It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is there an ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVERUP going on in New Zealand?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:50 AM
I'll give my usual answer to all these questions regarding archaeological coverups in New Zealand - I've posted this before, I'll post it again.

When I was growing up, on television's 6.30pm One News (FYI for people not from NZ - the state broadcaster in New Zealand) screened an article on the finding of a bridge, pottery, and a burial site in the West Coast of the South Island.

What made the discovery fascinating was that the design and decorative elements were of celtic design. It was heralded as unprecedented.

Then, 'all of a sudden', the site was destroyed and buried under a freak landslip.

To matters more interesting, the film footage was lost from TVNZ archives.

In short, I've worked with (the now) TVNZ for many years on a professional basis. TVNZ never ever loses footage.

My sister and I talk about the news article quite often. We both remember it as plain as yesterday.

Why suppress it? Simple - MONEY/STATURE/MANA.

The chaos this would cause would be huge.

New Zealand ain't ready for the truth.

BTW - search ATS for more threads on this important issue - there's a great one relating to stolen guns and the release of any of this information.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Mr Gunter]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by rapunzel222
You misunderstood me. I don't jump to conclusions about the intelligence of people I don't know. I didn't imply anything about your brains. The point about you distrusting science is because it's a theme that runs through your posts like steel railway tracks.

I was jokingly imagining you sitting in a lecture with one eye squinting at the lecturer and thinking, "Oh yeah? That's what YOU say!" Sullen malcontent wasn't really the picture I was trying to paint

I hope you carry on doing well in your studies. Believe it or not, I've probably read most of the stuff you read and had very similar ideas. I do disagree with some of your views, but understand them. If I have a go at these NZ 'pale-skinned''s not's the evidence. Don't take offense and don't scowl...if the wind changes you'll stay like that

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:07 AM

Originally posted by rapunzel222
It isnt unheard of for qualified scientists to lie either. I know one who works at a uni in medical research and has told me she would consider faking her results to advance her career, and that she knows many others who feel the same way. I also just read about the head of department of a hospital overseas who faked the results of about 20 studies re drugs like vioxx which later killed people (and there was a huge lawsuit about). No doubt he did it at a drug companies bequest for money and his career advancement.

I can sincerely say that Academics who falsify data in my Department at University would be out on their ear. It's a short term way to advance your career, with long term repercussions and that this is part of the reason for peer review as well as rigorous discussions over coffee at Morning Tea/Lunch. The people I work with are not there to disguise any findings, even if they disagree with their original hypothesis.

Maybe it just shows you can't trust Medical researchers
or maybe it's an Australian trait
(sorry, couldn't resist: "Peter Bellis, Peter Bellis, Peter Bellis").

Mr Gunter, I think THIS is the thread you mean?
These two threads are certainly related.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by aorAki]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

A lot of what has been put forward as evidence looks pretty good... ok, at least it does to me.
On the previous page, FlakeMaker posted a link... I'll re-post it: unpalatable truth -- hope you don't mind FlakeMaker.
I read through that and, well, what has been found is what it is. From my perspective, the remains and archeological finds speak for themselves.
I mean, if it was just someone saying something and expressing their opinions, I would mentally file something like this as provocatively interesting, move on and forget about it shortly after. But when an actual something is actually found, well it's not just someone saying something.
For example, straight out of the "unpalatable truth" sight FlakeMaker provided a link to:

"A cache of bones was found in the Kaipara District in 2005 when a pig hunter’s dog wandered into a cave. Investigations were handed over to Noel Hilliam, retired Curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum, and his team ofresearchers. The skeletons showed that there were, at least, three distinct physical types of pre-Maori interned there, ranging from the very tall people (around 7 to 8 feet in height - 2.4 metres), to people of normal stature, to the very small pygmy people."

