I am a Tongan born and raised in America, but now live in Tonga since 1997. I can say that Polynesian culture is OBVIOUSLY proudly cruel and violent. We take pride in this fact, so why criticize a White man who points out this blatently obvious fact- Moaris being no exception- EXTREMELY VIOLENT. Here in Tonga we also take a huge amount of pride in the lightness of our skin. In Tonga, men and women alike walk around on sunny days with heads covered or with umbrellas for protection from the sun, as we are deathly afraid of being dark. Here in Tonga, we tease other Tongans if they are darker. I went to a grocery store one day after I started “dating” my wife, and the ladies at the checkout counter (at Molisi Tonga) asked me “why did you pick a blaaaaaack one”? After my wife got pregnant, one neighbor girl told me that my wife was going to give birth to an animal, because my wife is darker skinned- her grandfather being from Fiji.

Anyway- my point is that it is a dirty cheap shot to throw around the word “Nazi” when talking about Whites when they stand up for THEIR CULTURE. When we stand up for our culture- we are praised, when whites stand up for their culture- they are demonized. CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP! When I read the title of this article before reading the article- my first thought was that this guy is pissed off about what Scott said and was using the easiest sure fire way to discredit him- cheaply use the word “Nazi”. Using the word “Nazi” is like calling someone a pedophile- it is a word weapon. Anyway- Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are the product of Jewish intellects- not so-called “Aryan” ones. I find my ownTongan people to be waaaaaaaay more openly racist than any White Americans I ever personally knew in my whole life. Back home in America many of my Tongan people refer to Indians as “Curries”, Mexicans as “Wetbacks”, Black people as “Niggers”, White people as “Crackers” or “Rednecks” etc. etc. Most of the Whites I ever knew back home were bleeding hearts who felt sorry for everything white people ever did to the Native Americans, Blacks, etc. etc. The SINGLE MOST racist people I have ever encountered in my life are native Hawaiians- they put Nazi’s to shame in how vile and open their hatred for anything White is. The second most racist people I ever met were Moaris.

I grew up on the Marae speaking Maori from a very young age.
Talking with the many elders that have pasted that have enriched my life in so many ways. The old stories about the Maori tribes sailing the great sea of Kiwa.
The 7 great Maori waka that came to these shores over 1150 years ago and others will say, that the true tangata whenua were also Maori.
When the 7 waka came to these shores there were people living here.
The Maori had traveled these seas for 100s years, Te Rangi,Mu,Toi, Kupe,Kiwa, and Maui to name some of our greatest sailors of the sea.
These are some of the old local tribes,Patupaiarahe,Turehu,Panenehu,
The Moriori were also another Maori tribe.
The stories about white folk being tangata whenua of NZ is a joke, And I know it comes from a National geographic mag with a picture of a tattooed red haired skull found with a bunch of Maori skulls in a cave.
Now I was told this by a Maori elder about the real history.
He said that the Maori of old were not interested in gold or diamonds.
The Maori of old gathered the knowledge of the stars and sea’s and where the food souse were best. They were the Viking s of the sea.
Love n War was the way of life.

I don’t have much time, and i’ll try to prevent myself from sounding too nasty (but I am very very frustrated so forgive me of my short tone).

RE: Q4 “If you can, please tell me what else massive levels of forced multiculturalism in the west would actually be for”
I would have thought it plainly obvious. Tolerance and understanding. People fear what they do not understand. The opposite is ethnocentricism and xenophobia and who wants that?

RE: the head. I looked at the site (as I have done before). Nothing special. A head with spirals. Spirals being a common motif in many places. Martin seems to think this can only be due to diffusion. It isn’t. Other than that it is just a typical example of someone who has not learned to think critically about data making interpretations fit his hypothesis rather than testing or trying to disprove his own hypothesis.

RE Q3: I don’t get the fascination with it. But from a conservation and relevance point of view I can understand why not. Maybe they should set up a ‘supposed anomalous artefacts pertaining to ancient NZ Celts’ display in the Museum for the half a dozen people who would actually believe it? Or maybe not. Museums are serious institutions which follow recent research. Displaying such baseless nonsense would be ridiculous.

RE: heads (again?). Who said it was necessarily Maori who were selling preserved heads to Europeans? I’m sure quite a few early settlers would have been quite happy to do the deed themselves. Again, DNA tests are not done because they are not needed. It would be a waste of time and money for what is already largely known. It is only the handful of Doutre cultists who demand such so where is the justification? Plus you are talking about peoples ancestors, not stone tools. You can’t just go around doing what you like to human remains (and this applies to any human remains Maori or otherwise). Also, many European museums refuse to return them as they classify them as ‘art’.

RE: the Caucasians in China. I would take this with a grain of salt. It is always better to er on the side of caution/skepticism than to leap in the air with false enlightenment. Even if this is the case, it should not necessarily be that surprising that Caucasians might have made it to Asia as recently as 3000 BP (and this is very recent in archaeological terms) as Asia is land linked to Europe and especially the Caucasus area (northwest of china). All one would have to do is walk. As for the tatoos, again refer to the above. Spirals aren’t exactly unique to Maori. They only seem so to those who wish it so.

