Alternative
theories of the settlement of New Zealand are not new. Speculations
about non-Maori previous settlers or people who influenced Maori other
than the historically documented voyages of Tasman and Cook have occurred
for the past 150 years.
One can tick off Chinese, Tamil, Spanish, Libyans, Indians, Egyptians, Celts, Peruvians and extra-terrestrials as all having their supporters. Sometimes they are citing the same evidence!
Even giant apes have a supporter for being here in the past - against all biogeography.
You can find much of this stuff on the net. I will not dignify it with links.
How can you tell alternative archaeology from the more respectable sort?
There are some intrinsic and some contextual things.
The context is often self-published works or websites not connected to mainstream organisations.
The intrinsic features list is longer. Not all will grace every theory
- They are often presented in the manner of being sensational new discoveries when the detail is using a lot of old material.
- Fieldwork looking at sites is not often a feature. Excavation even rarer.
- Use of secondary sources abounds.
- Rarely have the proponents any qualifications in archaeology or anthropology.
- Sources are often poorly documented.
- The assembly of facts is often eclectic.
- Rarely is there any grass-roots contribution, only some grand overview.
- The actual theory is often somewhat obscure especially at the detailed end.
- There is little in the way of a comprehensive view of how the society they are proposing existed, rather somewhat obsessive concentration on a few features.
- Astronomical observatories, pyramids, canals, alignments and roadways are often educed. The dating and functional discrepancies between features considered as evidence of cultural links is usually ignored
- The age of the evidence they present is often little considered. Where ages are known glaring discrepancies are often ignored as if all non-recent dates are sufficient support.
- Appeals to the distribution of plants and animals at the time of first written records are often made, without any consideration of what is often a known history of these plants or animals.
- The theories often roam beyond New Zealand presenting odd snippets from all over as somehow significant.
- There is often a "new age" element. Mysterious revelations from elders of great spirituality and learning can often be found as the basis of the new truth.
- Sadly there is often a racist element in New Zealand originated theories. Resentment by non-Maori at settlement of Waitangi Tribunal claims often surfaces, with the view that history as now revealed demonstrates they are unjustified. It often appears minimally as doubting the capacity of mere Polynesians to have carried out some feat.
- Conspiracy theories are often built into them. The "of course academics have to support the conventional view - their jobs and research funding depend on it" stuff. Not surprisingly this argument very often appears from alternative theorists in fields other than archaeology. Often Maori are supposed to have some special influence over what is allowed in the conventional views. As someone said "the complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working."
- Of course their archaeology is often execrable. Not easy for someone inexperienced to detect this, but look at the location maps, are they accurate as to locations and the spelling of the names used?, do the plans of sites have scales and north points?, are any artefacts located as to where they came from, so the illustrations include scales or dimension and do any carbon dates referenced have error figures and laboratory numbers and are the origins of the samples well documented?
Nothing much changes. Go to a library and read Tregear's The Aryan Maori 1885. The scholarship then was a little better than most offerings today.
To find more about how seductive the Aryan idea was to empire minded people see Orientalism and Race; Aryanism in the British Empire. A Ballantyne, 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
What evidence for earlier occupation might look like if it was to be convincing:
-
Firstly New Zealand is remote, and set in a stormy cool ocean. It can only be reached by accomplished sailors. This means settlement is only likely by a civilisation with a material maritime history.
-
Related to this we should not expect a variety of different people to have reached here. It would be a past human feat enough to find one more besides Maori, let alone more than one.
-
Archaeologically we would expect that New Zealand was the end of a pattern of settlement. For instance Maori settlement of New Zealand was part of an archaeologically now well known expansion across the Pacific, traceable archaeologically to eastern Indonesia. Analogues of the New Zealand Archaic version of Maori culture are found widely distributed in Eastern Polynesia at dates broadly consistent with the New Zealand manifestation. Again British colonisation of New Zealand, while much of it was by direct voyages from Britain, was part of a pattern of colonisation in South Africa, Australia, India, eastern Asia and North America. These colonies were staging posts in some cases and all traded between themselves. Hence we should expect to see a pattern of settlement which ends in New Zealand, not which has New Zealand as some isolated exception.
-
We would expect to see the ordinary stuff of life. Occupation sites will occur with evidence of houses, discarded waste, and tools. The built and made things would form a distinctive culture complex, with some key forms of everyday tools and structures traceable back to the place of origin.
-
For people who had ceramics in their place of origin we would expect to find remains of imported ceramics here and expect the settlers to have continued making pottery. Many of the people claimed to have been here before Maori made and used ceramics in their places of origin. Sherds from ceramics are very often distinctive, are durable and imported wares are often found as in the pioneer sites when a place is settled. New Zealand has suitable clays and no shortage of firewood for continuing making ceramics. Archaeologist pick up potsherds routinely, even in New Zealand where Maori made no pots. Archaeological reconnaissances in places where pots were made routinely find many potsherds before the intact sites are found. The presence or absence of distinctive ceramics is a powerful test.
-
There would be a pattern of sites which made sense in terms of the transport and economy of the settlers. The artefacts would be of types repeated in like sites. Successful settlement would result in a population being established. People dying usually leave some trace in the myriad forms of burial practiced by people.
-
The sites would be datable by means such as carbon dating to a time before Maori.
-
The economic base of the people would show some things brought with them, and some exploitation of the abundant bird and sea resources of a land where there were no equivalent predators. As they came to know the country we would expect increasing use of the local resources.
-
We might expect to see some monumental or religious sites if these were part of the culture carried here, but they will not be alone. They would be part of a broader pattern of sites.
-
We would expect to see the settlers had some effect on the environment. The birds here in particular are vulnerable. Some land would be cleared for agriculture. New Zealand forest is not adapted to frequent fire sources. The drier eastern and drought prone areas of New Zealand were vulnerable to more frequent fires when people arrived. Signs of clearance and fire would be apparent in pollen cores from lakes and swamps.
-
We would expect earlier settlers to have come into contact with Maori when they arrived. Polynesians were not slow to adopt things that were advantageous to them. Any people that reached New Zealand ahead of Maori were not backward. They would have had some things worth adopting by a succeeding culture. If no adoptions can be demonstrated, there would need to be a convincing rationalisation as to why aspects of this pre-Maori settlement failed to leave any trace in Maori culture.
Kerry Howe of Massey University has published on alternative theories. He is an historian, not an archaeologist. It is a good read.
 |
The Quest for Origins - Who First Discovered and Settled New Zealand and the Pacific Islands?, Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003. |