New evidence from research into kiore, the Pacific rat, reveals that they and their human co-colonizers
arrived here in Aotearoa no earlier than 1280 AD. This puts pay to claims that humans first arrived here around 2000 years ago. Perhaps. I found the work done with native tree seeds and the marks left behind by rat chew very interesting and took one of their images to illustrate this post.
From the article (hat-tip Geoff )."Dr Wilmshurst and her team researchers re-excavated and re-dated bones from nearly all of the previously investigated sites. All of their new radiocarbon dates on kiore bones are no older than 1280 AD. This is consistent with other evidence from the oldest dated archaeological sites, Māori whakapapa, widespread forest clearance by fire and a decline in the population of marine and land-based fauna.
As the Pacific rat or kiore cannot swim very far, it can only have arrived in New Zealand with people on board their canoes, either as cargo or stowaways. Therefore, the earliest evidence of the Pacific rat in New Zealand must indicate the arrival of people.
The dating of the rat bones was also supported by the dating of over a hundred woody seeds, many of which had distinctive tell-tale rat bite marks, preserved in peat and swamp sites from the North and South Islands."
37 comments:
I missed the start of the report on Nat Rad this morning and hadn't realised they were using rat bones. Is that it? What precludes people from being here before the rats (and the rats arriving with later immigrants)?
That's a good point Lusach (btw I have a Gaelic-speaking friend - I'll ask him for a sound byte).
The rat-passengers might not have made the initial voyages, in fact the first arrivals might not have shared their moutere with kiore at all. Later voyagers from different islands may have brought the first.
Either way, more information is good. Jumping to conclusions though, is less useful.
doesn't leave much time to develop a conservationist culture (kaitiakitanga) given that in the first 100 years they were responsible for the fasted ever destruction of a megafauna.
Will the Green Party change it's views on Kaitiakitanga?
If you can present a convincing argument they might anonymous.
What is your argument?
That 100 years is too short a time to 'get environmental'?
Didn't take me that long :-)
What is your argument?
That 100 years is too short a time to 'get environmental'?
Didn't take me that long :-)
Archaeological evidence shows that the first two hundred years were characterised by a depletion of fauna and flora (burning etc).
I'm sure there is good evidence that Maori demonstrated a deep conservation ethic in the intervening years (once we eliminate lack of technology and food species) right?
Tim Flannery describes the unfortunate series of events that accompanies arrivals of humans into previously untouched-by-human-hands landscapes and it's not a pretty story. The big meaty things are the first to go. Are you certain that all Maori are cut from the same tapa? Perhaps the moa hunters are not the same crew as those who espouse kaitikitanga. Waitaha fans talk of an older, original culture that held eco-care most high and were brutalised by later arrivals. Just as Greens exist within the NZ culture that embraces dairying, a genuine kaitiaki vein could wind through Maori culture. Are you sure it doesn't? Anon?
Just as Greens exist within the NZ culture that embraces dairying, a genuine kaitiaki vein could wind through Maori culture. Are you sure it doesn't? Anon?
I have no personal experience of a kaitiaki vein in Maoridom although, apparently some people are believers (including Green Party membership)?
Anon - I have had experience of Maori people acting as kaitiaki and those experiences were outside of my Green sphere.
Do you not think there are Maori who genuinely manage the environment carefully?
Actually the question isn't "a genuine kaitiaki vein could wind through Maori culture. Are you sure it doesn't? Anon?"
because currently the claim is that indigenous people have a greater kaitiaki streak than later arrivals (a stronger conservation ethic)and therefore have a primary role (especially with regard to the foreshore and seabed)?
Yes I do believe there are Maori who "genuinely manage the environment carefully" but the claim is that Maori have a culture such that
"Maori concepts, such as tapu (sacred), rahui (restriction), mana (power and authority), and kaitiakitanga (guardian of culture), ensured that the environment and human activities would be sustainably managed in harmony and balance, and the mauri would be protected. This system of lore holds the same validity today, as it did in pre-European times."
