I found this site which shows evidence of a pre-celtic New Zealand. It's pretty interesting. Very old skeletons with red hair etc...can white New Zealanders live guilt-free now?:D

http://www.kilts.co.nz/mitancient.htm

I don't know.... sounds and awful lot like some crackpot's conspiracy theory...

Quite an interesting notion. White New Zealanders have no reason to feel guilty in the first place; they should feel equally as proud of their heritage, culture and history as any other race, Maori or whatever.

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I don't know.... sounds and awful lot like some crackpot's conspiracy theory...

In what way?

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Quite an interesting notion. White New Zealanders have no reason to feel guilty in the first place; they should feel equally as proud of their heritage, culture and history as any other race, Maori or whatever.

I agree. We kick arse.:cool:

In the "this contradicts every scrap of archaeological evidence previously discovered" sort of way. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to anthropology, but this is absurd.

There may have been pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand, but white celts/vikings? WTF? The Celts were hardly capable of such a journey, and no evidence suggests that they might have. Also the Vikings are a seperate and historical society. There are written records of viking travels, and I assure you they don't point to NZ. The fact that these conspiracy theorists are unsure as to which culture (viking or celtic) it is further indicates a fabrication.

Well is it so hard to imagine? So they did have to trave around half the globe to get there, and they were supersticious, but hey is it so hard to imagine?:rolleyes: :p

(YES!)

Originally posted by Caligastia
I agree. We kick arse.:cool:

Precisely. :goodjob: But, if you ever dare to express such sentiments, then the PC hordes jump up and down shouting "racist" and "white supremacist".:rolleyes: Which is not quite the case.
If being proud of your own people, your culture, your history and your heritage, and believing in them makes one a racist and a Nazi, then by George, that makes me one and glad of it! ;)

Luckily, not too many rational people have such extreme opinions; being proud of your own heritage does not necessarily mean that you hate or disparage that of any others. That simply is not the case, in my circumstance, or in that of many others. :yeah:

I've read this in Fortean Times before, there is apparently Standing Stones as well. The people are believed to be celts, but no one has the foggiest idea how they got there. It also doesn't state what period of celtic culture they are from.

From an architectural perspective, standing stones are not exactly a unique innovation of the Celtic peoples.

This didnt happen

WOW :eek: How do you manage to double post 17 minutes apart Smaasnekje?

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
In the "this contradicts every scrap of archaeological evidence previously discovered" sort of way. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to anthropology, but this is absurd.

There may have been pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand, but white celts/vikings? WTF? The Celts were hardly capable of such a journey, and no evidence suggests that they might have. Also the Vikings are a seperate and historical society. There are written records of viking travels, and I assure you they don't point to NZ. The fact that these conspiracy theorists are unsure as to which culture (viking or celtic) it is further indicates a fabrication.

You are just assuming without looking at the evidence. Come back when you have read what this guy has to offer more thoroughly.

pressed back too many times....
Damn computer freaks out on me sometimes....

History topics belong in the history section...moved.

i heard somthing that the Chinese went there first of all

You are just assuming without looking at the evidence. Come back when you have read what this guy has to offer more thoroughly. I had already read both main pages... Now I've read some of the 'supporting' evidence :lol: So not only were they Celtic, but they were also Midgets?

All I see for 'evidence' is unsubstantiated claims by two websites and one book. There are no links to recognized institutions anywhere, despite the fact that they would have the most material on the subject. There is no reason for me to think all of the 'proof' offered by those websites isn't concocted.

I also noticed the part where "god" makes this quest for 'truth' right... And how the theory depends on the whole rest of the world being in on a grand conspiracy.

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I had already read both main pages... Now I've read some of the 'supporting' evidence :lol: So not only were they Celtic,

Pre-celtic.:rolleyes:

Try again.

