Scoop Review of Books

No to Nazi Pseudo-history: an Open Letter

To: Mykeljon Winckel
Editor, Franklin E Local

Kia ora Mykeljon,

I was interested to see an anonymous article called ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ in the latest issue of your magazine Franklin E Local. (1) The article suggests that a series of European peoples, most notably the Celts, settled New Zealand thousands of years ago. According to the article, these ancient settlers were peaceful folk who lived happily for many centuries before being conquered by Polynesian invaders who were the ancestors of the Maori. The ‘savage’ Polynesians supposedly ate all the Celtic men, made the Celtic women into sex slaves, and stole the wood and greenstone carvings the Celts had created.

According to ‘An Unpalatable Truth’, evidence of the existence of the original white settlers of New Zealand is being suppressed by a conspiracy of government officials, academics, museum workers, and Maori. You accompanied ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ with an editorial which enthusiastically endorsed the article, and which demanded that New Zealand history ‘be known without political bias’.

I have a PhD in Sociology, I have a research interest in New Zealand history (amongst other things), and I worked until recently at Auckland museum – I suppose, then, that I must be a member of the vast conspiracy that is stopping the truth about New Zealand history being told! It is disconcerting to be accused of such a serious crime, so I hope that you’ll forgive me for explaining why I think the charges that your magazine has brought are not only false but malicious.

Imaginary Celts and real Nazis

When a piece of writing makes sweeping accusations against a host of targets, then readers are entitled to know the identities of its authors. Although ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ is unsigned, a note at the bottom of the article instructs readers to go to the Celtic New Zealand website ‘for more information’. I am familiar with the people responsible for the Celtic New Zealand website, and ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ certainly looks like their work. I recognise their phraseology, and the illustrations that accompany the article seem to have come straight from their site.

The owner of the Celtic New Zealand site is Martin Doutre, an American ‘astro-archaeologist’. Doutre, who has no academic training in either astronomy or archaeology, is the author of a self-published book called Ancient Celtic New Zealand, which purports to show that the stones left lying about in the craters of One Tree Hill, Mt Mangere and other Auckland landmarks were arranged by ancient Celts so as to help them make astronomical observations. (2)

Doutre’s interests extend beyond archaeology and astronomy. He is an enthusiastic member of the 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement, which denies that Osama bin Laden’s followers were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In a 2002 article called ‘Pentagon 9/11’, Doutre argues that a missile hit the Pentagon, rather than an aeroplane. (3) Doutre’s article suggests that the attacks on the Pentagon and on the Twin Towers were the work of a sinister international conspiracy designed to create chaos.

Doutre thinks that the same conspiracy is at work in New Zealand, suppressing the history of the Celts who supposedly settled here thousands of years ago. In an article called ‘Forbidden History – Covered Up!’, Doutre claims that ‘ancient control freak’ organisations run this conspiracy. (4) ‘Forbidden History – Covered Up!’ was published on a website called, which identifies conspiracies by Jews and Jewish-owned banks and businesses as the cause of many of the world’s problems.

Doutre himself has enjoyed warm relations with two well-known neo-Nazis. He has maintained a friendly correspondence with David Irving, the neo-Nazi pseudo-historian whom courts in Britain and Austria have found guilty of denying the Holocaust. In a letter which is reproduced on Irving’s personal website, Martin Doutre offered the disgraced neo-Nazi help with his ‘research’ into World War Two. (5)

Doutre also maintains a friendship with Kerry Bolton, who is perhaps New Zealand’s best-known neo-Nazi. Bolton joined the fascist Nationalist Workers Party in 1977, and has been active in extreme right-wing politics ever since. In 1980 he founded the Church of Odin, a group which blended far right politics with bastardised versions of the pre-Christian Norse and Celtic religions. Jews were forbidden to join the church. More recently Bolton has been involved with the Nationalist Alliance, a coalition of neo-Nazis created to contest this year’s elections. Members of the Nationalist Alliance have convictions for assaulting Somali New Zealanders and firebombing a marae.

As a Nazi, Bolton considers that whites are superior to other races, including Maori. It was Bolton who invented the theory of a white indigenous population in a series of writings including his self-published book Lords of the Soil: the story of Turehu, the White Tangata Whenua. (6) Much of the material on the Celtic New Zealand website seems to have been either inspired by or taken directly from Bolton.

Bolton and Doutre have worked together on several projects besides the Celtic New Zealand website. Bolton has written for the website of the One New Zealand Foundation, an extreme right-wing group which Martin Doutre helps to run. The One New Zealand Foundation claims that the Treaty of Waitangi is racist, that whites are an oppressed group in New Zealand, and that the United Nations is preparing to take over the country. In an article written in 2000 called ‘Who Will Look After Them When the Pakehas Have Gone?’, One New Zealand Foundation leader Ross Baker wrote ‘thank God I’m not a Maori’, and predicted that whites would soon leave New Zealand en masse to escape their oppression. (7)

Both Martin Doutre and Kerry Bolton have written extensively for the website of the One New Zealand Foundation, and Martin Doutre has travelled the country with Ross Baker giving talks about the Foundation’s politics. (8 ) Recently Bolton wrote a leaflet for the Nationalist Alliance in which he praised Doutre as a friend and defended his writings. (9)

Why the racists lie

I have talked a little about the background of the people responsible for the Celtic New Zealand site because I want to provide some context for their claims that a massive conspiracy of academics, government bureaucrats, museum workers, and Maori is suppressing knowledge of New Zealand’s prehistory. Both Martin Doutre and Kerry Bolton are conspiracy theorists par exellence – they believe that every aspect of the world is governed by a set of elaborate conspiracies.

You might argue, Mykeljon, that the Celtic New Zealand theorists could be very wrong about many other things, like the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy or the cause of 9/11, and yet right about New Zealand prehistory. It’s certainly true that Doutre and Bolton’s views on history cannot be dismissed outright, simply because some of their views on other subjects are wrong and repugnant. Their claims about our prehistory must at least be considered, no matter how unlikely they seem. Don’t you think, though, that a little caution might be in order, when dealing with people like Doutre and Bolton? Isn’t it more probable that the politics of Doutre and Bolton have affected the quality of the ‘research’ on Celtic New Zealand?

