158: Is there any evidence for pre-Polynesian inhabitants?
I was researching what the old name for Dunedin was. It turns out it is Ōtepoti. Otepoti is said to mean ‘a corner of the harbour’ - due to it being a landing place for canoes. However, this name, like many others, is shrouded in historical mystery because no translation gives it's exact meaning, just the location. 'Ōte' has no meaning in old speech and the name 'poti' is a name given by Maori to English boats, it appears not to be an old Maori meaning for canoe because we know that to be 'waka'. We do know that not only was the Te Reo different in the south before invaders from the north arrived (Kati Mamoe & Kai Tahu) and that some words existed that northern Maori had no translation for. In time all language followed the stronger northern versions as they were stronger and more numerous. But why was the language different? After all, they all came from the same place called (Hawaiki) didn't they? Actually no, but we have covered that previously.
Are names different or meanings vague (like Matira) because they don’t belong to Polynesian naming systems? Maybe. Maybe other Maori dictionaries have no meaning shown as they have none for a name given by a pre-Polynesian people? One has to ask the question at least! Even the oldest Maori dictionary I can find does not have anything other than the place of 'Dunedin', and even then no actual meaning, and the variants make no sense either. Is that is because Ōtepoti was a name given by those already there before the Polynesians arrived? A possible clue to our claim is that the name does appear in Melanesia, and it also has a meaning - more on that later. Many languages are now extinct in Melanesia so it will be hard to prove.
Ōte is not a word that appears in common use in the Maori language. Modern versions say it mean 'yes'. But even the modern usage is actually 'Ae'. However, Ōte is a word that does appear in a few old Melanesian dialects from one area of New Caledonia, and that word has a similar meaning to the Polynesian word Utu. After all, Polynesian language is a newer form of various Melanesian languages. Poti also mean fly (as in to flee) in some Melanesian dialects. Now it gets interesting.
Ōtepoti is a harbour-side area in Dunedin said to be 'uninhabited' until the late 1600’s. But could it be a name remembered from old times meaning ‘to flee revenge?' Just a thought. If it does, does that mean it proves an old race was there earlier? No. But least let's examine some theories of pre-inhabitants in the area and elsewhere around the country.
*****
Archaeological evidence suggests the first human (Māori) occupation of New Zealand occurred between 1250–1300 AD, with the population concentrated along the southeast coast. A campsite at Kaikai Beach, near Long Beach to the north of the present-day city of Dunedin, has been dated from about that time. I know of a 12th century blade found at the bottom of an umu from down there and verified by someone from Waitaha. There are numerous archaic (moa-hunter) sites in what is now Dunedin, several of them large and permanently occupied, particularly in the 14th century. The population contracted but expanded again with the evolution of the Classic Māori culture which saw the building of several pā, fortified settlements, notably Pukekura at (Taiaroa Head), about 1650. (Pa were built due to warfare. It only took 250 years for people from 'the fleet' to end up hating each other). There was a settlement in what is now central Dunedin (Ōtepoti), occupied as late as about 1785 but abandoned by 1826. There were also Maori settlements at Whareakeake (Murdering Beach), Purakaunui, Mapoutahi (Goat Island Peninsula) and Huriawa (Karitane Peninsula) to the north, and at Taieri Mouth and Otokia (Henley) to the south, all inside the present city boundaries of Dunedin.
Old Māori tradition tells first of a people called Kahui Tipua living in the area, then Te Rapuwai, semi-legendary but considered to be historical. The next arrivals were Waitaha, followed by Kāti Māmoe late in the 16th century and then Kai Tahu (Ngai Tahu in modern standard Māori) who arrived in the mid-17th century from the northern island to claim a land not theirs by tradition of being first. European accounts have often represented many of these successive influxes as "invasions", but modern scholarship has cast doubt on that view. They were probably migrations - like those of the Europeans - which incidentally resulted in bloodshed. The sealer John Boultbee recorded in the late 1820s that the 'Kaika Otargo' (settlements around and near Otago Harbour) were the oldest and largest in the south.
Kahui Tipua
These are supposed to be shape-shifting demons and also 'giants' (The only ancient people in this land associated with extraordinary height). As a legend, anyone able to move into bush and remain unseen would be regarded as demons by a race who have never known that ability. The Amazonian tribes can do the same, but they are wholly human. Legends then are interpretations of fact. But height? - that can not be imagined! Are the Kahui Tipua (cluster of demons) the ones we will find? If so, they are definitely not Polynesian.
