top of page
IJ

75: Evidence of pre-occupation?

We have stated our belief many times of a people existing in this land long before the mass Polynesian immigrations began. We don't know who they were exactly, what they called themselves or where they came from (because they could also be from the Pacific - only from a much earlier time).

However, all that is found and labelled as 'archaic', is regarded as Maori's earliest occupation. But consider the sudden change in lifestyle, carving and housing, to name a few. You don't travel across the sea and be able to carve and build yet do it markedly differently to what you did before (without good reason). They didn't change in fact. Take the case of the earliest Polynesians at the Wairau bar. They were not living very well, many had evidence of a hard life and many deficiencies in diet and revealing a hard existence as shown in their bones. That is most significant. But where did they learn, or what made them change their styles from that they were used to in Raiatea and the other islands they were ejected from? We say ejected only because it our belief local warfare in the islands made many flee. See this link (http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/03/08/SideStep-Hawaiki-Mecca-of-the-Pacific)

We suggest it was their dependence on the local population already here who adopted them and helped them. Therefore they adopted their ways, carving styles and materials etc until the Polynesian immigrants descendants were strong enough to dominate. Then the decline if the 'first ones' began, either by attrition or what we know is more likely.

What evidence do we have? Nothing evidential, we can show you other than strange artifacts that do not match anything Polynesian in any way and some that have a similar influence but do not match what we understand as Maori design. Lips on carvings is one obvious factor but there are also the notches on many archaic artifacts. Notches were not found on many Pacific artifacts.Then there are incredible examples of something that simply cannot be Maori in origin. Here are some examples...

And then there is this, also buried 6' deep in near a huge drainage ditch dug before Maori arrived.

The above pictures you will be familiar with. But what is most interesting is where they were found and what exists (still) in the vicinity and in fact exists where all unusual artifacts are found. Like this...

In the second photo it exists on the edge of extensively farmed land which was once dug over by gum diggers so little remains - unlike in Taranaki and Waikato. (Click to enlarge photos). These are all unusual earthworks that are man-made but not European and not classical Maori either. Keep in mind that 'archaic' Maori would not do this without seeing it already done...and it wasn't done in their original homeland!

Once again many may say that the above is not proof. Not absolute - no! But every unusual artifact (that is not obviously Maori) was found in or near such flatland earthworks where no obvious 'Maori' artifacts were found. Not absolute proof, but fairly conclusive of something other than what the Polynesian migration peoples would do, don't you think? Still, until we can produce actual skeletons of a tall people that some Maori say were already here when they arrived, few will accept the above as conclusive, and we agree with that. But you have to admit, it's very co-incidental!

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page