Sometings not right here 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. cool.gif 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 by Tapu Misa 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. And the biggest reason most NZ archeologists DONT research the subject is that the newer generations know little of it as the universities will not touch the subject other than to shoot it down and those that do know also know damn well they will get no govt funding for such work only govt obstruction. I think that this long and detailed description shows that there is plenty of evidence that there was previous inhabitants of NZ, and also goes on to describe a very convincing explanation for why the government of NZ is actively colluding with the Maori to conceal that evidence. His explanation is a lot more detailed and personal than the parroting of the politically correct explanation that the Moaris are the first natives. Maybe, undeadskeptic, you would like to address his points in defense of your position. You will also be well aware that many creation myths have definate constructed start points, but subsequently have many messy little subplots which contradict and confuse the nicely tied up version of events. One minuite you are the first created being, and next your talking to those who came before. The Bible is littered with many such examples, as are the most of the creation myths of the Polynesian Islands. Legends are not straight forward and easily interpreted, and any published version which presents them as such is generally a simplified version to make them more logical.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:15:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015