I awoke this morning feeling compelled to write this.
A friend gave me a book the other day. A good and gentle friend who means well in everything he thinks and does. A talented friend who writes beautiful poetry but who has experienced things in life that sometimes he’d rather forget. In his past thrust into worlds that I believe he’d rather didn’t exist.
I therefore deeply respect him and I hope in some measure, understand why he believes the premise of the book he wanted me to consider.
Perhaps reasons similar to my friend are why others are drawn to the thoughts expressed and because of my friend I can no longer regard those who do believe in this book and others like it as ……lets just say sadly uninformed.
Some react by labeling them as ‘blatantly racist’ I do not. I understand that there are those who are only racist in that they are misinformed and therefore unintentionally so. My friend would recoil in horror if he were given such a title.
I think there must be many reasons why many believe the assertion of the book “Ancient Celtic New Zealand” self published by Martin Doutre in 1999, that Celts settled in New Zealand thousands of years before the Polynesian ancestors of the Maori. Some of which I do think are blatantly racist but for many like my friend, because of the desire for a more magical and mysterious world that in today’s world is rapidly diminishing due to the stunning advances of science, including archaeology, climatology, oceanography, linguistics and geneology. These among other branches of the centuries old discipline bring about our greater understanding of the truth that Polynesians were the first and only settlers in New Zealand before the European discovery of these islands in the 17th Century (possibly a Spaniard, Juan Fernandez in the 16th Century)
Let me say why I am certain of this and appeal to those who have been attracted to Martin Doutre’s theory to try and connect with their rational selves.
I am not putting them down or calling them racist, stupid or any other negative term because I was once also attracted to the thought. Being deeply interested in New Zealand History from a very early age I jumped on anything that spoke of it and dreamed of a possible ancient heritage here. I eagerly read Barry Brailsford’s “Song of the Waitaha” and thought that there was some truth in it. After all he had written well researched books “The Tattooed Land’ and “Greenstone Trails of the Maori” Then I read some of his later novels and began to struggle with him. Eventually I met two people in North Otago who were Waitaha and who spoke derisively of him. Not so much in laughter but also with annoyance.
It was then I Also realised that the fact of ‘Avaiki Tautau – Aotearoa – New Zealand being the last habitable land in the world discovered and settled by humans (apart from Rekohu – The Chatham Islands where Maori became the Moriori *) gave our islands a magical and unique history, where the art and skills of navigation in the ancient world reached it pinnacle. The last, loneliest and loveliest as other romantic writers have stated it.
Now I’m not a scientist, I’m an ex-teacher. My daughter has a degree in Archaeology from Otago and we have discussed this topic from time to time. I understand scientific method and find it bizarre whenever I meet someone who states that “Scientists know nothing” Let’s just leave that there. You don’t need to be a scientist to see the absurdity in that statement yet there are plenty who somehow believe it.
The scientific method requires extensive and exhaustive research including every known and possible way to disprove any proposed theory before that theory can even be considered to be approaching a fact. Take ‘evolution’ for example. For those reasons even Darwin wasn’t absolutely sure. But now after a century and a half of trying to find fault in it the method has only reinforced it to the point where it is on equal terms in certainty that the pope is a catholic.
The very same can be said about who the first people to discover and settle New Zealand. They were Polynesians from Eastern Polynesia (The Cook Islands, Tahiti and the Marquesas mainly)
So before picking apart the postulations in Doutre’s book, which have never been subjected to any scientific method, there’s quite a bit of logic that can’t be ignored.
Firstly there were no other people in the entire world that by the dawning of the second millenia (1000 CE) who had greater or even close to equal ocean navigation skills as did the Polynesians. Similarly no-one could survive living in Polar regions as well as Inuit, Chukchi, Evenk, Sami etc or who could cross great deserts as easily as Bedouin. Because of course that is where they lived and simply couldn’t survive without those skills and because they had to. Polynesians also had to keep finding new islands to cope with expanding populations.
Therefore it is far easier to imagine Polynesians discovering Europe than anyone from Europe at the time reaching New Zealand. The Polynesians had no reason to go that far and neither did the Celts and besides with their level of ocean technology, much smaller craft, the conditions they would have to encounter (including time and distance), required provisioning (the list goes on and on) there wasn’t even the possibility. They may have reached Iceland before the Vikings or even at a stretch North America but that’s not the South Pacific. In North America the Vikings lasted just about ten years in an isolated settlement in northern Newfoundland before local natives finished them off and they made only spasmodic visits to Labrador from Greenland for timber. No substantiated evidence has ever been found that they ventured any further.
Secondly there has been stunning advances in genetic science in recent years. It is now possible to trace detailed racial heritage from anyone’s DNA through a method using swabs taken from the inside of the mouth. Worldwide well over 100,000 people, mainly from wealthier nations (including New Zealand, Canada and the US) have done this including me. From this an increasingly detailed world map of human migration over thousands of years has been pieced together. No Polynesian (includes Maori) or Native American has ever been found to be carrying any mutation that originated in Europe that came from an ancestor other than one descended from known colonists of recent centuries. The red haired or blond strain that is sometimes seen in Polynesians is a mutation that has occurred independently within the Pacific (Austronesian) peoples.
Also consider that if a human population large enough to survive for any considerable length of time existed in New Zealand before Polynesians arrived 8-900 years ago then easily detectable changes in out flora and fauna indicating their presence would be obvious to us today. Forest reduction species extinction etc…these things occurred when Maori arrived, not before. All over the world, outside of Africa where we evolved, it is possible to trace the time of the arrival of humans including New Zealand by this method. Cave Bears, Cave Lions, Rhinos (in Eurasia), Mammoths, Giant Kangaroos, Huge Apes in SE Asia etc etc all disappeared soon after human hunters first encountered them. As did the Moa right here. They were too convenient a food source for newly arrived, not yet adapted, people. Ancient Celts arriving here would’ve done the same thing. . . if they were here. Instead of course the Moa remained undisturbed until less than a thousand years ago and our forest cover intact until someone lit a fire or began to clear space for themselves.
As for some of the ‘mysteries or unexplained anomolous artefacts’ said to exist in New Zealand. Archaeologists know of them. There have been many but over time and acrual of more knowledge they mostly begin to fall into place. If they haven’t yet they are eventually expected to. Remember the scientific method. . .you can’t just jump to a fantastic and unlikely conclusion about them.
Spirals in Maori art?? So. . . It’s a nice form. We’re all capable of coming up with that one. Greenstone is as sharp a carving tool as any metal to create really intricate patterns in the fantastic native timbers we have.
Great earthworks on hillsides??? Yes Maori needed them for defence. Fit young men over a period of just a few months could’ve dug them out.
Stone Circles??? where. The one Doutre displays on the cover of his book. . Waitapu, he admits wasn’t actually there. The stones were lying down. I grew up exploring the volcanic hills on Banks Peninsula. Those sort of stones were on many hilltops, exposed by natural erosion. They’re also on the Otago Peninsula..a totally natural formation as are the stone walls such as the one in the Kaimanawa Ranges and on the Paparoas.
The Stone city in the Waipoua Forest??? We already know that’s an early Maori creation. Maraes in Eastern Polynesia are made of stone. Particularly more ancient ones. Polynesians did that. Yes DOC doesn’t want people to go there. More archaeology is planned for the future. Archaelogists do this all over the world…they don’t want untrained people disturbing it….that’s reasonable isn’t it??
Collapsed stone houses?? . . . Hangi pits.
Thousands of bones of an unknown people found in caves??? I don’t know if this is true or not. However if a Maori chief in the 19th Century said they were not his people’s bones he may have meant that they weren’t his iwi. The idea that Maori were one people was not in the minds of Maori then..the word ‘Maori’ didn’t even exist before pakeha came. Also if the bones of another iwi were in his land then their people may be able to claim it according to custom and he wouldn’t want that. But if his people destroyed them then a case case for utu (revenge) could be mounted. However if pakehas destroyed them (as apparently happened) there would be no comeback.
