Re: Maori Origins

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:23:00 +1300, benlizross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
>"Waitaha" as a South Island tribal group undoubtedly does exist.
>However, traditions do not say they predate "the Maori", but that they
>were in some area before Ngai Tahu, or whoever. A tribal group among
>many, and no reason to separate them from "the Maori". The Brailsford
>stuff has been elaborated in the last decade or so on the basis of
>supposed "secret teachings" only now revealed, and is as wild and woolly
>as you could wish. 

I give no weight to ;stone-wall' Brailsford's version of their story.
The question is not just whether they predated the Ngai Tahu but by
how much and what is their history.
>
>> > 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),
>
>Have you got a reference for this?

Not a very good one on the web. See
http://www.howlingatthemoon.com/pdf's/marsec3.pdf
http://www.pyramids.co.nz/stump2.htm
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah yes, we have been over these before. IIRC it led us to that
>extraordinary paranoid-Celtocentric web site. I don't think we'll go
>there this time.

Once again, I don't give any credence to the nutters who pick these
things up but Noel Hilliam is a resonably sensible and pragmatic
amatuer who has done much good work. If he says he saw smoke then
there may well have been a fire.
>
>> >> > 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.
>
>If you read the full elaboration of Brailsford's "Waitaha" I think you
>will agree that a few rat bones are not going to support it all. 

That's fine Ross, but I said nothing about this and regard
Brailsford's best ideas as being inspired by whatever he smoked. These
ideas do not need Brailsford. In fact, he serves as a convenient
reason for ignoring them.

>The
>Brailsford picture is essentially an updated version of the old
>"Moriori" story, of a first population who were invaded and
>conquered/wiped out/driven out by a different people (the Maori).
>Archaeology does not support either. As for the Rat People, I think the
>most likely scenario is that they died out and the country was
>uninhabited again for some centuries. 
>
>Ross Clark
>
>> >>
>> >> 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?" ;-)

If you want some more suggestions as to possible early inhabitants of
New Zealand see also the, again, more than slightly lunatic fringe
http://www.kilts.co.nz/mitancient_2.htm

 " Graves under the road north of Greymouth. During realignment of the
    main coast road several miles north of Greymouth six unusual
    graves were uncovered. The bodies were extremely old, being in a
    crumbling state, however they were very tall, with remnants of
    reddish hair (obviously very stained but unlike any black
    polynesian hair colouring), were buried in coffin shaped graves
    facing out to sea with their arms crossed over their chests."

Makes me think of the mystery burials found on the north head of the
Kaipara in the 1890s.

  "Tunnel under the Grey River. Who built the tunnel under the Grey
    river? Maori knew of the tunnel and used it but did not construct
    it. It was there before hand. Who dug it through the rock? To-day
    it is partially flooded and blocked by the the rail bridge
    butresses."

Is this real? - I've often wondered.



Eric Stevens