99: Tangata Whenua (Part 1)

The term is regarded as meaning ‘people of the land’ (original inhabitants) according to Maori. These words also mean:

Tangata: Human, man, slave. (Interestingly it includes the term slave. The word Tumau also means ‘slave’, but it’s real meaning is ‘to cook’ which states the intention of the purpose of slaves)

Whenua: Country, ground, land, soil.

The term could as easily mean ‘land slaves’, and this word meaning those here first who were seen as good for nothing and hunted, enslaved and killed over time. I can hear certain Maori howl at that until I point out that most tribes were doing that to other tribes even after the European arrived and up to 70 years afterward - so be silent lest you embarrass yourself by denying your past. No one should hold you guilty, by European standards, for eating another human being which most consider abhorrent. We simply agree that it was an accepted practice at the time, and is now it is not.

If one cannot acknowledge the past as fact, yet condemn Europeans for doing what Europeans considered accepted practice at the time…well that is the reason there is still racial tension. Cannibalism was practiced by Maori for many hundreds of years, increasingly so in the last 150 years (as a result of boom in population and territory disputes) and all this long before Europeans arrived.

But we cannot prove the ‘land slave’ interpretation about what Tangata Whenua means – nor do we want to. We would prefer the term to mean 'people of the land' – original inhabitants. Why do we want that? So that when we prove the existence of an ancient race through physical and scientific means (including DNA and Carbon Dating) and maybe even artifacts…then the term as agreed in meaning by Maori will now mean they were not first. They will then lose the title which never belonged to them in spirit (and now only applies because of recent legislation for treaty purposes).

This site is not anti-Maori as some have suggested. We might disagree with a lot of things we see and question much, but that is healthy opinion. We are not 'against' something - but 'for' something. We are for those whose voice has never been heard - yet. Wrongs must be righted in the same way Maori say wrongs against them must be righted. It must go, and will go, both ways. But not all will like it.

So late next year, the project should be completed. We will gain entry and at last see what some many years ago (who are all now dead it seems) so quickly covered up and buried the existence of…even in official reports. But there are only possibly two alive who have seen what we seek to reveal. They, if they are still alive (and their age at discovery means only premature death would take them) may come forward and tell us all what they had to sign, and what they were threatened with legally if they spoke out, and what tapu they were controlled with.

Once we reveal the contents of that cave, these two - if still alive, will be free to speak because they will have fulfilled their promises.

Either there were people here before the Polynesian migrations, or there weren’t. Either the old Maori who talked about it were wrong, or they aren’t. The strange artifacts that are not Maori or even Polynesian in design (think about that one!) are either evidence of a pre-Polynesian/Melanesian race, or they aren’t – (and on that why are the Melanesian's never mentioned much in the official records, after all, they got here before the Polynesians! Ask yourself why the Melanesian link is deliberately overshadowed)

Either… the truth is there and some want it hidden, or these stories, artifacts and evidence are all made up. There is no middle ground. It's totally black or white.

It is undeniable that there were people here before the Polynesian migrations. They left behind multiple clues as outlined in previous articles on our webpage and in a chapter in the book being written. They also left behind their bones – and these will tell the most tragic tale of all. Far from pure and peaceful, the land now known as New Zealand was an unimaginable hell, awash in the blood of both the original peoples and Maori. Formal burials tell us about the First Peoples, but the bones of the ancient peoples can also be found under layers of charcoal, in the old cooking pits dating back to the late 1300's.

There are too many (unproven) stories of discoveries of a pre-Maori race to discount. But what is evidence (in archaeological files but hidden away) are records of old human bones at the bottom of these early middens, proof that a previous people were hunted and eaten. Maori were not at a stage of warfare among themselves to eat their own kind at the early stages of their colonization. And where did they learn cannibalism? Maybe the evidence suggests that it was the Tangata Whenua already here when the Polynesians came that already practiced it? But why would Maori adopt it later if they found it abhorrent and killed the Tangata Whenua. The truth is that cannibalism was practiced all over the Pacific. Those that arrived here from Polynesia were actually fleeing war and persecution. Our belief (unproven) is that they belonged to along forgotten cult and were eventually driven out of the islands around Raiatea - (http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/03/08/SideStep-Hawaiki-Mecca-of-the-Pacific)

