as ear plugs or ear-pendants for individuals carrying on the "long-ears" tradition, practiced from the Maldives to Mexico to Easter Island and onwards to New Zealand.
The author wearing an authentic Portuguese helmet that was dredged up from deep mud in the Manukau Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand in the late 1960s. It is now in a private collection but the full circumstances of the find are very well documented beyond dispute.
The owner of the helmet loaned it to Auckland Institute and Museum for about a decade, but inasmuch as it didn’t go on public display, and no historical significance was attributed to the find, the owner retrieved it. He noted the sarcasm of the museum functionary delivering it back into the his possession, inferring that he & his curator colleagues knew the true significance of the find but weren’t permitted to divulge that information to the public. The functionary stated, “we’ll say it came from Abel Tasman’s exploratory visit”, knowing full-well that was impossible, but the lie would be sufficient to keep the public in the dark. Amongst other things, the helmet has seen combat, as there’s a sword-strike dent in it.
And here’s what a helmet from Abel Tasman’s Dutch crew would have looked like:
A helmet from Tasman’s expedition would have had this shape.
Left: Yet another helmet was dredged up in Wellington Harbour and is attributed to the Spanish, although it’s not typically Spanish from the conquistador era. Right: A Tamil Bell with Muslim writing around its centre section was found in Northland New Zealand in about 1836 and dates to about the year 1400 AD.
With regards to the so-called Spanish helmet, our experts came up with a scenario, put before the public, that the helmet must’ve been a souvenir of an early colonial immigrant to New Zealand who had it balancing on the rail of the ship as it docked in Wellington Harbour, then the helmet fell it off into the sea … how clumsy can one be!
Likewise, the brass bell that came off a Tamil ship was not on display for years. A friend visiting Wellington enquired after its whereabouts and was told by a museum staff-member that it was not on display because there was insufficient public interest about the item … Yeah, right!.
SO, FROM WHICH DIRECTION DID THESE ITEMS COME?
A second migratory route for the early era Redin vacating the Maldives (circa 500 BC) could well have been via the South Equatorial Current to Australia and New Zealand, the same current that allowed the Tamil, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and English to find New Zealand and Australia
Portuguese conquerors had taken the Maldives and ruled there for 15-years between 1548 and 1573 until ousted in a bloody uprising by the Maldivians, where the hated Portuguese were put to the sword.
The Tamil civilisation occupied the south-eastern reaches of India down to its southern-most tip. Tamil Nadu was only about 340-miles distant NE from the Maldives.
Remnants of the much earlier Redin people continued to live in the Maldives through the many centuries and subsequent takeovers by new conquerors, sufficient for oral tradition descriptions of them to survive to the present day. Latter incoming groups to the Maldives, like the Buddhists and Hindus, even adopted the practice of ear elongation.
All-in-all the Maldives has been a hive of (mostly peaceful) activity, a trading-region and maritime thoroughfare for millennia, with wave after wave of foreign vessels stopping by from many scattered civilisations. Some pottery shards found there date from 2000 BC, with latter examples being of Buddhist, Hindu, Chinese, Tamil, Greek or Roman origin, etc.
Pliny the Elder wrote, in 79 BC, about Roman maritime visits to Sri Lanka (450-miles ENE) and any such ships would have passed through the Maldives. Not surprisingly, a Roman coin was found in a stupa (Buddhist shrine) in the Maldives. It was housed in a stone box within a central chamber. The coin had lain undisturbed within the archaeological site until the 20th Century and was identified as a Roman Republican denarius of Caius Vibius Pansa, minted in Rome in 90 BC … which raises yet another point about Wairau Bar, NZ evidence to be considered.
In 2010, Dr. Janet Davidson happened upon the well-worn Acus Crenulata tool in a half-forgotten collection of artefacts dating from a dig undertaken 70-years prior at Wairau Bar. She subsequently built a very imaginative hypothesis about the significance of the overlooked find.
Yet, if a scientific approach about evidence is adhered to, all other archaeological finds from the self-same region should be granted equal consideration. Despite this, a very significant discovery nearby gets no honourable mention.
In December 2003 a Roman coin was found on the banks of Taylor-Reserve, a tributary of the Opawa River that flows into the sea a stone’s-throw from the archaeological site where the Acus Crenulata shell was dug up. The coin was within the same alluvial plain and canal system as the Wairau Bar seaward site and only 5-miles further distant up the same river that exits Wairau Bar.
It was brought to the surface by a long reach digger and had formerly lain in substrate soil well below the surface.
This Roman coin is dated 7 BC and was minted by Marcus Salvius Otho, grandfather of the Roman Emperor Otho. The head is the image of Caesar Augustus and the surrounding lettering is thought to read: CAESAR AVGVST PONT MAX TRIBVNIC POT
The opposite side reads: M SALVIVS OTHHO IIIVIR AAAFF
It was found by archaeologist Reg Nichol and is presently on display in the foyer of the Marlborough District Council in Blenheim, New Zealand. Yet another Roman coin was dug up by a Mr. Tasker of Hastings, NZ some years ago when he was digging a hole for a clothes line post on a new subdivision where no houses had been previously.
As it turns out quite a number of other Roman coins have been found in New Zealand since the dawn of the colonial era:
Of course, in a cultural-Marxist atmosphere, where history has to support the views and agendas of the political organs there is no way it could be entertained that any of these coins arrived on New Zealand shores in antiquity or contemporaneously to the very labour-intensive canal-building excavations going on at Wairau Bar … unthinkable! … preposterous!
The simplistic and unrealistic view concerning all of these coins is that they were dropped by clumsy colonial settlers, walking around with holes in their pockets. A New Zealand Herald journalist found this trite explanation unconvincing when writing an article concerning the Ponsonby find of 1903:
'It is very strange to think that any one of our early settlers, our blue shirt or blue jumper pioneers, should be going about in Ponsonby with a Roman coin in his pocket, that he should drop it, and that afterwards, in the year of our Lord 1903, it should be dug up. The chances are, one would think, about about ten million to one against all these contingencies.'
Oh, but here’s another one found in the Queensland bush of Australia, this time of Greek/Egyptian origin and dated to the era of Ptolemy IV (221-204 BC).:
This coin from Egypt, under Greek rule, was found by a farmer digging a post hole in a far north, Queensland, Australia rainforest. Ancient mariners coming through the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean could be drawn seasonally to Australia and New Zealand by the south equatorial currents that brought many latter explorers into the region.
A ship dismasted in the Indian Ocean and left to drift could easily end up on the Poutu Peninsula of New Zealand's West Coast, Northland or be dragged through Cook Strait between the North & South Islands to flounder on east coastal regions of either island.
Greek coins were circulating in abundance around Egypt by 300 BC and some Greek garrisons had been stationed there since about 650 BC. Full Greek annexation followed the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great (332 BC) and Roman conquest of the region occurred in 30 BC.
Whether or not any Roman or Greek ships, per say, were drawn by the natural southern equatorial currents to Australia or New Zealand is yet to be ascertained, but their coins certainly made the journey in the possession of early explorers issuing forth from the Mediterranean and Red Sea regions.
INDIAN OCEAN COINS, OF A TYPE UNIQUE TO KILWA AFRICA & THE ARABIAN PENINSULA, FOUND IN AUSTRALIA.
In 1944, Royal Australian Airforce Radar operator, Maurie Isenberg, found 5 African Kilwa coins at the Wessel Islands, Australia. Yet another one was found by archaeologist, Mike Hermes in the same location in 2018. The coins could be 1000-years old.
