Oz

[uniface]

In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law forbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone. This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.

This is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protect their "hallowed" theories while furthering their careers are not the only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situation gets sticky.

The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori--a fact that the tribe was not happy with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general public did and complained to the government. According to Doutré, the outcome was "an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold archaeological information from public scrutiny for 75 years".

The public got wind of this fiasco and the government denied the claim. However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on the site.

Doutré is concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlier culture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums : "Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?"

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Will Hart
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arque ... overup.htm

[kbs2244]

“Déjà vu all over again”

Change “United Sates” for New “Zeeland” and “Native Americans” for “Maori “ and you have state of North American archeology.

Politics and science rarely mix well.

[tangatawhenua16]

"The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori-...."

Bollocks. And that really is all that can be said about this. There is not one scrap of 'evidence' even if I wish there were. While we have said, "Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence,' you do not some evidence at some point. T date there is none that anyone can submit. Celtic NZ continuers to spout theory as fact without anything concrete. At least we have the central part of a fossilized femur belonging to someone of at least 7'1" (verified human) but we cannot use it is full evidence as it is not enough.

[Minimalist]

Again, you are replying to a dead thread.