New light shed on origins of Maori
Relevant offers
Perspective
OPINION: It seems the first European settlers were right about where Maori came from, writes MATTHEW WRIGHT.
Where did Maori come from? It's a thorny question, and every Pakeha generation, it seems, has looked for conclusive answers - trying to penetrate the allegory with which Maori oral records convey the story.
We've got those answers now, but it's been a long and very winding road to get there - one that, to me, is more about our changing ideas about ourselves than it has been about finding an abstract truth.
When Pakeha first started looking at the problem, about 160 years ago - based on what Maori told them, and what was also obvious - they basically got it right.
Largely on the basis of linguistic similarities, settler- ethnographers such as William Colenso concluded in the 1860s that Maori came probably from the Cook Islands or a nearby group. Whakapapa suggested they had done so early in the fourteenth century - as Colenso put it, "scarcely four centuries before Cook".
But in a spasm of rationalism, settler-age Pakeha scientists then rushed off on entirely the wrong tangent.
The first wrong-headed notion was "two race" settlement, which came on the back of discoveries by Christchurch settler-scientist Julius Haast and others of vast moa bone-yards in Canterbury and Otago. Massive butchery had gone on - and it seemed fairly clear that somebody had eaten those great birds to extinction.
The problem was that nobody could quite believe that Maori had done it. They seemed too careful with the ecology. So when the archaeological evidence was stacked up with Maori myths of fairy folk, settler-scientists came to believe that Maori had displaced earlier and mysterious "Moa Hunters", eventually dubbed "Moriori". This idea gained traction, although the settlers knew very well that Moriori were indigenous Chatham Islanders.
The whole idea of two-race mythology was first dislodged by H D Skinner in the early 20th century - and by others since. But it retained its popular traction.
The other gem of the late colonial age was Stephenson Percy Smith's notion of a mighty canoe migration from Hawaiki, each great vessel apparently bearing the ancestors of the iwi found by 19th-century settlers.
Colenso knew about those stories in 1868, dismissing them as a "mythic rhapsody". They didn't add up between iwi, for a start. But as the 19th century drew to a close, Smith revived the idea and turned it into a grand structure. Hawaiki was accepted as a mythic, the canoes literally true.
It has always seemed to me that the reasons for this misconception gaining ground just then had more to do with Pakeha society than Maori reality.
The myth of grand migration keyed into the Pakeha view of themselves as heroic pioneers. Naturally the indigenous people also needed to be heroic, thus elevating the settlers.
The idea got into the School Journal in the early 20th century, and children were still being taught these things as if true in the 1960s.
If we look back from today's perspective, it is hard to see the great canoe migration as anything other than a thorough Europeanisation of Maori legends.
A more scientific picture emerged during the last half of the 20th century, but it took years to dig up all the clues, years to refine the analytical techniques. Theories were proposed, other ideas dismissed.
Initial carbon-14 dating created the idea Maori may have arrived in New Zealand as early as the first or second century AD. This gained popular credibility on the back of the late 20th-century demonisation of settler philosophies and ideas about Maori.
However, refined carbon-14 dating methods gave more accurate readings. And the picture of Maori origins was shortly integrated with a growing picture of how humanity had spread across the Pacific.
Studies across multiple disciplines - archaeology, linguistics, ethnography, genetics and even mathematical analysis of canoe navigation - revealed that the first humans in New Zealand were Polynesians. They came from the Cook, Society and Austral islands, and arrived towards the end of a period of Polynesian expansion.
Genetic studies have shown that the original Polynesian settlement could have been small - maybe less than 200 people.
There is some evidence of return journeying.
But that ended quickly, possibly due to stormier weather on the back of natural climate change - the so-called "little Ice Age".
By the late 20th century an increasing body of evidence had pinned the moment when Polynesia arrived to around 1280 AD, and the first landing was probably on the Wairau bar.
Consistent evidence for an explosive spread of the colony - fuelled by a diet of moa - included the discovery of massive deforestation in Canterbury and Otago in the 14th century.
This settler society became an indigenous Maori world, roughly, during the 15th century, perhaps 200-250 years before Tasman.
The only thorn in the side of this picture was a 1995-96 study of the Pacific rat, which dated some bones to around 2000 years before the present.
The rat was known to mark human arrival.
The author of the study carefully indicated in his original paper that it pointed to a one-time visit - not settlement.
But that did not stop independent thinkers from using his report - apparently unread or misunderstood - to "prove" that everybody from Celts to Chinese had been here before Maori.
More sober scientific thought postulated a settlement too small to leave remains for archaeologists.
But all of it was a red herring. An early 2000s analysis, using improved techniques, showed that the anomalous bones actually came from around the late 13th- century settlement era.
So it turned out that the earliest Pakeha settlers had been generally right after all.
But it had taken around 150 years for thinking to get back to that point. I can only conclude that Percy Smith - and the old School Journal - have a lot to answer for.