"A number of years ago around one of the stone cairns near the Waipoua forest, an archaeologist excavated down 2.3 metres, going through two different tephra layers. Carbon datings proved there were people living in this country over five thousand years ago. We have come across a number of caves throughout New Zealand where these peoples were laid to rest. We no longer register these sites, to protect them from destruction, as anything pre-Maori is being buried or destroyed, including their dwellings. In the Waipoua Forest there are hundreds of stone walls, stone dwelling, stone fireplaces and altars - and petroglyhs carved in the stone. A large one that has fallen over had the design of an early ship carved on it."

"Pre-Maori stone pataka."

"Turehu coffins. These skeletons have recognisable European physiology. They were already very old when found in rugged country, far from any European churchyard and with stone hewn coffins.
A blowup of the picture positively shows a side view of a jaw (mandible) which is not Maori, but European. Maori predominantly have a "rocker jaw" with a continuous downwards curve on the lower border. Further to that, the eye sockets of these people are squarish, the nose openings pyramidal, the faces long and narrow (dolicephalic skull type) and the craniums very round with a high vault."

"Mysterious humps like this dot the forest floors of New Zealand in their thousands. This collapsed in Beehive house (stone dome igloo) is located at Maungatapere in Northland and is only one hump in a cluster of about 200. Celtic people built homes like this."

The evidence is physical, it's tangible.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by rapunzel222
You misunderstood me. I don't jump to conclusions about the intelligence of people I don't know. I didn't imply anything about your brains. The point about you distrusting science is because it's a theme that runs through your posts like steel railway tracks.

I was jokingly imagining you sitting in a lecture with one eye squinting at the lecturer and thinking, "Oh yeah? That's what YOU say!" Sullen malcontent wasn't really the picture I was trying to paint

I hope you carry on doing well in your studies. Believe it or not, I've probably read most of the stuff you read and had very similar ideas. I do disagree with some of your views, but understand them. If I have a go at these NZ 'pale-skinned''s not's the evidence. Don't take offense and don't scowl...if the wind changes you'll stay like that

Well, for the record, and whatever you may think, i dont happen to distrust science itself at all. Science is truth and the truth always comes out in the end. I do think as it happens that many of our current scientific theories will end up being proven wrong/will become outdated, and i think scientists like tesla have been overlooked by the mainstream. I also think scientists dont understand gravity all that well yet. I have no problem whatsoever with the scientific method.

However, my distrust of the government, and my belief that a lot of archaeologists are overlooking important evidence, does not mean i have any issues wiht science. I dont understand how you draw that conclusion, but i dont really feel like arguing about it anymore.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:13 AM
reply to post by aorAki

i think the academic who falisified the 20 or so studies was an american. Either that or he was english.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Essan
We seem to have gone ff track.

Does anyone have any valid reason why evidence for the presence of humans in New Zealand before the Maoris would be supressed by archaeologists?

Of course, embarassing for the maoris if humans were co-existing with the mega fauna on New Zealand for thousands of years, and only when they arrived did they suddenly became all extinct .... Oops ....

I have one potential reason.

It helps keep the peace with Maori.

I costs nothing to isgnore things, and instead let them "have" this illusion that they were the only ones around. It costs alot to prove they weren't, and causes problems with them.

Causing problems with the Maori is not in the populaces interests, since there are already a multitude of problems with this group to begin with. There is not a nice peaceful coexistence - there are constant concerns about violence with Maori.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Recouper
I've read through the linked pages and had a good look around for supporting sources from credible places. It's interesting stuff and not as cut and dried as I'd guessed.

There's a history of conspiracy theories about this white, red-haired super race that can take credit for all the ancient structures. They get credit for everything from Machu Pichu to the pyramids...some even claim that China was originally dominated by them. A lot of the power behind these claims is actually a relic from the anti-Abolitionists of the 18th & 19th Centuries. A powerful argument was made that whites were the superior race on Earth. The inverse of that argument was that black people were somewhat elevated from the animal. How can animals build the pyramids? As soon as I saw the 'red-haired mummies' thing, it seemed like another indirect claim for white superiority. BS, in other words

The Turehu, who were a people of fair colour and superhuman qualities, were also referred to as Patupaiarehe and locally as 'Urukehu' or the 'light haired ones'. Their occupation of the area is remembered in the traditional name 'Ngaurukehu' which was applied to an ancient settlement near Mangatangi. Hinemairangi, a Turehu ancestress of Ngaitai, was said to have occupied the Hunua area with her people. Her elopement with Tamareia, a Turehu chieftain of Waitakere, caused the first
major outbreak of fighting in the Tamaki area and was linked in tradition with the origin of much of Auckland's volcanic landscape. (Taua in La Roche 1991:41).