And, make no mistake, there is a real political motivation underlying the pseudo-historical claims made by the likes of Doutre and Bolton. In The Politics of Nostalgia, his study of the far right in New Zealand, sociologist Paul Spoonley noted that one of the main barriers to fascist politics here was the status of the Maori people as tangata whenua. Pakeha Kiwis could not, Spoonley suggested, imitate the ‘We were here first’, ‘Keep our country white’ rhetoric that had helped make neo-Nazism popular amongst certain parts of modern European societies. (10)

The theory that the ancient Celts settled New Zealand first before being conquered by Maori can be seen as an attempt to dispose of the impediment to fascist propaganda that Spoonley noted. For the likes of Doutre, the One New Zealand Foundation, and Bolton, the assertion that an ancient European people were the first to settle these islands is enough to discredit Maori nationalism and the ideology of biculturalism. If Maori only took control of these islands as a result of a ‘genocide’ of Europeans and if Maori taonga like, say, the magnificent carvings at Auckland museum were actually produced by Europeans, then Maori lose their mana, and seem actually to deserve the treatment which was meted out to them by colonisers’ armies and governments.

Real history

It will be obvious by now that I regard the claim that European people settled New Zealand in ancient times in large numbers to be completely false. How is it that I can be so confident in my opinion? Am I not a victim of the sort of dogmatism that people like Martin Doutre perceive everywhere in New Zealand’s intellectual ‘establishment’? In reality, there is no sinister ‘establishment’ that acts to enforce a single viewpoint about New Zealand prehistory and repress the views of people like Doutre. Scholars are divided on all manner of questions concerning our past. The difference between them and pseudo-scholars like Doutre is that they base their reasoning on the evidence available, and not on wild conspiracy theories.

I’m open to the possibility that the facts of the history and prehistory of this country might one day have to be rewritten, but I think that there are some theories about our prehistory which have to be considered very unlikely to be true. It is highly unlikely that a very large population using advanced technology could have existed on these islands thousands of years ago, as the Celtic New Zealand circle claims, because such a population would have left a record of its presence which we do not find.

Any large-scale settlement of these islands would likely be accompanied by the destruction of a considerable amount of forest by fires, and scientists can discover the date at which this sort of destruction began by testing pollen spores preserved in the sediment of lakes. Tests do not indicate any man-made destruction of the forests began until less than one thousand years ago, so the claims in your article about mass settlement occurring five thousand years ago look rather unlikely. (11)

If huge numbers of European people lived here thousands of years ago, then we ought to be finding their skeletons, as well as burial items which reflect a distinct, non-Polynesian material culture. But the oldest skeletons and burial items we’ve found so far are distinctively Polynesian, and are less than a thousand years old. Why have we never found any human skeletons or human artefacts under the layers of ash left by the massive Taupo eruption a couple of thousand years ago?

Of course, the Celtic New Zealand circle claims that a massive conspiracy is busy hiding the bones and artefacts of ancient Celtic New Zealanders. In his article ‘Forbidden History – Covered Up!’ Martin Doutre even claims that special teams of armed men controlled by sinister international forces are going around the country deliberately blowing up caves where Celtic bones are found.

The truth is that prehistoric bones unearthed in New Zealand are routinely scrutinised by archaeologists, biologists, craniologists, museum curators, representatives of iwi and hapu, and even coroners. Are all of these people really involved in an enormous conspiracy? Auckland War Memorial Museum holds a large collection of human remains, which it is slowly and carefully identifying and returning to groups both inside and outside New Zealand, in a process involving dozens of experts from this country and overseas. Is this process really being controlled by some unseen sinister conspiracy?

The most devastating evidence against the claim of ancient non-Polynesian settlement comes from DNA testing. The article you have published claims that the ancestors of the Maori slaughtered the male Celts who had settled this country and then raped their women, and that present-day Maori therefore have some of the blood of the ancient Celts.

In recent years a series of scholars have run DNA tests on Maori, in an effort to trace their ancestry. These tests confirm that Maori are a Polynesian people, and that Polynesians have their origins in coastal Asia thousands of years ago. In 2005 a team from Victoria University was able to establish an ancient connection between Maori and one of the indigenous peoples of Taiwan: both groups have the same rare gene marker for coping with alcohol. (12) If Maori really were part-Celtic, then the connection would show up in DNA tests. It doesn’t.

Misrepresentations and blunders

‘An Unpalatable Truth’ contained a series of claims which misrepresented not only the most basic facts about New Zealand prehistory, but also the opinions of respected researchers who have nothing at all to do with the idea that Celts settled New Zealand. The article repeatedly suggests that Auckland University of Technology historian Paul Moon supports the view that Celts or another white people settled New Zealand before the Maori, who ate them. Moon has never advanced such a view; his recent book This Horrid Practice, which is cited by your authors, is a study of Maori cannibalism which scrutinises accounts of the practice written down in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There is no reference at all to a pre-Maori New Zealand population in Moon’s book. (13)

‘An Unpalatable Truth’ quotes the archaeologist Michael Taylor as saying that a site he examined in Taranaki ‘definitely pre-dates European settlement’ because of (amongst other things) ‘the presence of woven flax’. Taylor was making the straightforward point that he had visited a pre-European Maori site; the authors of your article, though, present him as saying that the site belonged to Europeans who had arrived in prehistoric times, long before Cook and Tasman! This sort of misrepresentation is both idiotic and defamatory: it is defamatory, because it falsely associates a respected archaeologist with a viewpoint that he does not hold, and that would bring him ridicule amongst his peers; it is idiotic, because there is no reason at all why the presence of woven flax should suggest a non-Maori archaeological site. Maori, after all, weren’t averse to a bit of weaving!

There are many other parts of the article which make me doubt whether the authors have even the most basic grasp of New Zealand history. At one point, for instance, they claim that the Maori word ‘tohunga’ means ‘historian’. In fact, ‘tohunga’ translates much better as priest. There is no comparison between the role a tohunga played in pre-contact Maori society and the role a historian plays in our society today. At another point in their article, your authors claim that the discovery of bodies buried in a sitting-up position is a sure sign of an ancient Celtic presence in these islands. How can this be so, when it is widely known that both Maori and the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands sometimes buried their dead in a sitting-up position in the sand? Other claims in ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ are so bizarre, and so lacking in any basis in fact, that they can probably most kindly be treated as hallucinations. The claim that the bones of sixty thousand ancient Celtic New Zealanders were made into fertiliser at an Onehunga mill in the 1870s falls into this category.

