- MD
141: Whaorei Bay Excavation
We found an article on an excavation of a site on the Coromandel Peninsula. Something stood out which is unexplained in the article. It is the picture of this skeleton and in particular the skull and jaw which is very clearly seen and reproduced in a drawing - and all in an official archaeological report.
This was noted among various Maori burials in the area. (see figure 17 below)., and also from the same report. Now, firstly some will say that these reports are not public. They certainly should be as academic archaeologist John R Cole from Australia suggests. He is one who is very critical of pseudo archaeology, and not without reason, yet he suggest the blame lies with archaeologist not being very open about what they find, publish or display. Anyway, below we clearly have a Polynesian-Maori skeleton as seen by the head shape and the jaw line.
You can tell by the rocker jaw they are Maori. Yet, burial 11 is different. Here is the story is the article. – “A remarkable burial (here designated Burial 11) was found in square 5A (Fig. 14). There was no grave pit and the body appeared to have been placed on the natural ground surface and covered with heaped layer 5 material. The burial found further inland on the lowest terrace of Area D (here designated Burial 11) was quite different. This person was lying on their right side. Both lower legs were bent upwards towards the pelvis, and the hand and foot bones were scattered. Both arms were folded, so that the hands could have been on the breast. There were no grave goods, unless a ‘fish bone’ (with no modification) shown at the neck in the drawing was a snapper tilly bone worn as an ornament (one such perforated ornament was found in layer 2 of Sarah’s Midden)”.
Burials 11 and 12 could be of any age, and may be representative of a different group of people or of a different period of time.
This skull is not Polynesian and the article is deliberately vague about it. There were no ‘Maori’ ornaments attached to this body yet it is dated as around the time of the others around it and buried differently to the rest. There is no note that it is either Polynesian or European. The answer to that has been completely ignored, yet they were ok with publishing a photo of the skull? It's very telling to those that question the fact Polynesians were not the first and that other races reached here before they arrived and Europeans also, up to 200 years before Cook arrived. Could it have been a shipwreck survivor, someone from a ship we never knew reached here because it never returned home?
Think about that one... The only reason we know that Captain Cook made it to NZ in 1769 was because he arrived home safely to tell his tale!
You be the judge, the evidence is in front of you on this one.
