Post by Becoming Educated on Oct 12, 2014 2:20:09 GMT -8
From: Craig. Date: Wednesday, 3 September 2003 16:43 Subject: pre-celtic NZ. Martin,
Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find one
of the skeletons so you can DNA test it? This argument has been going on far
too long. Can't testing of today's Maoris come up with some answers? I agree
with most of what you say about racism against Europeans from so called Maori,
who choose to reject their own ancestors in a very disrespectful manner. So
much for respecting their tupuna; usually European tupuna are denied. I have
studied Maori culture all my life, but am often the subject of anger from
Maoris, often because I know more than them, but also because I am outspoken in
my views. One of these views is that the Maori language is unfortunately mostly
dead, and what is being taught in schools and wanaga's and universities is
usually incorrect. I have been learning to speak Cook Island's Maori from a
friend who only started learning English when he was late teens. There is a
vast difference between how you WRITE Cook Island and how you SAY it, I am
positive it is the same with NZ Maori. I have learned that you really need to
HEAR it spoken from a NATIVE speaker before you can say you can speak it. Many
people today speak it with an appalling kiwi accent. I also often have
arguments with Maori who get annoyed because I will say Rotorua or Tauranga
with an English accent when I am speaking English, yet it is okay for them to
pronounce America, "Amerika", or Auckland, "Akarana", or
tractor for that matter, "Tarakihana" I found a really interesting
article on the net a while ago that mentioned that early Europeans found that
Maori used many different consonants, including B and L and S, D and SH and CH
etc... This is the same in Cook Islands Maori. There was a tale of a native of
Stewart island complaining that since the arrival of Europeans Maoris
pronounced Stewart island as "Rakiura", but that when he was a boy it
was, "lakiula" The saddest thing is that apparently now grandparents
cannot understand their mokopuna speaking school taught "Maori", it
is so different from the language they grew up with. Another point is that some
older Cook island friends of mine report being able to converse freely with
native speakers of NZ Maori, but are not able to understand, or be understood
by school taught ones. Te Karere is apparently, in the main, just gobbledegook.
Although this digresses from your theories, I still thought you might like to
hear of my experiences. I am truly sad that they have lost their lingo; I just
pray my Cook Island friends don't make the same mistake. Whoops, I almost
forgot. I read about the allegation that the strap in school killed the Maori
language. Cook Island school kids to my knowledge are STILL strapped for
speaking the lingo in school, yet the Cook Island language is still alive. What
is the difference? Maori made the mistake of NOT TEACHING their children the
language, hence it's death. Another thing I have noticed is that Cook Islanders
really converse in their language, and joke around, and swear at each other in
it for a laugh. You won't hear THAT on many marae's anymore. For the record, my
daughter is part Nga Puhi. Like you I am NOT racist, in fact I am fascinated
with pre-Euro Maori, but I think that in the main they were a vastly different
people than they are today. I think that you are being accused of being so
because you DARE to express your opinions. It is too easy to call us racists.
It tends to win the argument for them without them actually having to put up a
fight. Ignorant white kiwis will also call us racist because they like to take
part in that guilt we are taught to feel. I wish our TRUE history would come
out, and by that I mean POST European history. I have no opinion about what
you're saying. A DNA test would swing my opinion. Cheers, CRAIG
Hi Craig, You raise a number of issues and, in the interests
of brevity, I'll only comment on some of them. The whole DNA and skeletal
evidence subject is a difficult one, not because of a lack of specimens to
test, but because of the "laws" governing the gathering of specimens
and having them tested. Only certain designated people are allowed to gather
specimens and that doesn't include you or I. Should you wish to go and gather
specimens, I can tell you of 3 sizable locations where there are graves of the
"tall ones"...the Caucasoid people who predated Maori to these shores
by thousands of years. The gravesites are unknown to Maori and there is no
Maori "wahi-tapu" covering them as a result...these are not and have
never been Maori burial grounds. The iwis don't even know they're there or, if
they do, they're not telling anyone... and that's the situation all over New
Zealand. I know some Maori people who have been involved in the "relocation"
of remains of this type. Most iwi representatives of higher rank could take our
scientists to these ancient burial locations without difficulty...but why
should they?...there's considerably more financial advantage to be gained in
the present political climate of keeping it all hushed up. By taking
away specimens or samples of these non-Polynesian bones, you've just committed
your first offense and are liable to crippling fines...unless you're
Maori.... in which case it's OK to destroy the remains. If you send samples
to New Zealand scientific facilities you'll receive a letter back stating
something like this one, from Mr. Roger Sparks of The Institute of
Geological and Nuclear Sciences in Lower Hutt:
'For several years now we have had a policy of
accepting samples based on human remains only if they are accompanied by
documentation from the appropriate authorities giving approval for the analysis
to be carried out..... we would need some confirmation that representatives of
the local iwi had been consulted and given approval for the tooth to be
dated....The opinion of Dr. Kalmeyer that the bone is European does not change
the situation here... we need to take this matter seriously, otherwise we risk
damaging the reputation of the laboratory in the eyes of the local
archaeological community...' (August 1997).
An individual I know had found Caucasoid skeletons
in a cavern and had taken specimens, including a jaw for professional
examination, to the Auckland University Medical School. After the visual
evaluation confirmed that the item was of European Caucasoid ethnicity, a molar
was sent to Lower Hutt for carbon dating and amino acid testing ....result ... "Not
allowed to be tested". But it gets worse than this. People like Dr.
Robin Watt have supposedly assessed about 2000 skulls and found all of them to
be Polynesian...so that tells us a lot...or does it? There are ethnicities
classified under the headings, Indo-nesians, Micro-nesians, Melan-esians,
etc.,...and then there are Poly-nesians, which are a mix of many ethnic groups.
The definition of Poly is: poly... many or much... having an excessive or
abnormal number or amount. The term Poly-nesian means "many
islands" and also denotes "many ethnicities".
We believe it is the Intermixing of these Peoples -
the South East Asians, Indonesians, & Melanesians which had borned a New
People of the Pacific Ocean, the POLYNESIANS. Poly = Many, Nesia = Islands,
also many origins. The largest Samoan Island of SAVAI'I ( the breeding ground)
has a history of Samoans, Tongans & Fijians as blood intermixed peoples and
coinhabitants, both in war & peace times. Mixed blooded Samoans with Tongan
or Fijian lineage populated Savai'i, SAMOA. www.samoa.co.uk/q-and-a/6319.html
So, physical anthropologists like Dr. Watt and
others can, undoubtedly, stay out of hot water simply by not having to be too
specific or by not having anything but "approved" skull types come
into their possession for scientific scrutiny. Even Phillip Houghton, an adept
physical anthropologist who wrote, The First New Zealanders, 1980,
appears to have assessed only "approved" skeletal research specimens,
which were supplied through Maori sources. Given the diversity of ethnicities
that make up Maori, if physical characteristics of a skull shows a leaning more
to one ethnicity than another, it can still be categorised as
"Polynesian". It's a bit like the term "Maori" itself,
which simply means "human being", as opposed to "huhu bug"
or fern frond. All things are possible when you don't have to be too specific
and can keep the terms of reference reasonably ambiguous. To explain away the
high incidence of red hair observed on
many New Zealand burial cave skeletons since early colonial times, Dr. Robin
Watt, attributed it all to black coloured Polynesian hair turning red by a
pigmentation breakdown as the physical remains deteriorated after death.
