Cambridge Dictionary – indigenous = adjective
· used to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else.
Now, “the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else” is aligned with what I was taught. Were we not taught that indigenous people were the first peoples to enter and live in a place.
There was never any question the Indians of North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, are the indigenous people of those lands.
Humankind are, unquestionably, indigenous to the African continent. As humans migrated out of Africa they arrived elsewhere as an invasive species that, over time, would later become known as indigenous to those areas.
The first people to arrive in North American or Australia, for instance, would be categorised as invasive when they arrived. They were not from either landmass and, when they arrived, they acted like any invasive species, pushing other species further into the hinterland or worse, even extinction!
As the avarice escalates and maori activists assertions of indigeneity amplify, the resultant ownership claims of swathes of New Zealand are causing people from many walks of life in New Zealand to ask the question: “Are maori actually indigenous?”
Rudimentary research indicates there seems to be a significant degree of accuracy in the statement, “Yes, New Zealand was settled well before maori.”
Many well-known authors of New Zealand history have written about pre-maori settlement. If you then go to the internet, well it simply abounds with narratives about the people who preceded maori.
The facts around pre-maori settlement fall into two categories -
1. Conjectural
2. Factual
I say conjectural because while there is persuasive “substantiation” of pre maori settlement in New Zealand, it is akin to folklore and legend. Mostly verbal history, passed down through the generations.
New Zealand history cannot be truly comprehended unless there is some open discourse and debate that there were pre-maori people who settled what is now New Zealand and their descendants are actually still living among us.
These people were generally called Patupaiarehe and by some tribes, Turehu.
The oral history of many maori tribes throughout New Zealand offer amazingly similar descriptions of the physical appearance of the original inhabitants of New Zealanders.
Throwback traits to these early people were very much in evidence throughout the 1800's before Maori had interrelated, to any great degree, with arriving colonial Europeans. A traditional exclamation amongst Maori, when a newborn showed light complexion traits or developed blondish and reddish hair hues was, "Ah... Turehu"!
Monica Matamua of the Waitaha, the first people to inhabit the South Island, believes she is descended from the Patupaiarehe people. In 2012 DNA testing confirmed her belief that she is of different lineage. Testing traced back 74 generations to the Spanish, Portuguese and Phoenicians. Her relatives number 1300 of similar DNA. Such evidence “brings her race alive” she says.
In a book published in 1959, TUWHARETOA: A History of The Maori People of The Taupo District, author Sir John Te Herekiekie Grace states, “Ngati Tuwharetoa was a tribe that originally settled on the Bay of Plenty coast, and during the 16th century made their way into Taupo. There they found white people in occupation of the district, and the Maori took complete possession of their land. The original occupants were fair skinned and flaxen haired people that Maori referred to as Ngati-Hotu.”
Early New Zealand historian James Cowan, a journalist who published much of his New Zealand history in newspapers in the 1880’s, related stories about the former vanquished Ngati-Hotu people of Rotorua as told by maori elders.“The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero and their hair had the red or golden tinge we call uru-kehu. Some had black eyes, and some blue like Europeans. Their women were beautiful, very fair of complexion, with shining fair hair.”
French explorer Julien Crozet, who visited the Bay of Islands in 1772, wrote “It is most certain that the whites are the aborigines (first settlers) of New Zealand. Their colour is like that of the people of Southern Europe, and I saw several who had red hair. There were some as white as our sailors.”
Maori anthropologist Sir Peter Buck mentioned these ancestors. He also commented upon physical evidence (woven or platted coloured hair samples from ancient rock shelters) in the Auckland War Memorial Museum.
Author of Maori Religion, Elsdon Best lived with the Maori people for over twenty years and was taught the deepest aspects of their history, religion and culture, to the extent that he was recognised as, or accorded the honour of becoming a Kaumatua, wrote, 'The Maori regale us with several tales that are supposed to illustrate a period when the Maori people were living here on sufferance, as it were, under the mana of the Turehu or Patupaiarehe, the true lords of the soil. Many different names are used to denote this forest folk or fairies as our writers often term them, though the Maori concept is not that of a diminutive fey or elf like folk, but rather that of a people of ordinary stature and appearance, save they are said to have been fair-skinned and fair haired'
The Ancient Celtic NZ website states - ‘Ngāti Hotu were found living around the shores of lakes Taupo and Rotoaira by the Ngāti Tūwharetoa iwi (tribe) in perhaps the 15th century. Ngāti Tūwharetoa were then resident at Kawerau and associated with Te Arawa iwi which today occupies the area from the Bay of Plenty coastline to the Lake Taupo district.