Maori culture is so different from other Polynesian cultures that it must have Celtic influences??? All Polynesian cultures are quite different from each other. In isolation it doesn’t take long for that to happen. Even without much isolation British descended New Zealanders are already quite different from the British themselves. The Moriori became very different from Maori only after a few centuries. The available resources, the climate and the skill set limitations of the original settlers have a lot to do with that. Greenstone, obsidian and timbers such as totara, rimu and kauri enabled Maori to radically and rapidly develop carving skills divergent from their previous ‘Hawaiki’ (Homeland). The presence of those huge trees also changed their building skills and styles and made the construction of strong single hulled waka possible. The sheer size of New Zealand compared to their past islands also diminished and eventually extinguished the need to continue great ocean voyages. Their population was still increasing when James Cook arrived.
Besides there is still enough similarity with other Polynesians to see the directions of the cultural divergence and even track their developments through time. Among American Natives or Africans (not to mention Europeans) there is great cultural differences without any oceans separating their groups.
It goes on and on….assertions that easily explainable things are something else.
Another absurd thing I’ve heard among some of the Celtic believers is that they say that the Maori ruthlessly killed all the people they found living in New Zealand when they arrived therefore explaining why we find no relevant genetic markers in modern Maori populations. And yet, as I have just mentioned others claim that Maori artistic designs are of Celtic origin and that the occurence of red hair among Maori is proof of their ancient meetings.
So they must believe that the two peoples lived side by side long enough to make significant connections, effecting their genetics and culture. That has happened every known time that two peoples have been in significant contact. But part of the cross cultural exposure that has had that much effect has also always included language. So where in New Zealand Maori are the celtic language influences? Simply there are none. Every aspect of Te Reo (NZ Maori) has Polynesian roots, specifically Eastern Polynesian. So much so that Cook island Maori in particular is virtually the same language albeit with strong dialectical differences. Tahitian, Rapanuian (Easter Island) and Hawaiian are also very close. If there were even the smallest Celtic influences in NZ Maori they would be obvious to all other Polynesians and would’ve been the subject of great linguistic interest as soon as New Zealand was rediscovered by Europeans in more recent times.
I believe that most people who believe that Celts were here before Maori have no racism in mind but I do believe that those who engineer such ideas do.
Ancient Native American sites have come under this sort of attack from those who couldn’t accept that they were capable of such things (even in Doutre’s book) It was even suggested that some Middle Eastern civilisation was responsible for Mayan and Aztec ruins.
I won’t say anymore except that Martin Doutre’s background and credentials should be considered. Read Scott Hamilton (PHd Sociology) on this matter. I imagine it will be an unpleasant surprise to many.
http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/
* Many people still believe that Moriori were a race of Polynesian who lived on New Zealand’s mainland before the Maori. In fact the Moriori were Maori and became Moriori (because of cultural and language changes) after discovering and settling on the Chatham Islands from New Zealand. In the 19th Century Taranaki Maori used European ships to reach the Chathams and came into conflict with Moriori, severely reducing their population although not entirely eliminating them. The myth that Moriori were on the mainland before Maori was reinforced by many publications, including the School Journals right into the 20th Century and was seen as a convenient excuse for Europeans usurping Maori because they had done that to the Moriori. . .which on the mainland they hadn’t because the Moriori simply weren’t there.
25/3/22 I’ve recently received and read a new book by K.R. Howe (Professor Kerry Howe of Massey University) who also wrote “Vaka Moana” which details Polynesian Migration and their navigation skills. This new one is “The Quest for Origins” that the New Zealand Herald simply states ” This is not just a good book, but an important one.”
If you read this with an open mind you will understand where and how the many different ideas of Polynesian origins came to be and how science and cultural bias has evolved to a much clearer understanding of the truth. (remarkably close to James Cook’s original ideas in the 18th Century) You will also be convinced that there simply was no previous settlement in New Zealand before Polynesians, ancestors of the Maori, arrived here less than 1000 years ago in spite of so called “New Age” ideas, many of which are reflections of “old age ideas” before science as we know it today stepped up to the plate.
Keith Tonkin 