Restricted until 2063

The Maori settled in New Zealand in around 1300 AD. According to their oral history, a race of fair-skinned people lived there before them. Some were believed to originally come from Portugal and/or Spain. Some from northern Europe. Some from India and South-East Asia. As for what happened to them, well, the Maori were a fearsome warrior race, and they simply conquered them, or perhaps interbred with them. These people were known as Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. My main point here is that this is a part of their oral history. It is not simply a theory tossed up by god knows who to draw attention.

These pre-Maori people were not giants. Suggesting that they were some kind of superhuman race does nothing but harshly detract from the credulity of this issue. They were human.

It makes little apparent sense for the NZ government to suppress investigation into pre-Maori settlers. Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. Yet, they have tribal land claims and so on forth and so on. Public acknowledgement of a pre-Maori settlement could cast such tribal privileges into doubt and cause turmoil in society, but I doubt it. Like I said, the Maori themselves don't think they were the first to settle in NZ. I am at a loss as to why the NZ government would so strongly insist otherwise. By doing this, we are losing important pieces of humanity's history.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
One possible reason is to prevent the location of a vulnerable archaeological site from becoming publicly known and thus subject to looting.

Hey, don't let common sense and logic get in the way of a typical wild theory with no substance or facts to even arrive at the conclusion some people have. lol.

a reply to: aorAki

I'm totally going on what i assumed was fairly general knowledge.... I happily admitted i know little about NZ but thought it was accepted that the Maori drove out/killed/ate the previous inhabitants?

a reply to: pteridine

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Just what are they hiding, if anything? A pre Maori culture?

My guess is a pre Maori culture. Pretty much would rock the boat as to future "benefits" the Maoris would receive from the State.

yep,pretty much smashed that nail on its head.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: aorAki

yeah the treaty aint worth the paper it was written on.

Wrong. It's a legally-binding document.

originally posted by: hiddenNZLand was sold,now its being given back,

Large amounts of land were illegally-obtained by subterfuge, by unscrupulous vendors circumventing the joint ownership model, forcibly removed etc in violation of the Treaty.

originally posted by: hiddenNZsome sites (koru pa) in taranaki have been proven to be made before maori supposedly got here,and needed around 5000 people to build it (not that any maori were here back then)

There is no evidence that Koru pa is pre-Maori, nor that a large population existed prior to successive Maori settlements. The physical evidence does not indicate your spurious claims, nor does the pollen record. If it is proven, it must be easy for you to provide peer-reviewed evidence of this.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ.....the Nga puhi chief has said for the record that maori were not the first here,the tribe of wai taha know they wernt the first here......

Graham Rankin says a lot of things which are designed to stir up the people . It doesn't mean they are true. He isn't a Chief, either, he's an elder....

originally posted by: hiddenNZrat bones found under the taupo eruption hundreds of years before maori got here,

Source please. I find it interesting that Holdaway has been quiet on this since his carbon dates and procedures were found to be less than robust.

originally posted by: hiddenNZcats eye shells found many kilometers inland dated to 500yrs before maori got here

Source please.

originally posted by: hiddenNZId like to know who was here first. I myself think it was egyptians......for example,Ra in maori and egyption means the same thing,among a few other things.

Ahah, like Bel and the funny hat, or the pose of the tiki, or 'Maui' the explorer, huh?

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: aorAki

I'm totally going on what i assumed was fairly general knowledge.... I happily admitted i know little about NZ but thought it was accepted that the Maori drove out/killed/ate the previous inhabitants?

I didn't mean to come across as acerbic and apologies to you if i did, as I like your posts, generally. However, I must state that it is not accepted that the Maori drove out/killed/ate the previous inhabitants. A lot of that occurred between Hapu, Iwi, Tribes etc. Perhaps some confusion over this exists due to successive phases of colonisation, from different islands?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Just what are they hiding, if anything? A pre Maori culture?

My guess is a pre Maori culture. Pretty much would rock the boat as to future "benefits" the Maoris would receive from the State.

I don't understand why people keep saying this as if it's fact, when all it really is is wishful thinking from the ignorant who refuse to acknowledge that there are valid grievances due to the fact that the Treaty signed between Maori and The Crown was not, in the most part, honoured, and due to this Maori suffered long and hard financially, emotionally, culturally and still do.

