Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8
In the spirit of 'open debate' ongoing email threads are included below.
Feel free to contribute.
Martin has plenty of didgets and words to get accross whatever it is he believes,but I find the most annoying thing is the comparison of the koru and the spiral - 2 very important motifs in our artwork to european links.
If you are ever in the postion to stand in the NZ jungle with a piece of Maori art in your hand you will see exactly where these motifs came from -the Environment.
I am Maori and we feel our country - we dont write little facts and figures to try and prove our theories.We live,breath and feel Aoetearoa in a way most of the White visitors need time to absorb.
It is one of my lifes missions to try and explain these feelings so if we keep in contact I will update you.
Also I find the similarities between different cultures fascinating but I myself have 2 theories.
There is nothing to prevent 2 cultures having the same idea at the same time.
Especially if their ways of life are similar.
The Maori travelled vast distances tens of thousands of kilometers-by ocean.I think it is more likely that if stlyes etc were imported it was in fact by the Maori - who were not as in his book mindless canibals but a highly Spiritual and widely travelled race.
The man is condescending and a racist and I have informed several Maori organisations of him and will continue to make a noise about any attempts todegrade and devalue our race.
It seems to me that through your discovery of genuine circles here in New Zealand you have been looking for signs of the builders which may have survived by way of absorbtion within Maori culture.
Surely it is distinctly possible that the things which as you rightly point out have much in common with artifacts across the other side of the globe could easily have been brought here by the Maori themselves. If as was pointed out in the recent TVNZ documentary, the population of the Pacific Islands came from the landmass to the east it is quite conceivable that much of this culture was absorbed at the point of origin. The journey across the Pacific would have taken many years presumably with whole generations spent on different islands along the way. By the time people arrived in New Zealand the origins of much cultural material would have been long forgotten and new explanations prodced to fit the context of the peoples new environment.
Personally I have always accepted Immanuel Velikovsky's theory of natural cycles culminating in dramatic bursts of planetary upheaval and accordingly suspect that many of the worlds stone circles were built prior to such an episode or by survivors who retained the astronomical and mathematical knowledge of their people. Either way they are long gone and the circles and equations they contain the only surviving sign of their presence on the planet.....
If this is in any way correct and I'm only musing aloud here. It could be that you have entangled three entirely separate issues here....
1. Who built the circles ( a global question ).
2. Who were the mysterious people named in Maori lore that they found on arrival.
3. From where did the Maori originate to have so many familiar cultural references.
Another point I would like to make to all parties regarding the source of cultural symbols and customs relates to many established western traditions.
How many Christians realise that the ten commandments are a transposition of a pharaonic prayer from 'The Egyptian Book of the Dead'.
How many Europeans acknowledge that the decorations on a Christmas tree stem from an early pagan custom of hanging raw meat on a tree. Or that the song Rudolph the red nose reindeer refers to the ancient Norse practise of feeding reindeer "Fly Agaric" mushrooms in order to remove the toxins therein. The urine was then consumed to produce visionary states etc.
Similarly how many kids in the states on 'trick or treat' expeditions dressed as vampires and werewolves and other cinematic inventions know the origins lie in 'All Souls Eve'. A time when the veil between the physical and spirit world was believed to be thin and used as an occasion to commune with ones forefathers...
A very modern and quite amusing example of this phenomenon was observed several years ago by a friend of mine in Tokyo at Christmas time. When on the wall of a very large department store he spied a large Father Christmas crucified on a cross.
if the artefacts, symbols and motifs were brought here by the Maori, then why are they not found in their lands of origin? Professor Thor Heyerdahl wrote the following on this very subject:
'Irrespective of how and when the Maori began to cover their carvings with spirals, the habit is absent in their Polynesian homeland and may therefore very well be so in their still earlier fatherland further away. There is, indeed, no such curvilinear surface design on the wood carvings of the Society Islands and these include the very tall ancestral posts which were erected in ancient Tahiti' (see American Indians in the Pacific, pg. 116).
I do not hold to the "isolationist" view that, as Koru puts it, 'There is nothing to prevent 2 cultures having the same idea at the same time. Especially if their ways of life are similar'.
Isolationism is very much in decline as an explanation for the selfsame symbols and cultural expressions turning up in widely scattered regions of the globe. Within scientific circles it is becoming clear that there was tremendous diffusion of culture and large migrations of people between distant locations. The oceans represented highways not barriers. Why is the Hei-Tiki found in South America? Could Israeli scholars be correct that the beautifully incised and intricate greenstone bird of the Tainui, taken by the Maori Queen to Israel recently, originated in that region? It might make a lot of sense when one considers that the Phoenician's main port was at Tyre Lebanon, which was once a part of Israel.
Diffusionist based archaeology is providing solid answers, worldwide, to formerly impossible scenarios postulated by the Isolationist schools of historical interpretation.
Even in the recent, "muted" documentary titled, 'Who Was Here Before Us, it was admitted that Maori virtually invented a whole new culture overnight upon arrival in New Zealand. In real terms, that's a fanciful notion that does not occur in the real world.
Maori oral traditions clearly state that these arts were learned from the resident people whom Maori encountered upon arrival...the Tangata Whenua (a term which always meant an earlier civilisation, which preceded Maori to these shores...it is only in recent years that we have seen Maori apply this label to themselves).
As to your second comment concerning the cataclysmic events written about by Immanuel Velikovsky...most certainly these did occur from time to time in the Earth's long history. Evidence would suggest that the worldwide distribution of "standing stone circles" followed, rather than preceded, such an event. The circles were a primary component in the re-establishment of civilisation and functioning society. From the circles one could calculate the Earth's position in relation to the cosmos and this knowledge was used to the greater advantage of regional society (cropping and harvesting...etc, etc).
The mathematics found on the sites indicate highly advanced accomplishment that had somehow fallen on hard times...probably caused by a comet or asteroids striking the Earth. All that was left intact was vestiges of the former knowledge. The sites I've analysed here in New Zealand or overseas work according to how the Earth presently sits in relation to the cosmos. Had they been built prior to an axis tilt, skin shift or slowing down of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (due to a full frontal whack from a large piece of space debris) the stone circle sites would not work at all. They are very accurate and sophisticated computers which incorporate "space age" mathematical concepts.
I don't know how old you are Koru, but to my certain knowledge racism as you express it did not exist in the general community prior to the early 1980's.
Previous to this history was taught from a christian view, but information was widely available to anyone who was interested from the National Library Archive.
Unfortunately New Zealand or Aotearoha history has been and is continuing to be re-written by people who can only be classed as vindictive racists.
I am a 'Pakeha', my daughter is about 49.99% Maori. My Father came here after W.W.II as the family farm had been lost due to 'suspected' foot&mouth. Prior to this my family on my Fathers side had been farming in the same region for only about 1300 years. They were considered to be just established. Land husbandry WAS NOT INVENTED BY MAORI!!
Get that one single FACT straight in your head and you will perhaps start to be able to conceive that an entire world and history exists outside of your extremely narrow world view.
With reference to your thinly veiled threats about 'passing on information to Maori groups', are these the same blow-hard prats that have threatened the Prime Minister?? If so, please consider that there are many Maori and Non - Maori that have served in the Armed Forces, Love to hunt and cannot abide this constant push to divide our community.
I put it to you Koru, that being Maori, you properly had a great many more opportunities presented to you as you grew up than I did. I well remember all the visits to Maraes, extra tuition, school holiday trips, wholly TAX-PAYER funded education that I could not get because of my racial heritage. This started in the late 1950's and has only gotten worse.
WAKE-UP Koru! Do some investigation and start helping to build this country, you are properly only speaking for about .001% of ALL the people who claim Maori heritage that I have met in my entire life. Turn off the T.V and go to the library, hopefully you will be able to find some books that have not been removed by the P.C. administration.
i find your "joke" to be in extremely bad taste
i have never heard so much total absolute rubbish (i'd call it lies but you lot probably are just stupid enough to believe it)
celts traveling to the pacific
har har har yeh and poodles discovered tasmania
fact is you are just a bunch of racist white supremacist bigots
m (white, celt and student of history and anthropology)
Nice to see the site attracting a broad spectrum of visitors including the intellectually challenged...
The use of the "celtic" label may not be exactly on the mark. It seems that the cultural heritage that can be discerned for the pre-Maori culture is multi-faceted and may be related to more ancient sources. Even Celts themselves were influenced by others, by Firborlgs--the unknown invaders of the ancient Ireland about 2400BCE, and by the mysterious Tuatha de Danaan people that came from the West about 2100 BCE, a century before the first Western Celts (Picts) migrated to the British Isles and Ireland and assimilated their cultural heritage.
In fact, the myths of North American tribes describe ancient people that were tall and red/light-haired. This is often interpreted that these may have been either Vikings or Celts.
However, the Amerindian sources suggest that they were original ancient inhabitants in certain areas. It is now presumed that Toltecs may have been one of these ancients. Olmecs, on the other hand, were typical Western-African negroids, alas. To make it more complicated, some credence has been given lately to the Amerindian myths claiming that their ancestors came across the sea, from East. Genetically, they are more closely related to caucasoids than to oriental stocks. It seems that folks moved around as they pleased, to confound the present-day anthropologists.
You are right when you attribute certain patterns and symbols to a world-wide culture-- if you trace the origin of the double spiral, it points to Central Siberia, some 24,000 years ago--there is no need to designate the pre-Maori people as "Celtic".
Lumir G. Janku
Vancouver BC Canada
You are, of course, correct that the "Celtic" label does not adequately describe who the ancient inhabitants of New Zealand truly were.
A historian friend and I wrestled with the problem of how to best convey an approximation concept that most people could identify with.
In the end we, like so many other authors, opted to use the term "pre-Celts", as the more specific names like Firbolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, Milesian or Phoenician would leave most readers bewildered and confused.
A considerable mix of early, cousin peoples amalgamated to, by about 1000BC, form the Celts of Europe.
The megalithic structures of New Zealand display attributes which predate the Celtic epoch by, perhaps, 2000-years, with the closest similarities of style matching Megalithic British structures. The pre-Maori core population was probably directly linked to the Firbolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, Milesian and Phoenician peoples, with a wide mix of others joining the established population at latter eras. There is compelling evidence to suggest arrivals of true Celts and Anglo Saxons just prior to and after the dawn of the Christian era.
If we were allowed to do DNA fingerprinting on the ancient skeletal remains, still locatable in many New Zealand burial caves, all would be revealed.
There was certainly wide diffusion of the "pre-Celtic" people as shown by ongoing discoveries around the world.
A good web site, offering glimpses of such evidence, is: www.viewzone.com
Dear Mr. Doutré,
I have just taken in your excellent site on the Celtic origins of New Zealand. I was wondering if I could count on your experience to ask a question or two. I have always been interested in ancient links between world cultures, or identical origins.
I was wondering if the Maori race is related to to the Dravidians? And the Aborigines of Austrailia? Are the Polynesians from Dravidian stock, or related in any way?
Thanks so much for the attention and I look forward to hearing from you.