There are other references to a mythical fair-skinned creature that was both 'of the sea (fish)' and 'man.'

These creatures are mischievous, mythical, human-like beings, with fair skin and hair who lived deep in the forest, coming out only at night (Biggs, 1988). This theory is supported firstly by the idea that white people, like the paakehakeha, came from the sea, and secondly because the word ‘paakehakeha’ contains a reduplication of the Maori word ‘keha’ meaning ‘pale’ (Biggs, 1988)

The ‘pakepakeha’ are also linked to ‘patupaiarehe’ by their fair skin and hair. The ‘patupaiarehe’ had fair skin and beautiful voices, and gave people the secret of fishing with nets. These creatures possess canoes made of reeds, which can change magically into sailing vessels. The ‘patupaiarehe’ can also be linked to Nahe’s version of Pakeha as an abbreviation of ‘paakehakeha’, gods of the ocean who had the forms of fish and man (Biggs, 1988).
'Pakeha' Meaning.

The 19th Century historical accounts are interesting as they appear to describe fair-skinned, red haired men. At the same time, close reading shows a few problems. One account describes them as fair-skinned as in 'Southern-European' and another account by Rev Richard Taylor does not sound like a 1st hand's a hearsay account...

The Patu-paiarehe were only seen early in the morning, and are represented as being white, and clothed in white garments of the same form and texture of their own; in fact, they may be called the children of the mist. They are supposed to be of large size, and may be regarded as giants, although in some respects they resemble our fairies.
Thor link

Now this is where it all gets interesting. The skeletal remains that are described as non-Maori are just assertions. They aren't supported by any forensic analyses. They aren't put in any location or context. In a sense, we have to take it on trust that they are what we are told. The stones that are portrayed as pre-Maori cairns and walls are also out of context. I looked for comparable walls in New Zealand and found these...

Source 1

Source 2

They look very old, huh? One of them is and one isn't. The top image is a stone fortification built by the Maoris to defend a village. Funnily enough, the other links imply Maoris didn't use stone. How can we say the other images from the CelticNZ site aren't Maori?

The second wall was built (amongst others) by this gentleman...Jim Crosbie in the late 19th Century.

I wondered how a seafaring race with stone-age technology could find themselves on a South Seas island? Sounds unlikely. Looking at the archaeology that CelticNZ presents...I can't see any similarities with North European styles. People leave their crap everywhere we go. We can't help it. A good look at some scientific studies into the earliest signs of humans on NZ doesn't look good for our possibly white people... There is no evidence of human habitation prior to 1000AD give or take 300 years.

How do they look for evidence? Animal populations, bones, environmental impact and fire hearths etc etc.

We conclude the first evidence of Maori environmental impact dates to 1200–1400 AD (750–550 calendar years BP). Finer age resolution is limited by the uncertainty associated with identifying the first signs of human impact and variability of the 14C calibration curve.
Dating initial Maori environmental impact in New Zealand

Summary: In the past 1000 years New Zealand has experienced a major 'extinction event', losing 40-50% of the avifauna, at least 50% of the frog fauna, and unknown proportions of the lizard and invertebrate faunas. During this period, bird species became extinct at different times and rates depending on the particular aspects of their ecology and life history which made them vulnerable to habitat loss, hunting, predation, and competition for food resources. Three groups of species with different levels of vulnerability are recognised within this event: Group I, 1000-1200 AD - species susceptible to initial impact of hunting by Polynesians and dogs, and predation and competition for food after an explosive irruption of kiore (Rattus exulans); Group II, 1200-1780 AD - species more resilient but gradually reduced by Polynesian hunting and continuous clearance and fragmentation of habitat; Group III, 1780-present - species susceptible to hunting with European weapons and predation by Rattus norvegicus, R. rattus, mustelids, cats, and to competition by mammalian herbivores, and destruction of wet forest and wetland habitat.

