Is there an ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVERUP going on in New Zealand?

a reply to: aorAki
i thought i was entertaining you man,lol.
And as for the tuhoe,maybe they were getting ready to stage an up-rising,cause you know how racist the tuhoe are

a reply to: hiddenNZ

You haven't provided any evidence.

I'll posit that you won't, either...

You are entertaining, to a degree, I'll give you that, mate.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Evidence for pre-Maori, or to redeploy back to the title of this thread, archaeological cover up...

a reply to: aorAki
i didnt start the thread,or say i had evidence,you know that.
and moriori were here before maori...so theres a little bit of proof there for you....but thats common knowledge in NZ.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
You say there is no evidence of people here before maori,and now you say there was...make your mind up fella lol

You were the one that said there was evidence that doesn't exist

originally posted by: hiddenNZ....more evidence that apparently doesnt exist

Changed your tune pretty quickly there didn't you


So the Chatham islands have now become mainland New Zealand
You should probably look at a map

a reply to: Marduk

look dude,reread what I said and try get a grasp on it....i know the moriori were here before maori,so does most of nz,as do the maori themselves.
And they were chased to chatham island..and nearly eaten into extinction,cause that was the maori way..try read a bit more into it and stop trying to bait me buddy.
The "more evidence that doesnt exist" was sarcasm....like most of your posts,I thought you would recognize it for what it was...
So,just to make it clear for you,you said there was no evidence of pre maori....then a poster mentioned the moriori,then I was being sarcastic,so on and so forth....do you understand now,lol,cause if you dont i cant dumb it down any more

Certainly all of the smart and informed members in this thread should be able to discuss this topic civilly.... Right? Please refrain from personal jabs and stick to the topic without being combative or insulting.

a reply to: Marduk
the moriori were here before maori...is that good enough for you mate?
Ive posted links to elocal magazine,which you and aoraki say are not credible.
I also stated the chief of NZs largest tribe said maori were not here first...you discounted that with aoraki....its a broken record man and it will continue that way so theres no point really is there?

originally posted by: hiddenNZ

and moriori were here before maori...so theres a little bit of proof there for you....but thats common knowledge in NZ.

Actually, the Moriori were one of the early phase of settlement along with Maori, and became 'distinct' when they settled in the Chatham Islands (Rekohu/Wharekauri). They were contemporaneoues with early 'Maori' settlers.

There's a cool book that has just been published: Tangata Whenua but maybe you won't like it because it goes against your claims of 'pre-maori settlement'...anyway, for what it's worth, it's well-researched and backed up by good science, including (as I keep saying) pollen records showing human habitation/impact upon the land.

Your 'common knowledge' is out-dated misinterpretation...

originally posted by: hiddenNZ

I also stated the chief of NZs largest tribe said maori were not here first...you discounted that with aoraki....its a broken record man and it will continue that way so theres no point really is there?

No point when you propagate porkies, dear fellow.

David Rankin is not the Chief of Nga Puhi. Sonny Tau is.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Marduk
the moriori were here before maori...is that good enough for you mate?

Um, you probably don't realise, because you clearly didn't read the wiki page, but here, let me post it for you

During the early 20th century it was commonly, but erroneously, believed that the Moriori were pre-Māori settlers of New Zealand, linguistically and genetically different from the Māori, and possibly Melanesian. This story, incorporated into Stephenson Percy Smith's "Great Fleet" hypothesis, was widely believed during the early 20th century. However the hypothesis was not always accepted.

By the late 20th century the hypothesis that the Moriori were different from the Māori had fallen out of favour amongst archeologists, who believed that the Moriori were Māori who settled on the Chatham Islands in the 16th century.

So you are saying that the Moriori were there before the Maori, so you are basically saying that the Maori arrived in the 17th Century ?


Do you have any evidence to support your assertions at all ?

no evidence as I said earlier.......now you can get back to what you were doing.
I didnt claim to have evidence at all did I?
Its out there for people to read,and believe or not believe....whichever.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
no evidence as I said earlier.......now you can get back to what you were doing.
I didnt claim to have evidence at all did I?

You made this claim

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Marduk
the moriori were here before maori...is that good enough for you mate?

Are you now saying that you were wrong ?

a reply to: Marduk
well if the general knowledge has been revised,then anyone would assume that alot of people were wrong...including myself as its not something ive read up on in the last 20yrs.
Does that make you happy me saying I was wrong?

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Marduk
well if the general knowledge has been revised,then anyone would assume that alot of people were wrong...including myself as its not something ive read up on in the last 20yrs.
Does that make you happy me saying I was wrong?

No, I want you to be right
I want the government to be caught out covering up the truth for nefarious reasons
I want it to be proven that New Zealand had a history of colonisation before the Maori arrived

I just haven't seen any evidence for it, that wasn't tainted by racism or political agenda.

a reply to: Marduk
I still feel something is being hidden,maybe one day we will find out,after all Its our world history and we all have a right to know.
Sorry if I came across a bit prickly marduk,hope you didnt take me the wrong way.
I look forward to reading your posts on history in other areas.
Thanks.

a reply to: aorAki

That's always been the history from my own kaumatua too...that 'Maori' arrived in numerous stages spanning a great length of time...not one mass migration via a collective flotilla of waka.

Their version of history has always been Moriori were the advanced scouts (as it were) or just the first wave of the wider collective 'Maori' people.


Whether or not that's the case is questionable.
Oral histories - although integral to our collective culture - are certainly well open to debate.

originally posted by: alien
Their version of history has always been Moriori were the advanced scouts (as it were) or just the first wave of the wider collective 'Maori' people.

Archaeology and linguistics has proven, that the Moriori didn't become distinct from the Maori until they populated the Chatham islands and that their differences were an adaption to local conditions.

Evidence supporting this theory comes from the characteristics that the Moriori language has in common with the dialect of Māori spoken by the Ngāi Tahu tribe of the South Island, and comparisons of the genealogies of Moriori ("hokopapa") and Māori ("whakapapa"). Prevailing wind patterns in the southern Pacific add to the speculation that the Chatham Islands were the last part of the Pacific to be settled during the period of Polynesian discovery and colonisation. The word Moriori derives from Proto-Polynesian *ma(a)qoli, which has the reconstructed meaning "true, real, genuine". It is cognate with the Māori language word Māori[8] and likely also had the meaning "(ordinary) people".

The earliest indication of human occupation of the Chathams, inferred from middens exposed due to erosion of sand dunes, has been established as 450 years BP

Which is about 1000 years after the colonisation of New Zealand