Maori ARE NOT fucking natives
I was just watching the news and I saw a bit on a Maori Focus Unit in the prisons.
What the fuck? A Maori Focus unit? What the fuck do we need that for?
What about the Scottish Focus Unit? Welsh Focus Unit? Islands Focus Unit?
This is just plain racist. Why can’t the other ethnic groups have a focus unit to further separate them from the other races in society – cos thats what this unit will do, further separate the Maori from other ethnic groups.
This is what fucks me off the most, Maori want to be treated the same but yet they expect to be treated different and better than everyone else just because they are the “native” people of this country. Which is a load of shit anyway, they’re no more native than any european. The only difference is they got here about 500 years before the european and ate all the original inhabitants.
But the truth is many civilisations have been to New Zealand before the Maori, they just didn’t bother staying, and there is evidence.
Maori aren’t fucking native to this country and anyone who tells you that is fucking stupid. They are immigrants too, we are all immigrants. The original natives of New Zealand were probably immigrants too but the Maori ate them all, and the government has put an embargo on the research of Pre-Maori civilizations so we will never know for sure.
Fucking stupid people, jesus fuck… open your fucking eyes!
FYI: http://www.celticnz.co.nz
UPDATE: this tbh…
Tags: celtic, maori, New Zealand, rant, society, stupid fucking peopleAll that stuff about who was here first is bollocks. If I’m sitting next to a Maori in the bar, the only difference is our ages. Neither of us existed before our parents got together for a bit of hanky panky. So if he’s older than me then he was here first, otherwise I was here first.
Shoud he get special treatment because some of his ancestors might have been disadvantaged by the European arrival? Should I get special treatment because my ancestors were disadvanted by Scandiavian raiding parties? No, and No. A man is born to make of his life what he will. If he does that by swindling another man into giving him special treatment, then good luck to him. – Desmond (from the comments)
Are you a Nazi too?
http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/
Not a Nazi, just fucked off at the special treatment Maori get. Its not fair. We claim that New Zealanders are all one people or “Kiwi’s” but clearly, we are not all equal. Some get special treatment because they have different skin colour, and its apartheid bullshit. Why Maori should get special treatment when they only arrived here 500 years before other ethinic groups is beyond me. 500 years doesn’t make them native.
That link is pretty good, finally some light is being shone on the suppressed NZ pre-history. Too bad the writer of the letter just goes about attacking and deriding the messengers instead of actually taking a look at the evidence and researching for himself.
Trying to call the proponents racist thinking it will shut them up and make the general public hate them. Classic.
There’s a good, and well worded comment war going on. Discussion and debate is good.
But do you want to know why the truth about NZ pre-polynesian history is being suppressed? Imagine how many people would lose face if the truth came out. Sovereignty-claiming Maori, all the land claims would go to shit, governments would look incredibly stupid for giving land and money ‘back’ to the Maori tribes, but perhaps most of all, all the history books would have to be rewritten.
Thats why this Scott Hamilton guy is so adverse to the theory at hand – his life work would be rendered incorrect and everything would have to be redone.
Any self-respecting scientest of any field should be happy to be proven wrong, knowing that the true essence of science through debate/new evidence/the testing of hypothesis’ has prevailed.
But some people have too much pride and don’t want to be proven wrong. Thereby letting the subject matter stagnate by fending off any information that threatens the current knowledge.
So label me a racist Nazi if you want, but I hate fascism with a passion. I am a left wing liberal so chew on that. And its not racist if its true.
We need more open debate on this subject.
However, political agendas should never invade the realm of science. Unfortunately, it happens.
Reply to the linked article, seems like their comments thing is broken…
How come suddenly you need a degree to practice a field of science? Back in the 1900’s, 1800’s, and 1700’s science was a job for wealthy who didn’t need a job and thought they would study some things, make up theories, and apply those theories to the subject.
It would seem that the basis of many many scientic fields were discovered, traversed, and tested without any degree whatsover, just a rich father!
As for Scott Hamilton he seems to be taking the classic stance of shooting the messengers so he doesn’t have to get off his behind and go out in the field and look at some rocks! Complete with cheap shots at the usage of grammar. Who’s the [grammar] Nazi now Scott?
Of course, people don’t want to be called a racist. In this PC environment, that is repughnant and no one should want that. So what does Scott Hamilton (and basically everyone against this theory) do?
LABEL MARTIN DOUTRE A RACIST!!!!
How predictable, try and shut him up and get the public to fear him by labelling him a racist. Classic one guys, good work!
But do you want to know why the truth about NZ pre-polynesian history is being suppressed? Imagine how many people would lose face if the truth came out. Sovereignty-claiming Maori, all the land claims would go to shit, governments would look incredibly stupid for giving land and money ‘back’ to the Maori tribes, but perhaps most of all, all the history books would have to be rewritten.
Thats why this Scott Hamilton guy is so adverse to the theory at hand – his life work would be rendered incorrect and everything would have to be redone.
Any self-respecting scientest of any field should be happy to be proven wrong, knowing that the true essence of science through debate/new evidence/the testing of hypothesis’ has prevailed.
But some people have too much pride and don’t want to be proven wrong. Thereby letting the subject matter stagnate by fending off any information that threatens the current knowledge.
Politics and pride should not invade the scientific realm.
Also I want to say, what makes Maori any more native to NZ than the Europeans, Asians, Indians, Africans, Americans, Canadians that live here today?
500 years? What a load of crap. Maori are no more native than the swathes of Asians wandering Aucklands streets today. They are immigrants, just like the rest of us. This country belongs to no one.
Hi Hamster,
you’re entitled to your views on biculturalism and the TOW. Many NZers would agree with you, though I don’t.
What I’m querying is not your politics but your belief that Celts came to NZ thousands of years ago, and that this fact is being covered up by a conspiracy of academics, museologists, and so on. As the thread I linked to shows, there is no evidence at all that Celts came here thousands of years ago.
I won’t go into all the contrary evidence here – it’s laid out by several experts in the thread.
You don’t even need to know anything about NZ history to know how improbable the idea of Celtic settlement is. You are probably interested in the Celts, so have a think for yourself about their aquatechnology. They struggled to get to ireland only 2,400 years or so ago. Do you really think they rounded Cape Horn or went through the Roaring Forties? Humans only built ships that could do that five or six centuries ago.
Nor is there any conspiracy to hide evidence of ancient Celts coming here because of a fear of the political consequences. Those who study NZ prehistory have a variety of opinions about the Treaty and other political questions. Quite a few have little interest in politics. Some are actually critical of some aspects of Maori nationalism – consider Paul Moon. None, though, believes in a Celtic connection to NZ thousands of years ago. There’s just no evidence. If there was, then everyone would be all over it. I’m an archaeologist: if I found a Celtic artefact buried under the tephra, then my career would be made. Academia theses days is very Darwinian – people make careers by discrediting old theories. If you study the literature produced by academic archaeologists, you’ll see that one theory is always being contested by others.
Isn’t it reasonable to label Martin Doutre a racist, when he defends Hitler and David Irving in the SRB thread I linked to? I don’t know the man, but I think anyone who denies the Holocaust is either mentally ill or some kind of Nazi. And I think that’s where all these silly theories of a conspiracy of academics come from – mental illness, or else the conspiratorial mindset that people inclined towards fascism seem to have.
Yes, you could do science without a degree hundreds of years ago. But today the literature is vast and the techniques far more complex. Take a look at the explanations of how archaeologists use GPS technology by edward in the thread at SRB, and Doutre’s embrassing responses.
Besides everything Jono has said, can I add that you’re missing the point when you identify indigenity with the fact that Maori were here first. As far as we know Maori were indeed here first, but even if they weren’t that doesn’t, in their eyes and in the eyes of the Treaty, stop them from being indigenous. That’s because Maori understand indigenity as something which derives not from first occupation but from a series of activities – taking possession of the land, naming it, burying the dead there, burying placenta there, and so on (it’s no coincidence that the Maori word for land is also the Maori word for placenta).
You suggest that if the remains of a pre-Maori civilisation were discovered, then the Treaty would have to be torn up and Maori would have to abandon their claims to be the tangata whenua of New Zealand, and that there is thus an incentive for Maori and pro-Treaty researchers to hide evidence of a pre-Maori civlisation. But you ignore the fact that there have already been Treaty settlements where a group of Maori have been recognised as indigenous, and offered certain resources, despite the acknowledged fact that they were not the first occupants of their rohe.
A good example is Kai Tahu, the iwi which was recognised as the tangata whenua of most of the South Island and given a range of resources in one of the first major Treaty settlements in the early ’90s. No Kai Tahu leader has ever denied that the iwi was not the first to take possession of the southern part of the South Island. The Waitaha and Ngati Mamoe peoples lived in the area before Kai Tahu arrived sometime in the seventeenth century. These prior peoples were either conquered or assimilated, or both, and Kai Tahu became the tangata whenua of Murihiku.
Now, you might consider it a deplorable state of affairs that Maori and the Waitangi Tribunal define indigenity by criteria other than initial occupation, but the fact that they do shows that the discovery of the remains of a pre-Maori civilisation would not derail the Treaty process and stop Maori claiming indigenity. There’d be no need for an elaborate conspiracy to disguise such remains – Maori leaders and other supporters of the Treaty would simply say ‘Ah well, there were these other ones, but they died out and we were the ones who were in possession of the land and had become tangata whenua by the time the Europeans arrived’.
Cheers
Scott
I noticed that Scott Hamilton’s comment was removed from this site. Not censoring are you?
By the way, I think you and Scott might have an interest in common -
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2008/12/towards-free-fire-zone.html
!
For the record, here is Martin Doutre’s statement, from the debate at Scoop:
‘As for David Irving, it was generally accepted worldwide that he was the most astute, prolific, all-round scholar and historian on the subject of WWII, at least up until May, 1988, when he made a very bad career choice. At that time he was called upon to give expert testimony, under oath, in a court case and stated that he could find no documented evidence of “Hitler’s Final Solution”. For this unforgivable admission, he fell foul of the Zionists who, thereafter, focused their hatred on him and have been unrelenting in trying to destroy his credibility ever since.
To me, David Irving is simply the leading expert in his field, who has been very unfairly maligned (not unlike Joel Hayward) for being clinically honest about what he can glean from the documented evidence. For his many books he conducted direct interviews with leading players like Albert Speer, etc., and did not rely on the speculations of other historians. Irving always did original research, based upon documents and is a fluent speaker of German, including all of the military jargon, abbreviations and techno-Deutsch that went with his subject matter.
I’m given to understand that he spent years as a young historian compiling information on Hitler’s movements and is able to state, with full documented evidence, where Hitler was, virtually hour by hour, spanning the entirety of WWII.
I feel very sorry for both Irving and Hayward, as well as a raft of others thrown into prison by the “thought police” and can readily see, by their ill-treatment, that we’re still in the throes of the inquisition, which seems to be getting worse, not better. Moreover, others of us trying to make some sense out of the disjointed, nonsensical history pushed by mainstream academics have to contend with the abusive threats of control-freaks like you, telling us who we can and can’t talk to. Who the hell are you anyway … Mother Superior?’
So…what do you think of this Martin Doutre? Do you agree with his claim that the ‘Final Solution’ never existed?
I didn’t remove any comment, don’t like censorship. I’ve only had 1 comment from Scott.
So if the Maori are natives for all those activities Scott, now that europeans are here they have named the country, buried their dead, took possession of the land. Even Indians, asians, germans, scots have all buried their dead here and took possession of the land. So they and we are all indigineous then. I want a plot of land given to me by the government because I have buried my dead family in a cemetary, and I bought some land from the real estate agent.
Where is my free land?
Doutre himself says that he doesn’t mean to call them celts. Its just the best word he can come up with for them. He sid pre-celts but even that isn’t accurate. How bout you guys stop arguing on the internet, get off your asses and go and check out the evidence with a REAL archeologists with some certifications and then come back and tell us what you/they found. I went and had a look, I don’t know any archaeologists tho. Fuck the embargo and do some carbon dating on the shit. What’s gonna happen if you ignore the embargo?
As for hitlers Final solution? You mean killing all the jews? It seems to me that Hitler was a christian trying to get rid of a threat to christianity? I.E. The jews or Zionists.
So he was as bad as everyone else who has ever waged a war in the name of religion – which is practically every war ever.
Everybody needs to stop being hypocritical and getting so offended so easily about the holocaust. I’m sure there is evidence of less jews being killed than there actually was but I’m not sure it is not something that interests me.
It is not impossible that the number has been bodged by an international group – the same group that secured the false state of israel as a home for all jews, though for what intent I am not sure of.
Just like with 9/11 there is evidence that contradicts the official story. People can make their own decisions based on the evidence they have seen, that is what is so great about having a mind, free thought, and free speech. But these people are then persecuted for their conclusions.
It doesn’t fucking matter if hitler killed 100,000 jews or 100 million jews. It is still a horrible act of genocide. You stupid people who fly off the handle everytime someone says ‘well actually, the number was more like [insert number here]‘ are dicks.
Hitler was a bad dude for ordering all the jews killed, but I blame religion.
One point at a time Hamstar. The point I was making was that if the indigenous status of Maori is not dependent upon their being the first people here, then, ergo, there is no reason why a massive conspiracy should exist to hide the evidence they were not first. Agreed? So why not knock the conspiracy theory stuff about people like me hiding evidence of ancient pre-Celts or whatever on the head? You’ve built a mountain out of a non-existent molehill.
The point that I think was being made about the Holocaust is that the evidence for it is so overwhelming that anyone who denies it is either nuts or wants to make the Nazis look better than they were. Either way, it’s not a good look, is it? Perhaps you’re beginning to understand why Martin Doutre’s claims about NZ prehistory are not taken more seriously.
You seem to want to excuse Doutre by saying that he wants to claim that a smaller rather than larger number of Jews were killed by Hitler. Actually, if you examine Doutre’s own words which someone posted abopve, you’ll see he join the neo-Nazi David Irving in claiming that there was *no* Holocaust at all. I think that any sane person is entitled to ‘fly off the handle’ at that sortof claim.
You seem to be flirting with Holocaust denial and with 9/11 denial, whicb is just as untenable. Don’t go down the rabbit hole with Doutre and the rest of the nutters – join those of us in the real world who are doing real research. If you want to meet face to face and discuss these issues just send me an email. I do have a Jewish nose, but I promise I’m not part of a vast secret conspiracy.
Haha, I don’t really think there’s a conspiracy to hide the evidence, I just think that people like you just ignore it or discredit it without even checking it out. I would like to see some real archaeologists take a real look at Martins work instead of just attacking him. The fact that everyone gets up in arms against this guy, suggests a conspiracy, I think thats where all this conspiracy talk to cover it up comes from yknow?.
I’ve never looked into the holocaust myself so I’m just going to trust the majority.. But the fact that there are people who deny it or whatever make me wonder why they do. Surely the number of people who all deny it can’t all be nuts, or all nazi’s for that matter. Anything is possible. I would like to see the evidence they have for there being no holocaust and make my own decision.
If a sane person, flies off the handle, he is no longer sane.
I don’t deny the holocaust or 9/11. But 9/11 is fishy any way you look at it, so there is most definitely something going on there. Check out my 9/11 page on this site.
Thanks for the offer but I don’t care to meet you. If you have time to meet me, then you have time to go out in the field and verify Martin Doutre’s “evidence” and explain it from an archaeological point of view.
But youre not an archaeologist are you? I thought I read that you were a sociologist or something. So you shouldn’t claim that your educational status gives you an authority on Martin Doutres work.
No, I’m not an archaeologist. I have to reply on the work of archaeologists in the field. I am, coincidentally, going up north to visit an archaeological expedition this Easter, but I don’t have the years of specialist training that it’d take to really understand what was going on – I’ll just be a fascinated tourist.
But there’s an important point here: in the twenty-first century, disciplines like archaeology, history, sociology, and so on are incredibly rich in data, and one can’t be an expert on everything. Everybody borrows from experts in adjacent fields. That’s one of the things that grates about Mr Doutre – he really does seem to regard himself as some sort of universal genius, who is expert in every field of study known to humanity. He’s right about everything, and thousands of people – experts within their own little niches – are wrong about everything. He disregards the geologists, and says Rangitoto is thousands not hundreds of years old; he insists, in the face of the protests of linguists, that Maori and Egyptian languages are closely connected; he claims that experts in DNA are conspiring against him, because they don’t find any Celtic DNA in Maori; he says that experts on skeletal biology are talking nonsense, because they say that bones stretch as bodies decompose; he proclaims that ethnologists are mistaken, when they point out that red hair is found amongst many non-European peoples; and so on. He knows everything.
A distinguishing trait of a genuine scholar is an ability to draw on the work of other scholars and develop it. Scholarship is a collective labour. If you loom at the SRB debate with Doutre, you will see that I am assisted by a number of experts in fields other than my own – Edward Ashby, an archaeologist; Matthew Dentith, a philosopher and expert in fallacious arguments; Keri Hulme, a major NZ writer and expert in Maori oral tradition; and so on. I think the case we make against Doutre is a strong one.
You obviously have a strong interest in history; I hope that you will join the community of people researching and writing about New Zealand history, and not denounce us from from afar as part of some global Jewish conspiracy, as Doutre does.
If there is nothing to hide then answer this:
A) Why are archeological field notes and CD testing data from over 100 sites (Mainly burial) kept from public scrutiny due to being under embargo for up to 75 years. Chris Carter MP confirmed this in 2004.
B) Why are pro maori journalists and commentators publishing re-written versions of maori myth and legend or accounts of acquisition by tribes of non maori artifacts so as to not include any mention of a pre maori people. If you read 19th C accounts the original versions come to light and differ markedly at times. For example the Korotangi Dove is now stated to have come with the Tamahere people in the canoe when it was previously said by the tribe to be found within the roots when a tree had been felled by a storm.
C) Why is no DNA or CD testing allowed on ancient skeletons found even when obviously non maori, without consent from local iwi.
D) Why are remains automatically turned over to iwi for disposal or burial.
E) Why are representatives from Govt backed organizations such as Geographic NZ, NZ Archives etc denying ANY archeological evidence of pre maori habitation has been found when there is ample and well known examples stashed away in museums as well as written, photographic and drawn records of findings going back to the mid 1800s, not to mention the many books on NZ mysteries and interest from the 1800s through 1980s that relay the story of many of the finds and folklore that seems to be related to it
F) Why has DOC and its predecessors been destroying archeological sites and we have testimony to this effect.
G) Why are local Iwi intimidating and threatening those who attempt to visit and view the sites of archeological interest deemed Pre or Non Maori
H) Why are myth and legend regarding the various pre maori people dismissed and or ignored as fairytales yet some legend such as that regarding Tanipha given enough credence to even suggest payment of money to the relevant iwi would placate its sensibilities
I) Why did maori suddenly get all sensitive over preserved heads (Many of which showed clear non maori attributes) being in public view when they were originaly those of slaves traded without a care, yet it is fine to display other remains such as Egyptian mummies etc.
J) Why did Maori of the 19th C (Confirmed in old records) use the term Taungataphenua to refer to the people who preceeded them. According to maori oral history some tall, others very small, with redish skin and round faces, or fair skin and fair or red hair, and as numerous as ants, who carried thier young at the front rather than on the back as maori did. The smaller of the two who taught maori the arts of moko and net making. Yet now the term is used to refer to themselves.
K) Why was a Maori elder lecturer in Maori studies at Waikato University threatened with dismissal if he continued to teach the OLD stories which included those of the earlier inhabitants to the classes
L) Why did an SIS agent i used to work with in the late 80s tell me there has been since the early 80s and still is an active policy of concealment of the true habitation history of NZ.
You are being lied to people. And the biggest reason most NZ archeologists DONT research the subject is that they know little of it as the universities will not touch the subject other than to shoot it down and those that do know damn well they will get no govt funding for such work only govt obstruction.
I actually know the WHY and its due to a Govt fear of uprising which will be a post in itself. But before you do the usual conspiracy shit label i will tell you that the knowledge i have in that regard was obtained mainly during my military service from the mid 1980s to early 2000s. and is equally unknown to most barr those involved. More to come
NZ is fast becoming another South Africa, divided and impoverished, embroiled in hatred, social unrest, in other words “just another 3rd world shithole, time the meowries liad off for their own good!
Most Maori know no better themselves or just want to get on with working to pay the bills like everyone else and are to busy doing so to get involved in historical issues. Its a combination of the Militant bludgers that think everyone owes them something and the dick head politically correct guilt ridden pakiha and that most non maori kiwis know little of the old history so are unaware they are being conned that is the problem. As the old addage goes EDUCATION IS THE KEY, so get the info regarding the history , the suppression of it and the reasons why, out to as many as you can and get them to do the same only then will the truth be admitted.
Ok some info regarding those reasons why alluded too earlier.
Back in the 80s you may remember one of the armourys on a north island army camp was broken into and a hundred or so SLR rifles (The issue weapon of the time) and at least 4 GPMG heavy machineguns were stolen.
These were never recovered and none have turned up in the commissioning of any crimes so Govt assumed they were taken for future militant activity rather than criminal activity, which due to the design of this type of weapon they are unsuitable as they can not be cut down for concealment and still work.
By the mid 80s while serving in the NZ Army the Defence Forces held huge tri service exercises based on a scenario of a civil war or uprising of the “Native population” for lack of a better term. Now Governments do not waste millions of dollars on practicing for scenarios that they dont seriously envisage its forces needing to be deployed too.
The biggest of these was called Golden Fleece and to make it all the more realistic the Army used Black power gang members to augment the “Rebel force” so that it would consist of as near as possible the type of makeup or non professional fighters that an irregular militant force in such an uprising would consist of.
An officer from my regiment Max C. was the liaison between army and the gangs.
Now generally when you have a regular force up against an irregular rebel one the kill ratio is 10 rebels for every Govt soldier killed. Upon analyzing all the results of the exercise the ratio in this case was 1 to 1. and mock bombs and other activity not attributed to any govt unit were found to be very well made or implemented. This worried the shit out of the govt as it indicated some one was training the lower elements within maoridom on how to make bombs and conduct guerrilla war etc.
Two possibilities dawned at the time, A) that the some maoris were maintaining a contacts and getting training with Lybian Terrorists who a group was known to have had visited previously for such a purpose, or B) that Maori serving in NZ Regular or Teritorial force were training the boys back home.
By the mid 90s after the arrest of a member of the ALF a militant arm of the Kingite movement, when during a traffic stop articles of Military arms and or ammo was found in his car, i have been advised that several fellow ALF members stormed into Auckland Central Police Station and basically demanded that the guy be released forthwith or quote “We will go through you like a dose of salts”. Whatever they threatened or said it worked as their mate walked free. WHY OR WHAT COULD INTIMIDATE POLICE INTO THIS COURSE OF ACTION.
In the next weeks various vocal maori sovereignty nutters from within the King-ite movement were mouthing off on radio about how they would take the country back from thier colonial oppressors (Yawn). BTW the younger boisterous bucks who were keen for a fight with the oppressor were talked out of it by the elders many of whom have seen war in WW2, vietnam etc and implored them to try the political and legal roads first.
By the mid 90s the Army is actually canvasing all its soldiers, especially those of maori or mixed blood as to which way they would jump if any of the tribes rose up. Did they honestly think any with rebel sympathies would tell the truth, “Oh yes i’ll side with the rebels” let alone risk thier income and continued training at govt expense. WHY DO THIS UNLESS THEY HAVE A REAL FEAR OF AN UPRISING
Around this time a fellow soldier from my regiment, Ash was approached by a gang member whilst in a pub and being identified as a soldier was offered a case of beer if he would go to his place a take a look at his gun as it was faulty. Ash obliged but was surprised to find the gun in question was a GPMG (Probably from the armoury thefts years before) and on seeing the firing pin had been broken probably from dry firing he advised them it was beyond repair and just wanted to get the fuck outa there. He never reported it other than to mates as he knew they would know who had squealed.
During the mid 90s my mates Phill and Dave boarded a Russian Factory ship to purchase russian militaria which they were collecting at the time from one of the crew. Whilst there the crewman asked if they woould like to buy an AKSU which was a later version of the AK47 Assault rifle. They jokingly said “Yea well be into that” were upon he showed them to the ships armory which was stocked with AKs, RPGs and the like. The crewman advised all the ships carry them for use against pirates in various regions. On realising that the guy was for real they politely declined the offer as being gun collectors themselves they would risk thier existing collections if caught taking these ashore. The sailer was not phased and just said “No worriy we just sell to the maoris anyway” and named two locations which i cant remember unfortunately.
With this revelation we approached a fellow collector Brendan who is also a customs official when we attended the next Military Armys Society meeting and asked if he has heard of this type of thing and what is being done. He advised Govt had known of the practice for years but could do nothing due to lack of funds and manpower. Sources advise me that in recent years only Ammo is traded and is done so by trading fish cought over quota rather than cash as earlier on. This would have been going on for over 20 years now.
Several stories abound about motorists seeing caches of boxes marked as Russian weapons etc in sheds in the remote areas of the east cape etc but i can not vouch for them other than one instance when the tale came from a good friend of mine who incedentally was involved in the Waipua Forrest digs, and he is not the type to bullshit.
The story of training grounds also abound but i myself have nothing to offer in thier regard other than that that silly commy trout Helen didnt help when she set the raids in motion prematurely when she shit her self on getting a death threat the night before and fucked off to the islands well out of harms way. Who knows what intel could have been got and acted on if it werent for her.
Last year whilst attending a live day at MOTAT i was approached by a lady who recognised me as working in the same Defence HQ building as she did in the 80s. She was a SIS agent back then so now knowing what i do i asked if she had ever heard of pre maori civilization or any cover up of it by govt during her time with the secret squirels who were on the top floors of the building. She confirmed that Yes there was then and is now an active programe to hide the truth.
Judging by the evidence i have seen or experienced i surmise the following. Govt has come to an agreement with maori (Or factions of it) that in return for ensuring them a special place in NZ society (The Indigenous ones) and the benefits that the UN mandates provide, maori wont start shooting. Unfortunately the truth regarding who actually was here first is a casualty and must be hidden at all costs for national security as the belief that Maori are the original inhabitants is the foundation that the whole corrupt house of cards is built on. There is no other reason data from archiological sites can be deemed not for public consumption or sensitive to national security. The embargo terms of 75 years (Ie untill about 2064) would mean all claims etc would be settled and maori firmly entrenched where they want to be before the truth is expected to come out.
Interesting that the debate is always about who was here first.
Throughout history there have been wars, all wars are land wars, yes all.
Religion, Race and Politics are all secondary to Land when it comes to war, the Moari surely weren’t any different and since the Maori had no form of written language at all, not even pictures on a cave wall, i doubt any Treaty’s were signed.
I’m sick of being told i stole stuff from the same people who are raping my welfare system, using my tattoo equipment to let everybody know who they are and shopping at my supermarkets.
I’m sick of being greeted with “Kia Ora” whenever i turn the television on and sentences like “I’m going to the shop to get a Kai” make me sick, one Moari word in an english sentence doesn’t make sense, it basically states “I’m going to the shop to get some food and by the way, i’m a Maori”
I’ve lived in New Zealand since i was born, 33 Years of this shit is enough, i have read countless articles about Maori wanting their country back, Tangata Whenua and all that crap and all about how the white man is racist and somehow oppressing the Maori.
Give it up guys, you call me Pakeha, i take offence to this word in the same way you take offence to the word Nigger, which in turn makes the word offensive.I ran a bar in New Zealand for 15 years and listened to all kinds of crap about Europeans bringing alcohol to New Zealand and destroying the land.
Don’t forget, Housing Corp built houses on that land we destroyed, we gave you a voixce by lending our alphebet to your crazy language and if you don’t like the beer, don’t spend all your dole payments on it.
Anyway, i’m not racist, just frustrated, a lot of my good friends are Maori, they work hard just like me and take care of their families, however alot just complain and expect everything to be given to them on a silver platter.
I have just remembered the details regarding the NZAIF (Not ALF as previously stated). It stood for NZ Armed Intervention Force and was made up of mainly ex soldiers and the like. The individual pulled over in the routine traffic stop was a Maori chap Jason Thompson, and the public face regarding media at the time was Kevin Alp. Investigate ran a story on this outfit back in August 2000 complete with quotes as to how seriously Army, police and SIS took its existence. A quote from the article with content attributed to Alp ”
The NZAIF claims to be a legitimate army representing a legitimate govt – the 1835 Maori Parliament that provided 50/50 power sharing between the confederation of maori tribes and the british. Although many maori chiefs later signed the treaty of waitangi – which was used by british to proclaim sovereignty over NZ in the name of Queen Victoria the tribes that refused to sign continued to hold the 1835 document as being the supreme aggreement. Although the confederation of tribes is staunch in its claim that Maori still own NZ, its army (NZAIF) has a more diverse political outlook. Alp a self confessed “Maori basher from way back” says “The NZAIF is for all New Zealanders. We are fighting for the Maori Government because we believe they are the lawfull government, but we are not about to let maori go around shooting pakeha or anything like that”
It was the proposed actions this group and hot headed young ones intended to carry out that from what i am lead to believe the elders implored the trying of the legal and political avenues first. With these avenues clearly getting headway and the advent of the Maori party what actual threat groups like NZAIF if its still even active poses is not known by me but would Govt want to take the chance. For detailed info dig up a copy of the Aug 2000 investigate as it shows clearly how seriously Govt took this organisation and its threats. All just more ammo to hold up the motive for the deception on national security grounds
Well, well, well what a debate? but then who am i to even say that,? after all you gave me a housing corp house? you gave me a car to drive? you gave me an alphabet? you gave me alot of ways of education? not a racist? kiwi came about because some people didn’t want to acknowledge the indigenous people of Aotearoa, a flightless bird i am not. Tangata Whenua, I am indeed and with a Whakapapa that goes back (pre Maori) as you call it. Who said Maori only came on the canoes, my Whakapapa puts us (Maori) on this land befor the landing of the first canoe. So what category am i? I am not much older than you and have both European and Maori and what i find amazing it is so hard for people to accept Maori were ripped off and if it had been your people this happened to what would you be saying?…immigrants came here after Maori already had their own way of living, their own government, their own beliefs, their own way of exporting and importing, their own civilisation…why people don’t understand this is beyond a half breed like me, I am proud of both my Maori and Pakeha or European heritages and i know who i am, where i come from, and where i am going and i also know that this is not going to affect my children and their children because what i do today determines their future. The ripples of your comments against the truth will be felt by your generations and i hope they get it sorted befor they too sound like you. After all i should be grateful that i have a computer and internet so i can have a say…not a researcher, not an academic genious just someone who knows when a document between two peoples has not been honoured then the ripples or affects of this will go on until honour comes to it.
The problem is that the document you want to honour IS NOT what was actually signed in the 1840s but the 1980s govt rewritten bastardisation of the document that was (See Littlewood treaty).
I know my Scottish heritage back through the Macfarlane clan to the celtic Lennox people to the Attacotti tribe of pre celtic bronze age scotland before the Scotti tribe came over from what is now Ireland, took our lands and assimilated with us, then the Romans, the Britons, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, the English did the same. And each time we did gain many things as well as loose many other things including our sovereignty and freedom. Guess what Scotland is still not quite free from the English yoke, but i am inteligent enough to know that as romantic as it sounds to go back to pre 800BC or 1702AD, Scotlands people are actually better off economically how it is now. Or do you think it right for me to burden the present populations of Ireland, Italy, France, Denmark, England with reparation payments to me and everyone with an ounce of Attacotti or Scotish blood in their veins because of what people who they may or may not be decended from had perpetrated not on me but on my ancestors.
Do you think only dark skinned people, have long ancestry, had tribal cultures, had oral traditions, warriors, practiced cannibalism (Yes we did it too), tattooed themselves, considered themselves one with the land, had names that translated to something, and got screwed over. NEWS FLASH WE ALL DID but we get over it and progress in to the modern world with history being exactly that, history. Fascinating as it is.
And if you read your own Maori oral tradition you would find out that it says appart from the Moriori who have always maintaned they are a seperate race, there were fair and red skinned people with red and blonde hair here when they arrived who tought them various arts.
These people already had thier own way of living, thier own govt, thier own beliefs, their own way of trading, thier own civilisation, (Sound Familiar) why YOU cant understand this is beyond a half breed like me also and im proud of my mixed Scots, Dutch heritage. Welcome to the world the Maori side of you is no different or more hard dun by than the rest of us.
If your heritage does go prior to the Fleet then you may well be Moriori (Also denied as another race by Maori) or in fact a descendant of these original fair skinned people, Just think of the heritage and history you would be denying yourself but i guess denying the truth for present monetary gain from people that owe you nothing is easier than looking for the truth and maybe being proud of an ancestry you didnt realise you had. I wonder how many so called Maori (With questionable percentages of maori blood anyway) would join a Pakeha decent electoral roll when there is nothing to gain from embracing their other bloodlines
I am surprised Just a Maori has not replied. Maybe he hasnt even re-visited the thread after posting his epistle. Maybe the home truths that he (Or a percentage of himself) is actually no more hard done by than anyone else was not conclusive to his argument for endless reparations. Or maybe a miracle happened and he was actually enlightened enough to go off to ask his elders for the truth re his peoples history, but i wont hold my breath.
A very interesting site on research on the “Lapita” people who populated the Pacific before the present polynesians and melanesians etc. These people made pottery which the later inhabitants did not, and this pottery has been found in NZ too. But that is not the only similarity to the NZ situation. As you will read the in depth research and archeological evidence is also being ignored by the archeology establishment as it is here.
http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/page6.htm
Yet more evidence that there were people of non Polynesian ethnicity in the south and wider pacific long before those the establishment will accept. Well worth a read.
Mr AW Lees, 60 yrs old, (ancient) Veterinary Surgeon, semi rtd, with an interest in prehistory.
I’ve read through Martin Doutre’s book. Always been interested in The Pyramids etc. Must be one of the few that have. I then go looking for critics which brings me to a New Zealand site like this, where not unnaturally you folks are more concerned about the Celtic White New Zealand bit, but within half an hour its all Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
Quite frankly I couldn’t care two hoots whether Doutre is a Nazi or not.
I’ve met quite a few Germans and ex Nazis in my time.
I even met an old Prussian who was a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm and (he, not me, silly) was presented to the Czar Nicholas.
The stories those Germans told were very confusing to a young boy(me) born just after the war, in Scotland.
For instance the German panzer commander who said they had a great time in France.
Some French people that I met on holiday, said the Germans ran the place better than they did themselves. Apparently the German troops were very disciplined and by all accounts, the French female population was not backward in coming forward. Bit different to the stuff I saw on TV where everybody hated them and every able-bodied Frenchman was a heroic member of the resistance. Sorry, but it just doesn’t stack up.
Then you get an incident like Oradour -sur-Glane, where an SS unit wipes out a whole village for little reason and you’re back to square one.
Good and bad in all nations and peoples, seems to be the only reasonable way of dealing with those events.
Good Nazis and bad Nazis .
Good Communists and bad Communists, with evil men stepping in to profit from, and abuse their new-found power and settle old scores.(real or imagined)
Good Jews and bad Jews. And that is the most puzzling thing of all.
The descriptions of the Jews that I got from those Germans who were there at the time, are very much at odds to what you see in Hollywood films of the Holocaust, made in the seventies, and beyond.Rightly or wrongly the general view of them, certainly in Berlin, was that of con-men,crooks and gangsters, that paid little attention to the law.Of course it may be that they had to fall back on a life of crime because of German discrimination. But then money was tight, the country was really down-at-heel. They couldn’t feed and house the waves of immigrants the way we, in Britain, do nowadays.
How can I judge? I wasn’t there.
Victor and vanquished have very different tales to tell.
Anyway, Good Luck to you Antipodeans, and I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction of somebody, able and qualified, to refute Mr Doutre’ s “parcel of numbers”.
I’ll leave the NZ bit to you locals. Remember that when M Doutre refers to “Celts” this is just a term of convenience because there isn’t, as yet, a universally recognised term for the antecedents of the Celts.( but if you had read the book you would have known that!)
Perhaps you might ask Matthew Sprigs, Patrick Kirch, Janet Davidson, and Anita Smith if they agree with the inferences this article asserts that they do. I think you’ll find they do not. The article is a rambling and uncritical example of someone taking quotes out of context and failing to understand the subtleties of archaeological research. Such tactics are not uncommon, as by producing a mass factiod drop and citing the names of respected researchers, the author attempts to stun and coerce the reader with jargon in an effort to construct a compelling argument. The underlying hypothesis of the article assumes that cultures do not change or adapt to environments or due to processes of drift, but that they are rather static systems in which a type at a given point in time is representative of said culture’s entire history. Furthermore, most of the author’s inferences are based solely on tenuous and poorly understood stylistic comparisons, culminating not only in the assertion that ancestral Polynesian culture was not related to Lapita, but also that Lapita is related to a pan global diffusion of Mediterranean peoples. No understanding of convergence is displayed or taken into account, likely due to the Author’s lack of qualification in archaeology and a desire to portray a hyper-diffusionist framework. Lastly, the continued undertones of Polynesians as a “barbaric people”, the citing of Thor Heyerdahl, and the incorporation of red haired Europeans are all tired markers of the same set of rambling pseudo-archaeology which is reinvented every several years or so in an attempt to undermine indigenous rights and establish ethnocentric notions of white supremacy. These notions appear again and again and reference each other in an attempt to form some legitimacy to their claims despite being utterly discredited by researchers and being completely at odds with the evidence. A typical example of pseudo-science straining under the weight of its own inadequacies.
I am however aware that you are unlikely to take any of this on board, and are likely to continue to claim some kind of archaeological expertise/knowledge despite having no clue as to even the most basic principals of archaeological method and theory. Such ‘overnight experts’ surely must suffer delusions of grandeur, but that is another matter. All I can do is suggest you utilise whatever rationality and critical thinking you might have and at least look twice with a skeptical eye over such articles.
This is for Andrew W Lees,
http://archaeologyaeoteoroa.blogspot.com/
On this link you will find a series of links to sites which discuss and debate Doutre’s views. The skeptics article under ‘Celtic New Zealand hypothesis’ should be of interest to you in answer to your request.
I can assure you that it isn’t just archaeologists that reject such notions, but many other disciplines also. The fact that archaeologists in this country are continually faced with such misnomers shows that the decades of real research is not reaching the public (or, basically a lack of archaeology education in schools), and that vacuum is unfortunately being filled by pseudo-science/archaeology/history.
The link provided goes into more depth which I will not go into here. Suffice to say be wary of what you read out there (i.e. not peer-reviewed, self-published/no respectable publisher, no referece to the tons of research done by those trained etc.) as there is a lot of rubbishy info and sometimes people cannot differentiate between ‘good’ archaeology and ‘bad’ archaeology.
Anyway, good luck.
Edward
Thanks for the links,Edward, and the admonition to concentrate on good archaeology and not bad. By and large, I shall give the benefit of the doubt to the professionals.
Having said that, I would like to point out that the professionals seem to be just a little too in thrall to orthodoxy, consensus and fashion.I’ve been around long enough to see this for myself, not just in archaeology but in medicine and veterinary medicine.
The idea that universities and academia are hotbeds of new ideas, tolerant of lateral thinking and the dogged pursuit of the truth, no matter the cost, is a complete myth.
Take the issue of race. Anybody that makes a case for inequalities between races is headed for the wilderness.
I have an interest in this as a vet(veterinary surgeon). In the animal kingdom there are breeds and subspecies with clearly recognisable differences, yet when it comes to humans we are told that such rules don’t apply.Science is cold and dispassionate and if it is allowed to run free and untrammelled, it may come up with some very “inconvenient” scenarios.Science is being overruled by dogma.These days many scientists and academics, if you get to know them well enough, actually have two opinions: One for public consumption and a private one that they keep to themselves.
So the idea that you’re going to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, from academia is a bit of a myth.
For that reason, and the fact that it is raining outside, I am going to speak on behalf of the “pseuds”
Take Martin Doutre’s hypothesis of pre-maori settlement of NZ, which was only of passing interest to me.
My verdict is “not proven”. Interesting, but not proven.
On the other hand his writings on metrology, numerology and sacred geometry are very good, and one or two with an interest in the subject have commended his section on weights and measures and their astronomic and geodetic origins.
Many of his observations tie in with those of another “pseud”.. Crichton- Miller, engineer and navigator(author of the Golden Thread of Time) who brings many new ideas and perspectives to the capabilities of the ancients.Let’s add in Prof Alexander Thom( deceased, Prof of Engineering at Oxford) while I ‘m at it.
None of those are professional archaeologists, but they are bringing their trades and professions to a discipline not renowned for being the haunt of those of mathematical and engineering ability. Martin Doutre is a carpenter by trade. Not much to do with archaeology you would think, but not so, for this type of thing involves measurement and construction.My grandfather was a carpenter too, and he always said that 80% of the job was measurement.That’s why I bought the book and did the maths.That was what was so interesting about this “pseud”.What would a practical mind make of enigmatic constructions such as the Pyramids and Stonehenge? Let’s get away from the religious mumbo jumbo of ritual sacrifice and tombs of the pharoahs and explore the possibility that there were very practical reasons for their construction.
Maths and astronomy don’t lie, and I feel pretty certain that the key to understanding the Pyramids, Stonehenge and the megaliths of my native Scotland, resides in a mathematical and practical approach.(Isaac Newton would agree)
Also, allowance should be made for the fact that knowledge can be lost as well as gained.
Knowledge was not broadcast freely in the ancient world, but was confined to a tiny minority and jealously guarded.
The concept of universal education and free dissemination of knowledge of modern times is extraordinarily unusual in human history.
When mathematicians turn their attention to the ancient world, interesting things happen.One of their number has come to the conclusion that the inch and foot were derived from the earth’s polar radius.No, he’s not gone nuts, for he states quite clearly that it could be just a coincidence, a chance event.
But if not, then it means that some very clever people were around before Babylon and Egypt appeared. His thesis is that the 360 degree system survived in Babylon and the Earth surface-measure, the Egyptian Royal cubit was preserved in Egypt.
But to derive the inch,requires both.Certainly the notion that the Egyptian cubit, and any other ancient measures were derived from human body parts is highly unlikely. Only someone without practical experience of trade and industry would suggest such a thing. Human beings can be daft, but not that daft.
Another example I came across was an explanation for the biblical “forty days and forty nights.” This was no arbitrary figure but rather a nifty way of keeping track of where you were in the year. It operates over a nine year cycle.Very clever stuff, and a pointer to the ancients’ fascination and adept manipulation of numbers.Of course we’re talking about the educated ancients who would be but a very small proportion of the population.
The “pseuds” can’t be all bad. Don’t universities now teach archaeo-astronomy? Looks like the pseuds lead, and eventually, ever so slowly, the establishment follows.Is Sir Patrick Moore, Mr Astronomy in the UK, a “pseud”? He doesn’t have any degrees(except honorary ones,and richly deserved in his case).
Another example of the “pseuds” leading.
Diffusionism. Travel across the oceans.Before Columbus, utterly impossible..oh apart from the Vikings.
Dr Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian (not a pseud) now has compelling evidence of contact between Solutreans(Europe) and Clovis(N America).Have a look at his lecture on youtube.
I can assure you that on reading Mr Doutre’s book I have not swallowed the whole thing hook, line and sinker.
There are problems. But you get this with any book.
The land measurements, I have difficulty with.There would seem to be inaccuracies and a desire to make the numbers fit, but that is but a tiny bit of the overall picture.
Similarly, with the business of measurement of precession using the “small resolving circles”.
A chap from the Auckland Astronomical Society made the point that the stars don’t simply progress from right to left but move in the vertical as well. On top of that the stars themselves do move relative to one another.So that it would be difficult to arrive at a definite figure of something like 1deg every 72yrs. On the other hand they had plenty of time.
I think the only way to get the answer is to do an experiment by way of full scale reconstruction. Does it work or doesn’t it?
I did go looking at the sites of the New Zealand archaeological establishment.
If they weren’t taking Mr Doutre’s hypothesis seriously, what were they up to?
I’m still trying to get the answer to that.
There seemed to be a bit of stuff about rummaging about in old Maori middens which led to the conclusion that they ate a lot of fish, but as a lot of the site was barred to outsiders I didn’t find out very much.
I came away thinking that either something very hush-hush was going on or else NZ taxpayers were footing the bill for a lazy bunch of academics, or else the presentation on the web doesn’t do justice to their efforts.
Very dry, dusty, musty presentation. Judging by the refutations of Martin Doutre’s thesis that I’ve come across so far, they seem to spend more time talking politics and honing their character assassination skills, than they do in digging, recording and presenting their findings to the public in plain simple language.
I wish I could convey what a turn-off the character assassination is.In fact one of the most interesting bits on Mr Doutre’s website is the origin of Political Correctness in Marxist Russia, in the twenties.Never knew that. An awful lot of things started to make sense once I read that.
No wonder the “pseuds” get such a hearing.
They, at least make an effort to communicate with the public.
Until the halls of academia resound to the echoes of opposing arguments and the spirit of the Enlightenment returns, I shall view their pronouncements with deep scepticism, and I suggest that every educated person should do the same.
Methinks”Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”.
“Very dry, dusty, musty presentation” I think surmises why the public don’t have much of an education when it comes to archaeology specifically and academia in general. Real scholarship uses very technical language and it often requires a basic understanding of the massive Babbage of theory and method which accompanies a given discipline. This, as you point out is a big problem and one i’m not sure how to remedy as research is problem orientated and very specialised and thus runs into problems when it comes to public dissemination of knowledge. However, insofar as pseudo-scholarship goes, it fills in this void as it really is just a popularity contest in that these ideas such as the Celtic NZ one are incredibly predictable and formulaic and provide what the public want: a good story with drama, heroes, foes, an exotic land or culture, and a good ol’ fashioned conspiracy story to boot. In the Celtic NZ hypothesis, you have the Celts acting as the heroes, the Maori acting as the ‘cannibalistic and volatile’ foes, Celtic culture and ‘technology’ as the mysterious/exotic factor, and the conspiracy that academia is ‘covering up’ the truth. Thus despite the epistemological issues insofar as there is no actual evidence for any of this (I wont go into it here as I have already done so on the scoop review of books link), the public falls for it as it captures a populist imagination.
The pity of it is that the real scholarship is so much more interesting and worth while. Sure, it may not be as sensationalised – archaeologists are more likely to analyse midden to get at a bigger research question such as subsistence, chronology or settlement patterns than to make up improbable and fanciful stories about “pre-celts” sailing to the other side of the planet for no particular reason (no reason is ever supplied, they “just did” for the hell of it apparently) at a time when neither the culture or technology in question existed so that they could establish “open air universities” and “astronomical markers” only to be wiped out for no particular reason to the point where not one shred of evidence remains – but truthful and genuine scholarship is far more interesting and useful than this pseudo rubbish will ever be. If ever Occam’s Razor was in need of some sharpening, surely this is the example.
Aside from the reality-based fact that such pseudo-archaeological hypotheses as the hyper-diffusionist and non-sensical Celtic NZ hypothesis are based on nothing more than an overcharged imagination and a complete lack of evidence (Doutre has no idea of even the basics of archaeological method and theory), they present the same kind of danger as the presentation of Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory to be taught in American schools alongside the theory of evolution by natural selection – namely, the danger of eroding rationality and honest scientific enquiry and instilling in their place a fundamentalist worldview where cultural and political biases get to ride up front and in place of legitimate research. The populist appeal of these pseudo-‘theories’, and the propaganda produced by their followers, including, in NZ, a portion of NZ society being actively anti-Maori and using Doutre’s rambling rhetoric as a focal point by which to challenge Maori indigenous status and thus (supposedly) rights under international and national law and human rights, is indeed a manipulative attempt to insight not only the author’s egocentric need for attention and special “genius-who-can-see-what-others-cannot” status, but also the spread of intolerance and bigotry. Believe what you will about “character assassination”, but at the end of the day it is Doutre’s (et al.) embarrassing and failed attempt at scholarship, conspiracy-minded paranoia, sympathies with holocaust deniers, and ethnocentric attitude which ultimately define the mind which created the rubbish many members of the public love to cite as “the truth”.
As for carpentry skills equating to archaeological knowledge, come on. The inference that because the two use ‘measurements’ (a very ambiguous term) that they may as well be the same is like saying that psychology and brain surgery are the same because they both focus in some ways and in some regards on the human brain.
Anyway, I shall stop it there as i’m very busy and this is a huge distraction which I doubt will produce the most positive results. I thank you for approaching the topic with a more open mind then some, and wish you well on your pursuit of more knowledge.
Edward
If i was a betting man i would place a large one on our psycho babbling “MR Ed” either having himself, or being employed by an organization with an interest in the truth (However close we have come to it) remaining hidden.
One thing your big words and oh so academic phrases will never proove false is the things i myself experienced as outlined earlier in the thread. All of which point to a motive for state covering the truth.
Martin and others will not have hit every nail on the head just as so called legitimate scientists, experts etc dont either, but ONLY by gathering evidence of all types and questioning where it leads or what was accepted before will the truth come out.
By your recconing of total belief in accepted experts only we would never have worked out the earth was round and traveled around the sun, after all the ecclesiastical “Experts” decreed otherwise. Just because some evidence is anecdotal or unproven is no reason to discard it out of hand, unless as history shows us (And even that is altered to suit) those findings go against state or personal agendas of course.
Jeep,
Well, its a good thing you’re not a betting man then because that is simply a load of rubbish. As for me ‘babbling’ it always astonishes me that when push comes to shove people like you who just “know” without actually conducting research of your own and just relying on some paranoid anecdote, never actually read or absorb one iota of what someone with a legitimate criticism has written. I guess though, that it is easier just to completely ignore what I wrote and attack me with ad hominem statements isn’t it? Your tactics merely show you have no debating skills or knowledge of what you are talking about so when you get cornered you come out with “oh, but you’re paid by the conspirators” or “you must be arrogant because you use ‘big’ words” etc. Rather pathetic i’m afraid. Buy a dictionary and loose the inferiority complex.
