Archeological Suppression in New Zealand

[Hanslune]

Anybody got a nice sharp stake?

[crystal sage]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2015 at 3:13 PM, LCReborn said:

Um, I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but you ARE allowed to visit the site, but only with the Iwi's permission. The reason being that A Deed of Settlement between the Crown and the Iwi O Te Roroa was signed in 2005 and land that the stone structures were on within Waipoua, now sit under the ownership of Te Roroa which means this land is now private and you would need to gain permission from them in order to have access.

I have recently contacted them, and they were EXTREMELY helpful and showed no sign of aggression, the only time it is shown is when you go onto THEIR private land without prior permission. They were even kind enough to give me access to the archaeological records that are held at archives NZ, none of which have any embargo placed upon them. It is possible to view the findings without their permission, but I wasn't a member of their reading rooms, so the Iwi gave me access to their own reader card and info.

It seems that this is the latest on the topic..   http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/mike-butler-disinterest-in-pre-maori.html 

 referencing the local Iwi         http://showusthemummies.blogspot.com.au/ 

that seemingly put quite a few noses out of joint..           http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/11/18-21-mu-podcast/   

 

 

Interesting too how the 1000 year old  ancient cave art  of New Zealand  that is very similar to the artistic skills of people from thousands of years ago... https://www.firstlighttravel.com/blog/prehistoric-maori-rock-art-a-window-into-early-new-zealand-occupation 

 

 

Quote

 

Worth a Visit

The smooth walls of limestone outcrops in South Canterbury and North Otago provided an ideal canvas for early Māori and although over 500 years old, many of the rock drawings have survived the elements and can be clearly seen.  Found at more than 550 sites and with a high probability that more lie hidden waiting to be found, more than 95 per cent of the art is located on private land and sites are rarely visited. Unfortunately the natural “exfoliation” of the limestone has ment many of the drawings are in an advanced state of degradation.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by crystal sage

[Lord Harry]

On 5/20/2004 at 1:40 AM, Ozmeister said:

That'd be typical........restrictions put on something because a certain section of society doesn't want something to come out in the open. For fear it might prejudice their own "official" version of the truth.

The fact that the Maori have only been in NZ for only about 1300 years (at most), is neither here nor there. It would be silly to think that someone else hadn't been there before them. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Egyptians or Phoenecians had landed there.....as there is ample evidence of their presence in Australia. New Zealand isn't all that much further to sail to, and it would be logical to assume that if they did go there, they'd leave some traces of their visits.

Frankly, this pandering to sections of society, based on their ethnicity and perceived cultural "sensitivities" is just another example of "PC" madness which has crept into everything in the last 20-30 years. There's nothing wrong in being sensitive to others concerns and such, but when that sensitivity goes beyond common sense, it's time to step back and look at the forest. Instead of the trees.

BTW...musashi.....I've gone through a few rounds with archaeologists before. Mostly over the Giza Pyramids and when they were built. I had one guy....who was doing his PhD at the time, at Oxford (he was Sth African).....call me some rather nasty stuff and said I didn't know a thing about them or anything else. He even told me to go back to school and do geology 101 again. That's when he really got on my goat. I tore his own field of study to pieces, and said he'd be better off learning a proper science.....not learning to become a glorified grave robber. I also told him if he didn't retract many of the comments he made about me and my own professional reputation, as a geologist, he'd find himself in hot water

That "evidence" from Australia you are referring to wouldn't happen to be the discredited "Gosford Glyphs"? That 1970s college prank carved by people who's knowledge of the Hieroglyphic script was limited to stenciling a few random signs?

Learn the Egyptian language, the glyphs say nothing coherently. Rather they are a random selection of poorly carved signs, many completely made up, that could easily be discredited by anyone with an Egyptological background.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Lord Harry

[Lord Harry]

On 5/19/2004 at 10:57 PM, musashi said:

 

I too own that book and you're right about it being interesting. There are actually two versions available - the full version and the abridged version (still a massive book in it's own right).