An embarrassment to Franklin

In conclusion, Mykeljon, I want to suggest that think carefully about whether you made the right decision in presenting ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ as a credible piece of research into New Zealand prehistory. There are hundreds of wonderful people of all races at work studying the rich history of these islands, inside and outside universities, museums, and government departments. Why not publish some of these real scholars, instead of the racist conspiracy theorists who maintain the Celtic New Zealand site? (14)

I grew up in Franklin, and I know that the area is dotted with memorials to the young men who died fighting Nazism during World War Two. What would they say if they knew that a magazine which claimed to serve their local community was giving free advertising to the views of neo-Nazis like Kerry Bolton and his friends?

Scott Hamilton


1. ‘An Unpalatable Truth’ purports to be the third of a trilogy of articles. I have been unable to find the other two pieces, so I’ve restricted my comments to the claims in ‘An Unpalatable Truth’.
2. Martin Doutre, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, De Nann publishers (self-published), Auckland, 1999. The Celtic New Zealand website can be found at, accessed 17/11/08.
3. Martin Doutre, ‘Pentagon 9/11’, published on the Serendipity website at, accessed 17/11/08.
4. Martin Doutre, ‘Forbidden History – Covered Up!’, published at the 10077 website,, accessed 17/11/08.
5. Martin Doutre, ‘The Belt of the ‘Beast’ (a letter to David Irving), David Irving’s personal website,, accessed 17/11/08.
6. Kerry Bolton, Lords of the Soil: the story of Turehu, the White Tangata Whenua, Spectrum Press (self-published), Wellington, 2000.
7. Ross Baker, ‘Who Will Look After Them When the Pakehas have Gone?’, One New Zealand Foundation website,, accessed 17/11/08.
8. For an example of Bolton’s writing for the One New Zealand Foundation, see Bolton, ‘Rats and More Rats’, One New Zealand Foundation website,, accessed 17/11/08. Bolton signs this rambling piece ‘Dr Kerry Bolton’, but he does not in fact have an academic qualification of any kind.
9. Kerry Bolton, ‘Anarchists and Martin Doutre’, Nationalist Alliance website,, accessed 17/11/08.
10. Paul Spoonley, The Politics of Nostalgia, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1987.
11. For an introduction to the way that pollen spore analysis works, see the Landcare Research website at, accessed 17/11/08. For a detailed study of what pollen spore analysis says about settlement patterns in New Zealand, see MS McGlone, ‘The Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand in Relation to Environmental and Biotic Changes’, New Zealand Journal of Ecology, vol 12 (supplement), 1989, pgs 115-129.
12. For a succinct, accessible introduction to this research, see the One News article and video clip on the Television New Zealand website at, accessed 17/11/08.
13. Paul Moon, This Horrid Practice: the Myth and Reality of Traditional Maori Cannibalism, Penguin Books, Rosedale, 2008.
14. For a more thorough critique of the idea of a pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand, see Kerry Howe’s fine book Quest for Origins: who first discovered and settled New Zealand and the Pacific? (Penguin, Auckland, 2003).


Franklin Elocal

Interview with Scott Hamilton on 95bFM


Scott Hamilton is an Auckland writer and reviewer. More of Scott’s writing can be found at the Reading the Maps Blog.


  1. Matthew, 18. December 2008, 11:46

    Well, Myklejon, thank you for your astonishing non-contribution to this discussion of the articles you wrote. Aside from making patently false claims like `NO where in the article does it suggest the arrival of Celts or white Europeans’ despite references from the articles backing up the fact that you have asserted on numerous occasions that Celts or white Europeans arrived prior to the Maori in this country you have also failed to address any of the concerns raised here. Instead you fall back upon the fallacious claim that as you are the child of a decorated war hero and POW, and that you have friends of all colours and creeds and thus your articles cannot be advancing some sinister agenda. It is, of course, quite possible to be the child of a war hero and a POW, have many friends from many places and still end up supporting a disturbing worldview which seeks to denigrate the indigenous culture of this place. And by ‘quite possible’ I mean that you do. You may not want to acknowledge that your articles promote a distorted and false view of New Zealand’s pre-history. You may not want to acknowledge that what you advocate in your articles goes against the best learning of our day. That is your choice.

    But your denials do not make you right.

    It certainly gives you no moral high ground. I await your new series of articles with some interest. I still hope you might come to realise your folly in this endeavour.

  2. Richard Taylor, 18. December 2008, 22:59

    I was just watching a documentary on the IIWW – it was terrible – it was awful – millions of soldiers – mostly young – of many nations died millions more civilians died. My uncle was in the RAF – he said that it was terrible.

    It – this hell of carnage – was created by ideas like those advocated by Doutre etc

    And in a longer time frame – there were the many injustices done to indigenous peoples throughout the world – including Maori. Many of these people are still psychologically scarred – Doutre and Mykeljon Winckel continues the wrongs done to Maori and others.

    “Never unremember”

  3. Jim, 19. December 2008, 22:24

    Hi Keri
    I hope you found the pics interesting.


  4. Keri Hulme, 22. December 2008, 12:59

    Kia ora Jim- yes, thank you.
    I know of 3 places in the south where my ancestors(Kati Mamoe rather than Kai Tahu in these instances ) were using shadows
    (as in placed or altered rock & wood) and there are doubtless many more throughout this archipelago…nice to learn other Polynesians did it too- cheers n/n Keri

  5. Jim, 23. December 2008, 20:09

    Hi Keri,
    I would like to document the sites you mentioned. If this is not possible then please have someone you know do it.

    Sometimes when a person is able to sit and look at somthing then, for whatever reason, they are able to see something interesting..

    On a slightly different subject, some years ago I visited an exposition of Maori culture. I asked a young woman working there where she believed the immigration originated.

    She replied ‘I think it was Hawaii because the name is so similiar but we have been told not to say that by ‘some Prof in Christchurch who I will not name’ we are told to say Maori left either Rarotonga or Tahiti.

