Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Chauncy

Archeological Suppression in New Zealand

307 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Puzzler

It would appear that some of the posted references re: the Celtic/New Zealand aspect have a less than subtle racial element. In addition, they are highly unscientific. The following addresses some of these factors. While focused on New Zealand archaeology, many of the points presented apply quite well to the broader spectrum of less-than-credible sources.

http://www.nzarchaeology.org/alternative.htm'>http://www.nzarchaeology.org/alternative.htm

This above is a page from the following site, which provides a reasonable overview of current New Zealand archaeological activities.

http://www.nzarchaeology.org/

.

Less than subtle racial element....give me a break - we are Antipodeans, we shun political correctness. Always the racial element, forget it, no one is saying anything that is racial, they are just stating how it is. All this tip toeing around everyone's colour, it's ridiculous.

What do you get when you cross an Aboriginal and a Maori? Someone who's too lazy to steal :w00t: Don't worry, the Abo's and Maori's are laughing too...I live amongst Aboriginals and many Maoris inhabit up here where I live, 1/3 of my daughters class is black, we live in good humour and see each other as equal, it is only once you get into the cities that political correctness has gone mad.

The trouble with this story is it did attract assertions of racial undertones but I think it was misinterpreted by all the political correct yuppies out there and it basically put the kybosh on it all. Anyway, just thought I'd get that off my chest.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Less than subtle racial element....give me a break - we are Antipodeans, we shun political correctness.

Or, it could be interpreted that being an Antipodean means one is less than sensitive to racial stereotyping, so doing so becomes au fait.

Are you offended that I am 'racially stereotyping' Antipodeans, Puz? Or will you make a joke about how all Antipodeans are racists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Or, it could be interpreted that being an Antipodean means one is less than sensitive to racial stereotyping, so doing so becomes au fait.

Are you offended that I am 'racially stereotyping' Antipodeans, Puz? Or will you make a joke about how all Antipodeans are racists?

No, not at all. What I say is the author probably never even realised his comments would be seen as racial, it's that much of a non-issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

No, not at all. What I say is the author probably never even realised his comments would be seen as racial, it's that much of a non-issue here.

I'm pretty sure that is not entirely true at all.

Especially for somewhere which had the "White Australia Policy" up till 1981 and denial of the Stolen Generation by certain groups and individuals.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

I'm pretty sure that is not entirely true at all.

Especially for somewhere which had the "White Australia Policy" up till 1981 and denial of the Stolen Generation by certain groups and individuals.

OK, well, whatever. That is how I saw it.

When I was a young girl, about 11, in 1979, my Mum answered a boy named Philip who lived in Belfast, he wanted to collect stamps from different countries because he couldn't go out his front door. The place was swarming with Catholics and Protestants killing each other, the IRA popped up now and then just to pop off English Lords, that sort of thing, those times. The war in Belfast came into my loungeroom with every letter we received from Philip. It terrified me to think this boy about my age could not walk in his streets, play at the park, do anything at all without the fear of being shot because of intolerance in Belfast. I swore from then on I would never be intolerant of anyone, no matter what religion, race, colour or creed they were because of the appalling war in Belfast that our dear young friend Philip had to endure for the sake of religious intolerance.

How ironic you should be having a go at Australia.

I'm over the rascist conversation thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

ok, maybe i'm just plain old fashioned stupid.. so can someone state in simple terms that even i can understand if there were, or weren't , some lighter skinned inhabitants in New Zealand when the maori arrived?

(maybe they were an unusual and rather wild bunch.. who weren't into building enduring structures and such) dunno... but sometimes things are other than we might expect???? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

ok, maybe i'm just plain old fashioned stupid.. so can someone state in simple terms that even i can understand if there were, or weren't , some lighter skinned inhabitants in New Zealand when the maori arrived?

(maybe they were an unusual and rather wild bunch.. who weren't into building enduring structures and such) dunno... but sometimes things are other than we might expect???? )

Mate, I gave some info back some posts where you see a picture of a stamp, if you follow up on those people you might find some more out on them. The Patupaiarehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Mate, I gave some info back some posts where you see a picture of a stamp, if you follow up on those people you might find some more out on them. The Patupaiarehe.

yup Thanks a lot Puzz, i was getting confused by some posts that seemed to refute the fact.

ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

* Ohhh, i see, there's a debate going on as to whether earlier lighter skinned inhabitants are mythical or real people.

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

yup Thanks a lot Puzz, i was getting confused by some posts that seemed to refute the fact.

ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

* Ohhh, i see, there's a debate going on as to whether earlier lighter skinned inhabitants are mythical or real people.

lightly - Yes, that is pretty much the situation. Here are a couple bits that may help;

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe/2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Patupaiarehe

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

yup Thanks a lot Puzz, i was getting confused by some posts that seemed to refute the fact.

ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

* Ohhh, i see, there's a debate going on as to whether earlier lighter skinned inhabitants are mythical or real people.

I would suggest it unnecessary to refute the existence of the patupaiarehe, as they have never been shown to exist. Known only from oral folklore, they are as real as leprechauns, fairies, kobolds, jinn etc.

There are reasons why they could have entered Maori mythology that does not require them having any real existence, so to presume they had a real existence because they are in that mythology makes no logical sense.

I have seen on the website provided (Ancient Celtic New Zealand), so-called 'evidence' of white-skinned (Celtic) inhabitants of New Zealand preceding the Maori, but this evidence is neither conclusive, nor strong.

Photos of 'ruined stone dwellings' said to resemble the stone houses of ancient Britain/Ireland - but it was common in early colonial New Zealand to build in stone. It was plentiful and easy to build with. With the rugged terrain and fairly remote locations some of the early colonists chose to dwell in, stone buildings were the obvious choice. Many have fallen into ruin and are virtually bare foundation. It is my opinion these photos show such buildings, and not pre-Maori archaeology. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no effort to date such ruins, so my opinion is conjecture as well - but at least it is conjecture with some evidence of fact behind it.

There are hypotheses of peoples in New Zealand predating the Maori. The Moriori and the Waitaha are the two with what appear to be claims for that privilege.

However, the only evidence that I now of for such prior occupation is oral history which, while interesting, is not hard evidence.

It is worth noting, in reference to the claims of Celtic pre-inhabitance of New Zealand, that there is a large population of New Zealanders who claim descendency from the Celts and the country has a relatively large percentage of the population who live in counter-culture (read New Age), and so the idea is popular - if not feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Less than subtle racial element....give me a break - we are Antipodeans, we shun political correctness. Always the racial element, forget it, no one is saying anything that is racial, they are just stating how it is. All this tip toeing around everyone's colour, it's ridiculous.

What do you get when you cross an Aboriginal and a Maori? Someone who's too lazy to steal :w00t: Don't worry, the Abo's and Maori's are laughing too...I live amongst Aboriginals and many Maoris inhabit up here where I live, 1/3 of my daughters class is black, we live in good humour and see each other as equal, it is only once you get into the cities that political correctness has gone mad.

The trouble with this story is it did attract assertions of racial undertones but I think it was misinterpreted by all the political correct yuppies out there and it basically put the kybosh on it all. Anyway, just thought I'd get that off my chest.

Why would a person without prejudice or a mean spirit have a problem with being politically correct? They wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Thanks Swede, i actually found those 2 websites earlier.. but , yes, i see what the prevailing view is now.

Thanks Leonardo, ..for your generous amount of information.. i see now, the Patupaiarehe are mostly regarded as mythical/supernatural beings. Interesting though , I guess i'm hoping for very unusual cultures to be discovered.

I liked this 'description' from Maori tradition "Patupaiarehe were hunters and gatherers, surviving on raw forest foods and sometimes fishing from the shores of the sea or a lake. Their canoes were made of kōrari (flax stalks). Cooked food was offensive or foul to them. In different traditions, albino birds and eels, red flax and red eels were considered their property, and trouble befell Māori who took any of these.

Fearing the light, they were active mainly in the twilight hours and at night, or when the mist was heavy enough to shield them. They wore flax garments (pākērangi), dyed red, but also rough mats (pora or pūreke). They were also known for playing kōauau and pūtōrino (flutes)".

IF they existed.. i wuld guess they weren't as "fearful of the light" as being seen... in the light.?

Anyway, that's a description of an unusual culture! ... and it sort of matches my own musing in an earlier post on what sort of culture the stories might have been based on... IF they ever existed.

(maybe they were an unusual and rather wild bunch.. who weren't into building enduring structures and such) .. or maybe it's just stories. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Why would a person without prejudice or a mean spirit have a problem with being politically correct? They wouldn't.

Being politically correct all the time gets people thinking you are being rascist when you are not. People say something about someones colour and you are excuse the pun black balled. It's ridiculous. Personally it seems to me the politically correct then get mean spirited on people they think were being rascist to begin with because someone made a true statement which in fact was not rascist but since political correctness has entered the scene it is now seen as rascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Being politically correct all the time gets people thinking you are being rascist when you are not. People say something about someones colour and you are excuse the pun black balled. It's ridiculous. Personally it seems to me the politically correct then get mean spirited on people they think were being rascist to begin with because someone made a true statement which in fact was not rascist but since political correctness has entered the scene it is now seen as rascist.