Any supposed 'pre-Maori culture' would not rock the boat regarding future 'benefits' as the Treaty was between Maori and The Crown. All you have is wishful redneck thinking.

Finally, there is no credible evidence of a pre-Maori culture in New Zealand. There are plenty of crackpot 'soft-racist' theories, however.


I sort of wish there was evidence, however, as it would make my career. Distrust of Academics in this matter is misplaced, in my opinion, and from personal discussions with them.

What scares the Maori more then anything would be if DNA analysis and carbon dating was preformed on their red haired "ancestors" lol

koru pa has been there longer than the date maori say they landed here,go up there and read the plaque dude,it says it was made in 900ad or somewhere round that date. Was that a history hiccup or a truth.Do you really think NZ was one of the last settled countries on the face of the earth?If so,it would have to be the only one no?How did maori find greenstone,and learn to work it,when they used wood primarily for weapons? Greenstone is one of the hardest rocks around.What about the canoe found in pouto point up north,why was that taken and hidden away,the tamil bell in wellington that was found,the red haired mummies in raglan found with tartan woven fabric (the site was bulldozed),the catseye was found in waipoa forest by a archeologist and he said it was dated at 500yrs before maori arrived.Also the waitaha have traced their MTdna to iran and such....and they were here before the maori they say....green eyes,red hair. Saying that Rankin is just stirring doesnt sit well as an answer really,what would be his motive?
what about the tamaeana and hineana burial caves at port waikato,the local tribe says it was home to the "tall ones" that were trapped in a swamp and all killed off,they made pottery (which i dont think maori did) and were over 6ft tall and again with red hair (Elocal magazine ed 105)

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
koru pa has been there longer than the date maori say they landed here,go up there and read the plaque dude,it says it was made in 900ad or somewhere round that date. Was that a history hiccup or a truth.

What year was the plaque erected? There have been a number of revisions of the arrival date of the Maori, and sometimes it takes a while for information to filter through...even this DOC site has what I consider to be a generous date

Koru Pa

originally posted by: hiddenNZDo you really think NZ was one of the last settled countries on the face of the earth?If so,it would have to be the only one no?

I do consider that to be true as the evidence supports this. I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of your quote...

originally posted by: hiddenNZHow did maori find greenstone,and learn to work it,when they used wood primarily for weapons? Greenstone is one of the hardest rocks around.

I dunno, maybe they had some brains.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
What about the canoe found in pouto point up north,why was that taken and hidden away,

Source please.

originally posted by: hiddenNZthe tamil bell in wellington that was found

Does this mean it predates Maori occupation? No. Nor does the Spanish Helmet in Wellington Harbour....

originally posted by: hiddenNZ,the red haired mummies in raglan found with tartan woven fabric (the site was bulldozed),the catseye was found in waipoa forest by a archeologist and he said it was dated at 500yrs before maori arrived.

So many claims, so little sources.

originally posted by: hiddenNZAlso the waitaha have traced their MTdna to iran and such....

Source please.

The waitaha heritage people i have spoken to do not claim this as so.

originally posted by: hiddenNZSaying that Rankin is just stirring doesnt sit well as an answer really,what would be his motive?

He is power hungry and doesn't like being sidelined by his Iwi....

originally posted by: hiddenNZwhat about the tamaeana and hineana burial caves at port waikato,the local tribe says it was home to the "tall ones" that were trapped in a swamp and all killed off,they made pottery (which i dont think maori did) and were over 6ft tall and again with red hair (Elocal magazine ed 105)

Elocal magazine is not a credible source, nor is hearsay.

So far, you bring nothing new to the table and are repeating the same tired claims with no substance to back them up.

I repeat: I'd love for there to be evidence of a pre-Maori culture and be involved in its discovery, for it would help make a bright career, and so I keep investigating, looking into claims and reading the same old tired, unfounded stories which always lead to dead ends and dodgy right wing websites full of vitriol against the Maori.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Virtually voiding ALL treaty claims if not the treaty itself?

No, the Treaty wouldn't be voided as it was signed between the Tangata Whenua and The Crown. The signatories exist still today.

This argument is brought out a lot by people who are actually quite ignorant of the articles of Te Tiriti as well as not understanding the nature of the Treaty.

Okay, I admit it! I don't understand. Wha?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Can anyone here remember the book that was written on the cannibalism of the Maori people and the resulting POO STORM that it created? How much of a CLUSTER FRACK do you think it will be if people start releasing hard evidence that the Maori were not the first people here? Virtually voiding ALL treaty claims if not the treaty itself?