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/ls3_jessica.htm
How can one attest to the fact that our local manawhenua hold this world view given life in a bicultural Aeotearoa?
"This puts pay to claims that humans first arrived here around 2000 years ago. Perhaps. I found the work done with native tree seeds and the marks left behind by rat chew very interesting and took one of their images to illustrate this post.
From the article"
do you see something dodgy here?
Anonymous - I can't tell if you are all six 'anons' in this post - perhaps you could tag yours with an 'x'. I'll assume you are though.
"because currently the claim is that indigenous people have a greater kaitiaki streak than later arrivals (a stronger conservation ethic)"
Is that the 'claim'? Have you a link so that I can see what you are using as referrence?
Semantics perhaps, but Maori can claim to be kaitiaki where pakeha can't as it's a term that refers to Maori and emerges from Maori culture. I'd claim to be a conservationist, not kaitiaki.
The role of Maori in using and sustainably managing the 'forshore and seabed' has been greater than that of pakeha, it could be argued, as they have been at it for a lot longer. It would also have had a greater importance to earlier arivals to these islands, given that they weren't farming sheep or growing oats. Their focus on and knowledge of the 'disputed' zone has been, in my opinion, greater.
"How can one attest to the fact that our local manawhenua hold this world view given life in a bicultural Aeotearoa?"
Do you think, anon, that when cultures combine/live together, key threads of their previous lives are lost? The Scots lose their ability to play the bagpipes, Samoans forget how to swim?
""This puts pay to claims that humans first arrived here around 2000 years ago. Perhaps. I found the work done with native tree seeds and the marks left behind by rat chew very interesting and took one of their images to illustrate this post.
From the article"
do you see something dodgy here?
Flogging their image? Is that 'dodgy'? Cripes!
Your challenges to how kaitiakitanga is defined and applied is a good one and it may well be that you are correct in what you say here.
For myself, I'd like to see a system, no matter what it's called' adopted and used to protect the environment to a greater extent than it is being protected now. If that means having 'faith' in a system that is held in high regard by the indigenous culture in this country then I think that would be a good basis on which to build an effective and robust management tool.
"The role of Maori in using and sustainably managing the 'forshore and seabed' has been greater than that of pakeha, it could be argued, as they have been at it for a lot longer. It would also have had a greater importance to earlier arivals to these islands, given that they weren't farming sheep or growing oats. Their focus on and knowledge of the 'disputed' zone has been, in my opinion, greater."
I note that seals were once common along the coasts but when Captain Cook arrived had retreated to Fiordland and offshore islands. Does this demonstrate conservation?
I suppose their role would have been greatest prior to settlement by Europeans but now we have specialists in many related fields such as Marine biology, fresh water ecology etc.
I note this on your parties website. It demonstrates the desire for a strengthened role of mana whenua.
"The Minister of Conservation should not have sole responsibility for restricting and prohibiting access to the public foreshore and seabed. This provision seriously fails to recognise and provide for kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. Kaitiaki who are mana whenua/mana moana should have better access to delegated authority provisions that would provide some ability to restrict or prohibit public access. "
[Metiria Turei MP Green Party Spokesperson on Maori Issues
Submission to the Ministerial Review Panel Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004]
I also note that you're party is arguing that the foreshore and seabed comes under aboriginal title which would translate into a property right under common law.
http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana-bill-david-clendon-speaks-first-reading
Bill Fish - your comment has lodged in my email somehow and I'll try to get it out and talk to it as soon as I can.
"The role of Maori in using and sustainably managing the 'forshore and
seabed' has been greater than that of pakeha, it could be argued, as
they have been at it for a lot longer. It would also have had a greater
importance to earlier arivals to these islands, given that they weren't
farming sheep or growing oats. Their focus on and knowledge of
the 'disputed' zone has been, in my opinion, greater."