    What do you think?.


  6. anon, 5. January 2009, 15:07

    It goes on. Here’s the latest issue of Franklin E Local’s article about how Maori are really South American:

  7. anon, 5. January 2009, 15:10

    It turns out, though, that the South Americans were actually taught everything they knew by ‘white Gods’:

    The Incas described these “white gods” as wise, peaceful instructors
    who had originally come from the north in the “morning of time”
    and taught the Incas’ primitive forefathers architecture as well as
    manners and customs. They were unlike other Native Americans
    in that they had “white skins and long beards”Murals on ancient South American temples depict the fate of white captives being led to sacrifi cial altars’

    More racist crap, in other words.

  8. Keri Hulme, 11. January 2009, 17:00

    Kia ora Jim – I think it fairly well established that “Hawaiki nui Hawaiki roa Hawaiki pamamao’ is a series of places – the original homeland, and places thereafter settled before the heke continued. It is certain that some waka did set out from Rarotoka – the history of Takitimu/Takitumu waka (which was a name given to several voyaging waka) is evidence of that.

    Two of the shadow-places are on privately-owned farms, and the other is difficult of access. However, I now have a niece who is an experienced rockclimber,of whom I’ll ask for help, and invest in a good single malt to approach one of the fermers – the other was a truely racist shit who wasnt aware of the long Maori traverse of “his” property (it’s on one of the old trade trails.) Incidentally, at the time I was looking into these things, digital cameras were undreamt of, and I couldnt afford a good camera (we are talking nearly 4 decades ago.)

    And, Anon., thanks for the link. What a tired regurgitation of the worst parts of Heyerdahl (and Brailsford.) The Franklin e-local fits right in there with CONSPIRACY and “Investigate” eh? (And “Nexus” and another more local short-lived rag whose name -thankfully- escapes me now…)

  9. Keri Hulme, 11. January 2009, 17:03

    O, – there’s also evidence Jim, that Rakiatea in the Tahiti group was a relatively departure place. Cook’s Tahitian interpreter was a Rai’atean and he was easily understood when he switched to his own dialect.

  10. Jim Wakefield, 13. January 2009, 23:46

    Hi Keri,
    I enjoyed your comments very much.

    Mr. Tevita H. Fale has published an interesting book ‘Tongan Astronomy’ and in it he relates the travels of Maui (p20) ‘He travelled and discovered Fisi (Fiji) and Ha’a-Moa (Samoa) group of islands. Then he discovered Tahisi (Tahiti) group of islands and later the Ha’a-Vaihi (Hawaii) group. The word Vaihi means far, far away, and the Tongans still use this word today. Maui’s last discovery was ‘Atealoa, which is New Zealand.’

    Isn’t it interesting how these names just keep comming?


    PS Tell your niece I will throw in a bottle of Bundy.

  11. Yank, 27. February 2009, 19:24

    Clearly Doutre is wrong that there were ancient white people in New Zealand.

    Why? Because Doutre knows a couple of racists; and everyone knows that racists are bad. Furthermore, he has unorthodox opinions about current events in America. Duh!

    I have a PhD in sociology – a science that has nothing to do with archaeology – and I even work at a museum – as director of sales, so you can trust my authoritative expert opinion that there were never ever white people in New Zealand!

    Stop looking at the man behind the curtain!

  12. Richard Quinn, 1. March 2009, 2:13

    Yank, for some reason, your comment above immediately brought an anecdote from Mahatma Gandhi’s life to mind.

    Asked what he thought about Western civilisation, he replied

    “I think it would be a good idea.”

  13. Mariana, 5. May 2009, 11:52

    Excellent rebuff of Doutre’s crackpot theories. I didn’t read the original article but am familiar with Doutre’s nonsense.
    I enjoyed reading this

  14. David, 10. May 2009, 23:24

    I don’t know who the Pre Maori actually were but they did exist.

    For example…go to any written centennial historical account of your district and you will find a chapter on Tangata Whenua…The people before…the first inhabitants etc. (Many of these books were written in the 1970s).
    These stories have been passed down by Maori historians.
    The next chapter often describes Maori migrations into the area who ALL STATE that Tangata Whenua lived there before them and subsequently showed them how to live from the land.
    Often Maori state that these were their ancestors and often are described as having fair or red hair.
    Then when your done reading those…you might read any Maori legend which all state the same stories of Tangata Whenua living in this land before the ‘Fleet Maori’ arrived…welcoming the new comers.
    Many other legends speak of Turehu and Patupaiarehe etc etc etc.
    Or maybe gain the courage to approach a true and humble Maori Kaumatua and get the facts from the Maori themselves.

    Wake up all of you arm chair critics…get off of your arses and check it out.
    If your really keen you might even get outside and do a bit of archaeological investigations yourself…who knows just what you might find!

  15. nick lyons, 15. May 2009, 16:14

    hi scott, i have written a short reply to the thread you created on indymedia about martin doutre and nz history cheers
    nick lyons

    and for the record – at this point from reading the above exchanges- i feeling martins perspective and ideas more so,

  16. Edward, 25. May 2009, 18:37

    David’s assertion that we critics should “get off of your arses and check it out. If your really keen you might even get outside and do a bit of archaeological investigations yourself” seems rather ironic seen as it is archaeologists who are the largest critics of works by amateurs such as Doutre. We regularly conduct surveys and excavations so who, in David’s opinion, is better suited to critique Doutre’s work? It seems yet another case of someone outlining their own ignorance – are you an archaeologist David? have you carried out archaeological investigations David? No? then by your own logic you must be pushing your own bias and beliefs.
    Oh, but of course, when someone such as David screams for an archaeologist’s opinion to back up his belief, and instead gets one in conflict with his beliefs, then something must be wrong with the archaeologist right? Because years of careful study and research count for nothing compared to the views of someone who merely read a tabloid?
    Again, by his own logic he should believe every myth ever recorded by every culture and take it as literal truth. But what would I know? I’m just another “PC” archaeologist right? Hmm, here’s an idea David, next time you wish to leave a comment, why don’t you try reading through the entire argument so that we don’t have to repeat ourselves and you don’t end up looking like an egg.