Dean De Lucia
in a book written by New Zealand historian, Joan Leaf, she traces the lineage of her husband, who is of Maori extraction.
To gain knowledge of the "oral whakapapa" (genealogy) Joan consulted with the Maori Wharewananga (school of learning). This is a special repository of knowledge which retains the oral traditions and information outside of that available from establishment experts in history.
The whakapapa showed that the lineage of her husband extended back to India. Based upon the information gained, Joan titled her book, 'Hawaiiki to the Hokianga, 2000 BC'.
The mystical land of Hawaiiki is where many Maori claim their ancestors came from, but the location has never been positively identified.
Available clues would indicate that the New Zealand Polynesian Maori was of considerably mixed origin when the first European maritime explorers encountered them and recorded observations. There was a lot of Melanesian stock in the local populations, as well as pockets of very light complexioned people who gave the appearance of European descent.
Some regional Maori were very tall with angular, sharp features...others were short & stocky, some with Asiatic features.
Looking at early photos of Maori one sees a wide diversity of physiology, from very dark, short, flat broad nosed "Menehune" to tall angular, hook-nosed, almost "Hebraic".
If my information is correct, there is a wrecked Tamil ship near the entrance to the Kaipara Harbour. A Tamil Bell was found being used as a cooking pot, by Reverend Colenso in about 1840. The Maori owners said it had been in their possession for many generations. It is now in a Wellington Museum. Based upon available evidence there is much to suggest a Dravidian (Southern India) strain in the Polynesian Maori...along with several other lineages. Some Maori babies are born with unique bruising marks on the back, which is described as a common Asiatic trait.
Latter era, Southern Indian Tamils were certainly coming here, as there is evidence of several Tamil shipwrecks. Sanskrit writing has been located at Easter Island and New Zealand's Waitaha people claim an association to that region of the Eastern Pacific.
If we were allowed to do "carbon dating" and "DNA analysis" of a broad spectrum of skeletal remains, all would be revealed within a short span of time. Sadly, the New Zealand authorities disallow such scholastic pursuit.
As to the Australian Aborigine, one can readily see features in their physiology, which parallel the Micronesians. Some fragments of Lapita pottery are said to have been found in New Zealand, as well as an ancient boomerang. This would indicate some association to regions just north of Australia or to the Australian Continent itself.
Developing evidence indicates that New Zealand has very ancient rock etchings comparable to "First Tongue" styles found all over the world, with some of the most remote epoch examples being found in Australia.
I feel I must query your claim that the ancient stone on the Puniho Marae is of Celtic origin. This Marae is of the Nga Mahanga, a Tairi hapu of the Taranaki iwi. Nga Mahanga is my husband's hapu and the stone was brought in the first canoe to land at this point. Nga Mahanga brought this stone God from Hawaiki and it is very old. Considering that there were Maori here long before officials will concede, I feel you cannot claim this as Celtic. (see book by Nigel Prickett) Koru Pa was the great Pa of the Nga Mahanga and occupied for several hundred years, but in the early 19 century was taken by Te Atiawa and virtually destroyed. At that time it is possible that the stone and other treasures were hidden in the Hangatahua (Stoney) river, near Ngaweka, another very old and now abandoned pa site. As to the bruising noted on some Maori babies backs at birth, my youngest son had this bruising. The Pacific was a melting pot of many races from Asia, Europe, and South America at least. I agee it is very shortsighted of authority not to allow DNA testing on ancient bones.' Man can not move on until he knows where he came from.' We have a great need in NZ to move on while discovering and respecting the past and its place in our history and culture.
I've just returned from the Hokianga and found your email waiting for me. I would agree with you that the Puniho Stone is not recognisably Celtic. In fact the stone's incising was probably done long before the Celtic era of 1000BC. I see an almost South American influence in the very weather worn patterning.
If a careful rubbing could be made of the stone, the design could be sent overseas for expert assessment. The ancient people left a message of some description for our enlightnenment or benefit and, despite the all too apparent "great age", it's more than likely a decipherable script. Dr. Barry Fell translated an ancient Numidian/ Libyan/ Phoenician type script, found in Taranaki. Legends abound throughout New Zealand that the venerated stones were brought by canoe from Hawaiiki. Perhaps it's time to assess the constituent makeup of these stones from a geological perspective and compare the findings to local varieties of stone. I would be surprised if the Puniho Stone did not originate locally, or at least within the greater Taranaki region.
I have visited Koru PA and was amazed to find stone lined embankments and stacked stone walls in profusion. The PA is also a veritable rabbit warren of tunnels. The attributes of Koru PA suggest that it was built at a very early era by the pre-Polynesian "Stone People".
Also in Taranaki is Turuturumokai PA, which is so immense it could never, in recorded history, be successfully manned or defended...thus it was never seen or known to be used as a defense position. It would probably need a minimum of 5000 defenders to successfully curtail any breach of its huge perimeter. Turuturumokai PA also suggests a very early epoch of construction and is reminiscent of some of the massive pre-Celtic fortifications of Great Britain...an amazing piece of engineering. Taranaki once was the home of a very large, very ancient stone building, hill carving and standing stone circle erecting population.
This is in stark contrast to the 50 or so remnants of Te Ati Awa - Ngati Te Whiti hapu, living under the protection of whaler, Dicky Barrett, his crew and cannons, when Colonel William Wakefield arrived there in 1839 to purchase large empty tracts from the decimated Te Ati Awa - Ngati Te Whiti hapu...survivors of incursions into their domain from the warlike Waikato tribes.
Subject: ROCKS IN POND
NO AXE TO GRIND. THESE ROCKS SENT FREELY AND WITHOUT MALICE. AIM IS TO FIND HUMANITIES TRUE HISTORY. EVE TELLS US WE ARE ALL ONE BUT WE NEED TO FIND OUR HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS.
GO TO: www.oxfordancestors.com and if you have 150 quid and a spare ancient tooth, the answers will come quickly.
The ancient "celts" were a very advanced civilisation using plentiful wood not stone. their art is our only real clue and it exceeds in quality any comparable Egyptian or mid east stuff.
They were fabled seafarers and used African crews (not slaves but freemen sharing a common adventure.)
In 2163 their homeland was destroyed along with the old kingdom in Egypt, mohanjaro etc, i.e a global disaster. They struggled on but were pressed from the east and south.
The final indignity was a roman hatchet job that portrayed them as barbarians and split them into four separate tribes, Germans, Celts, Gaels and Britons. Read tacitus and you will clearly see a classic description of a modern Celt, however he is describing a German.
I have traced the Celtic sea kings/later Phoenicians as far as Sri Lanka. seems they were already in Karachi in Alexander's time and helped him back to Egypt after he declined their offer to round sri lanka for him.
They ere very familiar with the ancient Egyptians and helped them find punt, most probably Indonesia. queen hatshepsut, queen of sheba, described Israel under Solomon very exactly and after losing touch with their roots after 400 years of hyskos (ameliakite) rule confused Israel with punt, hence her description of the land as punt.
We are also aware that the Celts skirted the southern Himalayas and may have reached china and Japan. so if they knew the route to Indonesia its not so far to carry on to aussie and new Zealand.
I briefly glimpsed an irate letter from a maori. no body is decrying them, they admit they bashed up their predecessors and took their land. they also took some culture as well. how come maoris are so different to other Polynesians. good question.
If you read any history book it is clear they use reverse timewave techniques rather than integrate the facts.
The number of cities destroyed in or about 2163 bc is astronomical and global. we are to believe they all self destructed at the same time. In the same way history is controlled by Egypt but this is based upon single unsubstantiated "facts". the list of kings given to mantheo. the rest is made, sorry forced, to fit.
Keep up the good work and get the DNA testing done.
Subject: Claims about ancient languages
I am interested in your claims, and I do not dismiss out of hand any claim that is not utterly ludicrous. I do suggest, however, that - if you wish to be given a hearing - you treat the linguistic claims of Viewzone with great caution. Their understanding of linguistics seems fairly strong in some respects but not in others. As far as their idea of a very ancient world alphabet is concerned, they MAY have a case as far as the Middle East is concerned. But in order to bring in North America they have to accept some of the identifications proclaimed by Barry Fell and his followers, many of which are clearly unwarranted and none of which have been reliably confirmed. Their identification of the Panaramitee rock-art tradition of Australia as also representing this world alphabet is even more dubious. Robert Bednarik and others who have studied this material closely see no merit in the view that it might be alphabetical; it is probably not even linguistic. And, in order to use the Viewzone computer program, which translates such 'texts' into English, one must first accept their identification of the marks as Proto-Semitic symbols and then accept their ideas about the order in which they run (very often, neither point is obvious).
I have looked in more depth at Gene Matlock's material in particular. On this evidence, his understanding of linguistics is rudimentary, to say the least: his methods of historical reconstruction are pre-scientific (18th Century) and there is no reason to accept his linguistic equations.
I have seen the claims of Brett Green and others about relationships between Aboriginal and Dravidian languages. 'Dravidians' are mentioned in one of your threads. But Green's linguistic equations are no more reasonable than those of Matlock.
I will copy some more extended comments to you if you are interested.
whereas other "alternative view" researchers make cultural, anthropological or linguistic evidence the centre of their argument, I home in on astronomical mathematics.
Oral tradition evidence, which suggests an altogether different explanation related to regional history, has been dismissed out of hand as unreliable by our learned scholars and it is futile to use such evidence when debating issues with them.
There's little to be gained by being disarmed of traditional weaponry, before entering into the arena.
The use of geometry for applications within astronomy is evident from continent to continent. This suggests that one group, or cousin peoples, were capable of navigating to any desired clime on Earth in antiquity to exploit regions for their mineral wealth.
Heres an extract from a letter I recently received from a David Janzen of Burleigh Heads, Queensland, Australia, where a very significant, ancient mining operation was located. The general appearance of the remnant structures alludes to a Phoenician presence there in antiquity.
I have visited the Phoenician mine site at Sarina Beach south of Mackay in Queensland the locator of that site, Mr. Val Osbourn conducted me on a tour one afternoon to indicate the mines, the slag heaps, the foundations for the quay the road constructed from quarried stone, etc .I have a piece of smelted bronze found on the beach yes, bronze! the political concerns of the local archaeologists and their own training prevent them from seeing anything but Aboriginal artefacts and traces. They refuse to be shown anything or to do a dig.
On the other hand, Mr. Osbourn invited some mining acquaintances to view the site and they were able to spot the slag, the quarried stones, the mine, the slag cement used in the quay, etc., without any prompting by friend Val.
My approach, of following the trail of a particular measurement standard and special astronomical numbers derived therefrom, is but one indicator of who these "fanning abroad" people were.
It stands to reason that glyphs or other cultural idiosyncrasies will also be present amongst the artefacts and traces left.
Although I'm no expert on glyphs, from time to time I see something which is blatantly obvious, wherein it's far easier to believe the analysis and conclusions of the "alternative view" researcher than not to.
It is beyond question, in my opinion, that the "Bat Creek Stone" from an undisturbed burial mound in Tennessee, North America is written upon in an ancient Hebrew script. It is but one of many indicators of solid finds (Anubis Caves, Oklahoma...etc.) that continue to be decried or ignored by the unteachable experts.