* Matthew Wright's book, Old South: Life and Times in the Nineteenth Century Mainland, is published by Penguin.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Forgive me as I am not a highly educated nor scientific person but I really enjoyed this site and the reads: But I don't think the 'new light shed on origin is actually new... Oral histories suggest there were at least three ethnic groups other than Maori at the time of Kupe, of Toi and later, simply; the fair red-haired group- patupaiarehe, very dark skinned- te Ngutu-au, and of course the caramel coloured skin varieties with golden long wavy hair- urukehu. Stories published relating to the Moriori and Moa hunters I learnt of through school and were deemed incorrect as my grandmother was of Moriori descent. DNA sequencing sounds like a really exciting jump in scientific research, however, I still havent found anything that can substantiate the findings, the results are all over the place, one minute maori are from Taiwan, then they are vedic in origin, next minute its only the females as the males are predominantly malay, somethings just don't add up - I figured out to the best of my ability that mito chondrial sequencing looks at the 'female' gene of origin passed through mother to daughter, and given that maori shunned inter-racial marriage, did not mean they didnt do it tribally, other polynesian cultures were possibly another tribe.
I think my point is ancient maori were not really a nationality that came from the same place at the same time and maybe this view of 'new-light-shedding' just backs up the old stories perhaps.
As for the orgins - Hawaiki literally means 'breath on the fluids or water', Hawaiki-nui (the big breath), Hawaiki-roa (the long breath) Hawaiki-pamamao (the remote or distant breath) and Hawaiki-tapu (the sacred breath), maybe some kind of scientific testing could be applied to finding the mythological place know as Hawaiki - perhaps turn your eyes towards a historical place of possibly biblical proportion where such a breath took place? Haha whos to say thats not a possiblity. In my household we're still jarred at the notion that Father Abraham was a maori.
Mr Marsh might see the logic in trying to align himself with genuine researchers and scientists, but I'm afraid I do not. It does you no good to try and grab on to their coat tails in an attempt at credibility when it is glaringly obvious to anyone who is familiar with their work, and then taken a look at your website, that you are either grossly misunderstanding the scientific literature or deliberately misrepresenting the views and research of genuine scholars to suit your own ends. I suspect it is a bit of both. Thus, it is indeed possible to ridicule you without ridiculing these scientists. It is the ever present arrogance of amateur pseudo-scientists which lets them assume they have a good grasp on the entire theory, method, and literature of a discipline. If you're really interested in learning, do the hard work.
By the way, I agree with you that people should keep an open mind, but not so open that their brain falls out the side of their heads. Not every single competing theory is of equal truth value. Oh, and another thing, you say it is up to the people to decide where the truth lies, but for me the truth lies with the evidence rather than populist and uninformed conjecture but thanks anyway.
It is scientific papers from people such as archaeologists, linguists, geneticists, biologists, geologists, historians - and Polynesians, that I have got my information. When one looks at all the papers which have been swept under the carpet, they paint a completely different picture of Pacific prehistory which makes far more sense than the official story. For example; look at the plethora of scientific papers contradicting themselves over a supposed connection between Lapita people and Polynesians (fast train, slow train, entangled bank etc). It has been scientifically proved by a number of scientists that the two groups were unrelated physically(Nicola Van Dijk, Pietrusewsky, Katayama), culturally(Anita Smith) and genetically (Lisa Matissoo-Smith). Their presence in the Pacific according to archaeological dates was separated by about 800 years(Janet M Davidson). After reading these papers even a five year old could see there was something amiss with the official story - so you're calling it a conspiracy eh? Is it part of the "No one sailed across the Atlantic before Columbus conspiracy"? You can shoot the messenger, but it is up to those with an open mind to look at ALL the facts and make up your own mind whether the truth lies with 'authority of the press' or not.
The origins of the Polynesians I believe, goes more like this; Eastern (pure) Polynesian DNA shows a passage from Taiwan (6-8,000 years ago) via coastal Canada (Tlingit) to Hawaii(2,200 years ago) and on to Tahiti and New Zealand (9bp deletion and antigen HLABw48 are two key markers to look at- see papers by Bing Su, Mark Stoneking and Susan Serjeantson). There is no 2-6,000 year old genetic connection between Polynesians and; Micronesians, Melanesians or Indonesians (Fornander, Serjeantson) making it extremely unlikely that Polynesians entered the central Pacific from the west. Lapita people and Easter Islanders were not Polynesians in the true sense, but may have contributed to Polynesian culture directly and indirectly. For more complete references, see my 'Genetics rewrites Pacific Prehistory' page at; http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/GeneticsrewritesPacificprehistory.htm Ridicule me and these scientists if you wish, but leave it up to the people to decide where the truth lies.
Sigh. It's always only a matter of time before the self-styled polymath pseudo-historians start info-dropping their madness all over this topic. Maybe mainstream academia (which includes, by the way, archaeologists, linguists, geneticists, biologists, geologists, historians...the list goes on) disagrees with the thought of 'experts' such as Mr Marsh simply because they know what they are talking about and base their theories on evidence rather than conjecture and bad science? In one short paragraph we have been told that not only are all of the different yet mutually supportive sciences wrong, but that everyone from the Waitaha (space Egyptians) to Peruvians are the original settlers as part of a wider pan-global culture which left no trace of itself. In addition, the 'mainstream' academics from each of these different sciences are part of a massive, apparently pointless, pan-global conspiracy. Even a five year old paired with Occams razor can see the silliness of such claims. Pity some adults can't.