    As for Nick Lyons,
    I had a quick look at your discussion with Scott. You seem to be arguing for some form of relativism insofar as you oppose the idea that science should have “first pick” so to speak on explanations of prehistory. I personally don’t see how your relativist framework works if you cannot test anything because you have no way of examining evidence. How can you take the position where you give credence to anomalous views when you have not seen the evidence. How do you weigh your interpretations and assumptions? Science is self-correcting, while the only logical conclusion to take from your relativist framework is that ‘truth’ depends on your subjective feelings and beliefs. Which ultimately mean what? Nothing. Take for example the ‘brain in the jar’ argument. It really is just a useless musing which doesn’t help anyone in reality.

    I am becoming more and more disenchanted with NZ’s public. Why is it that of all of the natural and human sciences, it is archaeology which is the most abused and misused discipline in this country? Why is it that everyone assumes they can become experts in archaeology over night by reading some bizzare and poorly executed piece of writing by someone who can’t even grasp the basics of methodology? Why is it that while I would never claim expertise in a field I had no training whatsoever in, so many people continue to arrogantly assume they can with archaeology? When you have no training, experience, knowledge of the literature (how many people read the shit Doutre produces over real archaeological publications?) or haven’t even seen the evidence let alone even know what the archaeological record is, how then can you take a position where you just “know” you are right and reject all that the experts and specialists have to say to the contrary? I’m sick to bloody death of trying to educate people who just don’t want to listen because they are too busy with heads full of racist rhetoric and pseudo-science. Your opinions are based on faith and misguided belief alone, that is why your views are ignored by scholars. Is it really any wonder that academics refuse to engage in dialogue with people like Doutre when there is such a pack of drooling, ignorant fools ready to pounce without knowledge or evidence or reason? How many of you know-it-alls even bothered to read what I wrote about Doutres lack of methodology? Hmmm? Doesn’t matter though does it.
    I’ve had enough of this frickin joke of a backwater country. I’m embarrassed to be a NZ’er right now. Nothing but a bunch of racist, ignorant, psuedo-science loving rednecks.

    Here’s a link to a resource which tackles some of these anomalous views. I don’t really expect any of you to bother to actually read it though but I thought i’d give it one last go. Good luck to those of you with a working, questioning, and skeptical brain inside your head.

    here’s the link:

  17. Keri Hulme, 27. May 2009, 1:44

    Kia ora Edward – many thanks for the link to this excellent resource!

    The intolerant & ignorant, the racist nasties, the cynical exploitationists, will, aue, always be with us – but I delight in the scholarly ripostes of a trained mind like your’s – and the privilege of learning from the experience of a working archaeologist like you- kia kaha! And, thank you! N/n Keri

  18. jim, 31. May 2009, 9:42

    David, To challenge accepted views is not a crime.
    My son recently gave me a book:; ‘Sea of Dangers’ by Geoffrey Blainey in which he charts the progress of 2 ships : the St Jean-Baptiste, a French merchant ship commanded by Jean de Surville, and the Endeavour captained by James Cook.

    In December 1779 they passed, going in opposite directions and without seeing each other, near the north cape of New Zealand. One intriguing theory he gives as a purpose for the French voyage and I quote. ‘The Riddle of the Jewish Colony– The theory that a colony or enclave of Jewish traders flourished somewhere in the South Pacific probably arose from errors of eys and ear and a leap of the imagination during the last hectic evening spent by the Dolphin and her British crew in Tahiti in 1767; but the theory was bouyed by the inescapable fact that the Jew were probably the most enterprising and most scattered merchants in the world;”(p.311)

    Blainey inserts a painting by William Hodges, who painted a remarkable picture of the north coast of Tahiti, called ‘View of the Province of Oparee’ It depicts a canoe carrying two men; a paddler and a passenger. Both are wearing white turbans or turban-like headgear and both have beards and moustaches.

    In the preceeding pages Blainey explores the many theories behind this and finally ‘ The more likely conclusion, however, is that no Jewish merchants lived in this balmy corner of the South Pacific’ (p. 312).

  19. Edward, 31. May 2009, 22:57

    Jim, you’re right in stating views should be challenged, but a meaningful challenge requires a thorough understanding and background of the subject in question. This is acomplished by peer-review, the process whereby others with an academic grasp of the subject matter, techniques and methodologies openly critique hypotheses.

    Your assertion equates to laymen being qualified to challenge thoroughly researched (and peer-reviewed) archaeological considerations and proofs. This should also then be extended to medicine (don’t listen to your doctor, listen to me etc.), history (holocaust denial springs to mind – do you support these so called “legitimate” challenges to well established history?), and any other field which requires extensive background knowledge.

  20. Ben, 12. June 2009, 22:11

    The problem with the ‘celtic nz’ idea, is there is no consideration of other explanations. Ever heard of occams razor? I think there is a far simpler explanation that isn’t being considered.

    what are the celtic nz people so afraid of? how can such a huge body of peer reviewed evidence be so wrong?

    the biggest problem I have is that the celtic nz explanation is seen as a final answer, whereas the legitimate theories still have aspects that can be investigated, they can still be tested

  21. Nick, 13. June 2009, 11:59

    The ONLY reason that DNA and C14 can’t be done without iwi permission is because there is more to NZ history that we are told. OK … MAKE US ALL LOOK LIKE DICKHEADS AND REMOVE THIS FROM THE RULE BOOK …. PROVE US WRONG !!! But oh no, you can’t go around testing human remains , that not PC.

  22. Edward, 17. June 2009, 11:10

    Nick, we do test human remains, that’s kind of what archaeologists do sometimes. And the burden of proof doesn’t lie with us, it lies with you. Or would you have us devote time and money of which we are already always short of on research projects to quickly ring you up on the phone and let you know the results of archaeological digs and skeletal analysis of a group’s ancestors which has nothing to do with you? Who the fuck are you to demand anything!? And I don’t need to make you celtic believers look like dickheads, you are already doing a fine job of that yoursleves.

  23. James, 21. June 2009, 4:37

    Just to correct a few errors from the angry lefties:

    1. We will say “Tohungas” and “Maoris” in English for as long as Maoris insist on saying “Hikareti” instead of “Cigarettes”, and “Aporo” instead of “Apples”. People often say “Formulas” instead of “Formulae”, etc. Its not a big deal, and calling people rednecks over their use of the standard English plural convention on a borrowed word is pathetic.

    2. The Pharoah Ramses II had red hair. Modern-day Egypt has many people with red hair among its population. The mummys’ hair is red because the dead guy had red hair. Ignore the lies about Egyptians being black. See? Worldwide, our history is being systematically erased, so Martin may have a point.

    3. If there is a lock of red hair in the Auckland Museum, why can’t we see it?

    4. There IS a conspiracy to de-whitify Europe and the west. It derives in part from the pan-European movement and practical idealism, which is about 80 years old. The book “Practical Idealism”, by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi is so banned in Germany (for example) its not even on the banned book list (otherwise people might be alerted to its existence). In contrast, Mein Kampf is veritibly promoted. From the book: “Europe is to be peopled with a Eurasian-Negroid mixture” in the future. That is what multiculturalism is for. (Not all races are to be mixed into oblivion, one special master race is to be kept apart as rulers over the dumbed-down mongrelised rabble).

    If whitey gets a past, he might have a future. This is why any and all specifically white history or pro-white ideas are viciously slandered and suppressed, whether they are true or not.

    6. When are the hundreds of preserved “Maori” heads held in overseas museums going to be tested for age and DNA? Ever?

    7. Why didn’t Tau Henere test the red-haired head he retrieved from the British museum? What’s going on there?

    8. Why don’t all these archeologists on this page help Martin get access to all the artifacts and relics he wants to see, in order to shut him up? Why does Martin have so many problems getting access to these things?

  24. Edward, 21. June 2009, 12:33

    Why can’t ‘angry righties’ read through previous statements correctly or do some research to educate themselves before they make retarded comments?

  25. James, 21. June 2009, 21:56

    Which of my comments were retarded?

    I’d like to know as I thought I was quite intelligent, and am trying to be honest here.

  26. Edward, 22. June 2009, 10:44

    I’m not saying you are retarded, just your comments. I’m usually not so harsh but I am tired of battling agenda ridden people like you who refuse to read through the literature.
    -The first question is pointless as the English plural convention doesn’t apply to these words any more than it does to other languages. You’re simply being ethnocentric and avoiding the issues at hand.
    -Your Egyptian question likewise has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And who ever said Egyptians were “Black” anyway?
    -Your third question about red hair – why should you see it, who are you and even if you did what difference does it make. The period of late prehistory to early history would have had examples of red hair due to interaction with whalers etc. but you are unlikely to accept this anyway so again, what is the point in showing you a random red hair when you already have accepted half a dozen premises from that?
    – your fourth question is again irrelevant to the issue at hand and appears nothing more than paranoid ramblings – sorry, but i’m being honest.
    – your fifth question comes to me out of left field and i’m not sure of any connection you are making. The Maori heads held in overseas museums are the heads of Maori which were collected in early history to supply the macabre European market for ‘exotic artefacts’. Sometimes ‘collectors’ would even go so far as to tattoo slaves before decapitating them and shipping them overseas to Europe. This is a well documented activity. The age and provenance and market are known, so why would you run any tests – its just pointless.
    – your seventh question I know nothing about. But again, why would he?
    – your last question is the one that pissed me off the most. As I and others have said again and again and bloody again, the burden of proof lies not with archaeologists or historians but with those who hold anomalous views. If you had bothered to read through this open letter properly or even my last post before you posted you questions you would have seen me state this yet again. Do you have any idea just how many nut jobs there are out there who consider themselves archaeologists despite not bothering with any training or even really knowing the first thing about archaeology? Why should scholars who are busy and underfunded as it is researching real issues have to dedicate their resources to trying to “disprove” quacks like Doutre? Especially when all of the evidence is out there and well documented in the literature! Furthermore, why should Doutre have access to anything? Who the hell does he think he is? He and his like refuse to acknowledge anything any real scholar has to say and show incredible disrespect for indigenous peoples. To reassert for the millionth time it is like a neuro surgeon or astro physicist having to devote all their time to “disproving” someone who claims expertise in their filed but has no training or even understanding of the discipline. Why should Doutre be humored when he doesn’t even understand the most basic principals of archaeological methodology!!?? If you had bothered to read this open letter in its entirety as I had suggested before you posted your worthless questions, you might have come across my asking Doutre about data collection and analysis and depositional transforms among other things to which he had no idea of what I was talking about. These are the basics and he knew nothing! So if he can’t even jump the first hurdle why go any further?

    You might like to think your question were intelligent, but i’m afraid in reality the situation is somewhat different. Instead of mimicking Doutre’s arrogant assumptions of multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise, perhaps you might be humble and accept that, like me, you don’t know everything about things you have no training or background in. I hope you will take the time to research the wealth of peer-reviewed work out there.

  27. Scott, 22. June 2009, 12:42

    Hi James,

    I agree that ‘retarded’ is unfair, but ‘ill-informed and irrelevant’ might be a reasonable description of your post. A lot of the points you raised have been discussed earlier in the thread, and the new ones you raised don’t appear to have much relevance to the discussion.

    Take the point about red hair: even if it wasn’t true that the hair on corpses can turn red, the fact that red hair is found on someone doesn’t indicate that that person has Caucasoid ancestry. Red hair is found in a wide range of human groups – in Berbers, Japanese, Melanesians, and Polynesians, for example. Your argument that red hair on an ancient skeleton indicates Caucasoid ancestry therefore doesn’t follow.

    You also ask about whether smoked heads kept in overseas museums have been DNA tested, and suggest that they haven’t, presumably because the French and British are in on the global plot to suppress the history of the Celts and prevent the disclosure of evidence that they got to NZ thousands of years ago. You seem to think that if one of the smoked heads was shown to belong to someone with some Caucasoid ancestry, then this would count as evidence for the argument that Celts were in New Zealand thousands of years ago, or at least before the arrival of Cook. You’re simply mistaken on this score: the trade in smoked heads began after contact with Europeans, and the collections still held in museums in New Zealand and overseas include heads that belonged to Moriori (ie the indigenous people of the Chathams) and Europeans, as well as Maori. In other words, what you’re claiming the experts are afraid that DNA testing might expose is already freely available information.