Curiously, skeletons uncovered in a cavern in the Taupo area (apparently, it was common for the pre-Maori people to live in underground dwellings) were sent for professional examination, to the Auckland University Medical School. After the visual evaluation confirmed that the item was of “European Caucasoid” ethnicity, a molar was sent to Lower Hutt for carbon dating and amino acid testing ....result ... "Not allowed to be tested".
In 1983 archaeologists from Auckland University were employed by the NZ Forest Service to investigate and document a 25,000 acre area covered by Waipoua Forest in Northland where a massive archaeological treasure trove lay, where once a large population lived, gardened, worshipped, raised their families and died. The ruins spoke of thousands living there in peace for a great length of time.
Here was a chance to document and protect New Zealand’s heritage, to tell the people of New Zealand about an ancient civilisation, predating Polynesian settlement and acknowledged as such by the Pacific voyagers who came after them. But most New Zealanders do not know what was found in Waipoua Forest over the three-year investigation.
These ancient structures were a complex of stone walls, hearths, stone structures defined as altars by the archaeologists, incised obelisks, rock carvings, standing stone circles, circular stone mounds and stone-lined waterways. Boundary markers separate various garden plots, with stone cairns set at even distances to provide growing places for yam. At one site an extensive garden area was surrounded by collapsed stone dwellings and places of worship.
Inexplicably the archaeologists were only allowed to investigate 500 acres. The detailed mapping and notes of the survey were kept secret, to remain hidden under a 75-year embargo, restricted until 2063.
At the end of the archaeological excavations, all public access to the area was denied. Visitors wanting to see the stone artefacts were turned away. DOC denied access requests by historians and archaeologists.
In 1988, archaeological records on the Waipoua Forest excavations were sent to the National Archives in Auckland. The copies lodged with National Archives were released from formal embargo in 1996 but the files finally released were incomplete. There was a vital report missing from samples tested at the Radiocarbon Testing Laboratory at the University of Waikato.
Then in 1996 a strange twist, a file surfaced, sent anonymously to Hokianga historian Joan Leaf. The data from a food midden at Motuhuru showed a True Age date of 950 plus or minus 50. This was the missing report on a 1000-year-old cat’s eye shell, collected from a midden in 1986.
The readings confirmed there were people living in the area now called Waipoua Forest when the ancestors of modern Maori arrived!
Why was the investigation data embargoed? Who ordered an embargo? Do the structures still exist? What happened to the inhabitants?
Are the answers to those questions linked to maori claims of indigeneity?
I think this is a case of – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic consequences of the lie”.
John Porter is a citizen, deeply concerned about the loss of democracy and the insidious promotion of separatism.
12 comments:
If this is the plan, it is working. Academics at Auckland University medical school now speak openly about the " Indigenization of New Zealand " when supporting a compulsory first year unit in all disciplines.
This illustrates " progressive" or "sophisticated democracy" mentioned by former PM Ardern and promoted by Identity Politics. The aim is that a specific minority will hold ultimate power over all other ethnic groups in a country by employing DEI strategies ( diversity, equity, inclusion). It is no coincidence that this model is the final objective of the He Puapua agenda.
All the more reason to stop Treaty Settlements, remove all legislation pertaining to Māori rights and go forward as one people. We have been conned and continue to be so by naive politicians and others.
An excellent article John, one which should be read by every New Zealander who would like to discover our true history.
And then Matariki is foisted on NZ celebrating the "Maori" voyagers paddling to New Zealand guided by the stars etc , where the same people also claim indigenous rights . They cannot have it both ways. Indigenous person claim OR as most of us accept immigrants.