The only other locations where this type of coin has been found is at Kilwa Island, off Tanzania or the Arabian Peninsula. Historically, Kilwa was the center of the Kilwa Sultanate, a medieval sultanate whose authority at its height in the 13th-15th centuries CE stretched the entire length of the Swahili Coast. The Portuguese raided Kilwa in 1505 and archaeologist, Mike Hermes, speculates that they ranged far beyond their possessions in the Indian Ocean, using the seasonal monsoon currents and winds (monsoon sailing) to find Australia ... & brought some Kilwa ill-gotten-gains booty with them.
THE PRE-POLYNESIAN LAPITA PEOPLE WHO RANGED FAR AND WIDE ACROSS THE PACIFIC
Adze tools, often finely fashioned, along with ornate necklaces and very round burial pots (reminiscent of the Moa eggs and all the other circular paraphilia in Moa Hunter graves of New Zealand) were very much a part of Lapita People burials for circa 1500 BC to 500 BC.
To the left is seen a Lapita People skeleton exhumed at Teouma, Vanuatu. The head is missing, which is often the case in both Lapita and Wairau Bar (Moa Hunter) burials, with the heads frequently deposited elsewhere. Circular, unworked Geloina shells are seen to have been placed on each side of the body. Top right: A head was separated from the rest of the skeleton and placed within one of the very circular and ornate Lapita burial pots. The Wessex People of ancient Britain (2500 BC to 800 BC) also buried their dead accompanied by ornate burial pots that carried quite similar design features of chevrons, lozenge and knop-dots.
Like the North American mound builders who carved shells into ornate shapes and placed them into graves, the Wessex People burials have also been known to contain shell treasures and also chalk balls.
Bottom right: In ancient Costa Rica carved stone balls were often placed in graves (BC era) for the journey of the afterlife, again reminiscent of the Moa eggs found in many Moa Hunter epoch graves. An ancient burial at Pigeon Mountain, Pakuranga, Auckland, NZ was, similarly, reported to have a ball (pumice) included.
DID MAORI HAVE ORAL TRADITIONS ABOUT HUNTING THE GREAT MOA BIRD?
When early colonial era Europeans came to New Zealand, and more especially the South Island, it wasn’t too long before they came across bones of birds that had been of immense size. More complete skeletons of the birds could sometimes be found in limestone tomo holes, where the giant birds had fallen in and perished. Knowledge of the now extinct species reached the attention of CMS Mission printer, William Colenso, who arrived in the country in 1835 to work at the Bay of Islands. He apparently gained no knowledge of the former existence of Moa birds until after 1838, when his interest was piqued and stimulated to find out more about the fascinating species. In his much-respected position as CMS Mission printer he had considerable access to learned Maori individuals and had no hesitation in asking them about the giant birds. Here, following, are excerpts from the book: The Moa Hunters of New Zealand – Sportsman of the Stone Age, by TL Buick, 1937.
“… after vain inquiries and many disappointments he (Colenso) was able to acquire a few bones but not a great deal of information regarding this denizen of the mountain-side. What most impressed Colenso in these investigations was the apparent absence among the Maori people of any settled traditions concerning the bird. To him it seemed incomprehensible that a bird so remarkable in size and character should have escaped the notice or failed to excite the wonder of a people meticulously shrewd in their habits of observation and traditional record. To Mr. Colenso the logic of such a situation was that if the Maori had not preserved the Moa in tradition, that could be only because the Maori had never been in contact with the bird and knew nothing of it.”
In an article written for The Tasmanian Journal of Science in 1842 Colenso thus states the position as it appeared to him:
“From Native tradition we gain nothing to aid us in our inquiries after the probable age in which this animal lived; for although the New Zealander abounds in traditionary lore, both natural and supernatural, he appears to be totally ignorant of anything concerning the Moa save the fabulous stories already referred to. If such an animal ever existed within the time of the present race of New Zealanders, surely to a people possessing no quadrupeds, and but very scantily supplied with both animal and vegetable food, the chase and capture of such a creature would not only be a grand achievement, but one also, from its importance, not likely ever to be forgotten, seeing, too, that many things of minor importance are by them handed down from father to son in continued succession from the very night of history. Even fishes, birds, and plants anciently sought after with avidity as articles of food, although having never been seen by either the passing or rising generation of aborigines, are, notwithstanding, both in habit and uses, well known to them from the descriptive accounts repeatedly recited in their hearing by the old men of the village.”
Taking, then, the paucity of tradition as he supposed it, together with such other facts as he found them, Mr. Colenso came to the conclusion that:
“The period of time, then, in which I venture to conceive it most probable the Moa ceased to exist was certainly either antecedent or coetaneous to the peopling of these islands by the present race of New Zealanders.”
“Sir Julius von Haast was greatly influenced by Mr. Colenso's opinion, he admits; and he, too, became the doughty champion of the theory of the ancient extinction of the Moa, and at one time used the supposed absence of Native tradition as the sheet-anchor of his case.”
Later, WBD Mantell discovered former fire pits containing cooked Moa bones, obsidian flint knives and visible proof that Moa and their eggs had been placed in the cooking fires by “some branch of the human family.”
From the very best evidence that these early researchers could gather, Colenso, Von Haast, as well as a host of other scientific investigators, concluded that the Polynesian Maori had no oral traditions that would lead one to believe they had ever encountered, let alone hunted, the giant Moa bird. From this, the concept of the pre-Maori Moa Hunter came into being and was accepted as fact until more modern times, when political-correctness and racial-sensitivity issues began to fudge archaeological findings and dominate the interpretation of regional history.
Final acceptance of the fact that the Moa Hunter people occupied New Zealand at least 2600-years before the 1300AD coming of the Polynesian Maori was confirmed in the Poukawa archaeological digs of the 1960s. Under the undisturbed tephra ash-band layer of the 1320 BC Waimihia volcanic explosion, Russell Price and his teams discovered cooked, broken-up Moa bones, complete with obsidian-blade cut marks, where the cooked flesh had been cut-away and the bone marrow sucked out. These bones, as well as human made or modified artefacts, had lain undisturbed under volcanic ash since before 1350 BC.
THE WAIRAU BAR ADZE PROBLEM
Dr. Janet Davidson et al had a major problem to contend with and juggle. How do we drag the Wairau Bar find convincingly into the Maori epoch of circa 1300 AD and, against all the evidence to the contrary, convince the New Zealand public that these people were, in fact, Polynesian Maori and the first-ever inhabitants?
So, according to the fanciful, but non-credible story proffered by these social-engineers, a small group of individuals from Eastern Polynesia, probably due to a drift mishap, landed at Wairau Bar in 1250 AD and set up shop. From this meagre few, composed of say 6-7 individuals including both men & women, the community grew to be a few hundred individuals by about 1350 AD, by which time they’d pretty-much wiped out all the Moa bird species across the length & breadth of an entire country larger than Great Britain.
But somehow in that 100-year period, these intrepid explorer-hunters had found and identified greenstone 180-miles away SW, as the crow flies, through some of the roughest and most mountainous, impassable terrain in New Zealand. Not only that, they brought it back to Wairau Bar and, with no prior experience in carving greenstone, fashioned the incredibly hard stone with precision and to tolerances that had taken the Celts, Chinese, Olmecs and others centuries to master. One greenstone artefact recovered from a first-arrivals grave at Wairau Bar was a beautifully fashioned object in the shape of a whale’s tooth and there were also two greenstone adze heads.
But also included in the grave goods was an adze from Tahanga Hill, Opito Bay, Coromandel Peninsula, about 350-miles NNE as the crow flies. So, we’re expected to believe that these few-in-number, intrepid explorers negotiated their way overland or by sea to this overgrown and hidden hill, upon which no human had ever set foot. They then immediately recognised it was composed of high quality basalt hardstone so carved an adze and then included that in the graves containing Moa bone necklaces and eggs. Not only that, the Tahanga Hill stone was so good that the Wairau Bar seeding-population set up the equivalent of an adze factory and churned out adzes in vast numbers, which were then distributed and traded all over ancient New Zealand.