As for your epistomological inferences (look it up) of having “never worked out the earth was round” that is a modern myth. The Greeks knew this as did most other cultures. Another example of your “sterling” research skills perhaps? Or did you just “feel” it through more of your amazing personal experience? You are of course correct however that we wouldn’t know as much as we do unless paradigms (look it up) were challenged through the accumulation of evidence. Apparently however, you think scientific theories are ‘ideas’ which are just thought up in the same way your “ecclesiastical experts’ did. Perhaps you should wikipedia “theory” or “scientific method” so I don’t have to use any “big words” explaning it to you seen as you’re above learning via debate?
At any rate, science is self-correcting, as new evidence comes along the theory evolves, but this requires actual scientifically tested and repeatable data with can then be taken as evidence. This is as opposed to just accepting what anyone believes as being evidence despite its being false as is the case with the Celtic NZ hypothesis or your own subjective experiences with you point me to.
Laslty, well, if you don’t like experts, academics, or scientific consensus then perhaps you should avoid going to the doctor next time you need a check up. The ‘relativity card’ you have pulled is a blatantly obvious tactic of the desperate person who doesn’t really have much of anything useful to say.
Ed
If you put half as much effort as you seem to put into debunking the notion of Pre maori culture into actually researching the thousands of examples of anecdotal and recorded evidence of Non Maori finds you will be pleasantly surprised. No doubt some examples will turn out to be incorrect or to give a false lead but others will definitely prove correct. Why are you so so keen to deny any other possibility than the presently promoted RE-written version of history, Maori myth, records etc. Many books, reports, publications etc that i have read (Researched) from the mid 1800s to the 1980s told one version or account of various myth, anecdote, archeological and geological findings etc but altered versions of the same or glaring holes in some instances are common to publications of late. The common thread is the differences always downplay or eradicate any reference to earlier inhabitants. Is this just coincidence?
When i put it together with the experiences i had and knowledge i gained whilst in the military, as to Govt fear of uprising, as well as accounts from others on this and the actual Non Polynesian skeletal and other archeological findings, the lengths Govt agencies and lackey organizations have gone to to shut this up says much and tells me this IS worth looking into. Maybe YOU can answer the series of questions i posed in my first posts. I personally dont give a flying fuck who was here first, if they called themselves Celts, Maoris, or fish fingers and i wouldn’t gain anything if i am proven right other than maybe my tax dollar being spent on need rather than race based policy. But there are others who have much to gain if we sit on our hands and don’t investigate why Govt has been acting as it has.
My distrust of “Experts” is based on the fact that every scientist i have seen in the media has followed the same govt line including in many instances quoting the usual re-written versions of things or blatantly denying any evidence exists when a multitude of archeological society and newspaper reports, books etc over 150 years relay accounts of these discoveries. The NZ fraternity is so small and so many working for Govt organizations or on Govt funded research that very few are FREE to voice their OWN points of view publicly on this topic, for fear of their funding or positions. I know of a Maori elder who lecturers in Maori studies at University who has been threatened with dismissal if he continued to teach the old stories which included mention of the Pre Maori Terehu or Patupaiarehe peoples who according to Maori Myth already inhabited NZ in large numbers when Maori arrived. Why is Maoridom and Officialdom so scared of the old stories being told, and un-restricted research being undertaken?
Btw i know very well many cultures knew the true situation regarding earth and sun etc, I am an avid reader of all things historical, but the example was chosen specifically to highlight how previously well known information or TRUTH can be lost to a society/culture through state censorship and control (With or without religious agendas). And i would not consider Wikipedia an infallible source of information by its very ability to be “Updated” by any Tom, Dick and Non-expert Harry.
Jeep,
I am a field archaeologist. I work with the NZ archaeological record. I reject these pseudo theories becuase there is no archaeological evidence for them, not from my own experience, that of my colleagues, my predecessors or the wealth of literature out there. Likewise, there is no evidence to sustain thier claims from overseas (with regards to Celts or whoever moving out of Europe with advanced technology). Thus I reject them because I know them to be simply untrue in the same way an evolutionary biologist rejects Intelligent Design as a ‘legitimate’ hypothesis. It really is just that simple.
As for your own research into some of the old literature I have two main points. The first is that the first thing you learn in literature reviews is how to analyse the context and biases of the work (especially when it is an old work). This is a common practice and is perhaps best known from classics. The point is that there are many things to be aware of and it is easy to misinterpret texts if you don’t look at them critically. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible is a good example of this.
The second point is one you tried to highlight yourself. If we are merely to accept without testing the ‘proofs’ of the past be it from religious, political, or early scientific perspectives, then we never learn anything new. Sometimes past interpretations are simply false, especially when they are based on nothing but a hearsay inspired European view of indigenous cultures. You charged me of failing to acknolwedge this, yet when it comes to suiting your own ends or belief (and that is what you have, not knowledge i’m afraid) you’re more than happy to forget it yourself in order to argue that a handful of early muddled accounts are historical and indeniable fact. Lastly science and academia in general work on a cumulative scale – things are tested and retested and new evidence is added meaning that the knowledgebase is always evolving to accomodate new prooven research and to reject old unworkable hypotheses. This is what has happened with many early ideas of New Zealand Prehistory. And when I say early, I mean early, and certainly not any mention of “Celts” or any such in archaeology. I think that is squarely in the realm of misunderstood interpretations of a handful of early encounters.
Where you comment on your distrust of experts or “experts” as you say (i’m not sure who qualifies as an expert or specialist if those who have conducted years of full-time university training dedicated to a given area cannot claim that title in thier particular area – perhaps Doutre is the only one worthy of being called an expert in your opinion?) being due to their agreeing with the Government, did you ever stop and think that it is the other way around!? Not even once? Did you not think that perhaps the Government are basing thier opinion on the thorough and tested work of qualified researchers? That this research has been found sound and thus the Government takes an educated stance as it should? At any rate, the level of archaeological education in this country is deplorable compared to others, leading, ironically, to my having to even bother with debates such as this very one.
As for your ‘knowledge’ of the New Zealand archaeological fraternity what exactly are you basing this on? How many archaeologists do you know? Any? Or are you being devisive again? If you really had much intimate knowledge of the state of the archaeological community you would never has posted a link which claimed that Matthew Sprigs, Patrick Kirch, Janet Davidson, and Anita Smith would somehow agree with the silly inferences the article made of their research. Secondly you state that the majority are working for Government organisations or rely on government funding, which is simply untrue. Back here on planet earth if someone actually did know anything about NZ archaeologists they would know that the vast majority (perhaps 80 percent) work in the private sector and don’t get a single cent from the government. Is this more of your “sterling” research skills like the ‘people believed in the middle ages that the earth was flat’ modern myth you tried to pass of as fact?
As for archaeologists not being “FREE to voice their OWN points of view”, you are one arrogant SOB to think you can speak for archaeologists (or academics in general) after all the rubbish you’ve been going on about. I know the majority of the archaeologists in NZ (it’s called a conference, something professionals go to to exchange knowledge and socialise, and being one myself, I go along too), and every single one of them vehemently rejects the sort of drivel such as the Celtic NZ hypothesis, not out of conspiracy, not out of spite, not out of personal gain, but simply out of having knowledge of the evidence, which, as it so happens here in reality, goes against all of what Doutre et al. claim. I know of a senior Maori lecturer who gave a talk at the last conference about all of the pseudo-history out there in this country and how the education system has failed in this regard. Lastly, unrestricted research is carried out. Every day of every year. Just because it doesn’t match up with yours or Doutres wishful thinking doesn’t mean it is part of some conspiracy.
Your last paragraph i’m afraid you can’t scurry out from either. Here you say in response to my pointing out that you were mistaken in using the ‘flat earth’ as an example, that you are an “avid reader of all things historical” and knew that cultures knew the earth was flat before the ‘ecclesiastical’ age, but that you pointed it out as an example of how the truth can be lost through “state censorship and control”. Talk about missing the point entirely. When I said it was a modern myth that they thought the world was flat did you read instead “people knew the earth was flat before the ecclesiastic age”?? You obviously are in need of lessons in literature review as you seem to read what you want here as well as in your research. The notion that in the middle ages or ‘ecclesiastical’ age they generally thought the world was flat is a modern myth. A MODERN myth. I.e they in fact knew it was round. So, basically its not an example of anything at all because the state didn’t hide the truth leading to information loss, as it was never lost at all but was only thought so in modern (i.e. c.19th century) times due to yet more pseudo-history. Cool huh? Isn’t psuedo-history a fantastic thing? Especially when it captures one of its own unsuspecting followers (you).
Here’s a quote from wikipedia (I know its not the best but it is quick for this purpose):
“During the 19th century, the Romantic conception of a European “Dark Age” gave much more prominence to the Flat Earth model than it ever possessed historically. It is a modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, many scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead.”
and:
“In 1945 the Historical Association listed “Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception” second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.”
So, at the end of the day, despite you being “an avid reader of all things historical” I had to go and do your research for you about one of the most obvious misnomers in history, research that took me a total of about 30 seconds. Doesn’t say much for your self-honouring “research skills” now does it?
So, to break it down fo’ ya;
1. You have double standards when it comes to testing data (i.e. only data which fits your beliefs should NOT be tested i.e. your “research” into old ethnography and hearsay should be taken as truth)
2. You claimed that the majority of archaeologists work for the government when the opposite is in fact ture.
3. You claimed that some archaeologists/scholars are not free to state their own points of view, yet you don’t know any archaeologists, and in point of fact archaeologists unanimously reject the ideas you’ve been postulating.
4.You claimed that people thought that the earth was flat in the middle ages, and despite me pointing out that this was a myth, still insisted this was so.
5. Despite not being an archaeologist you seem to think you’re an expert in archaeology.
Hmmm, not looking real good for you there. Perhaps you should quit while you’re…behind. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, juuuust maybe. You could be the one who is in fact wrong?
Just an observation stemming from the exchange between Edward and Jeep, neither of whom give their full names.
First thanks to Edward to pointing me in the direction of a site which aids one in the spotting of “pseuds” ,and a very useful reminder it is too.
However it has one serious deficiency. It omits comment on an important phase of the scientific process, namely the exercise of imagination, and speculation that follows establishment of fact.At this point all are free to express an opinion. Naturally the professionals’ ( provided they are honest) opinion will carry more weight than the unqualified, but until the next bit of evidence comes along, the value of that opinion differs from others only in degree.There may even be a concensus, which enhances that weight of opinion, but until new facts are established then their case remains essentially “not proven”.
Likely and more reasonable than competing ideas, but still ” not proven”.
A certain smugness and certainty(which rankles) comes across in Edward’s posts, that suggests that the opinion of professionals, especially where concensus exists, counts as proof.
It does not. You too have to prove your case… that there was no human settlement in NZ prior to the Maori arrival.
That fact has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and until it is, speculation will continue and rightly so.
Let’s look at one of Martin Doutre’s bits of evidence in favour of early habitation, the Waipoua forest area. Alleged collapsed beehive houses and evidence of horticulture.
Surely by conducting an extensive and thorough investigation of this site, then the matter could be settled pretty well once and for all.
If the area is devoid of refuse, animal bones, ceramics, fire-making etc, then we can all go home saying “well that’s the end of that theory.”
On the other hand, what if you do find something?
It would the historical and archaeological blockbuster of all time.
For it would mean that humans, almost inevitably whites, were capable of crossing the oceans in ancient times.
This would give us whites a boost to our racial pride akin to the Obama effect on Blacks.
You would be a millionaire, maybe a billionaire.
In contrast, what if you find nothing.
That would be equally good. You get a big pat on the back from the authorities.
” Don’t worry about that inflation-proof pension, laddie. Security of tenure? No Problem.Thanks for fixing the Nazis.
You can have a share in the new Brothel/Casino complex. That’s the trouble with this country. Too much rugby and sport where there’s no serious money to be made. More gambling, sex and drugs, that’s what this country needs. These are the new industries. With half the country in the hands of the nig-nogs we’ll have no problem getting land and rights for our centres of entertainment.
“But Sir , you mustn’t call them Nig-Nogs.”
Oh come on Edward, don’t tell me you really believe all that noble savage tosh. If you were negotiating the purchase of land for a house,would you rather negotiate with someone with an IQ of 70 or a hundred+? You’re just not using the noddle. Good God man, just because we spoke up for the rights of the Maoris doesn’t mean that we really like them. It’s just a ploy. Get it now?.”
What holds Edward back?
Isn’t it interesting that a dig actually has been conducted on this site, by qualified personnel ( I think) and the results have been blocked for 75 yrs.
And this zone is prohibited along with 200-odd others,in an empty (relative to overcrowded Britain) country like yours.
Plain weird that is, and very unscientific, if I may observe.
Hi Andrew,
The link I provided is only meant as a basic starting point for further quick or online research and thus doesn’t hold discussions itself about the nature of science etc.
No, I don’t think the opinions of experts count as proof. I think that the evidence presented and tested by experts counts as proof. There is a huge difference. Scientifically tested evidence vs opinion.
Third, no, I don’t really have to prove my case. The burden of proof, as always, lies on the shoulders of those who hold anomalous views. The current consensus has been arrived at through generations of scientific research (including disciplines other than archaeology), and as such any challenge to this needs to be scientifically sound. It is not the job of those who conduct serious scholarship and have an intimate knowledge of the literature to stop what they are doing all of the time in order to run off and ‘disprove’ crackpot ideas. No genuine research would ever get done, the entire careers of archaeologists would be spent on the defensive against just plain ludicrous ideas with no supporting evidence and for what? So that a few self-proclaimed ‘experts’ or pseudo’s can have their five minutes in the limelight to appease their insatiable egos before their ideas come crashing down around them? Should geologists have to continually defend the notion of plate tectonics despite there being so much evidence in favor of it that it may be taken as a scientific proof? What about gravity? Should this have to be continually defended? Likewise with evolution, both a fact and a scientific theory, having to be constantly defended against fundamentalists with little to no understanding of what it actually is? No. that is nonsense. It is the job of those opposing scientific consensus to put forward a compelling argument.
Besides the burden of proof, we have already proven our case that no human settlement occurred before the people who would latter become the Maori arrived. This fact has been established, by mountains of evidence from archaeology, linguistics, genetics, chemistry (carbon dating), geology, botany (core samples, pollen analysis etc.), history..the list could go on. This established truth is no more speculative than again the theory of evolution by natural selection which is likewise always seen as being “speculative” by its opponents (who, coincidentally usually haven’t even read a first year biology text book, the same which can be said of pseudo’s not having read recent archaeological literature!).
As for Martins amazing evidence in the Waipoua, why is it that this one is the favorite one to cite as supposed evidence against the scientific consensus? Archaeologists and geologists have been up there. Wippdy-do, a bunch a stones lying around where they should be, due to natural processes. Of course, Martin won’t tell his followers that archaeologists and geologists have been there, because they have already refuted his ideas and shown that he has little to no understanding of depositional transforms, or the natural or cultural context of how things get deposited in the landscape or archaeological record. Also, if Doutre’s amazing ‘research’ and argument that horticultural features were extensive there, why then was he not aware, or failed to mention to his avid followers, that the topsoils which develop under Kauri Forrest are some of the WORST soils for doing horticulture as they are highly acidic and poorly drained? More of his “sterling” research perhaps? Or is it just that he simply is talking shit? hmm, I think i’ll go with the second one.
Anyway, you make an excellent point Andrew where you say “On the other hand, what if you do find something? It would the historical and archaeological blockbuster of all time.”
Any archaeologist would be set for life if they could find any evidence or scientifically prove such an unconventional story. As it stands archaeologists work horrible hours and get terrible pay, so what incentive do we supposedly have for ‘covering up the truth’? Archaeology is more like a lifestyle choice for those who are really passionate about it, not a business venture. And as for the supposed “conspiracy check” we are supposedly receiving, where’s mine!? And if there was such a conspiracy payment, why on earth would the government allow universities to teach archaeology? Wouldn’t they censor it out of the tertiary system so they could save millions of dollars in “conspiracy checks” by having no archaeologists to keep quiet in the first place?
As for “Oh come on Edward, don’t tell me you really believe all that noble savage tosh. If you were negotiating the purchase of land for a house,would you rather negotiate with someone with an IQ of 70 or a hundred+? You’re just not using the noddle. Good God man, just because we spoke up for the rights of the Maoris doesn’t mean that we really like them. It’s just a ploy. Get it now?”
I hope you are joking because, up until this point I have actually given you the benefit of the doubt as just being someone who is interested but misinformed, and have enjoyed discussion with you as you seem more open to rational dialogue than Jeep. However, this is a blatantly racist paragraph i’m afraid and one I found rather shocking from you. “Noble Savage”, the ridiculous and patronizing 19th century romantic notion of Indigenous peoples as ’savages’ in touch with the environment? No I don’t believe in that notion as I live in the 21st century, but I even more don’t believe that Maori are “savages”. Or any of that pseudo-hoop ha about IQ or intelligence (my partner is a psychologist and the misuse of IQ tests are one of her pet grimes of the psychology variety of pseudo-science). Anyway, i’ll assume you are restricting your imaginary dialogue to paraphrase and not your own views.
Lastly, whats hold me back? Back from what? Throwing my rationality and scientific training out the window in favor of spewing eurocentric rhetoric for as living? Probably a relatively stable mental state, a good education, and a desire to look at the evidence to understand human behavior. This is, after all what archaeology is about, rather than fantastical story telling – haven’t you ever noticed Doutre never tries to say why Celts came here or what their behavior involved or anything to do with the mundane life of everyday Celts? No it is always just along the lines of “Celts came here, built some really big astrological observatories bla bla bla [insert some crap about Maori here]“. If Celts were really here the archaeological record would look different. Simple as that. But, unfortunately, the public seems to think archaeology is all about finding megaliths or Atlantis or some such, rather than the systematic analysis of the mundane everyday in order to understand human behavior – the “big” things are often the things which tell the littlest about the past.
As for the embargoes, just because you don’t have access to certain info doesn’t mean it is evidence of Celts, Aliens, Egyptians, [insert any of the other plethora of "theories" about NZ prehistory here]. Sensitive areas such as burials or wahi tapu (sacred areas) are generally not open to the public because they are Maori sites which are sacred / important to Maori. If the locations were open to the public how long do you think it would take for racist vandals, or, more likely, pseudo’s like Doutre to come along and start rummaging and pillaging these archaeological/cultural sites? The past has shown it doesn’t take very long at all (just look into the European trade in Maori taonga and even preserved heads, as well as amateur fossiking which destroyed large and important parts of the archaeological record in the early days for an example). These sites should be respected as they are part of the identity of NZ’s indigenous minority. How would you or Doutre like strange people digging around your ancestors and then making up racial slurs against them based on nothing but BS?
While again, I can appreciate your openness to these issues, and find you (for the most part) quite reasonable, I can only reiterate that the eye of the skeptic and further peer-reviewed research will ultimately be the key to understanding for you. I can sit here until the cows come home and try (as I have) to enter into a rational dialogue with those who believe the propaganda put out there by people like Doutre, but ultimately they are likely to reject whatever I say as part of a conspiracy as this is entrenched in their world-view and a base for their beliefs (i’m looking at you Jeep
). I’m not keen on wasting anymore of my time in here on this blog, as I feel everything that needed to be said has been said but I doubt this is the end of it.
Ed
I would love to cover some of your points now but unfortunately i have to go to work as a lowly soldier and continue defending your right to speak your mind and continue the denials of arheological findings both historic and recent.
But one thing i will say until i get the time to hit the keyboard again is that no matter what, you can not refute the realities of govt actions regarding their fears of maori uprising, the training we did to prepare for it and the fact that contacts within the SIS have confirmed to me and others i have served with that aspects of NZ habitation history IS being kept under wraps on account of being a risk to National Security
Deny all you like but i KNOW what i experienced personally, the reasons behind it as advised by my superiors at the time and what i have been told first hand by people with no reason to lie as to thier experiences or knowledge. However whether YOU believe me or not in this regard changes nothing to the FACT that these things happened and the reasons why. After all i am a first hand participant of much of it, but then maybe that wont stand as proof to YOU as no scientists have tested the claims.
Jeep,
I would just like to say in response that I don’t look down on military service, and I would never criticise you for your career. That said, I resent your sentiment that I somehow owe you something for your service and should therefore bow to your conspiracy theories involving pseudo-science. The fact that you serve in the military holds no weight on matters of archaeological evidence i’m afraid, as you have only muddled hearsay to rely upon rather than sound scientific research. This applies to Doutre’s work as well as the SIS agent you spoke of. Neither are archaeologists or have conducted excavations. I doubt anyone in the SIS even knows what archaeology really is let alone are capable of carrying out archaeological research.
As for the other matter you spoke of, this as far as I can tell has nothing whatsoever to do with archaeology. You need to stop muddling to two together and deal with one thing at a time. While I am skeptical to be honest of the inferences you have made regarding the second matter of a ‘Maori uprising’ whatever that means, due to the fact your evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial, I don’t know anything about it so I don’t have any answer or comment for you. That has nothing to do with archaeology, and as archaeology is my point of refutation with you (it has always been my only point of refutation with all of the pseudo-theories as they claim things which are completely at odds with the archaeological evidence), than it is irrelevant to this discussion.
You say I can deny all I like but that you just know. But what do you really know?
1. Apparently something of a military nature to do with counter- terrorism which you purport is linked to some Maori activists.
Ok. I will take your word, as that is outside of my knowledge.
2. That an untrained SIS agent told you that there is some sort of conspiracy to do with the NZ habitation history.
So, tell me again what either of these have to do with archaeological evidence?
The first certainly doesn’t, you have merely inferred that it somehow does. This doesn’t make any sense.
The second doesn’t either. You heard from an untrained SIS agent that the habitation history is being hidden. First of all that is just hearsay and doesn’t count as evidence and you know it. Second of all you would believe one SIS agent who probably doesn’t even really know what archaeology is over a century’s worth of hard evidence and literature written by archaeological experts who have devoted their lives to research? Third what exactly does “hidden habitation history” mean? That’s a rather general statement, does it refer to early colonial history or some sort of Maori political upheaval? Why jump straight to Celts, and why assume a conspiracy at all for that matter? And, more importantly, why take one untrained person’s word for it? Why not take archaeologists’ who actually physically deal with the evidence through survey and excavation?
Lastly, you haven’t addressed any of what I have written in any of your posts, while I have gone to pains to address your points relating to archaeology one by one. What of the fact that if there were such a conspiracy why in the hell would the government not censor archaeology right out of the curriculum so that they don’t have to pay any archaeologists ‘hush money’ in the first place? What about the problems inherent in public dissemination of very technical archaeological publications, and the subsequent filling of this void by pop archaeology? What exactly do you think archaeologists spend their time doing in the field!? Why would we bother at all with excavations of supposed Celts when they would be better left undisturbed as the public are usually unable to even see archaeological sites – it takes a trained eye. Why would some of us make entire careers out of writing about Maori subsistence by midden analysis if none of this even exists and is all a conspiracy, must be quite some immagination we have, and for rather rubbish pay I might add. What about your simply false assertions about where archaeologists are employed, or what we think?
No, you’re simply unable to address any of this (and i’m talking about your previous posts as well) because it shows that you simply make false assertions and that you really don’t know what you are talking about. Can you not agree that demanding I answer your questions while ignoring each and every point I make is hypocritical? I have taken the time to go through your statements in a thorough and logical method, which you and Andrew assume is merely due to my arrogance, where in actuality it is because I give enough of a shit about education that I take time out of my day to frustrate the fuck out of myself talking to people who have been sucked in by this rubbish. I do this for the same reason Medical students and professionals take time out of their day to attack pseudo-science pertaining to the ‘anti-vaccine’ rubbish, or why my partner devotes some of her time to dispelling the wealth of misnomers out there about pop psychology. I have been trying to do something active about all of this for about a year now and wondered why the older archaeologists just ignored the raving, frothing at the mouth, pseud-loving public that I encounter ever single bloody f’n day. I am beginning to see why. Some people like you Jeep are not open to even considering for one instance that they might be wrong or that they might not know something which someone who has spent years of research in might. I know very well the limits of my own knowledge – the more you learn the more you realise this – but it appears, like Doutre, you think you know everything. Well, you omnipotent wonder, congratulations on your fantastic debating skills, way to tackle my logical points head on by avoiding them altogether and countering with rhetoric.
Ed
You say I am an “Arrogant SOB”, and then “An Omnipotent wonder”, Can you provide proof of this, as many would consider them libelous accusations based on beliefs due to your emotive frustration only but not scientific fact.
But seriously folks I would be more willing to accept the whole idea of pre Maori habitation (And I never said they were Celts by the way) being unsound if someone, maybe you, could actually PROOVE the following to me:
A) That Maori’s own oral tradition that peoples they called Turehu, Patupaiarehe etc were inhabiting these lands in great numbers when they arrived and taught them various arts such as moko and net making is false, and either that Maori never told early researcher colonists this or why Maori in many separate areas would come up with the same fib, or why the colonists would make the story up.
B) That many contemporary older Maori who still say that they were taught by elders when they were younger, and believe that these ancient people existed are either mistaken or lying.
C) That all the human remains reported as found since the 1840s and to have non maori / european skeletal attributes or accoutrements (Such as those in Otago rock shelters, Kaikura, Wanganui etc) are in fact Maori and why the earlier deductions were incorrect. Or
D) That every one of those reported findings was a hoax and no skeletal remains with non maori / European attributes or accoutrements have ever existed and why the early settlers and researchers would set this hoax in motion.
E) That every non human artifact and or construction (Such as the hovels in Waikato, pictographs at Raglan, Korotangi Dove, Puniho stone, wooden burial boxes, pottery fragments etc) reported as found showing non Maori artistic or cultural attributes are in fact Maori. Or
F) That every non human artifact and or construction as above are in fact a hoax and don’t exist at all.
G) That none of the human remains found including preserved heads (Both repatriated and remaining abroad) are Non Maori, and that CD, DNA etc testing has been done and results openly published to confirm this.
H) That reported evidence of human habitation found below layers of volcanic ash from volcanic activity that preceded 1250ad (Such as Stump and adz found in Auckland, skeletons and domestic accoutrements in land slip near Taupo etc) is false or incorrect.
And if you can give me a satisfactory explanation as to why or to refute that:
A) Govt placed embargo on the release into the public domain of field notes, carbon dating data and reports from 200 archeological sites for up to 75 years.
B) Govt tried to hide the fact they had these embargoes in place before having to come clean.
C) Access to much of the above reports and material which is of national importance and interest to all New Zealanders required the approval of Iwi and Tribal authorities etc such as the Te Roroa-Waipoua Advisory committee in the case of the Waipoua Forest dig.
D) The ability to carry out in depth analysis (Dating etc) of ancient human remains, the results of which are of national historical importance has required consent from local Iwi even if the remains have shown non Maori attributes.
E) Maori suddenly became sensitive over preserved heads and demanding their being removed from view strangely just as the physical attributes of many were being questioned in the 1980s, when they were originally freely traded (Many being those of slaves taken in war) and seen as a commodity to trade for modern European items, and meant nothing to those doing the trading.
F) In the 1800s Maori used the term Taungataphenua to refer to the earlier Turehu, Patupaiarehe etc peoples of their oral history, NOT themselves as they do now..
There are many others I could pose too but frankly there is other things I must attend too so until next time.
Jeep,
There you go again. Reading into only that which you want while leaving out the entire context and point of what I wrote in an attempt to try to undermine the validity of my argument. Yes, those words were the result of emotive frustration, but they were in the context of a point, a point which, as usual, you ignore. In fact, while you continually demand that I answer your questions while failing to aknowledge or comment on any valid points I make against you (if you noticed I started listing them for you), now I find myself laughing at the absurdity of your dialogue, even if I still feel as though i’m banging my head against a wall.
You still refuse to take on board anything and everything I have said (flat earth myth, archaeologists, epistomolgy etc. etc. etc.) so why should I bother to humour you by answering your irrelavant questions when I know that you’ll ignore logical refutations anyway? As I have pointed out time and time again, your so-called “research skills” are lacking at best, non-existent at worst, so your credibility is pretty much nothing. As for me or anyone else rejecting your assertions needing to “prove”, or disprove as the case may be, your rambling list of irrelavancies, let me direct you to the burden of proof argument I put to Andrew in a post above (August 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am ). It lies with you, not I or anyone else who refutes the ideas of pseudo-scholarship. Period.
At any rate, despite many of your questions being irrelavant to the case at hand, many have already beed addressed both here and on other sites which I and Jono (see the first reply) have already provided links to. Here it is again if you missed it:
http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/
The tactic you have used here of a mass factoid drop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid) is commonly used by those with poor arguments who want to try to swamp the opposer in factiods forcing them to have to go through and address them one by one, which, by the time they have replied (just look at the length of some of my replies) the pseudo has enough time to prepare another mass factiod drop and is ready to ignore what they have said and do it all over again.
Your tactics are obvious and common amoungst all pseudo’s including Intelligent Design proponents (http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/top-10-intelligent-design-tactics/)
Perhaps you should look for a reference source other than Doutre’s website? Na, his website is pure gold, and besides, you know someone that knows someone that knows something, right?
I suggest you look at the links i’ve provided and get an idea for yourself, especially from the scoop review site where many of your questions were already put forward by Doutre (perhaps he sends his followers a list of questions with which to spam those who oppose his silly ideas?). I’m not very interested in trading dialogue with someone who fails to aknowledge legitimate and highlighted flaws in thier own logic or “evidence”. I suggest you go back through our dialogue on this blog and actaully try and absorb what i’m saying for once.
Wow… what have I started here lol. Sorry if the comments sometimes take a while to get through I am not online very much these days… thanks to telecom and not being able to provide me broadband.
Not a bad article Ed
Pity about the usual tactic of demonizing those whom you oppose as much as possible to influence others impressions of them. How many times has so and so been linked to Nazis, Jew haters or Commies etc etc. which even if he were it is a free world to hold an opinion and as a soldier i would defend any ones right to hold an opinion even if i disagree with it. However i would also fight them if they put various beliefs into practice.
In the case of neo nazis, or Holocaust denial since when was it illegal to have the opinion the Holocaust cost less jewish lives than the official histories suggest, as thats what Irving is saying in the articles ive read about the guy. But its a sad day for freedom of thought and speech when you cant voice an opinion on something. Would you support criminal charges of Maori habitation denial or even pre Maori habitation denial. Fucking rediculous.
As for his article he still does not provide proof for his claims, just says “These other guys are not trained like us experts so nothing from them has any credibility at all but I am an expert so you have to believe me”. The way in which both you and he come across at times is that your both pissed that some spotty herbert whom has not put in the hours getting qualified that you have is invading your space and limelight more than anything. But i can sympathize if that was a factor as i suppose i would be some what annoyed if you turned up on my gun position and tried to tell me the best way to run my howitzer and crew. But who knows you may have a valid point and be right in some regard eh.
But seriously i do not agree or believe ALL that Doutre and others say, and feel that a lot is a real stretch, but much i am also satisfied is credible and should be looked into.until at least there is enough doubt in the excepted version that it needs more looking into` and i have found one other site in particular to have a definite anti Maori, pro Christian bias that just eats into any credibility it may have so am under no illusion and realise that racists have latched onto the theory for thier own agenda too.
woops bloody cat made me hit the GO button by mistake.
All you have done Ed is with big and impressive words that many mere mortals on this site wont understand is put me and everyone else down for being untrained, not knowing what archeology is, useless at research, tactic using, being SOBs, Omnipotent wonders, etc etc. and daring to show an interest in matters where only the en lightened academics should tread.
Repeatedly refering to “The Historical record” means nothing to the average Joe on this site. He has questions he wants answered so as to confirm or debunk the theory of Pre maori habitation. Thiese theories are based on the many many examples of reported findings, anecdotes ete etc. Many of these anecdotes suggest govt being complicit in keeping aspects of the NZ habitation history under wraps so they do not trust the usual govt run sources.
Now here is where YOU mis the point. What im saying is if YOU are in fact so learned in these matters and KNOW the truth regarding them and can proove that what you say is fact then why not present it to the people here. You obviously wont be able to give much if any light as to govt motive for things we were doing in the military as thats not your field and thats where i would need to keep digging so to speak.
You would be able to proove your point, the readers be satisfied that there was no pre Maori Caucasian habitation and they move on to (Some to another conspiracy theory no doubt) and you to continue your work and not having to have this discussion ever again.
Basically the populace wants plain English answers to the above or in what ever form is best to either proove or disproove the idea (Of both the notion of pre Maori habitation and a cover up of the same) once and for all. Simple as that If you can provide that then great Do it becouse thats what we want – the Truth.
Jeep,
Firstly, yes, you are right. I think people have the right to freedom of speech, even the Doutre’s of this world. What I don’t think people have the right to do is to present untested or, quite simply rejected ideas as proof and think that no one has the right to challenge or rail against it. That is what happened on the Scoop review, Scott pointed out the kind of activities Doutre is involved in for the public to make up thier mind. I attacked his lack of archaeological method and theory. Matthew attacked epistomological issues, or quite simply, how Doutre claimed things which weren’t evidence as evidence. As for being pissy, I don’t care for limelight, i’m interested in humman behaviour and archaeology. I don’t want to be debating with people, it isn’t fun, it is depressing and frustrating, but I just feel I have to to try and dispell many of the misnomers out there surrounding archaeology.
As for you thinking there are aspects of Doutre’s work which you think should be looked into, that’s fine, I don’t think bad of you for that. But, his work has already been discredited. I have provided links where this is discussed, and talked about why his ideas are discredited by archaeologists, I have gone through the logic of how science works. I have tried (obviously I have failed unfortunately) to talk about critical thinking, and the nature of knowledge or what constitutes a fact. I have talked about the burden of proof, I have talked about the nature of the archaeological record and how it doesn’t support Doutre’s hypothesis. I have talked about why I think pseudo-archaeology is so pervasive and real archaeology is misunderstood. I have tried (and failed again I think) to highlight the difference between rhetoric and logic.
In sum, I have tried to discuss to the best of my ability everything I can on here to try to get you to understand WHY academics and those educated in this particular area reject pseudo-archaeological notions such as the Doutre one. My ability to explain isn’t fantastic, and I can see why my passion and frustration and use of specialist language can come off as arrogant sometimes, especially on a medium such as this, but what else am I to do? I am using english words to expalin complex archaeological and philosophical issues to which there aren’t any simple hard or fast words to throw around. My posts are already long enough without me spending another paragraph exaplaing what ‘depositional context’ means. You keep talking about my using “big and impressive” words, but they are not big or impressive, they are just words. Words to try to communicate what i’m talking about. And what i’m talking about is complex.
Also, how is it a put down to point out that you aren’t trained, don’t know what archaeology really is, are not using critical research skills, and are using devisive tactics? All of this is true. It doesn’t imply anything else other than that. I don’t really understand what quantum physics is and i’m not trained in it so I doubt I would have much in the way of evidence to contribute to quantum physicists. The tactics you were using I expalined for you, as with why I think your research skills need some work. Why not take some criticisms on board? I do all the time as I learn, it is part of the process. The difference then between you and I is that I know the limits of my own knowledge, and I accept it when people point out where my arguments might be improved, whereas you believe you know everything and take offense when someone points out that you’re not trained and don’t understand. What would you like me to say? “Ok Jeep, you are an archaeologist and you have a good grip on the philosophy of science, critical research skills, and the massive babbage of technical knowledge and language which goes with a specialisation”. Would you like that?
As for “the enlightened academics” comment. That is a bit unfair, as i’ve never said anything along those lines. I think its fantastic when people take an interest in archaeology and want to learn, and I like to try and help those people. What I don’t like is when people think they already know everything about archaeology and make fucked up inferences and then call real archaeologists arrogant when they try to correct them. That is pretty much what you’ve done on here Jeep.
If the “average joe” wants answers he can read the replies i’ve already given you and Andrew on here, or look up the links i’ve provided. Or, failing that, perhaps actually take the time to read some of the real archaeological literature out there which goes through step, by detailed step, of what we do, how we do it, and how we came to the conclusions we do. It is all laid out there in black and white and explained better than I can do.
You’re last thing about wanting me to lay out my evidence. First, I have. Read the above paragraph. Secondly what? You want me to lay out all of the books and articles i’ve read, all of the conversations i’ve had, all of the surveys and excavations i’ve been on, all of the essays written, all of the lab work carried out? Do you want me to go through and scan and copy and paste all of the books and articles out there which go through in detail the evidence, or take everyone reading this with me on a survey or excavation? Perhaps you want me to paste my thesis up here? What a silly demand. If you want to have the same archaeological education I have had then go to university and study hard to become one yourself.
If the populace wants plain english answers then all they need do is read what I have said on here already or read up on the literature as I have suggested. I wasn’t speaking Japanese afterall. Lastly, you say you want the truth but then lie constantly. Flat earth, archaeologist’s employers etc. etc. Worse, when challenged, you stick your head in the sand or call the person who pointed it out arrogant. What more do you want Jeep? I’ve spend thousands of words on here with you and in a breath you ignore everything and start all over again. It is just a complete waste of time. You will never find the answers to your questions because you simply won’t listen. I’m done here.
Replying, belatedly, to an earlier post by Edward,
If you think that your rebuke for the use of “noble savages” is going to bring forth craven apologies, then think again. I’ve seen through the Marxist psycho- babble.
(For readers unfamiliar with Marxism and political correctness, try googling The Frankfurt School and follow up the careers and ideas of members like Franz Boaz.Couple that with the invention of mass communication and you are well on the way to understanding the world around you and the origins of the currently-fashionable politically-correct views you hold.You may be as surprised as I was, at how fragile they are (especially when people like Prof, Philippe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald get going.) Nowadays I make a point of reading the material of those described as vile, loathsome anti-semites.
My forebears, when involved in the exploration of the South Seas, formed their opinions, not by way of race theory, but by direct practical experience.
Usually, at first contact, the natives are described as savages. When conquered and under control, they become noble savages. What would you have called them Edward…. Rather aggressive coloured gentlemen?
Looks like in NZ, early colonial whites and Maoris, somewhere along the line, decided to call it a draw.
That’s a fact that supremacists, if I can call them that, are going to have to live with.
So even if a white presence was proven prior to Maori arrival, I don’t think it would make a lot of practical difference.The Maoris were there and the whites made a treaty with them.Whether they killed and ate earlier inhabitants is of no consequence. They held the land. The whites did not obtain a full surrender and the Maoris weren’t wiped out as happened on Tasmania.
The fact of earlier settlement of NZ, even if proven, is of largely academic interest.
Edward goes on to say that, in his opinion the unlikelihood of early settlement is so high that it is not worth investigating.
Nevertheless would, or would it not, be useful scientifically, to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, that there was absolutely no early settlement? So that when the history of the world comes to be written one can say with confidence that the story of man’s outward spread over the Earth, concluded with the Maori settlement of a primaeval, pristine NZ, in the 1100’s.The last habitable spot on the planet to be settled by man.
That such a thing existed till as late as the 12th century is highly unusual and surely worthy of investigation.
Perhaps the botanists and zoologists have some information on this, and more interest than the archaeologists.
Have the archaeologists cross-checked with other disciplines?
Surely this is one of those areas of scientific enquiry, where even a negative result has value? So much for the “Burden of proof”
Edward’s replies are reasoned, and for the most part polite and restrained but he doesn’t provide a straight answer to a straight question.Hence the length of this thread.
He starts out by making the case for rigor in scientific method and intellectual integrity, but concludes with a humanitarian explanation for non-investigation and the retention of previously acquired knowledge.The Maoris don’t like scientific investigation apparently. They are happy to avail themselves of the benefits of science and technology but are chary about contributing.
Jeep repeats the main gripes of the Martin Doutre camp. No harm in that whatsoever.
If Edward changes his mind and decides to investigate, then at least he knows where to start.
In addition he(Jeep) provides a possible reason as to why the authorities might want to keep the lid on this, by way of the danger of militarily trained Maoris.
My own feeling is that whites are being manipulated and “softened up” to cede rights to indigenous peoples like Maoris , Red Indians, Aborigines etc.
This may be done with the best of intentions but it could also be a cunning ploy advantageous to ruthless businessmen and organised crime.
You must recognise that nowadays in most western societies that there are links between those groups and leading politicians.The drug industry is beginning to distort international finance,and capitalism is on the verge of collapse.
This is what I alluded to in my earlier post by way of the politically incorrect conversation.
It is important to recognise that those who promote political correctness are not necessarily sincere and use it as a tool for political and commercial advantage.
Jeep makes a good point when he says that white supremacists of the nuttier kind, have latched on to this issue.
In other words there are ruthless men on both sides of the argument ready to pounce whichever way it goes.
Being of the “diffusionist tendency”, I would like the Doutre case to succeed, but as yet it lacks a clincher.
Given the obstructive attitude of the archaeological establishment, the situation remains unresolved and speculation will continue until there is unrestricted access to information and a public service, the New Zealand archaeological service, does what it is supposed to do… serve the public, and address its concerns and questions (no matter how daft) with respect and patience.
All we want is the truth, one way or the other.
How else can theories be confirmed or denied?
How else can sensible policies be formulated?
Andrew,
As I said to Jeep in my last post i’m not interested in continuing this discussion anymore as I have already answered your questions or pointed you guys in the direction of where you can find them. If you and he are not willing to listen patiently and look into it further yourself, then I cannot help you i’m afraid. While I am indeed done here, I have only replied to you to point you towards this website:
http://www.nzarchaeology.org/alternative.htm
It is from the New Zealand Archaeological Association, which has done exactly what you accused it of not doing. Namely, serving the public by addressing the questions and concerns of pseudo-archaeology.
I checked out the site Edward linked to, and have made a few notes (In brackets) regarding points made on it.
Regarding so called pseudo science or research (I prefer to call it research within your means)
* They are often presented in the manner of being sensational new discoveries when the detail is using a lot of old material. (So are so called legitimate discoveries)
* Fieldwork looking at sites is not often a feature. Excavation even rarer. (Govt and Iwi have complete control over who has access to sites and authority to disturb such sites is rarely given and with not only Govt but local Iwi now having the authority to isolate sites or at least assuming authority how can much field work excavation take place)
* Use of secondary sources abounds. (In many cases they are all that is accessible due to the above and the keeping of complete field notes etc under embargo from release to the public)
* Rarely have the proponents any qualifications in archaeology or anthropology. (Many times its armatures that make legitimate discovery and contribution, after all it was a couple of school kids who found faults in one of Dr Hawkings theories which lead to its being recanted.)
* Sources are often poorly documented. (Due to often having to research without official support, even with official obstruction and having to rely on often incomplete or anecdotal evidence, this is not surprising)
* The assembly of facts is often eclectic. (Due to often having to research without official support, even with official obstruction and having to rely on often incomplete or anecdotal evidence, this is not surprising)
* Rarely is there any grass-roots contribution, only some grand overview. (From whom is not made clear)
* The actual theory is often somewhat obscure especially at the detailed end. (In the regard of Pre Maori habitation the theory is very clear, but obviously details would be lacking due to difficulties gathering evidence to support sub theories)
* There is little in the way of a comprehensive view of how the society they are proposing existed, rather somewhat obsessive concentration on a few features. (It would be expected that given the difficulty in obtaining hard evidence from trustworthy sources that concentration would be on those points that seem to be most compelling and or where the picture looks more complete as it were)
* Astronomical observatories, pyramids, canals, alignments and roadways are often educed. The dating and functional discrepancies between features considered as evidence of cultural links is usually ignored
* The age of the evidence they present is often little considered. Where ages are known glaring discrepancies are often ignored as if all non-recent dates are sufficient support.
* Appeals to the distribution of plants and animals at the time of first written records are often made, without any consideration of what is often a known history of these plants or animals.
* The theories often roam beyond New Zealand presenting odd snippets from all over as somehow significant. (Although some point may not be significant to NZ, directly, such inclusions are to illustrate a point Eg: that hat peoples of a certain time did have an ability to travel large distances by sea, similar societal types etc)
* There is often a “new age” element. Mysterious revelations from elders of great spirituality and learning can often be found as the basis of the new truth.
* Sadly there is often a racist element in New Zealand originated theories. Resentment by non-Maori at settlement of Waitangi Tribunal claims often surfaces, with the view that history as now revealed demonstrates they are unjustified. It often appears minimally as doubting the capacity of mere Polynesians to have carried out some feat. (There will always be those that support a certain line based on thier own agenda whether it be race or otherwise based, and that is no worse than the agenda of those wishing for no alteration of the accepted history for a perceived fear of loosing various rights or privilege)
* Conspiracy theories are often built into them. The “of course academics have to support the conventional view – their jobs and research funding depend on it” stuff. Not surprisingly this argument very often appears from alternative theorists in fields other than archaeology. Often Maori are supposed to have some special influence over what is allowed in the conventional views. As someone said “the complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.”
(History has shown that just because the knowledge of a conspiracy whether it be govt based or otherwise, may start as a theory based on what evidence can be gleaned from various sources does not mean or prove it is in fact wrong. I am sure many thought the German Govt backed Holocaust was thought a conspiracy theory at one point, but to call something a “Conspiracy Theory” is a good way to insinuate that those who voice the theory are Kooks and to be ignored)
* Of course their archaeology is often execrable. Not easy for someone inexperienced to detect this, but look at the location maps, are they accurate as to locations and the spelling of the names used?, do the plans of sites have scales and north points?, are any artefacts located as to where they came from, so the illustrations include scales or dimension and do any carbon dates referenced have error figures and laboratory numbers and are the origins of the samples well documented? (As mentioned above many known sites are in accessible to amatures so the type of research and resulting reports, maps etc are unable to be made in many cases)
Nothing much changes. Go to a library and read Tregear’s The Aryan Maori 1885. The scholarship then was a little better than most offerings today. (Tregars talks and publications and are very interesting regarding linguistics similarities)
To find more about how seductive the Aryan idea was to empire minded people see Orientalism and Race; Aryanism in the British Empire. A Ballantyne, 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. (Interesting that an inference to European pro Aryanism and Empire should be mentioned here)
What evidence for earlier occupation might look like if it was to be convincing:
* Firstly New Zealand is remote, and set in a stormy cool ocean. It can only be reached by accomplished sailors. This means settlement is only likely by a civilisation with a material maritime history.
* Related to this we should not expect a variety of different people to have reached here. It would be a past human feat enough to find one more besides Maori, let alone more than one.
* Archaeologically we would expect that New Zealand was the end of a pattern of settlement. For instance Maori settlement of New Zealand was part of an archaeologically now well known expansion across the Pacific, traceable archaeologically to eastern Indonesia. Analogues of the New Zealand Archaic version of Maori culture are found widely distributed in Eastern Polynesia at dates broadly consistent with the New Zealand manifestation. Again British colonisation of New Zealand, while much of it was by direct voyages from Britain, was part of a pattern of colonisation in South Africa, Australia, India, eastern Asia and North America. These colonies were staging posts in some cases and all traded between themselves. Hence we should expect to see a pattern of settlement which ends in New Zealand, not which has New Zealand as some isolated exception.
* We would expect to see the ordinary stuff of life. Occupation sites will occur with evidence of houses, discarded waste, and tools. The built and made things would form a distinctive culture complex, with some key forms of everyday tools and structures traceable back to the place of origin.
* For people who had ceramics in their place of origin we would expect to find remains of imported ceramics here and expect the settlers to have continued making pottery. Many of the people claimed to have been here before Maori made and used ceramics in their places of origin. Sherds from ceramics are very often distinctive, are durable and imported wares are often found as in the pioneer sites when a place is settled. New Zealand has suitable clays and no shortage of firewood for continuing making ceramics. Archaeologist pick up potsherds routinely, even in New Zealand where Maori made no pots. Archaeological reconnaissances in places where pots were made routinely find many potsherds before the intact sites are found. The presence or absence of distinctive ceramics is a powerful test. (There are reports of pottery fragments being found)
*There would be a pattern of sites which made sense in terms of the transport and economy of the settlers. The artefacts would be of types repeated in like sites. Successful settlement would result in a population being established. People dying usually leave some trace in the myriad forms of burial practiced by people. (Many burials of fair and red skinned, fair haired etc peoples have been reported over the years)
*The sites would be datable by means such as carbon dating to a time before Maori. (The Waipoua Forest dig is reported to have been carbon dated to 500 years before Maori were supposed to be here, but the results of those tests have not been released to the public)
*The economic base of the people would show some things brought with them, and some exploitation of the abundant bird and sea resources of a land where there were no equivalent predators. As they came to know the country we would expect increasing use of the local resources. (NZ distance from possible trading partners would deter the attempts in early years, but also the warrior tribal society would preclude development of economic trade early on. The extinction of various species pre 1745 indicates exploitation of species)
*We might expect to see some monumental or religious sites if these were part of the culture carried here, but they will not be alone. They would be part of a broader pattern of sites. (Sites dedicated to Baal are reported as located in Taupo)
*We would expect to see the settlers had some effect on the environment. The birds here in particular are vulnerable. Some land would be cleared for agriculture. New Zealand forest is not adapted to frequent fire sources. The drier eastern and drought prone areas of New Zealand were vulnerable to more frequent fires when people arrived. Signs of clearance and fire would be apparent in pollen cores from lakes and swamps. (Reported Moa hunter oven sites carbon dated to 885AD and earlier, note that now officialdom is denying the existence of a people we refer to as Moa Hunters)
*We would expect earlier settlers to have come into contact with Maori when they arrived. Polynesians were not slow to adopt things that were advantageous to them. Any people that reached New Zealand ahead of Maori were not backward. They would have had some things worth adopting by a succeeding culture. If no adoptions can be demonstrated, there would need to be a convincing rationalisation as to why aspects of this pre-Maori settlement failed to leave any trace in Maori culture.
