Re: Maori Origins

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:33:24 +1300, benlizross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>JRP wrote:
>> 
>> Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > The history of Maori settlement is conventionally accepted but is
>> > challenged, particularly in the South Island where there is an active
>> > group of people who claim to have predated the Maori.
>
>Assuming you're talking about Brailsford's "Waitaha", I would describe
>this group as a New Age cult whose claims have no archaeological
>support.

You may well be right. I haven't studied them. However, I do know they
exist and claim to predate the Maori.

> There are also
>> > indications in the North Island that the conventional view is overly
>> > simplistic and that the Maori were predated by unknown inhabitants.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by the "conventional view". The Percy Smith
>schoolroom version has not been taken seriously by archaeologists for at
>least 40 years. Still it's an interesting coincidence that the earliest
>good radiocarbon dates for human artefacts are currently about 700 BP,
>i.e. just about when the "Great Fleet" is supposed to have arrived.
>Conventional archaeology could be described as simplistic only insofar
>as it finds no evidence for any early settlers other than east
>Polynesians, who once they got here became "Maori".

By 'conventional view', I did not mean the Percy Smith view but more
the view that is presented to the Waitangi Tribunal. Quite apart from
the adze and tree stump reputedly found in the 19th century under the
ash from the first Albert Park eruption (reputedly some 26,000 years
ago), I do give some credence to the stories of Noel Hilliam of
strange structures in the Waipoua forest, a cave containing thousands
of jawless skulls which the local Maori say they cannot explain and
which cave they have more recently buried with a hydraulic digger. In
fact the attitude of the local Maori to people who try to enquire
about these matters suggests there is something to hide.
>
>> > Whether or not these people were merely earlier waves of polynesians
>> > is a matter for debate. So too is whether or not they are even real.
>
>OK, that's reasonable, if a bit cryptic. Bones of Rattus exulans,
>apparently datable at 2000 BP, strongly imply a human presence in NZ by
>that date. However, we have so far found no direct remains of these
>people, so we don't know whether they were Polynesians or somebody else,
>or whether any of their descendants are still around. 

Which makes it difficult to totally rely on your earlier statement
that the Waitaha "have no archaeological support". There is no
archaelogical support for man having arrived in New Zealand 2000 years
ago yet the rat's bones say they did.
>
>> 
>> Thank you for the reply. Is the origin of early srttlers and maoris
>> known ? I have read conflicting proposals, some saying that these people
>> came from South-east Asia and New Guinea, others from the Pacific
>> North-East....Has some DNA work been done ? This problem looks difficult
>> and controversial answers have been given.
>
>There has been quite a bit of DNA work, for which I refer you to the
>archives of sci.arch, or to other posters who keep up with this stuff.
>The apparently contradictory statements about Maori origins are largely
>the result of not distinguishing different stages in the long history of
>Austronesian migrations into the Pacific. If we were to trace the
>ancestors back, we would probably find that 1000 yrs ago most of the
>ancestors of the Maori were living in east Polynesia (Tahiti, Cook Is.);
>1000 years before that, in west Polynesia (Samoa); 2000 years before
>that, somewhere in western Melanesia (New Guinea area); and still
>further back, some of would be in New Guinea, some in the Asian islands
>(Philippines, Taiwan), and if you go back far enough some on the Chinese
>mainland; and a long time before that in Africa. What is the single
>correct answer to the question: "Where did the Maori come from?" ;-)




Eric Stevens