OPITO BAY, COROMANDEL PENINSULA, MOA-HUNTER COMMUNITY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH WAIRAU BAR.
Adze blanks from Tahanga Hill, Opito Bay Coromandel. Beyond this rudimentary roughing-out stage, they were finely shaped up on the hill, then finished and polished in the sand dunes by the sea edge. These adzes, in differing styles, were produced in high numbers for many years and found their way to New Zealand’s most ancient sites.
An adze from Tahanga Hill, Opito Bay, Coromandel, New Zealand.
To the left is seen dots representing sources of specialised stone known to have been used as tools, etc, all across New Zealand in the first half of the 14th century AD (1300s). These stone resources were carried within exchange networks over hundreds of kilometres and up to 2000 kilometres from their source. To the right is seen originating locations of specialised stone that came in as trade goods to the Wairau Bar community. https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/globalmigration/files/2018/09/Walter-et-al-2017.pdf
THE MOA HUNTER CANAL BUILDERS OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH ISLANDS OF NEW ZEALAND.
In 1903 CW Adams surveyed Wairau Bar and noted the existence of 12-miles (19 kilometres) of hand-dug canals. These linked the waterways of the alluvial plain together, bringing abundant fish resources into the region, as well as enhancing gardening. Extensive canal building and intensive wetlands gardening went hand-in-hand in other parts of ancient New Zealand as well.
This is only a part of a huge system of cut drains for eel traps and fertile, raised-earth gardening platforms sitting adjacent to the Awanui River, Northland. It was photographed by the US Airforce in 1944 and even by that time was in a severe state of decay due to abandonment and no maintenance for, probably, centuries.
THE NORTH DARGAVILLE CANAL BUILDERS, COUNTERPARTS TO THE WAIRAU BAR CANAL BUILDERS.
In a 1928 edition of the Journal of the Polynesian Society, Edwin Harding wrote of his family’s long-standing association with yet another district on the West Coast, where a huge complex of similarly abandoned drains were found. He recalled his early shepherding activities in a belt of coast, extending over 25-miles, between Maunganui Bluff and down beyond Dargaville.
Harding wrote, '...almost every hollow which had once been a lake or swamp had been similarly drained, noteworthy features being that the drains were perfectly straight and cut to the most direct outlet, involving in some cases, cuttings over twenty feet deep. The largest work is, I think, over a mile in length straight as a dart...a good many of the drains have now been obliterated by gum digging, cultivation or drifting sand, but some of the more striking works remain' (vol. 37, no. 4, pgs.367-368, Dec. 1928).
It goes without saying that the digging of large canal systems or the raised platform drainage systems for intensive gardening was a huge undertaking to create and maintain. There would have to have been a very sizable population to undertake this ancient work or even need such oversized systems.
But the overly-simplistic, unrealistic hypothesis of our experts goes something like this:
About 7 people find New Zealand in a drift mishap in say 1250 AD... about 5-minutes later they discover greenstone at Hokitika and know how to carve it ... 5-minutes after that they find high quality basalt rock at Opito Bay and start churning out adzes in vast quantity for national distribution ... about 5-minutes after that they've bred up such a sizable population as to have decimated all the species of Moa birds throughout New Zealand, have built thousands of huge PA fortresses, canal systems and intensive alluvial plain drain networks of raised garden systems, etc., ... Wow! ... that's fast-tracking!
Part 3
AUNTY, THE FACE OF A WAIRAU BAR MOA HUNTER WOMAN.
After a full 3D scan of Aunty’s skull was completed, an “approximation” reconstruction of the face was commenced in late 2009 at the University of Western Australia, and was undertaken solely through reference to photographs and computed tomography (CT) scan data. (See: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · June 2012).
The study pre-supposed that the individual would have to be of Polynesian-Maori decent, which affected some choices for the final outcome. The report states:
“The surface appearance of the skin and features was accomplished in reference to over one hundred archival photographs depicting Maori women of young to mid-age and sourced from the National Library of New Zealand digital archives (http://www.natlib.govt.nz/atl) and the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre (http://www.nzetc.org), both of which were accessed during March 2010. Constructing the surface appearance in reference to digital images involves searching for a particular facial feature that is most similar to the parameters indicated by the anthropological and morphological analyses of the skull. This serves two purposes. Firstly, identifying the presence of a pre-defined feature shape in a large number of archival photographs indicates the plausibility of such a feature occurring within individuals of similar population affinity.”
Despite this, the final appearance achieved looked decidedly non-Polynesian-Maori, which caused one correspondent (Grace McIlroy) to remark in an anthropology blog:
Wow if I hadn't read the blurb I would never have said this was in any way a Maori face! Looks as European as you can get. Actually looks a lot like my sister, Annie (we're Irish). Especially the nose. I have never seen a Maori with a nose like that. Guess these people must know what they're talking about, right?
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/aunty-600-year-old-maori-woman.html
Rather than simply undertake an unbiased, scientific-approach analysis, devoid of preconceived notions as to which racial-ethnic grouping “Aunty” belonged, every effort was made to represent her as Maori from the very start. Despite this she looks decidedly European or similar to the Lapita People facial reconstructions. Here are a few of those:
One jadeitite wood-gouge recently discovered on a coral island in Papua, New Guinea has been dated at 3300-years old and the only known region where jadeitite specimens are found to contain similar chemical properties is in Baja California Sur, Mexico. The artefact is attributed to the Lapita people, who ranged through the Pacific Ocean for millennia before the epoch of the Polynesians.
The Lapita people created ornately designed pots, covered in knop, chevron, lozenge and double spiral features which duplicated designs on the kerbstones of Knowth, Newgrange & Dowth chambered mounds or patterns found on Wessex pots of ancient England. The above design from a Lapita pot shows a Lapita face, encompassed by an Egyptian Ankh cross. The face is long, with wide eyes, small mouth clench, and a leptorrhine nose, beneath which is a moustache ... all European or Caucasoid features.
SOME REALISTIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GREENSTONE PENDANT FOUND AMIDST GRAVE GOODS AT WAIRAU BAR.
To the left is seen unworked greenstone, which can look unimpressive in its raw, unpolished state and not stand out as anything special to the inexperienced eye. To the right is seen an expertly carved and polished greenstone pendant in the shape of a tooth, accompanied by carved reels of Moa bone. This was one of the grave goods found at Wairau Bar.
There is much in Maori oral tradition to suggest that those who possessed and worked greenstone were a special, separate people who Polynesian Maori encountered upon arrival in New Zealand from Hawaiki. Oral traditions tell us that Pounamu (the Maori name for greenstone) originates with Poutini, who is looked upon as the origin or personified form of greenstone. Poutini was one of the offspring of Tangaroa, god of voyages and ocean migrations and a son of Rangi & Papa (the sky & Earth). References to Tangaroa describe him as fair-haired or having sandy-coloured hair and fair offspring (the moon maidens) and coming from a land where the leaves stayed on the trees for only half the year.
The source of greenstone was the progeny of Tangaroa and the stone itself was often associated with fish. Tangaroa, in one of his assigned roles, represented all fish. The Dominion Museum article devoted to Nature Myths, says of greenstone:
“One quaint old folklore repository of Matatua district told me that Poutini the origin of greenstone is one and the same as Poutini the star. His people are the greenstone folk, a people who descended from the heavens and dwelt at Hawaiki, but in latter times came to New Zealand. These greenstone folk were persons of importance and had many chiefs. They were attacked here and lost a number of their people, who were slain, which was a benefit to the Maori people. These slain and captured greenstone folk represented blocks of greenstone acquired by the Maori and famous greenstone artefacts. Greenstone is often alluded to as the whatu o Poutini or “stone of Poutini”, also the ika a Ngahue, or “fish of Ngahue”. One old tale speaks of greenstone having been alive, and when caught it was cooked in the oven”.