(Maoris own oral tradition states: the Terehu etc taught them the arts of net making and Moko, so there is at least anecdotal evidence of effects on Maori culture. Until we can identify properly who any possible prior inhabitants were we are hamstrung as to determining what other cultural attributes were passed on to Maori by these people)
Basically folks the points made by the Archeologists on this or the previous site linked by Edward don’t actually prove anything, but they are good to keep them in mind when looking into things. If the reported archeological findings in support of pre Maori habitation (Burials, pictographs etc) are proven legitimate (Ie not hoaxes or mistaken) then it would indicate the archeological fraternity must be either in denial or complicit in pulling the wool over our eyes, but more likely just not afforded the full evidence themselves either. Basically the whole question hinges on the legitimacy of the reported findings.
well, I have just finished all your blogs and being Maori myself and I don’t currently live in New Zealand but I grew up there. And to my knowledge of growing up as a Maori is that they are both right.
1. I have been taught and told of the old stories and they do say they there was a group of people here.
2. I have also been taught that the Maori’s are the native people of New Zealand.
confused? you should be. Most of the real stories are lost and forgotten. We will never really know. It is sad. Now you are wondering about the “treaty” and what does that mean to me. I tell you this as a Maori raised in a Anglo/Celtic/Whatever, I was given a idenity as a person of colour and race.
Have I gained any financial gain from it? No! All I gain was pride and education. Thats what matter.
All you people are going about, “the chicken and the egg” argument? There will never be certainty and not only that, our knowledge of world history is constantly changing. For all we know it could be aliens. I mean do we really know for sure about anything. People are people and not even science is fact, only variables.
we have a protocol amongest our families it is called ehi chakat or power from within and it is the power we create regardless of genealogical ties, but rather through the deeds we do on this heaven before accending to the next.Lifes to short geru [family] to be sitting around pointing fingers do the best you can ,go well
My money is on ‘jeep’ is martin as he seems to quote him verbatim, you in the army eh? Then you should realise you cant wreck a machine gun ‘dry firing’(you just make this shit up as you go along ay?) if you have no bullets in it and cock the gun,pull the trigger, all that happens is a click,it cant reload itself unless it fires,furthermore if it contained an already fired shell that wouldnt wreck the firing pin either,considering the duty that pin sees when it really is firing.
Jeep either you are full of shit or whoever told you that crap was,and you didnt have the knowledge of weapons to know any different,funny you should of figured that one out in basic training. What you are doing is trying your hardest to drive a wedge between maori and pakeha.
One of the most irritating things to me (other than his blatant racism) about martins claims is,you can prove him wrong to his face and he will accepct it and then go on to spout that same shit over and over to anybody stupid enough to listen.
E.G. on the issue of pounamu/greenstone/nephrite jade,he claims that mere/adzes etc took generations to carve,and that the amount of these objects alone is enough to push back the age of New Zealand occupation thousands of years, ah bullshit,first of all things like adzes were often only used once and then biffed,that is why many were only crude(for want of a better term)yet he sees the crude objects and highly finished adzes as an indication of two different cultures(the better ones obviously made by his ‘pre celt bullshit race’) even though they are found together in the same strata,tell him that tho and he will say they were stolen by the savages from his ‘pre celt” bullshit people. Yet when you go on to point out to him that you are infact a carver yourself,and that you can carve three adzes in the harder shapes, as often attributed to the waitaha in one day and bring them all to a fine polish with time left over to drill holes the next day,with only the old ways,not a machine in sight, he will admit defeat and then continue to spout his bullshit to everybody else.
Not only that but when i tryed to explain to him that i was infact part maori part moriori,he must not of heard what i said properly, and thought i was about to say something bad about them(as i can attest he hears from his ‘mates’ all day long) he went red with anger and said (slightly below a yell) THOSE FUCKING THIEVING BLACK CUNTS!!. What did they thieve off you martin? your a fucking thieving yank,i cant understand why we dont just deport you,then again you would just start telling native americans that ‘pre celts’ were there first also and that they also stole your land ay.
People you may believe what you want(i believe in taniwha for instance) but if you want to agree with that idiot you accept being tarred with his racist brush, and have anyone with a brain see you as an idiot also. end of rant.
fuk u maoris are natives u fuckin coconut or white cunt
This debate isn’t an issue of M?ori and Pakeha/Europeans rights, it’s an issue of fairness.
Pakeha New Zealanders feel that it is unfair for M?ori to get special rights and reparations for confiscated land etc. They didn’t take the land so why should they pay for it. M?ori didn’t lose the land (or have it confiscated) their ancestors did.
So what is the solution? Pakeha need to get over themselves. They came here under an agreement between M?ori and the Crown ( the treaty) and that means they must live by the laws created in that context. The profited from M?ori land, and forced M?ori into poverty (which neccessitated the state houses and welfare handouts).
I am thankful that we live in a safe and open society. People who refer to apartheid in South Africa have limited understanding of the situation in South Africa then, and New Zealand now. Without the treaty Aoteatroa New Zealand may have been a far more violent and dangerous place. Without the treaty Pakeha might be leaving NZ in droves, in the same way that many white South Africans are leaving or being forced to leave.
Ummm… white. Go ask your elders if they remember the real Tangata Whenua. The ones they’ve been told not to talk about. Ask them about the Patu-paiarehe while you’re there as well. But by the sounds of it you want to keep it known that your race is native so that you can continue getting handouts and not have to deal with the hypocritical labeling of the white man as ‘theives of your land’. Don’t know if you read history but the Maori did exactly the same thing when they first came to these islands. Except the Maori killed and ate all the original inhabitants. Queen whoever-it-was at that time decided to let the Maori live.
Hmmm, can’t say I’ve ever talked to Martin. How did we get onto the subject of guns anyways?
If some of the evidence is off, does that mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater I ask you? jeep does have a different email address to martins one but that doesn’t really mean anything. I am trying to bring Maori and white people together with this pre-maori civilization study.
If it comes out that the maoris are hypocrites and no better than the white people who ’stole’ the land from them then:
No more payouts
No more handouts
No more free land
No more free uni
Equal uni entry marks
Then the two races will be EQUAL!!!!
You didn’t actually acknowledge anything I said or check up on any of the links did you? Sigh. You talk to others on here about their needing to speak with their elders and about them needing to read history books. Yet you yourself obviously haven’t done either hamster. Both of your assertions come from one source – Martin Doutre’s ‘Celtic NZ’ stuff floating around on the internet. Do you honestly believe that this one source (despite whatever blog form it ends up in), being found incorrect time and again by many different sources, is a bastion of truth and good science? As I said last time I commented here, it is obvious that no amount of educated arguemt is likely to persuade you that you might be mistaken in buying into Doutre’s rambles. But I felt the need to vocalise my dissapointment that you have lived up to exactly what I said you would after all these months – namely, that you haven’t listened to or even entertained one iota of ‘mainstream’ evidence because it runs against your belief structure. After this whole post and all it’s discussion you still take the position that you ‘know’ Celts were here, rather than, at the least, a position of healthy scepticism or agnosticism. Thankfully, Doutre’s cult of ignorance and propaganda seems to have been relegated by most of society back to where it belongs – the realm of biggoted and silly ideas. I invite you, if you have such an interest in NZ history or race relations, to take some courses in either archaeology or anthropology / sociology so you might be able to make up your own mind, based upon your own research, rather than to buy into what one random guy on the internet is preaching to you. Afterall, you may not believe me, but by the same token you therefore shouldn’t believe everything Doutre says. Or at least not be so certain about it.
Good luck.
You have a good point Edward, I guess I am like that. I wish I had the time to take some courses in those subject, maybe I will take the time as I am back at uni this year.
I guess I am quite ignorant but its not just Martins own research on the net that I has made me think that there was a pre-maori civilization, its the photos I’ve seen and the places I’ve been. I’m not saying everything Martin says is true and I follow it like some stupid doctrine, but some things make sense.
I guess it is down to getting out there and seeing the evidence, but that evidence seems to be thrown out by the sceptics and the scientists without any investigation. Like they’re scared to upset the political (im)balance or too lazy to re-write the history books. I don’t think any bone or artifact found should automatically be given to the maoris. Thats like giving the tombs and pyramids of egypt to… anyone but scientists. Imagine what would be lost if that happened?
I hear of artifacts and bones, that do not belong to the maori, yet are just handed to the maori without science even getting a peek. And that confuses me and I fear we are losing knowledge of another civilization that was once present in this country.
But yes, I do think I am ignorant and need to learn more about the subjects at hand, but at the moment SOME things make sense to me logically. And I never remember hearing or being taught anything about maori knowing anything about the solstice or neolithic practices.
So I can’t really, logically, be absolutely 100% certain of a pre-maori civilization, but the evidence I have seen for the theory makes me want to investigate more. Science in its essence right? Why don’t more scientists and arhaelogist investigate this more instead of just shrugging it off..?
Hi Hamstar,
We can all get riled up about things sometimes due to being given bad information – it happens all the time. I guess it’s just important to try to keep it in perspective about where that info is coming from. If you do get a chance to take perhaps a class or two, i’d say go for it -you’ve nothing to loose but much to gain.
As for photos, i’ve probably viewed most of them myself over the years and it really is a big ask asking us to assume these photos can be solidly connected to a complicated theory involving not only NZ, but global migration. Also, as an archaeologist i’ve been out in the field myself and viewed with my own eyes some of the very same sites Martin or others with similar claims (they all borrow ‘evidence’ off each other you might notice) hold up as ‘proof’ of their ideas. In my opinion (and a trained one at that) they really are grasping at straws. The problem is if you don’t know any better, and if you’re hearing it second hand from someone who isn’t experienced, how can you rely upon it, especially when it is challenged by so many. I guess some of his ideas seem, at a very superficial level, to make sense to some people because they contain a certain amount of mystery, which is popular, and also due to amateurs such as Doutre being rather good at rhetoric. That is, inflating a debate and his evidence to semantics rather than logic.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean about evidence being thrown out by scientists without checking (see above) or about artifacts being handed over automatically to iwi. Where did you get this information from? Someone who is actually involved with CRM (cultural resource management) and investigations, or someone random on the internet like Doutre who has never been involved in such activities and as such has no actual knowledge of what happens during such investigations? You may not believe me, but I can honestly tell you that artifacts are not and never have been handed straight over to iwi. If it is a skeleton for example – and I mean any skeleton whatsoever – it is law for the archaeologist to contact firstly the police in case it is recent remains, and secondly the Historic Places Trust in case it is of cultural or archaeological significance – in which case it’s very important that the context be record and studied. Finally, the local iwi will be contacted in case it is ancestral remains, but this is after archaeologists will have already have been crawling all over the site recoding the context. In point of fact, some unclaimed remains actually end up in Universities to be studied as no one knows what else to do with them. Also of note are articles, freely available to the public, which document and study human skeletal remains in NZ including studies of dental pathology and other bone diseases as a way of researching what physical stresses were imposed on early inhabitants. And all of this is just for skeletal remains!
Other artifacts such as stone tools are collected along with everything else (including fossilised poo, broken shell fish shells and even tiny pieces of charcoal) on site to be taken back to university departments so that generations of long-suffering graduate students can analyse the data thoroughly. These are then reported continuously in journal articles both here and abroad. So I am afraid I just cannot fathom where people keep getting claims that artifacts “just go straight to Maori” come from or why they swallow such nonsense so eagerly. Is it really much of a surprise why archaeologists might get so frustrated with always having to either reply to such accusations, as I have, or ignore it altogether?
As for these artifacts and bones being found which you say don’t belong to Maori – how do you know that? And how do bones get to Maori without going through science when it is scientists who discover them in the first place or are the first to arrive to record the context as a requirement by law? Also, how do people like Doutre or whoever circulate such rumors know anything about an archaeological dig or legal processes when they themselves were never there? It is an interesting question is it not? Further, if you go on to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust website, you can do a search of reports which have been prepared by archaeological consultants – nothing hidden, and much of it very methodological and dry. Seems strange that we’re being so harshly accused of all sorts of things by people who haven’t any scientific methodology or training, were never present during any of the investigations, and haven’t bothered to recognise or read the litany of freely available archaeological literature and reports! Also, I might add, the onus is not on me or other genuine archaeologists to go around proving others hypotheses wrong, but instead for the ‘challengers’ to work very hard in making a strong case themselves.
Finally, I can appreciate your opinion that you just think something is there and questioning is the essence of science. History is interesting, and science is rewarding. Unfortunately for the Celtic New Zealand range of ideas however, science is not a part of how they have developed. If it were, those who put forward such ideas would be open to others going out and testing their methodologies and data, but as is always the case they instead ignore very central problems such as data collection and whatever experts might say, and instead proclaim all who disagree or even critique such ideas must therefore be corrupt. This failure to outline one’s methodology and to recognise genuine criticism is not science. It is pseudo-science.
I have debated Mr Doutre and others like him myself and have pointed out very basic and fundamental flaws such as flawed methodologies in data collection, data bias, and ignoring a wealth of modern literature and evidence which points to the contrary of their claims. I have also stripped it down, as I did on here with Jeep, to the fundamental ways in which science is done and how we test evidence to gain knowledge, how we must be weary of bringing our own biases into our research, and of other epistemological and philosophical issues such as how the burden of proof and occam’s razor work. And do you know how, without exception, my efforts are rewarded? With complete and utter lack of acknowledgment of indisputable points and a counter attack with either an ad hominem (I might be called arrogant, for example) or a shift to some new piece of ‘evidence’ rather than discussing the one in question.
It can be very frustrating (which may very well be the aim of those I am supposedly debating come to think of it).
I guess at the end of the day we all have much we can learn, myself included. The point is to keep an open mind but at the same time make sure we keep things in perspective including where information might come from, how reliable that information might be and to acknowledge our own limitations in areas we are not knowledgeable about. I acknowledge that I don’t really know much about how to do physics or medical science, yet I do know how to do archaeology (will always learn more and more as years pass). The problem with pseudo-scientists is that they are experts in everything, and even better, they didn’t need to train in any of it! They don’t acknowledge their limitations. Be wary of people like that is the best advice I could give. Sometimes those with the most to say have the least worth listening to.
Good luck again in your endeavors Hamstar.
Just thought I’d mention that although I am sceptical of martin doutre’ theories, but open to the possibilities. As a maori I find it fascinating.
With regards to the holocaust – there’s not much evidence that there was systematic genocide once you look at it. Gassing 1 million people a year in small rooms (20-30mins per batch) in auschwitz then individually dragging their dead bodies down the road to be cremated in ones and twos doesn’t sound like prcision german engineering.
What’s more likely?
A: People had their clothes removed, hair shaved, bodies showered, their clothes gassed with zyklon B (the most popular insecticide at the time) to prevent lice entering the concentration camp.
or
B: People had their clothes removed and hair shaved before being pushed into a room, disguised as showering room, to be slowly gased with the most popular insecticide in germany.
You don’t hear much about the dreaded electo-chambers or steam chambers the nazi allegedly used to murder millions of jews any more.
basically it was just an excuse to justify the existence of a jewish state like the zionists had been planning since 1850 or so. good thing they had a blood-stained torture-induced pre-typed confession to prove it happened… oh and a nazi map with GIANT coffins on it with Jews killed.
oh and there’s no such thing as “white people” or the “white race”. it’s really a vague term for us-not-them.
“White” vs “black” is just as useful as “left” vs “right”
oh yes 1 more thing that you may find interesting….
there are a lot of words in maori that have a vedic (sanskrit) origin.
check out this book from 1885 – fascinating stuff.
http://www.ethnomath.org/resources/tregear1885.pdf
here are some things to get you started…
first sanskrit then maori
dhi – to shine
ihi – the dawn
vevi – to obtain
whiwhi – to receive
pa – to protect
pa – a fortified town (papa = a father)
Var – water
Wai – water
Raj – to shine
Ra – the sun (common to all ancient peoples)
Agni – god of fire
Ahi – sacred fire of a chief
Guha – secret
Kuhu – to conceal
manas – the heart or mind
Mano – the heart
Not worth a reply (smacks my own head against concrete wall). Now it’s Egyptians. There’s that shift in argument I warned Hamstar about. And now the holocaust is a conspiracy too. This is a perfect example of the difficulty in a genuine and honest debate – the pseudo-scholars just keep on shifting the goal posts. I’ll leave you to it. There are others who are genuinely interested in learning and actually listening. This isn’t worth my sanity.
Seeing as pseudo-scholars such as RB are seemingly incapable of actually reading through a debate’s prior content properly (or at all!) or what anyone else has already covered, I will re-post a section relevant to RB’s old book citation which Jeep posted after I supplied the link:
“Nothing much changes. Go to a library and read Tregear’s The Aryan Maori 1885. The scholarship then was a little better than most offerings today.
To find more about how seductive the Aryan idea was to empire minded people see Orientalism and Race; Aryanism in the British Empire. A Ballantyne, 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.”
LOL
Whats so great about Aryans anyway?
To be honest I don’t see the connection between sanskrit and maori languages but maybe an etymologist can comment further on that.
I think people get to caught up emotionally in the holocaust to event think about questioning the events of it, as has been shown by the treatment of holocaust deniers. To deny it happened is pretty stupid, but theres always the chance of it being blown out of proportion. Not saying it has, just saying there could be a chance, we’ll never know though because no one wants to reinvestigate it. But it seems pretty grisly so who would want to investigate it more than once.
Just thought I’d stop by and see if anything new has appeared on this thread.
Good to see the Maoris chipping in and putting their thoughts on the matter, which surprisingly, are not entirely hostile to the idea of a pre-Maori presence.
Let me just say, albeit too briefly, that their achievements in boatbuilding, navigation and logistics, in attaining the shores of the Island of the Long Cloud should not go unremarked.I mention the Long Cloud deliberately, in that it may well have been an important factor, along with vulcanism, in the discovery of New Zealand.
Just a theory at the moment, but where I would be inclined to speedily vacate a seismically active area, perhaps ancient people thought differently?
Consider the fertility of volcanic soils, hot springs, unusual minerals and rocks.
Perhaps seismically active areas were deliberately sought out?
Interesting that RB has mentioned the Holocaust and the striking reassessment of that era.
RB could also have mentioned Global warming. Thanks to the internet, people have had access to the opposing view, and I think the anti-anthropogenics are forging ahead.
Slavery is another hot topic of our times.I’ve done my own research into slavery, and have good news for those white people that may have felt a bit guilty about it. Don’t feel guilty about it at all.Poor little whites were more enslaved than they were the slavers.Check it out.
Archaeology has been politicised, especially the early history of the Americas. However, thanks to the internet, Martin Doutre has, in my opinion, done us all a great service, not only in advancing a plausible theory for the Nazca lines, but also highlighting the strange lack of forensic investigation of the Paracas Mummies by Messrs Aveni and Silverman.Check out his website, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, article, Nazca lines. Well worth the read.
This is the lesson for all who believe in the pursuit of truth.
On any one issue you must go and seek out actively those for, and those against, weigh the arguments, and decide which best fit the facts.
Thanks to the internet, you can do this fairly quickly. That which might have taken 2-3yrs can now, with a bit of hard work, be covered in 2-3 mths.
ps, A few facts about the Holocaust that have altered in my lifetime.
Number killed at Auschwitz… down from 4 million to 1.1 million.
Jews melted down to make soap…total fabrication.
The lampshades of human skin…. utter bunkum.
The identity of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel is suspect. He should have A-7713 tattooed on his left forearm, but he refuses to let anyone see it.
The content of the Diary of Ann Frank, is thought by many to be too mature for the mind of a girl of 13-14 yrs of age.Otto Frank was wanted for financial fraud by the German authorities before Hitler came to power. That’s why the Franks were in Holland. They were on the run, to avoid criminal charges, not because they were Jews.
Otto Frank is a patient in an SS hospital in Auschwitz. Fancy that. A hospital in a death camp.
Sounds like digging holes and filling them in again.ie return people to good health and then gas them.
Sehr interessant, aber stupid.
Jolly old Otto survives the war, courtesy of the SS, and writes with a co-author, who later sues him, the heart-rending story of poor little Anne(with a Biro pen).
What a scam!
Everybody had a Holocaust.
The British on the Fields of Flanders.12,000-15;000 killed in morning in the Battle of the Somme. We shall remember them.
The Anzacs at Gallipoli (thanks to that genius W Churchill. He made a lot of mistakes).We shall remember them
The Christians of the Ukraine and the Russias, in the vile Gulag Archipelago.We shall remember them.
The Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki( an experiment and a demo of American power to the rival USSR). We shall remember them, despite the code of Bushido.
And last, but not least, a real Holocaust, the German Holocaust, 100,000+ souls roasted alive in 3-4 hrs in Dresden.We shall remember them.
Never again will Aryan be pitched against Aryan.
So there we have it. Nothing on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt. Everything on the internet has been well researched and is utterly objective. No such thing as bad information. Instead of actually training and doing years of hard peer-reviewed research, just do 2 or 3 months worth of google searches. Here’s an example. Did you know that aliens built the pyramids?!
Here’s the proof: http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html
Now, lots of corrupt experts will try and say they didn’t, but just read the article. The experts need to prove that aliens didn’t build them!!
In point of fact, everything, and I mean everything, any actual expert says should first of all not be read at all (why read books and journal articles when you can google it and blindly believe whatever comes up) and secondly should be taken as either ‘PC’, conspiracy, or some other form of bias or incompetence. That’s why climate change, archaeology, and the holocaust are all really fabrications made to fool you. The experts are really part of the New World Order out to steal your babies by hiding the truth.
Never again will Aryan be pitched against Aryan! No longer shall we be ashamed of the slavery we forced upon minorities or believe those ‘zionist’ lies about Jews in concentration camps! Never again shall we believe that other ethnicities settled the world or were capable of their own culture and monuments! It is time we recognised that the white man has been the victim of history all this time and that we should get an apology from the minorities who dared challenge our superiority. Rise up, my brothers, and google search as much truth as you can.
I’m off to google how to become a medical doctor, in only a few months time, i’ll be ready to consult with you all on medical issues and treat your families ailments and injuries.
You were obviously feeling in a mischievous mood yesterday( March15,2010), Edward.
Yes, there is a lot in what you say about the internet, however this applies equally to newspapers, magazines, television and radio which are full of misinformation, disinformation, government propaganda and downright lies.
Every citizen has to filter out what they want from this unprecedented tsunami of information.
Naturally, educated people like Edward and myself are vastly superior at this than the great unwashed multitude, or so I thought, until I questioned them ( the Great British working classes) on their attitudes and, in a cursory way, attempted to assess their level of general knowledge.
I was surprised at the grasp of current affairs and a widespread scepticism/cynicism towards the output of the media, and the political and financial establishments.
Listening to their experiences in the factories, bars, clubs, highways and byways of Britain educated me.
Funny how you mention the New World Order and a corrupt ruling elite, for that frequently came up in discussion, completely unprompted by myself.
Likewise with George Orwell, 1984, and Animal Farm.Scarcely a day passes without their being mentioned, and not by arty-farty intellectuals but by ordinary British working people. “Well its yer Big Bruvver,innit mate. That geezer Orwell was bleedin right”
With more widespread access to the internet,a common observation is, how biased and filtered, ALL news outlets are.
Newspaper sales are plummetting as a consequence.
Interestingly, TV interviews of the “man in the street” are perceived to have little value, because thanks to PC(political correctness, a communist construct), people have got two faces( just as they had in communist countries). For instance when interviewed on matters of race they will trot out what’s expected, whereas the same person at a private dinner party or in a pub may reveal their true thoughts.
A rather exciting,clandestine language of nods, winks, nudges, coughs and keywords seems to be emerging as a result of PC.David Irving, the famous/infamous author and historian, seems to have started something with his catch phrase ” those nice people next door”.
10yrs ago I would have agreed with Edward’s evaluation of the internet, ie not very high. But not now. It has developed by leaps and bounds, not only in quantity but in quality too. Recently, I wanted information on the Scottish Navy and those foreign powers Scotland dealt with prior to Union with England. Shamelessly I googled here and I googled there, just to compile a shortlist of book-titles and the names of reputable historians, which would serve as a starting point for a few days study in the Municipal Library.As it turned out,the journey and consequent parking fees were unnecessary. A company in the USA had a website that had a key book and several others of interest. For a small fee I was able to download that book and get started right away.
“Way to go”, as they say.
When Edward mentions the importance of professionalism, structured study and the peer review process, I’m with him on that, but, but, but…conformity,dullness and intolerance of lateral thinking come to mind as well.Expanding the mind…. or controlling it?
Isn’t it strange that so few talented, inspired writers emerge from the legions of students of English literature. It’s almost as though studying English literature is the kiss of death for creativity.Of course I could, were I feeling mischievous, suggest a likeness with the New Zealand Archaeological Establishment, but being a gentleman, I shall refrain.
The internet is very good nowadays and getting better. For us in the West, so far, censorship and blocking are minimal. This may not last long, as it is getting in the way of Corporate Businesses and Governments who have lots to hide.The ubiquitous CCTV cameras that invade the privacy of the citizen, must also be the bane of secret services and covert government operations, the World over.
Take the Mossad assassination in Dubai recently. 90% caught on camera and circulated around the World in hours. It won’t be long before it is controlled, so enjoy what may be your last bit of freedom while you can.
Already, here in Britain, they’ve got the lever in the door in the shape of child pornography, terrorism and good old national security.
But that’s the way that creeping communism works. It all seems so natural and reasonable in the early stages.
The move towards World Government is no joke. We nearly got it at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Have a look on YouTube at Lord Monckton, the man that alerted us to this sinister development. One of the few men that really deserve, and live up to, the title of Lord.
Edward laughs this all off and hopes that, sheep-like, you will all follow without taking the trouble to investigate.
I say investigate and then if you are still laughing come back and tell us why you think it is funny.
As to my bringing attention to Aryans and my expressing the hope that Aryan should never again fight Aryan, this was dealt with swiftly and confidently by ridicule, which I would have actively endorsed a decade ago. So what happened?
Whilst learning to fly( in an aircraft, I hasten to add), I got interested in the history of navigation, and abandoning all pretensions to academic elitism, made use of the internet, but buying relevant books along the way (one of which was Martin Doutre’s Ancient Celtic New Zealand, which contains tons of thought-provoking ideas and interesting information, other than material concerning New Zealand). At this point I feel I should reassure Edward that I treat Mr Doutre’s writings as ideas, theories and postulates and not as an alternative belief system. Well, as you will undoubtedly find, should you research such subjects yourself, it won’t be long before Race and ze Holocaust gets mentioned. Godwin’s Law is alive and doing very well thank you.
On such matters one has to take a view, but to do that you need information.
Are there differences between races? Does race matter? Did the Holocaust happen?
I used to be an unquestioning believer of the last mentioned, but only because I hadn’t checked out the facts for myself.As Richard Dawkins would say” What is the actual scientific and forensic evidence?” Something Edward would be particularly keen on, I imagine.
I checked and to my amazement…..The answer is…….. Damn All, other than eye – witness testimony.
Like a certain religion, one of whose tenets is the assertion that a man arose after being dead for three days.Lots of assertion but no evidence.
There is more evidence( thousands of skeletons in mass graves) of the demise of the Roman Legions in the Teutoburger Wald, circa 400 AD, than there is of the alleged extermination of millions of Jews some 65 years ago.
Unlike Edward, I am not going to tell you what to think on matters of Race and the Holocaust.Form your own opinion by searching out information from those for and against.Even with the Internet, it will take time, for as Edward has pointed out, correctly, there is much dross, but in that dross are little gems that may radically change your opinions on many matters.For the first time in Post- War History, uncensored opposing opinions are freely available to the average citizen, courtesy of the internet, and only the internet.
Most publishing houses and indeed news and cultural mass-media in the Western world are under Jewish and philo- semite control…….but not the internet.
To witness how this unholy cabal deal with dissenters to their New World Order, visit the websites of such “scurrilous knaves” and “perversions of humanity” as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.If you want some idea of what you may be walking into, then a couple of hrs on the internet will give you all you need to know.Interestingly, it is not just dissenting Goys(non-jews, you and me) that get it in the neck, you should see what happens to dissenting Jews.Yes, such creatures do exist.Truthful Jews. Admirable Jews.Norman Finkelstein for example.
If you remain in favour of Communism/ the New World Order, then write and tell me what’s so wonderful about it.
Summing up, I suggest Edward is an authoritarian and, either through belief or economic necessity, has nailed his flag to the mast of the New World Order,or Communism, as I prefer to perceive it. Let’s call a spade a spade and not an agricultural implement.
I am a libertarian(nutcase?) that believes in the retention of the rights of all nations to shape their destinies in their own way, free of outside interference. BTW that includes the State of Israel, whose creation and maintenance, notwithstanding all that has happened, and is happening, I support wholeheartedly.
The consequence would be the maintenance of real diversity of race, religion and cullture and the existence of Governments that serve, and are fully accountable to, the people that ELECT them.The trend, the world over, is that of a creeping gradual change in the status of the citizen from freeman to servant to servility.
Can you give me an example of a country where the opposite pertains? If so, then I would be delighted to hear from you.
Edward and his like, the cowed, compliant, free-loading,yet interfering,nay verily, dictatorial, busy-bodies are on the winning side…at the moment.
I just hope he doesn’t get his Big Brother on to me for arguing with him, but rather by reasoned argument, following the tradition of the Western enlightenment, can justify his mockery of the White Race and its defenders that have emerged in response to a world- wide deliberate attack by Marxists and financial gangsters of the communist New World Order.
Back to the thread, after that little diversion.
The Giant Moa and Haast’s Eagle.
Wiped out 150yrs after the arrival of the Maoris. Then if there were earlier inhabitants on the Islands of NZ, why did they allow them to survive? Did they farm them or were they so superior and ecologically aware that they kept track of the numbers( like all good hunters do). I know that whites, especially celts and pre-celts were terribly nice people but even I have difficulty believing they were that nice. If true, then there must be concentrations of giant moa bones at camp-sites and settlements. Caves come to mind, if Haast’s Eagle was patrolling the skies above. A young human would have made a nice snack.Did Haast’s Eagle attack humans? If so, surely there would be at least some reference to this in Maori folklore? Have I stumbled upon the information that is being suppressed? So little of this has been discussed, which is odd considering that this concerns a key event, not only in the history of NZ, but in the dispersal of mankind over the surface of the Earth.
Andrew, you’re quite correct, I was indeed in a mischievous mood. But now I am, or at least my ‘kind’, apparently are authoritarian communists? And also free-loading interfering dictators? And the whole point of my discussion, apparently, in Andrew’s mind, has been about mocking white people? And here I was thinking i’ve been talking about epistomology (the nature of knowledge) and how and why archaeological theories are what they are and not what the Doutre’s would have them be. Go figure. Funny though, isn’t it, how this thread started with Hamstar and others saying that they didn’t want to listen to ‘unqualified’ people like Scott Hamilton, but that they wanted to hear what “a real archaeologist” who “actually goes out in the field and researches these things” had to say. Only then, supposedly, would they believe that ideas such as the Celtic NZ one might be wrong. Then, funnily enough, not only one but TWO qualified archaeologists (Jono and myself) come along who do field work and are familiar with Mr Doutre’s and other’s claims and state that they completely disagree with claims such as the Celtic NZ one, and go on to explain why it is that they disagree. In response, even though the original people deferring judgment to trained and experienced professionals got what they asked for, they then chose to reject what said experts had to say and instead label the experts as either ‘authoritarian’, ‘PC’, ‘part of the conspiracy’ or ‘corrupt’.
What then to make of this conundrum?
“You’re not an archaeologist, i’ll only believe an archaeologist!”
“We want to hear what archaeologists have to say!!”
“We don’t like what the archaeologists have to say!!”
“Something must be wrong with the archaeologists!!”
Now, sure, you can turn around and spin another long winded web of rhetoric if you wish Andrew, but this is the inescapable fact of the turn of events which turned out on this blog post. Go on and read through it again.
So, keeping in mind that answers are demanded of archaeologists, but that when answers come they are rejected and the archaeologist is condemned, what then do you bloody well expect the archaeologist to do!?
The answer is either to give up to maintain sanity or to resort to a less wise tact of treating the imbeciles who demand everything but accept nothing with contempt or mockery. I have chosen the latter, less wise, tact of treating your diatribe with sarcasm. Now this may not be wise or mature, but it sure does feel good seeing as after thousands of words which I put into this post to try to actually help, it was all, in the end, swept aside by a flood of pseudo-academic hateful and paranoid drivel by yourself and others. This is me finally accepting that you are fundamentalist in your beliefs and anti-intellectual in your approach, and proceeding to mock the hell out of you to blow off steam and keep myself sane. In the end, despite yourself, you have merely highlighted that it was you and others like Jeep who were trying to tell people what to think rather than how. Your ambiguity of theory and confessions of seeking balanced opinion may be useful rhetorical devices to sway others your way, but you ultimately show that this facade falls to the wayside as you neither read the academic literature nor accept expert advice. Your ‘balance’ is in fact so off kilter that you may as well be lying down.
As for others on here who may be reading, I have laid out my case, and I have given references from which to start looking into it further if desired. If you can stomach it, and have the time and patience, I suggest reading through the comments again. My goal has only been education, not communism or cover-ups, and while I may not be the best at explanation and am susceptible to frustration, in the end I can only try.
Seen as many of the opposing comments have often focused upon cover-ups, corrupt academics, communists, zionists, and what can only be seen as a strong dislike for non-white ethnicities among other rather hateful and paranoid comments, I thought i’d leave you with a quote:
“For as there are misanthropists or haters of men, there are also misologists or haters of ideas, and both spring from the same cause, which is ignorance of the world” – Plato’s Dialogue Phaedo
I’ll have to go with Edward on that one. This has turned into one big gangfuck.
While we’ve been exchanging views, some interesting developments have been taking place with respect to diffusionism ie the ability of early man (the white race in particular) to spread out, not only overland, but across oceans.
Bear in mind that one of the central pillars of Edward’s argument for non- investigation of a pre- Maori presence in New Zealand is the difficulty( impossibility) that ancient people would have in reaching such a remote group of islands.
Certainly NZ is a long way from Europe, but what about South America?
In an earlier post I mentioned Dr Dennis Stanford and his idea of a Solutrean(Europe) connection with Clovis(N America)stone technology.More and more caucasoid remains are turning up in the Americas. These easily pre-date the Red Indians. Oldest settlements are thought to be on the Eastern seaboard of the USA with migration in to the interior and Southwest into Mexico and South America.
So the legends of Quetzlcoatl and Viracocha may indeed be founded on fact.
The Paracas mummies(associated with the Nazca lines) have been radio-carbon dated at 2000yrs old and are reported, at least in the popular press, as being caucasoid(vindicating Martin Doutre’s hypothesis).I would like to see a report in a professional archaeological journal, but as yet have not managed to find one.This has all been kept rather quiet.
So that means that we’ve got the possibility of Whites in S America around about 15,000BC onwards.( taking the radio- carbon date of a female caucasian skull found near Mexico City)
What if at some point those caucasoids left or had to flee S America, where would they go? Wasn’t it Thor Heyerdal that pointed out that Viracocha meant “seafoam” implying a connection with boats and sea-faring? And according to legend, a speedy departure took place.
Think hard about the capabilities of boats. 5kts in 24hrs=120nmls. 10days at this average speed (a reasonable assumption for a sizeable sailing craft) becomes 1200nmls, 20days=2400nmls. A boat of 100ft could easily carry 30 people, food, seeds, livestock.Water is more of a problem but there are techniques and ways and means that don’t require high technology.
If ancient people had the knowledge of distance, angle and time, that Martin Doutre thinks they had, then navigation would present little problem.
Everybody thinks that the invention of the wheel was a very important advance in human transport. Maybe so, but nothing compared to the boat.
All in all, quite an advance for the Doutre camp which will continue to be vigorously opposed, but hopefully with a bit more respect.Amateurs like myself may then look forward to the day when someone will do us the honour of not merely dismissing Mr Doutre’s “parcel of numbers” as rubbish, but will tell us why they are rubbish.( and if they refrain from Nazi racist jibes, then I shall feel obliged to refrain from the use of huggy,fluffy, pinko, bedwetting commie ripostes.)
His idea of an “outdoor university” for the Nazca Lines and the Stone Balls of the Diquis Delta is easily the most plausible. Note, I did not say correct.I said most plausible, and for that reason alone, respect is due, in my opinion.
Amazing how things change…Hope you are keeping up with all this, Edward, and informing the New Zealand public, to whom you are undoubtedly a devoted and conscientious servant,( the stress levels must be unbearable) of those exciting developments in the highly-charged world of Archaeology…a branch of science and history known throughout the world for its ruthless, fearless pursuit of Truth, regardless of dogma, religion or creed.
The chosen few set aside to bless the many.
Where would we be without them?
ps. I thought Protestantism and universal education with which it walks hand in hand, ended such notions.Silly me. Maybe the Enlightenment was but a will o’ the wisp, a transient fad, in the modern history of Occidental Man.
Interesting. Or maybe not.
We have already heard and covered what you wrote before on here, and I have given links to other places where your questions are covered. I’m getting pretty tired of you and your like continually asking the same thing again and again. Obviously the only reason I am even replying is because I must enjoy beating my head against a wall on some level. Once you get an answer you just ignore it and go on to something else only to bring the same question up again later. What is it with you, either you’re being disingenuous or you actually have the memory capability of a goldfish.
- For a start, new developments? Or merely the same old ones?
- The main pillar of my argument against this stuff isn’t boats but evidence. Not one shred of it exists. And even if it did, it is up to Doutre and his like to pull it together and prove it. So far all they have are tall stories and laughable methods.
- RE Doutre’s “parcel of numbers” have again already been explained. You just don’t bother to accept it. Or you actually do have something wrong with your memory. I’ll quote myself, seeing as yet again you haven’t bothered to read through this discussion as I suggested.
“Wippdy-do, a bunch a stones lying around where they should be, due to natural processes. Of course, Martin won’t tell his followers that archaeologists and geologists have been there, because they have already refuted his ideas and shown that he has little to no understanding of depositional transforms, or the natural or cultural context of how things get deposited in the landscape or archaeological record.”
“improbable and fanciful stories about “pre-celts” sailing to the other side of the planet for no particular reason (no reason is ever supplied, they “just did” for the hell of it apparently) at a time when neither the culture or technology in question existed so that they could establish “open air universities” and “astronomical markers” only to be wiped out for no particular reason to the point where not one shred of evidence remains”
[this is a quote from my answer to someone who asked exactly the same question on one of the links I provided for you earlier]
“Some of his other “sites” consist of rocks deposited across the landscape due to volcanic activity. He then usually sets out to subjectively record those rocks which might fit a particular pattern he wishes to create, such as a pentagram of whathaveyou. The problem is that he ignores the fact that the entire field is covered in rocks which have been deposited by the nearby volcano or whatever so his selection of the “meaningful” rocks which he will use in his ‘analysis’ (for lack of as better word) is completely subjective and in a sense predetermined by his hypothesis. Think of it this way, if you have a piece of paper covered in hundreds of black dots, you can construct pretty much whatever pattern you like if you select the ones which fit the shape you have determined in your mind. This is not science. You cannot just ignore data like that. So to answer the second question, yes. In most cases they are just random piles of rocks not worth looking at.”
[And here is a link to an article which goes through the Celtic 'stone circle' claims which again I provided you earlier:]
http://www.skeptics.org.nz/SK:VIEWARTICLE::waDeptTOC.1,A1372
So there you have it Andrew, yet again we come full circle. The amazing thing is that you apparently can’t even see it!!
Bias, epistomology, training, evidence, methodology, theory – these are the things I have been talking about. Do yourself and me a favor and go out and buy a fucking book on scientific method or the philosophy of science. You obviously have no frickin clue as to what you’re talking about.
Oh, and your satirical comment about me keeping up with the so-called ‘developments’ you vomited out earlier and whether i’m serving the public as some kind of self-possessed blessed being (”The chosen few set aside to bless the many”) is rich coming from a British vet who has nothing to do with NZ or archaeology, is a self-confessed polymath via months of google searches, and can’t tell the difference between carpentry methods and archaeological ones!
In addition, this same British vet states “Naturally, educated people like Edward and myself are vastly superior at this than the great unwashed multitude, or so I thought, until I questioned them ( the Great British working classes) on their attitudes and, in a cursory way, attempted to assess their level of general knowledge.”
And you say I hold myself in such high esteem!? Sheesh! I shall bid you adue, until the next time your oh so enlightened one. Perhaps we may all be honored by kissing your signet ring, though those great ‘unwashed’ masses might tarnish it? Despite what you might think, i’m afraid you’re very uneducated when it comes to archaeology, just as I am when it comes to veterinary science. The difference is that I worked hard for years to get an even moderate grip on my subject while you merely assume you already know it. Perhaps this ’superiority’ it is merely part of your special Aryan DNA?
Imagine! An exhortation, to a British vet to read a fucking book, presumably a book on fucking.
I can tell you that there isn’t much the average vet doesn’t know about fucking. It is a large and important part of a vet’s training.
Yes indeed, should anyone require advice on the subject and its ins and outs, so to speak, then one couldn’t do better than consult a vet.
Can you imagine my saying to a client, in response to an innocent question, ” Go and read a fucking book on it”. Not very professional
So unprofessional in fact that you would be struck off, pronto. So whatever hankerings you may have, Edward, towards the medical or veterinary professions, at least until you learn to inhibit your childish impulses, I would stick with the day job.
Next I am told I have no clue, no “frickin” clue in fact. What is frickin? Should that be fricking or frickin’ . Is this some obscure, newly-evolved New Zealand dialect? Sorry, but that word is not in common usage here in the UK.(”fucking” is, however, and well-understood)
Yes, I can see the irritability and frustration in Edward’s replies.Why doesn’t he(A W Lees, vet surg) just shut up and accept what I tell him?
The reasons are simple.
First, the embargo on the findings in the Waipoua forest.
Second, you yourself have provided us with little scientifc, peer-reviewed information. You continually say this or that is so, yet provide no evidence or references to support it. You just go on and on, ad infinitum, saying I am a trained archaeologist, so what I say is the truth…rather like one set aside to bless the many.And there’s the rub, Edward, much as we respect your training, you still have to give an explanation. Just like I, or a Doctor have to do to a worried client or patient.However the scource of your frustration is not really me, it is your own department with its embargos and secrecy. I bet that really you would like to tell us all the truth, which I readily accept may be negative with respect to white early presence in NZ. But you can’t. What makes it worse is possibly the fact that even “THEY” haven’t told you about it. You’re living a lie and you know it and you’re not going to thank anyone for pointing it out to you.
Hence the resort to cheap jibes about British vets having no knowledge and connection with New Zealand. Both of which are incorrect.
Admittedly I haven’t actually been there, but was on the verge of going last year, for reasons of friendship. My mother has good friends there and has always kept in touch over the 45 yrs they have been there. As a researcher of Scottish history and its diaspora (the Jews weren’t the only people to undergo a diaspora), New Zealand registers a blip on the radar. You do know that Dunedin is the Gaelic word for Edinburgh and the town was designed in Edinburgh? Whether you like it or not, many in Scotland think of New Zealand as “ours”. Similarly with Canada and the USA, especially the Carolinas.
If we take Edward’s childish idea to its logical conclusion, we would be excluding New Zealanders from discussion about even the dear old Holocaust.” Nothing to do with you, Mate.You were never there.You live on the other side of the World.”
Also when it comes to the settlement of NZ, polynesian or white….. you( Edward) weren’t there either, so you’ve little more right to comment than I have.You’ve got a bit more right than I have, thanks to your archaeological training, but not much more.Residence in New Zealand is a minor detail.
If a New Zealander questions me on Scottish history, I don’t reply” Listen mate you’re talking rubbish, you’ve never been here.”
I’ve been to Berchtesgaden, Nuremberg and Vienna. Does that make my words more weighty than those of a researcher of the Nazi era in Otago, Wellington or Dunedin?
Of course not.
With that out of the way, I can now concentrate on the much-vaunted skeptic refutation of Martin Doutre by David Riddell, who describes himself as”a Waikato freelance journalist and soon-to-be-ex-dairy farmer”……superb credentials I’m sure all would agree(irony, sarcasm***).I did a bit of googling on this name and got some confusing information. He has a brother named John Riddell, who is described as a farmer, skeptic, with degrees in History and Agricultural Science, yet in the same article, David Riddell is described as (yet another) freelance journalist with an MSc in Zoology.Well, this world of Archaeology seems to have decidedly agricultural and zoological leanings, which make a veterinarian such as myself feel positively at home.
But before I get started, I would like” The Riddle of the Riddells” cleared up. Who’s who and who does what?
Then there is the antiquity of the refutation. A lot has happened since 2004 when it was written. I have to say its not too bad, but, in another post, provided no-one beats me to the punch, I will attempt to highlight, in my bumbling agricultural way, its many weaknesses and inherent assumptions which the author takes as given, but which are open to challenge, as I shall demonstrate.
***ps. After Edward’s having a go at my comments viv-a-vis the great unwashed, which was ironic in nature, I shall in future signal all ironic/sarcastic comments unambiguously.
Well here is the refutation of the refutation by DAVID RIDDELL, not a trained archaeologist, but obviously “vetted” and approved by Edward who posts a link to the article, written in 2004 in THE NEW ZEALAND SKEPTIC.( see his last post, the one with “fucking” and “frickin” in it)
I haven’t had time to edit this fully,so I hope you will overlook inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, grammar and construction, but I think you’ll get the gist of it.
“The prehistory of New Zealand is generally thought to be fairly simple.” (quotation marks mean that I am quoting directly from the article)
The author then contradicts himself by hinting at earlier migrants(Polynesian) and the apparent earlier arrival of the Polynesian Rat, 1300yrs before the Maori Fleet invasion.There has been a re-evaluation(problems with a refutation written in 2004).Some problem with the radio-carbon dating technique.The figure now dovetails neatly with the Maori Fleet arrival.Main point is that the author is by no means certain of the date of commencement of habitation than anybody else.
I have to agree with the model. It is simple allright. Too simple.Every continent is inhabited by 20,000BC, but not apparently New Zealand.It remains absolutely untouched, until barely a thousand years ago, a lost world, the last remnant of Godwanaland. Interesting and unusual, especially lying on a tectonic plate, and presumably of greater area, with sea-level some hundreds of meters lower than the present.
“The Kaharoa ash shower, which blanketed much of the central North Island, can be reliably dated to 700 years BP, and to date not a single archaeological site has been unequivocally located below this layer. Pollen records indicate that widespread changes in the veg-etation, generally believed to be human-induced, began about this time, as did a wave of animal extinctions which continues to the present day.”
OK, that makes 1300AD a cut-off point. No maoris, no humans before, then shortly after,human presence. So what about the rats and the Moriori? No human remains have been found below this layer. OK . What you really mean is that no human remains or signs of human habitation have as yet been found by an officially recognised member of the New Zealand Archaeology Establishment, and declared as authentic to the general public.
Yet other amateurs think they have found artifacts below the layer.Has every site been investigated thoroughly?The whole country has been covered? Very impressive. If so where is the evidence and records that would support this amazing assertion for a country of some 100,000 squ mls?
So a lot of the country wouldn’t have been habitable,so reducing the searchable area, but there are only about 4,000,000 inhabitants and you’ve only had 250yrs or so in which to look. Too early to make a statement like that.
“The Celtic New Zealand adherents assert that before their utter annihilation at the hands of invading Maori there was an earlier, neolithic culture, who left abundant evidence of their presence in the form of standing stones, cairns, earth “tors” and other features which occur throughout the country.”
Certainly from the photographs I’ve seen, you do have to ask, how did they get there? They don’t seem to be the result of any geological process and the placement at prominent locations has more the look of human intervention rather than a coincidental landing of rocks spewed out by a volcanic eruption, as Edward suggests( I think he may have been feeling a little “tired and emotional” when he wrote that.)
When it comes to land mapping and surveying as evidence of white settlement, then it is here that Mr Doutre is at his weakest.That of course is where he gets attacked.Although this is fair, it does nothing for the refutation itself, as it doesn’t tackle the important points but diverts the reader into subjects such as the geomancers mile and the business of the trig points/markers located at points invested with “mystical significance”.Nevertheless, it may well be that early man did survey his surroundings in a mathematical way, just not in exactly the way that Martin Doutre describes. Certainly this was done in Ancient Britain and possibly by bringing together collections of “lay lines” which were nothing but surveying base lines and aids to overland navigation, especially through dense woodland, before regular paths tracks and roads were available.
Again, seizing on a soft target, Riddell makes a comment about a stone being placed at 24.8832 ft. from a hubstone, supposedly representing the circumference of the Earth and then wondering how they managed to place the clumsy stone with such accuracy. Well that’s simple. The stone REPRESENTS the distance.This is quite an important point.Not necessarily here in New Zealand but when looking at all early societies, their mathematical ability was streets ahead of the technology.Take the Antikythera Mechanism and the reaction of Nasa scientists to its mathematical sophistication.The maths and thinking were there, long before the technology to manufacture the device. But that’s not surprising as maths, arithmetic and trigonometry are extremely cheap yet highly beneficial. In terms of cost effectiveness Maths and numerology must come tops of all human activities.
On to the collection of stones and boulders at Manganui Bluff.
Agreed. How this almost random collection assembles into something resembling a stone circle has me scratching my head. Nevertheless a couple of important points are missing in the critique.Martin Doutre catalogued the stones and graded them.And if you accept his ideas of each stone’s function, then order could emerge from chaos. Also he thought that some of the stones had been shaped.Once again, how the stones got there is a mystery.Which rock goes where matters not too much. The point is that unless someone prooves otherwise, somebody was bringing rocks up on to the bluff and playing around with them.And somebody was dumping rocks in places on the landscape either for surveying purposes or as a statement of territorial ownership.Where dogs, wolves and foxes defaecate and urinate, perhaps humans feel inclined to leave cairns, especially at strategic view points.
As to the point that this collection of stones couldn’t measure anything useful.
Even half a dozen stones would. 4 for the points of the compass and one for the sun’s position at the winter solstice and one for the summer solstice for starters.By the time you’ve sub-divided the year,kept track of the moon,divided the circle and marked out a few significant trigonometrical numbers,you’d be getting through a fair number of rocks.
“Again, this is classic numerology. And unlike genuine neolithic observatories, this one mostly doesn’t seem to measure anything useful.”