I note that seals were once common along the coasts but when Captain
Cook arrived had retreated to Fiordland and offshore islands. Does this
demonstrate conservation?
I suppose their role would have been greatest prior to settlement by
Europeans but now we have specialists in many related fields such as
Marine biology, fresh water ecology etc.
I note this on your parties website. It demonstrates the desire for a
strengthened role of mana whenua.
"The Minister of Conservation should not have sole responsibility for
restricting and prohibiting access to the public foreshore and seabed.
This provision seriously fails to recognise and provide for
kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. Kaitiaki who are mana
whenua/mana moana should have better access to delegated authority
provisions that would provide some ability to restrict or prohibit
public access. "
[Metiria Turei MP Green Party Spokesperson on Maori Issues
Submission to the Ministerial Review Panel Foreshore and Seabed Act
2004]
I also note that you're party is arguing that the foreshore and seabed
comes under aboriginal title which would translate into a property
right under common law.
http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana-bill-david-clendon-speaks-first-reading
"I note that seals were once common along the coasts but when Captain
Cook arrived had retreated to Fiordland and offshore islands. Does this
demonstrate conservation?"
Probably not Bill, but who can say what the circumstances were. Whose reports were the originals I wonder? The Dutch? Maori oral tradition?
Perhaps the experience of the seals shaped the activities of the kaitiaki that came afterwards.
It could be argued that the seal/fish ratio was being managed by Maori .. but I won't.
"I suppose their role would have been greatest prior to settlement by
Europeans but now we have specialists in many related fields such as
Marine biology, fresh water ecology etc"
Are you confident, Bill, that the marine biologists etc. are sufficiently skilled and/or influential to protect and manage the takutai moana from the interest from industry? I feel they could do with some help and Maori, through their kiatiaki, would add a great deal to the effort to protect the zone from exploitation.
"I note this on your parties website. It demonstrates the desire for a
strengthened role of mana whenua."
I agree with Metiria here. Do you not?
"I also note that you're party is arguing that the foreshore and seabed
comes under aboriginal title which would translate into a property
right under common law."
Seems they are Bill, you are correct.
(I can't work out why your posts are getting the spam treatment Bill)
Bill Fish has left a new comment on your post "Rats!":
"The role of Maori in using and sustainably managing the 'forshore and
seabed' has been greater than that of pakeha, it could be argued, as
they have been at it for a lot longer. It would also have had a greater
importance to earlier arivals to these islands, given that they weren't
farming sheep or growing oats. Their focus on and knowledge of
the 'disputed' zone has been, in my opinion, greater."
I note that seals were once common along the coasts but when Captain
Cook arrived had retreated to Fiordland and offshore islands. Does this
demonstrate conservation?
I suppose their role would have been greatest prior to settlement by
Europeans but now we have specialists in many related fields such as
Marine biology, fresh water ecology etc.
I note this on your parties website. It demonstrates the desire for a
strengthened role of mana whenua.
"The Minister of Conservation should not have sole responsibility for
restricting and prohibiting access to the public foreshore and seabed.
This provision seriously fails to recognise and provide for
kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. Kaitiaki who are mana
whenua/mana moana should have better access to delegated authority
provisions that would provide some ability to restrict or prohibit
public access. "
[Metiria Turei MP Green Party Spokesperson on Maori Issues
Submission to the Ministerial Review Panel Foreshore and Seabed Act
2004]
I also note that you're party is arguing that the foreshore and seabed
comes under aboriginal title which would translate into a property
right under common law.
http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana-bill-david-clendon-speaks-first-reading
"Greenfly looks for a loose brick on the Wilmshurst wall (on behalf of the post modernist Green Party faction) and declares:
Rats!
“New evidence from research into kiore, the Pacific rat, reveals that they and their human co-colonizers
arrived here in Aotearoa no earlier than 1280 AD. This puts pay to claims that humans first arrived here around 2000 years ago. Perhaps. I found the work done with native tree seeds and the marks left behind by rat chew very interesting and took one of their images to illustrate this post.