It is not just the date of rat bones that suggests the prehistory of New Zealand was different to what we are told. Native folklore uncovered by Barry Brailsford (Song of the Waitaha) is one example. Assertions by mainstream academia that Chatham Islanders were genetically the same as the Maori when photos show them as heavily bearded individuals with wavy hair, makes one wonder who is lying. Martin Doutre may be off the mark with regard to suggesting a Celtic habitation of New Zealand, but what he has uncovered is archaeological evidence that clearly shows; people not of the Polynesian culture, were living here before the Maori. Ruins in the Waipoua Forest may merely be a migration from Rapa nui. Round stone houses were built by the Orongo people of Rapa nui. Round burial chambers called Tulpas of Rapa nui are called Chulpas in Peru - clearly the same people, but mainstream academia are still in a state of denial regarding Peruvian origins of the Easter Island Culture despite a plethora of evidence that has been swept under the carpet. For more information on this subject, go to my Lapita pottery page; http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/page6.htm on my Polynesian Pathways website at; polynesian-prehistory.com.
That's a bit freaky, I wrote a piece on just this topic on my blog yesterday! Clearly Matthew and I are in on the same conspiracy to whitewash New Zealand History...
If anyone is keen to see a little more detail on the scientific dispute around those old kiore bones they might want to <a href="http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2010/07/29/the-first-new-zealanders-and-their-rats">check it out here</a>.
Wow! ...amazing alright!
Maybe they call themselves Cook Island Maori by coincidence? Maybe the whare at Paakirikiri Marae on the east coast of the north Island of Aotearoa is called 'Te Hono ki Rarotonga' by coincidence too?
What about the Maori proverb "Kia kore ai e ngaro nga kakano i ruia i Rangiatea" ..."I will never be lost: for I am a seed sown in Rangiatea (Ra'iatea - Tahiti)
Even more amazing that once again pakeha have been proven correct. At no single point in our modern history have they ever been wrong. They've always been right up until they revise their evidence and become even more right!
Thank our lucky stars that the last 150 years of Pakeha history (that have always been right at that point of time) have been corrected by other pakeha who are even more right!
Phew! ...we've just been guessing for the last 150 years. Thanks for the history lesson.
"The myth of grand migration keyed into the Pakeha view of themselves as heroic pioneers. Naturally the indigenous people also needed to be heroic, thus elevating the settlers."
Big call here...presuming to know the minds of a group that no one can actually define. How arrogant to presume that the Dutch, English and French settlors are all culturally alike (and what of the Chinese settlers!).
Radio Carbon dating needs to be perform on organic structures that are between 1,000 & 40,000 years. Outside that its results are not accuate. Its use for dating Moari settlement is far from optimal.
And as the Polynesians came from Micronesia and they came from the direction of China you could say the Chinese were here first! They just took their time about it! ;-)
Seriously though, this opinion piece reads like it was written by a 14 or 15 year old. Lots of assumptions too...
"What's to say that further 'refined' carbon-dating and research will not turn the author's premises upside down, again."
Well, nothing, but you have to work with the information you have.
New friendships give recuperative power and hope
A victim of the glamorous life
Banging heads against EQC wall
How to blow half-a-million in one easy lesson
Making headway in time of turmoil
Christchurch let down by engineers
Getting back up is the key for city
Coast to Coast - tough even for the fittest
Fatal speed-gliding crash near Wanaka
Abused daughter sees father jailed
Five Riccarton businesses closed
Speed, alcohol possible factors in crash
Probe into police conduct in youths' arrest
Terrified teen pleads for bail
Rare bravery award for Christchurch heroes
Emotional rebuild explored in new papers
Suppression lapses for teenager
Farm worker burst cow's eyeball with bar
Schoolgirl sex video man guilty
Five Riccarton businesses closed
Abused daughter sees father jailed
Fatal speed-gliding crash near Wanaka
Speed, alcohol possible factors in crash
Teacher refused name suppression
New container shops await buildings' demise
Sam Johnson named young NZer of year
Probe into police conduct in youths' arrest
Wow, I can't believe that Jewelry thinks that red-head/blonds aren't part of Polynesia, and view them as a separate race! The red-heads and blonds are not a myth from some oral history you heard - many modern day full Melanesians and Polynesians have red or blond hair, Vanuatu, Solomon Islanders, Australian aborigines - it's genetic and unrelated to European hair. I am a full blood like most Samoans back home, and have relatives with red to blond hair, it's rare, but it's there and none of us have European blood. If you are around full blooded Polynesians, you would realise that your description of so called 3 races at the time of Kupe, is merely one people - Polynesian. I wish people would stop this wishful thinking of tall light skinned red headed vikings coming ashore - very tiring. Full blood Polynesians have straight to curly hair, from dark to very light skin, from black to blond hair, and don't need to be admixed to have any of these traits.