Most neolithic observatories are nothing like as grand as Stonehenge or the Ring of Brodgar. Most are much smaller in a state of total disarray with many components missing. The remnants of many in Britain don’t look much better than the collection at Manganui Bluff.
They obviously vary in size and sophistication according to the wealth and size of the community that constructed them….,just like churches.It may be that not many people made it to NZ. The community would be small and remained small, for many reasons, and the size and scale of any monumental works would reflect this.
“It’s primarily supposed to be a huge mnemonic device for coding a whole bunch of cosmically sig-nificant numbers”.
Yes the bigger ones(stone circles) in Europe possibly had that function, but the smaller ones, such as this one, I think, had a much more down-to-earth pragmatic function…… to provide information that you get from the watch on your wrist and the calendar hanging on your wall.Time keeping is just as important for HunterGatherers/Fishermen as it is for agrarians and horticulturalists and the many combinations of those two principal ways of life.
“Couldn’t such a wise and sophisticated society simply have written these numbers down somewhere?”
This is obviously a frivolous throw -away remark. It would be wrong to judge the article on the basis of this single remark, but nevertheless it indicates the semi-serious, poorly researched, and almost frivolous nature of this article.Naturally anyone who has taken an interest in what was one of the first divisions of labour in human society, ie a priesthood, the few set aside to bless the many, realises that this group, in order to preserve its immense privileges, did not broadcast their knowledge to the rest of the tribe/community, but guarded it jealously. Such people were the numbers men, initially very practical, that morphed into purveyors of elaborate mumbo jumbo….religion.
Until very recent times, the dominant religion in any society owned the time.Only a tiny percentage of people would have understood the finer workings and its central role in the governance of any orderly society.And that tiny percentage wanted to keep it that way.So no writing it down and broadcasting of “the mysteries”(science to you and me) to the great unwashed(****irony/sarcasm)
“Particularly significant is the absence of any of the debris generally associated with human occupation. If there were hundreds of people living here over a period of perhaps thousands of years, where are their discarded tools, shards of pottery, personal ornaments, religious artifacts? ”
That’s a good point.Humans always leave some trace of their presence.Especially where piles of stones are thought to be the remains of destroyed “Beehive” shelters.The writer maintains that nothing has been found, other than a few adzes, which he speculates, not unreasonably, are of Maori provenance. However, as is widely known, this area is”off limits” to the public and the results of an official “dig” are not to be released for fifty years.Isn’t that strange?
Mr Riddell, for some reason, makes no mention of this very important fact.
Given that this would normally be classed as a sin of omission for an Academic, but merely expedient for an adversarial advocate, which profession best suits Mr Riddell?.
Let’s carry on,
“Comparison with a genuine 5000-year-old neolithic site, Skara Brae in the Orkneys, is instructive. The layout of the dome dwellings here is unmistakeable, as is the presence of many beautifully preserved artifacts, including pottery, jewellery and tools.”
Yes very interesting. Also interesting is the fact that in spite of the area having been inhabited since its construction, some 3000yrs ago, its existence did not come to light until the late eighteen hundreds.Who knows for sure what you might be sitting on in NZ? “2-300yrs(allegedly) of habitation(mostly very sparse), compared to 4000…. and the rest, in Britain.
Next we get all jokey about an Egyptian connection.
Some connection with Egypt is not too fanciful.It is slow to get off the ground, but some archaeologists are getting the idea that people covered tremendous distances in boats.Going to sea in small boats should be a part of the archaeological curriculum.There is a nice legend that Scotland got its name from the daughter of an Egyptian Pharoah and the stone of destiny is supposed to have come from there. Egyptian glass beads were found in the burial tomb of Bush Barrow in Wiltshire, England.In times past it was thought possible to take a boat right through Europe from the black Sea to the Baltic, when the Pripet Marshes of Poland and Byelorussia were more extensive.I think we tend to overlook the fact that, even in fairly recent times(last thousand years or so), that coastlines, rivers, marshes and lakes were very different to what we see today.
“If there really had been a vibrant, mathematically sophisticated pop-ulation living here for 4000 years, there would be more evidence of their former presence. And would they have been so easily vanquished by a few boatloads of Maori?”
Good point, but without full disclosure of all goods and artifacts, plus extensive proactive investigation of NZ and its coastal waters, how can the question get a truthful answer?
As to the last point, about being easily overwhelmed. Built into that is the assumption that there was a large thriving community. It may be that it was a small community with a poor genetic base. It was cut off from trade. People may have left.They may not have been too clever. The clever ones left and the dummies remained behind. Civil war, societal breakdown, the scenarios are endless. Maybe we’re looking at the wrong time frame.Maybe its much,much earlier ie15to 10000BC(working off the 15,000BC figure for caucasoids in S America).
Other factors to be considered are low sea levels before 10,000BC and then a rapid rise.What about the climate? Vulcanism?Animal and plant extinctions?
I came here looking for answers to these very questions and what do I get? Evasive replies,political infighting,smear campaigns, dark hints of sinister hidden agendas and a total lack of any serious scholarship. I hope this isn’t your best NZ……because it isn’t up to much.
I’ m not convinced(so far) that Martin Doutre is correct about early settlement, but I must say that I wish him well in his endeavours, for if nothing else he has exposed what must be one of the most secretive, and that means unscientific, most evasive collection of Archaeologists on the face of the planet.
It goes without saying that Mr Doutre’s research into the “parcel of numbers”, his endeavours to explain some of the most enigmatic and puzzling edifices and constructions ever undertaken by humankind have been ignored. This is truly tragic, for if anyone has come close to a reasonable explanation for those puzzling endeavours, then it is he.
Similarly with his section on weights and measures,ancient and modern(on his website,free,no payment requd.) It is a veritable mine of information and commended by the all too few scholars conversant with such material.
Conclusion regarding the article:-
One or two good points but fails by picking on soft targets, doesn’t get to the heart of the matter, and is guilty of the sin of omission.
Here’s freedom to him who would speak,
Here’s freedom to him who would write,
For there’s none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indite.
ROBERT BURNS (1759-96)
You’re right Andrew. I let you get under my skin too much. Nothing I or anyone else can say will satisfy you, you’re just going to go on and on with those slippery disingenuous tactics I highlighted earlier. Think what you like, i’ve no reason to waste more of my time with you. But I do thank you for educating me not to bother engaging with people such as yourself in the future. At least when I debated Doutre it was, for the most part, first hand vs first hand, not 100th hand as it is with you. There are more constructive ways to fight the breadth of pseudo-archaeology here, and far more people who are genuinely interested and open to learning than you. Enjoy your “research”.
For others. Here’s a few quick links to what another archaeologist from the UK has to say about Celts in NZ (and pseudo-archaeology in general) seeing as i’m not to be trusted as i’m from here and thus part of the conspiracy.
http://www.badarchaeology.net/
Have a good read through at least.
http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/the-%E2%80%9Cmegaliths%E2%80%9D-of-new-zealand/
If the link doesn’t work, go via the main website and click on ‘Blog’ – it should be the second post down, posted on the 20th of March.
But more than anything, I just recommend getting your hands on some good textbooks.
Interesting last post from his magnificence, the high priest of New Zealand Archaeology, and self-appointed Custodian of the tenets of Natural Philosphy.
I shall leave readers to draw their their own conclusions, however by way of guidance, may I point out the following.
Number of points made supporting the proposition that A W Lees is a thick, troublesome, uneducated numbskull……5
1)Nothing I or anyone else can say will satisfy you,
2)go on and on with those slippery disingenuous tactics
3)not to bother engaging with people such as yourself in the future.
4)not 100th hand as it is with you.
5)far more people who are genuinely interested and open to learning than you.
Number of points made concerning New Zealand Archaeology or History……0
Well well Edward who stated he was done with this thread obviously came back for more with Andrew and finished by repeating the same “I wont wast any more time with you” statement when the naughty Andrew would not just bow kissing Edwards Ring and pledge to never question the official line again.
Andrew is right, still NO evidence supporting Edwards assertions re archeological sites or remains NOT being pre maori Caucasian inhabitants has been supplied by the highly trained academic elite with all the skills, access and resources (Not available to the amature). Just claims they are not, as in the usual socialist method of “If i say it often enough the people will believe it and it will become fact.
As we know the few examples that have had carbon dating done have either been embargoed (Waipoua Forest CD data along with 80 or so other sites) or the data that did make it into the public domain when a regional coroner let the cat out of the bag, is publicly down played as a mistake or faulty CD readings (Female skull recovered last year)
What the experts also continue to NOT explain is why such secrecy and effort to hide data from the public.
A very similar situation is found in the Laulan Province in China along the silk road near Tibet where over 200 mummies up to 4000 years old have been unearthed who are plainly and accepted as being Caucasian within the international archeological community and is forcing the re-writing of the present belief that Chinese and european cultures developed separately and various technologies came to europe from Asia when it seems to have been the reverse. These people are very tall have red and fair hair in most cases and even have tartan cloth in some cases, (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ovltesj0gY&feature=related along with other documentaries on these finds) And just as in NZ the Chinese Authorities are down playing these finds and have banned further digs or research for political reasons. You see the local ethnic group who say they are not Chinese (And look more Caucasian than Asian) want autonomy and the Chinese Govt want no archeological findings to support their claims to the area over the Chinese communist Govt. In one documentary the western archeologists say the Govt planted a headless mummy in a tomb that they had “Allowed” them to excavate in the name of good east/west relations even though further digs were banned. The reasoning was surmised at being so a mummy of NO discernible ethic origin would be found.What this shows is that politics will always be the first concern to a govt and truth will always come a distant second.
PS Daniel:
No i am not Martin although i have communicated with him, and i was in service for 12 years, and am presently on my regimental Association committee. I used many weapons in service including the L1 and L2, GPMG, M16, Browning HP, Browning 50 Cal, and Styer Aug as well as L5, M101A1, L118 and 119 Howitzers. i qualified as an instructor on the C9 Minimi and as a collector of historic military arms i know full well what continued dry firing of a firearm, machine gun or not can do. But with that said if you can prove that all MY peers and instructors were full of shit i would welcome the evidence.
As an aside, it is accepted that the first complete migration out of Africa of humans was 60,000 years ago and took a route through the regions now called the middle east, India down through Indonesia, New Guinea and to Australia. The next complete one was to Asia and then subsequent migrations into Europe and lastly the Americas around 10,000 years ago.
So are we lead to believe that in 60.000 years of human global migration with habitation having reached Australia very early on that no one would have gotten to New Zealand until the Maori arrived in about 1300 AD or so. That could be a good Tui advert – Yeah Right.
The sites recommended by Edward, I have looked at twice in case I was missing anything. Decided lack of effort in organised presentation and in need of updating, are my immediate thoughts.For a more balanced outlook on the state of play in Archaeology, may I recommend a rather well -written overview by Mark Stengel. Just google “the diffusionists have landed”. It’s an article in an online journal called “The Atlantic.”
Good to see Jeep widening the debate by providing that interesting link to the whites, complete with tartan, in Western China and highlighting the oddity of late arrival in New Zealand, about which I would like to add some information which may be of interest.
I downloaded GoogleEarth to have a look at Waipoua and Manganui Bluff.
In doing that you get a view of under-sea topography.
I mentioned the possible role of vulcanism in NZ’s past.
Interesting feature, the Kermadec ridge stretching up from The Bay of Plenty to Tonga, marking the edge of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate under which subducts another plate moving westward from the Pacific rise(similar to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge).
Sure enough there is a line of volcanic plugs and calderas(Raoul, Macauley,Curtis etc…the Kermadec Islands). There may have been more in the past, which have been eroded by the sea, and where that has happened and the tops are not too far below the surface, there are large shoals of fish.Where there are fish there are birds, and dolphins and whales. It would be a very handy landmark, correction, seamark, to confirm that you were on track to NZ.
The Polynesian journey from Rarotonga to the Bay of Plenty was re-enacted and completed with little ado, and with absolutely no modern navigational aids.
If whites(Lapita people?) did the voyage centuries before the Maori voyages, then perhaps they departed from Tonga, where the large trilithon resides.That which appears daunting, suicidal even, to an armchair-bound European, is very much less so to one born and brought up in the ways of boats, the sea and folklore of the Pacific.
A question arises before long, in the consideration of the feasibility or otherwise of such voyages. If you’re in Tonga, enjoying life, why launch out into the great blue yonder?
Number of reasons.
1)Pursuit of curiosity…. where did the cuckoo and godwit(departing to the South-West) go for six months of the year? A few barren outcrops and stacks?
2)Wealth….unusual stones, such as green stone and others associated with vulcanism.
3)Security and Land Hunger.
4)Accident…. on familiar routes take a deliberate loop out, to get more information, knowing that you can recover. You get blown off course, sight land, return to base making a note to revisit on a deliberately planned voyage. Probably how Raoul island got found. Repeat process south from Raoul, following line of stacks and attendant fishing grounds along the Kermadec Ridge.The departure of cuckoos and godwits may provide a useful cue as to the timing of a voyage southwards.Birds don’t like headwinds or tropical cyclones anymore than sailors.For more detail refer to articles on polynesian migration, available on line at the Journal of the Polynesian Society website.Search for “Voyage to Aotearoa” by Chad Babayan
The reason I wrote this is to highlight the simplistic, school-masterlike statement from Edward (your man from the NZ Arch dept) that whites were unable to reach remote islands such as NZ.
I accept that, in the fullness of time, evidence of an earlier white(or any other colour) presence may be negative(prior to the Moriori/Maori), however I do maintain that, whatever reasons NZ Archaeology has for non-investigation, the remoteness and assumed maritime incompetence of early humanity are two which should be struck off the list.
ps. convention states that the Lapita people got into central Polynesia from Melanesia and they were a super-race that could make ceramics. Despite being super people they disappeared and were supplanted by the peace-loving, non-ceramic-making Polynesians who, just for fun, carved and erected a rather fetching Trilithon stone edifice on Tonga.
On the other hand, some(Peter Marsh,see website Polynesian Pathways) have dared to suggest that Lapita people, along with the sweet potato, came down-wind and down-current from S America into central Polynesia, got pushed out by Polynesians, some of whom have the genes for blond/red hair and blue eyes.I wonder how that came about?
You pays yer money and y’ takes yer choice.There’s some science in archaeology, but not as much as you think.There are so many blank areas that they have to be filled in with speculation and opinion, which all too easily can become spin, for political and ideological purposes.Fascists and communists are equally guilty.
However the more scientific the investigation becomes, the less credible becomes the essentially communistic Boazian view held by Academia the world over, which the everyday person recognises as political correctness..
With the new information from S America, the weight of opinion may shift to what is currently the minority view of the Lapita culture…as it did with those standard bearers of the white race, the Vikings, and their ability to reach N America.The establishment here in Britain largely wrote off the sagas as mystical hokum.However even the most fervent proponents, often referred to in disparaging terms, were unconvinced until the clincher came with the incontrovertible evidence of settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland.
The New Zealand controversy seems to be at a similar stage.The principal difference between the two situations is that, as far as I recall, there was absolutely no hint or charge of a cover-up, off-limit areas, or any talk of embargos by the Canadian authorities…..at that time. Nowadays, the situation might be very different as new laws have since been enacted, supposedly to avoid upsetting the designated “indigenes”, but in fact are aimed at restricting and controlling findings that may proove inconvenient to the politically correct(communist) view of the evolution and history of mankind.
I rest my case. PC, simplistic, communist, unscientific, arrogant – these are what archaeologists and archaeology are to Jeep and Andrew. And they would know, now wouldn’t they? Seems obvious to me they were never interested in an honest debate. Judging by the number of repetitive nonsensical comments they continue to post, even when no one else is bothering anymore, from Jeep’s make-believe medieval flat earth conspiracy and claims of intimate knowledge of the archaeological profession (we all work in the public sector apparently, right Jeep?), to Andrew’s claims that archaeologists do not in fact do archaeology in NZ (this is the logical outcome of his claim that we don’t investigate all the evidence – we’re just far too busy just ‘hiding the truth’, aye Andrew?), that Lapita Peoples were white, that carpentry and archaeology use the same methods, and that the Holocaust never happened, this site has simply become a breeding ground for one eyed and bigoted views to be disseminated. Go ahead Andrew and Jeep, continue posting your incohesive arguments and citing your jaw-dropping ‘evidence’, you’ve obviously got a captivated audience in each other.
Edward Just answer the following clearly , concisely without your bull shit and lefty rhetoric, as an archeologist you should know the answers, thats if archeologists in NZ are being taught the whole story themselves. If you do not know the answer to any just say so.
A) Why would archeologists deem carbon dating data to be too sensitive for release into the public domain and place embargoes on the release of data for up to 75 years (EG Waipoua Forest).
B) Why has this course of action been taken at the request of archeologists on at least 80 sites countrywide (As attested by Chris Carter MP)
C) Has DNA and other testing been done on all human remains found with or without Caucasoid attributes to ascertain genetic lineage of maori or otherwise. Similarly has such testing been done on repatriated preserved heads, many with non Polynesian attributes. If not why not.
D) Why does the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences not allow any Radio carbon dating or Amino acid analysis of ancient human remains even if independently verified by the Auckland medical school as being non Polynesian origin unless confirmation was supplied that local iwi had been consulted and had given approval for testing for fear of damaging the reputation of the laboratory in the eyes of the archeological community.
E) Why do archeologists such as yourself ignore anomalous constructions or artifacts found that seem to have no technical or artistic execution, cultural, or other similarity to those of maori but to those of other cultures, such as stone hovel houses, Phoenician inscriptions, The Puniho stone or Korotangi Dove, petroglyphs on raglan rocks. etc etc
F) Why do archeologists such as yourself ignore or deny well documented archeological finds previously investigated by archeologists such as the Adz and tree stump found below the tepra ash layers near Albert park Auckland, or skeletal remains found all over the country. One type of which we now find are the same in hieght and apearance of others around the world such as in South america and the Laulan province in China.
G) I understand that archeology is based on the physical evidence found and the relationship to its surroundings in which it is found etc but do archeologists ever utilise ancient written and oral documented evidence form local or foreign sources dating from the relevant times that outline events, experiences or explorations etc of the past to help understand or explain what is found today. Such as Claudius Ptolemaeus Map of 151AD, Al-Rashid’s chronicles 764-809AD. surely records such as these is still evidence to help support or debunk a theory especialy if elements or reference to things are documented in several ways or places separately. If not why not.
H) Do you agree that through out history many countries historical records have been altered, falsified or had aspects played down etc to cater for political, social and other agendas at the time (Ie: Japans lack of education re the WW2 period. NZ recent down playing the part it played in the 1980s arming of the Solomon Islands with weapons that ended up in the hands of the rebel forces etc etc). If so why would NZ be immune now to also keeping aspects of our archeological record hidden (Even from Archeologists as happens in china) to suit the very tricky issues with race relations and growing Maori discord.
And lastly
H) Why do archeologists such as your self and Maori commentators always resort to personally attack the people asking questions about those anomalies and rather than investigate in the pursuit of truth and knowledge to confirm or debunk, or alternately providing easily understandable evidence to support the status-quo, why do you just demand the enquirer just believe you because you are trained and assume tha enquirer is motivated by or are bigots, neo nazis, racists etc.
I have answers to all queries concerning as to WHO were are our ancient Neolithic settlers ..Over the last decade i have uncovered a series of ancient sites in the Tararua area giving up their secrets in the form of Stone face profile carvings-tools-script ect .Many different cultures are featured in the stone carvings ,proving that a mixed culture worked together and created stone carving of a very high standard proving who they were by carving their face likeness’s. I have retrieved hundreds of such carvings also proving that these people led a very comfortable lifestyle allowing them to create time consuming application of hand stone carving ,So far over a 10 years period i have only had the time to CLEAN and RESTORE only a few of these wonderful artefacts ..They can be viewed at my restoration studio : @ “Badgersden” .Dannevirke. I also with my Maori heritage have been labeled,rascist -white supremist-ect. All i am searching for is the truth about our ancient heritage not a lot of gobblygook myth and legend fostered by ignorance …”The Truth is Here!!!!
Jeep, your cut-and-paste ramble has already all been covered. If you can’t comprehend it or believe it, that’s your problem. Martin Doutre did a remarkably similar factoid drop to you on the Scoop link I provided. As for my “bullshit and lefty rhetoric”, and your sudden “i’ve no agenda or bias, I just want the truth”, all I will say is you exquisitely exemplify the very reason why debate with you is useless.
See ya.
Hands up ANYONE on this thread who thinks Edward has actually answered any of the above nine questions. What is so hard about saying “Site CD testing data is kept from the public because…….” or “The IGNS will not test artifacts without Iwi consent because……..”
And No it was not a factoid drop it was merely 9 straight forward questions wanting a simple and concise answer from some one who should know the answers. After all you continually state the burden of proof to prove or disprove the theory is on us yet we have no access to data of test already done (Embargoed), no ability to get artifacts tested (Maori control whats tested) and even if we did manage to slip several through the net, and even if the results were pro a pre NON maori inhabitant any and all excuses would be paraded out as to why the tests were faulty (As per female European head tested by a coroner)
The fact that you are a (gainfully employed i assume) archeologist but seem un-willing or unable to give credible answers to simple questions does work in favor of the suspicion that there is more to our history than the establishment wish to admit.
And yes i do have an agenda, you have seen through my facade, my agenda is to get the fucking truth told here, as i am sick of being fed bullshit for history, weather that be recent or ancient, I dont give a fuck if these dudes were celts or any other name thats just a label martin attached for lack of a better one at present. Frankly the pro white supremacist crowd who contribute to the theory piss me off as they give ANYONE questioning the status quo the tag as a racist as all the lefties and PC brigade automatically think your motivation is pro white, anti black or europeans are smarter than the natives crap rather than just wanting the truth.
Sure the present goings on with Maori is pissing me off too but thats nothing to do with the past thats purely due to the train wreck they are heading this country into today, and mark my words the present goings on ARE causing division between maori and non maori and previously held sympathy or support into resentment and hate. YOu will possibly not notice this in your circles Edward that i guess are of a more intellectual and leftist bent, however on the street in the real world in the frank discussions between acquaintances the feelings are very different. BUt that is another matter and as i am not completed ten years training as a researcher in sociology i am sure you will feel i nothing i say on that issue can be true anyway.
Jeep, as I said your questions have already been answered both here and on link I provided so it’s your problem, not mine. In addition, I don’t answer factiod drops as they are divisive logical fallacies and i’m quite used to having them dropped on me. Here’s a definition of what it is you attempted, whether you are aware of it or not:
“Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium – a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.”
None of your question are simply straight forward. I would first need to untangle the many assumptions and misnomers attached to them before I could even begin to answer them – this is what I have been doing the entire time on this blog, sorting through your arguments and explaining why I disagree, but instead of carefully considering what I say you just call it long-winded bullshit and demand a “yes” or “no”. Many of your questions and rhetoric also include other fallacies such as denying the antecedent, begging the question, fallacy of false cause and loaded questioning. It was also obvious from the outset that even if I take the time to sort through your factiod drop you would have another one ready and waiting, and that if I declined to engage with such a rhetorical trap, it would therefore be help up as some sort of ‘proof’ to your point. I’ve been in debates with far too many pseudo-scientists and intelligent design proponents to not see exactly what you were doing.
That is why i’m refusing to debate with you any longer.
If you really want to learn then read. Read widely. Read old and modern texts, read archaeology texts dealing with the history and development of archaeology, read what you like but just make sure you read widely to get a balance. In short, read in context. You’ll find it isn’t all hidden away, its dealt with explicitly and in a reasoned and evidence based manner. Good luck.
I have read your links Edward and NONE of them answer questions such as Why Data is embargoed, Why testing is controlled as it is, or why the denial of documented finds (Denial that its what we initially think it is is one thing but to say it was never found when reports and period news papers attest to the discovery).
From the continued avoidance of the questions to the squawking about factoid drops (Maybe a question drop), divisive fallacies, rhetorical techniques (So who guilty of factoid drops then), claiming false cause (i assume you mean you believe my motivation IS of a racist nature),Your just digging your self deeper Ed, soon youll be buried as deep as your subject artifacts but at least you wont have to worry about being dug up in 700 years and studied, well not if your of non maori extraction anyway. (Thats called sarcasm btw some consider it the lowest form of humour)
I must say as an “outsider” in this discussion/ debate, I have to agree with Jeep’s assessment of Edward, ie dismal.
Casting back over the output of the individual calling himself “Edward,” I have considered, and reached some conclusions.
First off is the question of anonymity.
I deliberately put out my correct name, and profession, so that I wouldn’t be accused of hiding, or expressing opinions that I wouldn’t advance in public.
But not so with Edward. Does Edward exist? Is he the trained archaeologist he purports to be?
The last question is prompted by the very remarkable lack of detail on the Archaeology of New Zealand. This is odd coming from a man supposedly working in this field.
Certainly, here in Britain, I have had occasion to meet and talk with experts in a few odd areas. A Professor of Greek gave me a masterly summary of his work in about 20mins flat and provided 20 pages of notes complete with references.If only that, or even something remotely like it happened here.
So little information is forthcoming that one has to seriously ask the question,”Is this man a trained academic?”
I can hardly imagine anyone in Britain, similarly questioned, would be so unforthcoming and so careless of his academic reputaion that he would cite such low-quality references…….Unless, unless, he was a politically-motivated stooge, patrolling the internet, seeking to divert people’s attention away from material disadvantageous to his cause.
There are such people.
I know. I have a nephew who was employed, part-time to do just such a job.
I recognise the tactics all too well.
Mention the word “race” and in a twinkling of an eye, we’re diverted from serious scientific appraisal, and off down the road to Nazis, Auschwitz and White Supremacists.
Mention the possibility of collusion, bribery, economic, social and sexual pressure(and drug-addiction) being used to keep the cause on track and it’s jokes about NWO and World Government.( Check out Lord Monckton on you-tube if you think conspiracy theories are a joke)
Secondly, is the language and impatience of the replies.
Here in Britain, an academic would be considered ” to have lost it”, if in response to repeat questions or propositions by an audience, he used words like “fucking”, “frickin” and “go and read a book about it”.
As for calling people, who aren’t satisfied with your replies, thick, disingenuous, annoying, obstinate and or deluded….. well you’d be finished…..unless of course you had the power of a Russian Commissar…”Keep disagreeing with me, comrade, and it’s Siberia for you”…. or, as more commonly happened in Czeckoslovakia or the DDR, you’d be set to cleaning toilets, sweeping streets and moved out to rundown housing (for minor offences).
Of course I could be wrong, and “Edward” really is a trained archaeologist but has the manner of a Russian Commissar because he has been brought up that way.
Perhaps neither he, nor you, the great New Zealand public, perceive anything unusual in this?
Maybe this is some colonial thing, where swearing at, and denigration of, members of the general public by academics(publicly funded civil servants) are considered acceptable behaviour?
I have to opine that to this outsider, your academics, if you allow them to be represented by “Edward”, seem odd…… the brains of scholars, but the language of labourers. A collection of academically-gifted rough diamonds.Unusual. Maybe it’s due to all that sporty outdoors stuff? The language of the communal showers continuing on into the classroom.
I hope you prove me wrong in my harbouring those suspicions, by condemning, in no uncertain terms, this low standard of behaviour by “Edward”, and thus re-affirming my previous impression of a reasonable standard of behaviour of the majority of the New Zealand public.
This fellow “Edward” is definitely suspect.
3 possibilities:-
1)He’s a stooge, a poseur, a mountebank.
2)He’s an archaeologist but unenthusiastic and incompetent.
3)He’s competent but a poor communicator, with an inferiority complex as evidenced by the need to prove his blokey toughness by swearing.
4) This is a really sad option.The man’s a communist but doesn’t know he is one because he knows nothing different. State control of nearly every aspect of his life is “normal”.High taxation is “normal”.
ps. Take note that when the communist bullies recognise they’ve got a tough one on their hands, they usually slink off in search of more timid prey……at the moment. Let them get control and there will be no argument or dissent.Ask the Poles, Czecks, Slovaks and former East Germans.
My personal opinion of this Edward is that he probably is an archeologist but like the majority of academics in NZ has emerged from the qualified end of the kiwi tertiary education system so left of center it is a wonder he can stand upright. Politically correct crusades such as anthropogenic global worming, equality in all aspects (Even the illogical) between genders, rights of animals to legal representation, compensation to “Indigenous” populations (but not those of the old world), gun control (which only controls those that dont need it not the criminal element) are all common ideological band wagons Edwards type are prone to jump onto.
They live thier lives based on Idealistic dreams that have little basis in fact or take into account the realities of the world and the human condition. A case in point being many western socialists or supporters of communist ideals would soon complain if the realities of complete state control and communism were brought home to them by living in a truly communist environment (A bit like the rose tinted idea of life in NZ before the colonials or life in the Scottish Highlands before pacification). And once govt or the state authorities have a certain amount of control they ALWAYS take more, socialism breeds complete communism in the long run if checks are not kept by vigilant people who enjoy freedom, including the freedom to question, the status quo in relation to history.
Nothing but ad hominem arguments, the last two posts. I’ve been talking archaeology and the philosophy of science here. If Andrew thinks me incompetent because I don’t say the things he wants to hear, that’s no skin off my nose, he’s going to believe what he wishes anyway, that much is clear by now. If, in reaction to my pointing out the fallacious line of argumentation i’ve been confronted with this whole time, i’m the subject of paragraphs of ad hominems then it isn’t my debating skills or credentials i’d be worried about Andrew. And Jeep, yes, I have already answered your questions. I’m not going to repeat myself. The substantive content of what I have written on this blog should be enough to get an idea of why academics take issue with pseudo-academic ideas such as the Celtic NZ one and where the burden lies. Finally, I have suggested continually to read widely (no Andrew, i’m not going to post up everything I know of archaeology, i’m not a word-processing encyclopedia). For every pseudo-archaeology website you read up on, I suggest reading a peer-reviewed article or genuine modern textbook or at least searching out ready and accessible websites with opposing “mainstream” commentary.
Much of what I have written is either to do with dispelling incorrect notions about what archaeology is and how it operates (i.e. nonsense about material going “straight to the Maori”, about archaeologists being mostly “employed in the public sector”, or other accusations which simply are not true), or about the fundamentals of the philosophy of science and how these pseudp-academic notions fail at the first hurdle because of a failure to address problems in a scientifically and epistomologically robust manner. At times I have also gone to pains to stop and point out fallacious reasoning or dodgy debate. These are fundamentals to any considered approach Jeep, not the waffly rambles of some corrupt head-in-the sky academic. It is due to a failure on yours and Andrews part to acknowledge these basics by now that I have opted to cease debate with you as the only explanation I can think of is that you are both so vested in your worldviews that neither of you will ever stop talking long enough to truly listen. In other words, we all know by now i’m not going to convince you of anything, so what’s the point? Call me incompetent, a communist, corrupt or whatever, it is of little consequence now. I originally commented on this site as I feel that as an archaeologist I have a responsibility to try and educate where possible (in my own fumbling way), especially where people are being led down the garden path with junk science. To be met with such an inability and refusal to listen to and acknowledge any and all points I have made shows me that education is impossible on this forum and that I have almost completely wasted my time. As I said, believe what you will and call me what you want, I refuse to engage with such dishonesty.
I will say though, that I find it both entertaining and interesting how my questioning the logic behind arguments of a scientific nature and my strong opposition (granted, sometimes heated due to frustration) to the highly unsubstantiated claims Jeep and Andrew have been positing, are characterised as barbarous and content free insults which underlie my communistic and conspiring political correctness, a failure to believe in positive skepticism, a hatred of civil freedoms and rights, and a pathological focus on the holocaust (do I??), while also demonstrating my demonic personal qualities as some Stalinesque murderous dictator. Have I missed anything? I’m sure I have. It seems i’m thought of as some sort of bogey man who stalks the internet waiting to pounce on unsuspecting innocents and drag them off to my USSR style wonderland. I think i’m actually slightly flattered that you think the universe revolves around me. At any rate, nice talking to you guys, i’m off to go collect my conspiracy check in the mail.
Wait a fucking minute here guys. Andrew, WTF are you bringing up such political bullshit here. I actually think that sexism should be frowned upon (to a point of course) and that animals should have rights to legal representation.
And I still semi-kinda beleive this theory [needs more research]. So WTF? I am very liberal not on the political right like you so… obviously. And yet we agree on this topic. Political position has no impact on the fucking beleif of this nor should it arise in the discussion. The politicians position on various issues is instead important.
And also, Edward can say whatever the fuck he wants. This is a blog on the internet, not a professional forum so who gives a shit??!! The internet should be and can be a place for people to vent and use things like swear words to enhance conversion. Its just a FUCKING word, get over it.
As for saying go read a book about it, maybe he doesn’t know ALL the details.
I think this conversation has stagnated now and keeps going round in circles, probably due to the fact that there are like 90+ (huge) comments on this post and people can’t be fucked reading them all.
I know nothing except what I have read on the internet. I have not seen any actual rock formations except for the rocks in Silverdale and Bombays. But is it merely coincidence that these points line up? I don’t know, and unless I get the time to do my own research I won’t.
So the point we have come to is this, if people want this theory to gain position, more people need to get out there and research it, myself included. Look at the coincidences, slice them up with occams razor and present a decently compiled report of evidence or whatever. The celtic NZ site is in need of a redesign and the information needs to be sorted properly into categories. Then get archaeologists in to try and disect the report. Get them to back up their claims with RC dating etc, petition the government to remove the embargos (or explain the embargos).
The problem is you can’t do that from the internet. And most people simply can’t be fucked. Sadly, myself included. I know nothing except what I have read on the internet so have no room to speak. I don’t even know jackshit about archaeology either.
But Silverdale, Okura, Mt (whatever), and Bombay rock sites all line up… is that a coincidence? Gonna tell me god put the rocks there and they magically line up? Cos thats a whole other can of worms.
Also, I would appreciate if people would SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST!!
WAT THE FUCK HAVE NAZIS AND JEWS AND SHIT GOT TO DO WITH ARCHAEOLOGY IN NEW ZEALAND!?
Its always gotta be about the fucking jews doesn’t it? The be all and end all to shut people up. Next person to mention the holocaust is A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG!
Hamstar says:-”Andrew, WTF are you bringing up such political bullshit here”.
Political bullshit, eh!
Plenty of that around, but not coming from me.
When the people of a country pay a man’s wages to investigate the history of the country and he turns round and says” I’m not telling you.”
How’s that for bullshit?
That’s bullshit, complete unadulterated bullshit, and political bullshit at that, unless of course space aliens have landed in Waipoua forest and the authorities feel justified in witholding information that may give rise to alarm and despondency amongst the NZ population( widely known as hypersensitve and permanently on the verge of hysteria).
You have my sympathy regarding the introduction of nazis, jews and the holocaust into this debate, which I sought to eliminate.
The word “nazi” appeared in post number two.(”Jono” was the “perpetrator”)
This was then followed by the appearance of lefty, sociologist Scott Hamilton, who admitting he knows little about archaeology, calls upon his friend(presumably not a neo- nazi, but a “sensible” lefty like himself) a trained archaeologist, Edward Ashby.The idea obviously is that Mr Ashby,or “Edward” will then dispense to a deferential(’cos he’s a scientist and scientists are always right) audience….. the way, the life and the truth.
However things don’t turn out as planned. There’s a couple of troublemakers in the audience that have the gall and cheek to challenge the High Priest of the Department of Truth, Beauty and Light that is the New Zealand Archaeology department.
Careful not to reveal any information, Mr Ashby(Edward) seeks to divert attention from the subject by joking about the new world order and conspiracy theories.In this he is aided by a newcomer who resurrects the holocaust.
Sadly, AWLees quite effectively shuts off the diversions, and proposes a deal( no more holocausts means no more pinko communists and no jokey references to conspiracy and collusion in high places means no polemics on hidden, creeping communism). The deal seems to have been accepted.
And a good tactic that is, from their point of view. For both subjects, the holocaust and the NWO/ world communism, are speedily becoming indefensible.
I agree with you, Hamstar, that you are right in insisting that there are no further references to the holocaust and the NWO( there are many better sites than this, for such discussions), nevertheless it is important for the public to become aware of alternative viewpoints, which up till the advent of the internet, did not reach them for consideration.
Let’s get back to the subject of the history of New Zealand and Polynesia, a subject which I think all recognise as not being”settled” by any means, as each year brings ever more “anomalous ” finds.
If nothing else, an admission from the anti-diffusionist opposition that we are looking at a moving target, and we have come but a short way along the road in the story of Mankind…..would be something. That, and a conscious effort to de-politicise Archaeology would increase goodwill allround for those taking an interest in this fascinating subject.
ps, Hamstar, I don’t swear myself.I merely pointed out the incongruity of a trained academic using such language when speaking on behalf of his profession.
It’s years since I swore, in public.Perhaps it’s an unfortunate habit acquired as a consequence of all those years in a profession where swearing at members of the public, on duty and off, would be tantamount to professional suicide.I remember there was a joke doing the rounds about “pets with Tourette’s”(syndrome) but I just can’t remember the punchline.
Might be a good name for a blogspot…..”Tourette’s Corner”? Today’s subject is…..Tourette’s Syndrome and its role in the Archaeology of New Zealand. .
Andrew, Hamstar made it quite clear this conversation is dead. If you think everything I said was me just joking around and not addressing what you had to say then your reading comprehension is dismal. Give it a rest and stop honoring yourself.
My name is Badger Henare Bloomfield,a retired Engineer who on retirement being a Artist as well ,Taught polynesian Art -Restored Meeting Houses and Carvings -Researched the Tararua Area for Ancient Maori Sites but found the craft in the form of stone carving of an more ancient multi cultural people who settled here pre. Kupeh .I am of very fair complexion in my Maori Heritage i have the names RiriaTamati-Rewa Hairini,ancestors,Mokopuna’s Raniera,Gr. mokopuna Soriah Hotuwaipara Riwai -Bloomfield ..My blond wife has lineage of Reiri ,Matenga.. My scottish family Andrew are very very dark skinned and swarthy and have the Moor’s Head on our coat of Arms …Maori are actually universal as the Moors —Ancient name of Maori was Maure-Mauri- Mawi -Moors — Maui the Navigator who legend tells us fished Up Aotearoa came from Mauri-tania,. And where did this tribe originally live ..Africa !!! First contact with white man in N.Z.—what are you called .? answer written down by early white man ..Mari..!! How did my son and myself become so fair ..D.N.A. comes into play here !! do you feel that we might all be related???? Might as well hate your brother as in biblical times …cos colour of skin has absolutely nothing to do with anything!!
Hearken to grumpy old Ashby, now sounding more like a frumpy old Matron than the High Priest and Guru of Science.
Replying to Badger,from 12,000mls away(amazing isn’t it?)
It would be good if someone gave the Maori point of view on all this, so fire away.
Criticise the whiteman, the empire etc…. or even praise them. Happens occasionally!
Whatever, I for one, promise that I won’t start crying or getting”very upset”.For only by an open exchange of ideas and observations can we find out that which we have in common and where our differences lie. I would like to hear the Maori point of view on all this discussion, direct, not an interpretation for me by a bunch of lefty self-appointed experts in race relations.
Can I ask your help in this matter, by clearly separating your personal views from the consensus views of the Maoris.
Hopefully with those Scottish genes in you, we’ll get some hard facts and information.
You’re right to comment about dark Scots of whom many have a Mediterranean appearance, which probably came from the original invasion of the Scots from Ireland which in turn had connections with Iberia. Another dark group of Scots of more recent origin are Scots-Indians usually referred to as Anglo-Indians, and a product,a remarkably handsome and intelligent product, of the days of Empire. Sadly, many were murdered when India gained independence. Racism is not just a white phenomenon, not by any means whatsoever.
Jumping on to your mention of Maui, the great navigator, with his device for telling longitude.And the sharing of the name with Polynesia.That is interesting. My information was that he set out from Egypt, but maybe it was Mauretania. This is a country about which little is known in the West.Something which may require correction, for I have heard it referred to in the early Portuguese voyages, and again, the presence of negroid skulls in S America plus the decidedly negroid appearance of the stone heads of the Olmecs warrants a closer look into the history of this country.We may have to re-examine our prejudices as to the sea-going capabilities of Africans.
I think we share the feeling that there was more contact, and mutual respect between the races in distant antiquity. Possibly because contact was temporary and largely confined to trading.The trouble comes later with permanent settlement, over-population,land hunger and disgust and fear of cultural practices such as cannibalism,human sacrifice, polygamy, openly-displayed homosexuality, pederasty and social control by torture and murder.I should add that those practices were in no way the prerogative of races other than whites. There is evidence that whites indulged in such practices in their more distant past.For instance, Carthage was given a right going over by the Romans as a consequence of the widespread Phoenician practice of human sacrifice.
Oddly, as you hear of various myths and legends from all parts of the world, there is such a commonality that one can’t help feeling that prior to written history, there seemed to be widespread contact, however fleeting and impermanent. Or perhaps more permanent than we think.There is an old myth in the Outer Hebrides(Celtic, gaelic speaking Islands off the West Coast of Scotland) that says that the standing stones of Callanish were erected by a people led by a man in a red feathered headdress who arrived in boats rowed by muscular black men and the blackmen were not slaves but were freemen contracted for the task.A nice wee story, but with the new evidence of contact between continents, like many myths, there may be something in it.
Anyway, let’s hear your side of things, Badger. So far I haven’t heard anything that I wouldn’t hear in the students union bar of any London Polytechnic (sorry, Jeep your bit on the security aspect was interesting and entirely unexpected).
…and on it goes…
Nothing to be sorry for Andrew, most kiwi citizens don’t know of what scenarios the NZ forces were training for in the 80s or the continued arms trading between factory ships and radical elements so there’s even less chance you would know of it. I take it that’s what you are referring to re your comment on security, being national security as a motive for hiding aspects of history.
Well Andrew i think you have the situation fairly well covered.i would kindly like you on my Team of researchers {volunteers } We have a little way to go with research yet.E.g. determining exactly the time line of events that caused these carvings to be in the situation they are in today ,The major factors are :the fishing up of N.Z. by Mau’i legend {Plate uplift or Sea level drop} The reason why they buried in mud- clay in a cliff face 3 metres deep .,erosion has exposed them .Why they have a concretion coating of3mm on them .{undersea long time}.Dozens of the carvings found in small areas of of approx.3metres .Small ones at the bottom getting larger to the top { buried on purpose?] They were found below a volcanic ash layer ..Already we have a series of catastrophe{Tsuami{comet.Dr. P Snow}-Volcanic Eruption – Earthquake -Flood._ erosion has also uncovered an exposed scripted glyphed boulder 3mtr.down a cliff face also ..{Deciphering done by Pro.John McGovern}Now seriously do you sceptics think i would go to all this trouble with research if i didnt have the real Mc Coy!!? Get Real! i welcome to the pursuit of knowledge and to those who choose not to accept it.! Up Yours!!!And Yes! there are only A few pieces of the puzzle still missing…Badger ..Tohuna Kohatu nui.
Great. Bad geology AND bad archaeology. It never ends. Badger you’re a sham and a treasure hunter, thankfully most of what you play with are merely rocks but i’m worried you may actually destroy real archaeology one of these days by bumbling around sites and messing up the context. We have a hard enough time as it is preserving everything with earthworks contractors and farmers destroying whatever they come across due to some muddled fear of Maori confiscation of land, without untrained amateurs like you adding to the problem by destroying archaeological contexts. If you really want to play in the sand box with the rest of us I would implore you to go about it the proper way.
Interesting post, Badger, and if I can be of help, even though some 12,000mls distant, then don’t hesitate to ask. I’m on the fringe of Greater London, an area stuffed with experts on almost every subject under the sun.The British Museum is only a couple of hours away.
Have you taken any legal advice on this?
At some stage the authorities will have to be informed.
I’m with Mr Ashby(Edward) on that. The amateur can do so much, but a time comes when he’s got to step back and let the professionals take over, and better sooner than later.
Sure, there’s a risk of another whitewash, cover-up etc, but the likelihood of that would be reduced with a good lawyer to hand.
Let me know when you have consulted a lawyer, then, dependent on the outcome, matters can proceed.
Sorry to sound so formal, but that is the way those things have to be done….slowly, carefully,step by step.
All the best, Andrew Lees MRCVS.
Sorry to dissappoint you fellas, i am a Professional …I am the archaeological expert on the culture who made these carved stone artefacts ,no other Archaeologist in N.Z. has ever laid eyes on them let alone restore them ..[Images really don’t suffice.}ALL my research is done on the guidlines set down by the Archaeological Society .Many ,many offers to them have been made for them to partake in research to no avail .why! i guess they have sussed that i have found something that they didn’t know existed ..I would hide too ! and wait to see how much will be done by the OTHERS !I am a retired Professional Engineer {specializing in orthotics}. I Perform as a Professional Musician ,studio .live.recording …I have published 12 books {Badgers World} have another 50 journals ready for publishing.I have no government grants etc. to continue research every thing has to be done on a voluntary basis. Government road machinery are still destroying sites ..SSSSoon i expect a Gov.Archaeologist to turn up at a site using all the information i have furnished,claim it as their find and take all the credit for it!! I have never with held any info . concerning these sites and have never kept secrets in my lifetime they only clog the flow of openess and truth.Edward would not know what real archaeology was if it bit him in the Arse,how many field trips and digs have you done Edward? Do you get experience or solace from the letters after your name,i doubt it ..Excuse me please ..i have a lot of constructive work to achieve ..Bloody Knowalls and Sceptics are every bloody where!! You took the bait .Eddy Lad ,hope you can TUG yourself free!! And Also i just Hate being called an amatuer!!
But you are an amateur Badger, you just admitted it: “retired professional Engineer”, “professional musician”, none of which makes you an archaeologist. It makes you an amateur. And the NZAA don’t direct or comment on research guideleines you fool, you thinking they do only shows you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. And I think as an actual archaeologist, I have a bit of a head start on you re: knowing what ‘real archaeology’ is, you’re just a disgruntled fool who has delusions of grandeur. You are an amateur. Live with it or go and get a propper education like the rest of us.
btw, you editing and writing 50 journals was a great joke. Especially when you can barely sting a paragraph together. Still laughing. (I think you mean 50 journal articles??)
Edward my friend ,!! i am what you might call a Non-linear thinker .and what you might concieve as a joke might easily be interpreted as sarcasm .It is what you use in debate when you haven’t got an answer .!! Obvious you haven’t succeeded in adapting to propper spelling yourself ,disregarding paragraphs !! Yes!! my editing does need a bit of revision,and for Gods sake you get real and give the character assassination a miss . to be honest you are not really good at it ..I know! i have been targeted by many sceptics before you !! !ANd guess what! i have a 100% record of people who view the carvings agree that they are hand carved, by an earlier culture other than us Maori ..My ivitation for anyone slightly interested in my discovery is to contact me and Just LOOK!!!I am easy to find ….Insulting words are not becoming of a qualified Archaeologist they should be digging around in Mother Earth looking for NEW -Old history ..Hope this doesn’t interfere with your laughing spasm !Maybe 50 articles might be too much for your intellect ? by the way …What is your I.Q.?My Mokopuna found a new site on the weekend revealing many more carved siltstone rocks ,if you want images of these artifacts just send me your E.MAil address …better than that come visit and see for yourself ..You pitiful Bastard !! I might even give you some journals to browse through.That is if you can decipher ancient script ..Last person to call me a fool ended up as the fool himself and with egg on his face ..Love …Badger.Having a go at us ignorant Maori are You!? Kia Ora! Maori are not just Fucking Natives !!!.Some of us just breed with Caucasians from whenever!!!
You’re welcome
Pseudoarchaeology (also called fantastic archaeology, cult archaeology, and cryptoarchaeology) is pseudoscientific archaeology, the unscientific interpretation of material remains and sites, which may or may not represent genuine archeological data. Archaeological theories, site excavations and publications which do not conform to standard accepted archaeological methodology are generally considered to fall under the category of pseudoarchaeology.
Description
Pseudoarchaeology can be practised intentionally or unintentionally. Archaeological frauds and hoaxes are considered intentional pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally converted to pseudoarchaeology through unscientific interpretation. (cf. Confirmation bias)
Pseudoarchaelogy is frequently motivated by nationalism or a desire to prove a particular religious (cf. Intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail.
Practitioners of pseudoarchaeology often rail against academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming that conventional science has overlooked critical evidence. Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which “the Establishment” colludes in suppressing evidence.
Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by pointing to differences in research methodology, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic approach to collecting data. Though there is overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions about the past, objective analyses of folk archaeology, in anthropological terms of the cultural contexts from which they emerge and the cultural needs to which they respond, have been comparatively few, but in this vein R. Silverberg located the Mormon’s use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus and the voyage of Madoc and “Welsh Indians” was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by G. Williams.
Countering the misleading “discoveries” of pseudoarchaeology binds academic archaeologists in a quandary, described by Cornelius Holtorf as whether to strive to disprove alternative approaches in a “crusading” approach or to concentrate on better public understanding of the sciences involved; Holtorf suggested a third, relativist and contextualised approach, in identifying the social and cultural needs that both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and in identifying the engagement with the material remains of the past in the present in terms of critical understanding and dialogue with “multiple pasts”, such as Barbara Bender explored for Stonehenge. In presenting the quest for truths as process rather than results, Holtorf quoted Gottfried Lessing (Eine Duplik, 1778):
If God were to hold in his right hand all the truth and in his left the unique ever-active spur for truth, although with the corollary to err forever, asking me to choose, I would humbly take his left and say ‘Father, give; for the pure truth is for you alone!’
“Archaeological readings of the landscape enrich the experience of inhabiting or visiting a place,” Holtorf asserted. “Those readings may well be based on science but even non-scientific research contributes to enriching our landscapes.” The question for opponents of folk archaeology is whether such enrichment is delusional.
Participatory “public” or “community” archaeology offers guided engagement.
Examples:
Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology:
The belief, commonly held by European settlers, that the mound builders were a long vanished non-Native American people.
The Kensington runestone of Minnesota, held to prove Nordic primacy in discovery.
Expeditions sent by the Ahnenerbe to research the existence of a mythical Aryan race.