With respect, Puz, I think many people confuse political correctness with an awareness for unintentional (often because it is 'accepted') prejudice.

I can make jokes with my friends about their religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc, and they know I am joking - because of the situation in which I make the jokes. An article on the internet does not have that specific social situation - therefore any implication of prejudice in it cannot be interpreted as a 'joke'*.

Likewise, what many suggest is 'simply telling it like it is', is actually stereotyping based on, often limited, personal experience - or even hearsay.

Political correctness is a very different kettle of fish, and is not the lack of, or avoidance of, any implication of prejudice - but imposing a kind of 'reverse-prejudice without due cause'. The banning of various Christmas traditions, for example, for 'fear of offending religious minorities' is an example of political correctness, and prejudicial to those who normally celebrate Christmas with those traditions because those traditions are not actually offensive - they are exclusive, but that does not make them offensive.

The accepting that all religions are equal in ideological importance to the believer, is not an example of political correctness. Neither is the forebearance of racial slurs in a non-personal situation when communicating to people you don't know.

* Obviously, some sites are 'spoof' or satirical sites. Offensive material in those contexts is often used to counter, or highlight, the prejudice inherent in it and is an exception.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

Political Correctness happens in new Zealand alright. We now have a sepaerate department in the government now just for Maori people because the others were "sensitive" to Maori ideals. In the past two years, there has been endless battles over things such as trees and rocks which were considered "sacred" and as a result many contruction projects were halted because of some Maori claim. Nothing can be done by the state without Iwi approval. The Maori were the ones who sold their land. And now every Waitangi Day, us people of European descent are made to feel guilty about what happened.

For those who don't know, here's what happened.

Before we became a colony of the British Empire, hundreds of settlers lived on land they purchased from Maori tribes legally. Of course, Maori will dispute that because they claim that they were "conned" by Western land ownership practices and as a result, thought they still legally had ownership of their land, despite the fact that their religious beliefs stated that no one owned land. When it came time to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, which officially handed over New Zealand to British jurisdiction, the document also said that the tribes would be united and that all those Maori who had signed it would live on their land, but it would be controlled by the Crown. At around the same time, most of the Maori tribes were fighting each other and as a result the chiefs often sold their land to buy muskets from white settlers to go and shoot at other tribes. Then they claimed that they wanted their land back and that it was "stolen".

To put it into perspective, it would be like someone selling you a house. You renovated it and because it would be worth more, the former owner would come back demanding their house back. And most of the land deals these days are worth millions. Now, this is where the archeological discoveries come in. Because in this modern PC world, the government does not want to contradict the Maori claims of ownership to the land as it is probably worth millions. Any theory or discovery contradicting Maori claims is immediately quashed by both the Iwi and the government because:

1. It would be offensive to Maori and that wouldn't be right

2. The Maori would loose their millions

3. It means that history would have to be rewritten and would be too costly (our politicians are a bunch of tightarses)

4. It wouldn't make the white person look like a warmongering genocidal maniac anymore

5. It would disprove the claim that Maori had and therefore make their claim of soverignity unlawful

See my point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Political Correctness happens in new Zealand alright. We now have a sepaerate department in the government now just for Maori people because the others were "sensitive" to Maori ideals. In the past two years, there has been endless battles over things such as trees and rocks which were considered "sacred" and as a result many contruction projects were halted because of some Maori claim. Nothing can be done by the state without Iwi approval. The Maori were the ones who sold their land. And now every Waitangi Day, us people of European descent are made to feel guilty about what happened.

For those who don't know, here's what happened.

Before we became a colony of the British Empire, hundreds of settlers lived on land they purchased from Maori tribes legally. Of course, Maori will dispute that because they claim that they were "conned" by Western land ownership practices and as a result, thought they still legally had ownership of their land, despite the fact that their religious beliefs stated that no one owned land. When it came time to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, which officially handed over New Zealand to British jurisdiction, the document also said that the tribes would be united and that all those Maori who had signed it would live on their land, but it would be controlled by the Crown. At around the same time, most of the Maori tribes were fighting each other and as a result the chiefs often sold their land to buy muskets from white settlers to go and shoot at other tribes. Then they claimed that they wanted their land back and that it was "stolen".