But let’s consider the logistics or possibilities of an incoming Polynesian group, who had no knowledge of jade-greenstone as a venerated or precious item and no knowledge of how to carve the incredibly hard stone, creating an ornate, expertly made, greenstone pendant so soon after arrival on these shores.
It’s easy to logically conclude that the Wairau Bar, whale-tooth, greenstone pendant was made long before 1300 AD by people who had been in long-term residence in New Zealand, spanning at least 2000-years (refer to the Poukawa archaeological dig) before 1300AD. These were the greenstone folk or children of Poutini, who had been in residence for so long that they had explored and settled the choicest living areas of the entire country and long-since found the greenstone resources. Like the South Americans, Chinese & Celts of Europe they both venerated and knew how to fashion greenstone objects to perfection … a very difficult task. It’s estimated that carving a single greenstone mere, without metal tools, could be the life’s work of one artisan.
REPATRIATION & REBURIAL OF WAIRAU BAR SKELETONS BY RANGITANE IWI
In an article titled: A triumph of belief over science, the writer summed up the sentiments of many disappointed New Zealanders:
“Are future generations going to regret giving the remains of 53 of New Zealand’s first people dating from the thirteenth century, back to Rangitane for reburial on the Wairau Bar on 16th April? We do not know where they came from or if they left descendants. Their numbers appear to be mysteriously growing, so just who is being reburied?
Is this state sanctioned destruction of irreplaceable ancient remains linked to Waitangi Treaty settlements? The Wairau Lagoons form part of the NZ$79.6 million settlement agreement with the 4000 members of the Kurahaupo Trust signed on the 11th February, 2009.
The archaeologists undertaking the recent dig on the Wairau Bar were paid by the taxpayer to find nothing. They were paid to find reburial sites with little archaeology and any finds were a by-product. Any future research or publications have to be sanctioned by Rangitane and the data from the study of the human remains by Otago University is not going to be made available to other scientists. We may never know who or where the ancient people of Wairau Bar came from, if Rangitane choose not to tell us. Surely this is intellectual property that belongs to all the people of New Zealand?
We are giving a small group of people pursuing their own agendas, control over what we know and think about our founding people as well as access to their burial place. If the origins of the Wairau Bar people prove to be in China, Asia, India or Indonesia (even if via other Polynesian islands), surely New Zealanders from those cultures should be consulted about the reburial and have right of access to the burial site to pay their respects and conduct their own religious ceremonies? Surely scientists should have access as technologies develop to answer these questions of international interest.”
Note: In August 2005, the remains of 12, perfect-specimens-for-study skeletons, found by contractors at Manutahi farm, Taranaki, were removed from a bog urupa (cemetery) that was unknown to Maori. Under a cloak of secrecy the remains were re-interred at Manutahi Marae by kaumatua of the Ngati Pakakohe iwi. The skeletons, which even Maori agreed were not theirs, were not allowed to undergo scientific assessment.
THE POUKAWA, HAWKES BAY, PROBLEM
While our archaeologists cherry-pick much-sanitised evidence that suits the requirements of political agendas, the elephant in the room goes unnoticed and unmentioned. All our professionals need to do is return to Poukawa, Napier district, New Zealand and recommence the now long abandoned, 1960s archaeological digs of Russell Price and his teams (including renown Pedologist, W A Pullar of Soil Bureau, Whakatane). They will quickly find indisputable evidence of Moa-Hunter occupation below the signatory tephra of the Waimihia ash-band of circa 1350 BC … and from there we can get far more plausible or believable clues concerning the true epoch when Wairau Bar was first occupied.
In a Statement of Belief, leading scientists, commenting on the Poukawa findings, co-wrote the following testimonial:
'Occupation of this site has continued over a long period. The older occupation appears to have commenced prior to the commencement of the peat formation and hence also before the water level of ancient Lake Poukawa had reached its highest level. If the rate of peat formation has been substantially uniform peats commenced forming at about 'post'-glacial sea level maximum, say 4,500 years ago. The stratigraphically lowest discoveries lie below this peat and may conceivably pre-date ca 4,500 years ago'. 'The site demonstrates human occupation of this area of much greater antiquity than anything previously anticipated'.
Cooked, broken and scraped Moa bones, as well as human made artefacts were found beneath the fallout tephra ash band from the circa 1350 BC Waimahia volcanic explosion.
Left: Allan Pullar. Middle: Collin Vucetich (Both men worked for the DSIR Soil Bureau). Right: Russell Price & colleague at the Poukawa archaeological site.
Here are excerpts from John Tasker’s book, Chain of Evidence:
‘Leading Pedologist Alan Pullar joined the dig on 30 December 1964.'
'Pullar next turned his attention to volcanic ash bands in the ground, having come to the conclusion that they were capable of offering important stratigraphic datums to field archaeologists. The three that he singled out for particular study were the Kaharoa ash-fall of ca 1100 AD, the principle Taupo shower of ca 186 AD and the Waimihia fall of ca 1320 BC. Each showed up in the ground with their own distinctive colours and textures, and each had at one time been ejected by a volcano as an ash shower. Kaharoa from Mount Tarawera and the other two from the vicinity of Lake Taupo. They were assigned a date by the simple method of retrieving charcoal or peat samples from immediately above and below each band and dating them by the C14 method. Thus bracketing the layer between two known dates, and cementing in place a given point in time. Numerous repeats of the process enabled more precise dates to be allocated to each of the volcanic events, and the chronology of archaeological and cultural sequences in the ground could now be arrived at with greater ease and accuracy as a result.'
'Pullar took charcoal samples from above and below each of the two ashfall layers for dating purposes and these eventually confirmed his findings. He had been right, and as far as he was concerned, Price's discovery was the most astounding yet in terms of New Zealand archaeology. According to the evidence, man had been in New Zealand at least 3,300 years...he knew in his heart he was right, yet realised at the same time he had better exercise restraint when writing up his report for his fellows (NZAA, Vol 8, No1). They were an ultra-conservative lot, and would do their best to shoot him down in flames'.
'If the lower layer is indeed Waimihia lapilli' , he wrote gingerly, 'then the discovery by Price of items related to man found below the pumice band raises implications almost too daring to be true'.
'...the knocking machine swung into immediate action. The first objection concerned the placement of ash-bands. It was alleged they must have been water-borne centuries after the volcanic events and that Pullar had misread them. Nice try, but Pullar had sorted that out long ago. He was well aware of the difference between 'water-borne' and 'air-laid' (NZAA, Vol. 4, NO 2)... Under the microscope the air-laid particles were sharp and angular at the base of the band. The water-laid particles above were rounded and worn. To his expert mind there was no doubt whatever. The lower band was Waimihia and it had been air-laid 3,300 years ago. Which meant that any human cultural material found beneath it had to be at least that age'.
'These conclusions were confirmed in full when three geologists visited the site. They had come to determine whether the ash layers as found 'may have been artificially re-deposited centuries after the Taupo and Waimihia eruptions'...Wellman, Kohn and Vucetich independently identified the ash showers and agreed with Pedologist Pullar that they were indeed air-borne deposits from the Taupo eruptions, and that their original placement was as seen today. They were satisfied from the structure of the showers. And the consistency throughout the district that there could be no mistake about it'.
The knocking machine tried other tactics to discredit the work.
'One of the assertions about material recovered from below the Waimihia ash was that 'it might have fallen through the ash showers from above'. The matter was straightened out by Price himself...'The showers of ash have been undisturbed above the earliest artefacts, he said in 1966, 'and in places a concrete-like matrix lies above them, deposited by later inhabitants'...thus making it impossible for objects from an upper layer to seep down and lodge themselves in a lower layer'. 'Dr. Richard Holdaway confirms this sort of thing as well. In a 'Listener' article (Rat Revisionists', 7.12.96) he said'...'most archaeologists have never actually excavated through two feet of ash. It seals everything underneath it. You can see every last wormhole in it and you can see where there is damage to it. So if something is underneath you know it was there before the ash fell...'
'Some insisted that ancient moa bones showing evidence of human manipulation at the lowest levels of the site 'might have been deposited naturally'. They must have been kidding. Almost all were broken open to extract the marrow, most had been burned in a fire and some had cut marks on them made by a sharp stone implement. All of which indicated a heavy human involvement. 'Unless, as Price observed at the time, 'ANCIENT MOAS SPENT THEIR TIME BREAKING THEMSELVES UP AND COOKING EACH OTHER'. (Emphasis added).
'Another objection put forward was that 17th and 18th century Maori might have dug down through the ash layers to retrieve old moa bones for fashioning into tools. And in that process a certain amount of juggling occurred in the ground. Those actually present at the site laughed at this idea. Nowhere had either of the two ash mantels been pierced in this way, and since all bones concerned had been through a fire they would have been totally unsuitable for the manufacture of artefacts anyway. A third clinching point against this particular objection was that over the whole site no moa bone artefacts of any type were found. There were a lot of bone artefacts in evidence, but these were all fashioned from sea mammal, small bird or human remains'.
'None of the objections were capable of withstanding close scrutiny in the 1960s, and today they are made to look even more ridiculous by documents harking back to those days'.
'THE STATEMENT OF BELIEF'
'What almost nobody realised in the late 1960s is that a hard core of top scientists who had visited the Poukawa site were totally behind Price and Pullar. They could see the obvious. However, to openly stand beside these two would have cost them too much so they did the next best thing. A number allowed their names to be associated with a secret 'Statement of Belief', marked across the top 'RESTRICTED - NOT FOR PUBLICATION'. And because it vindicates Price and Pullar, and because the conclusions drawn go way beyond what these two could ever have envisaged, parts of it will be quoted now in such a manner as to leave the writers unidentifiable - with two exceptions. In order to demonstrate the high-level nature of the Statement it should be known that both Drs Flemming and Rafter had a hand in its composition...'
'The data Mr Price has slowly accumulated...has demonstrated that the results have to be taken seriously', the Statement began.'
'W A Pullar of Soil Bureau, Whakatane, visited the site earlier this year, examined ash layers contained within peat and collected radiocarbon samples from above and below the ash layers. The dates from these confirm his identification of the Taupo and Wamihia pumice ashes''
The controversy over 'water-laid and air-laid ash was settled in a few sentences...'
'Within the peat are two pumice layers; the lower about 1½ inches thick, has a sand-size lower half and a fine silt-size upper. In the exposure we saw it was entirely air-laid. About a foot above the rhyolite ash horizon is a second layer of course grit-sized rhyolite pumice lapilli; this is only about ¼ inch thick in the higher parts of the wedge, but is irregularly thickened lower down. In these lower parts the bulk of the lapilli are rounded and the thickening is clearly due to transport of lapilli by water, perhaps lake water. In the higher parts the lapilli are angular and occur with sand and dust grade particles and is clearly air-laid although continuous with the water-laid part'.
'A series of Post holes at all levels also spoke eloquently to the scientists. Speaking of one such hole the Statement says that...'
'The post was ca 4" in diameter, had rotted off and the hole then infilled before the Taupo ash-fall...Similar post holes are reported below the Waimihia ash with the ash continuous across the top...The post hole we saw has every appearance of being undisturbed, and convincingly demonstrates human occupation of the site prior to the Taupo shower...The discoveries of artefacts and ovens...below one or other of the ash showers give a similar demonstration'.
'After discussing a likely geological history of the area the Statement gets straight into conclusions...'
'Occupation of this site has continued over a long period. The older occupation appears to have commenced prior to the commencement of the peat formation and hence also before the water level of ancient Lake Poukawa had reached its highest level. If the rate of peat formation has been substantially uniform peats commenced forming at about 'post'-glacial sea level maximum, say 4,500 years ago. The stratigraphically lowest discoveries lie below this peat and may conceivably pre-date ca 4,500 years ago'. 'The site demonstrates human occupation of this area of much greater antiquity than anything previously anticipated'.
'It does not yet, however, demonstrate anything about the ethnological relationships of the earlier inhabitants and the later Maoris. Although the stratigraphically lowest material is all of a flaked nature, artefacts of this type are cosmopolitan and persisted in the Neolithic cultures, so do not necessarily indicate a Palaeolithic culture...'
'This is a most interesting document, its chief significance being that four pre-eminent scientists of the day saw fit to formalise their concurred view of the implications of Price's work at Poukawa. There are criticisms of course. And even charges of forgery against the paper. But these charges are baseless and cannot be sustained'.
'According to Price's biographer, Bevan Greenslade...the papers key is 'slowly accumulated'. It indicates patience and care, and a reserve difficult to falsify. Pullar's fortuitous involvement is also commented upon. This ground-breaking geologist was experienced and independent, and it was good to have a reliable bald statement asserting positive, unconditional dated identification of Waimihia and Taupo ash tephra. On the subject of post-holes, scientists of this calibre saying words such as '...convincingly demonstrates human occupation of the site prior to the Taupo shower' is pretty staunch collateral support for Price's own ideas. Such words lifted Price out of the 'misguided or speculative amateur enthusiast' category'.
Enter Dr. Bruce Mc Fadgen and his team, made up of members of the Victoria University Geological Society and the Wellington Archaeological Society.
'The team dug in an area already dealt with by Price and in his report in the 'Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand', (Vol. 9, No. 3, 1979, pp 375- 382) McFadgen proceeded to demolish all Price's claims and to make it difficult for anyone else to stand alongside the beleaguered farmer and still retain his or her credibility'.
'Thus all Price's post holes became 'root channels of old trees'. Disking of the area in the past mixed introduced snails and pig bones with extinct heron and notornis remains, fooling everyone in the process. Tree roots made the 'file marks' noted on some old bones. After the land was raised by the 1931 earthquake and the peat began to dry out, it cracked, and allowed surface material to fall down to sub-ash levels - in every case. The shrinking ground was also responsible for all broken bird bones as well. It was all too pat'.
'Mc Fadgen's conclusion was that 'because the peat is cracked, and things have fallen down the cracks, and because the site has been bulldozed and disked, and artefacts have been disturbed, the Poukawa site does not provide evidence for the antiquity of man in New Zealand, and is extremely misleading'.
He further stated that the site 'was probably occupied between 150 and 300 years ago' and 'there is no evidence for human occupation before the Taupo pumice eruption'.
'Tutored ones who previously wavered, now largely embraced the 'new light' provided by the team, while the public at large - or at least the members of the public interested in such things - jumped the opposite way, taking the view that McFadgen's simplistic dismissal of claims made for Poukawa were a 'jack-up', that he had approached the task of 'dealing with' Poukawa with his mind already made up, and that his conclusions ran counter to all previous indications from the site'.
See: Chain of Evidence, pp. 138 - 155.
To see undisputable results of very ancient human occupation of Poukawa, New Zealand, go to the 3 links below and magnify the C14 sample figures for clear reading.
http://celticnz.co.nz/Kaiwhakaruaki/Letter1.jpg
http://celticnz.co.nz/Kaiwhakaruaki/Carbondating2.jpg
http://celticnz.co.nz/Kaiwhakaruaki/Carbondating3.jpg
Part 4
THE EVER GROWING LIST OF NEWLY DISCOVERED SITES THAT HAVE TO BE DATED TO 1300 AD BY OUR SO-CALLED EXPERTS.