The Bosnian Pyramids project, which has projected that natural geological hills in Visoko are ancient pyramids.
The Hill of Tara in Ireland, excavated by British Israelists who thought that the Irish were part of the Lost Tribes of Israel and that the hill contained the Ark of the Covenant.
Piltdown man.
Radical Afrocentric claims of African Hyperdiffusion being responsible for influencing most of the major ancient civilizations of the world in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and particularly the ancient Native Americans such as the Olmec.
Religiously-motivated pseudoarchaeology:
Repeated claims of the discovery of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat or neighboring mountain ranges.
Insistence that questionable artifacts such as the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone represent proof of the presence of a pre-Columbian Semitic culture in America.
Numerous spurious claims regarding archaeological evidence to support statements in the Book of Mormon that three lost tribes of Israel settled in the Americas during pre-historic times.
General pseudoarchaeology:
The work of Barry Fell.
Lost continents such as Atlantis, Mu, or Lemuria, which are all contested by mainstream archaeologists and historians as lacking critical physical evidence and general historical credibility.
The ancient astronaut theory regarding Mayan ruler Pacal II.
Speculation regarding pre-Columbian contact between Egypt and the Maya.
Think of how much opposition there was to thinking about glacial rivers carving out the landscape when it was first suggested.
If they found Atlantis tomorrow the mainstream archies would have to eat their hats.
Trouble is the ‘crypto’-archies (read: not yet mainstream archies) need to get enough evidence together, do more research, do more digging and carbon dating to support their theory before presenting it.
The trouble is the government (DoC) and some locals seem to be hindering the progress of such research through embargos, threats, destruction of ‘artifacts’ before inspection. Some of these claims may be anecdotal however.
The ‘crypto’ or ‘psuedo’ archies should be left to gather more solid evidence to try and prove their theories and if they can’t then. I’m not sure how much it would change the history books, probably just add to it.
But are the archies who try to prove there was a pre-polynesian civilization lambasted, put down, abused and ignored more than the other sections of ‘psuedo’ archaelogical researchers? Are Atlantis researchers labeled Nazi’s?
If so it **could** be an indicator of someone trying to hide something. No reason to jump out and say LIBERAL PC SCUM! Just raise the awareness that theres some strange things being ‘censored’ in our society and ask why? Don’t offer situations, events or conspiracies. Ask why.
Its too late now anyway. We’ll never find out the truth because the waters are being muddied. **Perhaps** intentionally by an unknown (or known) party. **Perhaps.**
Oh look Mummy, Edward just posted a factoid drop, send him to his room for being no better than the rest of us naughty boys who wont swallow what nanna says without question
Most of this is for Edward(Mr Ashby), but there’s a bit at the end for Hamstar,
Science, proper, true, honest science is cold and dispassionate. It has no agenda other than truth(as far as can be humanly discerned). However the word needs further definition. Science simply means knowledge, but it has come to mean something different…. knowledge based on repeatable experiment.Theories are advanced to explain the outcome of experiments. Those theories which survive examination and scrutiny by practitioners the world over, become laws, which in turn give rise to further theories which give rise to experiments which vindicate or destroy those theories.And on it goes. That which was an irrefutable truth for one century becomes untenable in another.Light always travels in straight lines through a clockwork 19th century universe, but not in a computerised 21st century.You may say, well look at all the advances we have made. True, but that is more due to the advance of technology based on the few advances we have made in pure science..There are still massive gaps…Gravity, what’s that?…Light what is that?How do anaesthetics work?……
Archaeology is not really a science at all. It is a study. Archaeo…old things….ology…..study of.
It uses techniques that are scientifically based, such as radio-carbon dating and ground penetrating radar, X-rays, Computerised Tomography etc but at no point are reproducible experiments carried out.So it is not a true science at all. Neither is Astronomy. You can have highly plausible theories about star formation, but so far nobody has actually made one… so the theories of star formation have to remain just that…. theories.Not irrefutable truths.
Similarly with archaeology, you can’t really do experiments with the past. The closest you can come is with re-enactmaent. Such as Tim Severin crossing the Atlantic and Thor Heyerdal across the Pacific with Kon-tiki, or the Polynesian journey from Rarotonga to NZ. None of which were carried out by trained archaeologists but by what are referred to, ironically, jealously?, as “pseuds”
Lets look at this word pseud, pseudo-, and who uses it… and why.
It means:- false, counterfeit, fake….. and the user, in appending this to a word like archaeology, wittingly or unwittingly, has elected himself to the status of judge and jury combined.If he does choose to use such a word, then in the true spirit of academic debate it should be followed by IMHO.(In My Humble Opinion)
In the list of examples provided by Edward, I would agree that many are insupportable, but the proponents are seldom pseuds ie deliberate counterfeiters, fakers or falsifiers.
Taking the example of the British Israelists and their search for the Ark of the Covenant in the Hill of Tara. They didn’t find it and they never told me they did. Does that make them pseuds.Not in my book.
Similarly with the supposed “Boat on Mt Ararat”. Somebody asks” Is this Noah’s Ark?” Is the person a falsifier? No.Does he demand that I believe this? No.
I merely reply, that on the balance of probabilities I think it is highly unlikely. And there be the end of the matter, unless new evidence comes to light.
The Kensington Runestone. Some say fake, some say” No, it’s genuine”. I don’t know.
Reading a website by a Swedish(amateur archaeo, but a real boatbuilder) researcher into the capabilities of Viking ships, the author has a look at the K Runestone, and with his interest in local runes, he has a go at translating. The translation of the runes talks of reaching another ocean and declares that the stone itself is located in the centre of the N American continent( which it is). Then they encounter ten tribes(Indians,red), “some sage, some violent”. Distances which are approximately correct are quoted.
What do I do now?
I put it up on the metaphorical shelf and wait. I look out for all information on pre-Columbian contact in the Americas. Does the new evidence support a more extensive Viking presence or does it diminish it?
It is not a question of outright belief or outright denial.Cheap tricks like this that polarise arguments are entirely at odds with rational debate and the pursuit of truth.
For that reason, when asked to recount this information to interested parties, I would not use the word “pseud”, because I don’t know enough about it to use such a word. Nobody has lied, falsified, or so far as is known, has tried to fake the object, or impose their belief on me one way or the other.
As to the origin of the N American moundbuilders, the settlers, with their considerable knowledge of the Indians(hands-on, day to day, not like you and me), not unnaturally looked at those prodigious earthworks and said”They didn’t do that, so who did?” Some said whites, but not all were so Eurocentric by any means.Really no-one knows for certain (as yet) but even the Red Indians of today say it was nothing to do with them.Nothing pseudo about that. Nothing to be pseudo about in fact. Nobody knows for sure.
I’ve written this in the hope that people be alerted to the cunning use of language in promoting a particular point of view. This is how cultural Marxism and so-called” critical theory” work. Militant Marxism didn’t work. This is plan B in action, cultural Marxism, as espoused by the Frankfurt School.If unfamiliar with those terms just google them and see what comes up, along with Franz Boaz, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and Fromm.
With any luck you will realise that you’ve been brainwashed and I guarantee that it will transform your interest in television and other mass media.It’ll never be the same again.This may be as near to a “Road to Damascus” experience as you’ll get in this life.
That the Frankfurt School has been successful, is to be seen right here in the latest writings of Hamstar. Notice his excitable reaction to Edward’s being called a communist***, which he half suspects is true but doesn’t want to acknowledge, for by tolerating this man who takes money in return for giving no information, he is made to feel small and powerless and complicit in the perpetuation of a lie.
However, this conflicts with his wishing to present a thoughtful, discerning persona to the world, so he calms down a bit, his language changes, and he employs words such as “perhaps” and “could”.
Classic reactions of those that discover that they are being conned. Public denial(often fierce) followed by grudging acceptance(later), private acknowledgement, accompanied by resolution to demand high levels of proof, is the usual reaction.Used to be called in harsher times “growing up.”Something Marxists don’t want you to do.
But that’s what the blog’s for….. to get opposing points of view, so that you can weigh one against the other. Isn’t it?
If not, Hamstar could have saved everyone a lot of bother by simply putting up a sign saying” This is a communist, socialist website and any view to the contrary will not be tolerated.p.s. Don’t mention the holocaust.”
**ie Liberal PC SCUM. Certainly I never referred to Edward as Liberal PCScum.So we have exaggeration for effect at work here. This I would consider to be insulting language. Edward(Mr Ashby) is not scum. Misguided in his espousal of the communist cause,wittingly or unwittingly, perhaps, but not scum.
As for liberal…. an epithet that I consider entirely inappropriate. .. a veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing, more likely, and a keeper of secrets from his own people.There’s a word for that, begins with T.
By way of example, I refer you once again to the man’s impatient intolerance of dissent and his relentless insistence that he be sole and rightful owner of “Science” and hence entitled to belittle those who express contrary opinions.
Nobody owns science……least of all Mr Ashby(Edward) and the New Zealand Archaeology dept.
And if Mr Ashby replies,(He’s always threatening not to…promises,promises) I do hope he will refrain from using marxist-inspired words like “peer-reviewed” and “consensus”, for neither have anything whatsoever to do with “Science” or, more correctly “Natural Philosophy”.
Golly, just stumbled into this one and wish to weigh in on a couple of points…
Maori represent one of the most successful indigenous outcomes in history for two reasons: firstly, they have a knack for innovation and adaptability…they almost beat the British to a standstill at one point and certainly proved their equals at farming, secondly the colonisation was very late in the day and influenced by calvinist and presbyterian ethics, in short, the Maori found themselves in the unusual position of having a treaty….The important point here is that IT DOES NOT MATTER if the Maori were here first, because in their case they were fortunate enough to become protected by European law. Pakeha cannot have it both ways, we either accept that the rule of our our laws applies universally, or succumb to a bigoted politic of one rule for us, one rule for them. Our laws rightly deal with burdens of proof…we simply cannot prove what happened prior to pakeha history, nor are their non-Maori survivors who might recieve recompense. We stole from Maori, the proof is there, by own own laws we must pay. The reason that some may prefer to “suppress” evidence of pre-Maori colonisation is precisely to avoid the fallout from reactionaries who try to use the argument that Maori are thus not due any reparations, which is clearly a fallacious argument. It’s equivalent to saying that because people steal and don’t get caught, I’m allowed to steal.
The second point I’d like to make is that as science advances our knowledge of history it constantly highlights the fact that we have tended to underestimate anything or anyone that’s not “us”. Humans have had the same size brains for tens of thousands of years, so the presumption should be that there were geniuses like Newton around at every stage of our modern evolution. They may not have had the toys or schooling or written traditions that underpinned the advances made in the historical era, but they were still capable of conceiving and enacting ideas well beyond what we give them credit for. I have no problem with the idea that the Celtic and Phoenician claims to have circumnavigated the globe were based on fact. What i do object to is the presumption that just because something is written and documented (i.e. history) then it necessarily confers greater authority. History is often written by those with an axe to grind. The barest glance at modern Chinese versions of history should warn us of this. Claims made about the holocaust or pre-Maori colonisation should be tested with whatever evidence is available, and that evidence, in turn, should be tested. This is the process of science and knowledge. We must be sure to set the fascinations of mythologies, speculations and mysteries aside from those truths we use to guide our actions and evaluations in life. I believe the phrase which best describes our failure to do this is “wish fulfilment”.
So, ask not what Hamstar believes, ask why Hamstar believes and how Hamstar supports those beliefs . The desire that something be true is totally understandable…but such desires must be a matter of private conscience. In the public and political spheres we must act on what is universally true, not on opinions and beliefs supported merely by the power of numbers.
Arohanui
Damn. I don’t know what to beleive anymore, I feel like a fucking christian proselytizing my views on people. But I pretty much agree with this guy.
You guys win, I’m going to shutup from now on. lol.
Jeep, not exactly a factoid drop so much as a brief analysis (not mine, btw) but whatever.
Andrew, I never claimed archaeology was a pure science (but it is a science, whether you want to accept it or not). And actually, pseudoarchaeology, as outlined above (if you’d bothered to read it) is commonly referring to non-scientific or otherwise poorly constructed research. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that I am an archaeologist means that, unlike your Noahs Ark example, I have the requisite background knowledge, skills, and experience to be able to make an informed opinion on matters which are archaeological. For others who do not have this or similar related background, it is much more difficult if not near impossible. In no way does this imply that I am lord of science and lord of knowledge, merely that I have a good understanding of one very small and very specialisded part of human knowledge as a whole. In other areas of knowledge, for example immunology or physics or even your own profession in veterinary science, I would tend to take a very humble approach where I defer to those who have experience in those fields. This awareness of one’s own knowledge limits is something I expect from rational thinking people but something which neither you nor Jeep have shown (and hence my, albiet aggressive, characterisation of you both as self-possessed polymaths). As I have pointed out both on this thread and in links provided, a lack of scientific or academically robust methodology and an unwillingness to read the current literature is the difference between good science and bad. This is the crux of what I base my opinion on and i’m afraid no amount of symantics, smear mongering or otherwise generally disengenous and frankly irrelevant portrayals of myself as ‘communist’ or some other form of boogy man is going to change that.
You also point out with your example of pre-Columbian contact, that you tend to take an agnostic stance on issues, waiting until more evidence is collected. You characterise yourself in the same way with your approach to NZ prehistory. Are we to believe then that if you are waiting until more evidence is accumulated, that you are therefore comfident in your grasp of all the evidence and modern literature of archaeology in NZ and the wider Pacific? While agnosticism can be admirable and is far, far better than blind dogmatism, I do not think, were our positions switched, that I would be making such bold gestures. If you really are up to speed on the latest developments and literature, I wonder why it is that both you and Jeep refused me when I repeatedly begged you to read up on current academic literature, rather than argue with me? Indeed, rather than heed advice, you countered by citing the virtues of the internet over genuine research and review!
You also go on to yet again talk about politics and my supposed “espousal of the communist cause”. Where have I mentioned anything even remotely related to the wonders of communism? Or even politics in general? I have, from time to time mentioned what I think may be possible political motivations for pseudoarchaeology such as notions of eurocentricism, but I have consistently made my points on the grounds of logical debate, philosophy and the philosophy of science as well as upon my own knowledge of the material record and evidence of NZ prehistory and history as well as that of the Pacific. If anyone is dragging politics or alterior motives into this debate it is you Andrew. That much should be clear to anyone who suffers through your many diatribes. Your further slanderous assertions that I am a lier, a “keeper of secrets from his own people”, and an authoritarian self-proclaimed owner of science merely illustrate your own weaknesses in this debate and your refusal to engage honestly with someone of a different opinion who is better informed or qualified in this particular area than you are. The same goes with Jeep. Forgive me my artistic licence, but as I write this I bet you are getting your nose in a twist thinking something along the lines of “how dare he! How dare he pressume in his loftly arrogance to know more of a topic then I! What academic conciet!”.
Finally, your presume too far yet again with “…tolerating this man who takes money in return for giving no information”. What money do I take Andrew? Are you here to tell me, as Jeep did earlier, that the vast majority of archaeologists, including myself, are paid by the government? Sure, i’m rolling in riches merely by strolling around denying information – i’m sitting on a throne of gold as I write this. I infact do not take money for information and am not employed by the government. While I am a human scientist I also feel that I have an obligation as an educator as knowledge is for everybody. While I will readily admit that I am not very good at being an educator, I take exception to your continual attacks on my integrity merely because I strongly disagree with you and because of some bizzare and paranoid view of scientific or academic authorities as communists.
As for my innevetable reply and my use of marxist language, I really have only one phrase to describe your online persona and that is “knob end”. Spare me the ruffled feathers and talk of how academics should compose themselves.
Dr Panopticon, while I disagree with some points, is coming from a moderate and rational point of view. Others on here may not like me, which i’m not going to lose sleep over, but I hope they might at least listen to and form such moderate approaches as Hamstar has. Hamstar seems willing to accept his knowledge limits and subsequently learn and thus form an informed opinion of his own. That’s what science is. Superstition and paranoid talk of communism or your friend’s friend’s friend finding something somewhere is not what science is.
Hamstar, to get back to the point you made at the start of this mess (14 months ago, no less!) you seemed angry at the idea that people with whom you share a “society of equals” were eligible for benefits that you were not. Your point about the origins of Maori was a “justification”, in philosophical jargon. You saw something unfair and wanted evidence and reasons to discredit this unfairness and call it out. This is not only understandable, it’s admirable. A sense of justice is all that stands between us and savagery. But I think instead of relying on such a wobbly, contested issue which, as I pointed out, is a red herring and irrelevant anyway, you should look elsewhere for your wisdom. At least Edward can return to digging up the truth for us (I sincerely hope so, Ed, with your passion anything is possible!) Meanwhile I strongly encourage you to Wiki (or otherwise hunt down) current historical work on the history of Maori/Pakeha settlement and in particular the issue of the Treaty (who actually signed it, the translation issue etc.) and the fate of Ngati Tuhoe, the Taranaki Wars…wow, the list goes on. If you read this stuff then try put yourself in a modern Maori’s shoes you will quickly see how complex it all is. These people were wronged, as many are, but the difference is that they were wronged in your grandfather’s, fathers and your lifetimes. The Tuhoe got raided for being terrorists 3 years ago and have JUST been told that the Ureweras, which by our standards they had outright stolen from them, cannot be given back to them. In all Waitangi settlements so far the Iwi’s have handed back DOC lands to New Zealanders because they consider the pakeha to already be good custodians of that land. Tuhoe getting their land back is symbolic and vital to their self-esteem as a people. They would likely hand a lot of it back, but first they want mana restored on both sides. If we don’t act in good faith to each other what does that say about us? I’m not hear to preach, cuz as I said I totally admire your sense of justice…all I’m sayin’ is until you hear ALL the stories, you cannot judge wisely. If you want to enter the debate on the issue of social justice, however, wiki John Rawls and his critics. You’ll find yourself embroiled in a 40-year global debate about what’s “fair” which, ironically enough, finds echoes in the staunch rivalry of our co-bloggers….communism, fascism…all just brands. What really matters is how we treat one another. For what its worth I’m a Pom that arrived here when I was 8, and married a part-Maori lady who, funnily enough, used to take a much dimmer view of Maori than I did….
I for one thank you once again Dr Panopticon for offering such a moderate and well thought out point of view. I think we can all learn from such input. As for me, i’d love nothing more than to be able to concentrate fully on the research, figuring out new ways to address old problems and trying to add to the sum of human knowledge the best I can. All I want is to be able to do my job without constantly having to try and sort through all the misnomers people have. It can be overwhelmingly negative. Imagine every day having to defend what you do to people who don’t understand what it really is you do or even want to listen in the first place. The poor pay, sporadic and often long hours, and backbreakingly tedious physical and mental labour are things I can handle, but if i’d known there were so many confused and angry people out there who’d challenge every iota of genuine research and hard work with hateful unscientific ideas, I wonder if I would have bothered. Unfortunately archaeology in colonial countries is highly politicised due to the fact it deals largely with the material evidence of those who were colonised. The wider social tensions inevitably spill over into anything which touches on early history or indigenous people, and archaeologists, and archaeology, become targets of interest to various political or ideological perspectives. We just want to study the material record in order to understand. I just wish people would calm down and think.
Thanks again Doc Panopticon.
Sorry Mr Ashby (Edward), I, and everyone else had been led to believe you were an archaeologist in the employ of the NZ gov.
Rather late in the day, if I may observe, you see fit to correct this apparently erroneous assumption.
You say you are a human scientist.What’s that when it’s at home? And now we are an educator. Sorry, I don’t follow you. Does that mean you are a teacher/ lecturer…presumably in archaeology?… and you make a living, if not in Government employ, how exactly? or more bluntly, Who’s paying you?
I suppose I’d better check on this as well.
What degree(s) do you actually hold legal title to? At which university(ies)? and in which year(s), was it/were they acquired?
While we’re at it, perhaps the newcomer, Dr Optikon could say something about the Dr bit. I’ve got a cousin with a doctorate….. in tube technology.
I’m going to start by countering some of Edward’s latest post, but then I’m going to wander where I wish.
“But it is a science”(archaeology)….. no, its not. It is a study,period.
“pseudoarchaeology”…incorrect and imprecise use of English. Pseudo means fake, falsified and counterfeit, applicable to very few of your quoted examples, but a convenient dumping ground for any or all ideas which conflict with the Boazian(marxist, Frankfurt school, communist) view of Mankind.(Franz Boaz,google, google, google)
To any or all current students of anthropology, history etc, just go along with what they tell you at the Uni. Get your degree, but make a note of any questionable premises, or faulty logic and research them on the quiet. Read some of the books that they tell you are rubbish and pay especial attention to authors and their works labelled controversial, racist, fascist and authoritarian, for those are key words of communist indoctrination.Feminists, this could be tough going.
My father, a Doctor( medical) after being subject to a lecture on the desirable qualities of the new politically correct man by an ardent feminist, came away saying” It’s not a man she needs. She’d be better off with a budgie”
I have spent the last few years researching PC and its origin, which was triggered by material I read in Martin Doutre’s book and website. There’s a lot more in there than stuff about New Zealand, I can tell you.However I would say that you’ve got to apply the same degree of scepticsm to his writings and those of the extreme right as you should to those of the extreme left.The problem is…. what is the extreme left?
What I found was that, and I’m talking very generally here, is that which poses as centrist and moderate is really the extreme left, and anything centrist is now designated extreme right.The goal posts have shifted over the last 30 yrs or so.Which is why I appear right wing in my posts, but I’m not. I am simply an “unreconstructed, authoritarian nationalist from the past”….. in Marxist terms.
In MY terms I am a white british/scottish presbyterian,slightly to the right of centre.
Again we’re back to the use of language.Let’s examine those hoary old favourites. Racist, White supremacist and Fascist.
Am I a racist?
By the marxist definition, which by public acceptance and general usage, has become THE definition………most definitely.
Am I a racist by MY definition? ie one who physically attacks or deliberately insults a person, solely because he or she is of a different race …No, most definitely not.That’s the Calvinist/Presbyterian in me coming out. We’re all equal in the eyes of God.Besides it’s bad form(manners) as we used to say.
However the scientist in me says that there are clear differences in race characteristics.That I do believe, and maintain that the world would be a safer and happier place if policies were formulated on this basis.Benjamin Disraeli, the first part-Jewish Prime Minister(of Great Britain and its Empire) said that history is race and race is history. Get your teeth into that one. I did, and he ain’t wrong(IMHO)
Am I a white supremacist? Well, sort of. I don’t mind other races(especially if they intend to return to the land of their birth) working in my society, but I’m never going to be a slave or employee of another racial group.
Do I want to go out and conquer other peoples? No. I can’t say I do at the moment.Seems like a lot of hard work for little benefit and just a tad risky.I’d rather stay in and watch television and I like to keep the weekends free for research.
On the other hand I am not a white “inferiorist” either.Now there’s an interesting word you’ve never heard before. Why do you suppose that is?
No doubt about it, when the chips are down, in a race war, I’m going to be on the side of the whites.
Sorry folks, despite all the marxist proselytising, actually because of it, I have been forced to re-examine my prejudices and have resolved never to fight a fellow aryan.Put me down as a “conschie”. (conscientious objector). Oh and Christian as well. Never was much interested in religion until someone told me that commies hate religionists, so I re-joined the Church of Scotland.In psychological terms religion is another form of PC, a gentler PC, but a competing PC and that’s why it is attacked by the PC of the left and will be attacked by the PC of the right should that ever re-emerge.Of course the citizen may like the new PC, but does he or she realise just what a huge step they are taking?Probably not, because at the moment it is seen as just changing a few words.But it will demand more and more.We’re beginning to see “Hate” crimes,”hate thoughts”.
Am I a fascist? I’m not really sure. What does this word mean? Fascisti…Latin…bundles of sticks bound together… strength in unity. Can’t fault that. Mussolini and Hitler,Jolly old Uncle Joe Stalin,oops he’s on the other side isn’t he. Mustn’t forget dear old Franco and Pinochet. Maybe just a bit too much binding there. Dictatorship etc. Not very British or NW European. We don’t like pyramidal power structures…seems to go against the Anglo-Saxon grain…except when we go to war, then we all become fascists.
So the answer is NO. I am not a fascist, except when we go to war.
That’s funny, in our journey to the right,we’ve met up with the far left. We’ve come full circle, because we’ve come back to a dictatorship ie Totalitarian Communism and its attendant pyramidal power structure.Isn’t that interesting? Like the celtic symbol with the serpent’s tail in its mouth.Maybe they were trying to tell us something?
Again we have a play on language vis-a-vis Left-wing, right-wing, suggesting a straight line in the mind’s eye,when in fact a circle is a more appropriate abstraction, left and right melding into one another. What is the difference between left and right? Very little.Strange, Bizarre even, how the two hate each other so much, yet are identical in their effect on the ordinary citizen.Bringing nothing but misery and control through PC, backed with terror, torture and execution. So the more left wing ie nice you become the more you end up in totalitarianism.I’m all in favour of being nice to people, but it all goes horribly wrong when you FORCE people to be nice.THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS.
PC starts in the universities. That’s why Edward wants everyone to go there… so that they can be indoctrinated.Same with school. Schools have become churches. PC history that denigrates our white forbears and artificially boosts the achievements of other races and minorities.Climate change brainwashing.Too many female teachers.No exposure to military training and discipline.Too many tests. Too much course work that suits girls but not boys. Too girlie allround. Everything aimed at impeding the development of self-disciplined socially responsible adult males…the backbone of the country. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
What’s next on the agenda…. ahh yes Dr Thingmyjiggery and his reparations.My thoughts on that are… What a cheek. How ungrateful.
The Maoris weren’t slaughtered.(for the sake of brevity, I am simplifying). What if the British hadn’t come to those islands? Where would the Maoris be now?
Say the Chinese or Indians had come instead. Would you be asking for reparations then?
If the British hadn’t come, somebody else would have, and of all the possibilities, colonisation by the British doesn’t look too bad an option.
Ever thought about that?A reply to that question would be very interesting.
In fact I am surprised that the Maoris themselves have not offered to pay extra tax to the colonists for having developed the country to such a high standard. I had a look at your fine country on google earth, and jolly nice it looks too. Well done colonists.All that infrastructure in just 250-300yrs. That’s some going.
China may, one day, require “Lebensraum”. The NZ govt has made contingency plans, hasn’t it?
If I were Chinese, I would definitely have my eye on NZ and Australia.Oz for mineral wealth with plenty of whites to work the mines. NZ for a pleasant retirement resort with plenty of room for much-needed golf courses.
The world changes and so do the fortunes of races.
Go back 5-6-700yrs.
The great? white race inhabited but the west,middle, and north-east portion of the smallest of the 5 continents of this planet, and nearly got snuffed out by the Mongols. Then the Moors/Muslims/Ottomans had a go, and a tough lot they were to shift.
If it wasn’t for the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the French, the Germans and above all the British, you Antipodeans wouldn’t be sitting on your well-upholstered posteriors watching soap operas in comfortable, reasonably law-abiding suburbia, with the opportunity to argue back and forth on all topics under the sun(except the holocaust) on the internet. Would you? (No USA,no Canada, no Australia without our having risked our necks on the perilous oceans of the world. Think about it)
I’d better hand you back to Mr Ashby(Edward) who’s bursting to tell us about his academic qualifications(and scource of remuneration) and regale us with the true facts and reason for the 50 year long Waipoua Forest embargo.
Google Frankfurt school, Franz Boaz, Max Horkheimer, Gramsci(Italian), Lukacs(Hungarian), Erich Fromm,Theodore Adorno…. the men that changed my life and yours and are shaping your children by turning them into unquestioning dumbos…..deliberately. Good series of lectures by a Russian professor on You-Tube. 7 episodes.
Educate yourself. You don’t need to go to University.One of the biggest nonsenses of our times.
Mind you I would recommend it for promiscuous sex(at no charge, but all contributions gratefully received),developing high tolerance to alcohol and a variety of hypnotics and stimulants.Card playing and gambling skills can be honed to a high standard provided one exercises due diligence. Improving your standard of swearing, abuse and perfecting the technique of insult.English literature dept, was best for this. As for black humour, the medics took first prize everytime.
I see Mr Ashby having a go in his modest way. I could reply, but bullying cripples, physical or intellectual, just isn’t my scene. Never quite got into the sado-masochist thing.Something to do with Calvinist repression, probably.
Haha, Andrew….you sure get wound up, but I wonder what you really want to convince us of? Franz Boas (not Boaz) has some good points to make, particularly about the methods and assumptions underpinning the interpretations within the human sciences. He was critical of teleological assumptions which is a great step forward (Communists, by the way, are as teleological as they come). But i really don’t see how it all relates to your views about political indoctrinations. I agree with you that there is a danger in academia that left-wing ideas might pass without proper critique (indeed, I was one of those students who exasperated lecturers with my pointed questionings) but I also spent 20 years in the corporate sector and was subject to, if anything, worse attempts at indoctrination there by right-wingers. I have sat in staff meetings where the management told us who to vote for. Pathetic. The real tragedy here is the great divide…professional academics seldom expose themselves to the world of workaday capitalist influences, and those in the workaday world neither understand or have time/energy to listen to the subtleties and (often important) insights of academic research and theory. Of course, this applies somewhat less to hard sciences, economics etc. But you are right about the political wheel, far right does join to the far left, at a place called Anarchism. I guess academics just feel that “margins and centre” thing, where they need to provide strong alternative views to the often brainless reactionary crap that capitalists peddle, which is currently sending the entire planet to hell in a handbasket.
As for archaeology, I’m still not sure what your complaint is. Sure, a lot of it’s inferential, but it has to be. Just because knowledge isn’t perfect, doesn’t mean it ain’t valuable. The problem arises when evidence is interpreted carelessly, inappropriately or through pre-conceived notions/beliefs. We must keep our minds open at all times and keep looking for more evidence (Karl Popper is good on this).
Your comments on race, if heartfelt, are a bid saddening. Modern Genomics will be the death knell of racism, once we’re all shocked to learn what’s one our family trees, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree anyway. I think you suffer from a cultural, rather than racial, prejudice. Your claim for Disraeli reveals a horrid mistake…he was Anglican, not Jewish…Jews are a religion, not a race. The only geneology they might share is identical to modern Arabs…to be anti-semitic you should hate Jews and Arabs alike, because they are alike…there is simply NO SUCH RACE OR GENEOLOGY AS “JEWISH” – it’s a culture and a religion, that is all.
You applaud the Western enterprise of civilsation, and there is much to applaud, but you steer dangerously around the rocks of hypocrisy when you turn to the subject of slavery. The singular shame of Western civilisation is that it relies heavily on slavery and always has (and before we opened up the New World whites just used to enslave other whites). You say you don’t want to go out and conquer other peoples, but it’s already been done for you. That TV was most probably made by the vanquished! But if you voted Conservative, rather than LibDem or Labour, perhaps you are comfortable with such social heirarchies, rather than equality. What I’d ask you to do is imagine what it would be like if YOU were a member of one of the races/cultures you devalue. At the moment you have no claim to superiority beyond the “good fortune” of being born white. By your logic, you are better because you happen to be (through chance, not judgement or any other skill or effort) one of your kind and not another. So is that it? You’re better cause you’re lucky? Lordy !
When I think of great people I think of their deeds, not their skin or their culture.
[The Maoris weren’t slaughtered.(for the sake of brevity, I am simplifying). What if the British hadn’t come to those islands? Where would the Maoris be now?]
Andrew, here you need a history lesson. The Maori WERE slaughtered, poisoned, raped, un-homed, the list is complete. Interestingly, the Maori chiefs who debated the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi at the time said exactly what you say, the British have brought some good things, we could be worse off with another colonial power. But where would they be now? Gosh, there are NO indigenous people in the temperate zones of this planet that haven’t been overrrun, so I guess they’d be pretty much where they are now, but MAKE NO MISTAKE, the Maori are some of the most intelligent, resourceful, innovative and cunning people you’ll ever meet. There’s no way in hell they were ever going to die out, short of some genocidal project. In WWII the Japanese refused to take Maori prisoner, because they believed they were magical demons (they called them “the silent ones”). They can survive in conditions that would kill most whites. (indeed, the Scots were highly regarded by early Maori, precisely for their toughness, honesty and no-nonsense practicality, as were my people, the Welsh).
But what the Maori say nowadays is this: we are fine with sharing our land with you, but the land must be cared for properly (not raped) and this agreement (the Treaty) that specifically laid out this agreement, HAS BEEN BROKEN. Therefore, if you cannot share this land with us, you must at least give us back those lands which were never sold or bartered, but stolen through murder, so that we can look after THAT land. Whites (Pakeha) will always be welcome on our land, so long as they obey the injuction to look after it and treat us with respect. (It is no accident that the Maori word for land is the same as for placenta – it is their being and their livelihood)
This is all fair enough, in my book. I don’t feel, as a POM/Welshman, that there’s any issue of “what ifs” or “go home, honky” or any such nonsense. The Maori aren’t even separatists, as some often accuse. The great separation for Maori is this: kaiponu (greed, avarice, selfishness) versus whanaungatanga (belonging, sharing, participating). You are either out for what you can get or you want to join in for the good of all.
Now which are you, Andrew? Would the Maori welcome you onto their land, I wonder?
As for my tag, it’s just a tag. I ain’t no Doctor (but look up Panopticon if you want) The name actually comes from a character in a film script I worked up at Uni (B.A. (schol), Massey 1996), Doctor Panopticon is a cynical, black humoured podcaster with a huge following among disaffected urban youths. He pokes merciless fun at both left and right.
Nowadays I grow crops for a living and run a horse stud in Northland. A good life. We feel like we belong, and the local Maori do, too.
I think, like Hamstar, your frustration derives from a hurt sense of justice….so maybe you would have a very fruitful dialogue with Maori, after all they could readily sympathise !
And remember, lad: Aw the wit i the warld’s no in ae pow !!
Replying to Panoptikon,
I liked your very readable post and commend your flowing style.However, as you might guess I have a few points to make.
Disraeli:- My information is that both Disraeli’s parents were Jews and Disraeli was indeed baptised after his father had a blazing row over something at the local synagogue.This was indeed fortunate as at the time he(Disraeli) became an MP there was a law barring Jews from Parliament, not lifted until 1858.In spite of the baptism,he seems to have been widely identified and perceived as a Jew. Why else would Otto von Bismarck be on the record as having said at the Berlin Congress1878,”Der Alte Jude, das ist der Mann”? Apparently they got on well together and shared a dislike of Slavs.
As to the Jews… race or religion? Let’s just say that sometimes it’s this and sometimes it’s that, and that I’ve talked with a few Jews and am aware of the many divisions and attitudes of that group.I wouldn’t profess to any great knowledge of their history but enough to say that theirs is not a simple story and I disagree that genetics are not involved.Tay-Sachs, lactose intolerance?
Moving to something with a stronger archaeological connection, Namely Franz Boas(thanks for correcting my spelling).
Just a few snippets from a commentary on his works which gives readers an inkling of the origin of “one brain for all mankind”, perpetuated by Jared Diamond in his highly publicised book “Guns, Germs and Steel”…with which I disagree, and have a tendency to get “wound up”about.(Google Prof. Phillipe Rushton University of Ontario? Canadian anyway.He’s on you-tube.He puts the case for genetic variation and nature over nurture better than I could).
Comments on Boas:-
“By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.”
“The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the West. This is seen by some as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.”
“Of interest here, however, is the movement’s (The Frankfurt School, or the Institute for Social Research) success in branding ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later, the French-Jewish “deconstructionist” Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote:
“The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…”
How could this affect archaeology?
Well if you have an agenda to knock the pride and self-confidence out of white people, you’re hardly going to endorse broadcasting material that suggests that whites were brilliant explorers and pioneers.Otherwise the whites will get all proud of themselves and become hostile to Jews, Arabs and immigrants.(Cheers Jeep, for that video of the whites in Western China)
Might happen, but I doubt it.
However another possibility is that they(the whites) might just get a wee bit “wound up”(like me) when they find out that the output of some of their most hallowed institutions, the Universities, which they trusted, are no longer trustworthy.
You say….. “As for archaeology, I’m still not sure what your complaint is.”
I don’t know how much thought you gave to the use of the word “complaint”, but I am not “complaining” like some disgruntled customer. I am asserting and warning others and explaining why the public have nowadays got to be very wary of the output of academia. Everybody now knows about the fiddling that went on with the Global warming scandal. Well we’ve got the same thing here in Archaeology.Not just that but here in NZ there is an outright ban on the findings in The Waipoua Forest and withdrawal, possibly even destruction, of artefacts from museums.
There is an agenda afoot to deprive the public of new information,especially with regard to the early history of whites.This however is going to backfire because there has been a growing realisation that in order to keep up to date, you’ve got to scan through white nationalist and white supremacist websites, as they are the only ones that release the information.In the process, you naturally get led into other areas where they show how history has been tampered with. Of course you don’t believe everything, but now, at last, you’ve got two opposing viewpoints from which to form an opinion.The marxists on one side, the supremacists and nationalists on the other, and of the two, my experience is that the marxists are the biggest benders,fiddlers and omitters of the two.
In a study….. not a science, it is essential to hear opinions from the opposite ends of the spectrum, no matter how nutty one or other may appear to be. Maybe this is why both yourself and Mr Ashby are so insistent that Archaeology is a science? And by that, implying that there is no need to find an opposing or alternative view. When I hear those words “consensus”and “peer-reviewed” I am on red alert, where in the past I would have relaxed. Martin Doutre alerted me to this possibility, which initially, I took with a pinch of salt, but after Climategate and some more checking…. that was it. The good old days of trusting audiences have gone.The future is one of sullen suspicion and doubt.Yet another fracture in the edifice of Western Culture. I seriously wonder if it can ever be repaired.Scientists having to be treated like con-men and double-glazing salesmen. Never thought I’d see the day.
.
I’m away to wind down a bit.Back later with some observations on slavery, and if there’s time, a few other points raised in your post.
I guess you ran out of time…I look forward to your further thoughts, but meanwhile I’ll weigh in on what you have so far.
My point about Jewishness does not deny the possibility that a great many Jews can trace their lineage back to a small group thousands of years back, but that’s no more a “race” than if a bunch of Wolverhampton supporters suddenly formed their own group which, years from now, traced its geneology back to the original group. The main thrust of my argument is that, while there are measurable biological differences between races, there are also measureable differences between all people, even clones (it now turns out!) and, in fact, there are small tribes in East Africa with more DNA variety than that which exists between major racial groups (japanese versus scottish for example). Also, we genotypically contain the potential to manifest phenotypically any variant within us….you could build a worm out of my DNA, you just have to turn certain genes off or on. Further to this, epigenetic research now tells us that these changes can occur within a generation, or even within one lifetime (our environment can evolve us very quickly…which silences the critics of Darwin, who say his theory cannot account for rapid evolution) .
Given all this, I do believe that racial differences exist, but that those differences should be treasured and safeguarded as a source of vital biodiversity within our species. If your critique of Communism rests on the notion that its ahistoric, areligious and classless conformity is a danger to diversity then I can see why that would be a concern….but i must point out that Western liberalism (from John Locke to John Rawls and beyond) has attempted precisely the same thing, with its theory that all men are equal, free and that the state and its laws should treat all people as if they were the same. Similarly, the NWO movement opts for a one-world government and I am deeply suspicious of all this rhetoric because it sounds very much like a divide-and-conquer tactic by those whose version of equality and liberty adopts a laissez-faire, live-and-let-die attitude. With freedom comes responsibility….as social animals we must balance our individualism with the need to co-operate for the greater good of all. To deny this is to embrace social Darwinism: ooh if we define “fittest” as “richest” (read: most avaricious) and then the rich most deserve to survive…which runs into another one of my pet hates…teleological determinism.
So, if you’re looking to escape Communism’s dangers, you logically need to reject the same impulses found in right-wing thought. This is why I think the right/left distinction is a falsifying distraction. What you seem to want is a strong dialectic approach to truth-seeking, which I applaud, but here I must supply a general warning: when you study the dialectic (or a lot of other approaches) you will find that names you dislike have co-opted it for their own ends (Marx, Engels, Derrida etc) What we need to remember is that the truth of an insight (description) is a separate thing to the uses that insight is put to (prescription). I find the insights of Sartre, Nietzsche, Leibniz and many others valuable and thought provoking…but inevitably they all then turn from this to draw conclusions and suggestions about how things ought to be (your fellow countryman Hume highlights this fallacy in his discussion of the “is-ought problem”).
I am all for the process of balancing all sides in a debate. What we must guard against is the majority rule of ideas (one person can be right when all around them are wrong!) and that extra, unjustified move where a bare fact leads us to conclusions (and actions) which are not logically necessitated or supported by those initial facts. Of course, I might be teaching you how to suck an egg with all this! I don’t think we are too far apart in our outlook, as it happens. I am just as sceptical of political rhetoric as you, and equally frustrated by agenda driven obfuscations of fact. What I am equally cautious of is the conclusion that this effect is some sort of conspiracy or that it originates in one place or another. People from every quarter, creed and faith are at it!
In my view then, there are those whose minds are open, yet cautiously sceptical, there are those who can’t keep up and are generally recruited into some branded, badly thought out belief system, and there are those who (as above) have an agenda and are prepared to twist, hide, manipulate, mis-read or ignore the evidence to push that agenda onto others. If you are in the first group then we are in agreement regarding our APPROACH. For us to be in agreement regarding the evidence is always a work in progress, but in principle we can move toward agreement once we bring all the evidence together. Where we will part ways in when we interpret the evidence or compare our pictures of an ideal world (such that it could exist). This is why I blame teleologies and determinisms for most of the troubles we face. You cannot gather evidence with a view to selecting it out to prove your own pet theory…a true scientist sets out to DISPROVE his theory. As Karl Popper points out, a billion black ravens merely supports the claim that “all ravens are black”, the appreance of a single white raven will defeat that claim entirely.
I agree with many of your observations, Andrew, but the aetiologological and teleological assumptions behind them may need further testing on your part. For myself, I try to compare my own beliefs and agendas with an empathetic consideration of how others hold their views as a way of revealing the biases being brought to the table on all sides. Having said this, I’m sure you, like myself, are working to acheive this balance, but like those Zen guys say: “there are no Buddhists, there are just people on the way”
For now,
Oidhche mhath !
Wow this is quite interesting.
replying to PanOptikon,
Taking the liberty of reducing your arguments to an abstraction, you seem to be going around in circles examining different philosphies, some of questionable relevance except to a theorist, but eventually you pop out at a tangent at uncertain velocity, both in speed and direction.
Paragraph by paragraph, I will respond to that which I consider to be the main points and those which allow me to make clear my thoughts on cultural marxism, its attendant social engineering and why it will, after causing much misery and distress, fail, just as militant marxism failed in the Russias and Eastern Europe.
Finally, I hope to make a case against the simplistic assertion that “people are just people”.
Para 1
Sweeping assertion that Jews can trace their ancestry back 1000’s of years. Many can, back to 700AD etc but few, very few present day Jews can trace their heritage back to the days of Babylon and the ancient Hebrews.
Genetics.Highly speculative with respect to rapid evolution. Natural selection alone was always a bit shaky on the rapid emergence of new species, especially post-catastrophe and mechanisms need to be in place to account for this. Whilst speculation and investigation are underway, a final conclusion has not been reached, yet you imply that it has.So enthusiastically do you speak of this, that you yourself and the discredited Russian communist Lysenko, could end up in bed with each other.However I’ ll match you in prophecy by saying that if anything is going to deal a death blow to cultural marxism’s ” there are no racial differences, we’re all the same” mantra, it’s going to be genetics.The LAPD(Los Angeles Police Dept.)can determine the race of a skeleton within 20-30 mins. which makes everyone wonder that it took so long to establish the racial identity of the Paracas mummies(caucasoids in S America) and about which we hear so little.
Para2.
“Given all this, I do believe that racial differences exist, but that those differences should be treasured and safeguarded as a source of vital biodiversity within our species.”
Hear, hear to that.
Human beings, like all other animals emerged from the slime, a fact overlooked by most library-bound intellectuals, who simply look at man’s brain and its thoughts and pay no attention to the fact that he is constrained by biology. Despite the use of tools which make him appear special, man remains subject to the laws of nature.Any ideas or philosophies to improve his lot have to take this into account. One of nature’s constraints is that he is a powerless animal in comparison to many in the animal kingdom.He can’t hack it on his own. However in a pack, he becomes the most powerful species.He shares this characteristic with dogs and wolves.Emotions and feelings bind the packs, dogs and humans… not reason, although it is present. Reason,more so in man, less so in dogs.Every human has this battle going on inside him and in some, reason dominates over emotion, in others emotion over reason. Our cultures have evolved, are still evolving, in response to changing circumstances.So great are the varieties of circumstance and so different the history of racial and ethnic groups that there cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” philosophy or culture, nor according to the laws of nature, should there be.Occasionally those disparate groups of humans have formed larger groups, empires, but they are never permanent, because the world changes. The climate changes, the population changes,other cultures change, catastrophe comes on the scene. In the face of such challenges man has little more power than a mouse. New groupings are formed, new alliances made, some successful, some fall by the wayside.
Technologically we have reached the stage when a world government is possible.
But there is a problem…..dishonesty,corruption and favouritism.(If only we weren’a men but dugs(dogs))
For instance, professing to have renounced tribal loyalty when not having done so. And that my friends is the great problem and one of mankind’s greatest weaknesses.He’s a liar, a cheat and a fraudster.
That’s why we like our dogs so much. Treat them correctly and you are rewarded with undying loyalty.
Whatever checks and balances are put in place, some smart group finds a way around it. So for that reason I ask you to consider a way of minimising cheating, lying and deception, not just for individuals but for large groupings(which you have to live in) and that is….. only to surrender power to those where you can see”the whites of their eyes”
I’ll do my bit for the common good but I want to be able to get a good look at, and interview my leaders.Mass communication is not adequate for this.
A Chinaman may be happy with his boss buried away in a high security compound in Peking but I’m not happy with one( I don’t even know his or her name) hidden away, God knows where, in Europe.I want my boss right here in Scotland where his every move and word can be scrutinised.If he’s on the fiddle, we’ll know soon enough.
Those thoughts either ring your bell or they don’t. It depends on your view of your fellow man which I would hope is coloured not only by direct experience but that of mankind over the ages.
I don’t profess to know too much about teleological determinism, but truth and honesty, their pursuit and maintenance by whatever means, might be more worthy of one’s attention….speaking as an animal.
Addressing social Darwinism, an important part of Western Anglo-Saxon culture which has gone off the rails.What you see now is atypical due to the interference of cultural marxism.
NW Europeans have always enjoyed being well off, but we are no admirers of avarice. We want honest men and heroes at the top, as was the case once upon a time.Orientals may be impressed with wealth but not so, North-West Europeans. Few of the men we look up to were rich and their personal wealth is seldom mentioned in accounts of their lives, but their ideas and sacrifices(often unto death) for the common weal, are.
Para3
This is pretty well covered by what I’ve previously written.Yes, I’m sure the insights of Sartre, Nietzsche and Leibnitz are very thought-provoking. One would hope that at least some of our leadership would be familiar with such authors and thereby derive inspiration for their decision-making, but somehow I think they might manage reasonably well without. For as long as discussion is conducted openly, then should any of these insights be overlooked, I am sure that somebody will come to the rescue and relieve them of their ignorance.
Para 4
Another circuitous argument that touches on the limitations of democracy.
It depends on the nature of the discussion. If you’re going to war, only those partaking should be invited to decide, as was the case in ancient Athens…… an argument against universal suffrage ie women voting on matters in which they have a relatively low stake.Very easy to vote in favour when you ain’t taking part. And similarly for the leadership, equally easy to propose, if not physically at risk!
Many a true word spoken in jest. Spike Milligan(British Comic of Irish extraction) hears Chamberlain’s announcement on the radio” We are now at war with Germany.” and exclaims, ” I like the way he used the word, We.” The loyal response of past generations to a call to arms is by no means guaranteed, especially in a multiculural society unless by use of terror, the futility of which should be obvious to anyone.Churchill got it wrong when he ordered British sailors to fire on the N Irish bringing in arms from Germany. They refused. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are not robots. They are men like you and me and in spite of their training they still have emotions.
Pity we can’t bring Bill Clinton of the NWO in on this as he seems to have very firm ideas on responding to the call to arms.
Pure science is utterly different. There are usually few alternatives to a proposition. If there are many, the proposition is of dubious value.The alternatives are all refuted by the result of experiment, which takes time. Lots of time, centuries even.Voting and consensus play absolutely no part in this process, and to even hint that there may be a link to human affairs like deciding to go to war is quite frankly….well. Good try though.
Back to conspiracy theory. Well if those writings and their history ie that of the output of the Frankfurt School are not a conspiracy. What is?
Before you can dismiss conspiracy in this case, perhaps you could tell us just exactly what a conspiracy is and what it looks like. Perhaps in the process you could give us and the security services of the Western world, some helpful tips on how to detect one.
Para5
Into the circle, or is it a maze? On reaching “speculation on an ideal world,” we do part company, for I’m keeping my feet planted in this world and am not going to be guided by any philosophy or creed on the road to Utopia, because I’m not going there.
Pet theory? I don’t have any theory, far less a pet one. But I do have a way of life that I inherited from my parents.They found it satisfactory and I have few complaints.Long may that way of life continue, but there are plenty of mischievous busybodies out there that would change it and I recommend keeping them at arm’s length.We, our tribal group shall listen to those ideas.To be accepted and made use of, no matter how brilliant and reasonable, they will have to have an emotional appeal… a sort of X factor.
So far I have seen nothing whatsoever in that regard, and as far as I am aware, neither have fellow members of the tribe, few of whom are aware of the existence of such ideas… but that can be corrected if necessary.
My way of life isn’t a science, so I am not going to waste time proving or disproving it. But it will be affected by the democratic decisions of those around me and in that I have little choice but to defer to the final decision… or leave the tribe for another…if any other will have me.
