Poor guy is having a hard time finding a receptive audience.
My mistake. I’m not particularly well-versed on the topic.
Heh, that thread got cornfielded while I was reading it.
It’s rough when you can’t even gain traction on a site like that.
Me, too. deleted between pages 2 and 3. Now I’ll never know the rest of the brilliant arguments from the guy saying that Easter Island is a remnant of Lemura and animals learn the sin of homosexuality from humans.
(He also had a post at a site called Above Top Secret, but it was deleted between Google indexing it and me trying to read it.)
No worries. 
I was just a bit puzzled (though I’m sure there are those who feel the Treaty Settlements don’t go far enough or are fast enough for them). And conversely those who feel we don’t / shouldn’t need to make settlements.
The process ain’t perfect, but it is ongoing, and is working to redress old wrongs.
actually I forwarded his thread and his website to the NZ link that was given so he might not come back
Thanks for posting that link. I remember the Titford man and his whining supporters. Interesting to see the connections with One New Zealand and Don Brash. He should have stayed as Reserve Bank governor and kept his nose out of politics.
I’ve come back to NZ after nearly 20 years away. I wasn’t aware of any of this until following the OP’s links.
ditto.
And I’m sure there were “giants” in biblical times. Any people who averaged 6" taller than the people who wrote the Bible would have been giants, after all.
FYI you could probably still read the Google cached version of it…
That’s just an (admittedly wrongheaded) twist on what actually happened to the Moriori on the Chathams, though. Not that they were earlier or more primitive. The killed and (sometimes) eaten part I mean. Not that that didn’t happen in New Zealand proper either. Amongst non-Moriori Maori, I mean.
Yes, general understanding now is that the Moriori emigrated to the Chatham Islands around 1500 from NZ, with cultural and linguistic divergence occurring over the next few hundred years until a couple of Maori tribes invaded in 1835, killing many of the inhabitants and enslaving the rest until the early 1860s.
Back early last century though , and persisting for quite a while (I’m pretty sure I got this version at school in the 70s), was the idea that the Moriori represented an earlier wave of migration to the NZ mainland and the Chathams, and that later Maori colonists had killed off the peaceful earlier settlers before European contact, with the Chatham Islanders as the last remnant of this indigenous people.
Whether the initial intent or not, this version of events with later Maori colonization was seen by some to offer a rationale by which Maori territorial claims might be contested or undermined.
(Perhaps cynically) the OP’s claims appear to be a new variant on the same old theme.
Yes. That’s what I wanted to hear. There is no evidence that is public. And absence of evidence does not always equal evidence of absence, but yes, every find (the last one in 2008 by someone I know where the archaeologist ordered the skeleton bulldozed!) ) is either false or true but eliminated (most are false).
So Polynesians got here 780 years ago. What of a human bone…a fossilized human bone, was found here in NZ. As the only mammals before Polynesians were the bat, how would people react to that (and that’s not even what we are trying to uncover).
That’s a big assumption on all levels. I love it though, I truly do. Keep watching.
Do you think if evidence of a pre-Polynesian people of tall stature were revealed to the authorities they’d applaud it? Political Maori totally reject the notion they were not here first. But many Maori do not believe they were first. It depends on what tribe (and therefore what part of the country) you come from.
But I am not here to convince anyone, yet. I’m just content to have them state their opinion on the possibility publicly - for the time being.
No. The treaty was with those who held the land when the British signed the treaty. All that changes is the title of who were the original native people. I’m not sure why you bring in a racist tone to all this. It’s a mistake many make.
remember I said I forwarded the thread to NZ officials?
Heres the response I took out my real info tho
Isaac McIvor <IMcIvor@heritage.org.nz>
To:me
Cc:
Antrim Archaeologists
,
Bev Parslow
,
Pauline Vela
,
Greg Walter
Apr 8 at 6:38 PM
Kia ora
Thank you for taking the time to forward those links to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. We are taking this matter seriously and will continue to monitor the posts should it become clearer that archaeological sites are being (or at risk of being) damaged.
Kind regards
Zac
Isaac (Zac) McIvor I Archaeologist - Poutairangahia I Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | Northern Regional Office, Private Box 105291, Auckland City 1143 | Ph: (64 9) 307 9920 | DDI: (64 9) 307 9933 | Cell: 027 605 4341. Visit www.heritage.org.nz and learn more about New Zealand’s heritage places.
What is the Maori translation of tangatawhenua16 is screwed? Something along the lines of “You’re fucked, mate,” I suppose.
As a trained but unused archaeologist I am finding this delicious.
tangatawhenua16 writes:
> But I am not here to convince anyone, yet.
What’s the point of posting to the SDMB if you don’t want to convince anyone?
What was the point of your General Questions thread on the time it takes for bone to fossilize (by which I assume you mean petrify) when you ignore the information that there is no necessary relationship between the age of a bone and the degree of fossilization? A mineralized or petrified bone could be less than 780 years old. Also, how do you know it’s a mammal bone? Moa bones were also large and dense Unless you are an expert on vertebrate osteology (which you clearly are not) I doubt you could reliably identify it as a mammal bone, let alone a human bone.