The days of open research and follow-on, healthy debate seems to have died with Lesley Adkin, Russell Price and a raft of other old-school seekers after truth, then replaced by compliant social-engineers intent on not stepping-out-of-line and thereby committing career-suicide.
Every second day it seems, some new archaeological site comes into public attention and is touted in the media as being the latest or newest “oldest” site to be found in New Zealand or, at least, represented as being nearly contemporary to Wairau Bar in age. Moreover, these sites or settlements are often very large and were once host to a sizable, long-term populations. Let’s enumerate a few mentioned in recent media releases:
Motorua Island headlines in the Northern Advocate: "Dig uncovers New Zealand's earliest arrivals"
"We Know the site is early. The question is, how early?"
New finds while the Advocate was visiting on Wednesday included a possible moa-bone spear tip, a kuri (dog) tooth and a piece of red ochre pressed into a crayon-like shape. Ochre was used to decorate everything from bones to paddles by early Maori. If the fishing lures were found to be pearl shell and dating confirmed the site was as early as suspected, that could mean it was used by the first generation of Maori and was as old as Marlborough's Wairau Bar, the most famous of the early sites found so far."
Moturua Island Scenic Reserve: Northland historic conservation www.doc.govt.nz
Moturua Island has had a long association with humans from the earliest Polynesian settlers through to the early European explorers such as Cook and du Fresne.
I found the video clip associated with this dig particularly telling. The archaeologist spokespeople were so dramatic, practiced and emphatic, with plenty of hand gesticulations to nail down points before the cameras. I’m sure the Maori individuals who stood behind gave their “thumbs up” to the very polished, gushy performances, but were probably laughing under their breath at the same time, knowing full-well that the sites preceded Maori occupation. Their learned elders would, undoubtedly, have known the real, unbastardised history of the region and the Turehu groups they encountered and displaced upon arrival in the district.
GISBORNE PORT
Shells, tools, food remains and moa bones have been unearthed under a slab of concrete in Gisborne
Again, a large settlement dated to 1300 AD or contemporary with Wairau Bar.
WHITIANGA - Taputapuatea Stream -
https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/10360939/14th-century-Polynesian-settlement-discovered
14th century Polynesian settlement discovered | Stuff.co.nz
Evidence of early Polynesian settlement dating back to the early 1300s has been uncovered in a discovery of national significance.
Again, this recently found large settlement is supposed to date back to the early 1300s and would be contemporary with Wairau Bar.
The problematic aspect posed by all these sites is that cooked Moa bones and artefacts fashioned from them keep turning up and this puts the social-engineer archaeologists or their handlers in a bind. The irrevocable stipulation is that the sites MUST be of Polynesian Maori, while admitting that there can be no living Moa beyond about 1350 AD. Therefore the archaeologists are locked in to dating the sites to around 1300 AD as they're not allowed to date them any (or much) earlier and still be within the set-in-concrete Maori epoch.
This picture gives us a glimpse of just how ridiculous and impossible the mainstream population model truly is. Each dot represents a site of human occupation (many with very large populations) where cooked Moa bones or artefacts made from the giant bird bones were found. Each of these "Colonisation Phase Sites" is said to have been inhabited in the 14th century AD (1300s).
Let’s look at another site, the former estimated age of which has been severley juggled to force it into the "approved" time-frame of Maori occupation.:
KORU PA
Here’s the old sign which stood at the entrance to Koru Pa in 2003, before the implementation of enforced “right-thinking” about the age of Maori sites.
This is what the sign said in 2003. Note: Nigel Prickett and other researchers had concluded that the site was probably occupied from about 1000 AD.
Within a short time beyond 2003, the old sign was replaced by a new one, part of which is shown in this picture. Quite suddenly, 350-years had been lopped off the age of the PA, to bring its date into the range of right-thinking. We, the public, were not informed concerning the startling new finds that must’ve been made in order to readjust the date so radically.
How can we have any confidence in these turkeys when they pull stunts like this without explanation? Do they have even the most minimal idea of what they’re talking about as they make adjustments to our historical record, based solely upon politically-correct or racially-sensitive criteria or requirements? What we the public require is “warts-‘n–all” truth!
Maori oral traditions related to Koru PA speak of the region being occupied by an altogether different, non-warlike people when Maori first arrived in the district.
This re-dating is a radical-departure, without explanation, from the earlier accepted date and can only be politically motivated. It was undoubtedly due to critical commentary appearing in the Internet which pointed out the massive contradiction between circa 2003 academic-dating and wording on the original sign.
So, what spawned this rethink and hard-nosed reentrenchment, to lock-down immovable dates of the Maori epoch, coupled with absolute, vehement denial that anyone else inhabited New Zealand before the Polynesian Maori found these shores?
In 2003, in the wake of much public counter-argumentation that there were most-certainly people living in New Zealand before the coming of the Polynesian Maori, our leading-lights kindly returned to assessing their accumulated data and decided they were right all along … there was no evidence of any human impacts on the New Zealand landscape until the year 1300 AD. To read an overview of the whole sorry affair and the infighting that it spawned at an academic level, read: The Prehistory Dating Game, by Simon Collins, New Zealand Herald, 24th January 2003.
But let’s consider what other structures sit within a short distance of huge, stone-walled Koru PA (the stone PA) which, in and of itself, entailed huge excavations and withering-labour to build the multi-tiers, high walls and network of tunnels, with a river moat almost circumnavigating the whole massive hillock structure.
Further down the river towards the coast are yet more PA, riddled with the self-same souterrain tunnels. There’s another large one on a hill there at Kaitake and a huge one nearer to Oakura township that would approach the size of Turuturumokai in Hawera, Taranaki. Turuturumokai has perimeters so large that it would not have been possible to defend the fortification without thousands of troops.
So, we’re talking about 1300 AD, right? This is the dawn of the Maori epoch, right? There aren’t many Maori in the country, right? So why did they need so many, within-a-stone’s-throw, concentrations of large PA to defend themselves (all over New Zealand).
The Prehistory Dating Game article mentions:
‘In a remarkable piece of genetic detective work, Penny and others have calculated the founding population of Aotearoa must have been at least 100 to 200, including at least 50 females, in order to grow to around 100,000 with the amount of genetic diversity existing when Europeans first arrived.’
How does this academic arithmetic work? One also has to take into account the depletion of Maori numbers through constant warfare, utu killings, muru (plunder killings), the castration of captive slaves, rampant cannibalism, disease-driven mortality and infanticide.
This population model, laid-out alongside so many huge and laboriously built structures, cannot account for even a small percentage of the massive terrain modifications undertaken across the length and breadth of New Zealand. Such a stupid scenario is not only ludicrous and unworkable in the extreme, it’s an absolute impossibility!
AUCKLAND ISTHMUS.
Here, in part, is Dr Janet Davidson’s report about Motutapu Island showing the archaeological finds just on that one island alone.
It states:
"One deposit — the occupation under the Rangitoto ash at the Sunde site — is clearly earlier than any other. There are grounds for thinking it immediately preceded the eruption, and can be dated to the early or mid-fourteenth century." (Of course 14th century means the 1300s.)
(Volume 87 1978) Volume 87, No. 4, The prehistory of Motutapu Island, New Zealand: Five centuries of Polynesian occupation in a changing landscape, by Janet Davidson, p 327-338 )
The archaeological sites of Motutapu Island, including 10 PA fortresses.
So, why are our archaeologists so hell-bent on a 1300 -1350 AD date for the Motutapu settlement? In light of the scant time-frame to do all this human endeavour, why is it so repugnant to accept that the occupants of the island were pre-Maori people?
An ancient burial at Opito Bay, Coromandel. Nearby Tahanga Hill was renown for its very hard stone and for the fabrication of very durable adzes. At some of the most ancient archaeological sites in New Zealand adzes from Tahanga Hill have been found, including one in the graves exhumed at Wairau Bar. “One adze found in the 2009 study has been identified by archaeologist Richard Walter as Tahanga basalt from Tahanga Hill near Opito, a well known moahunter area.”