From the article (hat-tip Geoff ).”
The perhaps hj/jh refers the potential for their findings to be wrong because it cannot be clearly shown that first human arrivals here had kiore with them.
What is your opinion about that point?
"The perhaps hj/jh refers the potential for their findings to be wrong because it cannot be clearly shown that first human arrivals here had kiore with them.
What is your opinion about that point?"
kiore are seen as an indicator of human presence. In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator. Until there is some reasonable proof of an earlier settlement time "perhaps" doesn't carry much weight; it is pure speculation?
Kiore might be seen as an indicator of human presence hj but I'm surprised that you are so confident that such an assumption carries weight in this instance. I have little trouble in accepting that the first arrivals here didn't have rats aboard. I don't see how you can feel assured that they did!
"In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator"
Such as? I really would like to know what your 'markers' are. You are clearly not regarding historical geneologies as reliable maps of settlement - why not? Don't you trust Maori?
"In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator"
Such as? I really would like to know what your 'markers' are. You are clearly not regarding historical geneologies as reliable maps of settlement - why not? Don't you trust Maori?
Dr Rawiri Taonui says:
The suggestion that the previous 800AD date for the settlement of New Zealand came from Māori oral tradition is also misleading – that date was the standard fare of 1980s archaeology. There are also no authentic oral traditions that measure dates in years. Those that do stem from the discredited work of European scholar Percy Stephenson Smith who claimed Kupe discovered New Zealand while sailing from Rarotonga toward a rather rare conjunction of the setting sun, moon and Venus on November 27 925AD. The conjunction never occurred that month – though it did on November 27 1896 when Smith was on board a steamer from Rarotonga to New Zealand.
He also misused a 42-generation genealogy to date Māori arrival. Beyond 20-30generations Māori genealogies display a range of specialised techniques. The one Smith used comprises collateral lines tacked end-to-end for the purposes ofrecital - properly interpreted it collapses to about 30 generations, which coincidentally converts to around 1200AD. He ...
http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2011/01/opportunists-exploit-migration-data-to.html
Bill Fish has left a new comment on your post "Rats!":
"In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator"
Such as? I really would like to know what your 'markers' are. You are
clearly not regarding historical geneologies as reliable maps of
settlement - why not? Don't you trust Maori?
Dr Rawiri Taonui says:
The suggestion that the previous 800AD date for the settlement of New
Zealand came from Māori oral tradition is also misleading – that date
was the standard fare of 1980s archaeology. There are also no authentic
oral traditions that measure dates in years. Those that do stem from
the discredited work of European scholar Percy Stephenson Smith who
claimed Kupe discovered New Zealand while sailing from Rarotonga toward
a rather rare conjunction of the setting sun, moon and Venus on
November 27 925AD. The conjunction never occurred that month – though
it did on November 27 1896 when Smith was on board a steamer from
Rarotonga to New Zealand.
He also misused a 42-generation genealogy to date Māori arrival. Beyond
20-30generations Māori genealogies display a range of specialised
techniques. The one Smith used comprises collateral lines tacked
end-to-end for the purposes ofrecital - properly interpreted it
collapses to about 30 generations, which coincidentally converts to
around 1200AD. He ...
http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2011/01/opportunists-exploit-migration-data-to.html
Posted by Bill Fish to robertguyton at January 4, 2011 6:50 PM
Bill Fish (still don't know why your comments don't appear - they arrive at my email and I'm copying them over for now)
You didn't rise to my challenge to nominate a different indicator - could you not think of anything?
I'm wondering if you have looked into the oral traditions of the first arrivals here to see if they make mention of having kiore on board. They'd certainly know if there were - those waka were big but not so big that something like a rat could pass unnoticed!
You describe the work of one commenter who claims that the work of a single geneologist, Mr Smith, is wrong. Doubtless Mr Smith is not a reliable source of factual material concerning this issue but is that all you have to support your apparent belief that Maori whakapapa is to be discounted as correct record of Maori occupation of our islands? That's very thin 'evidence'.