I’m afraid the writings of Mr Popper haven’t featured on my reading list but I am dumbstruck at the profundity of his observations. He is obviously a terribly clever man. Maybe just a wee bit too clever for my taste. In the real world, ravens are black ( based on a probability of 99.999%). Works for me. And that(the cleverness bit) is a factor that you need to take into account. Out of your many philosophies I’d restrict them to those readily comprehensible to the general populace for not everyone can understand them and that which is not understood is rejected. That is why we are the way we are and why we do what we do, for OUR way, the NW European way takes into account, the young, the old, the brave, the bold, the rich, the poor, the clever, the stupid, and binds them together as much by emotion as reason.
Of emotion you have said nothing at all, yet it is at the core of human existence.
Some of that emotion is concealed in the word identity which you touch on with the homilie “There are no Buddists.There are just people on the way”
No there are not just people, but people with emotions and identity, for people do not exist as atomised individuals.
Biology will win out in the end. Emotion and its role in group loyalty is too important to overlook and trying to engineer and tamper with it could have very undesirable consequences.
Get rid of emotion…. and what’s left is not human….. not even mammalian.
Signing off(at last, I hear you say)
A W Lees.
Andrew, I shouldn’t need to bother, and really shouldn’t indulge you, but here are a few points I will make regarding your last post:
1. With regard to employment, I’m not sure where you got that from because I never said anything of the sort. But judging from your use of language here, I’m guessing my correcting your assumption that I work for the Government is seen, by you at least, as proof of my conspirator status?
2. A human scientist is someone who investigates human life and activities through rational, systematic, and scientific methodologies.
3. I characterize myself as trying to be an educator because all scientists and other experts in any given field have a responsibility to try and transmit their knowledge to others. Most specialists would tend to characterize themselves as educators if they try to educate.
4. With regard to my qualifications, you are not in a position to demand anything, and neither do you deserve my humouring you. What I have written on this thread is stand alone and should be irrelevant of my credentials. Your questioning of my personal details is worrisome considering that I regard you as a highly imbalanced individual and that you are on the internet. Take your gleeful and repeated use of my surname as though this is something difficult to get a hold of (it isn’t). I suppose you would like my address or perhaps a photograph too? I have a fear of giving out personal info to hateful and paranoid conspiracy theorists, you see. However, I will say that I have gained an honors and masters degree in archaeology thus far from a New Zealand University. Though, given your statement to the effect of all universities being a joke, and that everyone should stay away from university education so as to avoid being ‘indoctrinated’ (sounds similar to creationist advice), I somehow doubt my credentials are of any real interest to you.
5. You state that archaeology is not a science but a study, “period”. Well, Andrew, I’m glad that in addition to being an expert in archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and philosophy your word also supersedes all modern definitions of archaeology and it’s placement within academia as a “humanistic science”. I find it eternally funny that pseudo’s such as yourself always try to redefine words or their common meanings in debate. Its pathetic and a rather desperate attempt to override debate. If you won’t even accept the definitions of words how can anyone hope to debate you?
6. You state that my use of “pseudoarchaeology” is imprecise use of English. Yet again this is a term which is accepted and defined in many dictionaries, including the oxford dictionary of archaeology. Who are you to state that this isn’t a term!? Again, utterly pathetic Andrew. No wonder you don’t know shit about archaeology when you’re so above even reading dictionaries.
If you look back, my earliest correspondence with you was relatively polite and moderate, even if still somewhat blunt. It was only as the discussion went on that I realised you weren’t interested in an honest and constructive discussion but rather a sounding board by which to rally against what you see as the enemy – the scientific establishment and academia in general – and to try and warp and discredit genuine research and researchers. Foolishly enough, I entertained you too long. I should have just ignored you like other genuine researchers no doubt would. My approach and views have been cohesive and consistent this whole time, whereas yours have bounced all over the place and developed into paranoid ramblings and ad hominem attacks directed at me being some government hired communist who “destroys artifacts” (pretty strong accusations there with nothing but hearsay to back it up!!)
Thus far, my understanding of your position, based upon your comments, is that you:
1) do not trust nor believe much of anything which comes from academics or experts
believe that there are too many female teachers, or, that female teachers inevitably lead to “PC”.
2) believe that communism and a group of shadowy elites are out to control to world, in part, through university education
3) believe that internet based research is equal to, and in some cases more beneficial then, actual evidence and peer-reviewed approaches
4) believe that somehow the holocaust, slavery, white supremacy, left vs right politics, conspiracies, and genetic determinism have something to do with archaeology or any discussion of archaeology.
5) believe that through months of solid internet ‘research’ you can achieve the same education as one might achieve through 5+ years of hard work at a university
6) believe that dictionaries, common usage, and philosophers of science are wrong in their description of archaeology and that you and you alone are the source of wisdom for the purposes of defining archaeology, no doubt from your extensive online education.
7) believe that universities are there to indoctrinate the young into PC communistic regimes, and therefore would advise against people getting educated.
9) believe that university education is too “girly”.
10) believe that Maori should be grateful to Europeans and that introduced European technology trumps any wrong-doing during the colonisation process.
11) believe that the European colonisation process of New Zealand has been happening for 250 to 300 years (try reading a history book once in a while).
12) believe that nationals from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand owe all to ‘good ol mother England’ for the privilege of European and especially British imperialism.
13) believe that I am intellectually and possibly physically crippled (riiiiiiiigggght…)
14) above all, believe that specialist skills do not require specialist knowledge, or that one can know the intricacies of a discipline without need to attain the huge babbage of background knowledge in order to understand what it is and how it works in the first place.
15) believe that modern scientific and methodologically robust, peer-reviewed, critiqued and repeated studies within the modern and broad literature should not be read, and that the current consensus should thus be rejected in favour of “pre-PC” ‘original scholarship’ such as that from the 19th century.
16) believe that carpentry skills equate to archaeological skills
I’m sure i’ve left something out. And before you follow the example of your counterpart Jeep and try to inappropriately use a philosophical critique on me which I only just introduced you to before even bothering to look it up, the above list is not exactly (although it is slightly) ad hominem as these can all be found on this comments thread written by yourself. I am merely paraphrasing and trying to get a clear picture of what exactly your argument or problem is by listing the points and statements you have made. It seems fairly inconsistent to me and none of it acknowledges any points i’ve made whatsoever or even tries to outline any methodology, theoretical understanding, or analysis related to archaeology. It has all been red herrings, ad hominems, misunderstood interpretations, biases, bad science, bad philosophy and logical fallacies and outright unsubstantiated accusation the entire time!
Think about it. Where are psuedoarchaeology adherents such as you and jeep getting your data from? Have you ever even collected or seen any data, including physical materials? Do you know what sampling bias is? Do you know how data is collected and the different methods used? Do you know about geophysical processes and post-depositional transforms? Do you know what ‘tacking’ is in archaeological theory? Do you know of the benefits of processulaism to method and the breakthroughs of post-processulaism in theory? Do you know what time perspectivism is? Do you understand middle range theory or BORK? Have you been on any excavations? Are you aware of cross-disciplinary cooperation on research projects such as colonisation of the Pacific which includes genetics, linguistics, history, geography, chemistry, paleobotany, ethnography, biological anthropology, and geology (to name a few) which support the findings of archaeology? It isn’t just in the Pacific but all over the globe that holistic approaches are increasingly used! Are you aware of anything genuinely related to modern archaeology because from what I can tell you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what you’re talking about.
The worst part is that people such as you and Jeep claim an innocence in your inquiries – that you merely want to “know the truth” – yet wilfully fail to accept where you’re wrong or listen to experienced advice. Your series of very serious and grossly unsubstantiated claims which range from wilful destruction of sites and materials to direct conspiracy on the part of archaeologists are all based upon the king of know-alls-but-knows-nothing, Martin Doutre himself. He isn’t an archaeologist. He hasn’t read any current literature or been on any legitimate digs. He hasn’t written research essays on the developments of archaeological method and theory – indeed, he doesn’t even know any! He ‘puts data into’ his autocad program without even the slightest clue as to research design or data bias. He states that archaeologists destroy sites, hide evidence, conspire against him and other pseudoarchaeologists, and get paid off by some shadowy group with not one single iota of evidence – he even admits he wasn’t even there in person to witness such acts! And you believe him! Why? A rational and truly innocent approach would soon see the house of cards stacked around such arguments. You’re merely too invested in these wacky theories to back out – that’s why you were attracted to them in the first place! And please, spare me the rhetoric about how there are others who agree with him – where are they? On the internet I bet. And what is their background? Not archaeology or a related discipline I bet. Also, please drop the “I have an open mind about the Celtic NZ and other theories, but scepticism should be used when reading them” rhetoric. You and your mate Jeep have been regurgitating that nonsense the majority of the time – in some instances word for word! You could at least be original.
In sum, you’re obviously a bit nuts so no I will not give you any more personal details! Why on earth would you even ask? Also, you’re obviously not going to listen to a damned thing I say so why should I bother entertaining you further. I really quite strongly dislike you Andrew as I have seldom met such an arrogant imperialistic wilfully ignorant (“don’t go to university” – I mean really…) twit, even on random internet blogs. I can only hope that Dr Panopticon and others may have better patience with you and a great deal less disgust of you then I do. In the mean time, despite your armchair anthropology, I will keep on working in the real world with actual evidence doing what I love. Ultimately, it is genuinely open researchers, formal or otherwise, who progress knowledge, while the jealous misanthropists and spiteful fringe nash their teeth on the sidelines trying to slow the rest of us down.
Despite all i’ve said, I still wish you luck Andrew (and Jeep for that matter) and hope one day you’ll be open enough to actually read something printed by a modern archaeology department, or dive into a book analysing what pseudoarchaeology is and why it is a problem. The real McCoy is much more fascinating and interesting than these tall stories and muddled ideas. You just need to be willing to cast aside old misconceptions.
nash nash nash nash nash nash nash….
But seriously Andrew, I think he just put the last nail in the coffin for you buddy. I think I’m going to trust you Edward, your communist university brainwashing has worked.
But one thing I do want to know Edward, have you heard of those rock walls and “houses” in the Wairoa (Waipoua?) forest up past Dargaville? What are they? How did they get there? I haven’t heard an official explanation of them and it seems strange for someone to build a rock wall in the middle of the forest.
I’ll post some pictures up here if I can find them.
Hi Hamstar,
Yes my communist brainwashing powers are a bit rusty but I get there in the end.
As for the so-called rock ‘walls’ in the Waipoua Forest, yes i’ve heard of them many times (one famous example is often called the Kaimanawa Wall). I actually grew up in Dargaville (don’t tell Andrew) so was raised with the folk myths and believed myself that some mysterious pre-Maori people must have built them. Small towns and popular myths unfortunately don’t like to acknowledge when a myth is busted, and thus the myth was passed along undisturbed. It wasn’t until I went to university that I was exposed to the history of popular archaeological myths in NZ and the history of archaeology in NZ in general. This was in a paper called “coming of the Maori” which went through the development of archaeology method and theory in NZ including the early Elsdon Best stuff, the Thor Heyerdahl stuff, the Sir Peter Buck stuff and a few others whom contributed but are nonetheless outdated today in light of the evidence. The paper also went into the common myths (Pre-Maori Moriori myth, Celts etc.) detailing what some of the arguments were, what evidence they used etc. and included a lecture on the Waipoua ’stone city’ where we were also shown a ‘mysterious NZ’ documentary hosted by, I believe, Mikey Havock, so we could see what the pre-Maori claims were based upon. It wasn’t difficult to see the glaring holes in the logic of the documentary or those interviewed.
We were then given a run down of what the experts (geologists and archaeologists) had found (in spite of Jeep and Andrew’s screaming, archaeologists and other scientists do in fact investigate anomalies sometimes) and the rationale or logic behind their findings. It turned out that the Kaimanawa Wall for example is merely a natural rock outcrop formation (unless the geologists are communist too?) and that the other ‘walls’ or ‘buildings’ were either natural deposits or at best stone heaps or rows resultant from gardening activities. Indeed, if you go and have a look at the Otuataua Stone fields right near the Auckland Airport (it’s a public park) you can see good examples of Maori gardening stone walls.
In addition to my knowing of them through childhood myths and, later, university, I have also looked through the Celtic NZ site and the writings of a few other pseudoarchaeologists and had a look at them on google images. I can understand why some people might mistake these features for archaeological sites at first glance, but having been presented with both sides of the argument and all available evidence and having researched them they merely appear to be natural or at least not outside of normal Maori archaeology. Having been raised on the Waipoua myth myself I struggled to accept that what I was told was a crock of shit, but in the end, once it had been systematically and scientifically looked at and the evidence explained to me I understood it was just that.
As a point of interest, the Waipoua stone city myth and the way in which geologists and archaeologists interact with pseudoscholars has had a recent parallel with Doutre’s supposed ‘Silverdale Boulders’. Like the Waipoua Forest, both archaeologists and geologists examined the boulders and explained that (and how) they were merely natural. In response, Doutre claimed that there must then be something wrong with both archaeologists and geologists as both were now disagreeing with him. The thought never crossed his mind apparently that he (a carpenter) might be mistaken. Worse still, this was published in the NZ herald as some sort of ‘discovery’ while no genuine expert opinion was sought for the sake of balance. This sort of sensationalised pseudo-crap is common in our newspapers and feeds hysterical public response to current political issues surrounding Maori. The papers possibly know this stuff sells papers.
Here are a couple of quick links I found about the Waipoua Forest ’sites’ which should suffice:
http://skeptics.org.nz/SK:VIEWARTICLE::waDeptTOC.1,A1372 (this is one I gave earlier I think)
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf110/sf110p02.htm
I know this stuff can seem interesting, but believe me there are rational answers out there – it’s merely that there is a problem with academics communicating with the media.
Hope this helps?
Cheers.
oops, I should clarify that the ‘kaimanawa wall’ is near Taupo, not Waipoua, in case I confused you. It is a well known example which is similar to some of the so-called ’stone works’ from other areas.
Edward you are an arrogant fuck, how dare you say someone has not read this or that or written essays on whatever, or has a grasp of certain methodologies, dealt with or studied archeological data. You know nothing of the people looking into this question or what sources they are combing to find out whats real and whats bullshit, what “Official” digs they have assisted on, what professors and scientists they are in communication with or what is in the bookshelves of ANY individual who happens to question the status quo on this issue.
Oh you say thats because in YOUR opinion you have seen no evidence of it in the posts by just a couple of these people, Well i have seen no evidence you know shit, you cant even answer why archeologists embargo site data (And that was confirmed by Chris Carter MP) or is that lies also.
And as i said before there are plenty of people who do not swallow the official line, including some who were on the “Legitimate” Waipoua forest digs a couple of whom i know personally. But if you say it often enough im sure the idea only a few pseuds with an axe to grind question the habitation history of NZ will become true eh.
And by the way plenty of Fascist scientists and experts came out with “Peer Reviewed” reports and data that Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals and Blacks etc etc were inferior to the Arlan race in all regards, so excuse me if i prefer not to blindly swallow anything just because its Peer reviewed (Oh A certain UK University, qualified peers and Global warming comes to mind).
Just testing a link here
and here
Mr Ashby(Edward),was introduced to the forum by Scott Hamilton……. Scott Says:April 8th, 2009 at 4:16 pm as……..– Edward Ashby, an archaeologist;
Time passes and with so little information on the archaeology of NZ forthcoming, unease develops. Not unnaturally, I for one, wish to be reassured that I am arguing with a qualified, practising archaeologist and I ask for, I do not demand, some declaration from Mr Ashby, whose surname I prefer to use, not to deliberately expose him to the public gaze, but merely to make clear to all that I prefer to maintain my distance and the more he swears and insults, the more distant I prefer him to be. Things could be worse. He might become just plain old……. Ashby.
Given that until recently, 99% of archaeologists would be in Govt/ University employ, then it doesn’t seem too unreasonable to have made that assumption in Mr Ashby’s case.However there are private Archaeologists that go around development sites checking on uncovered artefacts etc, or issuing permits that allow companies to legally proceed with excavation. Obviously all those engaged must be of the highest integrity for the money involved can be considerable. Whilst not suggesting for a moment that any corruption is involved, nevertheless there lingers the suspicion that for a small consideration or twain, remains could be ignored, conveniently obliterated, and expensive development be allowed to proceed. However I’m sure there are rigorous checks in place to prevent any malpractice.
Let’s take your points one by one
1) do not trust nor believe much of anything which comes from academics or experts.
Not until it has been checked, and if important, double checked.If very important, triple checked.Sir William Weipers, the alpha male of the Glasgow Veterinary College told me this was a good idea.Intellectual integrity was his key phrase. Can’t think of him without that phrase coming to mind.My father had a law degree as well as every Medical one possible, and he said the same thing.
2)believe that communism and a group of shadowy elites are out to control to world, in part, through university education.
Correct. But I would add that the new communists are different from those of the past. To get up to speed consult the web-site at the end of this post.
3) believe that internet based research is equal to, and in some cases more beneficial then, actual evidence and peer-reviewed approaches.
Certainly I would like to engage in hands on research, and the Roman settlement of Silchester is just down the road but I would be worried about causing damage. Just as you may have a dog or a cat, you could have a go at operating on it…but you might do a lot of damage to it.So I watch “Time Team”(archaeology prog on TV) on the telly and you watch programmes on veterinary surgery.
“Actual evidence and peer-reviewed approaches”….. if you can get them. I await a report on the Waipoua Forest findings, the…. The Bombay Obelisks etc …..impatiently.
Which way do you lean Mr Ashby(Edward). Are you of the processual tendency or post-processual perhaps, strongly or mildly positivist? or would you describe yourself as antipositivist? Hope I’m not getting too personal. If you had described some of your archaeological work we might have been able to discern your tendencies and make due allowance for cultural and personal bias…..but alas, I and the readership have nothing to go on
4) believe that somehow the holocaust, slavery, white supremacy, left vs right politics, conspiracies, and genetic determinism have something to do with archaeology or any discussion of archaeology.
Well all are relevant to archaeology.Take the holocaust and the lack of forensic evidence.This has got to be checked out, scientifically.White supremacy, I wish this was more widely discussed. The concept is riddled with myth and goobledegook so the more discussion, the better.Left right, couldn’t possibly ban it… of direct relevance even in ancient scenarios ie despotism versus pleb power.Conspiracies, couldn’t possibly ban that….. too damn handy for the conspirators. Genetics, ban that?You’ve got to be kidding. With the stuff that’s coming along now.
One of the most important aspects, Race, has been left out. I suppose however that this would be covered under white supremacy. However don’t you feel the time has come to get a more realistic view and tell it how it really was….buggery,child abuse, polygamy, cannibalism, ritual execution, human sacrifice etc. This needs more attention and as you know the public’s appetite for all things degenerate, Archaeology could become…cool.
5) believe that through months of solid internet ‘research’ you can achieve the same education as one might achieve through 5+ years of hard work at a university.
I did do 5yrs work at university. Of each year you only do 7mths work=35mths in total. Typically I would cram 3mths work into 3wks so I reckon I did 10.5times 3=31.5wks, but I had to do more towards the end so say 45wks, round it up and call it 1yr.But to do that monastic conditions are required and a variety of books. Some were much better at explaining concepts than the recommended ones. Same with the internet, some websites are better than others. We have now in Britain the Open University, a multimedia University. Much, much better because great thought has been put into the lectures.Compared with what we got at University, the lecturers voices are clear and animated, enthusiastic even. The experiments, carefully photographed, with good graphics, actually work. Mind you I miss the hilarity and attendant embarrassment of reality. And you can play them over and over if you miss a bit. They are subject to criticism from the onlookers, and any deficiencies are made good.Much better than what we got.
Why on earth do you need to trudge in to one of those dens of iniquity 5 days a week for 7 months of the year? The winter months only, would be ideal, leaving the other seasons free for students to get up to all sorts of things, and staff can get on with research, relatively free from teaching.
6) believe that dictionaries, common usage, and philosophers of science are wrong in their description of archaeology and that you and you alone are the source of wisdom for the purposes of defining archaeology, no doubt from your extensive online education.
I most definitely did look up the dictionary before posting, particularly “pseudo”. Perhaps some scientists would also benefit from having a dictionary to hand.
7) believe that universities are there to indoctrinate the young into PC communistic regimes, and therefore would advise against people getting educated.
1st part correct. after therefore you speculate and, deliberately, get it wrong, as usual. Replace after “therefore” with “I would consider alternative means of obtaining a recognised degree by means other than attendance full-time at university”. A quality multimedia course ie distance learning is now a viable alternative with some meetings with mentors, tutors etc and attendance for examination. Reduces the cost, the quality of teaching is improved and you can go at a pace with which you are comfortable and get or keep a day job, or if means permit, do your own thing.Get a like-minded buddy or two or three to provide incentive to keep going.
6-12 CD’s would probably take care of your archaeology course. Thought about it?
Correct.Matriarchy is bad. Patriarchy is good. Matriarchal societies always went to the wall. Patriarchal society is the only option if you want to survive and win… for white westerners. For others, that is their choice and I hope they choose matriarchy…but strangely, they don’t.
9) believe that university education is too “girly”.
No. Uni is headed that way but students are getting a bit long in the tooth for it to make too much difference by then. School is too girly.That makes a difference.
10) believe that Maori should be grateful to Europeans and that introduced European technology trumps any wrong-doing during the colonisation process.
Couldn’t have put it better myself. To which I’ll add by putting words into a Hollywood Maori. White man Christian. He feel a little guilty in 1800’s. Now he not Christian. He not feel so guilty in 2000’s.Now he say” like it or get lost…or else”. More white men,and others, come to islands. They say World filling up. Not look good for Maori…….read the web-site at the end.
11) believe that the European colonisation process of New Zealand has been happening for 250 to 300 years (try reading a history book once in a while).
Ah you finally noticed. I confess to the employment of subterfuge in laying small but inconsequential errors in order to test your academic competence and general knowledge…..however well done.( Tasman(Dutch) in the mid 1600’s, 4 of the crew killed by Maoris, welcome to NZ, and serious colonisation, the serious hard work, done by the British, from the mid 1800’s)
12) believe that nationals from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand owe all to ‘good ol mother England’ for the privilege of European and especially British imperialism.
You bet yer sweet ass, buddy. Sure’s hell didn’ come from no Timbuctoo.
13) believe that I am intellectually and possibly physically crippled (riiiiiiiigggght…)
That’s a difficult one.. but you’re not scum. Your blinkered out-pourings remind me of a visiting intellectual cripple, a Doctor(medical) from communist Russia.
“Breeteesh cigarettes …..lung cancer. Rossian cigarettes……no lung cancer.” It was very funny. Everyone seriously wondered if he really was a doctor, far less a chest specialist.This was at the height of the cold war. It could only be explained by guessing that the poor chap had been thoroughly brainwashed and deemed sufficiently trustworthy to be let out over the wall. Something straight out of Orwell right in your own living-room.Luckily a German friend who had lived for years in, and travelled the length and breadth of The Soviet Union as it then was, corrected our impressions and told us that this man was atypical and the Russians were on the whole highly intellectual, creative and innovative. Television and news propaganda and repressive communism did not let “westerners” see what they were really like.
14) above all, believe that specialist skills do not require specialist knowledge, or that one can know the intricacies of a discipline without need to attain the huge babbage of background knowledge in order to understand what it is and how it works in the first place.
I have to guess as to what you actually mean for the terms of reference are imprecise. I have many times consulted experts on many subjects and must say had little problem in keeping up with them. As my father was one, a world authority no less, I myself was witness to the hours of study that went into that.A good generalist however can become a competent(not great) specialist fairly easily and probably vice versa. However they are human and they do have their off days.In my case I am the client’s representative, and I have to be satisfied that everything that can be done is being done, with no stone left unturned, so I have to be sceptical, not in an adversarial way but questions have to answered satisfactorily. The specialist knows this and would probably be dismayed if I didn’t pose any.There is deference, but not automatic and complete deference. The decision to proceeed or otherwise is mine. Don’t know what it is about you lefties. You can only see in black and white.Ever heard of the colour gray?….and its many shades.
15) believe that modern scientific and methodologically robust, peer-reviewed, critiqued and repeated studies within the modern and broad literature should not be read, and that the current consensus should thus be rejected in favour of “pre-PC” ‘original scholarship’ such as that from the 19th century.
Depends on the subject. take the “hard sciences” Maths, chemistry, physics etc not a problem. basic biology not a problem. Anthropology, Archaeology …we got a problem which worsens steadily until by the time we reach Sociology we’ve got a full blown basket case on our hands. History and geography, at the scientific end of the arts spectrum are now positively riddled with the stuff. As for the rest of the arts…these days…need you ask?
Looking at Pre- PC scholarship from say the 19th century, I, perhaps in my naivety, have detected very few examples of Eurocentrism, just direct reporting of what is seen. The only way I account for this is that the authors are mostly gentlemen amateurs acting from the highest motives. The scenes and events are so novel in themselves to the audience of that time that lacing the accounts with remarks affirming racial superiority or inferiority would spoil the story. That this happened, I don’t doubt, however I have seen it but seldom. If the situation changes, when I get a chance to read more, I’ll let you know.
16) believe that carpentry skills equate to archaeological skills.
Glad you brought that up. For if you hadn’t I would have. Once again…misrepresentation and false reporting.
What I said was…that I was scanning the dreadful internet looking for the latest theories and info on the Pyramids having an interest in ancient navigation and a number of references, mysteriously, had mentioned the Gt Pyramid. Nothing new age. Nothing to do with UFO’s, aliens, weird earth energies etc. Quite the opposite. Inspired by Alexander Thom, I was after the practical approach and I got it when Martin Doutre’s name came up… and a carpenter, like my grandfather… a measurer… somebody that knew their way around the compass, like navigators…perfect.Out of that comes the parcel of numbers, readily factorable numbers, just the very things a navigator would employ.However, you can easily get carried away and make the numbers fit. I go in search of second, third or fourth opinions on this idea from the establishment but there is none available. If Martin Doutre’s going wrong, where’s he going wrong? I don’t want to have to get into a plane with a theodolite and a surveyor’s tape measure and measure the blasted things myself. I’m trying to be as objective about the whole thing as possible but you lot seem more wrapped up in left wing, right wing politics and have more to say on this, than archaeology.
I re-iterate, you exaggerate and misrepresent. I asked for your degree details. I did not demand. And I do not know or care where you live and neither did I mention anything whatsoever about photographs.I leave it to others to make what they will of your intemperate response to this simple request.
Good day to you.
The web-site I mentioned earlier can be accessed by clicking here
…….Few can divine the future but this may be as good as it gets.
Somebody has put together all the odd things about NZ archaeology and you can get them by clicking here Quite a collection.
I see Martin Doutre is as busy as ever, providing more evidence for our consideration, if not wholehearted endorsement. Just a wee bit to go for that, however you can have a look and make up your own mind by clicking here
Well, Jeep, you’re an ignorant fool. How dare I say someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Hmmmm, ok. Using your logic I now declare myself a nuclear physicist! I haven’t written a single research essay on nuclear physics, finished any degree in nuclear physics, know any methodologies in nuclear physics, I haven’t studied theory or carried out robust research, what I write doesn’t even make any sense to academically trained nuclear physicists, but i’m a nuclear physicist. I really am! Now, i’m going to go and write all of my ‘research’ up on the internet so that others who have no background whatsoever in nuclear physics can ‘judge for themselves’. It isn’t at all the blind leading the blind! It really isn’t! Honest. Dumb ass.
Andrew, well I guess we’ve said all we have to say to one another. You didn’t seem to largely disagree with my summary of your views, so I guess I will just let them stand by themselves. Obviously neither of us are going to budge from our respective positions so that is that I guess. Also, I am exacerbated with this months-long discussion to nowhere. If the arguments I have written up are unacceptable to you, then I doubt any other archaeologist’s will be, even if they are more mild mannered than I.
I will say though to others who may be reading, that the links Andrew posted are more of the same stuff (most contain Doutre’s ‘research’ or the handful of other sources which continually pop up) with the same old problems i’ve been discussing the entire time (doesn’t cite recent scholarship, doesn’t outline theoretical position or research design, doesn’t make explicit any methodology but merely mentions ’surveying’ and ‘autocad’ etc., doesn’t self-critique, doesn’t have a solid and simple focus (i.e. here’s the problem, here’s what has been done about it previously by others, here’s the methodology I will use on this problem, here’s why I will use this methodology, here are some of the problems I expect to encounter etc. etc.), but instead drifts into discussion about all sorts of things (making an argument sound superficially convincing by making it seem fact-laden or heavy/well supported, even if those ‘facts’ are unrelated or presumed), and also doesn’t cite or reference often or at all). Hopefully you will be able to pick up on these markers of abysmal research and make up your own mind. I do think amateurs can and have contributed much to genuine scholarship, but this is rare and they more often then not are avid readers of current research and method, and have learned informally though paying attention, rather than people working in an intellectual black hole who presume a solid knowledge based on some form of osmosis or self-belief.
Edward edward edward where did i say that i or anyone else was an archeologist? What i said was that you know nothing of the amature research done, writings done or sources for it individuals interested in the topic of pre maori civilisation have utilised, so have no right to make those statements. And as you have just admitted in your pathetic post that you have done no research relating to Nulcear Physics then of course i realise your not one, but prior to that post i would be wrong to say you had not studied it in some fashion. Whereas with every post you prove youre a lefty egotist cunt tied up in your own self importance. And that opinion has been peer reviewed by several on this thread so MUST be true beyond all doubts. So do what you continually promise and fuck off
Lol.
But seriously I think Edward has a point. But I reckon if Doutre really wants to call this ‘lefty egotist cunt’ out, he needs to conduct the research in the manner set out by the ‘lefty egotist cunts’.
If you can do that, you will be able to shut them up having done the research etc using their methods. If you want the research to go mainstream and people to know about your work, you have to conduct it in the mainstream way.
So why hasn’t anyone done it?
ha, ha, ha… that’s it. I’m now opening a book on whose gonna have an apoplexy first. I live not far from Waipoua. Didn’t have any trouble going to see the stones…though DOC are very unhelpful, which is annoying. They don’t look like much to me. I certainly didn’t form the impression they were man-handled into place. Having said that, these aren’t the only potential anomalies. Apparently we’re now getting the world’s best carbon dating machine down here, so hopefully they’ll start turning it on some of the weird objects to be found in NZ. Meanwhile, I don’t know who we’re supposed to look to for info on matters archeological if not archeologists…while I agree there are harder sciences in terms of certainty, we should no more “do down” a discipline for its limits than we should run away with its speculations as if they were fact. I really can’t see what motive your average fossicking bone-and-pot hound could have for conspiring to cover up findings. If their superiors choose to “bury” evidence (scuse pun) they are simply the kind of criminals you find in every field of human endeavour. Edward doesn’t sound like one of ‘em. I ain’t heard anything untoward from him regarding the situation in NZ, but
woops wrong button.
…but, I can tell you that the mainstreams of debate in this country are largely misguided and politically clouded. The Maori themselves tell stories of those who were here before them, fair skinned, blue or green eyed. They admit that certain remains are not theirs. Less often, but still, they will acknowledge that ritual cannibalism and slavery existed in their pre-European society…less often because idiot pakehas then judge them when equally barbaric practises have existed among all types of people and cultures throughout history. I’m not sure Doutre is helping the situation. Not many here seem interested in the cold (and possibly boring) evidential facts. Edward and his colleagues are interested, however, and for this I am thankful, because after this slanging match is done he’ll still be out there in the muck and rain while the rest of us go trolling about elsewhere for fresh controversial meat on the super-bullshit highway. As Nathan Barley put it “It’s well futile, yeah?”
Good for old Nathan Barley.(whoever the hell he is) Sure is futile when a man gets paid to tell you about the past(which doesn’t matter all that much anyway, right?) tells you sweet damn all.
Government spending cuts.
Now where do we begin?
Jeep, thanks for missing the point entirely. Again. I have actually read Doutre’s stuff, as well as the scribblings of others. I have looked for their references, and carefully read through and considered their arguments. I have in fact read in their own words that they have no formal training. In addition, as an archaeologist I am capable of reading and interpreting their evidence due to this being probably the only one thing in life I can talk authoritively about due to my intimate knowledge of the subject. So, actually, yes, yes I do in fact know the details of the amateur research done, the sources used, and the arguments themselves which are put forward, so yes, I do indeed have a right to challenge ideas which I find flawed. This is what I have done including why I find them flawed, if you would, for once, get over yourself or your dislike of me and actually absorb what I or others write for once!
As for the nuclear physics example, the point is that if you were a genuine nuclear physicist, and I came along and started posting things up on the internet which made absolutely no sense to you and you could easliy see the inherent flaws, you might reasonably assume that I have no idea what i’m talking about and are thus not a nuclear physicist. On the other hand, if you are not a nuclear physicist and don’t really understand it or have any experience in it and I come along and started posting things up on the internet you might not and probably wouldn’t be able to tell if I was legit or on to something or not, especially if I wrapped it up to sound superficially convincing.
In other words, sometimes it takes specialist knowledge and training to understand the real strengths and weaknesses of an argument relating to a given discipline or area. Take your experience in the military, if I start going on about how you guys cover up this and cover up that and use lazer guns and trench warfare you might rightly assume I am talking shit or at least am rather misinformed and confused. Now imagine I turn around and say “you have no right to question me!” The worst mistake you can make is to assume all opinions are of equal value. An opinion informed by training and experience and introspection will always be more valuable than one made from ignorance of the subject.
If in your opinion an archaeologist is not allowed to comment on archaeological arguments, then who is Jeep? Or didn’t you actually think through what you wrote before you posted it (as usual)? As for me being a “lefty egotist cunt” and that opinion being peer-reviewed, thanks for outlining just how poorly you understand the peer review process or how rational arguments are construted.
Andrew, again with my employment? Give it a rest.
I must thank Hamstar and Dr Panopticon again for good questions/responses and constructive discussion.
Accepting that you, Mr Ashby(Edward) have found flaws in Mr Doutre’s arguments.The next logical question is what are they? Perhaps you could give us two or three examples to support your statement?
With the greatest possible respect, your example of nuclear physics is not a good one, in my opinion.
First is the erroneous assumption that the subject is not readily comprehensible to those with a basic scientific education. If you can understand the principles of the internal combustion engine then you can understand the theory of nuclear fission and fusion.The devil lies in the detail, of course, but most people are sufficiently well in-formed that I doubt a fantasist or a fraudster would last long and unless he was very, very clever, the mathematicians would take him apart in a trice.
Similarly with the next example you cite, in which you place yourself in the role of amateur expert military strategist and tactician.Next you imagine that you would then announce to all that”you have no right to question me”. As if anyone would do or expect such a thing……. unless he were a deranged imbecile.What a ridiculous scenario.
The implication is that Martin Doutre is the amateur expert and he is making the demand”you have no right to question me.”
Trouble with that is that it is simply not true.Despite his alleged nazism,a gross exaggeration, his writings are full of remarks saying….” I wish they would check this out or why has no-one looked at this artefact. Why hasn’t this been followed up?” etc.
Now if someone was hellbent on perpetuating a falsehood, why would he call for an independent investigation?
Unlike yourself, who for various reasons (that have been countered) doesn’t think it is worth it. I would have thought that the benefits to tourism alone would have made it very much worth it, never mind the pursuit of truth as to our racial history.
To this observer, it seems that you and your department are the ones that fear independent investigation. Not only that, there are allegations that you actually destroy evidence.Noel Hilliam, a former curator of Dargaville Museum wrote this:-
“A number of years ago around one of the stone cairns near the Waipoua forest, an archaeologist excavated down 2.3 metres, going through two different tephra layers. Carbon datings proved there were people living in this country over five thousand years ago. We have come across a number of caves throughout New Zealand where these peoples were laid to rest. We no longer register these sites, to protect them from destruction, as anything pre-Maori is being buried or destroyed, including their dwellings. In the Waipoua Forest there are hundreds of stone walls, stone dwelling, stone fireplaces and altars – and petroglyhs carved in the stone. A large one that has fallen over had the design of an early ship carved on it.”
I suppose he’s a nutter like all the rest.Seems to be a lot of nutters in those parts, and you put them in charge of museums. Is he another nazi as well? What do you say to those comments by Noel Hilliam?
For now, you stand accused not only of neglect but destruction as well.Extremely serious allegations.
Just as well the conditions of a court of law do not apply here, for so far you have :-
1) failed as an expert witness… no archaeological evidence has been forthcoming and you( Ashby, Edward) have been unusually touchy about revealing your degree status and experience, highly relevant to this debate. (Yet you yourself, perplexingly, are the most passionate advocate of “qualifications”and “expertise” and plead the right to remain anonymous).
2)merited numerous reprimands for the use of bad language.(Hardly the conduct of one seeking divine status).
3) defamed the character and reputation of a number of people (in mitigation, subject to provocation).
4)exaggerated and misrepresented so many times as to be deemed thoroughly unreliable.I have little doubt that a Judge would be obliged to call for your removal.
Mind you, as a lawyer, I wouldn’t call you as a witness in the first place, as you would only harm the presentation.
You appeal for our trust and acceptance of your opinion on matters archaeological, yet, looking at your output to date, you wouldn’t make it inside a court room.
Personally, I think Mr Scott Hamilton was most ill-advised in inviting you on this blog, for you have harmed his case immeasurably by your poor conduct and faulty logic.
The atmosphere has been poisoned by your intemperance. Your repeated bleatings for priestly status are an insult to the intelligence of any independent-thinking man.
Although I wouldn’t express things in quite the same way as Jeep, I have to agree that he captured the essence of the situation when he used three words to describe you, sir, which ended in…. ‘unt.
To which I say……Hear, Hear! Well said that man.
Andrew, I told you we have said all we have to say to one another. The fact that you now turn to accusing me of destruction of archaeological materials only shows what a pathetic little man you are and how obvious it is that you are not interested in honest debate let alone actually absorbing anything i’ve written. Good thing people like Jeep and yourself are mosty relegated to the realm of internet forums. As Dr Panopticon said, when all is said and done you’ll just be back looking for fresh controversies on the super-bullshit highway.
Dude dude dude… didn’t he give you tonnes of examples way back ^^up there^^ somewhere?
Secondly, this is no place for an archaeological study.
Edward, are you aware of any formal studies into this research? Or do most archaeologists just look at it and scoff? Is there any basis to conduct a formal study?
Ed may be being evasive re his employment as he is actually employed as a geological consultant for what looks like the Ashby family Civil Engineering business in Warkworth north of Auckland, and studied Archeology as a side line, gaining his degree in 2008. Not the full time, long serving Archeologist of Much experience as his impression leads one to believe. He also is VERY active on several forums and other media with a passionate Crusade to shut down any question re NZ pre maori habitation history and discredit those proponents of such an idea. His and others attacks on Noel Hilliam and martin Doutre are quite disgusting reading utilising all the same “Techniques” he accuses us of using to promote our view point. The University textbooks say the previous inhabitants Maori themselves speak of never existed so no further investigation down those lines need be attempted.
Hi again hamstar,
There are a few articles which have been written over the years which are floating around. I think Jono (the archaeologist at the top of the page) may have presented a paper on pseudo-archaeology to the NZAA conference a few years back which will be in one of the old New Zealand archaeology journals (I will give a reference at a later date if I can find it). At last years conference a talk was presented by Peter Adds, the head of Maori Studies at Victoria University, on the role of pseudo-history, how it is constructed, it’s arguments etc. Also as I mentioned earlier there are archaeologists and geologists who, from time to time, due to a rather hysterical public demand, went and investigated anomalies (in the Kaimanawa wall link, for example).
But to be honest, much of the time archaeologists are researching the very same landscapes that the pseudoarchaeologists are stumbling around on and would have you believe are previously unexplored. A good example are Doutre’s standing stones. He claims they are anthropogenic. That’s fine. But when an archaeologist comes along and sees nothing but bulldozer marks and modern grafiti, rather than Celtic symbolism, on boulders which are deposited on naturally occuring volcanic fields, it is pretty plain that we can take the Celtic idea with a large grain of salt due to the fact there simply isn’t any evidence. Just wishful thinking. Another example is Mr Hilliam (whom Andrew referenced earlier) and his claims to have found not only pre-Maori skeletons (dispite what he wishes, he isn’t a skeletal expert) but also a spanish galleon or two. The only problem is that he, conviently enough, always forgets to take photos and upon returing to the site, finds it, conviently enough, reburied by what can only be described as sand dunes which shift so fast they defy the laws of geology and seem more like some mystic phenomena from an Indiana Jones movie.
You ask a very good question when you ask if there is any basis to conduct a formal study. The answer is a positive ‘no’. The reason is that, as breifly discussed above, it would be a very, very short study with an enormous scope. It would involve not only addressing the vast myriad of logially flawed and scientifically improbable phenomena the pseud’s try and argue as well as the more mundane non-events such as every time a boulder pops up it being claimed as pre-Maori, but also investigating the vast and incohesive rabble of competing pseudo-theories out there. Was it Doutre’s ‘Pre-Celts’, Hilliam’s ‘Waitaha Civilisation’, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Spanish (who, by the way weren’t even sailing until after Maori had colonised NZ – this is one of those scientifically implausible scenarios I mention, though Andrew might argue that they had time machines too?), or Menzies Chinese? Did they get here five million years ago as some argue or five thousand years ago as Doutre does? The point is that not only is the evidence non-existent, but the blundering anomalies taken as evidence aren’t even in any cohesive form yet alone the theories they’re supposed to support. The whole mess is completely unsalvagable. Unfortunately the proponents of these theories and many of their followers aren’t trained enough to see it. The forest from the tress and all that.
Also, there is the good point to be made that somethings are so obviously ridiculous that it would be a waste of time humoring its proponent. Andrew referenced Hilliam talking about an archaeologist excavating down two meters for example. Anyone who knows anything even in the slightest about archaeology knows that there is nothing but sterile ground, archaeologically speaking, at such depths. Even in countries with the archaeological record reaching back to the paleolithic this would be a feat more often than not. Having worked as a geotechnical engineer prior to training in archaeology, I know about geological formation processes, having done hundreds of core samples (to the depth of bedrock in most cases) for work over much of Northland – what you find is clay at that depth. Occasionaly stratified peat. It’s blatantly obvious from the outset from not only an archaeological perspective but also a geological one that this supposed 2m deep cultural layer in that area (Waipoua) is nothing but gibberish.
Finally, I guess there is the fact that, as i’ve maintained the whole time, there simply isn’t any evidence. As it happens, I was on an excavation this Sunday, just south of Auckland. There were postholes, midden, fire cracked rocks, terraces, but not one single Celtic or foreign pre-historic object to be seen. Funny that. Guess we were digging in the wrong spot. Also, as I was excavating I thought to myself “those bastard pseudo’s skip all of the dirty, tedious, tiring work and just jump straight to wild theories”. They never spend two days cleaning off a 2m x 2m patch of dirt, carefully seeing and recording what is revealed, if anything at all, through the stratigraphy. If we’re lucky, they might talk about ’surveys’. Having done my masters thesis’ case-study on an entire peninsula by myself (took about a month of solid survey) in a grid system and then analysing my data using a GIS in many different ways, I still found room to critique myself and point out the flaws in the research and where it could be improved at the end. Sure, would be nice for me to declare a sensationalised story and just blame everyone else of conspiracy when they criticise me, but that would be the dishonest and lazy way.
I would also add that most archaeologists are far too busy doing genuine research to waste their time on nonsense ideas, especially when they would risk pseudo’s getting all stirred up like a hornets nest. All you need to do is look at this thread to see that some people (such as Andrew and Jeep) will never be satisfied with what archaeologists have to say, and will even go so far as to directly attack the credibility and ethics of any archaeologist who does try and debate them. After calling for the input of a professional, once that input came it was rejected and the professional (even if I do have a short temper) was accused of communism, destruction of sites, abuse, manipulation – the list goes on.
I have no idea why I personally bother other than some feeling of obligation, such as it is. But it does make it worth it when someone who starts a post about Maori not being native is open enough, through debate, to start asking honest and intelligent questions.
I hope this rather long-winded post is of some help to you. Insofar as a formal study does go, there is one book which the author has shown enough patience to collect all of the weird and wacky and to wirte. It covers most of the arguments put forward by pseudoarchaeologists/historians and adresses some of the ‘evidence’ and rationale behind these theories:
Howe, K.R., 2008,’The Quest For Origins’, Penguin.
I have a copy of this book and must say it is an important read for anyone with questions about this stuff, or even just NZ history in general. I really do urge you to find a copy and see the ‘orthodox’ take on NZ pseudoarchaeology in a formal setting. Of course, I doubt the likes of those two ‘warriors of truth’ who lurk on this thread are likely to read it – i’m sure they’ll come up with one excuse or another to avoid actually reading anything legitimate: perhaps because it isn’t on the internet or because it’s written by someone from a university? – but for their own sake I hope they do. They might learn something.
Hamstar, always a pleasure. Cheers.
Congratulations Jeep on yet another lame attempt at character assassination – wasn’t that what you accused me of?
1) I do indeed work part-time as a geotechnical engineer. All the better for me to call pseudo’s out on thier pseudo-geology. Also, I had to work to put myself through univesity. Not sure what your point is. At least Andrew gets his confirmation now that i’m not paid by the government.
2) Archaeology isn’t my “sideline” – and yes, I gained my honors degree in ‘08, and a masters last year. Will be going on with my studies even further but will probably still need to work to pay my way through, that is, if that’s ok with you Jeep?
3) I never stated I was full time or long-serving Jeep, you did. Just now. What I did say was that I have a background in archaeology and a fair bit of experience – which I do. I also have experience in geology. But I guess I am not qualified to comment on the likes of Doutre’s pseudo-babble geology OR archaeology, right?
4) Yes, I am active on the internet with this stuff. I believe I made no secret of this – why do you suppose i’m talking to you – for fun? And why should it be strange that I am just as passionate in my debate on other forums as I am on this one? Why should I be limited to only arguing here – there’s lots of people out there with heads full of this stuff. As for my “cruisade”, it is exactly the same as it is on here, with exactly the same arguments. That is because people who buy into these pseudoarchaeology ideas argue the same points again and again and again and again…It’s like being an evolutionist in a creationist forum sometimes.
5) I make no apology for my criticisms of Mr Hilliam or Mr Doutre, they are both misleading the public, rummaging around archaeological sites, and claiming archaeologists are part of a conspiracy. And if by “techniques” you mean reason and logic, then yes, I do argue against them in exactly the same way I argue against you and Andrew. Can you think why that might be Jeep?
6) perhaps you should try actually reading a university textbook BEFORE you start trying to quote them Jeep.
In sum, what have we learned. That I worked hard to put myself through university. That I intend to carry on with studies (I never once claimed I was a PhD). That I have over five years experience not only in archaeology, but also in geology. That I have criticised Doutre and Hilliam before (why is that surprising?) That I am fairly consistent in my arguments and am passionate about countering this nonsense (I stated earlier that I try to be an educator).
If you ask me Jeep, your little attempt at character assassionation seems to be more in my favour than in yours. But then you don’t seem to really think much before you excrete words onto the internet now do you?
Perhaps I should also point out one little embarrasing detail for you: Everything you “discovered” through your ‘detective’ work/stalking was, with the exception of where I work (again – stalker), freely given to you by me at the beginning of this thread through numerous references and links. I even explicity mentioned on many occassions ‘both here and on other sites which I have given references’ – and told you of the very long link at Scoop reviews where I and many others debated Doutre himself. I gave you the link to a resource where all of these arguments as well as other resources were listed, just a simple click away. The fact that you only just now are making reference to their contents shows that you never ever bothered to look at them in any detail in the first place! As I said AGES ago, you are not interested in an honest debate or pursuing an informed decision, and this much is evident from your latest attempt at debate.
You have no real argument Jeep. That much is obvious.
Edward, thank you for the K.R.Howe reference…just the ticket for a truth-seeking amateur like me. You just don’t hear as much from the other side of the debate (as you say, most of you are too busy with other evidence) and therefore us open-minded types often flounder in a sea of speculation…looking for balance.
It’s a shame the energies of empassioned cyber-stalkers can’t be harnessed and piped to the digs….like, the matrix …haha pun intended.
Keep it up, young man…..as the druids used to say “the truth against the world!”
Dr Panopticon, you’re most welcome. And I think it good that people are interested in the past and like to question things (even if I sometimes disagree with them). I agree that genuine archaeology has pretty much no voice in NZ (perhaps we need a time team here? It worked wonders in Britain), so what can we archaeologists expect. I try motivating others in my profession to do more for public education and outreach, and some have long before my time and continue to, but most are put off by the idea of having to deal with people such as a couple of those i’ve encountered on here, and would rather focus on more positive things such as genuine research. It’s a pity but I can’t blame them. Anyway, I appreciate your kind words – they’re few and far between for an archaeologist in these kinds of discussions.
Cheers.
Well, maybe you can think of a kiwi archaeologist who’d come across well on camera…a documentary airing the issue properly could well get funded by NZ On Air, as it’s right up their alley…I know a fair amount of people in the film industry including doco makers, which helps immensely. Mmmmm, now that’s an idea, alright.
Interesting you say that Dr Panopticon, as several years ago a tv documentary series on NZ archaeology was made called “What Lies beneath?”, which was run in 2006 and lasted 8 episodes. Unfortunately nobody watched it. The following is a quote from Trevor Agenw from Stuff.co.nz talking about it’s failure:
“Who says TVNZ doesn’t respond to criticism? I complained that good locally made documentaries and comedies were being screened midweek at midnight so nobody sees them.
Now TVNZ has produced an eight-part series on New Zealand archaeology. Whalers, Maori warriors, a missing prime minister’s corpse, cholera, Armstrong Disappearing Guns, pa sites, blazing cottages, drowned villages, earthquakes and tsunami: this new series dealt with them all! Great, you cry. When can I see it? Sorry, mate, you missed it.
When did it screen? Well, where were you at 5pm on Boxing Day? Dozing in a deckchair? Bouncing on the beach? I’ll bet you weren’t watching TV. A pity, because TVNZ decided to screen a Kiwi archaeology series, What Lies Beneath, at 4.55pm on the eight weekdays following Christmas. Just to reinforce their opinion of the series, TVNZ screened one episode at the wrong time, so even if you had tried to record them, you wouldn’t have got them all. (’Technical fault’ translates as ‘Nobody’s watching, so who cares?’)