The Tangata Maori o Nu Tirani, who signed and agreed to the terms of the Maori language treaty, were not indigenous to New Zealand, and they knew it, spoke freely of it, and referred to themselves as tangata Maori, not tangata whenua.
The “Big Lie” to this fact, and the concerted push towards “Tangata whenua” (Indigenous agenda) started with our government and their paid off “official historians” to bury the truth of the pre-Maori people.
Kaipara based historian Noel Hilliam says a forensic expert from Edinburgh University has reconstructed features using skulls retrieved from heaps of ancient human bones that were once piled in caves at several sites around the Kaipara. Kaipara skeletons were found with strands of red hair and a London pathologist who examined them in 1997 did not consider them Polynesian.
"The two skulls you randomly uplifted from one site - the female, which I named Henrietta, is Turehu of 23 years of age and 1.3m tall going on the average height of skeletons I examined. She originates from Wales.
"The Waitaha male is 34 years old 1.65m tall, average among the skeletal remains examined, and originates from the Mediterranean."
People known in your country as Turehu originated from Wales over 3000 years ago and those known as Waitaha originated from the Mediterranean," the pathologist said.
Maori oral traditions speak of people, some of them with fair skin, already living in parts of New Zealand when they arrived. They are known by various names, but most commonly as Patupaiarehe, Turehu and Waitaha.
Beautiful article, very informative, very troubling.
Word meanings tend to change to suit circumstances whether political or cultural and the term ‘indigenous’ is a good example. Dictionaries of English and of biology (to take a small sample) define ‘indigenous’ as: (1) Not introduced directly or indirectly according to historical record or scientific analysis into a particular land or region or environment from outside. (2) Born of or produced naturally in a land or region. (3) Native to a particular area; autochthonous; used of an organism or species occurring naturally in an environment or region.
The human species arose in Africa and is truly indigenous to that continent. All movements out of Africa placed humans in other countries as either invaders, settlers, immigrants or colonisers, but certainly not indigenous to those countries they eventually settled. Therefore, it is incorrect for Maoris to consider themselves indigenous and similarly, North American Indians, as it is for any ethnic groups that first settled a region. A more correct term is aboriginal: first or earliest known or before European colonists. There is an urgent need to preserve the correct English usage as the current use implies priorities and rights that are not warranted, especially when the proponents of the incorrect term rail against colonisation when they themselves are also colonisers.
The wake - up call for people may come when Maori tackle the land issue - i.e. demanding return to 1840 ownership. Ideas have already been floated e.g. Maori would have first right of refusal when a property is sold. This would move very fast under another Left government.
Conspiracy theories about suppressed truth are the stock in trade of every fringe writer more interested in banging a drum than doing the research. Seems to me that modern DNA science is quite capable of establishing the racial profile of every person alive and by extrapolation, the profile of any group of those folk - you know - like a Maori tribe. Eliminate the Pacific Island genes and see whether those remaining point to any pre-Maori human occupation. Sounds like a project any PhD candidate is capable of undertaking, and one which would have significantly more relevance to contemporary New Zealand society than some of that other stuff the Marsden Fund has been paying for. If it achieves nothing else it will establish a database that can enable those intense folk who "identify" as Maori to prove their maoriness with verifiable data. Since the Maori activists are determined to embrace apartheid, it seems to me they would seize the opportunity to scientifically ring-fence their constituency to those with the approved blood-line. At the very least, DNA testing would enable those who want to join the Maori electoral roll to provide a verifiable basis for being treated differently.
It's really quite simple without the pre-Maori cryptohistory. Maori came from elsewhere in the Pacific within the historic era. They are indigenous to Polynesia / the Pacific but not NZ
What does the DNA matter ?
Just walk away from the UNDRIP nonsense !
The UN is the most useless body on the planet, who cares what their people say or protest.
This is NZ, being run by NZers, not by a lot of people in suits in New York.
And the NZers have almost 100% non Maori DNA.
Someone like Jxn has only a smidgen of Maori blood heritage , and yet he demands that he is entitled to run NZ - enough Luxon, just get on with your mandate to reunite NZ.
Unlock the embargoed archives and properly prove the true history of NZ.
I would love to see the carbon dating report of the 1000 year old cats eye shell, or a copy,
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.