Kennwick man isn’t that interesting, anomalous perhaps, but not that interesting. The reason? If there were a race of Caucasians running around America as some like to suggest, then where is the evidence. Where are the sites. Where are the other burials. Where are the examples of unique material culture. Where are the examples of unique landscape use. These are the questions one must ask. The answer is that there are none. As for archaeologists covering it up, well, they obviously didn’t do a good job did they. Makes one wonder what grounds someone has to make that accusation when everyone knows about said conspiracy does it not?

RE: Martins book and website. Yes I have looked at both thank you. His ramblings are well known to most archaeologists.

RE: “Humble yourself too”. Should I not call into question Doutre’s complete and total lack of archaeological method and theory? Am I not entitled to speak with the knowledge I have of my own area of expertise? Should I lower myself to unsubstantiated grunts and snarls like most of the Doutre cultists so as to not hurt your delicate feelings? I speak in terms which I would to anyone. I am not so arrogant as to assume you or anyone else is not intelligent enough to understand me, so I do not censor myself in a manner which I would think would be patronizing to someone. I admit I am in need of the language of explanation, which I am learning slowly. But there you go. I called your questions retarded simply because, to me, they are. I have heard them all a million times so don’t assume they are the first time I have heard them. Leading on from this, I don’t lack confidence in my own knowledge. Unlike Doutre’s cult I know very well and very acutely the limits of my knowledge and I am always ready to admit it in order to learn. Likewise, I do not struggle to dismiss your questions. I am simply dumbfounded that someone could or would ask such questions. I am frustrated at the repetitive, arrogant, uninformed, ignorant, ethnocentric, paranoid and hostile rhetoric of pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-science apologists. I have tried the softly-softly approach in the past, even with Doutre, and been met by accusations of corruption etc. So why should I bother now, when it is beyond obvious to anyone working in archaeology or related fields that the questions like those you raised are merely ridiculous and the result of wishful thinking.

here you state “I sense that you have not read Martin’s material properly, just as you berate him for not reading everything else. He’s seen things that he thinks mean something. I think these things should be investigated. If its found that Maori made all the stone things, then isn’t that a cause for pride amongst the Maori.”
I am familiar with his work as I have previously stated. I don’t ‘berate him’ for not reading everything else – who on earth has read ‘everything else’? I certainly haven’t. I t would take a hundred lifetimes. What I berated him for (if again, you would bother to actually read what was written previously rather than seeing what you want to see) was a complete lack of understanding about archaeological methodology and theory. A lack of understanding epistemological issues, data collection, bias, and analysis, or even the scientific method by which you test a hypothesis (again, Martin merely concludes things to fit his). This wasn’t an accusation of failure to read ‘everything’. These are the basics. Even a high school kid should know this, so yes, it appears very much on the retarded side to me when grown “researchers” such as Doutre and his cult can’t grasp it. Answer your question?!? And it’s already been found that “Maori made all these things” so why should scholars continually have to defend this to reinvented pseudo-theories again and again and again and again!? It disrespectful not only to Maori but also to the decades and decades of research undertaken by scholars which has been repeatedly tested and adapted.

Lets look at this next: “I could just as easily call you racist for asserting that stone observatories couldn’t possibly exist in NZ because Maori are too dumb to make them. Maybe Martin has discovered something real, but his conclusions are wrong? Maybe you should get off YOUR high horse and check it out?”
You could indeed call me racist if you want, but it will be unsubstantiated and simply untrue. ‘Megalithic’ stone observatories don’t exist here simply because they don’t exist here. There is not one shred of evidence. And no amount of wishful thinking on yours or Doutre’s part will change that reality-based fact. Period.
As for me getting of MY high horse (to use your like of capitals), I am a field archaeologist. I am out in the landscape all of the time just like every other archaeologist looking at the archaeological record. It is what we do. What do you think archaeologists do? Sit around on our asses like a useless blob making up stories based on nothing but our own imaginations? I’m working on research up in the Bay of Islands now, doing a landscape approach which involves pedestrian survey of an entire peninsula then analysing it using GIS and methods of the sort which real scientists use rather than the inflated rhetoric Doutre spews which he sees as evidence. So thanks for the suggestion, but I do in fact “check it out” all of the time. It’s what I do on a full time basis. How about you? Do you “check it out”? Or are you yet another person who demands everything but understands nothing?

Again (slightly repetitive): “Have you, personally, gone to have a look at any of these alleged observatories, or do you refuse to because Martin found them first?
Or do you believe they are just random piles of rocks, not worth looking at? If so, is there statistical analysis that proves this beyond doubt? Is it a concensus among all archaeologists that they are just random rocks? Or do you agree that they exist, but think they are just Maori in origin? Have any digs been made of these things? Are they just in Martin’s imagination? Has anyone but Martin’s crew looked at them?
What’s the verdict?”