    As for all this stuff about a global anti-white conspiracy: what is exactly is a white, and which sinister international body is in charge of the conspiracy? Are Jews white, for instance, or are they part of the anti-white conspiracy, as Martin Doutre seems to think?

  28. Scott, 22. June 2009, 13:05

    I did a google search and found a website which contains translations from the book which James recommedned to us all:

    It’s nakedly anti-semitic and racist stuff.

  29. James, 23. June 2009, 2:12

    Edward, thank you for taking some time to answer my questions. I want to point out that I am undecided. I’m not in Martin’s camp (yet).

    I know you never said I was retarded. I never said you did. That’s OK.
    I’m not agenda ridden, and refusing to read the lit. I have read Martin’s site, and this page and a few other little things and that’s it. I just want to know the answers, and I’ve seen the likes of Scott Hamilton before and don’t like them. He’s too nasty to be honest, and accuses others of not knowing facts, and then he blatently lies. A cultural marxist, very loud, very nasty, looking down his nose at anyone who disagrees. It must be genetic I think.

    Re the plurals: I’ll drop the s.

    Re the Eqyptians: I was just trying to set the record straight that many Egyptians did have red hair, contrary to Scott Hamilton’s assertion that they don’t. Forget it, not important.

    Question 4: If you can, please tell me what else massive levels of forced multiculturalism in the west would actually be for. It honestly escapes me. (And it is forced, you know full well what happens to people who resist it.)

    Re the head:
    The URL to the page with the head is, have a look and tell me what you think.

    Re Q3, the lock of red hair. Why did they display it in the first place, if it is of no interest whatsoever? Really, what is the story behind it?

    If Maori heads are so sacred, why did they get sold to Europeans years ago. Were they just slaves? How do you know some of them weren’t ancient and dug up by Maori? Why aren’t DNA tests used to return them to their correct descendents, or at least correct area/tribe? Can you direct me to any info on this subject that would clear up all these questions about what actually happened to them?

    On a related note a similar thing is happening with the caucasian mummies found in China. The Chinese tried to hide them from the West for some time, because they were white. I watched the discovery channel episode about some of them. They were over 3000 years old and definitely white. Do you believe in them? If so, you might be intrigued by the tattoos on their faces. They had spirals on the sides of their noses, and the woman had moko-like tattoos on her chin, upper nose, and forehead. They were faded and simpler than Maori tattoos, but they would catch the eye of many NZers because of the spirals. The tattoos were completely ignored by the narrator, but they were there alright. Maybe there is no connection, but maybe there is somewhere back in the mists of time. Is it possible?
    Go to, and fast forward to 5:55 or so. Tell me what you think of it.

    Also, Kennewick man in USA caused a lot of controversy, but was regarded as a definite 9000 year old caucasian skeleton, was it not? There was a lot of pressure on the archeologists to lie, and then tread carefully later on, but the truth came out, sort of. Indians wanted to claim it as an ancestor and bury it. It isn’t their ancestor though. Is it so hard to believe that the same corruption could occur here? There is a page on the net with a statement in carefully worded terms from the archaeologists.

    Finally, have you seen or read Martin’s book or his website?

    Also, humble yourself too. Sometimes entire fields of experts are wrong in spectacular fashion. You always learn something teaching novices. Calling their questions retarded is a sign of someone who isn’t confident in their own knowledge, and is struggling to dismiss the questions. 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. How does that benefit nazis?
    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?
    I don’t mean the following questions to be accusations or anything like that, I just wonder what the story is with these things. Martin reckons they line up with the sun and stuff, so is there anything to it?
    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?
    Don’t make the mistake that because you don’t like Martin’s work you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Has he found nothing of interest at all, after all those field trips? Is he a retard?

  30. Keri Hulme, 23. June 2009, 22:21

    Tautoko, to Edward’s last remarks-

    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.)

  31. Edward, 25. June 2009, 10:40

    Kia ora Keri, and thank you for your support. Yours is a voice of reason and it’s always an enjoyment to read your thoughts. You are quite right about these pseudo-supporters, they do not want to gain understanding but rather wish to push thier own ideologies and agendas. Along with the use of pseudo-science, one can also see the continual citing of supposed Maori traditions and sentiment from these people, which while misunderstood, misquoted, and taken out of context is still ironic seeing as they are obviously anti-Maori to some extent and appear to like to try and speak for Maori despite having little knowledge.
    Cheers again.

  32. James, 26. June 2009, 20:55

    Keri, have any DNA tests been done to figure out where those indigenous red hair and blonde genes in your family come from? You say they have always been there. Have they been traced back to their origin? It should be possible to figure out where they are from, because thousands of years ago they weren’t in the asian gene pool, were they? Pure asians don’t even have body hair at all. But Maori did, even before Europeans got here, didn’t they?

  33. Edward, 29. June 2009, 13:34


    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:

    Other than that try searches on Google Scholar.


  34. Anna, 22. March 2011, 19:12

    Everyone who has got the “Maoris were here first, all you other people who say otherwise are liars” is wrong. Why can’t the Maoris accept that people were here before them? And why do we have to give them all “their” land back?? Take for example America, where the Native American Indians were driven out of their land and called savages, the ones in the wrong were the Americain settlers. There is only a small remaining population of the many tribes that there used to be, because the settlers slaughtered them, and the they haven’t given all that much land back to the American Indians. So why should we give the Maoris sole cliam over land that isn’t even thiers in the first place?? They’re not native. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is complete bull. No one should have claim over any beaches anywhere in the world, it’s ridiculous! And there were Morioris long before Maori got here.

  35. Victor, 5. June 2011, 18:20

    Anna, have you even bothered to read everything that’s been written up there? Let’s deal with some of your bizarre questions: 1.”Why can’t the Maoris accept that people were here before them?” This whole page shows that no-one was here first. Or did you just read the bits you wanted, and ignore the others? 2. “And why do we have to give them all “their” land back??” Irrelevant to this topic. 3. “No one should have claim over any beaches anywhere in the world, it’s ridiculous!” Nice Socialist ideal. But sure, go rocking up to any port with your boat and see how far you get. 4. “And there were Morioris long before Maori got here.” No, Moriori were a branch of Maori from the 1400s who migrated to the Chathams. That they were here first was disproven over 80 years ago. I’m sorry you haven’t caught up with your learning since then, but there you are.