Come on Bill! I'm not even a little discomforted by your challenge and I have no strong belief in this issue!
To bring us back to the original points regarding kaitiaktanga - I'd make it clear that I believe there is a need for kaitiakitanga to be part of the management plan for New Zealand/Aotearoa.
". Doubtless Mr Smith is not a reliable source of factual material concerning this issue but is that all you have to support your apparent belief that Maori whakapapa is to be discounted as correct record of Maori occupation of our islands? That's very thin 'evidence'."
As noted above I quoted Dr Rawiri Taonui (ex Cant. University Maori Studies Department) he says oral history would place arrival at about 1200AD. Who am I to argue with that?
As for any other markers they would have to be found first and carbon dated.
"To bring us back to the original points regarding kaitiaktanga - I'd make it clear that I believe there is a need for kaitiakitanga to be part of the management plan for New Zealand/Aotearoa."
Southlanders might like to know what status you favour for the "contested zone" (foreshore and seabed)?
Bill Fish - I had to read my original post again to try to see a what point you have assumed that I believe Maori arrived in Aotearoa earlier than the date proposed in the article. I can't find that but perhaps you can.
As for whether Southlanders might be interested in what status I would have the takutai moana hold, I doubt they'd be very interested at all. I watch for signs of such interest in the letters to the editor section of the Southland Times - nothing, and I talk with people of all persuasions about the issue and aside from the people with Kai Tahu connections I meet about the town or in my 'professional' role, not much interest either.
Perhaps I should pen a letter to the ed and see if there is sufficient interest to begin a dialogue.
"In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator"
Oh I get it (I think).. you want an indicator to prove Maori weren't here?
Hmmmmm?
"In the absence of kiore there would have to be another indicator"
Bill Fish - that comment was made by Anonymous @3:13.
I'm hardly in a position to answer it, not being anonymous at all.
RG
"The rat-passengers might not have made the initial voyages, in fact the first arrivals might not have shared their moutere with kiore at all. Later voyagers from different islands may have brought the first.
Either way, more information is good. Jumping to conclusions though, is less useful. "
the thing is there has to be an archeological footprint. Presumabably the 1210 to 1385 takes a setting up stage into account.
Archaeologists haven't found evidence of humans in New Zealand that preceeds the 'rat' evidence?
So they and you are pinning your belief on the rats?
Seems risky to me.
You have to be convinced that the two came at the same time and that the research that says there is no other evidence of esrlier occupation was sound. Not having found something isn't proof that no one was there. Perhaps they did walk softly on the whenua and were excellent kaitiaki :-)
"So they and you are pinning your belief on the rats?
Seems risky to me."
until or unless further evidence comes to light. Until then no one can say (with tangible evidence to back it up)
"I mean if it’s true that we’ve been here for the last thousand years and we’re going to be here for the next thousand years, why are we rolling over and playing dead on one piece of legislation?"
Indeed Bill, you and I can't say either way.
However, there are others who are quite confident that their sources are reliable.
"However, there are others who are quite confident that their sources are reliable."
who are they and what are their sources?
What do they claim as their ancestors arrival date and how do they back it up (evidence)?
"who are they and what are their sources?"
The Green Party?
Various Maori groups Anon.
Their sources are their forebears, whom they trust and respect.
As to their claims - dates, places etc. I don't know. How could I, I'm not Maori nor am I an expert in this field.
Are you?
You seem to have strong doubts as to the veracity of the claims I'm refering to.
Why is that?
You seem to have strong doubts as to the veracity of the claims I'm refering to.
Why is that?
Because oral history is flawed and biased. Where is the oral history re Moa and Haasts eagle and the alleged change in behavior from a destructive people to being at one with nature? As I quoted Rawiri Taonui points out that oral history doesn't give dates and if it does comes in at about 1260..
Post a Comment