Yet Maori have always spoken of a race of fair skinned people who preceded them. They called them “Patu-paiarehe” and there were also the "Turehu", and some still trace a shared lineage to these. In 1867, a Ngati Whatua Tohunga (historian), stated that the Ngati Whatua came to New Zealand from the Cook Islands nine generations earlier, making landfall at a place called Hatarau (Little Barrier Island). Arriving there they encountered a race of fair haired people with fair skin and green blue eyes, whom they named PAKEHA. They took the women to breed from - the males as slaves and food. Note that name. Yet the name is supposed to mean white spirits of the sea. Well, if the original inhabitants were seen as mysterious and lived on the coast and fished exclusively, that would fit.

There are Maori who speak of babies stolen long ago by a “fairy people” who hid in the bush, only coming out at night, (an understandable action of people who were being killed and eaten faster than they could breed). It is also highly possible that children taken were born to their own women captured by Maori. In savage pre-European New Zealand, captives were eaten immediately, kept for breeding or enslaved and subsequently killed for food – an unpalatable history to inherit, but a proven fact, nonetheless.

It is said that one of the last surviving sub-tribes of the Patu-paiarehe was called the Ngati Hotu, pockets of whom survived into colonial times. Here's a description of them from Maori oral history: “Generally speaking, Ngati Hotu were of medium height and of light colouring. In the majority of cases they had reddish hair. They were referred to as Urukehu. It is said that during the early stages of their occupation of Taupo they did not practice tattooing as later generations did, and were spoken of as te whanau a Rangi (the children of heaven) because of their fair skin. There were two distinct types. One had reddish skin, a round face, small eyes and thick protruding eyebrows. The other was the Turehu. They had white hair and blue green eyes. They were fair-skinned, much smaller in stature, with larger and very handsome features.” Note: The cavern dwellings and stone walls of these people can still be seen at Taupo, but are unprotected and under threat from development.

North Island traditions and songs allude to “the people of the land” (tangata whenua), a race sometimes spoken of as Toi, or Kohikohi, or Upoko-toea.

In the early 20th century, the Moriori people were thought to be of Melanesian rather than Polynesian origin, but they are now regarded as descended from early Maori of the Archaic or Moa-hunter period.

Just for the record: Janet Wilmshurst and Maui Solomon received $850,000 from the Marsden Fund in 2011 for a 3 year study on Moriori DNA - I have yet to see any results - has anyone else? If there are results some 5 years later, where are they? That’s $283333 per year for the study. Where are the results?

Some would say, “If people were here before Maori, where is the evidence”. That may be a fair question, but I ask - have you not been following this blog? There are about 30 examples of non-Maori design and at least 10 being the most unusual artifacts you'll ever see. One is one of only two other examples in the whole world - and they were found in Britain! http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/03/27/39-The-Okehu-Artifact. That aside, we know that the earliest arrivals (the Tangata Whenua) were subsistence dwellers, not building anything more substantial than stick huts and living in caves - except in Northland. But that was 800-1500 years ago.

Nothing remains of their dwellings in the same way nothing remains of where Maru, (a Maori) who lived in Dusky Sound only 220 years ago where Captain Cook found him. Little remains of the Europeans settlement in the same location and only because rock walls were built at the time. Nothing remains of transient sealing locations from the 1790’s either. Why? Because of too small an occupation area and time and no permanent structures. But in the case of an ancient tribe here before Maori, there are many examples of their work and the petroglyphs at Raglan and elsewhere are just some examples proven by - if they were Maori they would be demanding exclusive right and protection for them like they do with anything else where modern man encroaches on their descendants tapu areas. But they aren't Maori, hence the total lack of interest.

Mark my words, if we find and expose some things in the near future - certain Maori will demand exclusive right to it. And although DNA and carbon dating would disprove a claim, we know what they will still try to make such a claim. That is why we state all this early and in full public view so there stated cultural history both oral, written and that entrenched in law will conflict with the 'new' history.

But that will be a bit too convenient and extraordinarily hypocritical considering they covered all evidence of what was found in our cave - don’t you think?