From a carefully placed hubstone atop Tahanga Hill the Winter Solstice sunset is onto the peak of Mount Moehau. There are many fully identified and still-working solar observatories across New Zealand which were set up by the pre-Maori people to get fixes on the Summer & Winter solstice sunrise & sunset events, plus the equinoxes. These many known structures (possibly in their thousands across New Zealand) are never mentioned by our mainstream archaeologists.
The physical anthropology of the Motutapu skeletons (as best as can be seen, for the most-part, in deliberately tiny photos, stingily available for cursory public scrutiny), coupled with the foetal-position or trussed burials of the deceased is indicative of archaic, pre-Maori inhabitants occupying these sites.
But we can list many more comparably, much-settled, terrain-sculptured islands in the Hauraki Gulf such as: Great Barrier, Little Barrier, Mercury, Tiritiri Matangi, Kawau, Waiheke, Browns Island, etc. Further afield one finds significant archaeological sites at Mayor Island, White Island, Matakana Island, Kapiti Island, to name just a few out of many hundreds scattered everywhere else around the coasts of the mainland North & South Islands including the Chatham’s, Stuart Island and even the very cold islands further towards Antarctica.
Added to all of the anciently, much-lived-on islands of Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf are the mammoth excavations that cover the 36+ volcanic cones spread across the city Isthmus.
Although our archaeologists state that these are defensive terraces of a PA (fortress), there’s no evidence or logic to suggest any such function. There is no evidence, that I’m aware of, that palisade walls were ever installed on any of these skimpy little terraces and, as far as I know, there are few locations on the laboriously carved Auckland hills where postholes for palisade wooden posts are in evidence.
The massive excavations on the hills afford no discernible defensive capability, although it’s probable that Maori of the 'Musket Wars’ era might have tried to modify small sections or citadels for makeshift defence. One would have to conclude that, around New Zealand, millions of cubic-yards/metres of rock & earth have been moved to form the many sculptured hills everywhere present.
The terraces around the Auckland volcanic cones could never have been a deterrent or obstacle to climbing the hillsides, as one would expect in a defended position designed to ward-off enemies, but would have greatly facilitated scaling up in steps or interlinked paths.
One of the only truly formidable PA in the Auckland region that could be (and was) defended is Pukekiwiriki PA at Red Hill, Papakura. It has sheer, unscalable cliffs on most sides and deep defensive trenches. In the upper half of North Island of New Zealand alone there are 5000 registered PA fortifications, let alone other forms of structures, carved hills, ampitheatres, vast stone wall systems, canals & intensive gardening drain systems, etc. It is impossible that a handful of people arriving in New Zealand around 1300 AD could have built even a small percentage of these massive structures.
Concerning these laboriously carved hills in the Auckland Isthmus we have the commentary of very early colonial observers who were mystified by the sheer magnitude of the excavations:
“There are several very singular hills rising boldly from the surrounding land [Auckland], in shape and form closely resembling the Roman encampments on the Tumuli that abound in many parts of England & having like them three or four distinct fops or ditches encircling them towards the summit - This singular too that these have been formed for defence by the natives - the top of every hill is marked in this way with distinct lines of circumvallation. An antiquary might from this circumstance deduce a connection between the New Zealanders and the ancient Romans!!' (see Felton Mathew's unpublished letters to his wife, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library.
Another early explorer noted:
'Arriving at the foot of the mountain [Mt. Eden] we assayed its ascent in the course of which my friend evinced a deep interest in traces of Maori fortifications of a past age, which were everywhere in evidence, the escarpments, trenches and what had once been covered ways and store pits though fallen in or overgrown, were yet in a wonderful state of recognition.
Several of the stone walls of these fortifications could still be traced with considerable accuracy, although the oldest living Maori could not tell when, or by whom, they were erected.
The Maori race show a wonderful aptitude for field engineering in warfare, and these traces of ancient fortifications, in particular, have often called forth the highest commendation from those most capable of judging such matters.
It must have taken a much larger population than was then to be found to man these fortifications effectively, so extensive were they, the whole mountain appearing to be girt by them, line after line, from bottom to top (see Sketches of Early Colonisation in New Zealand -and its Phases of Contact With the Maori Race, (circa late 1840's), by "Te Manuwiri", pg. 123, Whitcomb & Tombs).
Another publication states:
"Maungawhau, 'the mountain of the whau', a shrub believed to have been growing in the area. The shrub was valued for its cork-like wood, used for floats on fishing nets...Maori legend tells of Maungawhau's [Mt. Eden's] first inhabitants, the Patupaiarehe or Turehu, who were skilled in the arts of fishing, hunting, weaving and warfare. It is said that this nocturnal people were destroyed as they lingered building a bridge after dawn"(see The Changing Face Of Mt. Eden, pg. 8, Mt. Eden Borough Council, 1989).
Note to overseas researchers: There are in excess of 36 large volcanic hills in the Auckland Isthmus that are carved in similar fashion, with much of the terracing through solid lava rock. No-one has yet put forwards a plausible hypothesis as to why Maori would undertake such an exercise. Alternatively, the terraces seem to serve a shadow-play function, like a sun-dial, as the sun rises, sets and moves on its annual journey up and down the horizon.
It's probable that gardeners in the adjacent valley floors looked to the hills for shadow signals with the seasonal rising and setting sun to know when to plant or harvest.
INFIGHTING BETWEEN THE EXPERTS OVER THE KIORE RAT ERA OF INTRODUCTION.
This little rodent (Rattus Exulans or the Pacific Rat) hates water and is a real landlubber. It is agreed that its introduction to New Zealand could only have occurred if it came with humans and this factor has led to major infighting at the academic level.
In The Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 32, Number 3, September 2002, pp. 463-505, is an outstanding article by Dr. Richard Holdaway of Palaecol Research Ltd., and Canterbury University, related to the finding of Rattus Exulan bones under an undisturbed layer of tephra ash from the 186 AD volcanic explosion of Taupo.
The article is titled: Optical dating of quartz sediments and accelerator mass spectrometry 14C dating of bone gelatin and moa eggshell: A comparison of age estimates for non‐archaeological deposits in New Zealand, by Richard N. Holdaway , Richard G. Roberts , Nancy R. Beavan‐Athfield , Jon M. Olley & Trevor H. Worthy, September 2002.
It caused something of a sensation in 2002 when it was released, as it showed positive proof of Rattus Exulans being in residence in New Zealand from before 200 AD and Holdaway was virtually drawn & quartered as a result. His findings flew in the face of and disproved entrenched views about the 1300 AD date for first-humans in New Zealand.
The panic-driven fall-out from Holdaway’s meticulous, scientifically arrived at conclusions, led to the academic community having to reassure the public in 2003 that the 1300 AD date of first occupation was still correct and set in concrete for ‘human impacts’ in the landscape of New Zealand. Hence, The Prehistory Dating Game, by Simon Collins, 24 January, 2003, following so closely on the heels of Holdaway’s findings (September 2002).
A grand meeting of the archaeological-elite was organised at Auckland University and the heretic Holdaway was hauled before the inquisitors who had to decide what damage-control programmes they could implement. In view of the fact that Holdaway’s findings were water-tight, they came to a consensus agreement (majority vote) that, indeed, people had been in New Zealand in 200 AD, but didn’t stay … that was their escape route away from admitting long-term occupation.
However, the more pig-headed advocates of the 1300 AD date were unhappy, but bided their time for a few years before foisting more disinformation upon the otherwise distracted, gullible public. One of their leading-lights, Dr. Janet Wilmshurst, made a grand announcement in June, 2008:
"We are not saying that Maori arrived at any different time than we believed, but we are confirming that Maori were the first people to settle New Zealand. There wasn't this other group that arrived in 200BC.” –Dr Janet Wilmshurst. Christchurch Press, June 4, 08.