A very good synopsis of the Smithsonian Museum's rigourous, immovable stance is found at: http://greatserpentmound.org/articles/giants3.html.
My own mathematical analysis of the huge Octagon complex of Newark, Ohio, convinces me that the highly mobilised group, with a pedigree back to the Mediterranean, were responsible for the construction of that and other regional structures.
It would be my expectation that many ancient artefacts taken from the estimated 10,000 mounds of North America would show cultural and linguistic links back to the Near East, Mediterranean and European regions.
Those same ancient people certainly left mathematical evidence of their long-term presence in New Zealand and a scrutiny of such websites as www.awarenessquest.com suggest a strong presence in ancient Australia also.
Even if this glyph evidence is severely sifted and a large percentage discarded as insufficiently compelling, there still remains enough to show an anomalous presence of Northern Hemisphere residents and visitors on several continents.
Subject: A couple of points
I have been looking at Gene Matlock's newer material on Viewzone, especially 'Atlantis Was In Mexico'. Whatever other points he may have in his favour, Matlock's LINGUISTIC evidence is as weak as ever. Until he & I had an exchange earlier this year, he was apparently virtually unaware of the existence of the subject of historical linguistics; and his actual approach to doing linguistic comparison and developing proposals about the relatedness of languages is right out of the 'Dark Ages' before linguistics arose as a serious subject (18th Century).
There really is no doubt that Matlock's linguistic equations (eg, of Amerindian and Sanskrit words) are largely arbitrary. Close study of such things over the course of 200 years has provided massive evidence/argumentation showing that such approaches are utterly unreliable. I am happy to explain & exemplify this point on request.
I note that in your letter to Viewzone (reproduced in Matlock's material on Oklahoma) you refer to 'Indo-European' ethnic origin. The term 'Indo-European' normally refers to a language family (which dates back only a few thousand years as far as can be told) rather than to an ethnic group; it certainly does not refer to a physically-characterised 'racial' group. If you mean European/Caucasian (etc), those might be better terms to use here. Or do you perhaps have a (non-standard) theory which includes the existence of an 'Indo-European' ethnic/ racial group?
Matlock also seems to ASSUME that Plato's story had some basis in fact, and that the remains/effects of Atlantis are therefore waiting to be found somewhere. But Plato tells various stories, not usually presenting them as historical fact. Anyone familiar with his work will recognise that the Atlantis story could very well have been invented by him and used only as a fable. (It MAY have been more than this, but the onus is very much upon those who think so to make out a case.)
Those who HAVE tried to interpret Atlantis as a (perhaps garbled) true story have identified very many different places (Antarctica, the Aegean, the Canary Islands, the Caribbean, Smyrna/Izmir, Troy, etc, etc). This is mainly because Plato's account is simply too easy to interpret in a variety of ways and because there is no guarantee, even on his character's own account of how he came by the story, that all the details are correct. And there is no mention outside & prior to Plato of a country called Atlantis. Even if Atlantis did exist, Matlock cannot claim to know (as opposed to guess) its true location on the basis of the evidence which he provides.
I have read the article to which you referred me. Of course, this is a partisan and perhaps a one-side account; but there IS an element of conservatism in academia (though it is not as great as some proponents of non-standard theories claim) and sometimes this does (unfortunately and at times inexcusably) hinder progress. On the other hand, caution per se is no bad thing - and theories ARE generally accepted once the evidence genuinely reaches a certain threshold (note what happened with plate tectonics). Indeed, most subjects (including my own) change at a very rapid pace when there is really decisive evidence that things are not as they should be.
I should also say that some of the most dogmatic people I have ever met - more dogmatic than any skeptic - have been proponents of non-standard theories.
My other observation at this point is that people like Deloria (cited in that article), Anyon, Lawlor etc are liable to slide into relativism
(BOTH of two mutually-exclusive views are said to be true, or the existence of inter-personal/inter-cultural truth is denied). Unless one is an extreme postmodernist and/or has a VERY odd philosophy of knowledge, this position is absurd. Furthermore, proponents of non-standard theories can benefit from it only to the rather limited & unhelpful extent that their ideas are not judged actually inferior to those which prevail in mainstream academia.
But even if Deloria et al. settle for a more traditional view of the nature of truth, the evidence which they bring to bear in support of indigenous traditions as opposed to scientific findings is (as far as I can see) typically inadequate for the purpose.
My use of the term Indo-European was in reference to a physical type or Caucasoid. I was unaware that this term was used, in academic circles, solely to describe the diffusion of language.
My letter to Viewzone was to acquaint them with the fact that we have skeletons, in New Zealand burial caves, of typical European physiology ...i.e, the shape of the cranium and lower border of the mandible, with some skeletons still showing red hair or light hues like nut brown and, in some recorded instances, blond. The evidence extends to other features of the greater skeleton as well.
I'm not qualified to comment on Matlock's credentials or whether his findings have any merit, but am reminded of an excerpt from Michael Cremo's work:
'In the course of normal science, it may happen that anomalies begin to accumulate. Some of these may be set aside for future research. Some may be dismissed as irrelevant. But if a sufficient number of anomalies accumulates, anomalies which resist solution by the paradigm or incorporation into it, a crisis develops. As the crisis intensifies, scientists begin to offer and promote new paradigms capable of accommodating the anomalies. If one of these paradigms attracts the attention of a sufficient number of members of the research community, a scientific revolution takes place. The research community learns to see things in a different way. It develops a new set of methods and concerns.
Kuhn points out that unless there is a recognizable crisis, provoked by an accumulation of crucial anomalies, there will be no movement to a new paradigm. The first step toward movement to a new paradigm is thus recognition of anomalies, of counterinstances to the current paradigm'.
From Michael Cremo's response to the criticism of Bradley Lepper (archaeologist/ historian) related to the book, Forbidden Archaeology, by Cremo & Thompson.
I believe there is more than sufficient evidence, spread over several continents, to suggest the free movement of Near Eastern/ Mediterranean/ European peoples to distant colonies in North America and elsewhere, including our region.
It is my view that our learned scientists cleave too long to old paradigms in the face of mounting contrary evidence.
Amateurs get exasperated by the lack of momentum and blaze their own, sometimes faulted or crude trails in a quest for immediate answers, often making further significant discoveries along the way.
I admit that it's very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff and there's a lot of "way out" sensationalism being promoted as science. Whenever I hear the term, Atlantis, I cringe and look the other way...the subject has been done to death in numerous accounts.
This is not to say that researchers should not seek it any longer, if that's their driving passion, but I have no personal intention of getting onto that treadmill.
With regards to the Smithsonian, their conservatism is so intense it has led to stagnation in certain categories and fields of scientific endeavour. Many anomalous artefacts, surrendered to them in good faith, have not resurfaced for decades or a century and I can't help but feel there is a political agenda in this "finding" then conveniently "losing" anomalous evidence. I am convinced that the museum is simply not prepared to allow a shift in the paradigm to take place and are being deliberately obstructive.
Vine Deloria jr. is righteously indignant about the hijacking of "history" by "do gooder paternalists", who are creating a cozy, socially engineered pseudo-history, that unreasonably accentuates and promotes so-called indigenous accomplishment to the exclusion of all else.
He sees this as European led condescension against his people and complains, 'There's no effort to ask the tribes what they remember of things that happened.
He goes on to say, 'numerous tribes do say that strange people doing this or that came through our land, visited us, and so on. Or they remember that we came across the Atlantic as refugees from some struggle, then came down the St. Lawrence River and so forth. There's a great reluctance among archaeologists and anthropologists to break centuries-old tradition and to take a look at something new...As for the history of this hemisphere from say, five thousand B.C. forward to our time, the mainstream scholars just don't want to deal with that at all. Let me give you an example. Years ago I spoke at an academic archaeological conference, and at the end of my speech I asked, 'Why don't you guys just drop the blinders and get into this diffusionist stuff?' My host, David Hurst Thomas, just about lost it and said, 'Do you know how long and hard we've fought to get members of this profession to admit that Indians could have done some of these things? And now you're saying it was Europeans!'''
This same set of limiting parameters has been foisted onto us in our "New Zealand" interpretation of regional history. Again, the social engineers have discounted as irrelevant and unreliable the oral traditions of the Maori Elders and have created a cozy, cotton-wool, pseudo-history that promotes a much santitised version, to the exclusion of all else.
Local historical interpretation is locked into a mere 800-900 years of human occupation, with a marked reluctance to accept any significant occupation at earlier epochs...in the face of dynamic evidence of at least 5000 years of continuous human presence in this country.
This mollycoddling, protective paternalism by "do gooder", "we know what's best for you", social engineers is as much a condescending insult to the Maori people as it is to Deloria's North American Indian tribes-people, in that it discounts their oral traditions and histories as being of no worth or substance.
The evidence of a common, migrating astronomical/ mathematical system extends from continent to continent and it stands to reason that linguistic evidence will accompany those traces. Why is the Maori word for the Sun, RA, the same rendition as that of Egypt?...to cite but one of many similar examples.
Subject: Re: a couple of points
I now understand what you meant when you spoke of 'Indo-European'. I suggest you avoid this terminology in future; it is confusing.
Are there published reports (preferably by experience archaeologists) on the finds in question?
Cremo's point about anomalies is a very familiar one, made by many before him. And there certainly are anomalies of this kind; 'Kennewick man' is a well known example. Sometimes such anomalies are later explained in undramatic terms, but some clusters of anomalies do lead to major revisions of ideas. However, I would not take Cremo's claims seriously unless a given claim is independently supported. He makes extensive use of old reports which would not meet modern standards of
investigation; and many of the artefacts in question are no longer available. And the notion that humans existed hundreds of millions of years ago clashes with so much other evidence that it appears unlikely. (Of course, Cremo's ideas are associated with his Vedic beliefs, which are based on literal readings of ancient mythical and quasi-historical texts.)
But such dramatic revisions of thought are not necessary for your own thesis to hold up. And it would not surprise me if we did learn that there was rather more diffusion of ideas etc in very early times than is now accepted in the mainstream (and isolated oceanic crossings later). The point is, however, that long experience has taught mainstream scholars to be cautious. We KNOW that many such events are possible in principle; but we are concerned with whether each such alleged event DID occur. Many claims of this kind have been made and only a small percentage even get to first base in terms of persuasive evidence. The
evidence brought forward by most advocates of such claims is simply inadequate to demonstrate their case.
I know the linguistic side of this best. I can tell you that most language-based arguments in support of early diffusion are awful.
Those who develop them typically know almost nothing about linguistics and ignore all the gains we have made in 200 years of scholarship; they talk as if it were 1775 and as if Jones, Grimm, the Neogrammarians, de Saussure, Martinet, Ringe etc had never existed. One cannot even reject a tradition of scholarship of which one is almost entirely ignorant. If you want to develop strong pro-diffusionist arguments, my advice is to steer well clear of linguistics (unless you have a good knowledge of it).
I'm afraid that this applies to examples like yours involving the forms RA. In many cases, etymologies are known for some such members of a pair or set of words, which indicate that they do not have a common origin. One dramatic case is DOG, the word for 'dog' in Mbabaram. It is quite certain that this is not a borrowed form (either way). But, even where etymologies are not known, isolated cases of superficial phonetic and semantic similarity (even if very numerous) do not show that there is any genuine link (unless there is a high degree of systematicity).
This is the main relevant point that we have learned in 200 years of scholarship, but which is completely unknown to most amateurs. I can explain this further if you are interested. There really is no doubt that such cases prove nothing.
More generally: as I have said, I think it is in fact unusual for serious scholars to 'cleave too long to old paradigms' (not that I like
to use this last word in this way) 'in the face of mounting contrary evidence'. Disciplines change all the time in response to good
evidence. Many change so much even in 10 years that they are almost unrecognisable to those who resume their interest after a gap. And a great deal of alleged contrary evidence is less impressive than amateur advocates think it is. (I know this for a fact as far as linguistics goes - see above - and it seems to me that it is true more generally.)
But of course it IS good to direct attention - supported with strong evidence - to any cases where this does seem to be the case (or seems likely to be the case).
What I know of the Smithsonian suggests to me that your account of its attitudes and activities, while having some truth, is exaggerated and indeed somewhat dated. But sorting this out would require a great deal of work.
In my view, Deloria makes some good points; and it is not at all unreasonable to call for Amerindian groups to be treated with more respect than has happened in the past. It is also important to study oral indigenous traditions, and many scientifically-oriented scholars - including those who are themselves from indigenous backgrounds - do this. But it is ridiculous to suggest that oral traditions referring to events thousands of years old are more authoritative than the results of scientific investigation (or to claim, as some relativists do, that BOTH sets of ideas may be correct even where they clearly contradict each other, which is quite obviously absurd).
For a start, the use of the term 'remember' is contentious here; no-one now alive remembers any of this, just as no-one in the day of 'Homer' remembered the Trojan War (if that ever occurred as such). And even the memories of the living are not incorrigible (not that this is centrally relevant here).
A few mainstream scholars are indeed 'blinkered', and I sympathise with anyone who has suffered at the hands of such people (this can happen even within a mainstream discipline). But far more academics are themselves weary of being confronted with non-standard theories which prove to have little or no value. They are too busy with genuine frontier-expanding work to address such claims. I myself spend as much time on all this as I do only because I am an active Skeptic as well as a professional academic. Even I am running out of steam, because it is so very unusual to come upon a non-standard historical linguistic claim
that has any real merit. Things MAY be a little better in some other disciplines; but I don't think mainstream scholars can be blamed for declining to look at non-standard claims unless these are supported by very strong evidence indeed. (It is also VERY difficult to persuade most non-mainstream thinkers that they themselves might be wrong, even when - as is common - they know far less about the subject than the academic. I myself have sometimes conceded too much to an amateur with more knowledge than most, just to get a dialogue going.)
However, I do think it is unfortunate when political issues intrude (as I think happens very overtly with Deloria). Mainstream archaeologists feel pleased that their view supports the idea that the Amerindians were themselves entirely responsible for the major civilisations in the New World; but they should proclaim this view because they really believe that it is correct, not because they want to avoid charges of old-fashioned Eurocentric racism. As scholars, we should focus on knowing the facts, regardless of who might or not be pleased about them. On this point, I think you and I are in agreement.
I repeat my warning about Viewzone and especially about Matlock, who has something of a nerve publishing on subjects in which he is so very inexpert.
The amateur or layperson takes the view that, "apples is apples". If a sufficient number of compelling examples of "continents apart" coincidences are seen to occur in glyphs/ symbols, linguistics, cultural/ religious expressions, anthropological/ skeletal ethnicity or artefact/ structural style evidence, then it takes no great leap of faith to draw a rational conclusion that a relationship exists.
The average person on the street is, generally, reasonably practical and sufficiently observant to see glaring parallels, assess a "body of proof" for what it's worth and cast unbiased judgment accordingly.
Edward Tregear, an early New Zealand colonial anthropologist, was one of several individuals who suggested a Maori-Aryan ancestry, based upon words that, plausibly, seemed to migrate beyond Malayo-Polynesian language families toward India and the Mediterranean.
Although ridiculed in his day, many of his conclusions have been upheld by more recent works, sufficient for the layperson to conclude that a relationship exists between the Maori language and some Egyptian/ Eastern Libyan words or phrases...words like:
ai, ake (above, below) ...Eg/Lib ... iho, ake ...Maor.
dua, tua (adore) ...Eg/ Lib ...tua ...Maor.
ratah (aflict) ...Eg/ Lib ...rata ...Maor.
tapui (ancestor) ...Eg/ Lib ...tapuna ...Maor.
na (because) ...Eg/ Lib ...na ...Maor.
tahu (beloved) ...Eg/ Lib ...tahu ...Maor.
tike (burn by the sun) ...Eg/ Lib ...tika ...Maor.
menfitu (army) ...Eg/ Lib ...mene, whitu ...Maor.
To the layperson, these few samples, amongst a myriad of others that can be drawn upon, look fairly compelling. They are rendered in the same general way, phonetically, and have the same basic meaning at two ends of the Earth.
Moreover, Prof. Linus Brunner cites approximately 1000 examples of Malayo-Polynesian, Semitic and Indo-European word comparisons and writes:
'One detail hitherto incomprehensible is now explicable, the fact that Malayo-Polynesian dialects certainly have loan words from Greek... This could be explained if there were Greeks on the Libyan-Egyptian expeditions to Indonesia and the Pacific who were inhabitants of Cyrenacia with the Greek colonies at that time under Egyptian rule... One ought not to exaggerate uncertainties, but to acknowledge the principal facts: the same script is found in North Africa, Indonesia and the Pacific and similar dialects contain the same script'.
(Malayo-Polynesian vocabulary with Semitic & Indo-European roots, ESOP vol. 10 part 2...Arlington, Mass., 1978).
In view of this comparative analysis, it would be mystifying for the layperson to find that some linguistics experts could see no relationship between the similarity in pronunciation and meaning of a wide range of words, from two vastly separated regions of the globe.
It is reported that members of the "Maori Battalion", stationed in the Near & Middle Eastern theatres of WWII, sometimes found that they could converse reasonably well with certain Arab groups and that whole sentences had the same meaning in both languages.
As to your question related to skeletal evidence, 'Are there published reports (preferably by experienced archaeologists) on the finds in question?'
Yes, although muted in modern times, over the years such reports concerning observations of anomalous skeletons have been made. In my website I show at least one photograph of an anomalous, "trussed burial" skeleton with Caucasoid features.
In one of archaeologist, Janet Davidson's books she shows, recognisably, non-Polynesian skeletons laid out in an extended position. Leslie Adkins, in his book, Horowhenua, shows skull photos of yet another anomalous type.
Bodies in mummified form have been found in New Zealand...sometimes in mummy cases. Edward Tregear wrote about such a New Zealand find in the Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.25... 'The resident natives denied knowledge of the remains, and said the bodies were those of strangers-probably the tangata whenua'.
Tregear goes on to say, 'The preservation of the dried body, the shaping of the mummy case (roughly shaped to human form), the carving of sex emblems thereon, all point to a relationship of ideas with those of other peoples who preserved the bodies of the dead'.
There yet remain many such ancient skeletons in remote burial caves, but on-one is allowed to do a proper scientific evaluation of them and no modern-day professionals will overtly proffer commentary related to such finds..."career suicide!"
I don't see, in Michael Cremo's work, that it is driven by his Vedic beliefs...it's just "good science", which addresses a very difficult subject ... one deliberately overlooked in "timid" archaeological circles because of its proven association to "career suicide".
He also uses "modern archaeological reports", which have been (by admission) doctored to comply to more recent time frames by modern archaeologists... because they were unable to, personally, believe the extremely remote dates indicated by carbon dating or layer evidence.
Feder wrote in Geoarchaeology (9:338): "While decidedly antievolutionary in perspective, this work is not the ordinary variety of antievolutionism in form, content, or style. In distinction to the usual brand of such writing, the authors use original sources and the book is well written. Further, the overall tone of the work is far superior to that exhibited in ordinary creationist literature."
Michael Cremo states, Hidden History is not simply a "catalog" of "odd 'facts' which appear to conflict with the modern scientific understanding of human evolution." It develops a refined epistemological argument...
In further addressing unfair criticism he states,'But these conventional maledictions do not apply to Hidden History, which presents a thorough and systematic survey and critique of evidence relevant to human origins and antiquity. The facts in the book are deployed within the framework of a well-articulated analysis of the quality of archeological and paleoanthropological reporting.'
About Hidden History's parent book, Journal of Field Archeology (21: 112) said: "This volume combines a vast amount of both accepted and controversial evidence from the archeological record with sociological, philosophical, and historical critiques of the scientific method to challenge existing views and expose the suppression of information concerning history and human origins."
And archeologist Tim Murray wrote in British Journal for the History of Science (28: 379) that the book "provides the historian of archeology with a useful compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one's discipline."
Cremo further writes,' This is not to suggest that the writers of these statements endorsed the book's conclusions; they did not. But it is apparent that they thought the book was something more than a collection of poorly documented odd facts and quotations taken out of context. They could recognize something of the book's epistemological framework and intellectual integrity...' (Michael Cremo's response to the criticism of Bradley Lepper...archaeologist/ historian).
In reference to your comment that, 'But it is ridiculous to suggest that oral traditions referring to events thousands of years old are more authoritative than the results of scientific investigation...'
The 'disciplinas', that handed the oral traditions down to ensuing generations were, traditionally, very strict. This certainly applies to groups like the Druids or, equally to the Maori Wharewaenaga, who memorised songs or chants to perfection and in a cadence rhythm. Many of the words of those chants are archaic and on the fringes of understanding or interpretation, which lends credence to the fact that the oral messages are, oftimes, very ancient.
In Maori society it was considered that time spent working with a "dunce" was time wasted, and initiates into the Wharewaenanga had to be the brightest, the best and the most adept. Poor performance, in reiterating the oral histories or whakapapa's (genealogies), could be punishable by death, as it was highly important that the passage of information remain uncorrupted.
I believe that the oral traditions of groups like the North American Indians or the Maoris are vastly under-rated...the larger, formal 'disciplinas' were equivalent to universities and it was no small task to gain proficiency within them.
From my own perspective, depending upon which school or level of archaeological endeavour one is working at or most drawn to evidence-wise, the oral traditions work hand in glove with scientific investigations and finds...in North America and New Zealand.
The more I look at the range of subject matter or varied scientific disciplines, which combine to provide the complete historical picture, the more grateful I am that my own pursuits or passion are directed toward the worldwide migration of measurements and particular numbers used in astronomy.
It would seem that most scientific disciplines are, at best, inexact sciences, in a constant state of flux and open to diverse interpretation. The tracking of geometric principles, from continent to continent, suffers from no similar impediment, as it either works exactly within a remnant site to provide precise information, or it doesn't.