1300–1390, is the critical “settlement layer” datum for dating prehistory in the North Island: no human artefacts are recorded beneath it and the earliest inferred environmental impacts by humans are dated to c. Image 1280, just prior to its deposition. This maximum date matches the earliest radiocarbon dates derived for both settlement and human impacts from archaeological and natural sites (c. Image 1250), and implies that the onset of deforestation was essentially contemporaneous with initial settlement.
Tephras and New Zealand Archaeology

So we can see that there isn't the evidence to support any significant population on NZ before about 1000AD. There's always maybe though. A mixed crew on a boat that could withstand a Pacific journey of thousands of miles might have somehow drifted that way and they became stranded? They didn't know how to work metal so they would be stone-age people...straw boats. Very unlikely.

Where it becomes more interesting is my earlier suggestion that the red-haired race theory is usually allied to racism and white superiority?


The man who inspired the whole theory of white natives in NZ is a Neo-Nazi and white supremacist. His name's Martin Doutre. He's a member of the NZ equivalent of British National Party (BNP).

Doutre also maintains a friendship with Kerry Bolton, who is perhaps New Zealand’s best-known neo-Nazi. Bolton joined the fascist Nationalist Workers Party in 1977, and has been active in extreme right-wing politics ever since. In 1980 he founded the Church of Odin, a group which blended far right politics with bastardised versions of the pre-Christian Norse and Celtic religions. Jews were forbidden to join the church. More recently Bolton has been involved with the Nationalist Alliance, a coalition of neo-Nazis created to contest this year’s elections. Members of the Nationalist Alliance have convictions for assaulting Somali New Zealanders and firebombing a marae.

No to Nazi Pseudo-history: an Open Letter

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:26 PM
There are red haired mummies in China. There are settlements with these mummies. The mummification came from being buried in sandy salt earth.

They were not some "founding" race. But they are there. They were quite apparently working and living on a trade route.

This isn't some expectation of white superiority. Mere existence in "out of place" indicates that there was more movement and unexplained migration and human diversity than is currently accounted for.

There are some odd ball things about the "white" European races. There is way more diversity than can be accounted for in the amount of time given currently for genetic cleaving. In other words, there is way too many differences and unless one wants to claim that whites have hyper-hyper variable DNA segments, this diversity is currently ignored. You need about an extra 150000 years added on to account for it.

Nor is "white" all European. Again, I can show you pictures of white, blue eyed, blonde Afghanis and Pakistanis. Blonde haired Dalits.

Dismissing what is around by claiming that Europeans claim everything may have some reality to it. But it doesn't make Red Haired remains disappear from where they really are. What it means is that people misinterpret what they are seeing.

The currently mythology sees that all the peoples where isolated and could not have interacted and never visited other places because it was technologically outside of their capacity. And yet, you can blast that claim away by the very fact that homo sapiens in their impressive uncapacity exist everyewhere 50,000 years ago. Apparently, they can be there but ONLY that group could get there.

Oral traditions all are ignored. But if you strip the mysticism from them, they do carry information for thousands of years that was used by people to find hunting grounds not used for millenia, and knowledge that was no relevant for generations at a time. In those accounts from all over, there are lighter skinned peoples regularly. You cannot claim at the same time that what they believed is superior and then also ignore what they all say themselves.

Is it white superiority to think - hey every group that interacted with caucasoids had oral legends about them but WIPED THEM OUT? Really? That's a story of SUPERIORITY? Hey, white people always get wiped out and eaten by everyone else! I'm the BEST!

[edit on 2009/8/9 by Aeons]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Aeons
The red-haired mummies of China have tartan cloth and have been dated to around 1500BC. They probably were part of a trade route that spanned from Siberia through China and away into Norther Europe. That's documented history and was a land route supported by coast-hopping trade boats. There are very fair-skinned green-eyed people in Iran. I've no problems with the facts that multiple populations moved along trade routes for thousands of years. The NZ claims are just not convincing....

I think I've provided good evidence that questions the validity of the idea of white indigenous in NZ. I've provided a variety of sources from independent institutions. More, in fact than the OP links provide. It's a great notion that a white (or any color) race pre-dated everyone and sailed the oceans. In the case of NZ, there's no metal which can only mean a possible white race was pre-Bronze Age. Stone tools, blades, hand axes etc. They didn't have the technology to make oceanic journeys. If they were more advanced than that...they didn't leave any smelting pits.

The point I'm making by attacking the credibility of the source behind the OP links is important. It's not an exercise in 'disproving' or 'debunking' anything. The politics of the far-right white supremacist movement is about keeping their nation white. If Doutre and others can gather momentum, they can claim to be indigenous...natives. From there they can endorse 'repatriation.' It's the policy of the BNP in the UK too.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:25 PM
You don't need metal to make really good boats and ships.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Aeons
You don't need metal to make really good boats and ships.

Fair enough, you're right there. The thing is...people have usually surpassed the stone age before developing into a culture that has an incentive to cross seas.

The essence of the claims are hinged on how much we can rely on the evidence of the OP links. We already know that the author has a lot invested in having his claims accepted. In fact, the obvious and demonstrable conspiracy at play here is Doutre's attempt to place a white indigenous population on NZ before 1000AD.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Kandinsky

The essence of the claims are hinged on how much we can rely on the evidence of the OP links. We already know that the author has a lot invested in having his claims accepted. In fact, the obvious and demonstrable conspiracy at play here is Doutre's attempt to place a white indigenous population on NZ before 1000AD.

I agree, Martin Doutre doesn't come across well. I always feel slightly uncomfortable reading his information; not because I'm not open to the possibility, rather the overarching claim of 'white supremacy' and his feeling mightily aggrieved at the Treaty.
Nice dig on his rascist links

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:15 PM
There is enough evidence to support that various races were here before the classical Maori. Being a warrior race, no other races would be tolerated - they culdn't even tolerate each other most of the time which is why they were still fighting when Europeans arrived and when they found muskets, revived the old differences with a weapons advantage.
A lot of maori tradition and history is not even their own, yet they suppress anything that would take away their 'claim' to be 'Tangata Whenua'. I am Tangata Whenua in the Waitaha understanding yet have no maori blood.

There is evidence in Westland of stone tools that are very old. Relics have been found all around Aotearoa to a depth of 16 feet below the present surface of the earth. One adze and its sharpener were found in Westland in fact, lying on pebble studded clay and covered by a mixture of humus, sand and gravel fourteen feet below the surface. Directly above this grew Totara trees some four feet in diameter that had to be felled first in order that the ground could be excavated. This puts human habitation in this land at quite a few thousand years ago.
There is evidence is Auckland, there is evidence in the Manawatu. I found an old adze, older than any maori habitation in Otago. being 'of the land' enables me to find things others couldn't.

The culture of domination the Maori had toward others they encountered spilled over and onto them and the Europeans at first embraced, then dominated the Maori, and now other cultures have dominated this country and lessened the European influence till in the end, very little identity remains. So it continues until another force dominates that which will is dominating now and so it will be until the wrongs by Maori on others have been righted. Then and only then can the wrongs by Europeans be righted and then things will begin to come right.
I love the Maori, have many friends in high places within their culture, yet find I am disgusted where they claim things as their own that are not. The buried chiefs of the Kaherekoau Mountains were ALL Waitaha but have been claimed by Kai Tahu, as indeed all ancient objects and sites in Te Wai Pounamu are.
Lets see where this all goes.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by daggyz]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by Kandinsky

Wow, fantastic post. Thanks for all the info. So much to read, I think I've gone cross eyed... I've been doing a lot of reading, re-reading, comparing and head scratching.
Ok, so the motivations behind the presentation of the evidence are racist based, dressed up as anti-racist.
The evidence is therefore dismissible as likely falsified. It's disappointing, when lies are presented as facts.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:27 PM

i have never even heard of giant skeletons before and im shocked by some pictures i have seen on google since this thread grabbed my attention.

absolutely fascinating.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by daggyz
I found an old adze, older than any maori habitation in Otago. being 'of the land' enables me to find things others couldn't.

Thanks for your reply daggyz

Could you explain this a bit further please?
A) how do you know it is as old as you contest?
B) as Tangata Whenua (in the Waitaha sense) could you explain this a bit further too?

.....could this be similar to that girl finding a greenstone hand axe in an area where people have frequented and mapped for decades?

c) Personally I feel that the Kai Tahu are quite revisionist in their accounts/claims etc....the spoils to the victor

[edit on 9-8-2009 by aorAki]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:21 PM
Do you live in New Zealand?

There is one major reason why Maori don't want the truth to come out- MONEY!!!!!!!
If it were proved with evidence which there is a great deal, that Maori were not the first people to colonise New Zealand, all their land claims which cost our country hundreds of millions of dollars would go straight out the window.

Maori have HUGE power over the Department of Conservation, local Iwi cry cultural sensetivity when someone is on on the verge of uncovering the truth.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by zealman
Do you live in New Zealand?


Christchurch/Otautahi at the moment, and I'm Tangata Whenua in the Pakeha sense as this is my home, where I was born and where my essence resides.

Kia ora Koutou.
No Otepoti au.
No Aoraki te Maunga.
etc. (Sorry, still not too good at it after these nigh on forty years :/)

The Treaty was signed between the Crown and Maori and it is a binding document between the Crown and Maori, regardless of the prehistory or what we personally think of its worth.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by aorAki

Tena Koe e te Tuakana.

Kia Koutou Katoa e oku Rangatira, e nga uri mokopuna o nga tupuna - ka nui te mihi.

Greeting to all and all that...

As per usual when the topic of anything related to Maori comes up, out comes the stereotypes.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that Maori don't claim to have been the sole inhabitants of Aotearoa pre-Colonisation...I'm pretty sure our migrational histories, our purakau/stories relating to the migration...indeed one of our earliest tauparapara/chants:
"No Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pamamao" indicates and reaffirms that very statement that our people didn't originate from Aotearoa - rather we migrated here.

Why would I, first and foremost start my pepeha with something like:

Ko Takitimu, Ko Mataatua, Ko Te Arawa nga Waka...

In reference to the three Waka that my Iwi (Ngati Ranginui, Ngaiterangi, Te Arawa) whakapapa back to...why even mention Waka if we didn't voyage to Aotearoa at all...nope, don't think my Iwi just sailed around all day in various Bays fishing...

Oh I'm sure, actually I know, for some Maori - and I mean SOME - its about the money...its about the landclaim, its about the power being held within their Runanga...know that only too well.
But lets not extrapolate that across ALL Maori and say its a Maori-thing...coz its not.

You get greedy buggers in all walks of life, in all cultures...but lets just hold off on the paint-brushing. As often its the vocal minority of any culture that colours us all.

Anyway - on to the there a cover-up??
Honestly - I think there is. Who and why? Who knows. But for me personally I believe that cover-up can indeed be about power and not wishing to lose power.
Coverup could also be about maintaining safety and not wishing to place others in unsafe places.

Some may say that the concept of Tapu, of Noa, of instituting such things as Rahui is about cover-up...yet in many ways its also about maintaining safe boundaries and not wishing to place people in harms it'd bode well to also be mindful that any *coverup* isn't necessarily about keeping power- but about keeping safe...

hoei ano...tino hohonu enei korero, enei ata haere tatou...

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in