The story commences with the statement that, “Te Kahui-tipua (or band of ogres) were the first to occupy the South Island of New Zealand. They were giants who could stride from mountain to mountain and transform themselves into anything animate or inanimate.” This is probably an introduction from Asia into the subsequent legend of contact with the early people, the tangata-whenua, of New Zealand, who had been driven to the mountains and forests, where their local knowledge and activity enabled them to quickly cross from mountain to mountain, and thus give rise to the suggested idea that they were “giants who could stride from mountain to mountain.” The story relating to this with Kai-Amoe, the tipua and the ten two-headed dogs is almost identical to an old story from ancient Samoa. So this proves legends are transferable to local people, places and times. Most Maori stories then, could be upon investigation, be ancient ones, from their homeland and adapted to the new land. Many are exact replicas of stories from other Pacific Islands.
Te Rapuwai
Of these ancient people there is very little known. The old Maoris say that the reason why no one knows of their origin is because no natives claim descent from them. They were finally absorbed into the Waitaha people, but they left many place names to record their presence. Te Rapuwai left very few traces, perhaps because, as Waite suggests, no Māori claim descent from them. On the other hand, others have suggested these are names of earlier assimilated groups whose descendants are still with us but have been re-categorised under the names "Waitaha" and "Kati Mamoe", just as Kai Tahu have since claimed those groups as integral to a new one, that known now, in modern standard Māori, as "Ngai Tahu". But Te Rapuwai left many place names to record their presence, and heaps of shells along the beaches as more tangible evidence. The Kaitangata Lake district, in South Otago, was apparently a favourite haunt, and almost certainly there were settlements at the mouth of the Matau (Clutha).
Waitaha (early Maori. Absorbed by conquest and marriage)
It is generally accepted that Waitaha are early Maori, possibly what is termed the Moa Hunters. The Moa Hunters burned most of the forest of the South Island while hunting Moa. North Island traditions give the story of the Waitaha people who came in the Takitimu canoe. But some southern family trees go further back than the Takitimu story of 1350. The explanation probably is that there were two Waitaha tribes, as suggested by Mr. Herries Beattie:—
(1) Those who came about 850 AD in the “Uruao” canoe. (modern academics say Maori only arrived around 1280)
(2) Those who came in the “Takitimu” canoe about 1350 AD.
Mr. Beattie suggests that it is likely that the people who came in 1350 and called themselves Waitaha found themselves among another tribe called Waitaha, who arrived centuries earlier. It is safe to say that when the Takitimu party arrived the land was already inhabited. Whoever the earlier people were, they became amalgamated with the Takitimu people, and were known as Waitaha. Bearing in mind, then, that there was an earlier wave of Waitaha people, we go on to consider the coming of the Takitimu. The canoe Takitimu arrived from Tahiti in 1350, and made a landfall in the Bay of Plenty. She sailed down the coasts of both islands, leaving people at several points. The farthest south party was left somewhere near the Waiau River, in Southland. The captain of the Takitimu was Tamatea. When we say, “Oh, that happened in the dim and distant past!” meaning a long time ago, the Maori says, “That happened in the time of Tamatea.” So anything very old is indicated—for instance, the great fires that swept the countryside after the coming of the Maori are referred to as “the fire of Tamatea.”
Two extracts from their traditions as set down by Mr. Herries Beattie are as follows:—
“The Waitaha, living in peace, increased in numbers and spread over the land. A great resort of theirs was Lake Te Anau… They also had pas at Mataipipi and Otupatu, near the mouth of the Molyneux River.”
The second extract is interesting:—
“A large number of place names in Otago and Southland are named after Waitaha men and women… A tributary of the Matau (Molyneux) is called Waiwhero, and is usually translated 'red water’ because of its supposed colour, but it is really named after a Waitaha chief.” In the Maori dictionary “whero” is given as red or reddish brown. But the chief Waiwhero is a historical person. He died on the banks of the river, and the river, whatever it was called before that, from the time of the chief's death was known as Waiwhero. And it is interesting that through the Kati Mamoe and Kati Tahu invasions the Waitaha place name survives.
Waitaha was a North Island tribe that, some say, was “half Polynesian and half Melanesian,” who were descended from the old people of the land in Hawke's Bay. They were driven south, and settled near Wellington. They crossed to the South Island, and Judge Mackay in his “Native Affairs—South Island,” says:— “These people Waitaha did not continue long in undisturbed possession of the hills and plains of Te Wai Pounamu, as another tribe of newcomers arrived to dispute their rights to the rich fishing and hunting grounds.” These newcomers were the Kati Mamoe. It is not possible to assign dates, for although there are references to the “Waitaha swarming like ants,” Mackay says they were not left “long in undisturbed possession.” Canon Stack, who had opportunities of working on some family history tables, estimates the arrival of the Kati Mamoe as about 1577.
Controversial claims about pre-Polynesian inhabitants
After doubtful claims by Barry Brailsford, Michael King noted that archaeological evidence shows the first human (Māori) occupation of New Zealand occurred between 1250–1300 AD,with population concentrated along the southeast coast. A campsite at Kaikai Beach, near Long Beach to the north of the present-day city of Dunedin, has been dated from about that time. There are numerous archaic (moa-hunter) sites in what is now Dunedin, several of them large and permanently occupied, particularly in the 14th century. The population contracted bCut expanded again with the evolution of the Classic Māori culture which saw the building of several pā, fortified settlements, notably Pukekura at (Taiaroa Head), about 1650. There was a settlement in what is now central Dunedin (Ōtepoti), occupied as late as about 1785 but abandoned by 1826. There were also Maori settlements at Whareakeake (Murdering Beach), Purakaunui, Mapoutahi (Goat Island Peninsula) and Huriawa (Karitane Peninsula) to the north, and at Taieri Mouth and Otokia (Henley) to the south, all inside the present boundaries of Dunedin.
Pre-Maori
Since the early 1900s the theory that Polynesians (Māori) were the first ethnic group to settle in New Zealand (first proposed by Captain James Cook) has been dominant among archaeologists and anthropologists. Before that time and until the 1920's, however, a small group of prominent anthropologists proposed that the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands represented a pre-Māori group of people from Melanesia, who once lived across all of New Zealand. While this idea lost favour among academics it was widely published and incorporated into school textbooks which has extended its life in the popular imagination. Some early visitors to New Zealand did speculate that the original New Zealanders might be descended from ancient Greeks, Romans or Egyptians, and some Christian missionaries thought that the Māori ancestors belonged to the lost tribes of Israel. In more recent times, outside of academia a similar variety of speculation of New Zealand's first settlers has occurred. These ideas typically incorporate aspects of conspiracy theories as they are in opposition to the last 100 years of academic research.
Māori oral traditions
Māori traditions speak of spirits or fairies living in parts of New Zealand when they arrived. They are known by various names, but most commonly as Patupaiarehe and Turehu. Spirits need humans, so humans were here prior to Maori according to the interpretations of these traditions. Most non-political maori will tell you they were taught that they (Maori), were not the first here.
Early European speculation
Elsdon Best with fellow ethnographer Percy Smith. The two most prominent academic proponents of pre-Māori settlement. During the 19th century, ideas about Aryan migrations became popular and these were applied to New Zealand. Edward Tregear's The Aryan Maori (1885) suggested that Aryans from India migrated to the southeast Asia and then to the islands of the Pacific, including New Zealand. The writing of Percy Smith and Elsdon Best from the late 19th century theorised about pre-Māori settlement. Their work inspired theories that the Māori had displaced a more primitive pre-Māori population of Moriori (sometimes described as a small-statured, dark-skinned race of possible Melanesian origin), in mainland New Zealand – and that the Chatham Island Moriori were the last remnant of this earlier race.
Although modern archaeology has largely clarified questions of the origin and dates of the earliest migrations, some writers have continued to speculate that what is now New Zealand was discovered by Melanesians, 'Celts', Greeks, Egyptians or the Chinese, before the arrival of the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori. Some of these ideas have also been supported by politicians and media personalities.
Martin Doutre argues in a 1999 book, that New Zealand had a Pre-Polynesian Celtic population and that boulders with petroglyphs on a hill in silverdale in Auckland are artifacts left by these people. An earlier presentation of the theory of Pre-Polynesisan white settlement was Kerry Bolton's 1987 pamphlet 'Lords of the Soil', which states that "Polynesia has been occupied by peoples of a Europoid race since ancient times. To suggest Europeans were here in ancient times is ludicrous. Doutre and Bolton are far from the truth. But Polynesians were not here first, and we have shown that. A brown skinned people were here first.