  36. Peter, 19. June 2011, 19:33

    I just wanted to stop by to say you are all arrogant and ill-informed. If you had seen the things I saw, visited the places I visited or felt the things I’ve felt, you would realize white women have the best breasts.

  37. joe, 27. November 2011, 18:05

    Kia ora tatou,

    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.

  38. Sione, 31. January 2012, 4:47


    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.

  39. Craig, 4. February 2012, 2:22

    I read all of it. I think on the science end of it, Scott and Edward won. However, on a human level, Scott and Edward definitely lost. Martin got a bit nasty towards the end of the debate but I truly think Scott started it. Scott, you definitely need a lesson in civility. You truly know how to alienate a brother. If someone called me a racist neo-nazi and I knew in my heart that I wasn’t, this would be very upsetting to me and I would most likely lash out. These are charges that must be reserved for only the most dire of men. I truly don’t think Martin is a racist neo-nazi. I actually think he’s a pretty sincere guy – maybe a tad misguided but hey, he keeps the scholars on their toes, if anything. The way you treated him sort of reminds me of the way the left is treating Ron Paul in America at the moment. It may be a bit of a stretch as an analogy and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Hitler use a bit of Nietzsche’s philosophy to develop his own. Sure, Nietzsche is considered misguided by many, but I am quite certain he wasn’t advocating the extermination of the Jewish race. (Ricky Gervais does a great piece on this exact point in one of his stand-up comedy dvds that I own.) We are so intolerant and I have to say that Scott’s initial piece absolutely reeked of arrogance and judgement. In the end, it seems to me, that although you may not agree with the conclusions Martin has drawn from his research, you must admit that he has definitely done a shitload of research (albeit scattered and eclectic, in your opinion). And from assessing everything Martin wrote in this debate, I just couldn’t bring myself to the thought that this man is evil as you tried to portray him. I think that Martin is a thoughtful man. Eccentric?…probably….Evil? Shame on you.

  40. Gene, 2. June 2012, 20:13

    I was a believer in Doutre…until I read through this forum. What a waste of time I spent in reading Doutre diatribe and believing it. Thanks for putting me straight.

  41. Glen, 31. August 2012, 15:12

    In his defence of Holocaust denial(way) above, Martin Douche made a claim about the origin of WW2 that some of the ignorant here might have swallowed. The Polish did not slaughter ethnic Germans in Poland – these were SS false flag causi belli orchestrated by Hitler. It all came out at Nuremburg…

  42. Erin, 2. September 2012, 21:37

    Surely, that if Martin is right, wouldn’t it bring more of nz together? After all many maori are of Celtic heritage. Would it not give more Mana to Maori, and Celtic New zealanders? After all don’t we share common ancestors. By throwing in the word RACE into history, are we not seperating ourselves as humans, and forgetting the lengths people went to discovered new possibilities. Surely everyday kiwis like myself, are excited at the thought of extending new Zealand’s history, without it becoming a “who was here first war” I have read Both Martins book, and listened to his red ice interview, and even tho I am not a scholar, am intrigued to find out more. I have read many accounts of Maori being of Taiwanese ancestry, so is it not plausible, that they learnt their stone/celestial alignments from those ancestors? After all Japan have many stone circles, any many monuments that are preflood times, hidden along their coastlines. We’ve become so wrapped up in post flood ( the last deluge anyway) history. Maybe if all of humanity would look past the last 2000, 5000, 12,0000 years, then doors can be opened to a less segregated world. I would also like to make one point in regards to the word CELT, Martin himself uses this world as an extremely global term, celts were from many parts of the northern hemisphere. We know that the Greeks and Picts and danann were sea Faring people, so if they infiltrated the brits, why could’t they of gone to the southern hemisphere? Australian has found many ancient anomalies pertaining to the egyptians nd or isrealis, so what makes anyone think that they couldn’t of made it to nz. I am excited for the day, when the government allowed all documentation to be read, and an extensive dig to be done. I am sure much will be found from the Taupo per eruption in the 3rd century. Good luck to all who are in search for a more united nz. From an uneducated, non scholar…. hoping, lol

  43. Henry Balfour, 1. October 2012, 4:12

    “The question, then, is who does one believe – a man who can’t even recognise blatant historical facts like the Holocaust and Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, or a community of hundreds of dedicated scholars? It’s a pity, Mykeljon, that you’ve made a fool of yourself by believeing Doutre. ”

    ….. and this is the canard that they always troll out. “Denial” by its definition, is when something is stated as never happening, or an act was never done. The people who are identified here as ‘holocaust deniers’ (no, I won’t CAPITALISE that word, as that would indicate it has special status in history above other known holocaust events) have never – to my research knowledge – ‘denied’ the massive loss of Jewish (and other) lives under German direction. All they ever do (and rightly are allowed to do) is question the actual figures touted by the holocaust lobby. To say ‘six million’, as an example, is no longer tenable once you understand that the caretakers at Aushweitz themselves no longer use these inflated figures for deaths at that one camp. “Denial”, therefore, is a canard. I would go further here, and state quite clearly that there is very little evidence that links any body the West refers to as “Al Quaeda” (or its various other spellings) as the group responsible for the murders in America on September 11th. The event is a massive scandal, of shocking proportions, due to the blatant refusal of US authorities to perform a proper forensic investigation. This massive crime scene was appallingly mis-handled – and that was either deliberate or incompetent – you can choose your opinion here. But don’t crucify those people who want to ask legitimate quesions about either the total number of Jewish murders by Nazi Germany, or the Realpolitic foundations behind 9/11.

  44. John Tasker, 30. April 2015, 20:14

    If people like Doutre and Bolton are going to make staggering claims about our past they really need to present staggering evidence to back up those claims. Which they haven’t. Suspecting something may have been so doesn’t make it so. Saying or writing that something was so doesn’t make it so either. The bottom-line here is that suspicion isn’t evidence. Only cold, hard, testable scientific fact is good enough.