I remember many years ago being on a Yahoo chat site on history and I mentioned the book. Boy, did I get a serving from an 'archeologist' who promptly told me how pathetic the book was, how wrong the information was and that I would be better served by reading 'proper' history books. Well, i've never been one for convention or orthodoxy; not everything is as it seems. I hate it when your own views cannot be expressed even if you might not hold to it yourself. Forums are here for the disemmination of individual views.

Anyway, i'm getting off track. I think it's an interesting book to read. Obviously, be wary of taking everything at face value and always try to find different sources but otherwise, i'd recommend it to get another view of human history.

Well...that archaeologist (this happens to be the correct spelling of the word btw, what on earth is an "archeologist"?) was absolutely correct. "Forbidden History" is nothing less than the author's futile attempt to reconcile archaeology with Hindu mythology. It is crankage at its finest.

[Lord Harry]

On 5/20/2004 at 4:18 PM, Chauncy said:

Does anyone here know of any other cases of suppression in the archeological world, in the past?

I'll answer your question with another question. If there really was a widespread suppression of "inconvenient" archaeological "evidence," would fringe idiots like von Daniken, Hancock, and Bauval have multi-million dollar book deals? Would they even be allowed a speaking platform from whence they can persuade the gullible uneducated masses who make up the majority of the general public?

[papageorge1]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2004 at 7:29 PM, Chauncy said:

 

The Waipoua Forest suppression of information is but one of many attempts to dupe the New Zealand public and rob them of their true historical inheritance

I just noticed this thread started in 2004. This grabbed my attention as it dovetails with what a channeled source I respect (Kryon) has revealed about islands of the Pacific like New Zealand and the Easter Islands and their connection to more ancient civilizations. In a  nutshell, Kryon is saying on these places our archeologists are only studying the most recent civilization on these islands. There are older civilizations to be found through deeper excavation that is still available if one studies in the right places. Kryon also mentions how much evidence gets sequestered by the academic powers to be. On Easter Island, Kryon says mainstream archeologists are only studying the most recent of three civilizations. 

Yes I think multiple channeled and psychic sources likely know some true things about the past not known to mainstream archeology.

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes I think multiple channeled and psychic sources likely know some true things about the past not known to mainstream archeology.

When it comes to North America. I haven't read one that was correct......

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

When it comes to North America. I haven't read one that was correct......

That is a pretty broad claim. Who said what? And how can you claim certain knowledge of the very, very ancient to judge things against?

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is a pretty broad claim. Who said what? And how can you claim certain knowledge of the very, very ancient to judge things against?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goodman

[Lord Harry]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is a pretty broad claim. Who said what? And how can you claim certain knowledge of the very, very ancient to judge things against?

The problem is...claims of psychic ability cannot be scientifically tested. If the fringe ever hopes to attain academic respectability, they need to start using the scientific method to support their claims.

An independently funded archaeological excavation on Easter Island would be a step in the right direction if truth is what the fringe seeks.

I'm sure Graham Hancock with his multi-millions of dollars would be more than willing to fund such an excavation?

Edited January 10, 2018 by Lord Harry

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is a pretty broad claim. Who said what? And how can you claim certain knowledge of the very, very ancient to judge things against?

and the big one..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

and the big one..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

So, that is the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia article biography of Edgar Cayce. How does that relate to my question of how he was wrong on North America and how you can know the past with certainty to judge his incorrectness?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

The problem is...claims of psychic ability cannot be scientifically tested. If the fringe ever hopes to attain academic respectability, they need to start using the scientific method to support their claims.

An independently funded archaeological excavation on Easter Island would be a step in the right direction if truth is what the fringe seeks.

I'm sure Graham Hancock with his multi-millions of dollars would be more than willing to fund such an excavation?

I understand mainstream archeology can only use psychic archeology as a suggestion for paths of investigation. 

 However, I do often detect a level of closed-mindedness to anything that approaches revolutionary in a field. I do believe some ‘filing away’ of some challenging finds without earnest follow-up and eventual forgetting about does occur.

[XenoFish]

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand mainstream archeology can only use psychic archeology as a suggestion for paths of investigation. 

 However, I do often detect a level of closed-mindedness to anything that approaches revolutionary in a field. I do believe some ‘filing away’ of some challenging finds without earnest follow-up and eventual forgetting about does occur.

It's not closed mindedness you're detecting. It's our b.s. meters going off. If any of this woo wants to ever be taken serious. Then it need to have the same rigors real science has. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by XenoFish

[Harte]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand mainstream archeology can only use psychic archeology as a suggestion for paths of investigation. 

 However, I do often detect a level of closed-mindedness to anything that approaches revolutionary in a field. I do believe some ‘filing away’ of some challenging finds without earnest follow-up and eventual forgetting about does occur.

A great many things are filed away without earnest follow-up. That's the nature of the field.

There's all kinds of relics stored away that have been classified or identified once with no follow-up.

When follow up isn't called for.

If every relic found was intensely studied, we'd need hundreds of times more specialists than exist.

Harte

[papageorge1]

Just now, Harte said:

A great many things are filed away without earnest follow-up. That's the nature of the field.

There's all kinds of relics stored away that have been classified or identified once with no follow-up.

When follow up isn't called for.

If every relic found was intensely studied, we'd need hundreds of times more specialists than exist.

Harte

Fine, but their limitations would argue that archeologists should then be a little more open-minded and a little humbler than they seem to be about major unproven claims.

[Harte]

On the other hand, if you've seen one clay oil lamp, you've pretty much seen them all.

Unless you're expecting a genie.

Harte

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

On the other hand, if you've seen one clay oil lamp, you've pretty much seen them all.

Unless you're expecting a genie.

Harte

I was of course referring to more 'challenging' finds (like the OP topic).

[Swede]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand mainstream archeology can only use psychic archeology as a suggestion for paths of investigation. 

 However, I do often detect a level of closed-mindedness to anything that approaches revolutionary in a field. I do believe some ‘filing away’ of some challenging finds without earnest follow-up and eventual forgetting about does occur.

1) We have been over this before. There is no such credible sub-field as "psychic archaeology". The "concept" is pure and utter rubbish and thus of no use to valid research.

2) And no, "challenging finds" are not arbitrarily "filed away". While financial and temporal constraints may result in paced investigations, the truly "challenging finds" actually stimulate additional research and assessment. However, the understanding of actual "challenging finds" is quite distinct from the pursuit of contrived fantasies.

.

[Harte]

If you were to read the thread, you'd find that the OP is full of it.

Too late to tell him though, he's already been told. And besides, he hasn't been here for a decade, I think.

On top of that, what you consider to be "challenging finds" (real ones, not the crap in the OP,) are certainly intensely studied.

When the claimants allow it, that is.

Harte

[Lord Harry]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand mainstream archeology can only use psychic archeology as a suggestion for paths of investigation. 

 However, I do often detect a level of closed-mindedness to anything that approaches revolutionary in a field. I do believe some ‘filing away’ of some challenging finds without earnest follow-up and eventual forgetting about does occur.

Like I said, there is nothing preventing the fringe from investigating their claims. There are many ancient sites all over the world where fringe researchers could fund an independent archaeological investigation. Most of the big name fringe researchers are quite wealthy. What is stopping people like Hancock or von Daniken from attempting to scientifically support their claims using actually research methodology? If the fringe ever hopes to gain some semblance of academic respectability, this is not optional.

[Piney]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So, that is the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia article biography of Edgar Cayce. How does that relate to my question of how he was wrong on North America and how you can know the past with certainty to judge his incorrectness?

The Adena-Middlesex Culture developed from the Glacier Kame Culture who developed from the Proto-Algonquians who migrated from the Columbian Plateau. They were the ancestors of the Southeast and Central Algonquians. MY PEOPLE!   WE did not come from Atlantis!

[Harte]

Sure.

Or so you say...

Harte

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Sure.

Or so you say...

Harte

[Swede]

7 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

Well...that archaeologist (this happens to be the correct spelling of the word btw, what on earth is an "archeologist"?) was absolutely correct. "Forbidden History" is nothing less than the author's futile attempt to reconcile archaeology with Hindu mythology. It is crankage at its finest.

Greetings Lord Harry. Merely a note:

While hardly my personal preference, the alternate spelling (eo) was introduced in the US by the New Archaeology movement of the 1960s/1970s (Binford et al). This alternate spelling has been accepted by a number of North American dictionaries.

.