Would young viewers enjoy dramatic archaeology and interesting computer graphics bringing the past alive? Would teachers and librarians be interested in a series that examines our historic roots? Would people have set their recorders? Academic questions because few knew about it. The minimal publicity for What Lies Beneath was overwhelmed by the Christmas deluge.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Fvit0hr860J:www.nzarchaeology.org/blog/archive/2006_01_01_oldnews.htm+NZ+archaeology+What+lies+beneath%3F+documentary&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a
It’s pretty difficult for academics to bother sometimes when they just keep getting shat on by funding and public apathy. It is the same in the national newspapers. Legitimate and truly interesting research is rarely reported, but many brief and unbalanced nonsense stories about Celtic boulders do, I presume because it is sensationalised and that’s what people want. Time team, on the other hand, is watched over here even though it doesn’t deal with NZ history. People just don’t seem interested, or if they are, only in the conspiracy theory-cum-fairy tale stuff. I suspect that if Time Team came here, as a brand, it might get a bigger profile. Who knows I guess. It feels pretty hopeless sometimes.
Anyway, the documentary is available on DVD if you’re interested. I have a copy at home. It’s a good watch if you’re interested in NZ archaeology, as it shows excavations and interviews genuine archaeologists. Below is it’s description and a link to where you can buy it if desired:
“In this eight-part series, Simon Dallow takes viewers on a journey back in time to the earliest stages of Maori and Pakeha occupation of New Zealand. Along the way he’ll debunk myths, solve riddles and shed new light on our collective beginnings.
Investigating ancient immigrant communities and prehistoric natural disasters, What Lies Beneath will bring a whole new perspective to New Zealand’s past.”
http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/What-Lies-Beneath/2747891/
Anyway, nice talking with you Dr Panopticon. Pity there aren’t more like you out there.
Oh! Yes! where are those cameras and also “Where are all the eyes and presence”.of those who would wish to enhance their knowlege on Ancient N.Z.’s Neolithic Archaeology -Anthropology-Local Tararua history -Ancient Maori settlement and Local Iwi’s histories .You might have to move from behind your computor and visit so you can become a volunteer of the “Tararua Ancient Sites Project “.A tour of Sites ..”.Maungapuaka “{A deep ravine with artefacts in river.}-”The Pillars”{ 3 carved columns}-”Waihi Falls” {stone carved city. bulluams.sculptures of animals{Kiore}-”Oporae Boulder”,{ancient script-glyphs stone artefacts.}-”Waione”.{pyramid structure ,monuments,settlement signs [garden terracing}.artefacts sculptures.”Ancient Carved stone -cannot lie!!”.The charge for the tour will be a bottle of good red wine …I will throw in a visit to my display museum and restoration studio ..Academics -Skeptics- Dreamers -Eccentrics- Amatuer Archaeologists{no wine needed}and even Native Polynesian Maoris.You are all welcome …BadgerH.Bloomfield ..at 10 Hunter Str. Dannevirke . New Zealand ..You proove i’m not a Phoney!!!?
The other day I revisited the web sitepolynesian pathways . by Peter Marsh, which has been updated. I do thoroughly recommend this site as it challenges the conventional view of the young and inexperienced Edward Ashby, drainage consultant and graduate apparatchik in archaeology of a house of marxist indoctrination located somewhere in New Zealand.
Interesting to note where his “geological expertise” comes from. There’s no degree in the subject, of course, which immediately calls in to question the validity of his pronouncements on the Kaimanuwa Wall and his perfunctory dismissal of Noel Hilliam’s account of the highly suspicious goings-on in the Waipoua forest. However should you need an extra “Dunny”, inside or out, Edward Ashby, “soil specialist” of Ashby Engineering may be the man to consult. However a word of caution… even with the greatest of expertise…..shit happens, so be sure to get a second or third opinion,or as my Irish friend, Seumas, would say a “t’ird” opinion.
Read the section on Lapita, and the amazing contortions exhibited by the establishment to stick to the idea that Polynesians spread from the west to the east. Genetic and mythological evidence all point to migration from the east. What has been the effect on this onlooker? Without a doubt, to pay more attention to the Polynesian myths, for therein lies a truth which dovetails with the latest scientific genetic studies.So one can’t dismiss the folk memories of the Polynesians and Maoris as superstitious wild imaginings. I return to accounts of those myths with an open mind. And the outcome is a radically changed perspective. For instance….assume the Lapita people are White redheads,and the myths describe them as such, that indulge in human sacrifice, and the migratory Polynesians are relatively peaceloving. They are disgusted by the behaviour of the war-like whites and learn this behaviour from them, and the art of war.I haven’t got to grips with the whole story yet, but my reading so far is that a high priest is dispatched from Tahiti to Hawaii and finds that everyone is enjoying themselves too much and forces them to become more warlike, possibly through his having had contact with the long-ear redheads on Easter Island. To get the full picture you have to read the material, but it explains the extremes of reaction to the arrival of whites in our times in the Pacific. ie offering their women for the delectation of the white gods one minute, then a wrong move or gesture, old memories reawakened, next minute, violence, death and ritual cannibalism.The cannibalism is mainly symbolic rather born out of a desire to eat human flesh.There is nothing particularly unusual about this. Go back far enough and whites were doing the same thing and if the Polynesian myths are to be believed, this is where they learnt the practice…. from the whites.
The genetic studies show virtually no connection of present day Polynesians with Lapita people. Lisa Matissoo-Smith did the studies on this and was supposed to give a paper on this in 2007. What has happened was that she was advised to submit her samples to a lab in the USA and nothing much more has been heard on the matter. Once again a dead end brought about by the dictates of cultural marxism.Similar results from a study in 1993 were ignored because the facts didn’t fit the marxist story. This is, and has been, happening the world over for a very long time and I believe is doing immeasurable harm to race relations.
Again, looking at Maori /Polynesian myths, perhaps more weight has to be given to the voyage of Maui the navigator and Captain Rata (mentioned by Badger). The data on rat population of various islands seems to point to this voyage having taken place circa 330BC. However the recent re-appraisal of the date of arrival of Rattus Exulans in NZ and confusion over precise species and lack of new data has turned the whole business into an unholy hotchpotch which hopefully some enlightened soul, by employment of a graphics professional, plus the use of readily comprehensible English, will render the story understandable to the audience that pays his wages. Or is this another attempt to cover up and obscure?
This seems to be a recurring theme.A trail develops, at odds with the peer-reviewed, consensus, marxist view of history…….then stalls or disappears completely. Rather like a murder investigation where the police or their political masters have decided in advance who’s going to be guilty. Someone like Lisa Matissoo-Smith is the hapless junior that hasn’t been brought into the conspiracy and stumbles on the “correct” ie scientifically truthful, lead, which is the politically inconvenient “wrong “lead….and disappears off the radar.
Peter Marsh incidentally doesn’t seem to take much issue with Martin Doutre, and in fact makes a case for NZ being one of the first groupings of Pacific Islands to be visited from the west, as this is the logical route out of the Eastern Indian Ocean….ie. down the West coast of Australia (a shore littered with many archaeological anomalies) and into the Westerlies of South Australia and on to Tasmania and NZ.Hence the Tamil Nadu cast iron bell found on the North Island.
One thing’s for sure and that is that the scenarios of dunny expert and part-time archaeologist, Edward Ashby, are out of kilter with the latest genetic studies.
For those who think the allegations of rampant marxism in our schools, universities and political life are over the top, have a listen To Mr Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, defector from the KGB by clicking here.
I love the “Normalisation” stage, because that’s the stage at which the naive activists like Scott Hamilton and Edward Ashby get disposed of ie killed ( because they know too much), along with all the libbers, The gay libbers, the women’s libbers etc. As Mr Bezmenov so clearly says…..”We don’t tolerate any libbers whatsoever”
Demoralisation,Destabilisation, Crisis and Normalisation. Simple. And resistance is simple too, up to and including crisis, but not after normalisation, especially with modern electronic surveillance and computerisation.Resistance will be tantamount to suicide.This is a game with no second chances. Be careful what you wish for.
Communism did not collapse. The Iron Curtain came down because the West was sufficiently demoralised and headed towards destabilisation….. To implant the notion of superiority in the collective mind of the west while simultaneouslly undermining its institutions is a masterstroke of psychological warfare.Poor old East Germans…walked out of one police state into another one that was 80% developed.
Now who’s doing the character assassination here? Consistency people, consistency.
Thanks for the info Edward…I have a friend who’s just about to embark on another series, only one of which will cover this issue…but as he says, the best way to attract media attention is to set up your own custom-built disclaimer first then say something wholly sensational and outlandish…which you can then step out from under with your ready-made disclaimer, at least satisfied that your ends were met, even if by less than noble means….gosh, sounds like POLITICS… but that’s what PR is, I guess.
As for Mr Lees (identity unknown and probably unimportant) did you get teased by bolsheviks as a youngster? O did a red capped social studies teacher called you an idiot one vulnerable day? You NEED to remember that calling someone a marxist dupe over the net is either one or a combination of these: inaccurate, simplistic, bigoted, irrelevant or just downright rude. Come to Northland for a visit, Mr. Lees! The only thing remotely resembling socialism up here (apart from the usual sprinkling of bush-hippies) are some communitarian values largely originating from Maori.
Our electoral map will show you that Northland’s voters are overwhelmingly right wingers. Some rudimentary research on your part will also show that people’s political leanings are more strongly based on their family and social backbround than their time at university. My voting patterns changed NOT ONE BIT as a result of 3 years “marxist training” at uni. In fact, I’ve never met anyone whose political orientation was significantly or permanently swayed by lecturers.
Now, with no further stalking required we must (as rational beings) lean toward the statistical likelihood that Edward is no more a Marxist dupe than you are. Indeed, Marxism seems to excercise so much of your frontal lobe activity that we might wonder what Mr. Freud would have to say about it (!)
T
Thanks for the info Edward…I have a friend who’s just about to embark on another series, only one of which will cover this issue…but as he says, the best way to attract media attention is to set up your own custom-built disclaimer first then say something wholly sensational and outlandish…which you can then step out from under with your ready-made disclaimer, at least satisfied that your ends were met, even if by less than noble means….gosh, sounds like POLITICS… but that’s what PR is, I guess.
As for Mr Lees (identity unknown and probably unimportant) did you get teased by bolsheviks as a youngster? O did a red capped social studies teacher called you an idiot one vulnerable day? You NEED to remember that calling someone a marxist dupe over the net is either one or a combination of these: inaccurate, simplistic, bigoted, irrelevant or just downright rude. Come to Northland for a visit, Mr. Lees! The only thing remotely resembling socialism up here (apart from the usual sprinkling of bush-hippies) are some communitarian values largely originating from Maori.
Our electoral map will show you that Northland’s voters are overwhelmingly right wingers. Some rudimentary research on your part will also show that people’s political leanings are more strongly based on their family and social backbround than their time at university. My voting patterns changed NOT ONE BIT as a result of 3 years “marxist training” at uni. In fact, I’ve never met anyone whose political orientation was significantly or permanently swayed by lecturers.
Now, with no further stalking required we must (as rational beings) lean toward the statistical likelihood that Edward is no more a Marxist dupe than you are. Indeed, Marxism seems to excercise so much of your frontal lobe activity that we might wonder what Mr. Freud would have to say about it (!)
But what frustrates me most is the insistance that the issue of who was here first and where they came from proves anything about modern justice or political motivation. We ALL came from East Africa…Game Over. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what possible motive Edward would have for falsifying evidence. Surely, as has been said before, the first archaeologist to publicly prove any of this stuff would be an overnight sensation…their career made, like the famous Mr Leakey (who did fudge evidence!). So are you actually saying archaeologists here are colluding to remain remain unknown and underfunded for the sake of hiding a truth which is (as I’ve already pointed out) TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the issue of compensatory justice for Maori? What on Earth is their motive?
I agree that establishments, scientific ones included, can get a little “paradigmatic” and resist challenges to the status quo, but I submit that this problem is universal enough to be considered a general problem of human behaviour. To try to say that Marxism or any other social/political placement is more culpable than any other is quite ludicrous. I would bet good money that if Edward found hard evidence he’d be singing it from the rooftops….and I’d also double-down on the bet that he would not be dissuaded by the possibility of upsetting the Treaty process, because that process HAS NO BEARING on pre-European history and our Government knows this full well.
So, come on down Mr Lees! For your further entertainment I can show you a machine that (in spite of the “highly speculative” status of epigenetic research) will, without any doubt, change your genetic status in a jiffy……it’s called an x-ray.
Before I start trembling at your mighty words Dr Panoptikon, may I just say:-
Nice of you to come to Edward’s defence. I didn’t realise you were such good friends.
Interesting bit of amateur psychology including a reference to the charlatan Freud, but completely wrong.Nobody teased me, I can assure you.
The roots of my disillusionment with communism stem from the many personal contacts my father had with East Germany and Czeckoslovakia.
I saw the pictures,got to know the people and met them, when they were let out, or defected.
I was in a very unusual situation for a young boy growing up in Scotland.
I overheard many conversations(my German was just good enough to get the gist) which left me reeling. There was such a huge gap between the output of newspapers and reality.I largely kept this information to myself as I suspected that my friends didn’t want their illusions of British superiority, technical and moral, shatttered and I was right.
By way of experiment, I released a few of those insights by playing the ignoramus ie asking questions and then pointing out the illogicality of the replies.The outcome was always the same…denial of the logical conclusion, exasperation due to ignorance and finally accusations of treason or mental instability.
So I learnt at an early stage, that despite frequent protestations that they want the truth “warts and all” and that that they like free speech so much that they’d be willing to die for my right to speak freely , even though they disagree…..It isn’t true.
Their reactions said otherwise.People, not just paradigmatic university professors, are highly resistant to change, although paradoxically Obama gets elected on the basis of “change” but what is that change? Anything you like, would seem to be the answer. Clever stuff. What have they got… Banks, Big Business like the auto industry nationalised, communised, state owned, and health care nationalised, and just for good measure, expansion of homeland security….the staatspolizei.
I hope you Maoris are taking this all in and recognise that there are whitemen and whitemen for if those marxists come to power, they won’t recognise anything special about you. Slightest cheap out of you and they’ll squash you like cockroaches.
The mistake I made, and this lays me open to the rightful charge of being a marxist dupe myself, was in thinking that “It was all over there”, on the Continent, a highly suspect place, full of killers, murderers, thieves and rascals prepared to go to war at the drop of a hat. Turncoat Norwegians and Danes, lazy, cowardly,duplicitous Swiss and Swedes, cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France, cowardly Italians.
That was the trouble. All that stuff came over to us with the EU. Much as I liked the Germans,Czecks and French etc I felt that Britain would be better off trading with the rest of the world and in particular maintaining ties with similar countries and former colonies like Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
By this time I was in business which was great in the Thatcher years, then it started going sour, with the late-lamented Lady’s departure. More and more forms arrived, more regulations on everything from, who you could hire and fire, to mandatory provision of facilities for people in wheelchairs.Control was slipping away. When a chap came to fit the new fire extinguishers, he told me where he was putting them, not the other way around, yet I paid for them. It was then that the mutterings of “creeping communism” and “political correctness”started, which I largely ignored, being too busy to give the matter much thought.
However, in a few quiet moments, there was an upwelling of memories of East Germany and I made many connections, too many, but still dismissed the idea. Truthfully, I was in denial.
Then I started to play a little game. I made predictions about what would happen next, if the country was headed towards communism.
I had a good hit rate.
Who was behind this and why?
Certainly not the cloth-capped workers, which is where you went looking for communism in days of yore.
No, it was from big-business and government itself.
After a change of government a sort of merry-go-round took place.
A former head of defence would mysteriously acquire a directorship in Marks and Spencer, the retailer.
A Lord from the foreign office with a classical education, would become a director in a heavy engineering firm.
Puzzling, but not so puzzling when you found out that that firm had huge contracts with the government.
Now you see the attraction of communism/statism for those at the top of the tree. A very cosy arrangement. Government contracts secured with not too onerous terms, legislation framed in favour of the big boys, no worries about competition, nice job to go for when kicked out of government and all paid for by the stupid non-complaining tax-payer, who long ago has given up on the idea of low taxes and self help.
With the coming of Blair(Labour or New Labour as it came to be known), I expected a huge tax-rise, which didn’t materialise.They were funny years. The familiar Britain had gone. Nothing seemed real anymore. Everybody seemed on edge and seemed to be weighing things up carefully before they spoke, due to political correctness. The spontaneity and natural deprecation of authority had gone(always a keynote in British life).
Now where had I heard of that before?….. East Germany…. where you had to be very very careful about what you said, and to whom…. even to members of your own family…especially children, who became unwitting little spies for the State, because the teacher would quiz them about family activities and what daddy and mummy said, and which TV programmes they were watching.
There was a children’s programme called The Sandman comes.
From West Berlin the Sandman had a blue hat.
From East Berlin in a similar programme(full of communist propaganda), the Sandman had a red hat.
So the teacher asks the question”and what colour of hat was the Sandman wearing?”. If the child gives the wrong answer then the teacher earns brownie points by tipping off the police(Staatspolizei or Staasi as it was nicknamed).
How anyone, no matter of what IQ, could possibly entertain, for five seconds, a desire to live under such conditions is utterly beyond me.
I write this with certainty and conviction in the hope that anyone of a leftist or even centrist nature will reconsider, and realise that this is the end stage of the game.
I know many leftists who say they will halt the process but I think they are deluding themselves for they will be ouflanked by the smarter and more ruthless with an eye on a comfortable position in the new society.
But even they, will be brushed aside(or worse), by those lying in wait to assume power at crisis point and then proceed to normalisation. The children scenario is part of the maintenance of normalisation….the part not covered in Mr Brezmenov’s exposee.
“You NEED to remember that calling someone a marxist dupe over the net is either one or a combination of these: inaccurate, simplistic, bigoted, irrelevant or just downright rude.”
1) I don’t NEED to do anything. We’re only at the destabilisation stage. When we get to normalisation, I will promise not to vilify any marxists.
2) I make no apology for calling someone a marxist dupe if i think I can justify that statement. Almost everyone including myself, for the reasons outlined above is or has been a marxist dupe to some degree, so successful has been the demoralisation phase.
3)inaccurate, simplistic, bigoted blah blah blah. Save your ranty, bleeding-heart, left-wing blusters and blethers. Obviously hit a raw nerve there.
An emblem of the shadowy British left wing group, the FABIANS, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Your response is absolutely typical of that dished out to those who peel back that sheep’s clothing… the vicious snarl of the wolf and the revelation of the TRUE nature of the beast.
What’s next, that I can be bothered to reply to?
“We ALL came from East Africa…Game Over.”
Game just beginning.
Evidence of Homo Erectus having made it to Crete.
Lot of controversy about the “out of Africa” idea, and the evolution of races ie when, where, how, and now what?…… Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus?
Not enough specimens, as yet, to support a reasonable hypothesis. We must keep our minds open….mustn’t we???????
Epigenetics is in its infancy. Some interesting developments there, but as yet nothing earth-shattering…..but we must keep our minds open……mustn’t we????…..and not jump to premature conclusions…..mustn’t we??????
X-ray machines. What’s this all about?
A sinister sounding Dr Panoptikon morphing into a vicious, evil Dr Strangelove? We are impressed……. not.
Thank you for the invitation to visit your X-ray machine, but having handled the things, in one form or another, since the age of twelve, I’m sure you will understand my declining, due to the novelty having worn thin somewhat, over the last 40 yrs or so.
But thanks all the same…. old bean.
And of course an X-ray machine will do little to further knowledge in the field of epigenetics as it will fracture the DNA, thus rendering the experiment invalid….as you know.
One day we will get back to the archaeology of New Zealand but for those who wish to deviate, I am happy to accomodate, courtesy of Hamstar, who benefits by obtaining a ringside seat for the great debate of our times.
Here’s freedom to him who would speak,
Here’s freedom to him who would write,
For there’s none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him, whom the truth would indite.
(Robert Burns, Scotland,circa 1770…. and Russia’s most popular foreign poet)
Well, Mr Lees, I appreciate your full and frank biography which always brings greater understandings. The x-ray was not a threat, I said I’d SHOW it to you, not turn it on you…I presumed from your previous posts you’d be familiar with them, which is why i chose it as a symbol (i could have use many others, as you also know) and, yes, there are fractures, but also harmless mutations which you may pass on, if willing or able. But I can better forgive such sinister imaginings now that your sufferings are made a litlle clearer.
Ain’t it hilarious how communists began with dreams of egality, separation of church and state, the end of history…and ended up being overhauled by bully dictators, oligarchs, by greed and self-interest and by ignorance and apathy…?
Holy Shit! I’ve just described what happens to Liberals, Conservatives and Anarchists too!
You mistake me (and ignore my previous posts) when you call me left-wing. I still use both my wings, thanks. That’s why your perjorative roll call of nationalities disappoints me. You sound like Enoch bloody Powell (a man I am embarrased to share my nationality with). Every race has its assholes and its salts of the earth…so what?
If anything nowadays could justify the tightening of borders against immigration it is fact that the world is becoming badly overpopulated…which says not much about race, really, it’s just the movement of people is now potentially an enormous environmental issue.
The last time I went to England an official fellow was unnecessarily rude to me. It seemed to me that he had not been in England for too many years, yet I was born there. My mother being a fine, old country bigot must have sowed a seed in my head and a small but growing flush of righteousness rose up. A foreigner was being rude to ME, a Brit born and bred! But of course I quickly realised that I was the foreigner now. Your people, your country…they are who you make your life with…they ARE your life, Mr. Lees. Race and blood be damned….NOBODY likes an invader.
As for Homo Erectus, this is only relevant if you believe in convergent evolution or if you believe some sort of Sahara Pump theory on steroids. Either Erectus bloodlines were reassimilated or they died out. This does not save your argument from the fact that all human genomes now point to common African ancestry. And, of course, if you go back far enough you keep coming back to Africa…the cradle of all the hominids. Struggle as you might, you cannot deny that somewhere back there: yo’ momma was also my momma. So welcome indeed, cousin, to the great debate!
Oh, and if anything was to squash Maori like cockroaches, it’d be an asteroid or volcano, not the Red Brigade.
See you on the hustings, Sir!
Isn’t it true that dislike of foreigners and indeed racism is an instinct built from non-immune tribes getting diseases from other tribes – hence the hostility?
For now, I am going to ignore most of Panoptikon’s output, except this……
. “That’s why your perjorative roll call of nationalities disappoints me. You sound like Enoch bloody Powell (a man I am embarrased to share my nationality with).”
You’re right to call me to account on the pejorative remarks. These, I will explain were the views(long since revised) of a youngster of post-war Britain, but held by many adults as well, and some continue to hold such simplistic views, out of misplaced pride….and wilfull ignorance.
Norway….. clickhere for a dose of reality. Interview with David Irving. Don’t worry. It’s in English, and you will get the REAL story about the British raid on the Heavy Water plant about 3/4 of the way through. Not quite the same as the Hollywood “Heroes of Telemark” eh?
Danes…..much the same as the Norwegians. Nowadays I don’t blame them. Terrain and proximity to Germany meant that resistance would have been utterly futile.
Both Sweden and Switzerland undoubtedly had uppermost in their minds, the preservation of the people, the first duty of any government.A positive attitude to civil defence in both countries, especially Switzerland, makes invasion and control very problematic.The Swedes played a clever game, I think.They were largely sympathetic to Germany and realised they could avoid occupation provided they supplied the German war machine with iron ore and ball-bearings, which they did. Remember too, that Goering’s wife was a Swedish aristocrat.
The cheese-eating surrender monkeys of France.
Very unfair. How I hate that phrase so often used by sneering Englishmen. Recently we have had a programme or two about the strange episode of Dunkirk.Oddly, nothing much about the French Army. Where was it?How many men? What armament did it have? I don’t know. My father’s view was that the French had had the guts knocked out of them in 1914-1918 and never recovered. The British had been similarly hit. Huge swathes of the officer class had been cut down and their numbers and quality were never completely replaced. This is where we have gone wrong in allowing our attention to be drawn to the holocaust. We’ve ignored our own.
Till the day I die, I will never forget the feeling of awe and dread that I experienced at the sight of graves from roadside to horizon on a journey through North France and Belgium.Bugles were played, flames to the unknown warrior burnt at Memorials in all small towns. The people of North France and Belgium….. we salute you for having preserved their memory.Everything is so neat and tidy. You can feel the respect.
With something of a tear in my eye, I move on to the Italians.
Well here we’ve got something a bit odd.On the one hand we’ve got the Mafia, Al Capone and Lucky Luciano, not exactly a bunch of Nancy boys, and yet we’ve got the surrender of almost the entire Italian army to the British in the Western desert without too much of a fight. My father was one of those that took them prisoner, so who better to ask for an opinion.Well it turned out that my father had put the same question to his immediate superior, an enigmatic character, a London solicitor, with a difference, in the form of a five year stint in the French Foreign Legion…a man born to soldiery.
“Nothing wrong with them, Doc(my dad). It’s their officers that have let them down. Give me a couple of hundred and I’d have ‘em licked into shape in no time”
I myself saw Italian troops in action hunting down terrorists in South Tyrol(N Italy), at the double, full kit, running up Alpine hillsides.Most impressive.
However, although I didn’t mention the Spaniards, undoubtedly the cleverest old fox of the lot was Franco about whom I learnt a lot from a Spanish restaurateur in London.It was he who brought up the subject of archaeological anomalies in the Americas and speculated on the location of Atlantis….. but that is another story.
So you can see from even this very short post that revisionism of history, including the holocaust, is absolutely vital. You can see how idiotic my twelve-year-old world view was, yet many refuse to revise and retain completely fallacious views of participants and non-participants in WW2.
How does that phrase of Balthazar Gracian’s go? “Lies come first and drag along the gullible. Truth limps in long after on the arm of time”.
It’s 65-70 years since WW2 started….and truth is beginning to limp in on the arm of time.
I’m not taking the Enoch Powell bait, as that is primarily a British matter, and of, at the most, marginal interest to New Zealanders. The British immigration problem is simply too tortuous for meaningful examination and debate here.
Surely the Archaeology of New Zealand and the Pacific, race relations and the distortions of cultural marxism of the Frankfurt School, interspersed with some practical hints from Edward Ashby on dunny drainage, are enough to be getting on with?
why and oh yes, and the United States traded with the enemy until the profit ran down, then blackmailed Britain into the cash-and carry scheme, crippling British wealth and leading ultimately to their collapse into the European communal melange and weakening their colonial ties forever. Good mates, the yanks. Then the French, Brits and yanks decide it’s just a fine idea to compensate a religious group for atrocities against them, by creating a nation out of other people’s homeland, destroying their way of life in the process. Hooray for everyone! Yeeesh.
Yes, I guess history does need a great deal of sober reflection, but for a lot of people history is a fairly alarming thing that keeps happening to them. They don’t have the time or inclination to write their memoirs. An awful lot of people with an awful lot of important stories are never heard from…History can barely withstand the gaps in its coverage, let alone stand defiant against political aims…even when it’s dug up long after all the politicians and writers of the day have fallen silent.
BUT before I continue, Hamstar needs an answer.
The thing you describe is xenophobia (fear of strangers) and, yes, it’s a fairly universal and adaptive behaviour…but in humans its efficacy runs out over the first few meetings. Strangers either become trading partners, neighbours, friends or enemies…in the last case the xenophobia might be replaced by hatred, but that change is based on an adaptive correction brought about by an even stronger survival imperative, after all enemies want you gone. What is important about racism is that it is based on a conscious witholding of social interaction which holds the xenophobia steady and that instinctive feeling then justifies your holding a degraded, irrational and contemptuous view of the other. If you just shook your head, took a deep breath and braved your fear you would meet them as equals and then form new opinions of them based on actual experience…which is rarely as bad as a fearful (xenophobic) imagination. It takes guts to say “people are just people” because then you might have to feel greater responsibility for the fate of others and that’s, sadly, too scary for many.
As for the Frankfurt School…a lot of it has nowadays lost a lot of relevance…when you look where they were getting ideas you can see the seeds of their obsolescence already sewn. Marx is now a bit passe, Kant is plain wrong, Hegel is an inedible confusion and Freud ran out of good tricks early on and decided to get into snake oil. Mark my words, in 20 years psychoanalysis will be as fringe as crystals. Weber? Some interesting ideas…but they all suffer from a problem far too common among thinkers. The insights they have, the approaches they invent, the areas of virgin territory they explore are often valuable contributions….but then they have to go and spoil it by letting some half-baked fantasy theory of theirs get the better of them and the next thing you know they’re interpreting their findings to suit and peddling their wheelbarrow gospels to anyone who’ll listen ….MOST unscientific. But, again, I fail to see why Frankfurt is singled out in your criticism…the problem stretches over the entire landscape of thought. If I wish to remain vigilant I am, surely, better placed to widen then scope of my vigil. We got worse problems that Marxists right now, or has nobody noticed?
O hell, the cat’s just peed over my external drive! GTG
Xenophobia is good healthy stuff.
One of the first things your mummy will tell you, if she’s up to the job of being mummy, when you reach the “getting out to play” stage, will be instructions not to accept gifts from strangers(colour, shape, size and religion of the stranger unspecified).Odd isn’t it that, that one of the first instructions and preconditions for the exercise of independence is Xenophobia, and its reinforcement, if not already there.
This instruction has never been countermanded.
One of my sisters, a left wing nutjob, forgot this in the heady glow of discovery of her sexual attractiveness, accompanied by the wearing of highly provocative clothing. None of my business, as she, and you, might think, except that I was expected to pick up the pieces ie do the big-brother bit, when it all went wrong. ie fielding off a variety of lovesick adolescents that had the nerve to turn up on the doorstep uninvited, or answering the ‘phone to an assortment of panting perverts.
Next thing was a totally crazy idea of hitchhiking(ie begging for lifts from strangers, round France, of all places) with a friend(equally attractive) for company and security(so she thought).
Well, they never did it again. I found out what happened for she had a diary with a lock on it that was begging to be picked, and I got her expensive rucksack….for nothing, would you believe.
Again, our misguided friend, Panoptikon, misses out on biological truth and the grubby reality of dishonesty and dishonourable conduct (sadly, all too common) in his pronouncements on Xenophobia.
Much the same thing can be observed with respect to race. Remember that all the great battles of the past and the great heroes of European history, involved race. Themistocles at the Battle of Salamis against the semitic Persians, and Leonidas at Thermopylae.
Charles Martel against the Moors(Arabs),Charlemagne against the Asiatics and the creation of strategically placed garrisons, the ostmark, eastern march, Oster reich, eastern kingdom…Austria.
Ivan the Terrible of Russia, if for once we ignore his quirky behaviour, cleared Southern and Eastern Russia of the hated “slitty eyes.”
The education of every white person is incomplete without the knowledge of those occasions when we had our backs to the wall. If you’re not a racist, you get enslaved, just as an individual lacking a healthy degree of Xenophobia can get raped, buggered, maimed for life or even killed.
“It takes guts to say “people are just people” as the sage (Panoptikon), or con-artist, puts it.
Yes, and being soft in the head helps as well. Away with your blethers…. false prophet….and wily priest, that would counsel the premature lowering of the barriers that PROTECT the people from misfortune (and Marxism).
Naturally, a balance has to be struck and I can best sum that up in the phrase”Trust in God, but keep your powder dry”. Perhaps to ensure that this advice is fully understood, I should explain that the powder refers to gunpowder and not rouge or facial powder.You need to keep it dry so that it explodes with full force. If wet or damp it discharges slowly, if at all, which is unhelpful….in most circumstances.
The saying has been attributed to Oliver Cromwell(wrongly) but it might as well have been him who said it, as a wee bit of mythology does little harm. If everyone else can have their myths, then why should we white honkies be excluded?
Regarding the link between racism and disease raised by Hamstar.
One of the first references I came across in the Pacific scenario, was in the Polynesians themselves, who had, contrary to popular perception, been visited by many Europeans prior to the arrival of Captain Cook. By that time their opinion of the white man was at least wearing thin, thanks to the establishment of STDs like syphillis. Similarly the perils of miscegenation (interracial breeding) are hinted at by Peter Marsh, vis-a-vis Rhesus factor or blood group D, which nowadays is avoided by routine testing of expectant mothers. Only now(since circa 1940) is miscegenation, thanks to modern technology, relatively risk-free.
Racism….. for all races…… is entirely rational.
ha. According to Mr Lees, geotechnical engineering doesn’t exist. Apparently it somehow translates to something about dunnys? Just like the rest of the planet is wrong in calling archaeology a science (’soft’ or otherwise), according to Mr Lees. Also, that apparently archaeological methods equate to carpentry methods; the out of Africa theory has no supporting evidence; and the Pacific was repeatedly visited by Europeans deep in prehistory. While we’re at it, all universities are there to indoctrinate people into Marxism; archaeologists, including archaeologists ALL AROUND THE WORLD are in on a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth of super celts cruising around the globe for no apparent reason; and the holocaust is the biggest hoax of our time….
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt.
I don’t even need to debate your nonsense Mr Lees. Good luck with the ad hominem character assassination. (Dunnys…chuckles to myself and mentally pats Mr Lees on the head)
Oh well, I’d hoped the ad hominem stuff might die down a little, but dat’s wot feeds some intellects, I suppose.
But here’s a logical conundrum: if a foreigner goes hitchhiking in Britain (or Scotland, but the point remains intact) and gets done over, that’s a black mark against the behaviour of the Brits. So, by the logic Mr Lees uses, other races could equally take the view that the British are the problem. In fact, the brutality of British foreign policy over the last 200 years is perhaps only equalled by the U.S. Mr Lees genes would almost certainly show Celtic and Viking strains, both invading forces that showed little mercy in their pursuit of other people’s stuff. But what about all the day-to-day agression within our racial groups? When Scot rapes English, or German murders Greek, what the figgity has race got to do with how we judge this behaviour? It’s HUMANS that are the criminals, not certain coloured humans.
The conclusion we must reach, then, is that fearing and loathing other races must be simply and only because they are different, not because they’re any worse than us. And here is the big problem…we fall to the Arab wisdom: Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me, my brother and our cousin against…..(the proverb has no end, significantly enough). So, in order to retain any sort of coherence, Mr Lees, you must either drop racism for the view that “people are people, some good, some worse” OR collapse into the paranoid view that “everyone’s out to get me”.. which actually sounds like where you’re at, but you’re trying to mitigate the horror of your own position by shifting it, quite irrationally, into a blind belief upheld by racial stereotyping.
But you are right in principle about the balance of protection (”those who desire peace had best prepare for war!”). My own view on this is that I don’t care what bloody race my assailants are, I will defend myself against all comers equally because their crime is being an unprovoked bully invader, not being French or Swahili.
You’re on the attack about everything and everyone….I sure hope you don’t live in a glass house!
As for your poor sister, I can only sympathise…she did what most of us must do in life, trust people until and unless that trust is damaged….without this basic social impulse society (including British society) would have descended into suicidal chaos before it even began. Her trust proved to be misplaced once or twice, but she’d be worse off without it, and short skirt or not….it’s still the ATTACKER who’s at fault!! And, of course, she suffered another kind of violation at the hands of her own brother (!) My sister went through very much the same drama, but far from reading her privates, I had serious ructions with my parents over THEIR decision to invade her privacy. She has never shown me any such loyalty, sadly, but that’s not the point. Even if the whole world is crap, I will defend my corner and keep it clean. There are plenty of others who choose to take this high road, in spite of everything.
Mr Lees, if you do your homework you will find that the BIOLOGICAL FACT is that humans are just as hard-wired for philanthropy, co-operation and self-sacrifice as they are for selfish survival…..you are paddling on one side of your canoe, sir, so it can be no wonder your arguments are going round in tight, inescapable circles!
As for my mummy, she’s way too old to be much use now, bless her.
And bless you, Mr Lees, for fighting what you BELIEVE is the good fight. God is surely on your side.
Panoptikon,
If I may observe, your writings, with time, seem to have progressed from smug confidence to panicky incoherence. So much so, that I am given to wonder that I am addressing the same person.
Your examples of Scot/English,German/Greek rape and murder are absurd, because as you point out yourself, there is no race involved, thus rendering the scenarios meaningless.
The rest I can hardly follow as there is no logical progression to the argument, just a lot of excitable, semi-coherent re-assertions of material already covered.
So onwards to something that I can make sense of.
“But you are right in principle about the balance of protection (”those who desire peace had best prepare for war!”). My own view on this is that I don’t care what bloody race my assailants are, I will defend myself against all comers equally because their crime is being an unprovoked bully invader, not being French or Swahili.”
You misquote me, with respect to peace/war, as a reference to my post will show. You are either sloppy or dishonest or both.
Then you say you will “defend yourself against all comers.”
All on your own?
Go ahead, if you feel you can get away with it. Not to seek help and allies is a sure sign of an idealistic dunderhead.
Hopelessly impractical and childish statement. That’s why we have nations.
“Even if the whole world is crap, I will defend my corner and keep it clean.”
And you’ll do it all on your own. Superman himself here. Write and tell us about that after you’ve had a triple bypass.
“Mr Lees, if you do your homework you will find that the BIOLOGICAL FACT is that humans are just as hard-wired for philanthropy, co-operation and self-sacrifice as they are for selfish survival.”
.
To that I reply OH NO THEY’RE NOT.
Selfish survival, little argument there, but perhaps modified by the observation that with the development of consciousness comes the realisation that one’s fortunes(ie survival) are intimately connected with one’s parents and extended family at least for the next few years.
Hard wired for philanthropy? Really? Why then the need for the word “Miser”
Co-operation has a counterpart in non-co-operation. Why would that be if we were hard-wired to co-operate?
Hard-wired for self-sacrifice. Really? No one told me. I’m certainly not hard-wired for self-sacrifice and please don’t ask me to do it as the answer is no. I might change my mind, not exactly hard-wiring eh? in extreme circumstances, but please don’t presume. Do not formulate any policy based on that erroneous premise.
That’s the problem with humans. they are NOT HARD WIRED anything, as any new parent will get to know, and for the next 18 yrs will embark on giving lessons ranging in scope from potty-training to appropriate sexual conduct. No doubt many an exasperated parent wishes that there was more hard-wiring. The whole essence of humanity is the long learning process due to the survival value of delayed puberty which allows an extended period of learning. Or is there an extended period of learning because there is delayed puberty? Whatever, that’s what we’re stuck with. Ask any parent how much of their offspring’s behaviour is hard-wired ie doesn’t have to be taught.
Well just in case you don’t ask them…. the answer is NONE….. or so little as to make no difference.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board and learn the facts of life. Too much theory and not enough practice.Expand your mind by casting off the constraints of Marxist thought which has stunted your knowledge of the real world.That’s the world the rest of us live in. You’re away off in a world of your own… a world you wish for, and wish others to wish for…..but doesn’t exist in practice….. and God willing,never will.
( For those interested in archaeology and the way it is being tampered with by cultural marxism, please refer to my previous posts and follow the links(in blue writing), because we are straying off the subject….and that may not be entirely accidental.)
(for those interested in ACTUAL archaeology, rather than what this paranoid and bigoted self-important non-archaeologist has to say based upon internet searches rather than extensive university education or field experience, please ignore all tiresomely amateur links provided by Mr Lees, retired English vet (and polymath, apparently), and look up both text books on archaeological method and theory to get an understanding of just why it is that professionals take issue with such pseudo and illogical claims (you can preview books for free on google scholar, which is much more reliable than the websites of carpenters and rural NZ hotel staff which Mr Lees directs you to), or search online the many international and national journals of archaeology, history, science and anthropology (Journal of Pacific Archaeology; Archaeology in NZ; Current Anthropology, Antiquity etc. most of which can be partially of fully accessed via google scholar). In addition there are a few resources, professional and otherwise, which I have posted up previously including the New Zealand Archaeological Association’s website.)
Dr Panopticon, though I can appreciate your effort, I wouldn’t waste anymore of my time on Mr Lees if I were you. Best to ignore the loonies.
I suppose while I’m at it, I’d better correct the lies of Edward Ashby, full time Marxist activist, part-time Archaeologist and soil, sorry geotechnical expert……. the man that advises where the dunnies go when daddy puts up a building. A most important,…. some would say vital, task in construction. He seems to think that I’m pulling his leg but not so. I take the matter very seriously and would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of all, the valuable and useful contribution he is making to New Zealand society.Certainly should he ever enter the hallowed portals of an Archaeological establishment as a full-time employee, New Zealand Society will be undoubtedly be impoverished by the loss of this hearty “son of the soil” from its workforce.
Some of the points he makes:-
“While we’re at it, all universities are there to indoctrinate people into Marxism;”
Nice little video for those that don’t know about the Frankfurt School and Marxism here
Panoptikon says it is all out of date and a bit past it, which I don’t believe for 2 seconds. If so, what’s the latest information and where can we get that?
“archaeologists, including archaeologists ALL AROUND THE WORLD are in on a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth of super celts cruising around the globe for no apparent reason;”
Yes ALL AROUND THE WORLD, just like the climate scientists bent and twisted the data on Global Warming…….ALL AROUND THE WORLD….and filled your children’s brains with utter tripe and nonsense. At first barely credible but everyone knows the truth now.
If it happened for climate……..why not for archaeology? Science is bent. Bent by politics.The man in the street can no longer rely on it as truthful and unbiased.
“Super celts.”
No, early caucasians of some type or other. See website Polynesian pathways by Peter Marsh. or you could just listen to the part-timer archaeologist, Edward Ashby. He reckons he’s got history all sewn up. Knows everything there is to know about the world during the last ice age
Not bad going for a dunny, sorry geotechnical, expert.Bloody miracle, if you ask me, especially for one so young.
“Cruising for no reason.”
No, searching for good land, rich seas, slaves, security and possibly precious metals and stones like obsidian and greenstone.
I’ll refrain from commenting on the holocaust as the host, Hamstar, expressly said “No holocaust”
hmm, yes, I suppose a retired vet would know a great deal more than a part-time trained archaeologist about archaeology now that I think of it.
The same vet seems to know a great deal about everything in fact, all from the comfort of his chair sitting in front of his computer. Judging by the obsession with my personal life (how dare I work to put myself through university! the sheer audacity of me!), some insistence that I work on dunnys (oh well, if Mr Lees sees it within his power to redefine what archaeology is, why not redefine what geotechnical engineering is?), and an apparent desire at character assassination combined with an overwhelmingly unhealthy paranoia that everyone’s a Marxist out to get him, I am of the opinion he suffers from some form of mental health issue, seemingly involving mass paranoia and delusions of grandeur. As for the attempt at patronizing and belittling me for my work experience, it merely show that this man looks down his nose at people who get their hands dirty doing fieldwork (in a geological engineering capacity, not dunnys, though the distinction between Onsite Waste design and geotechnical hazzards and soil analysis is apparently lost on our little polymath).
At any rate, it’s interesting that no actual points are made, and instead there is an inescapable tenancy for Mr Lees to continue circling the drain with his insipid ranting on about what a waste of space I am or how anyone who challenges him is a Marxist conspirator and how only he, apparently, holds the secret knowledge to a number of interrelated disciplines. Give us a break. It seems that this forum hamstar created will merely continue to be Mr Lees breeding ground for bigotry and intentional ignorance. I’ll go back to ignoring the loonies now. I suggest others do the same – attention is like oxygen for such hateful conspiracy nuts.
Aye Edward, you pegged it! You may, however, have missed my progression from smug confidence to panicky incoherence….I sure did…but it’s not a bad description of Mr Lees.
Ahhh, Sigmund may be a dead, white guy, but he was bound to get something right.
Good luck on the fossick, Mr Ashby…the truth needs you.
Over and out
Yes, Dr P, I must indeed have missed that. All I saw was someone with more patience than I trying to reason with someone to whom reason is alien.
It was nice chatting with you Dr P, and I wish you good luck in your endeavors.
Remember old Panoptikonballs and his simple “Out of Africa” thesis for the origin of Mankind?……. and my saying “Hold on Jimmy(a Glaswegian expression of affection or contempt, depending on context).” Not so fast. It’s not that clear cut, by any means”.
Well here’s the output of a Daily Mail journalist trying, and partially succeeding in bringing his readers up to speed with the latest in Anthropological theories on Man’s origins. How he twists, this way and that, to maintain the Marxist message. I salute him. But somehow he just doesn’t pull it off. Good try though.
Well it has to be a good try, otherwise he’ll lose his job. Won’t he?
“Until very recently, the consensus view, if there could be said to be such a thing, was that every human alive today is a direct descendent of a small group of Homo sapiens which emerged from Africa sometime between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. Earlier hominids, Homo neanderthalensis (the picture, left, shows a reconstruction of the face of a Neanderthal child, from Gibraltar), remnant populations of Homo erectus and so on, which had probably also emerged from Africa in the more distant past, were simply swept aside by the new arrivals and that there was little or no inter-species mixing. This ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis posits that not only is ‘humanity’ a very recent phenomenon, but that we are all, under the skin, much the same.
This is turning out to be not – quite – true, and what is fascinating is what this says about the way we think of ourselves and how this thinking may have to change.
The Neanderthal genes -forming about 2% of the total genome – cropped up in several present-day samples taken from people from France, China and New Guinea. They were not found in a sample of the two Africans compared so far.
It is unsurprising that if we are going to see Neanderthal genes anywhere it will be in Europeans. Europe was, after all, the Neanderthal heartland and the last of these people (yes, they were people) probably went extinct in their Iberian redoubt some 28-30,000 years ago.
But New Guinea? Eight thousand miles away? How on earth, and why, did the fair-skinned, ice-age-adapted (probably) non-seafaring Neanderthals get there? Well, they (probably) didn’t, says Prof Stringer. “Maybe a few thousand humans picked up some Neanderthal genes in the Middle East 50-100,000 years ago and set off east,” he says.
These ancient liaisons may not have been confined to the Neanderthals. Faint genetic signs of interbreeding between modern humans and other, extinct archaic species has been detected in the genomes of people from the West Pacific region.
This is especially interesting because of the discovery, a few years ago, of the famous ‘Hobbits’ of Flores Island in Indonesia. Tiny people (just a yard high) of a hitherto-unknown species, the Hobbits may well have been the descendents of an ancient lineage of Homo erectus or an even earlier hominid (the hobbit skeletons show ‘primitive’ traits associated with some very ancient creatures indeed, the true ‘apemen’ who lived millions rather than thousands of years ago) which somehow got itself from Africa to the Spice islands hundreds of thousands of years ago. The hobbits (pictured below) were alive as late as 16,000BC, and probably much more recently than that (it is unlikely, to say the least, that the skeletons found in the Liang Bua cave were the last Hobbits to have lived).
Hobbit So did Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis interbreed (they certainly coexisted on Flores)? Could there be some Hobbit heritage in the genomes of people living in Oceania to this day – or even some actual surviving hobbits? These are all questions yet to be answered.
So where does this leave us? Humans are not as ‘pure’ as we believed; Genetically we are a bit more diverse than, perhaps, some would have hoped. We carry in our genes not just the legacy of our direct ancestry but also that of some related, extinct species as well.
Europeans seem to have a bit of Neanderthal in them (as do New Guineans and Chinese), and Africans appear not to (but this does not mean that Africans could not have genetic input from another, extinct cousin species or indeed from several of the many extinct hominids who lived on that continent such as Homo heidelbergensis – pictured below-right).
Heidelberg
Humans, it is turning out, are just like cats and dogs, chickens and dolphins, seagulls and horses – indeed the whole panoply of fauna that has ever lived. We are a mish-mash of genetic heritages; a single species, yes, but a species which is fuzzy round the edges, whose genepool is not crystal clear but muddy and murky.
Our definition of ourselves is partly dictated by the expediencies of extinction: if the Neanderthals still lived, would we class them as ‘human’? If we knew chimps only from fossils would we put them somewhere on the ‘human’ family tree? To the first question my guess is that we would (but they would face terrible prejudice). To the second, most probably yes – fossil chimps would be classed as ‘Hominids’ (humanlike) but possibly not ‘Hominin’ (part of the direct human lineage).
And if a group of Hobbits were to walk out of the forest next year, what then? Hobbits may be closer to chimps than us in terms of DNA but they made tools and perhaps also fire. Do we define people by what they can do or what they are? This is all horribly complicated and horribly political. For issues like genetic origins, ethnicity, geography and race are, inevitably, not purely scientific questions.
They are cultural too. For instance, Chinese schoolchildren are often still taught that the Chinese ‘race’ is descended from a particular extinct hominid, ‘Peking Man’ which, in turn, came from a population of uniquely Chinese apes rather than African ones. Chinese orthodoxy accepts that humans evolved from apes, but not necessarily African apes. If true, this would make the Chinese effectively a different species, which of course they are not, but this extreme version of the ‘multiregional’ thesis regarding the origin of the races is popular in cultures which have a very, very strong sense of ancient identity.
Does having a bit of Neanderthal DNA make Europeans somehow ‘different’? Perhaps, but the evidence is that these genes may not amount to a hill of beans. Are Africans the most ‘pure’ and ‘modern’ of all humans? Again, possibly, but not if they have their own set of archaic genes; again we simply have not sifted through enough DNA to know.
It is worth pointing out that despite all this the genetic differences we see in the human family are small. What unites us is greater than the differences that divide. Genetics also tells us that we need to jettison our old fixed notions of ‘race’, as defined by crude traits such as skin colour.
Fair skin, for instance, which used to be seen as a key racial marker, appears to have evolved in humans at least twice, in Europeans and East Asians. Swedes are white for the same reason that Japanese are white (adaptation to low sunlight) but Swedes and Japanese are descended from separate groups of darker-skinned human ancestors. Similarly, the jet-black people of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean look very much like the blacks of Africa yet may be descended from people who had much fairer skin.