Well... that's a convenient and a pat way of burying the problem, but I doubt
that it's actually true or that it occurs to any great degree in the real
world. Here are some quotes related to mummies located in Egypt that are about
5000 years old: The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair. Carter,
Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68 -------
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida. Tomkins,
Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of Ethnographic Types
from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889, p.216 ------- The mummy of
Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair. Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson,
Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99 ------
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones. De
Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26 And
what about all of the living specimens of "Maori" observed in New
Zealand since the earliest colonial times with the red
hair and freckles? And what about the hair samples themselves?
European hair is, physically, very different than the hair of other
ethnicities. Where's the scientific research paper describing the physical
characteristics of the New Zealand red hair, to determine ethnicity?
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Human Hairs
To all of this one can add reference to the large number of Caucasoid mummies
of the Tarin Basin of China or the Canary Islands, etc., which have retained their
hair pigmentations for many thousands of years! It is an indisputable fact that
there were large groups of red headed, brown headed and blond people in this
country before the coming of the Maori and that Maori lived contemporaneously
with them for what could be several centuries before overwhelming and
annihilating them. Maori oral traditions about these people abound and "throwback"
traits to these early people were very much in evidence throughout the 1800's
before Maori had interrelated, to any great degree, with incoming colonial Europeans.
A traditional exclamation amongst Maori, when a newborn showed light complexion
traits or developed blondish and reddish hair hues was, "Ah... Turehu"! ...which
denoted the genetic link to the white ancestors absorbed by conquest into the
Maori tribes. Sir Peter Buck (a Maori anthropologist) mentioned these ancestors.
He also commented upon physical evidence (woven or platted coloured hair
samples from ancient rock shelters) in the Auckland War Memorial Museum.
In accordance with Dr. Robin Watt's theory, all of these multicoloured samples
had once been black, but had decided to change to several varied hues while
deteriorating in the selfsame dry tomb environment. But, OK Craig, you want
a skull, so here's a very old one, photographed in a remote New Zealand cave:
There are many features of a skull that can be
compared in order to determine ethnicity. This is the science of craniology,
used by forensic experts and criminologists when identifying human remains. The
jaw (mandible) to the left is typical of Europeans and other ethnic groups,
like Asians. The jaw to the right is typical of most Polynesians and Maori of
Polynesian descent. It's called a rocker jaw and when it's placed upon a flat
surface it can rock back and forth, as it has a continuous curve on its lower
border. But Maori had a mysteriously high incidence of racial diversity,
including Caucasoid dolichocephalism, accompanied by leptorrhine physical
traits (long thin nose) when the first European maritime explorers of the
colonial era arrived in New Zealand. Much within the physiology of particular
tribal groups indicated a large degree of admixture with European blood. The
question must therefore be asked, where did this enigmatic element come from,
especially if it wasn't observed to be anywhere near as prevalent in the
Islands from whence Maori had so recently come? The answer lies in the fact
that it was already in New Zealand, along with a very refined culture, when Maori
arrived. The Caucasoid traits were later forcibly absorbed into Maori
physiology after the former European people were conquered and enslaved.
The general biological anthropology of the Pacific is as follows: "Negrito":
oldest Polynesians - Northern Hawaiian chain (brachycephalism [short head] and
platyrrhine [broad and flat-brideged nose]) "Negroid": confined to
marginal islands of eastern Polynesia (dolichocephalism [long head] and
platyrrhine) "Malay": western Polynesia and southern Hawaii (brachycephalism
and leptorrhine [long, narrow nose]) "Caucasoid": New Zealand and
Hawaii (dolichocephalism and leptorrhine). The Chatham Islanders (Moriori) –
long heads, narrow noses, no prognathism, moderate stature = “primitive
Caucasoid” type.
Marshall and Snow’s Conclusions: There is a distinguishable ‘Polynesian’ type,
which appears morphologically homogeneous but metrically shows a west-east
dichotomy Ø “Rocker jaw” Ø Pentagonal head Ø Generally brachycephalic with some
sporadic dolichocephaly Ø General platyrrhine with some sporadic leptorrhine,
especially in the east. www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ant/316/Lecture%2012%20overheads.htm
When you're next in a remote burial cave and
encounter skeletons, it should be relatively easy to determine ethnicity. I'd
suggest you get a copy of, The First New Zealanders, by Phillip Houghton,
Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, Auckland, London, Sydney, 1980. It will give you
all of the major physical trait differences to look for between
Polynesian-Maori and European skeletons. If, after a cursory glance you see a
"rocker jaw" (right picture), simply pay your respects and move on.
If, however, you see the distinctly apparent European physiology (left picture)
tarry a while, take photos, as well as measurements and get acquainted with
your long lost cousins... who aren't allowed to be
remembered in this country or political climate.
Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find
one of the skeletons...? Already have...now it's your turn. I wish about
10,000 New Zealanders of both European and Maori extraction would do the same
and let these ancient regional people, as well as their history and
accomplishments, be recognised. Can't testing of
today's Maoris come up with some answers? Absolutely!, but you can only
get access to the " restricted, selective and politically desirable"
results. The Caucasoid aspect is very conspicuous by it's absence and it's only
the Taiwanese route pedigree that gets any exposure or recognition. The South
American admixtures are also conspicuous by their absence. Although hugely
important South American cultural symbolism and cultivated, edible plants are
present in New Zealand, they apparently arrived without people...very much like
the Kiore rat....which must've swum here a couple of thousand years ago. Taking
photos is about all you can do to show the pre-Maori skeletal evidence.
Exporting specimens is an option, but how are you then going to publish your
results without getting into serious strife?
A few years ago a 9,300 year old Caucasian skeleton
was found by the Columbia River, in the State of Washington, USA ...a most
unwelcome find that threatened the American Indian claim of being the first
North American residents. Every legal effort was exhausted by the Indians to
stop any scientific scrutiny of the remains and to wrestle possession of them
back into the hands of the Indians. The bones that did go back were covered in
foreign, modern organic material during "religious observances",
which, effectively, contaminated the samples (deliberately) such that they
could never be effectively tested. The Army Corps of Engineers buried the
discovery site, deliberately incorporating burlap sacking fibre material
(organic ground stabiliser) and huge boulders to both contaminate any residual
bones and make further excavations impossible. We are given the illusion that
we live in an enlightened scientific age, but the truth is that we are still
very much in the dark ages. Every trick, deception, legal ploy and
intervention, disallowing the advancement of "inconvenient"
knowledge in the USA is also in force here in New Zealand. Our scientists are
mostly, "play along whores", who work in very effectively with our
"media whores" and scholarship in this country has long since been
replaced by social engineering and propaganda. Oh, by the way, the closest craniological
match for the skull type of Kennewick Man was Chatham Island's Moriori. Martin.
From Paula Date
Tuesday, 16 September 2003 14:54.