To put it into perspective, it would be like someone selling you a house. You renovated it and because it would be worth more, the former owner would come back demanding their house back. And most of the land deals these days are worth millions. Now, this is where the archeological discoveries come in. Because in this modern PC world, the government does not want to contradict the Maori claims of ownership to the land as it is probably worth millions. Any theory or discovery contradicting Maori claims is immediately quashed by both the Iwi and the government because:

1. It would be offensive to Maori and that wouldn't be right

2. The Maori would loose their millions

3. It means that history would have to be rewritten and would be too costly (our politicians are a bunch of tightarses)

4. It wouldn't make the white person look like a warmongering genocidal maniac anymore

5. It would disprove the claim that Maori had and therefore make their claim of soverignity unlawful

See my point?

Just a question, Michael.

If the Maori had no concept of land ownership, then how could any land purchases be legally made from them?

What I see here is not 'political correctness', but the recognition that there was a clash of cultural values and the addressing of any impropiety in how those clashes may have taken place. I accept that there may be some form of extremism on both sides of the cultural divide (and isolated cases of 'political correctness') - but compromising between the two cultures is a better resolution than leaving a de facto cultural usurpment in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

The thing is, when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, it was a binding document, a contract. Their land had been signed over to the Crown. Now, despite their ancient beliefs of no one owns land, the call themselves "Tangata Whenua"-"People of the Land" and claim that "their" land was "stolen" from them and that the ToW was a big con.

Technically, they cannot claim land either, so I don't see why the government should hand over large ammounts of foreshore, seabeds, forests and farmland to a people who originally said no one should own it. My point was about money. If their land is not productive, i.e makes no money, Maori aren't interested. But if it is, then they are all over it. The land purchases were technically legal because the settlers would give something in return for the land eg. muskets, food, tools, clothes which the Maori were familiar in trading with. It was only after that that settlers drew up deeds because they had already bought the land from the Maori. So technically, the sales were legal in terms of trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The land purchases were technically legal because the settlers would give something in return for the land eg. muskets, food, tools, clothes which the Maori were familiar in trading with. It was only after that that settlers drew up deeds because they had already bought the land from the Maori. So technically, the sales were legal in terms of trading.

No, such land sales were not 'technically legal' at the time.

The legaility of a contract is not granted only on the perception of one of the bound parties towards whether the contract is legal. You cannot sell something you do not own. You cannot sell something which is shared-ownership, without the consent of all other owners. That a party gave something in what they assumed was fair trade does not make their ownership legal. They would be entitled to restitution of the purchase price, however.

Technically, they cannot claim land either, so I don't see why the government should hand over large ammounts of foreshore, seabeds, forests and farmland to a people who originally said no one should own it. My point was about money. If their land is not productive, i.e makes no money, Maori aren't interested. But if it is, then they are all over it.

Obviously, the Maori are not stupid and have culturally adapted. They should not be censured for playing the same game their cultural conquerors do.

The Government has to now consider ownership, and make restitution, as the only alternative would be to concede to the Maori that there is no concept of land ownership in New Zealand.

The thing is, when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, it was a binding document, a contract. Their land had been signed over to the Crown. Now, despite their ancient beliefs of no one owns land, the call themselves "Tangata Whenua"-"People of the Land" and claim that "their" land was "stolen" from them and that the ToW was a big con.

I agree that land not owned cannot be stolen. However, the freedom they had with respect to that land has now been taken from them. As land ownership now has to be considered, and in retrospect, the action of restitution has to be made as if ownership was actually held - but as a people (or tribe), not as individuals.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

There is no evidence of celtic presence ever on Australia and New Zealand, maybe you would call those guanches or austroloids as white? Freedom of speech produces equal chances for all kind of fantasies and nonseses to feed ones own desire of greatness. But sorry the fact is that those celtic looking people universally lacked culture and religion wherever they were untill christianity, no languages, no religions. Even the famous chachapoyas people down in southamerica left nothing but a fortress around a communal structure, and were all technologically inferior to incas Sacsayhuaman and Machu Picchu. And there have never been a slightest trace of evidence that white europeans have been involved in pagan civilizations in Americas, or on else where in the world. Guess what? Mesoamericans worshipped he gods which had never been identified within any european culture, and the presence of neolithic genetically europeans has only been identified on russian stepe, without any linguistic and religious legacy to identify themselves as a distinctive culture. Non of modern european races has civilization untill Greece, and Rome. And Greece and Rome all had totally foreign and different religiosity and spirituality than those outside Europe, say Ancient Egypt, Maoris, Mesoamericans etc. The paganism between ancient europeans and natives in Australia and Americas were totally unrelated and alien to each other. Even mayan calendars was more accurate than any ancient european calendars, if whites spreaded the culture where was your calendars anyway? Why could not a bunch of white gods in Europe creat a better clendar than mayans? build better pyramids in France? why burnt mayan and inca scripts?