Other books presenting such theories have included The Great Divide: The Story of New Zealand & its Treaty, (2012) by Ian Wishart, a journalist, and To the Ends of the Earth by Maxwell C. Hill, Gary Cook and Noel Hilliam, which claims that New Zealand was discovered by explorers from ancient Egypt and Greece.
David Rankin, a Ngāpuhi elder, has drawn attention to Māori legends suggesting that people, some of them with fair skin, were already present in the islands when Polynesians arrived, and has claimed the existence of a conspiracy among academics to suppress inquiry.
Historians and archaeologists dismiss the theories. Michael King wrote in his history of New Zealand, "Despite a plethora of amateur theories about Melanesian, South American, Egyptian, Phoenician and Celtic colonisation of New Zealand, there is not a shred of evidence that the first human settlers were anything other than Polynesian", and Richard Hill, professor of New Zealand Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, said in 2012, "Not one of [the theories] has ever passed any remote academic scrutiny." Hugh Laracy of the University of Auckland called them "wild speculation" that has been "thoroughly disposed of by academic specialists".
Another historian, Vincent O'Malley, and the New Zealand Archaeological Association regard the theories as having a racist or at least a political element, seeking to cast doubt on Waitangi Tribunal claims. Scott Hamilton in "No to Nazi Pseudo-history: an Open Letter" further explains objections to the theories of Bolton and Doutré (and the website Ancient Celtic New Zealand). He is one who probably laos believes this of Thor Heyerdahl who has just this week been proved right on something these wise academics vilified him for. See the following link.
*****
So it seems one group maintain there was evidence, and many Maori agree, yet modern academic publications cast serious doubt on the claims based on ‘lack of evidence’. We highlighted Michael King's statement above to draw attention to it. There is actual physical evidence of artifacts that are wholly Melanesian in form, clubs, petroglyphs and designs... but no one, other than tangatawhenua16, has ever brought those items to public attention in the way we have. But let's put that suggestive evidence aside for a moment. If we produced many 8'+ skeletons without pentagonal skulls, without rocker jaws, with a stronger bone density than Polynesians... would that be enough evidence? Would it be explained away? Would accusations come to distract from the evidence? You bet ya accusations would come, and they would come thick and fast. But we are prepared. And when we do provide the evidence, it will be supported with DNA, carbon dating, and more.
In the a previous post we revealed a huge amount of artifactual evidence that Melanesians are likely to have had an influence on the MoriOri, if not racially then certainly observationally, for if the Moriori were the first Polynesian arrivals (pre-fleet) then they would have mixed with the local tangata whenua and picked up their traditions, styles and ways that were uncommon to them in Polynesia. There are countless examples of artifacts being of Melanesian influence that academics, archaeologists or commentators like Scott Hamilton cannot explain away so easily. That’s not saying we are right (yet), it is just pointing out that the rhetoric of others does not fit the evidence presented so cleanly as they propose.
All known skeletal evidence (in public reports and archaeological journals) is that which is from Polynesia (as in the Wairau bar individuals) or Polynesian genealogy.
The disagreement is this.....
The pre-Polynesian side says that there were pre-Polynesian people here and that all evidence of them is destroyed or artifacts hidden away (and we actually have evidence of such an occurrence from 2008).
The other side say there is no evidence at all.
The Pre-Polynesian side say that anything found is hidden and that is why there is no 'evidence'.
The other side say there is no evidence at all.
Yet we know 2 & 4 to be wrong as personally evidenced by witnesses still alive, but we have no photographic proof of that, only the verbal statement of the witness.
For our part, what we hope to expose is a monumental cover-up of significant historical, national and global importance. We can already produce countless examples of non-Polynesian carvings, artifacts and design. And we have our long femur others insist is a moa bone... well they would wouldn't they, that's why we need a complete one. Moreover, we need DNA and carbon dating from physical provable sources. The only way that is going to occur is producing evidence of many 8’+ skeletons of non-Polynesian (likely Melanesian or Asian) origin. Then and only then will the history of NZ have to be re-written.
Make no mistake, there will be a bitter fight before it’s finally acknowledged by academic and political Maori. Only when they realise they cannot shut the story down will they admit it. Meantime, if the truth is out there… let's see who would honour the truth or who would like to cover the truth - and for what purpose they would cover it!
My guess is money, what’s yours?