So let me get this straight, ignoring the fact that the sea journey would be nearly impossible, we get pre-celtic europeans in NZ. Pre-celtic europe was say, 1000BCE and earlier? Except this quote from the webpage says: (Taine Rory Mhor ) Taine Ruaridh Mhor (the big cattle farmer) was delivered by three seagoing longships (birlinns?) to NZ in the 12th Century, with 95 of his family and kinfolk and followers. And sons Rory and Ruaridh. It was deliberate but not by choice. Banishment was not an uncommon feature of the times and in this case the term was for seven generations after he had been incacerated in a dungeon for three years already by his friend King Alexander I of Scotland (reigned 1107-1124AD). Both Islands of New Zealand were chosen because one of the criteria was that the land for the banishment had to be uninhabited at the time (? this seems strange). After 160 years (7 + 1 generations), Scots/Vikings (there were three ships, two of whose captains were Johansen and Christiansen - though the names are Nordic Scandinavian they were probably based in the Firth of Forth) were requested by folk in Scotland to call and see if any of Taine's people had survived. This would have been probably just after the reign of King Alexander III of Scotland (reigned 1249-1286) and during the reign of Edward I of England. He invaded Scotland in 1296. This was a turbulent time in Scotland. It was the time of Wallace, of Bruce, the battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk. The execution of Wallace and eventually the Coronation of Robert the Bruce and leading up to the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Times perhaps when no-one had the time or resources to maintain communication with kinfolk a world away. That's definitely not pre-celtic. Maybe you should read your own information.

Maybe you should read it. Obviously this guy has found evidence of more than just pre-celtic peoples in New Zealand.

I find this evidence intriguing, whereas you just dismiss it instantly because it challenges what you already believe. You refuse to even speculate that the orthodox view of NZ history might be incorrect. Instead of exploring with your imagination what might be possible, you prefer to stick with a reality that makes you comfortable.

"This guy" sure has found evidence for more than just pre-celtic peoples. Why, he has evidence for the Chinese, and phoenecians too. Next thing you know he'll have evidence for extra-terrestrials too.

Sorry, I'm not more sympathetic. If believing in such outrageous claims makes you happy, so be it. I prefer to live in a rational world.

Did I say I believed his claims were true? No, but I don't immediately throw them out simply because they don't jive with my pre-existing worldview. As for your "rational" world, do you really think its rational to ignore scientific evidence simply because it involves an interesting new idea? Have a nice life in your boring "rational" world.

Well... the celts did spread over a huge land portion (From Britain to the Ural Mountains and current Turkey. The vikings are famous for sailing the Russian great rivers all the way to Constantinopole, then onto the Black and Mediterranean Sea. Maybe some valliant sailors made it to all the way to New Zeeland, but they would not have arrived in such high numbers to upset the local population ballance. Once there they would be either killed or assimilated by the locals, leaving no trace. This is either a good hoax or an amazing stroke of luck for the archaeologists. I am leaning towards the first untill further evidence.

Originally posted by hedgehog
Once there they would be either killed or assimilated by the locals, leaving no trace.

But what if there were no locals at the time? Also, assimilation (if that is what happened) may have left some traces. The maori don't all have the same color skin, after all...

Hmmm never heard of this before and I'm from NZ...explains why some maori kids are born with blonde hair...and why the method of tattooing is soo simillar......barf

What I am wondering - if they had the means to travel all the way to NZ, why picked NZ in the first place? :)

Had I the choice, I'd pick Taiwan (empty more-or-less in those days, except for the aboriginal tribes) and muscle in on the China trade. Or somewhere in SE Asia to trade. There're lots more of interesting sites around than NZ in the 12th century.

Also, why didn't more ships come? If they could go to NZ, they shld also be able to reach India or China (these were just about the richest empires in the world at that time) to trade. Someone shld have seen them too, and wrote about them.

Celts? No way.

Red hair? Orangutans have red hair, as did the extinct Asian great apes Gigantopithecus, Rampithecus, etc. (all once thought to have been on the human family lineage but later seen to have evolved into yetis). Which reminds me, yetis have red hair.

So all you Kiwis are descendents of Groundskeeper Willy then?

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Celts? No way.

Red hair? Orangutans have red hair, as did the extinct Asian great apes Gigantopithecus, Rampithecus, etc. (all once thought to have been on the human family lineage but later seen to have evolved into yetis). Which reminds me, yetis have red hair.

So you think he can't tell the difference between an ape skeleton and a human one?:crazyeye:

Originally posted by Caligastia


But what if there were no locals at the time? Also, assimilation (if that is what happened) may have left some traces. The maori don't all have the same color skin, after all...