All fascinating stuff. We are all brothers and sisters under the skin but we are not twins. Humans are, above all, a mobile species (even before the advent of modern technology we had conquered just about every habitat on the planet save the Antarctic) and this shows in our varied, mixed DNA. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are making these fascinating discoveries now, rather than in the ugly era of scientific racism decades past.”
I know Hamstar doesn’t like the holocaust, but just for entertainment, I thought I would put in this link, which deals with an Australian archaeological expedition to the “Death Camp” of Treblinka, to the Northeast of Warsawa(Warschau, or Warsaw) in Poland.
The thing I like about the Aussies is a certain innocent, almost naive, directness. Not too much beating about the bush, as we would say here, back in old Blighty. And if you appreciate that, then watch…… this video ….and you won’t be disappointed….except that the result may not be at all what you expect.
go fuk yaself u little faggot, u are a deluded idiot with biased opinions who thinks people care about what u think this is maori land we are the native and rightful owners of this land and i wanna smash a taiaha and patu on your head
+ whats up with all the metal and symbols bullshit u fukn loser
LOL
LOL what an interesting post.
And to Tia…… stfu bitch metal rulez. And you say HAMSTAR has baised opinions. It’s mostly because of people like you we still fight over this shit. Go be a typical maori OFFLINE. We dont need you claiming space online.
And Jeep………….. you rock my boat (not in a gay way tho)
To H to T
Glad to hear it to both points LOL and yes metal rulz and hip hop pulls
To Andrew W
Good posts
To the Comedic Twins the Marxist Brothers or Dunny Digger and Dr Greek
After all this time you still fail to answer
A) Why would archeologists deem carbon dating data to be too sensitive for release into the public domain and place embargoes on the release of data for up to 75 years (EG Waipoua Forest).
B) Why has this course of action been taken at the request of archeologists on at least 80 sites countrywide (As attested by Chris Carter MP)
C) Has DNA and other testing been done on all human remains found with or without Caucasoid attributes to ascertain genetic lineage of maori or otherwise. Similarly has such testing been done on repatriated preserved heads, many with non Polynesian attributes. If not why not.
D) Why does the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences not allow any Radio carbon dating or Amino acid analysis of ancient human remains even if independently verified by the Auckland medical school as being non Polynesian origin unless confirmation was supplied that local iwi had been consulted and had given approval for testing for fear of damaging the reputation of the laboratory in the eyes of the archeological community.
E) Why do archeologists such as yourself ignore anomalous constructions or artifacts found that seem to have no technical or artistic execution, cultural, or other similarity to those of maori but to those of other cultures, such as stone hovel houses, Phoenician inscriptions, The Puniho stone or Korotangi Dove, petroglyphs on raglan rocks. etc etc
F) Why do archeologists such as yourself ignore or deny well documented archeological finds previously investigated by archeologists such as the Adz and tree stump found below the tepra ash layers near Albert park Auckland, or skeletal remains found all over the country. One type of which we now find are the same in hieght and apearance of others around the world such as in South america and the Laulan province in China.
G) I understand that archeology is based on the physical evidence found and the relationship to its surroundings in which it is found etc but do archeologists ever utilise ancient written and oral documented evidence form local or foreign sources dating from the relevant times that outline events, experiences or explorations etc of the past to help understand or explain what is found today. Such as Claudius Ptolemaeus Map of 151AD, Al-Rashid’s chronicles 764-809AD. surely records such as these is still evidence to help support or debunk a theory especialy if elements or reference to things are documented in several ways or places separately. If not why not.
H) Do you agree that through out history many countries historical records have been altered, falsified or had aspects played down etc to cater for political, social and other agendas at the time (Ie: Japans lack of education re the WW2 period. NZ recent down playing the part it played in the 1980s arming of the Solomon Islands with weapons that ended up in the hands of the rebel forces etc etc). If so why would NZ be immune now to also keeping aspects of our archeological record hidden (Even from Archeologists as happens in china) to suit the very tricky issues with race relations and growing Maori discord.
H) Why do archeologists such as your self and Maori commentators always resort to personally attack the people asking questions about those anomalies and rather than investigate in the pursuit of truth and knowledge to confirm or debunk, or alternately providing easily understandable evidence to support the status-quo, why do you just demand the enquirer just believe you because you are trained and assume tha enquirer is motivated by or are bigots, neo nazis, racists etc.
And lastly
I) At least you should agree that it is accepted that the first complete human migration out of the African/Mediterranean/European regions of humans was 60,000 years ago and took a route through the regions now called the middle east, India down through Indonesia, New Guinea and to Australia. The next complete migration was to Asia and then subsequent migrations into Europe and lastly the Americas around 10,000 years ago. Please explain why it would be soooo unbelievable that in 60.000 years of human global migration with habitation having reached Australia very early on that no one would have gotten to New Zealand until the Maori arrived in about 1300 AD or so.
Ah, Well done Jeep, on keeping up the relentless pressure on the Marxist Bros.
“nil illegitimi carborundum” An old British Army expression. Yes, I know it is not correct Latin but the message is a good one……
“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”
I threatened a polemic on slavery, and lo! It has come to pass.
Verily.I say unto ye:-
Slavery……Southern USA, circa 1800’s…… Cotton fields with Blacks in rags, half starved, beaten at the slightest provocation by malevolent white overseers.
That’s the image most people have.
But how accurate is it?
In the old days I tended to largely trust the Mass Media….. and with some examples from Greece and Rome…… I thought I had the subject pretty much wrapped up.
Oh, maybe there was something about Dr Livingstone breaking up the East African slave trade as well.
However, there were a couple of questions that went unanswered for years.
They went unanswered, not because I was lazy, but because I had too many other things going on in my life, and spending time in libraries, checking up on the output of Hollywood and the BBC was not one of them.
Secondly, I just wasn’t that interested. I didn’t identify with them (the Blacks) in any way. Besides I was British…. and superior.
Quarter of the planet Earth’s land was pink.
We had gas, electricity, roads, buses, cars, science, education etc in contrast to people with nothing but mudhuts, smokey woodfires, barely enough to eat, bows and arrows for weapons and engaged in perpetual tribal warfare etc etc…..and carted off as slaves.
However, wretched though their condition appeared to me, something didn’t quite add up. The puzzle was “If you want them as slaves, how do you catch the blighters?
At first I thought that they were utterly bemused, or paralysed, by fear and respect of the Whiteman’s magic and technology.
There you are living a Stone-Age life, when all of a sudden, those white people appear in a strange craft(sailing ships) with machines that go bang and create devastation hundreds of yards away.
But they would get used to this. And there was an easy answer, to avoiding capture…….run like hell.
The newly invented television showed that they(the Blacks) could run very well indeed. I couldn’t imagine a bunch of British sailors having much success in catching such fleet-footed quarry in the African jungle.
Over a decade or so, when the pink bits on the map disappeared and the Union Jack came down to be replaced by some rainbow flag or other, the commentary in the media became evermore strident and critical of the Empire, Britons, and white people in general
.I used to come away fuming.It was all criticism and not a word of praise.
The roads, the bridges, the buildings, the benefit of an international language. All ignored. That just happened by itself…apparently.
However a few years later, things moved up a notch with the demand by African Americans for “reparations”.
Oddly enough, I had just visited a restored water-powered cotton mill in Lanarkshire, a county just to the east of Glasgow, and got some inkling of the conditions in those early factories. The upshot, was the realisation that I would rather have been out in the fields picking cotton(with a few lashes of the whip) in the Carolinas, rather than work in that factory. Sympathy for black slaves reduced, and was replaced by a cool objectivity that demanded a level of proof in the form of written documents and diaries, especially from those who had no agenda, EITHER WAY.
A common British expression of the time was “from here to Timbuctoo”, meaning somewhere very far away and remote.
But where was Timbuctoo, and what did it look like?
A travel programme on the BBC gave the answers……and mentioned, casually, its importance in the slave trade.
A few enqiries later, revealed that it was a market, where Arabs purchased slaves and transported them East.
More questions.
Who supplied the market ? What happened to the slaves? How long had this been going on for?
The answers…….
The Blacks themselves.Only about 2 or 3 Blacks, out of 10, would survive the journey……. and castration, which had to be conducted outside the borders of Islamic Territory.
Relatively few black females were taken as slaves to the Middle East. White females were much preferred. Indeed the word slave comes from slav.
How long for? Since time immemorial.
Go to the USA and S America and you will see plenty of Blacks.
Go to the Middle East and you’ll hardly see any.
Why?
Simple. Whites allowed Blacks to have a family life. Arabs didn’t, which solves the mystery of the lack of Blacks in the Middle East, despite having imported Black slaves for millenia. Compare with the Whites who imported Black slaves, for at the most, 2-3 centuries, at a serious level.
Returning to N America, have you ever asked yourself this question?…….”Following the Civil War, and the freeing of the slaves, why did so few return to Africa and so many continue to dwell in the land of the white oppressor?”
Feeling mischievous, I asked a coloured dentist of my acquaintance, if he had ever considered a return to Africa.
The expression on his face! We had a good laugh……. his perhaps a little nervous. Mine somewhat embarassed, at the absurdity of the proposition.
What about Whites? Did they get enslaved?
Yes they did, up until the American Civil War.
If caught by the Barbary (Muslim) Pirates,unless very rich, then they were in for a miserable time. The Muslim Pirates were active from the time they were kicked out of Spain until about 1800 or so.
Of greater interest, to me as a Scot, and perhaps to New Zealanders, is the untold story of enslavement of White by White. It wasn’t called slavery.You weren’t referred to as a slave, but as an “indentured servant”, where you were legally bound to serve your master for seven years(roughly).
Following the depredations of the Black Death, Britain started filling up, much to the annoyance of the upper classes.
Somebody came up with the idea of rounding up vagabonds, emptying the prisons and shunting the great unwashed masses out to the newly-, “acquired”/discovered Americas. Draconian charges, such as the death penalty for stealing a couple of pheasants, were graciously commuted to transportation to the colonies, initially the East coast of N America.
Such was the need for labour in those new communities, that money could be made by rounding up, kidnapping, people, especially the young, and selling them to the colonies.This was the age of the press gangs. Parents in Scotland were terrified to take their children to a port in case their children were spirited away, sold off, and transported to the colonies.Also, people fell on hard times, and got some money and a roof over their heads by indenturing themselves.
One of the many reasons for the American War of Independence, was that N American colonists got fed up with boatloads of criminals, the poor and destitute, arriving from Britain. Success meant that Americans could tell the British to dump their miscreants somewhere else, which they did……..in Australia, which starts to develop almost immediately after the War of Independence is over.
And shortly after comes New Zealand, but not by the criminalised……as far as I know…..you tell me.
So now we have a slightly different slant on the development of the British Empire and its colonies. Not the result of the efforts of rapacious white supremacist adventurers and entrepreneurs, but rather as a more prosaic dumping ground for the poor and destitute of an overcrowded island. We like to think that wars, migrations, empire expansion etc are a consequence of politics, religion, etc…… as though we are in control, but often biological reality is the underlying driving force.
Did anyone ever say? “We’ve got too many people. Any more and we’ll starve.”
No, it’s as though people don’t want to know the grubby truth, so the “war” has to be for the glorification of Christ/ Allah, or to bring truth and beauty to places of darkness and ignorance.
Both the USA and Australia were built on the backs of British “criminal” slave(indentured servant) labour.
Summing up, we can say that Arabs and Semites have seldom been enslaved, but have enslaved many Blacks and some Whites.
Blacks are very often enslaved by Arabs, less so by Whites, but enslaved other Blacks.
Whites have been enslaved by Arabs and other Semites, have enslaved Blacks from time to time, but mostly enslaved their own.
Whites didn’t make very good slaves. They were often cantankerous, tried to escape and didn’t work hard.
Blacks worked harder and were stronger, especially in the tropics, were relatively easy to manage, but were expensive to buy and more costly to maintain, than Whites.
Arabs were seldom enslaved, so, little is known about their attributes as slaves. Similarly with Jews, who usually secured a quick release on payment of ransom.
For one of the most quirky (IMHO) facts in the saga of slavery, let’s return to the United States.
Many white slaves /”servants”, had escaped from southern plantations and took to the hills of Kentucky, Tennessee and W. Virginia.
They didn’t come out for either side in the Civil War. They hated the white bosses, so wouldn’t fight for the South, and resentful of the better treatment of the Blacks, certainly were not going to risk life and limb for them on behalf of the North.
No Hollywood film has ever touched on this particular phenomenon, except to make mock of those renegades as “backward”,anti-establishment, moonshine-brewing Hill Billies…..Poor, but free of big business and big Government, and committed to keeping both at arm’s length.
Maybe they know more about freedom than the smartest most sophisticated liberal city-slicker?
The above is but a taster of the subject, a starting point in a journey, courtesy of the internet where little is censored or filtered, which will take you down many interesting highways and byways.Whatever prejudices you start with, I guarantee you they will change as you venture forth.
Here are just a few links to information, that will lead to some understanding on who you are and what you stand for as a white person. Here’s some of the missing information that you need before coming to a decision.
For a good intro for the N America scene click here
For a wider appreciation, click here
I can provide more links on request, but in order to free myself of accusations of promoting an agenda, I maintain, that from this point on, you should do the rest yourself. Weigh the facts, argue the pros and cons and cross-check references. Then come back to the table with your own view and lay that before critics and see what they say. That is the European, non-Marxist, way of dealing with those matters…….and matters such as the Archaeology and pre-History of New Zealand and the Pacific.
Yours sincerely, Jeep, Hamstar
Andrew W Lees BVMS MRCVS
“Relatively few black females were taken as slaves to the Middle East.”
Correction needed to this statement that occurs at the end of the paragraph referring to Timbuctoo.
More females than males were taken for the Muslim slave markets. They were used as domestic servants,concubines and could be hired out as prostitutes. Any resultant offspring simply were put to death…….hence the lack of Blacks in the Middle East.
I have read much of what you say in books but i can see the reply now from those two who continually promise to never venture onto this board again (And continually break their promise), the expectant drivel on how dare you imply that the white man could possibly have gone through any oppression, inequality or experience as bad as we perpetrated on those of African decent (How about the oppression and genocide in perpetrated by those whities in Mother Russia comrade Dunnyov)
Anyway we digress. Some of my Scots ancestors were transported as slaves for involvement in the Covenanting cause, sold to English ships captains and on-sold to plantation owners in Jamaica. Others were Proscribed from using their own name in the 1500s for settling a few scores (Ie getting the justice the state could not provide) and others hunted down after the various Jacobite rebellions when they supported the legitimate heirs when an usurper was placed on the throne, and others were forcibly removed from their ancestral homes of hundreds of years to make way for sheep. Some were paid to Piss off to America, Australia, NZ, anywhere just as long as they got the fuck out of Scotland where the powers that be did not want them. Out of sight out of mind.
Sound familiar comrades, yes thats right Scots, Maori, African, American Indian, Russian peasant, we are all the same in the eyes of those in power be they dictators, kings, queens, aristocracy, capitalists or Communists.
But just because i have not personally dug up something that indicates what happened to my ancestors does not mean it never happened. The history as handed down and recorded in multiples of ways both written and oral is just as valid and legitimate as proof that these things happened, just as Maori oral tradition IS also valid evidence of who was originally in NZ.
Those with a brain can see its bloody strange that all this rewriting history, ignoring others parts of it and denial bullshit only started when the possibility of Cash and land as reparations for those deemed “INDIGENOUS”got mooted.
More findings for the Marxist Brothers to claim is just false or lies
“Evidence of NZ Occupation 4,000 Years Ago
Chinese Connection Revealed Through South Island Cave Carvings
Beside the sparkling diamond spangled waters and pink-gold sands of Onetahuti, lies a cave of secrets. The cave shelters near Hanging Rock at Opihi in Golden Bay, in Abel Tasman National Park. Hidden inside are a number of symbols carved deeply into the granite walls. The cave is known to a few and little understood by most. But a paper by New Zealand geographer and ecologist, Professor Haikai Tane, links the incised images found in the cave with a culture that spread out from China into the Pacific and could have come to New Zealand some 4000 years ago. Experts in China have confirmed that the Opihi pictographs are Dao symbols for mapping and modelling watershed features based on the ancient water dragon and sunbird phoenix concepts.
Sunbird phoenix and water dragon symbolism are the key themes of Dao long-feng iconography and are central to Dao cultural intelligence. The living water systems of Dao cultures are represented graphically by cloud and river dragons interacting with the sunbird phoenix representing the sun and earth. These representations are the basis of symbolic mapping and modelling systems used by traditional Dao people. They show how dragon water cycles and phoenix solar energies are connected. This allowed them to model their interactions to create fertile, productive farming landscapes called terraquacultures: farming living water flowing through the landscape.
The past few decades have seen a ready acceptance by academics that the Opihi art is most likely to be of an archaic Maori origin, generated only within the past six to seven hundred years. But many of these sites are not recognised by iwi of today as having a link to their people, or to the people whom their forebears conquered. Indeed, there are large gaps in the knowledge and understanding of rock art in this land. Professor Tane’s research threw a whole new light on the subject.
Professor Tane had studied traditional Dao iconography, the transfer of knowledge by symbols, for many years, and observed that the Ruataniwha pictographs at the Opihi caves were images with possible links to Dao iconography in China. He called the pictographs at sites in the central South Island Ruataniwha iconography and long feng symbology. In his paper, he explains the use of Dao symbols for mapping and modelling watersheds based on the water dragon and sunbird phoenix concepts and explains their meanings and connections with the pictographs found in the caves in the South Island of New Zealand.
He says they were classified by European archaeologists as cave art by unknown Maori people, but goes on to say: “There was little reason to doubt this assumption until the Hemudu culture was rediscovered in the Hangzhou Bay region south of Shanghai, China in the 1970s. Here, and at related cultures nearby, were found some of the earliest sunbird symbolism in China. What has been named ‘Maori’ art in New Zealand was found at these sites, painted on rock. The river maps and other pictographs in New Zealand are etchings in a style that is not Maori – they have a much earlier heritage with a cultural iconography unknown to the Maori.”
In the same decade, the Department of Land and Survey investigated the origins of South Island pictographs for the Historic Places Trust. They recorded that Maori elders had no knowledge of who did the pictographs, or their meanings. They belonged to some earlier people, as did two ‘dragon mounds’ built on river floodplains in the Waitaki Basin. According to a Ministry of Works spokesman, the dragon mounds were destroyed when local Maori elders approached by Hydro Construction engineers expressed no interest in their preservation.
In 2004 Prof. Tane took copies of the Ruataniwha rock shelter images to China and gave them to Chinese Academy of Sciences colleagues. He asked them to check to see if they had any connection with Dao culture in China. CAS scientists and Provincial officials took the Ruataniwha images to leading scholars of Dao cultural iconography in Jiangxi and Shaanxi Provinces. At the southern centre of Dao culture in Jiangxi Province, there was immediate recognition and unequivocal response. The Dao scholars identified the imagery as belonging to Dao cultural iconography common in China 4500 years ago. They said the image was a Dao map of a watershed aligning a tiger mountain to a dragon river connected to a turtle lake. (At Opihi, these images linked with Aoraki Mt Cook, the Ohau and Pukaki Rivers and Lake Pukaki.)
The Ruataniwha image was then taken to the northern centre of Dao culture at Louguantai in Shaanxi Province. Again the recognition that the image was from Dao iconography was immediate. The watershed map explanation provided was the same as in the south. Both times, the Dao scholars were unaware of the origins of the imagery until after they had provided their response.
Prof Tane then visited the Hemudu site in Zhejiang Province to check whether the archaeological investigations undertaken and the museum artefacts revealed further connections. There was little doubt that the Chinese archaeologists had correctly interpreted the site as a prototype Polynesian culture circa 7000 years BP. Further, the jade carvings, pottery styles, string games and buildings on piles of the Hemudu people, unknown in other parts of China, were similar to ancient Polynesian people, such as the Lapita culture.
Is there a link between the Hemudu people and the Waitaki Basin? Archaeologists record that the Hemudu were originally boat nomads and sea raft farmers occupying the east China Seas around 10,000 years ago. By 7000 years ago they were estuarine dwellers in Hangzhou Bay where they excelled in flood plain farming, and fibre, stone and wood crafts. They are renowned as the first jade carvers of China.
“Modern research indicates that these ancient people formed a proto-Polynesian culture around 7000 years ago, and a thousand years later moved eastward into the Pacific and across to the Americas,” says Prof. Tane. “It is likely the Ruataniwha pictographs were etched during one of these stopovers or early settlements to provide watershed maps of the two inland basins in Dao cultural iconography. It is possible that these or closely related people came to New Zealand around 4000 years ago.”
There are many sites within the islands of New Zealand that contain rock drawings, incised and bas relief images ranging from animalistic and totemic figures, to water craft and readily identifiable images. Rock shelters and overhangs provide a protected environment for much of the charcoal and Kokowai images found in Canterbury and Otago. Over the years, I have visited a number of sites in the North and South Islands observing bas relief carvings and red ochre drawing that display images from single hulled vessels with central steering oar features, to hulls showing carved spirals and other symbols. In and around the obvious profiles of water vessels, are found many strange symbols and forms. These can be readily seen at the North Island sites of Lake Tarawera, the rock shelter in the Kaingaroa Forest and the shelter at Weka Pass in North Canterbury. For more than 160 years, European amateurs and experts have imposed much on these images, with many speculative views.
These exciting discoveries may well change the early contact history of New Zealand, and will certainly give a clearer interpretation as to the meaning of these unique symbols.
I find the promise behind these findings very timely, as I believe the very early comers to this land have left behind a legacy of place names and interpretations that still stand within the landscape that we know so well today. All of these people have left footprints throughout the land, and were greatly influenced by the powerful energies that were to be found in our mountains and our waters. In ancient times every mountain, and indeed every stone, had a meaning and a place within the sacred landscape.
Modern man has forgotten these important links within the natural order, and has attempted to override nature with fire and machinery. Much evidence has been destroyed, but a great deal still remains in many parts of the country in the form of pit dwelling sites, ditches and canals and the terra forming of landscapes for terrace gardening, cropping and food storage.
The research of Prof. Tane and the findings of the Dao scholars in China have certainly opened a Pandora’s Box of possibilities. These findings may not be well received in this country, and indeed may be completely denied. But for all that, there will be “mainstream” thinkers who will take a close look at the evidence. Perhaps the persuasive nature of the research behind these pronouncements will enliven scholars from around the world to focus resources at their disposal to fund serious research into the subject.”
Some url are not working anymore.
i totally agree with you and i’m a dirty little half cast myself, but quite simply i can’t stand maoris…much. they want fucking sovereignty and all that shit only because they don’t want the white man to have any power over them etc. they claim the whiteys rape the land etc yet if the euro’s never arrived – maori wouldn’t have cars to drive and steal, electronics to use and steal, jandals to wear and steal etc you get my drift lol. i fucking hate how NZ is starting to bend over backwards for all these other immigrant cunts as well like people from shitty nations who try to come here to NZ for a better life and away from all the shit of their home nation – YET they bring it with them! we’re letting asians buy up our land next thing ya know NZ’ers will own nothing. we’re just renting our country.
Your last statement Caris is probably how many Maori felt when the later migration of europeans was well underway in the 1800s so you should be able to sympathise with them in that regard. You are right there are some ethnic groups that are comming here that are just not suited to intergration with a western culture (Ie: Islamic people) but there again the european ways would have been seen by early maori in a similar light, so yet another area where we should be able to sympathise. I am maried to an asian and do not mind how many come here as long as they dont try to tell ME to live by thier ways or bring thier Criminal or other baggage with them.
New light shed on human ancestors
NZPA
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educati … -ancestors
A new study of 50,000-year-old campsites in Papua New Guinea could change the history of “modern” humans, an Otago University anthropologist says.
The study found people who lived in PNG’s Ivane Valley about 49,000 years ago were highly adaptable and at the forefront of global colonisation.
Lead anthropologist Glenn Summerhayes said his team from New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea found groups of people in the remote highland region regularly moved through rugged terrain to exploit plant food resources.
The team uncovered campsites buried by volcanic ash where people made stone tools, hunted small animals and gathered high energy nuts during the last ice age – the Pleistocene – 15,000 years before so-called modern humans colonised Europe.
Professor Summerhayes said the findings suggested a deliberate modifying of the landscape, most likely to clear forest and promote plant growth.
“Our findings paint a picture of a highly mobile society that quickly adapted to and survived in a radically different environment to the coastal regions they had recently arrived from,” he said.
There was also evidence that yams were brought to the valley from lower altitudes where they grew.
“All this is unprecedented evidence of careful, intentional colonisation over thousands of years, rather than people just wandering around foraging and moving on,” Prof Summerhayes said.
“These are unique footprints of humanity that challenge some current notions regarding at what stage humans can be truly said to have become ‘modern’ in their thinking and behaviour.”
Prof Summerhayes said the idea that Pleistocene peoples were practising agro-forestry in the region were first proposed 20 years ago by ex-Otago archaeologist Les Groube.
“Our new evidence from the Ivane Valley, including the presence of tools fit for this purpose, gels perfectly with his model,” he said.
Notice that this article also backs up my statement earlier in the thread that the islands, Australia and NZ were all colonized at the end of the FIRST major human migration with Europe and the Americas being settled by humans in LATER migrations thousands of years after. And they still want us to believe no one got to NZ until Maori in the 13oo – 15oos or so. It would make a great Tuis advertisement.
EVERY ONE ON HERE DISING MAORIS ARE ALL FUCKEN RACISITS. MAORIS WERE HERE BEFORE YOU FUCKEN PEOPLE, WE ARE THE TANGATA WHENUA OF THE LAND, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WERE PEOPLE BEFORE US YOU WERE NOT EVEN ALIVE OR FUCKING HERE AT THE TIME NEITHER WAS I BUT MY ANCESTORS PASSED DOWN STORIES FOR GENERATIONS SO GO FUCK OFF OUT OF OUR BEAUTIFUL LAND AND GO BACK TO FUCKING EUROPE WE DIDNT WANT YOU HERE ANYWAY YOU JUST RIPPED US OFF LIKE YOU DID THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES – AMERICAN INDIANS – AFRICANS ETC WHY DO WHITE PEAOPLE HAVE TO FUCK WITH NATIVE PEOPLE JUST FUCKING LEAVE US ALONE AND GET ON WITH YOUR SAD LIVES
Hey georgie
Would you like the evil whitie to take your Dole, your X Box your Big Car, supermarkets and conveniences and all the other cool things that resulted by them coming here as well when they leave. It was such a paradise here before the Honky came here eh. Living in grass huts, washing in the river, just watch out for the next tribe that wanted to kill you or make you a slave and eat you. Not knocking you for your historical culinary delights though as my ancestors partook of human flesh too back in wee Scotland before it was called Scotland when the Romans were Ripping off my ancestors. You see such culinary practices are not the preserve of the exotic native of colour.
Those same ancestors you speak of also passed down stories of who was here when they arrived. You see the Maoris who were alive in the 1800s told the stories handed down to them to the newly arrived whitey who in turn wrote them down and once whitey developed a written form of Maori for Maori, then maori could write it down too (Or do you want the written word removed from NZ along with whitey and you can go back to either singing or carving the shopping list).
Funny how when a claims industry starts for so called maori (Most of whom have more Honky blood than Maori blood anyway), the stories of who maori found here are forgotten, or more like ignored and denied. Go ask the oldest Elder of your tribe for the REAL OLD stories. ASK them who taught you the art of Moko, or Net fishing. ASk them who the Terehu were, Ask them why early maori refered to the Terehu by the term Tangata Whenua.
You call the whitey Racist when its Maori who have thier own exclusive parliamentary party, who only sit in the house when issues involving Maori are discussed (Not very inclusive of ALL races who are party to the Treaty we are all supposed to be equal partners to). I dont see the Pakeha Party or the Chinese Party. And just to show that whitey is not racist specifically against the darker ethnic brothers learn some history and see what the Whitey English did to the Whitey Scottish, whitey Irish, what nearly every whitey nation in Europe did to every other whitey nation or creed in Europe. But in the fasion of present day Maori dissemination of history we wont mention the genocide perpetrated on the Waitaha, Moriori or many Maori tribes in Aotearoa by one Maori tribe or other will we.
Lastly Realise that true history is never racist its just history, warts and all. You saying that whitey fucked off natives is not being racist against whitey just as me saying maori found people here when the fleet arrived is not being racist against maori, its just stating thw facts as you believe them to be based on the information you have. You dont have to like the facts but not agreeing or liking whats said does not make it racist. But think on it, by denying the existence of these earlier people you may well be denying part of your own ancestry.
All that stuff about who was here first is bollocks. If I’m sitting next to a Maori in the bar, the only difference is our ages. Neither of us existed before our parents got together for a bit of hanky panky. So if he’s older than me then he was here first, otherwise I was here first.
Shoud he get special treatment because some of his ancestors might have been disadvantaged by the European arrival? Should I get special treatment because my ancestors were disadvanted by Scandiavian raiding parties? No, and No. A man is born to make of his life what he will. If he does that by swindling another man into giving him special treatment, then good luck to him.
Well how are things in NZ? A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of the Christian faith.To unbelievers, I wish you no ill, but neither do I wish you good fortune.
And that is part of my Christmas message. That Christianity is too soft. It has to be toughened up for the global 21st century in order to fulfil one of its prime tasks… to bind the people and protect them against malevolent outsiders.
Having investigated the origins and development of the white European races from the earliest times, a pattern seems to be emerging that cannot be easily refuted. The Whites are the pioneers, that form civilisations out of the wilderness. They do this for two reasons. One is that they are innovative, the second, to avoid conflict.They would rather deal with harsh terrain rather than be embroiled in unending hostility. The thing they prize above all else is their women, who on, average are the most beautiful and desirable of all on this Earth. An opinion held by their many racial adversaries, the female members of which, rather pathetically, go to great lengths to approach this ideal of white beauty.The reason for the evolution of beautiful women probably goes back to the ice age when male mortality was very high and the remaining fortunate men had the pick of women and naturally they chose the most appealling.A selection pressure was underway which had consequences with which we live today.Now in fact it is the women’s turn to select from a surfeit of males, however the result, biologically doesn’t seem to be that different from the ice age… a fairly small band of males engaged in serial monogamy with a core group of attractive females.The only difference is that surplus males are merely excluded and not dead or injured, and even unappealing women can land themselves a mate of sorts, where before a life of spinsterhood lay ahead.
So while the white European is a good pioneer, he lacks aggression and is only mildly xenophobic (in contrast to marxist propaganda) . The two latter qualities have to be brought out by way of cultural practice and usually only come to the fore when imminent danger threatens.
What seems to happen, is that he ventures on to virgin territory, and develops it, bringing to all, a good living-standard. This attracts lesser races who, even though engaged in the most menial of tasks, are glad to be accepted into the society of the white man, who in turn is flattered by the craven submission of the erstwhile savage and aggressive barbarian.But he, and he repeats this error time and time again, underestimates the patience and jealousy/hatred and lack of gratitude of the barbarian. Cutting a long story short the numbers of barbarians increase(the white man is a poor breeder), reaching a critical point. An insurrection takes place, the whites are pretty well overwhelmed, though perhaps some escape, able to once again start up a village /town/city in some virgin territory in what was then a relatively empty world.
Racially , I draw some conclusions about the true genetic nature of the white European. He’s a bit of a coward and will turn and run rather than fight if there’s a choice. He’s greedy, and easily flattered.He’s highly altruistic, not just to his own kind but to strangers of all races. Like a Labrador puppy who dispenses his love and affection left right and centre with gay abandon. Not like the Scottish Terrier who shows little affection to others except the master.A legacy of his days at the ice edge… and which surfaces even today. In Glasgow, or probably Otago, if you said hello or discussed the weather with every stranger, you’d be regarded as “mental”. But go out into the Highlands and not to offer, or respond to, a friendly greeting is seen as inordinately churlish. However it goes deeper than that. There’s just that little bit of danger from the terrain and the weather, and what is really being said is that I know about you and will look out for you and hopefully you’ll do the same for me. It’s the altruism of the ice-age reasserting itself. And very easily does it come back. In other words it is genetic and innate, built in to us. And less so in other races.And there we make a mistake in transferring or projecting our altruistic behaviour to other races, who simply do not perceive or feel in the same way as we do…on average. This explains the differing political, social and religious history of the races. The failure to impose European ways in Africa is a good example. Our ways simply do not work there because they assume an over high degree of altruism which is simply not there.That which we think important is less so to them.
Unless a check is put on that innate altruism…a virtue in times past, then in times to come, that altruism could take the white race down the same road as the Dodo.It was a wee bit too trusting for its own good, as I recall. Any white parent reading this, I ask you to stop and consider”are you doing your offspring a favour in encouraging them along the marxist route(we’re all the the same), or should some cautionary notes be sounded?”
Do you know of any examples where whites paid dearly for lack of vigilance and lack of military expertise? The invasions of Europe by the Huns, the Mongols and the Muslims might be useful to look at.Couldn’t happen today, could it? Well have a read of the behaviour of Russians when they invaded Germany only some 70yrs ago.Have a look at the venereal disease rate in black Americans and imagine your wife and daughters were Germans.One of the big myths of WW2 was that the French were out in crowds deliriously welcoming the Allied soldiers. That’s what you and I are led to believe from the few propaganda films that were made at the time. In fact, the Allied forces were mostly met with indifference and suspicion.
Strange, at first sight. But there had to be a reason.
The reason was that pilfering and looting was widespread amongst Allied troops, but almost unheard of amongst the Germans, not surprisingly, because they got shot for stealing….and the Americans had black troops.Need I say more?
Now undoubtedly a lot of what I have written here and in the past will attract the wrath of a certain group and it won’t be long( it has happened already) that the label of racist, white supremacist will be pinned on me,….. and anyone who offers support. However, I think you can see from my writings that they are not one huge, big vainglorious eulogy to the great white race. Far from it. They are an attempt at injecting realism into the minds of the white race, that is you and me.You’ve got to believe me when I say that other races do not go around with their heads bowed to the white race. Far from it. They are not inferior. In fact in many aspects they are superior. Every race has advantages and disadvantages. The trick to staying on top is to maximise advantage and minimise disadvantage. Whites, I say, are not innately superior. They have to work at it. The difference, with the Mongoloid race is minimal.The %age of whites of the world population is dropping, while that of China increases and China is starting to spread out over the globe in search of raw materials and food.Every young white person will have to face those facts and make some kind of decision. Do nothing, and go the way of the Dodo….or what? There are a lot of options, but all of them involve co-operation. Time to put those selfish genes away for a while.Identity is the key. Who am I? What do I believe in?What would I die for? Where is my line in the sand? How much am I prepared to compromise/yield, and when do I say “This far, and no further?
Nobody wants to address and answer those questions…especially the spoilt post war baby boomers… but I suspect their children and grand-children will have to do so at some point in their lives. And that is why I write this, for few of that generation, the spoilt, hippy-minded post war generation, have a realistic assessment of where they sit in the history of the world, and like the Dodo, are unable to impart useful advice for survival. Note:- I said survival, not domination.
Lots of interest has been developing on the archaeological front. The Solutrean hypothesis seems to be hot stuff(I mentioned Dr Dennis Stanford some time back).Predictably, to those conversant with PC and cultural marxism, he seems to be back-tracking a little, and holding back on saying which race actually crossed the Atlantic ice-bridge. Note too, that once whites are established in central/S America, then a relatively easy journey brings them into the Central Pacific. A position from which it is only a matter of time before New Zealand is discovered, via Raoul, McAuley islands/stacks, and observation of the migratory habits of the Black-Tailed Godwit.
Also a new school of thought( the post-modernists…. very fancy name) seems to be emerging, which will be of interest to our dunny-digging, part-time,unqualified archaeologist… the ever-so-worshipful, Edward Ashby. Basically, they are saying that there is too much emphasis on science and “evidence”, and spiritual and cultural interpretations of data should be given more weight!
A pointer to the somewhat nebulous state of some sciences which, much to the surprise of the general public, are almost as subject to fashion as female apparel.
So, it might be better to stick with digging dunnies than venture into the highly politicised world of archaeology where one wrong word could mean the kiss of unemployment. By contrast, dunny-digging can be regarded as a wholesome, masculine activity, free of the taint of political intrigue,.and of greater value to the New Zealand public, to which, from his earlier writings, Mr E. Ashby(Cert B Geotech-Sanitas) is overwhelmingly devoted.
Another matter which I should bring to your attention, although not directly concerned with the archaeology of New Zealand(except that the subject can not be discussed, ‘ere long reareth the head of “the Nazis” or “ze holocaust”)… is the recrudescence of support for the WaffenSS….from Scotland to Siberia. Little doubt about it, the beginnings of a pan-white, world-wide nationalist movement is underway. What I find extraordinary is that 70 odd years of unremitting propaganda has had so little effect(or has been counter-productive) on the psyche of young European males. It is perhaps noteworthy that the most enthusiastic supporters come from Poland, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia and Russia,(all formerly under Jewish Bolshevik control) with the Nordic countries not far behind and Britain bringing up the rear.However there is a change underway here. Britons sense injustice in the continued, insanely prolonged denigration of Germany and yawn-producing reference to the holocaust and a transfer of sympathies is underway. The imprisonment of so called “Holocaust Deniers” has been a public-relations disaster for Jewry.From that time on, sympathy started moving away from the Jews to the Germans, the exact opposite to the effect intended. Each new article, film, documentary on the holocaust merely produces a fresh crop of revisionists and “deniers”, as does the outward uninhibited display of chutzpah and braggadoccio of some leading Jews
Slowly but surely, thanks to people like David Irving, Max Hastings and John Keegan, the unthinkable is starting to be thought…that Britain lost the war and could have played a much more skilful and canny role in it. That fat fool Churchill( a beneficiary of Jewish “philanthropy”) was a disaster for your country(Gallipoli WW1), and mine(WW2 and the insane “unconditional surrender”…probably the doing of crypto jew, Rosso Campo, Roosevelt, Red Field .)
“Lies come first and drag along the gullible. Truth limps in long after, on the arm of time”-Balthazar Gracian.
Merry Christmas and a Good New Year(to believers only).Trust in God, but keep your powder dry.
I hope you don’t mind hamstar, my posting of this little article, the purpose of which is to test the links. They work on your site. However it may be of interest to new Zealanders with Scottish ancestry. Please delete if inconvenient. I promise I won’t cry. or get “terribly upset”.
Breathes the man with soul so dead who never to himself hath said ” This is my own, my native land”
Well, this is my patch and following the example of our Turkish friends, I will endeavour to enlighten you, but if in doing so, I leave lots of questions unanswered then I will have done my job.
Just a few words about the history…
about the last area of Europe to be settled… very susceptible to glaciation…
geologically, a little bit of Canada left behind, when the continents began to drift.
England(attached to Continental Europe) came up from the south and got bolted on to Scotland.Surprisingly, the cultural border and the geological border between the two countries coincide.
On to the western side of the country with the Inner and Outer Hebrides(old volcanoes formed consequential to continental drift), this was under Norwegian control for many centuries and although driven out, their legacy lives on in the place names, the people and boat design. Some clans(family groups) are more Gaelic, some are predominantly Norse, genetically, but all are Gaelic culturally.Despite the onslaught of mass media the Gaelic culture hangs on…just. However there are encouraging signs of a comeback.
It would be a great loss to lose music such as this andthis
There is, from those videos, an impression of bleakness and emptiness to those windswept islands. However those places are teeming with wildlife, in summer, and the camera doesn’t pick up all the sights and the sounds, so all you get is a glimpse, an impression. I well recall my first impressions of the Highlands. I would have taken the first train home, but after a couple of weeks, you settled in.You used your eyes and your ears.Another two weeks on, and I didn’t want to leave.Strange place.
Back to sailing, and here is a video of some old ladies strutting their stuff in the land of their birth, the Firth of Clyde. Best watched in full screen mode
Gee, took a while to read all that!
Good thread though, and Andrew gets my vote – ran circles around Edward and the Dr every step of the way. Edward tried very hard to come across as a seasoned veteran of archaeology but got snapped as a fresh outta school geotech boy.
Andrew the reason no one gets your references to marxism is that they have been intimately acquainted with the marxist thought processes since birth, as do to a lesser extent their parents. When you get it from day one, its not an evil force coming from the outside, its all you know.
If they were for one second to actually comprehend what you were saying, their version of reality would collapse and they would probably dive off the nearest tall building.
They think they are being intellectual by just repeating what they were taught during their period of institutionalisation, but they were never taught to THINK independently, just repeat the consensus opinion and ignore that which they are told to ignore. I’m afraid Edward would not know independent thought if it raped him. Anyway, I digress…
Keep up the good work chaps!
Hey. So what you are saying is that: If you are sitting at home watching TV (the tube- or whatever you call it), and some one has a right to walk in, sit down & say this is my place too. Then after a period of time goes by claim the house as their own? You are pretty dumb inbred honky.
Let’s gang up and torture Hone Harawira
No cover-ups or obstruction to archaeological research? Oh, of course, to suggest such a thing you would have to be a conspiracy nutter……or maybe not. click here
Yet another scientific “fiddle”exposed!
The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould Versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
Dan Vergano, USA Today, June 9, 2011
Abstract:
Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent evolutionary biologist and science historian, argued that “unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm” because “scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth”, a view now popular in social studies of science. In support of his argument Gould presented the case of Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physician and physical anthropologist famous for his measurements of human skulls. Morton was considered the objectivist of his era, but Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data and in his prize-winning book The Mismeasure of Man argued that Morton skewed his data to fit his preconceptions about human variation. Morton is now viewed as a canonical example of scientific misconduct. But did Morton really fudge his data? Are studies of human variation inevitably biased, as per Gould, or are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted? We investigated these questions by remeasuring Morton’s skulls and reexamining both Morton’s and Gould’s analyses. Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases
For a fuller account, click here
No cover-ups or obstruction to archaeological research? Oh, of course, to suggest such a thing you would have to be a conspiracy nutter……or maybe not.
click here
hi there amazing topic you have going there!
Interesting how things change with time. New knowledge is always coming to light, however if it wasn’t for the internet the average person would hardly know about it. These days one cannot rely on the press, as most people now appreciate, to keep one reasonably well-informed.One would have expected academia to keep abreast of events at least in their respective disciplines such as archaeology, but sadly this is no longer so.
Way back in this blog, specifically on the the topic of”pseudoarchaeology” the subject of the Kensington Rune Stone was mentioned. Was it a fake? ie “pseudoscience” as asserted, very forcefully,( the young and easily-led may have been impressed, falsely) by the sanitary engineer and student, as yet unqualified, of archaeology, and self-confessed cultural marxist/communist who called himself Edward Ashby. I, a Scottish gentleman(ie right-wing fascist, religious bigot and white supremacist, in marxist language) opposed this dogmatic view and thought that it was better to treat such an object as “interesting”(at the time there was doubt as to authenticity, but insufficient to label anyone crooked or “pseudo”)……. and await further information if and when it came to light…..and not be too hasty in coming to judgement.
Readers will undoubtedly recall Mr Ashby’s enthusiasm for “Science” and “evidence”.
Well here’s. some of the latest science and evidence on the Kensington Rune Stone.
Science doesn’t like dogmatism……and whether that comes from Christian or marxist, it cares not one jot.
Christians gave up interfering with science centuries ago. I just wish marxists would do the same.
I’ve had a gutsful of this biculturalism bullshit – there are more than just 2 cultures in NZ – what about the rest of us?
23 ?October ?2011
This thread has been going for some 2yrs now. That’s interesting, because you can look back and see how much, or how little, knowledge has increased , and opinions have changed.
The matter we’re interested in is……Were the Moaris the sole inhabitants of New Zealand or were there any others there beforehand? On the one hand we have the convinced Martin Doutre camp.On the other, the sceptical academics led by Edward Ashby, who was rather coy about his qualifications to speak on the matter, despite maintaining that only those with academic qualifications were able to hold a valid opinion…..I leave the reader to make of that what they will.
Who’s advancing and who’s retreating?……..the M. Doutre camp advances in leaps and bounds. So much evidence has come to light that there is no refuting a white presence in the Americas. The only questions remaining are……1) How much influence did they have? 2) What happened to them? and 3) How did they get there?
If only there was an Atlantis (a substantial mid-Atlantic land -mass), that would solve a lot. Whenever the name is mentioned it is invariably accompanied by snorts of derision and disgust, and I have to say that, in the past, I was as guilty of this as any……just an old Greek political myth dreamt up by Plato in an uncharacteristic flight of fancy. The problem was that the more I got interested in metrology which accompanies the rise of civilisations, then the more pointers to the probability of some mid-Atlantic phenomenon emerged…..such as American Indians with myths of travellers coming across the lake without shores……the mysterious Turtle Island, lying somewhere out to sea. The great gods of S and central America, Viracocha, Quetzlcoatl, Wotan, all white.
Then there’s the megalithic monuments, mostly strung out along the west coast of Europe. Why does England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain and Portugal have such a concentration? Did such people come from the sea rather than by land? The Picts of Scotland? Where did they come from? Their relationship to the Basques with their non- Indo European language.Everybody else is trying to “discover” the Americas, China or whatever, while the, the Basques are coolly and calmly exploiting the cod fisheries of the Newfoundland Grand Banks, year after year, century after century. The fact that Easter Islanders have more Caucasian genes in them than the ancient Basques.Why would that be so?
Wherever the white race is suspected of settling we have an assortment of monuments in stone and earth with evidence of precision and hence measurement, hence mathematics, astronomy, possibly geodesy and time keeping. Time keeping means regulation and order. Once human beings work together, the accomplishments are out of proportion. Such people, I believe, were not really superstitious sun, moon or nature “worshippers”.They were much more practical and down to earth. They built such things as aids to memory,knowledge and out of fascination that they had, through the power of abstract thought, answered many of the questions satisfactorily about the complex phenomena of their surroundings. If they were worshipping anything, they were worshipping themselves and the improvement in the quality of life that their knowledge of the world about the heavens above had brought them.
Another set of pointers to some previous civilisation comes from mathematics itself. Who was the bright spark that divided the circle into 360deg? And why 360? And the 24:60:60 division of the day. Why world wide? If knowledge is like evolution, survival of the fittest, where are the wrecks and failed experiments? Why did civilisation spring up so readily in Sumer and the Nile valley along with settled agriculture? According to present theory we’ve existed in our present form for some 80-90 thousand years, yet “civilisation” has supposedly only existed for 7-8 thousand years. That’s a lot of time, doing nothing much, then all of a sudden we decide that town life, settled agriculture and trade has a lot going for it. No I am uneasy about that and suspect that pieces of the jigsaw are missing.
So a couple of websites to look at. The first is that of a mathematician and his thoughts on ancient geodesy and metrology….”Something strange happened on the way to the Parthenon”
clickhere
The second is that of non-mainstream archaeologist, Cedric Leonard. But don’t let that put you off. This is a man of the old, honest academic tradition who has done his homework and thoroughly researched everything to do with “Atlantis” and the mid-Atlantic. He makes it very clear when he’s dealing with verifiable scientific findings and when he’s speculating. In the old tradition he presents you with the facts……and leaves you free to draw your own conclusions. The freedom from dogma, bias and agenda is refreshing and for that reason do I commend this site for your consideration.
Clickhere to access it.
There’s quite a lot there for the average person(I include myself in that group) to get his head round. Nevertheless persistence has its rewards. I hope any who do take the trouble to follow those thought-provoking views will be good enough to put pen to paper, correction, hit the keyboard, and offer their own individual thoughts on the matter.
Returning to Martin Doutre. He’s no nutter. Through hard maths and arithmetic he has shown, however implausible it seemed at first sight, a common link and thread between many seemingly detached ancient civilisations. Slowly , very slowly, geology is lending support to his ideas……not debunking them. I speculated on the size of New Zealand when sea levels were lower and its link to Tonga via a chain of volcanos running along an interface between two tectonic plates. Along with that, we now have the hypothesis that New Zealand formed one land mass with New Caledonia. The game proceeds. No-one, least of all the dunny-digger (the late Edward Ashby) and his agenda-driven friends, have got this “sorted” or “settled” in any way whatsoever.
Best wishes from Alta Scotia(Old Scotland) to Nova Zeelandia(New Zealand)… May the two forever remain linked.
Mistake made with the second link to Cedric Leonard’s Atlantis site.
Try againClickhere to access it.
LOVE AND LIGHT TOO ALL. “MAORI” a name given too label the various tribes of inhapitents found here shortly after the TREATY OF WAITANGI .Which refers too them as INDIANS & NATIVES in original document. These tribes did not want too be put into one catorgary of people . And wer still in TRIBLE & RACE related warefare Which included the last attempts at Concouring,destroying,ethnic cleansing,some form of UTU “revenge” posiably of the TANGATAWHENUA as they originaly called the peoples they found here .THE PEOPLE BEFORE being the original meaning. THIS NATION OF RED WHITE AND DARK skin peoples of PEACE named WAITAHA who had lived here in harmony for well over a thousand years before the different polynesian races of war canoes heard of and began too seek out this land of abundent resorces and variety of cutural beauty. “Or easy spoils of War” . The NATION OF WAITAHA survives in the blood lines of the small amount of slaves kept by these tribes that were given the label “MAORI” Cause no race of people is going kill off the hottest looking babes they come accross or be able too stop any of there tibe running off with any “tuhoe” pale skin .Patupahere “fariy people” who lived in the mist high in the mountains. As the historys are kept just out of view of most in the endless mytholoy stories the Tohunga waitaha desendends have kept alive through the darkest of days. So the MAORI people were not a people who got here first . They were formed here and were part of before then and now after and is so obvious in the way they looked compared too all the other pacific island races of people. SO LIKE MAORI LABELLED THAT DAY ALL WHO GREW HERE AND EVEN IF YOU FLEW HERE HAVE THE WRIGHT TOO CALL YOURSELF MAORI , OR WHAT HAS BECOME A KIWI. OR A PERSON OF THE NEW GENERATION OF PEACE PEOPLE OF WAITAHA. NOTE your truth and my truth may not be the same! There are many paths that lead too wisdom. MAY YOU JOURNEY IN PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING.