Entertaining stories on offer

The documentaries ‘The Red Heads' and ‘Under the Carpet', that M J Anderson (The Weekend Sun, October 14) claims to provide proof that three or four cultures inhabited New Zealand before the arrival of Maori, in fact do no such thing. These documentaries are mostly individuals repeating oral history with no scientific credibility at all. These documentaries do not even make reference to Janet Wilmshurst's radiocarbon results from 2011 that showed there is no evidence of inhabitants in NZ before Maori arrived. The documentaries also claim red hair in Maori had to come from an ancient pre-Maori tribe in NZ while elsewhere stating Captain Wallace of the British ship The Dolphin in 1767 estimated about 10 per cent of the population of Tahiti had red hair. Maori migrated to NZ from Tahiti. Finally, the documentaries claim Chinese Admiral Zheng. He voyaged to NZ in 1421. There is a Zheng He Society in China. They have no record of Zheng or him coming to NZ. These documentaries simply provide entertaining stories not credible evidence.

P Dey, Welcome Bay.

You may also like....

17 comments

Entertaining?

Posted on 04-11-2016 20:35 | By Crash test dummies

Dear Peter, the vast majority of the purported claims to the Waitangi Tribunal are based on "oral history " I read with interest previously that you have noted that many a myth of the locals are 100% made up, so hard to see that you are able to even attempt to get on the ladder to climb out of the mire ...


Red and Carpets

Posted on 04-11-2016 22:03 | By Crash test dummies

yes, that is about how it really was, there are many who wish otherwise. Records and evidence that remains and isn't yet destroyed from history shows clearly that some seven different cultures were in NZ prior to about 1400AD


Pre Maori settlements

Posted on 05-11-2016 09:40 | By leighmac

I can only presume P. Dey is not willing to believe the extensive DNA results from Poverty Bay Maori taken some years ago that showed strong ties to Portuguese DNA or the existence of the buried Chinese Junk in the South Island Catlands area. There is a great deal of evidence to prove that there was life in NZ before the Maori.


Leighmac your evidence is not reputable

Posted on 05-11-2016 10:47 | By Peter Dey

Plenty of people talk about evidence of pre-Maori residents in New Zealand but it is just talk not supported by genuine scientific evidence. The internationally accepted evidence of Janet Wilmshurst has not been challenged. Her radiocarbon evidence shows that there were no residents in New Zealand before Maori arrived.


lacks credibility

Posted on 06-11-2016 15:52 | By Captain Sensible

It is a well known fact that researchers do not get paid unless their "findings" are the findings their employer wants. Several 'whistle blower' researchers have blown the lid on this. So the credibility of Peter Dey's favourite researcher , Janet Wilmshurst, is very much in question as are all whose pay cheques depend on what their employer wants them to find. In one case, Wilmshurst radio carbon dating of rats bones, she only dated the bones she found and left out the bones that independent researcher Richard Holdaway found. How convenient!!


Janet Wilmshurst has credibility anonymous writers do not

Posted on 07-11-2016 11:16 | By Peter Dey

The scientific evidence published by Janet Wilmshurst was gathered in collaboration with scientists from California, Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand. Her findings were published by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, official advisers to the USA Government. Her data showed that there were no residents in New Zealand before Maori arrived. Her findings have not been challenged by reputable scientists. Anonymous writers who do not accept her findings have no credibility at all.


Crash test dummies, recent history is not myth

Posted on 07-11-2016 11:22 | By Peter Dey

Decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal are based on recent history which may include oral evidence. Stories handed down over 800 years are myths. Their accuracy can never be established and nobody now claims credibly that mythical stories are more reliable than scientific evidence.


Can scientists falsify results

Posted on 07-11-2016 13:08 | By Peter Dey

There have been famous cases of scientists falsifying results. In the case of the radiocarbon evidence of Janet Wilmshurst's team. The team came from four different universities in different countries. Their results were published by the totally respected National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Their results have not been challenged by reputable scientists since publishing four years ago. It seems fairly clear that people who do not accept Janet's results want to write propaganda and Janet proves them wrong.


@ Peter Dey

Posted on 07-11-2016 13:25 | By Captain Sensible

Peter, this is just common sense, but they can only comment on what they tested...therefore they can not comment on what they did not test. If they, for some reason, did not test artefacts proving their theories wrong, then how would they know???? Simple logic that escapes you!


@Captain Sensible

Posted on 07-11-2016 14:12 | By waxing

So who tested the artifacts you keep talking about?


Janet Wilmshurst tested twigs

Posted on 07-11-2016 14:27 | By Peter Dey

Janet Wilmshurst tested twigs on sites of habitation not artefacts. You can only carbon date objects that once had living carbon. You cannot carbon-date artefacts. Her team found no evidence of any habitation before Maori arrived. Undateable artefacts do not provide any evidence of age.


@ waxing

Posted on 07-11-2016 16:12 | By Captain Sensible

You missed the point....she can only comment on what she has tested, not what she hasn't tested! There is a government ban on research into NZ's history...eg the stone wall in the Waipoua forest has a 75 year ban on research until 2063. As a kiwi who wants to know our own history, one must ask WHY? Why is the truth about our history being kept from us and who could gain from that? I wonder!!!


@Captain Sensible

Posted on 07-11-2016 17:51 | By waxing

I'm not missing the point. You as usual are avoiding it. You have elsewhere made all sorts of claims about people here before the Maori - Chinese etc. Plus earlier DNA evidence. You never cite the sources for what you claim.Now you allege "a government ban on research into NZ's history". What is your source for this?


@ Peter Dey

Posted on 07-11-2016 18:08 | By Captain Sensible

If she can not test artefacts like the utensils they found buried 10m under the earth in the South Island, under a kauri tree, believed to come from hundreds of years before maori arrived, then she can not speak conclusively can she? Sounds like you are clutching at straws and holding onto that straw very very tightly!!


There are lies in abundance!

Posted on 11-11-2016 10:32 | By Cydifor

I met a highly-qualified man who was commissioned to do research work for Maori - at the end of the exercise, they did not like the findings and refused to pay him unless he gave an outcome fitting their pre-determined agenda. To his everlasting shame, he did change the outcome to the desired one and he has since deeply regretted it. David Rankin is a respected Ngapuhi elder who found the Waitangi Tribunal would not accept his family's oral history as it didn't fit their agenda. They accepted "evidence" from people with no real knowledge. He says the corrupt tribunal should be shut down. I also once talked to a man who was on the dig in the Waipoua Forest when the old stone structures (NOW EMBARGOED - WHY?) were found. A Maori also present commented "This predates Maori by hundreds of years" thus accepting others were here first!


Artefact buried 10m underground is all supposition

Posted on 11-11-2016 15:55 | By Peter Dey

The adze given to von Haast and claimed to have been found 10m underground can never be verified for authenticity. Most likely the workers who found the adze told von Haast the story because they could see that he wanted to believe it. The adze can not be dated. The whole story is totally unscientific, and science is what has produced all of modern technology. So people who do not accept radiocarbon dating science are not being rational.


Cydifor, unverifiable opinions are not evidence

Posted on 11-11-2016 16:06 | By Peter Dey

People who claim personal experience with the Waitangi Tribunal that they believe prove it to be corrupt do not have enough objective proof to support their claim. The same with David Rankin and the claims about the Waipoua Forest. They are talking about oral history, which can never be verified, or artefacts that can never be dated. The stories about artefacts are only stories not evidence. Radiocarbon evidence is scientific and can be replicated by other scientists. Because it is scientific it could always be modified with new data, but oral stories and artefacts are not verifiable evidence.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.