Not wonder these sites are being suppressed!

Even some Maori say their were people in New Zealand when they arrived, the Wairoa people said the Polynesians killed eat them or assimilated them, they should know as they were, the ones killed eaten and assimilated. A mate of mine came back from a diving weekend and said he came across a stone wall at about thirty feet down, off the coast. That would date it when sea levels were a lot lower.

New Zealand is based on a partnership between the Europeans , and the Maori being the original owners of the land, anything that upsets this arrangement, is ignored. A carbon date on a rat, came up well before the arrival of the Polynesians, but at present is ignored. A massive cache of human bones found in Auckland, was ground up for fertilizer, the Maoris said they were nothing to do with them.

In the top of the north Island if you ask the tribal elders they will show you, some stone artefacts, that show a map of NZ carved in stone. They freely admit they didn't carve it. It was pulled out of the harbour.

originally posted by: anonentity
A carbon date on a rat, came up well before the arrival of the Polynesians, but at present is ignored.

That has since been proven incorrect and even Holdaway isn't disputing this. But that's o.k, don't let facts, or supporting evidence get in the way of a good story....

Aoraki,im on dial up so dont have endless hours to link info,and you would most likely noy read it anyway,seeing you think elocal is not credible.....which i find strange as alot of people do.
They have alot of back issues and readers blogs on their site,if you care to look.
NZ has been inhabited by many different peoples over the years.......we would have to be a little silly to think it was only discovered and settled a few hundred years ago,when nearly every other country has had people living there for many thousands of years.
Im not redneck or racist,but I think there is something being hidden,for reasons already mentioned in this thread.
heres a good read if you can be bothered
www.elocal.co.nz...

heres a few more links for readers.
www.elocal.co.nz...

www.elocal.co.nz...!.html

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: anonentity
A carbon date on a rat, came up well before the arrival of the Polynesians, but at present is ignored.

That has since been proven incorrect and even Holdaway isn't disputing this. But that's o.k, don't let facts, or supporting evidence get in the way of a good story....

Fair enough , but you have to admit that the Polynesians were probably the greatest navigators in the ancient world . That being the case, they would have picked up a lot of useful knowledge, and used it , from all the cultures they had contact with . This would have left linguistic, cultural ,and gene markers, in the culture. Its becoming apparent that the Oceans were highways to the navigators of the ancient world, and not barriers. We need as much knowledge of ancient times as possible, without embargoes, if not, this only leads to wild suppositions.

My son in law is a cartographer (mapmaker) and spends a good deal of time in New Zealand. My son in law works for Chevron and is involved with Carbon Credits being off set by the amount of Forest. His father was the Presidential adviser for several Presidents and Nasa. I have always felt there is more going on in his research than I was allowed to know. So, now I wonder if these Archaeology locations are off limits because of these "Carbon Credits", and how much forest is really available to trade Chevron for their Carbon Footprint.

It probably isnt connected to the reason, but thought I would throw it out there anyway. I dont trust anyone involved with Government. I can pm anyone with the names if they want to check it out.

as to the celtss being there
quite possible:
see my siggy thread
the discovery of the working celtic cross as navigational instrument is explained quite well there
there is also posts on that thread dealing with windover in florida where red haired white bog people were found dating to 7000 years ago
that was the last barrier to the red haired giant myths told by the new world natives
it was always said there were no red haired white giants in the new world because there were no red haired white people in the new world



the windover bog people dna evidence etc
not NZ, but it certainly shows the possibility, as opposed to ALL the nay sayers that were subsequently PROVEN wrong with this find

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

, the paper came from a that block belongs to the Department of Conservation - reads like a threat to me. Just what is there to steal at the dig? A rock?

-MM

Wow looks so official too, must be true.

Well... Let's look at this realistically.

We never actually "see" the ring get destroyed when Frodo drops it into the Volcano right? Now that was New Zealand long long ago so eventually the Volcano had to erupt and the Magma cooled and Tens of thousands of years later there it is "one ring to rule them all"

I think it's responsible to keep such finds under wraps, Putin? Kim Jong Un? The last thing we need is NZ falling under the spell of Sauron...

There are no hobbits to save us this time, 63 years is NOT long enough, they should make a deal with Japan and drop it in Fukushima rubble if you ask me