The similiarity between native american and maori ccultures can not be explained by the expansion of white civilizers because THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF CIVILIZED WHITE PEOPLE OUTSIDE EUROPE!! EVEN THEY WERE SOMEHOW CONSTRUCTIVE AS MUCH AS CHACHAPOYAS, BUT THEIR RELIGION, LANGUAGE AND ARCHITECTURE WERE ALL INFERIOR AND SHALLOW AS COMPARED TO ANY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLES.

The connection between ancient Egypt and natives in America and Australia was a proof that those natives were also part of original Egyptians, not that whites were. White europeans have always been inferior technologically and culturally universally untill these 300 years of rediscovery and repackage of ancient knowledge left by ancient races. All the modern civilization as you see is but corruptive and deceptive commercialism and colonial barbarism. It is far from being a proof of europeans racial superiority. Get over it.

Stop dumbing down the natives, because natives were and still are nobler than vain europeans.

I'm over it and I'm not dumbing down anyone. If anyone seems to be not over it, it's you, your above rant at white europeans shows that, you seem to have no problem dumbing them down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

No, such land sales were not 'technically legal' at the time.

The legaility of a contract is not granted only on the perception of one of the bound parties towards whether the contract is legal. You cannot sell something you do not own. You cannot sell something which is shared-ownership, without the consent of all other owners. That a party gave something in what they assumed was fair trade does not make their ownership legal. They would be entitled to restitution of the purchase price, however.

Obviously, the Maori are not stupid and have culturally adapted. They should not be censured for playing the same game their cultural conquerors do.

But then how do your desendants claim ownership 150 years later? And chiefs of tribes made deals speaking on behalf of their people.

Most Maori people have adapted, yet there are still many telling statistics, such as Maori in Australia are much better off then maori in new zealand. This is because instead of asking for hand outs from the government they are actually working. We have many Maori people in this country who are thrid and forth generation beneficiaries who have no desire to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

But then how do your desendants claim ownership 150 years later? And chiefs of tribes made deals speaking on behalf of their people.

Most Maori people have adapted, yet there are still many telling statistics, such as Maori in Australia are much better off then maori in new zealand. This is because instead of asking for hand outs from the government they are actually working. We have many Maori people in this country who are thrid and forth generation beneficiaries who have no desire to work.

Because of retrospective legislation.

While it was illegal for the settlers to 'purchase' land from the Maori (as there was no land ownership), the culture in New Zealand has changed - and the Maori have adapted their culture to include a sense of land ownership.

That purchases may have been made from tribal leaders does not mean the deals were any more legal than purchases from tribal outcasts. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if there were any dissenters in any of the deals - if there were, then the deal should not have been made.

The issue with institutionalised beneficiaries is one the Government has to tackle. The Maori are simply taking advantage of a situation - a very human trait. If this situation is intolerable for the rest of NZ society, then representation to your MP's for a change to the system should be made. If the MP's are unresponsive, then protests should begin to try to effect the change.

The NZ Government has a history of being more 'people-lead' than many other nations' Governments. If the people have the will to make a change, it is likely the Government will effect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warp10

Hi all

If you wish to find out about the Patupaiareha of New Zeland, ther,e actully known as the Uru from Australia, ther,e are thousands of acient stone artifacts in Australia, witch were bulit by the Uru.

Check out Rex gilroys works of 50 + years, and learn how the Uru spread from Australia through the pacific and beyond into Asia and Europe, the evidence is staggering, do check Rex out.

cheers warp10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Hi all

If you wish to find out about the Patupaiareha of New Zeland, ther,e actully known as the Uru from Australia, ther,e are thousands of acient stone artifacts in Australia, witch were bulit by the Uru.

Check out Rex gilroys works of 50 + years, and learn how the Uru spread from Australia through the pacific and beyond into Asia and Europe, the evidence is staggering, do check Rex out.

cheers warp10

Yes, Rex is quite amazing, and Heather. Here is there website mentioning Uru. I'm not sure about alot of his stuff but he is certainly dedicated and much of it is certainly interesting!

http://www.rexgilroy.com/index.html

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Rex is amazingly useless and ignorant.

Dedication hasn't actually got him to understanding evidence and the demonstrable fact the Lemuria never existed. His work has no value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

You are making a joke of yourself when claiming natives were civilized by ancient seafaring whites.

You should read some of the stuff she used to write about Atlantis! :wacko:

Rex is amazingly useless and ignorant.

Dedication hasn't actually got him to understanding evidence and the demonstrable fact the Lemuria never existed. His work has no value.

I'm not sure that I would have put this so mildly myself.

Gilroy is an idiotic, ignorant buffoon. That, or he's a halfway wiley thief.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.