First of all, you need a group of about 100 - 200 individuals to secure a viable colony in a remote location. This sure as hell didn't happend. Even if some red-haired individuals arived on the island they would die out in a few years or generations. Not to mention it would be highly unlikely for the vikings to bring along their own women in such a remote place. It may be that there were no women on board... A very lonely life indeed ;-)

Second... assimilation leaves no traces whatsoever when we talk about such a small group. If there were maori at that time, they would have numbered in the thousends and would not be influenced in the least by the influx of a few lost sailors.

Now back to reality !
What if the skeletons are actually maori?

More probable still: This is all a hoax.
Anyone seen this in the news or something? Are there other sources other than that obscure internet site. It's very easy to take some genuine viking pictures and attach a new text to them, thus giving a startling new meaning to it all.

This is a Caligastia-racial thread, in apolyton it is an unique category.

I saw this on a NZ comedy show a while back. The presenters were talking to a person who subscribes to the theory (possibly the originator himself, I can't remember). Anyway, a lot of his evidence was centered on the fact that some stones were lined up with other stones in a similar fashion to some in the UK. It is hard to believe that Celts/Vikings or whatever reached NZ before the Maori did. Cosidering the journey would have either had to have been around Cape Horn, which a Celtic ship would have struggled with, or through the Indian Ocean where the probablilty of colliding with Australia first was high, which means the Celts were aiming to reach NZ, so they would have had to known of it beforehand. The general idea in Europe until the 16th century and beyond was off a great, undiscovered Southern Land Mass. Abel Tasman thought he had reached it when he first sighted NZ, so it is unlikely that Celts or Vikings new specificically of NZ in the 11C AD.

There were inhabitants of NZ before the Maori. They wer called Moriori and lived mostly on the east coast and Chatam Islands. They were originally from the pacific islands but were small in number and massacred by the Maori as they had little concept of warfare.

:hmm: hardly ever come to World History, yet today I do, and look what I find :goodjob:

I had actually heard of this before; not because I had seen this website, but because a related issue made the National Programme news in New Zealand a while back.

Some researchers were investigating this theory that there were Celtic peoples in New Zealand prior to the Maoris. The reason that it made the National Programme was not due to the suggestion in itself that Celts had predated the Maori, but due to the fact that the researchers had had their research grants (university of Waikato IIRC) suspended when the local iwi started putting pressure on the Uni to stop them even doing the research!

Unfortunately I can't find any real links to support what I remember, but I think that the researchers were wanting to investigate further due to 1.) The standing stones and 2.) that the Maori name for the area where the stones stand is something along the lines of hill of the blond-haired men or similar. Like I say - can't remember the exact details.

Sparrowhawk - I do think you are being a bit closed-minded on this. Sure; the 'evidence' is a little bit sketchy, but if you follow my discussion above, you will see that it is very difficult to get any 'real' research done on this.

I'm not sure what you understand of NZ politics / society, but the perceived rammifications for the Maori should they be found to have not been the first in NZ are huge - they are being payed out millions, given land and fishery stocks simply because they claim that these were stolen by european settlers. They don't want to lose that!

Personal note - I think this is very interesting, and would like to see some more coherant and unbiased research done on this matter. If polynesians made it to NZ in ships, why couldn't a seafaring race do it? (maybe they came across asia by land first, maybe they did it in steps)? I don't think its impossible. :)

For the Maori in NZ, I don't think it would change much however.

Sorry folks, but the evidence for this as described does not automatically point towards Celts or Vikings.

Early Indo-European peoples have been described as conversely red or blonde-haired, including some of the earliest descriptions of the Greeks when they showed up in Anatolia. The particular Pole writing this now also has reddish hair. Mere hair color doth not an ethnicity make. Also, as K-D described aptly, ancient peoples were not stupid; they tried to act in their best interests. As he said, with all due respect to modern NZ, there were a lot more economically interesting places in that neighborhood to be at that time. Why would sophisticated Vikings or Iron Age Celts choose NZ?

Secondly, it would not be shocking for Neolithic Caucasoids to have ventured as far as NZ, though not connected to any ethnic or tribal group we recognize today. I believe in Xianjiang province in western China Caucasian mummies have been found - with red hair! - that clearly pre-date the local Han presence, and this has caused some political issues. Just because they're Caucasian (i.e., "white") does not mean they were Europeans. The "races" as we know them today have not always been in the places they are today. A several-thousand year old Caucasoid skeleton was recently found in Oregon in the U.S. that has caused a controversey because of laws that grant all pre-Columbian human remains to the nearest Indian tribe as one of their ancestors. Were there early "white" Indians?