Big Sigh I think we have now reached the point where NZ is too
politically correct. We are too scared to voice our opinions in case we are
seen as 'racist'. Sadly from my experience it is a double standard in NZ. If Pakeha
say something against a person who is Maori in origin, then they have to be
racist, whereas Maori can say what they like against Pakeha and it is okay. (I
am even dubious about what they term Pakeha actually means - is it
derogatory?). I am definitely not an expert on Maori life, but I am a Kiwi and
as far as I am concerned we are all New Zealanders and should treat all with
respect and dignity - we are one people. Many of my friends are Maori and are
wonderful, but unfortunately there are a hard core of Maoris in New Zealand who
are very racist against Pakeha and are, I think, very ignorant. I don't think
Martin is being racist with this site, he is simply opening up other
possibilities that we should all embrace. Wouldn't it truly be wonderful if NZ
had more history to be told than there is? Wouldn't it truly be wonderful to
find out all that there is to know about NZ? The language thing is a strange
one. I now hear news presenters changing the way they say 'Taupo, Taranaki,
Tauranga etc., etc'. I know of one Maori elder who just shakes her head when
she hears it. She says it is pronounced wrong and even the new generation of
Maori are pronouncing it wrong. It is a shame, I would hate to see the real
essence of Maori language lost, which I think it is, or maybe it is simply
evolving like English has over thousands of years? I think it is time not to be
afraid and embrace what NZ was and look forward. A DNA test on the red headed
ancestors is a must and it makes me angry that we are denied the true history
of NZ. Maybe I have an ignorant and simplistic view, but I don't care, it is
still my opinion and I am entitled to it whether I am Maori, Pakeha or a New
Zealander. Paula
Hi Paula I'm an old wrinkly who started my working life as a young
carpenter in 1964. As it turns out, I still hold to the same general views
about New Zealand history as I had at that time and will continue to do so
until convinced otherwise. Much of the history and many of the stories were
taught to me directly by older, very knowledgeable Maori people and many of my
present views were once the common, day-to-day, vocalised knowledge of most
Maori. So, the very hypocritical side of it all is that it is not me, or indeed
others of my generation, who have changed our point of view, but the people who
rail against us for not succumbing to their recently manufactured, "forced
amnesia" programme. Name calling specialists like Professor Kerry Howe
seem to be very irritated that many of us won't roll over compliantly and
accept their new, approved and much santitised plastic version of history.
According to Howe and his ilk, if we continue to hold to the views that,
seemingly, everyone, both Maori sages and Europeans alike, adhered to in the
sixties, or for generations before that time, then we're radicals, racists, new
diffusionists and new age idiots, etc. The slander-dripping lengths that this
name calling evangelist of the new gospel will go to to debase the nonbeliever
heretics are boundless. He's said publicly on national radio that I believe we
all came from outer space...eh what?...where and when have I ever expressed
such views? A large percentage of his recent, book is devoted to calling people
derogatory names. Thor Heyerdahl's, American Indians in the Pacific,
1952 should be read alongside Howe's recent, Quest for Origins, and
the explanations compared. Heyerdahl provides layers of evidence in every
category to support his contention, almost to the point of overkill and
oppression. Howe, by consequence, talks around, glosses over or outrightly
omits to mention many regional anomalies, as if they don't exist or don't rate
any degree of in-depth discussion. He then resorts to name calling those who
want thorough, factual investigation of the outstanding anomalies, as if
"pulling rank" with his credentials is sufficient to silence the
dissident questioners. Some historians "command" respect ...others
"demand" respect. Whereas Howe's book will be very appealing
to the gaggle of social engineers engaged in molding the minds of the dumbed
down, shifting herd, most old Maori elders and sages would consider that major
historical points, of great importance, are conspicuous by their absence and
non-mention in Howe's work. Unfortunately for this "brave new
generation" of social and historical reformers, our older general
knowledge was gleaned from whakapapas and carefully rehearsed, reliable, oral
traditions that had been religiously preserved and handed down. There were also
innumerable historical treatises written by early colonial mariners, adept
observers, historians, land court recorders or anthropologists who had direct,
face to face interviews with the old tohungas, chiefs and learned elders. These
early writers, including individuals like Governor Sir George Grey, also
meticulously recorded what they saw with their own eyes or heard with their own
ears, in the first person, as opposed to latter-day, twisted, politically
convenient and biased suppositions, generations removed from the facts related
to incidents. Here are some old quotes from the books of yesteryear:
'It is most certain that the whites are the
aborigines. Their colour is, generally speaking, like that of the people of
Southern Europe and I saw several who had red hair. There were some who were as
white as our sailors and we often saw on our ship a tall young man who by his colour
and features might easily have passed for a European' (see Voyages To
Tasmania & New Zealand, by Lt. Croset)...The above observation was made in the Bay of
Islands, New Zealand.
'The Maori regales us with several tales that are supposed to illustrate a period
when the Maori people were living here on sufferance, as it were, under the
mana of the Turehu or Patupaiarehe, the true lords of the soil. Many different
names are used to denote this forest folk or fairies as our writers often term
them, though the Maori concept is not that of a diminutive fey or elf like folk,
but rather that of a people of ordinary stature and appearance, save they are
said to have been fair-skinned and fair haired' (see Maori Religion, by Elsdon Best).
It should be noted that Elsdon Best lived with the Maori people for over twenty
years and was taught the deepest aspects of their history, religion and culture,
to the extent that he was recognised as, or accorded the honour of becoming, a
Kaumatua (learned elder).
Patupaiarehe is the name applied by the Maoris to
the mysterious forest dwelling race. An atmosphere of mysticism surrounds Maori
references to these elusive tribes of the mountains and the bush....The Patupaiarehe
were for the most part of much lighter complexion than the Maoris...their hair
was of a dull golden or reddish hue, "uru-kehu", as is sometimes seen
amongst the Maoris of today...This class of folk-tales no doubt originated in
part in the actual existence of numerous tribes of aborigines. This
immeasurably ancient light haired people left a strain of uru-kehu in most ancient
tribes' (see The Journal of the Polynesian Society, volume 30, article
by James Cowan. Commenting on
a later era, Cowan interviewed an old Maori elder who spoke of the Patupaiarehe
of Mt. Ngongataha, Rotorua District. This partially wooded area rising above
the south-west shore of Lake Rotorua was the main regional settlement of the
Patupaiarehe, whom the old elder called, Ngati-Hua (hua means
"bastard" in Maori and "Ngati" is generally placed before
tribal names). The old elder described the former residents in the following way:
'The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero (reddish skin) and their
hair had a reddish or golden tinge we call uru-kehu. Some had black eyes, some
blue like Europeans. Some of their women were very beautiful, very fair of
complexion, with shining fair hair...' Cowan was told by other Maori elders
of the district that, many generations previously, the Maoris set fire to the
fern and forest on the slopes of the mountain, causing much anguish to the Patupaiarehe
tribe and most of them departed northward. It's interesting to note that many
very ornate little pataka buildings, like the ones in the Auckland War Memorial
Museum, were seen abandoned and deteriorating, by early colonial observers, in
the high country of Mt. Ngongataha. In a recent posting on a Waitangi Tribunal
discussion site, these words appeared:
'The Taniwha races are early Maori;
many of my people descend from these ancient people. They all come from Tiki
the ancestor of creation, later married into Maui a tikitiki a taranga* the ancestor of
Kahungunu*. The ancient people spoke ancient
Maori, some were fair skin with red and silver
blond hair, a race of peace people and healers. That is where Maori rongoa
comes from. The Polynesians who arrived married into these people so we the
Maori enjoy the status of tangatawhenua tuturu*. The
plants and animals, be it fish or on land, are related to Tiki by whakapapa*. When the remaining land mass arose from the sea and
joined with the existing islands-now we know the north island as te ika a Maui*. This information is spiritually protected....(not to be
misused), but to help and heal people - kaipai tou mahi - for the benefit of
all. For this is the nature of taputaputapu... Huriana Lawrence, mokopuna o
Rangatira o Ngati Kahu-ngunu'. huriana.lawrence@twor.ac.nz 27/02/03 www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/news/ShowMessage.asp?ID=38&DiscussionId *Maui-tikitiki-o-taranga (Maui [weary] of the
hair-knot on the head of Taranga--time of power). *Kahu-ngunu (garment of the
dwarf). *Te ika a Maui (the fish of Maui).*Whakapapa
(genealogy-lineage). *Tangatawhenua tuturu (Lords of the soil {original
people} nationality).
In weighing up the totality of evidence, many of us
have chosen to stay with the more reliable, balanced and unbiased views
expressed from a wide variety of informed, honest sources of yesteryear. Some
questionable theories about migrations or the like, popular in the raw
scholastic concepts of the 1800's, can be laid to rest as improbable, but you "don't
throw out the baby with the bath water". It's insufficient and quite
disgusting to label the old Maori oral traditions as "unreliable"...
or inconvenient references to pre-Maori groups as deliberate distortions based
upon "Eurocentric" tampering, designed to divest Maori of prestige
and mana....what a load of academic or Maori activist cogswallop! To
date, I've seen nothing come along of sufficient merit for me to abandon many
acceptable concepts of 35-years ago and prior, related to earlier New Zealand
civilisations. Unbeknown to our scientists, there are sophisticated cairn
marked geometry's and overland surveying systems, running from hill to hill
across the expanse of New Zealand. I've seen them, taken GPS coordinate fixes
on cairn positions and tested those coordinates within the exacting confines of
AutoCAD. Within our valley landscapes there are 3,4,5 triangles, equilateral
triangles, 90-degree triangles with coded distance sides and lying at
significant azimuth angles like 51.84-degrees or 59.0625-degrees, etc. The same
distances and angles are found within the dimensions of ancient astronomical/ navigational
based edifices of Egypt, Britain or North America, etc. Researchers like myself
don't pretend to know all there is to know about these regional landmarking
systems, but have detected sufficient within them to establish a link between
an ancient New Zealand Stonebuilder civilisation, to counterparts within the
Mediterranean Basin and Europe. If our scientists could spare a day of their
precious time to assess the cairn marker system of the Waitapu Valley in
Northland, they'd learn for themselves that careful surveying and ground marked
geometry was present within the distribution of cairns, standing stones, mounds
and sighting pits, etc., of the Waitapu and adjacent valleys or nearby marked
hills.
There is
no question but that virtually everyone around New Zealand in the sixties and
before knew of the Moriori and other, older groups like the Patu-paiarehe,
Turehu and general Stonebuilder populations called Tangata Whenua (lords of the
soil). In those years of my misspent youth, I sat and talked at length to red headed
Maori people with freckled faces who told me of their Patu-paiarehe lineage.
Their words were verified by other Maori of Polynesian lineage, sitting in on
the conversations. There were still a lot of waka blonds around in those years
and open acknowledgment within Maoridom about who was who and what had happened
in the earlier conflicts and clashes. The work I do in surveying the old stone
structures on our New Zealand landscape does nothing but further reinforce and
verify the old stories about the "Stonebuilders". I've yet to find
one thing that "doesn't add up" or fit the generalised descriptions
of who was supposed to be here before Maori, as recounted by the learned elders
themselves. The deeper one probes, the more the oral tradition stories are
verified and supported by evidence...much of which is, surprisingly,
mathematical. My advice to young Maori wanting to learn the true history is to
forget about consulting with the corporate kaumatuas or their, "in
tow", white "Uncle Tom" historian lackeys. The manipulators are oftimes
only using the hotheaded, excitable, "go sic 'em" potential of
ill-informed youth to further their own political or big business financial
agendas. The better and very reliable option for learning true long-term
history is to return to the traditional fountain of knowledge...the learned old
people. Ask the Rangitiras and Kuias, politely, about the pre-Maori groups and
the history related to encounters or contact with the uru-kehu and kiri-puwhero
people.
Here in New Zealand we used to have an
"apprenticeship" tradition that created well rounded and adept tradespeople.
That got severely disrupted a few years ago by some bright spark who,
"knew a better way" (probably the same genius who dreamt up the
"short-lived" idea of affixing car registration stickers to the
outside of the windscreen instead of the inside). The same thing appears to
have happened within the ranks of Maoridom, wherein young "movers and
shakers" who weren't content to serve the hard yards apprenticeship and
become learned elders in the traditional way, decided to jump the queue and
displace the influence of the royal families or elders. If a concerted effort
is not made soon to relearn the true history from the dwindling few who still
know it, then large bodies of irretrievable knowledge will be lost from this
earth forever as the old people pass away. All that will then be left to fill
the void is modern, fantasy based, touchy-feely, love is warm puppies, I'm a
victim, plastic history/ propaganda. In old Maori the term "Pakeha"
can, apparently, mean the itchy, irritating white lump on the skin, that
appears after one has been bitten by a flea. As a courtesy and because it is my
personal preference, I try to pronounce Maori words or placenames reasonably
close to the correct sound. My renditions are still something of a hatchet job
to the language, despite the best of intentions and I'm too lazy to go into
tongue and throat contortion extremes to get it 100% right, as stipulated by
the NZ Broadcasting Commission. The main thing is to communicate and a fair
attempt is generally considered acceptable. Maori language has regular and easy
vowel sounds and is pronounced pretty much as it is spelt. By contrast, it must
be a huge headache to learn and remember all of the sound variations of "ough"
in English, as found in, tough, bough, thought, cough, etc. Martin.
From: Mark Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Maori heads. There are,
or were until recently, a number of 'Maori' heads in overseas collections. Has
there ever been any attempt to test the DNA in any of these? On the subject of
the Maori language. My son learnt basic Maori at primary school. Among other
things he learnt the names of the days of the week. Two years later when my
daughter learnt the Maori days of the week they were totally different words!! Finally,
are there any interesting sites in the lower North Island? Mark
Hi Mark, To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to analyse
the DNA of the many heads that are still in the collections of overseas
museums. This should be done and the macabre irony of it all is that the
ancient victims might yet "have the last laugh"...as the existence of
these specimens will go a very long way toward proving the pedigrees of those
who were in New Zealand long-term, despite current attempts to deny their
existence. The apparent worthlessness of these people in life does not follow
them in death and they are now a very potentially valuable resource of
scientific information. Several Maori spokespeople expressed the viewpoint that
the "heads" returned to New Zealand amidst much ceremony and
lamentation by, then, Minister of Maori Affairs, Tau Henare in 1998, were
"rubbish" and were the remains of former slave individuals without
significance or mana. Their assessment was that the heads should never have
been repatriated to these shores. A % of these grisley souvenirs, sold to
whalers and other maritime visitors, will have the Patu-pai-arehe/ European
DNA, and display the non-Polynesian physical traits. These unfortunate
specimens of former New Zealand humanity are over 200-years old and,
considering the fact that they were mature adults when decapitated, were born
in an era when it was extremely unlikely that they could have been fathered by
European explorers.
Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find one
of the skeletons so you can DNA test it? This argument has been going on far
too long. Can't testing of today's Maoris come up with some answers? I agree
with most of what you say about racism against Europeans from so called Maori,
who choose to reject their own ancestors in a very disrespectful manner. So
much for respecting their tupuna; usually European tupuna are denied. I have
studied Maori culture all my life, but am often the subject of anger from
Maoris, often because I know more than them, but also because I am outspoken in
my views. One of these views is that the Maori language is unfortunately mostly
dead, and what is being taught in schools and wanaga's and universities is
usually incorrect. I have been learning to speak Cook Island's Maori from a
friend who only started learning English when he was late teens. There is a
vast difference between how you WRITE Cook Island and how you SAY it, I am
positive it is the same with NZ Maori. I have learned that you really need to
HEAR it spoken from a NATIVE speaker before you can say you can speak it. Many
people today speak it with an appalling kiwi accent. I also often have
arguments with Maori who get annoyed because I will say Rotorua or Tauranga
with an English accent when I am speaking English, yet it is okay for them to
pronounce America, "Amerika", or Auckland, "Akarana", or
tractor for that matter, "Tarakihana" I found a really interesting
article on the net a while ago that mentioned that early Europeans found that
Maori used many different consonants, including B and L and S, D and SH and CH
etc... This is the same in Cook Islands Maori. There was a tale of a native of
Stewart island complaining that since the arrival of Europeans Maoris
pronounced Stewart island as "Rakiura", but that when he was a boy it
was, "lakiula" The saddest thing is that apparently now grandparents
cannot understand their mokopuna speaking school taught "Maori", it
is so different from the language they grew up with. Another point is that some
older Cook island friends of mine report being able to converse freely with
native speakers of NZ Maori, but are not able to understand, or be understood
by school taught ones. Te Karere is apparently, in the main, just gobbledegook.
Although this digresses from your theories, I still thought you might like to
hear of my experiences. I am truly sad that they have lost their lingo; I just
pray my Cook Island friends don't make the same mistake. Whoops, I almost
forgot. I read about the allegation that the strap in school killed the Maori
language. Cook Island school kids to my knowledge are STILL strapped for
speaking the lingo in school, yet the Cook Island language is still alive. What
is the difference? Maori made the mistake of NOT TEACHING their children the
language, hence it's death. Another thing I have noticed is that Cook Islanders
really converse in their language, and joke around, and swear at each other in
it for a laugh. You won't hear THAT on many marae's anymore. For the record, my
daughter is part Nga Puhi. Like you I am NOT racist, in fact I am fascinated
with pre-Euro Maori, but I think that in the main they were a vastly different
people than they are today. I think that you are being accused of being so
because you DARE to express your opinions. It is too easy to call us racists.
It tends to win the argument for them without them actually having to put up a
fight. Ignorant white kiwis will also call us racist because they like to take
part in that guilt we are taught to feel. I wish our TRUE history would come
out, and by that I mean POST European history. I have no opinion about what
you're saying. A DNA test would swing my opinion. Cheers, CRAIG
Hi Craig, You raise a number of issues and, in the interests
of brevity, I'll only comment on some of them. The whole DNA and skeletal
evidence subject is a difficult one, not because of a lack of specimens to
test, but because of the "laws" governing the gathering of specimens
and having them tested. Only certain designated people are allowed to gather
specimens and that doesn't include you or I. Should you wish to go and gather
specimens, I can tell you of 3 sizable locations where there are graves of the
"tall ones"...the Caucasoid people who predated Maori to these shores
by thousands of years. The gravesites are unknown to Maori and there is no
Maori "wahi-tapu" covering them as a result...these are not and have
never been Maori burial grounds. The iwis don't even know they're there or, if
they do, they're not telling anyone... and that's the situation all over New
Zealand. I know some Maori people who have been involved in the "relocation"
of remains of this type. Most iwi representatives of higher rank could take our
scientists to these ancient burial locations without difficulty...but why
should they?...there's considerably more financial advantage to be gained in
the present political climate of keeping it all hushed up. By taking
away specimens or samples of these non-Polynesian bones, you've just committed
your first offense and are liable to crippling fines...unless you're
Maori.... in which case it's OK to destroy the remains. If you send samples
to New Zealand scientific facilities you'll receive a letter back stating
something like this one, from Mr. Roger Sparks of The Institute of
Geological and Nuclear Sciences in Lower Hutt:
'For several years now we have had a policy of
accepting samples based on human remains only if they are accompanied by
documentation from the appropriate authorities giving approval for the analysis
to be carried out..... we would need some confirmation that representatives of
the local iwi had been consulted and given approval for the tooth to be
dated....The opinion of Dr. Kalmeyer that the bone is European does not change
the situation here... we need to take this matter seriously, otherwise we risk
damaging the reputation of the laboratory in the eyes of the local
archaeological community...' (August 1997).
An individual I know had found Caucasoid skeletons
in a cavern and had taken specimens, including a jaw for professional
examination, to the Auckland University Medical School. After the visual
evaluation confirmed that the item was of European Caucasoid ethnicity, a molar
was sent to Lower Hutt for carbon dating and amino acid testing ....result ... "Not
allowed to be tested". But it gets worse than this. People like Dr.
Robin Watt have supposedly assessed about 2000 skulls and found all of them to
be Polynesian...so that tells us a lot...or does it? There are ethnicities
classified under the headings, Indo-nesians, Micro-nesians, Melan-esians,
etc.,...and then there are Poly-nesians, which are a mix of many ethnic groups.
The definition of Poly is: poly... many or much... having an excessive or
abnormal number or amount. The term Poly-nesian means "many
islands" and also denotes "many ethnicities".
We believe it is the Intermixing of these Peoples -
the South East Asians, Indonesians, & Melanesians which had borned a New
People of the Pacific Ocean, the POLYNESIANS. Poly = Many, Nesia = Islands,
also many origins. The largest Samoan Island of SAVAI'I ( the breeding ground)
has a history of Samoans, Tongans & Fijians as blood intermixed peoples and
coinhabitants, both in war & peace times. Mixed blooded Samoans with Tongan
or Fijian lineage populated Savai'i, SAMOA. www.samoa.co.uk/q-and-a/6319.html
So, physical anthropologists like Dr. Watt and
others can, undoubtedly, stay out of hot water simply by not having to be too
specific or by not having anything but "approved" skull types come
into their possession for scientific scrutiny. Even Phillip Houghton, an adept
physical anthropologist who wrote, The First New Zealanders, 1980,
appears to have assessed only "approved" skeletal research specimens,
which were supplied through Maori sources. Given the diversity of ethnicities
that make up Maori, if physical characteristics of a skull shows a leaning more
to one ethnicity than another, it can still be categorised as
"Polynesian". It's a bit like the term "Maori" itself,
which simply means "human being", as opposed to "huhu bug"
or fern frond. All things are possible when you don't have to be too specific
and can keep the terms of reference reasonably ambiguous. To explain away the
high incidence of red hair observed on
many New Zealand burial cave skeletons since early colonial times, Dr. Robin
Watt, attributed it all to black coloured Polynesian hair turning red by a
pigmentation breakdown as the physical remains deteriorated after death.
Well... that's a convenient and a pat way of burying the problem, but I doubt
that it's actually true or that it occurs to any great degree in the real
world. Here are some quotes related to mummies located in Egypt that are about
5000 years old: The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair. Carter,
Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68 -------
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida. Tomkins,
Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of Ethnographic Types
from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889, p.216 ------- The mummy of
Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair. Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson,
Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99 ------
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones. De
Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26 And
what about all of the living specimens of "Maori" observed in New
Zealand since the earliest colonial times with the red
hair and freckles? And what about the hair samples themselves?
European hair is, physically, very different than the hair of other
ethnicities. Where's the scientific research paper describing the physical
characteristics of the New Zealand red hair, to determine ethnicity?
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Human Hairs
To all of this one can add reference to the large number of Caucasoid mummies
of the Tarin Basin of China or the Canary Islands, etc., which have retained their
hair pigmentations for many thousands of years! It is an indisputable fact that
there were large groups of red headed, brown headed and blond people in this
country before the coming of the Maori and that Maori lived contemporaneously
with them for what could be several centuries before overwhelming and
annihilating them. Maori oral traditions about these people abound and "throwback"
traits to these early people were very much in evidence throughout the 1800's
before Maori had interrelated, to any great degree, with incoming colonial Europeans.
A traditional exclamation amongst Maori, when a newborn showed light complexion
traits or developed blondish and reddish hair hues was, "Ah... Turehu"! ...which
denoted the genetic link to the white ancestors absorbed by conquest into the
Maori tribes. Sir Peter Buck (a Maori anthropologist) mentioned these ancestors.
He also commented upon physical evidence (woven or platted coloured hair
samples from ancient rock shelters) in the Auckland War Memorial Museum.
In accordance with Dr. Robin Watt's theory, all of these multicoloured samples
had once been black, but had decided to change to several varied hues while
deteriorating in the selfsame dry tomb environment. But, OK Craig, you want
a skull, so here's a very old one, photographed in a remote New Zealand cave:
There are many features of a skull that can be
compared in order to determine ethnicity. This is the science of craniology,
used by forensic experts and criminologists when identifying human remains. The
jaw (mandible) to the left is typical of Europeans and other ethnic groups,
like Asians. The jaw to the right is typical of most Polynesians and Maori of
Polynesian descent. It's called a rocker jaw and when it's placed upon a flat
surface it can rock back and forth, as it has a continuous curve on its lower
border. But Maori had a mysteriously high incidence of racial diversity,
including Caucasoid dolichocephalism, accompanied by leptorrhine physical
traits (long thin nose) when the first European maritime explorers of the
colonial era arrived in New Zealand. Much within the physiology of particular
tribal groups indicated a large degree of admixture with European blood. The
question must therefore be asked, where did this enigmatic element come from,
especially if it wasn't observed to be anywhere near as prevalent in the
Islands from whence Maori had so recently come? The answer lies in the fact
that it was already in New Zealand, along with a very refined culture, when Maori
arrived. The Caucasoid traits were later forcibly absorbed into Maori
physiology after the former European people were conquered and enslaved.
The general biological anthropology of the Pacific is as follows: "Negrito":
oldest Polynesians - Northern Hawaiian chain (brachycephalism [short head] and
platyrrhine [broad and flat-brideged nose]) "Negroid": confined to
marginal islands of eastern Polynesia (dolichocephalism [long head] and
platyrrhine) "Malay": western Polynesia and southern Hawaii (brachycephalism
and leptorrhine [long, narrow nose]) "Caucasoid": New Zealand and
Hawaii (dolichocephalism and leptorrhine). The Chatham Islanders (Moriori) –
long heads, narrow noses, no prognathism, moderate stature = “primitive
Caucasoid” type.
Marshall and Snow’s Conclusions: There is a distinguishable ‘Polynesian’ type,
which appears morphologically homogeneous but metrically shows a west-east
dichotomy Ø “Rocker jaw” Ø Pentagonal head Ø Generally brachycephalic with some
sporadic dolichocephaly Ø General platyrrhine with some sporadic leptorrhine,
especially in the east. www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ant/316/Lecture%2012%20overheads.htm
When you're next in a remote burial cave and
encounter skeletons, it should be relatively easy to determine ethnicity. I'd
suggest you get a copy of, The First New Zealanders, by Phillip Houghton,
Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, Auckland, London, Sydney, 1980. It will give you
all of the major physical trait differences to look for between
Polynesian-Maori and European skeletons. If, after a cursory glance you see a
"rocker jaw" (right picture), simply pay your respects and move on.
If, however, you see the distinctly apparent European physiology (left picture)
tarry a while, take photos, as well as measurements and get acquainted with
your long lost cousins... who aren't allowed to be
remembered in this country or political climate.
Why on earth don't you end all this controversy and break your neck to find
one of the skeletons...? Already have...now it's your turn. I wish about
10,000 New Zealanders of both European and Maori extraction would do the same
and let these ancient regional people, as well as their history and
accomplishments, be recognised. Can't testing of
today's Maoris come up with some answers? Absolutely!, but you can only
get access to the " restricted, selective and politically desirable"
results. The Caucasoid aspect is very conspicuous by it's absence and it's only
the Taiwanese route pedigree that gets any exposure or recognition. The South
American admixtures are also conspicuous by their absence. Although hugely
important South American cultural symbolism and cultivated, edible plants are
present in New Zealand, they apparently arrived without people...very much like
the Kiore rat....which must've swum here a couple of thousand years ago. Taking
photos is about all you can do to show the pre-Maori skeletal evidence.
Exporting specimens is an option, but how are you then going to publish your
results without getting into serious strife?
A few years ago a 9,300 year old Caucasian skeleton
was found by the Columbia River, in the State of Washington, USA ...a most
unwelcome find that threatened the American Indian claim of being the first
North American residents. Every legal effort was exhausted by the Indians to
stop any scientific scrutiny of the remains and to wrestle possession of them
back into the hands of the Indians. The bones that did go back were covered in
foreign, modern organic material during "religious observances",
which, effectively, contaminated the samples (deliberately) such that they
could never be effectively tested. The Army Corps of Engineers buried the
discovery site, deliberately incorporating burlap sacking fibre material
(organic ground stabiliser) and huge boulders to both contaminate any residual
bones and make further excavations impossible. We are given the illusion that
we live in an enlightened scientific age, but the truth is that we are still
very much in the dark ages. Every trick, deception, legal ploy and
intervention, disallowing the advancement of "inconvenient"
knowledge in the USA is also in force here in New Zealand. Our scientists are
mostly, "play along whores", who work in very effectively with our
"media whores" and scholarship in this country has long since been
replaced by social engineering and propaganda. Oh, by the way, the closest craniological
match for the skull type of Kennewick Man was Chatham Island's Moriori. Martin.
From Paula Date
Tuesday, 16 September 2003 14:54.
Big Sigh I think we have now reached the point where NZ is too
politically correct. We are too scared to voice our opinions in case we are
seen as 'racist'. Sadly from my experience it is a double standard in NZ. If Pakeha
say something against a person who is Maori in origin, then they have to be
racist, whereas Maori can say what they like against Pakeha and it is okay. (I
am even dubious about what they term Pakeha actually means - is it
derogatory?). I am definitely not an expert on Maori life, but I am a Kiwi and
as far as I am concerned we are all New Zealanders and should treat all with
respect and dignity - we are one people. Many of my friends are Maori and are
wonderful, but unfortunately there are a hard core of Maoris in New Zealand who
are very racist against Pakeha and are, I think, very ignorant. I don't think
Martin is being racist with this site, he is simply opening up other
possibilities that we should all embrace. Wouldn't it truly be wonderful if NZ
had more history to be told than there is? Wouldn't it truly be wonderful to
find out all that there is to know about NZ? The language thing is a strange
one. I now hear news presenters changing the way they say 'Taupo, Taranaki,
Tauranga etc., etc'. I know of one Maori elder who just shakes her head when
she hears it. She says it is pronounced wrong and even the new generation of
Maori are pronouncing it wrong. It is a shame, I would hate to see the real
essence of Maori language lost, which I think it is, or maybe it is simply
evolving like English has over thousands of years? I think it is time not to be
afraid and embrace what NZ was and look forward. A DNA test on the red headed
ancestors is a must and it makes me angry that we are denied the true history
of NZ. Maybe I have an ignorant and simplistic view, but I don't care, it is
still my opinion and I am entitled to it whether I am Maori, Pakeha or a New
Zealander. Paula
Hi Paula I'm an old wrinkly who started my working life as a young
carpenter in 1964. As it turns out, I still hold to the same general views
about New Zealand history as I had at that time and will continue to do so
until convinced otherwise. Much of the history and many of the stories were
taught to me directly by older, very knowledgeable Maori people and many of my
present views were once the common, day-to-day, vocalised knowledge of most
Maori. So, the very hypocritical side of it all is that it is not me, or indeed
others of my generation, who have changed our point of view, but the people who
rail against us for not succumbing to their recently manufactured, "forced
amnesia" programme. Name calling specialists like Professor Kerry Howe
seem to be very irritated that many of us won't roll over compliantly and
accept their new, approved and much santitised plastic version of history.
According to Howe and his ilk, if we continue to hold to the views that,
seemingly, everyone, both Maori sages and Europeans alike, adhered to in the
sixties, or for generations before that time, then we're radicals, racists, new
diffusionists and new age idiots, etc. The slander-dripping lengths that this
name calling evangelist of the new gospel will go to to debase the nonbeliever
heretics are boundless. He's said publicly on national radio that I believe we
all came from outer space...eh what?...where and when have I ever expressed
such views? A large percentage of his recent, book is devoted to calling people
derogatory names. Thor Heyerdahl's, American Indians in the Pacific,
1952 should be read alongside Howe's recent, Quest for Origins, and
the explanations compared. Heyerdahl provides layers of evidence in every
category to support his contention, almost to the point of overkill and
oppression. Howe, by consequence, talks around, glosses over or outrightly
omits to mention many regional anomalies, as if they don't exist or don't rate
any degree of in-depth discussion. He then resorts to name calling those who
want thorough, factual investigation of the outstanding anomalies, as if
"pulling rank" with his credentials is sufficient to silence the
dissident questioners. Some historians "command" respect ...others
"demand" respect. Whereas Howe's book will be very appealing
to the gaggle of social engineers engaged in molding the minds of the dumbed
down, shifting herd, most old Maori elders and sages would consider that major
historical points, of great importance, are conspicuous by their absence and
non-mention in Howe's work. Unfortunately for this "brave new
generation" of social and historical reformers, our older general
knowledge was gleaned from whakapapas and carefully rehearsed, reliable, oral
traditions that had been religiously preserved and handed down. There were also
innumerable historical treatises written by early colonial mariners, adept
observers, historians, land court recorders or anthropologists who had direct,
face to face interviews with the old tohungas, chiefs and learned elders. These
early writers, including individuals like Governor Sir George Grey, also
meticulously recorded what they saw with their own eyes or heard with their own
ears, in the first person, as opposed to latter-day, twisted, politically
convenient and biased suppositions, generations removed from the facts related
to incidents. Here are some old quotes from the books of yesteryear:
'It is most certain that the whites are the
aborigines. Their colour is, generally speaking, like that of the people of
Southern Europe and I saw several who had red hair. There were some who were as
white as our sailors and we often saw on our ship a tall young man who by his colour
and features might easily have passed for a European' (see Voyages To
Tasmania & New Zealand, by Lt. Croset)...The above observation was made in the Bay of
Islands, New Zealand.
'The Maori regales us with several tales that are supposed to illustrate a period
when the Maori people were living here on sufferance, as it were, under the
mana of the Turehu or Patupaiarehe, the true lords of the soil. Many different
names are used to denote this forest folk or fairies as our writers often term
them, though the Maori concept is not that of a diminutive fey or elf like folk,
but rather that of a people of ordinary stature and appearance, save they are
said to have been fair-skinned and fair haired' (see Maori Religion, by Elsdon Best).
It should be noted that Elsdon Best lived with the Maori people for over twenty
years and was taught the deepest aspects of their history, religion and culture,
to the extent that he was recognised as, or accorded the honour of becoming, a
Kaumatua (learned elder).
Patupaiarehe is the name applied by the Maoris to
the mysterious forest dwelling race. An atmosphere of mysticism surrounds Maori
references to these elusive tribes of the mountains and the bush....The Patupaiarehe
were for the most part of much lighter complexion than the Maoris...their hair
was of a dull golden or reddish hue, "uru-kehu", as is sometimes seen
amongst the Maoris of today...This class of folk-tales no doubt originated in
part in the actual existence of numerous tribes of aborigines. This
immeasurably ancient light haired people left a strain of uru-kehu in most ancient
tribes' (see The Journal of the Polynesian Society, volume 30, article
by James Cowan. Commenting on
a later era, Cowan interviewed an old Maori elder who spoke of the Patupaiarehe
of Mt. Ngongataha, Rotorua District. This partially wooded area rising above
the south-west shore of Lake Rotorua was the main regional settlement of the
Patupaiarehe, whom the old elder called, Ngati-Hua (hua means
"bastard" in Maori and "Ngati" is generally placed before
tribal names). The old elder described the former residents in the following way:
'The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero (reddish skin) and their
hair had a reddish or golden tinge we call uru-kehu. Some had black eyes, some
blue like Europeans. Some of their women were very beautiful, very fair of
complexion, with shining fair hair...' Cowan was told by other Maori elders
of the district that, many generations previously, the Maoris set fire to the
fern and forest on the slopes of the mountain, causing much anguish to the Patupaiarehe
tribe and most of them departed northward. It's interesting to note that many
very ornate little pataka buildings, like the ones in the Auckland War Memorial
Museum, were seen abandoned and deteriorating, by early colonial observers, in
the high country of Mt. Ngongataha. In a recent posting on a Waitangi Tribunal
discussion site, these words appeared:
'The Taniwha races are early Maori;
many of my people descend from these ancient people. They all come from Tiki
the ancestor of creation, later married into Maui a tikitiki a taranga* the ancestor of
Kahungunu*. The ancient people spoke ancient
Maori, some were fair skin with red and silver
blond hair, a race of peace people and healers. That is where Maori rongoa
comes from. The Polynesians who arrived married into these people so we the
Maori enjoy the status of tangatawhenua tuturu*. The
plants and animals, be it fish or on land, are related to Tiki by whakapapa*. When the remaining land mass arose from the sea and
joined with the existing islands-now we know the north island as te ika a Maui*. This information is spiritually protected....(not to be
misused), but to help and heal people - kaipai tou mahi - for the benefit of
all. For this is the nature of taputaputapu... Huriana Lawrence, mokopuna o
Rangatira o Ngati Kahu-ngunu'. huriana.lawrence@twor.ac.nz 27/02/03 www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/news/ShowMessage.asp?ID=38&DiscussionId *Maui-tikitiki-o-taranga (Maui [weary] of the
hair-knot on the head of Taranga--time of power). *Kahu-ngunu (garment of the
dwarf). *Te ika a Maui (the fish of Maui).*Whakapapa
(genealogy-lineage). *Tangatawhenua tuturu (Lords of the soil {original
people} nationality).
In weighing up the totality of evidence, many of us
have chosen to stay with the more reliable, balanced and unbiased views
expressed from a wide variety of informed, honest sources of yesteryear. Some
questionable theories about migrations or the like, popular in the raw
scholastic concepts of the 1800's, can be laid to rest as improbable, but you "don't
throw out the baby with the bath water". It's insufficient and quite
disgusting to label the old Maori oral traditions as "unreliable"...
or inconvenient references to pre-Maori groups as deliberate distortions based
upon "Eurocentric" tampering, designed to divest Maori of prestige
and mana....what a load of academic or Maori activist cogswallop! To
date, I've seen nothing come along of sufficient merit for me to abandon many
acceptable concepts of 35-years ago and prior, related to earlier New Zealand
civilisations. Unbeknown to our scientists, there are sophisticated cairn
marked geometry's and overland surveying systems, running from hill to hill
across the expanse of New Zealand. I've seen them, taken GPS coordinate fixes
on cairn positions and tested those coordinates within the exacting confines of
AutoCAD. Within our valley landscapes there are 3,4,5 triangles, equilateral
triangles, 90-degree triangles with coded distance sides and lying at
significant azimuth angles like 51.84-degrees or 59.0625-degrees, etc. The same
distances and angles are found within the dimensions of ancient astronomical/ navigational
based edifices of Egypt, Britain or North America, etc. Researchers like myself
don't pretend to know all there is to know about these regional landmarking
systems, but have detected sufficient within them to establish a link between
an ancient New Zealand Stonebuilder civilisation, to counterparts within the
Mediterranean Basin and Europe. If our scientists could spare a day of their
precious time to assess the cairn marker system of the Waitapu Valley in
Northland, they'd learn for themselves that careful surveying and ground marked
geometry was present within the distribution of cairns, standing stones, mounds
and sighting pits, etc., of the Waitapu and adjacent valleys or nearby marked
hills.
There is
no question but that virtually everyone around New Zealand in the sixties and
before knew of the Moriori and other, older groups like the Patu-paiarehe,
Turehu and general Stonebuilder populations called Tangata Whenua (lords of the
soil). In those years of my misspent youth, I sat and talked at length to red headed
Maori people with freckled faces who told me of their Patu-paiarehe lineage.
Their words were verified by other Maori of Polynesian lineage, sitting in on
the conversations. There were still a lot of waka blonds around in those years
and open acknowledgment within Maoridom about who was who and what had happened
in the earlier conflicts and clashes. The work I do in surveying the old stone
structures on our New Zealand landscape does nothing but further reinforce and
verify the old stories about the "Stonebuilders". I've yet to find
one thing that "doesn't add up" or fit the generalised descriptions
of who was supposed to be here before Maori, as recounted by the learned elders
themselves. The deeper one probes, the more the oral tradition stories are
verified and supported by evidence...much of which is, surprisingly,
mathematical. My advice to young Maori wanting to learn the true history is to
forget about consulting with the corporate kaumatuas or their, "in
tow", white "Uncle Tom" historian lackeys. The manipulators are oftimes
only using the hotheaded, excitable, "go sic 'em" potential of
ill-informed youth to further their own political or big business financial
agendas. The better and very reliable option for learning true long-term
history is to return to the traditional fountain of knowledge...the learned old
people. Ask the Rangitiras and Kuias, politely, about the pre-Maori groups and
the history related to encounters or contact with the uru-kehu and kiri-puwhero
people.
Here in New Zealand we used to have an
"apprenticeship" tradition that created well rounded and adept tradespeople.
That got severely disrupted a few years ago by some bright spark who,
"knew a better way" (probably the same genius who dreamt up the
"short-lived" idea of affixing car registration stickers to the
outside of the windscreen instead of the inside). The same thing appears to
have happened within the ranks of Maoridom, wherein young "movers and
shakers" who weren't content to serve the hard yards apprenticeship and
become learned elders in the traditional way, decided to jump the queue and
displace the influence of the royal families or elders. If a concerted effort
is not made soon to relearn the true history from the dwindling few who still
know it, then large bodies of irretrievable knowledge will be lost from this
earth forever as the old people pass away. All that will then be left to fill
the void is modern, fantasy based, touchy-feely, love is warm puppies, I'm a
victim, plastic history/ propaganda. In old Maori the term "Pakeha"
can, apparently, mean the itchy, irritating white lump on the skin, that
appears after one has been bitten by a flea. As a courtesy and because it is my
personal preference, I try to pronounce Maori words or placenames reasonably
close to the correct sound. My renditions are still something of a hatchet job
to the language, despite the best of intentions and I'm too lazy to go into
tongue and throat contortion extremes to get it 100% right, as stipulated by
the NZ Broadcasting Commission. The main thing is to communicate and a fair
attempt is generally considered acceptable. Maori language has regular and easy
vowel sounds and is pronounced pretty much as it is spelt. By contrast, it must
be a huge headache to learn and remember all of the sound variations of "ough"
in English, as found in, tough, bough, thought, cough, etc. Martin.
From: Mark Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Maori heads. There are,
or were until recently, a number of 'Maori' heads in overseas collections. Has
there ever been any attempt to test the DNA in any of these? On the subject of
the Maori language. My son learnt basic Maori at primary school. Among other
things he learnt the names of the days of the week. Two years later when my
daughter learnt the Maori days of the week they were totally different words!! Finally,
are there any interesting sites in the lower North Island? Mark
Hi Mark, To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to analyse
the DNA of the many heads that are still in the collections of overseas
museums. This should be done and the macabre irony of it all is that the
ancient victims might yet "have the last laugh"...as the existence of
these specimens will go a very long way toward proving the pedigrees of those
who were in New Zealand long-term, despite current attempts to deny their
existence. The apparent worthlessness of these people in life does not follow
them in death and they are now a very potentially valuable resource of
scientific information. Several Maori spokespeople expressed the viewpoint that
the "heads" returned to New Zealand amidst much ceremony and
lamentation by, then, Minister of Maori Affairs, Tau Henare in 1998, were
"rubbish" and were the remains of former slave individuals without
significance or mana. Their assessment was that the heads should never have
been repatriated to these shores. A % of these grisley souvenirs, sold to
whalers and other maritime visitors, will have the Patu-pai-arehe/ European
DNA, and display the non-Polynesian physical traits. These unfortunate
specimens of former New Zealand humanity are over 200-years old and,
considering the fact that they were mature adults when decapitated, were born
in an era when it was extremely unlikely that they could have been fathered by
European explorers.