Wilmshurst, of Landcare Research, heading an international team, studied rat bones that had been dug up over a four year period and announced that none of them preceded 1280 AD. The follow-on was that Dr David Lowe of Waikato University, earth scientist and senior lecturer, was quoted as stating ‘that the theory of earlier settlement was now quashed…. Flaws in the testing [by Holdaway] may have produced the results.’
In watching the sorry pantomime being played out, a research colleague of mine wrote: ‘Dr Wilmshurst herself jubilantly proclaimed on a TV News item that her results show that the Maoris are indeed the ‘tangata whenua’. Hence, one detects a certain ideological agenda. She was followed by Maori academic and activist Ranginui Walker, stating that ‘the dating disproves the theories on the ‘Moriori’ (an umbrella term sometimes used to denote the pre-Maori people).
Strange that. Professor Ranginui Walker, past Head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, knew Maori were not Indigenous to New Zealand in 1986 when he wrote in the, "1986 New Zealand Year Book" page 18:
“The traditions are quite clear on one point, whenever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14-century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. From this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over land and its resources. Warfare was the means by which tribal boundaries were defined and political relations between tribes established. Out of this period emerged 42 tribal groups whose territories became fixed after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the establishment of Pax Britannica”.
After Dr. Janet Wilmshurst tried to torpedo Dr. Richard Holdaway’s earlier findings by back-stabbing and innuendo that he was somehow mistaken in his earlier results, my research colleague contacted Holdaway to find out how he felt about the Wilmshurst findings. Holdaway replied:
“As usual, Landcare misrepresented my research and results: I have never advocated a 200 BC colonization or even visitation. In fact, I was advocating an AD 1290 settlement before they were. That of course leaves open the question of TRANSIENT visits (think of Lieutenant James Cook). My data indicate some kind of visit by transients about AD 200… during which Pacific rats were introduced. The persistent miscitation of my data and views is rather annoying.
She [Wilmshurst] cannot have been referring to the SAME rat remains (the term “re-dating” is completely misleading because the rat bones are totally consumed in the dating process: dating another rat bone does NOT re-date the first one. That would seem to be common logic…).”
Really, Wilmshurst proved nothing except that the specimens she studied were, deliberately or otherwise, of a more recent date.
Likewise, Holdaway already had his arse-in-a-sling, so to speak, and seemingly dared not to push his luck further in stating that people have inhabited New Zealand for at least 2000-years … If he wants to keep working.
Moreover, Holdaway’s rat specimen was found in the inhospitable, cold, volcanic plateau of the Central North Island. One can legitimately pose the question: If a few rats made it onto land at some coastal location, how long would it take to breed sufficient numbers to force migrations into the centre of the island? How much extra time do we have to add to account for mice making it that far from the coast … 1000-years?
So, there used to be healthy debate about the date of first human contact and settlement of New Zealand, but that has, in recent years, been replaced by a PC approach where dissenters are railed against and subjected to ad hominem attacks if they continue in their heresy and don’t embrace the new light.
As my research colleague eloquently pointed out: ‘The Great Fleet hypothesis stated that Maori found New Zealand in 1350 AD. Dr. Roger Duff put that back to 950 AD on the basis of dating Moa Hunter sites. This was again pushed back to 750 AD by Professor Keith Cumberland in his book, The Moa Hunter, 1965, with the date of 300 AD suggested therein. However he asserted: “Let’s admit it, no one knows when men first reached the islands we call today New Zealand”.
I reiterate, the findings of Russell Price at Poukawa in the 1960s, fully and professionally substantiated by Allan Pullar and Collin Vucetich of the DSIR Soil Bureau, show human habitation dating back to 1350 BC.
Left: Very careful archaeologist, Russell Price, who did everything by the book and whose research proved ancient human occupation at Poukawa, Hawkes Bay, for an epoch before the Waimihia ash fall of 1350 BC. Right: Pedologist Alan Pullar, an expert on tephra ash band deposits, who fully verified Price's conclusions.
Russell Price's papers are now buried somewhere in the vaults of Te Papa Museum, along with about 22,000 bird bones or other artefacts. Many of these bones were cooked, scraped and marked by human tools or broken open to extract the marrow. This indicated human activity, unless, as Price so eloquently observed, 'ANCIENT MOAS SPENT THEIR TIME BREAKING THEMSELVES UP AND COOKING EACH OTHER'.
WHAT THE MAORI ELDERS AND EARLY COLONIAL RESEARCHERS SAID ABOUT THE PRE-MAORI PEOPLE
In essence, the only way that we can account for the huge works that have been undertaken in pre-colonial New Zealand is to calculate into the equation the fact of long-term, pre-Maori human occupation spanning thousands of years. Maori cultural symbolism and artefacts were derived from the earlier, conquered and annihilated people as the spoils of war. This fact has been alluded to by former researchers.
‘The Maori did not live in this manner in his former home in eastern Polynesia. Did he evolve the pa system after he settled here, or did he borrow it from former inhabitants?’ (see: The Maori As He Was - A Brief Account of Maori Life as it was in Pre-European Days, Chapt. VI, pg. 165).
If the Polynesian Maori brought the artefacts, symbols and motifs here, then why are they not found in their lands of origin? Historian/ anthropologist, Edward Tregear, asked this same question. Professor Thor Heyerdahl wrote the following on this very subject:
'Irrespective of how and when the Maori began to cover their carvings with spirals, the habit is absent in their Polynesian homeland and may therefore very well be so in their still earlier fatherland further away. There is, indeed, no such curvilinear surface design on the wood carvings of the Society Islands and these include the very tall ancestral posts which were erected in ancient Tahiti' (see American Indians in the Pacific, pg. 116).
And to reiterate the testimony of Hone Mohi Tawhai:
“Well instructed men among the descendants of the Matahourua migration say that when their ancestors arrived in Hokianga they found a people known as "Turehu." Here again we meet with a similar idea to that prevailing among the Aotea people. The Turehu were said to be "He iwi wairua" (a ghostly people). But side by side with this statement we have an admission.
When a child was born among the northern people with reddish hair and a fair skin, it was commonly exclaimed "Ae he Turehu" (yes, this child is a Turehu). The late Hone Mohi Tawhai, who had been carefully instructed by his father, Mohi Tawhai, a renowned priest and warrior of Hokianga, said on one occasion to the writer ; "What do you think will be the destiny of the Maori people?" We replied: "They will be ultimately absorbed in the European people." The reply came: "I think you are right. When the ancestors of the Maori people came to this land they found a people called ‘Turehu' and they fought with them and-intermarried with them, and they were lost in our race.”(See: The Relation of the Aotea Migration to the Question of Previous Inhabitants, by T.O. Hammond).
Shall we just call the learned Maori of old liars? Should we discount as worthless their oral histories and traditions?
My advice to media journalists and sold-out, in-the-pocket archaeologists writing clap-trap history, would be to seek out the old Maori elders and ask them politely to give an account of the pre-Maori Patu-paiarehe and Turehu of their districts.
There’s so much more that could be said about the pre-Maori solar observatories and survey trigs all across New Zealand. Here are a couple of links to that:
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Split%20Apple%20Rock/WinterSolstice2018.html
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/SolarObservatoriesNZ/SolarObservatoriesPart1.html
Martin Doutré 24/2/19
To be continued, as we haven’t even scratched the surface in trying to explain the many historical, archaeological, anthropological and structural anomalies, etc., for which our mainstream, “so-called experts” can’t provide a rational, believable or acceptable explanation.
Martin Doutré, Auckland, New Zealand © 24th February 2019