I and other archaeologists have looked at sites Doutre claims as belonging to ancient Celts. Some of them are unavoidable such as the volcanic cones in the Auckland isthmus. Others are well known to archaeologists (and I have visited several myself on more than one occasion) and have been researched thoroughly already. So in fact Doutre hasn’t really found much of anything first. It’s just that the public don’t bother to read the wealth of literature out there published by scholars (what I have already accused you of which is obviously true)(some of which are aimed at a public audience).

Some of his other “sites” consist of rocks deposited across the landscape due to volcanic activity. He then usually sets out to subjectively record those rocks which might fit a particular pattern he wishes to create, such as a pentagram of whathaveyou. The problem is that he ignores the fact that the entire field is covered in rocks which have been deposited by the nearby volcano or whatever so his selection of the “meaningful” rocks which he will use in his ‘analysis’ (for lack of as better word) is completely subjective and in a sense predetermined by his hypothesis. Think of it this way, if you have a piece of paper covered in hundreds of black dots, you can construct pretty much whatever pattern you like if you select the ones which fit the shape you have determined in your mind. This is not science. You cannot just ignore data like that. So to answer the second question, yes. In most cases they are just random piles of rocks not worth looking at.

The third question. Yes, there are many statistical analyses which can and sometimes are run. But really most of the time we don’t need to because it fails as a “site” at the first hurdle.

The fourth question. Yes, it is a consensus amongst archaeologists that Doutre’s ‘celestial observation’ sites aren’t really sites at all. That is because archaeologists are more than capable of seeing the underlying flaws in Doutre’s conclusions, and as I have said, it is very basic stuff. What this does not mean is that archaeologists are part of some twisted conspiracy. In fact, like other scientific disciplines, archaeologists are more likely to be skeptical of each others conclusions and can often be found challenging each other’s inferences – it is only when the evidence amounts to such a cumulative or high standard that a model or hypothesis will become theory. As previously stated a million times, that is what peer-review is. Something Doutre has always rejected because we are all out to “get” him.

Question five. Many of the other kinds of sites Doutre claims as Celtic such as pa and horticultural stone walls are unarguably Maori. Much research exists on these. What else do people suppose archaeologists research in NZ?

Question six. Yes. Many digs have been made on these kinds of sites. Not so on volcanic fields because, well, they are volcanic fields. But excavations are not needed on the kinds of sites Doutre fabricates as ‘celestial observatories’ anyway because survey methods (which are undertaken regularly) suffice.

Question seven. Yes. These celestial observatories exist in the same way Santa Claus exists. Only in the imagination. But in this case there would be more reason to believe of Santa’s existence because at least more than one person believes it. Doutre makes claims which are discredited by a wide variety of experts – not just from archaeology but also linguistics, history, sociology, philosophy, biology, geology, chemistry…the list goes on. Are you trying to argue thousands of these people with different backgrounds and years and years of sound, repeatable and tested research are wrong and this one man is right? Hmm.

Question eight and nine. Yes others have looked into it. The verdict is he’s probably mentally unstable (due more to his paranoia and failure to take on board criticisms than anything else) and that his “research” is lacking and false at best, racist propaganda at worst.

It is actually good advice on your part to assert that I not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is advice I have given others at times also. But I can assure you, while I appreciate your warning, that is not the case in this instance. There are many people I probably wouldn’t (and don’t) like very much personally, but I very much respect their opinion because it has proved sound time and time again and is based in reality. Doutre I dislike because of his agenda (yes he does have one despite what his apologists might say) though I do not know him personally. And as Scott has pointed out the company you keep can and does sometimes reflect the kind of person you are ala Bolton et al. But, all of this aside, it is his sloppy, biased and, well, useless “research” which I have always attacked. Read through again this open letter and you will see the main and sustained argument I make against him. Methodology. Or lack of it. So, not really any baby in this bathwater this time to throw out even if I wanted to.

Lastly, no. He hasn’t found anything of interest after all of this time. At least not anything which hasn’t already been researched and tested by archaeologists. What he has found is his own imagination. A bit of a ‘hunting for the snark’ moment me thinks. Sad really isn’t it? As for being a retard? No. I don’t think that. I do think his “research” is retarded though. Thoroughly retarded. Or perhaps I shouldn’t use that word. Delusional, false, biased, ridiculous, absurd, silly…these words may be exchanged for the ‘R’ word if you wish.

Again, my apologies if my manner is short or harsh, but I am filled up to the top of my frustration-o-meter. I hope my reply is of some help. And again, I hope you might further your education in these matters with some of the scholarly and peer-reviewed works – often you will find attached at the back of many articles replies and critiques from other scholars who may take issue with a particular aspect so you can see we don’t all just act like sheep and do what the conspiracy-generating government wants us to ;)

Here’s a resource to help begin with: http://archaeologyaeoteoroa.blogspot.com/

Other than that try searches on Google Scholar.

Cheers.

dealing with Doutre believers is like trying to make sense of Menzies’ believers – they are cultists, not people trying to understand what science has established (or is looking at new factual info, and trying to establish.)