One thing I would say, is that I think any that ended up in NZ would have been there by accident, rather than by design.

Agreed though - they didn't necessarily have to be European in race, but maybe coincidentally european in appearance.

The thing that grates this is that in NZ any attempt to research the possibility of any inhabitant prior to the Maori's is systematically stymied and censored (why?)

Great fuel for the conspricay theorists though ;)

Here's your answer (in my opinion, at least).

http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html

I think the remains are Ainu, or linked to Ainu. If ancient Caucasians reached Japan, I don't see why New Zealand is impossible.

Originally posted by Caligastia
Maybe you should read it. Obviously this guy has found evidence of more than just pre-celtic peoples in New Zealand.



I've just read it. The writer manages to turn entirely plausible research into horribly flawed and inflammatory bull****. Where do you find this crap, Cal?

Kafka wrote:

Here's your answer (in my opinion, at least).

http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html

I think the remains are Ainu, or linked to Ainu. If ancient Caucasians reached Japan, I don't see why New Zealand is impossible.

Ah - another good example. I forgot about the Ainu. Thanks Kafka. It is very plausible that Caucasians like the Ainu reached NZ - just not Celts or Vikings.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I believe in Xianjiang province in western China Caucasian mummies have been found - with red hair! - that clearly pre-date the local Han presence, and this has caused some political issues. Just because they're Caucasian (i.e., "white") does not mean they were Europeans. The "races" as we know them today have not always been in the places they are today.Yes, I have heard about those too. I think they're the remnants of those Indo-European tribes who moved east, as opposed to the better known ones moving westwards into Europe or southwards into Iran and India.

The Yueh-chih who inhabited the area before the Xiong-nu drove them westwards (where they became the Kushans); I think they're Indo-European too IIRC. But not European, much like in the sense of the Persians and Indians.

I'm not sure what you understand of NZ politics / society, but the perceived rammifications for the Maori should they be found to have not been the first in NZ are huge - they are being payed out millions, given land and fishery stocks simply because they claim that these were stolen by european settlers. They don't want to lose that!

It wouldn't matter at all if this were found out to be fact. It wouldnt change anything, as the fact was they (these Celt-people theory) werent there anymore. The most likely story is a few boats arrived and quickly died out, or assimilated into the Maori colonization.

The ramifications would be nothing. The Treaty of Waitangi would still stand (the land and people of the time of signing and centuries before hand was Maori), along with the justifiable and non justifiable land claims etc etc.

So really, Maori needn't oppose this research at all. It wont mean much of anything if it is found out to be true.

I agree with you groovin, but it does seem that the research is being stymied.

I (personally) would just like to see the research done - I am interested in knowing the actual history, not the politically-correct one ;)

This would perhaps be worthy of a moment's serious attention but for the context.

The whole thing is being hosted on a Celtic ethnic heritage site sponsored by a vendor of Celtic cultural paraphernalia (ye gods, it's a bloody kilt shop, people!) and the overall tone of the main page is one of severely partisan anti-Maori sentiment.

One of the linked articles is centred on retro-Celtic mythology (little people, bejasus!) and the other centres on a poorly-written pseudo-saga allegedly based on (unspecified) "records held in Scotland".

There is no supporting evidence, no cross-referral to or from anywhere with archaeological credentials. And the links from the webpage of the much-touted book lead overwhelmingly to "new-age" mystic sites and "alternative history" sites.

Taken in context, it hardly looks like a dispassionate scientific account. Rather more like biased wish-fulfilment in the lunatic fringe of the Celtic population.

With all due respect to Caligastia, anyone whose BS detectors don't start pinging off the scale when they read this stuff is being so "open-minded" his brains are falling out.

Originally posted by ainwood
I agree with you groovin, but it does seem that the research is being stymied.

I (personally) would just like to see the research done - I am interested in knowing the actual history, not the politically-correct one ;)

Yeah, i would like someone to investigate it too, just out of pure curiosity. Maybe if they didn't make themselves sound like nutters they might get somewhere, lol :crazyeye: