New Zealand not settled by polynesians

New Zealand was settled by Polynesians relatively late in the 13th century AD, what if Polynesia migration never reached the island.

In 1642 Abel Tasman finds a completely uninhabited territory
 
Last edited:
New Zealand was settled by Polynesians relatively late in the 13th century AD, what if Polynesia migration never reached the island.

In 1642 Abel Tasman finds a completely uninhabited territory
There were other people here before, no?
 
Orthodoxy within academia for the last few decades is that the Polynesians were the first to explore and settle the New Zealand islands.

That being said, it is still pretty commonly thought in the wider public that there were pre Maori populations, although usually related, specifically the Moriori. This once formed the orthodox view but but it has long been accepted that the latter are just one branch of the Polynesian migration. The story usually goes that the latter arrived, settled the islands, were peaceful. Then the warlike Maori arrived later and expunged them from NZ - which tallies with the Maori invasion of the Chathams post British contact. Quite often it is political, framed this way by people who do not like the contemporary Treaty settlement.

Every now and then a story pops up that seems to indicate evidence has been found of pre Contact exploration by people that were not the Polynesians, Dutch or British, but it rarely seems to be substantiated. It is possible that someone else did explore/see NZ and land, but it will be likely very hard to ever prove beyond doubt. My view usually is that we have to look to how/who - which usually means that the most likely suspects are the Spanish or Portuguese earlier in the Age of Exploration, as it would be rather hard for any other human group to somehow end up in NZ, given where it is based, without better sailing technology, or without going the same route as the Polynesians.

Then there are the people who believe that there have been substantial settlement by other populations (Celts, Jews, Chinese, or some other Altantean like population). These people also usually believe that those populations were somehow wiped out by the Polynesians/Maori, despite often holding that the former were highly advanced and the Maori not. They also often believe that evidence of such peoples has been systemically expunged by some sort of left wing cabal. So, kooks usually.
 
Orthodoxy within academia for the last few decades is that the Polynesians were the first to explore and settle the New Zealand islands.

That being said, it is still pretty commonly thought in the wider public that there were pre Maori populations, although usually related, specifically the Moriori. This once formed the orthodox view but but it has long been accepted that the latter are just one branch of the Polynesian migration. The story usually goes that the latter arrived, settled the islands, were peaceful. Then the warlike Maori arrived later and expunged them from NZ - which tallies with the Maori invasion of the Chathams post British contact. Quite often it is political, framed this way by people who do not like the contemporary Treaty settlement.

Every now and then a story pops up that seems to indicate evidence has been found of pre Contact exploration by people that were not the Polynesians, Dutch or British, but it rarely seems to be substantiated. It is possible that someone else did explore/see NZ and land, but it will be likely very hard to ever prove beyond doubt. My view usually is that we have to look to how/who - which usually means that the most likely suspects are the Spanish or Portuguese earlier in the Age of Exploration, as it would be rather hard for any other human group to somehow end up in NZ, given where it is based, without better sailing technology, or without going the same route as the Polynesians.

Then there are the people who believe that there have been substantial settlement by other populations (Celts, Jews, Chinese, or some other Altantean like population). These people also usually believe that those populations were somehow wiped out by the Polynesians/Maori, despite often holding that the former were highly advanced and the Maori not. They also often believe that evidence of such peoples has been systemically expunged by some sort of left wing cabal. So, kooks usually.

I'd think any serious theories of pre-Polynesian inhabitants would center on the ancestors of the Australian Aborigines and Melanesians...
 
I'd think any serious theories of pre-Polynesian inhabitants would center on the ancestors of the Australian Aborigines and Melanesians...

Yeah, I would venture to say that at some point during the long history of human presence in Melanesia, someone may have been blown off course and landed in New Zealand. However, they likely remained the rest of their life there, never successfully returning to Melanesia, so there was no possibility of follow-up exploration. The Melanesians did have the capability to reach New Zealand at some point - they not only colonized the Solomons, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia, but Fiji as well, a more distant set of islands.
 

jahenders

Banned
I'm no New Zealand-ologist, but the stuff I'm reading discounts most discussions of pre-Maori settlement. The Moriori people are considered to be descendants of NZ Maori who ventured out to settle the Chatham Islands and then developed a somewhat unique culture/subculture.

So, Polynesian settlement of New Zealand around 1300 appears to be the "conventional wisdom."

If the Maori weren't there when Tasman and other European explorers appeared, they certainly be interested in the land and could have done things such as hunting Moa (apparently wiped out by the Maori). However, settlement might have actually been slowed somewhat since the Europeans did lots of trading with the Maori for supplies to keep them going.

Ultimately, Europeans would have settled it, but it would have a more homogeneous English-type culture without native influence.

Orthodoxy within academia for the last few decades is that the Polynesians were the first to explore and settle the New Zealand islands.

That being said, it is still pretty commonly thought in the wider public that there were pre Maori populations, although usually related, specifically the Moriori. This once formed the orthodox view but but it has long been accepted that the latter are just one branch of the Polynesian migration. The story usually goes that the latter arrived, settled the islands, were peaceful. Then the warlike Maori arrived later and expunged them from NZ - which tallies with the Maori invasion of the Chathams post British contact. Quite often it is political, framed this way by people who do not like the contemporary Treaty settlement.

Every now and then a story pops up that seems to indicate evidence has been found of pre Contact exploration by people that were not the Polynesians, Dutch or British, but it rarely seems to be substantiated. It is possible that someone else did explore/see NZ and land, but it will be likely very hard to ever prove beyond doubt. My view usually is that we have to look to how/who - which usually means that the most likely suspects are the Spanish or Portuguese earlier in the Age of Exploration, as it would be rather hard for any other human group to somehow end up in NZ, given where it is based, without better sailing technology, or without going the same route as the Polynesians.

Then there are the people who believe that there have been substantial settlement by other populations (Celts, Jews, Chinese, or some other Altantean like population). These people also usually believe that those populations were somehow wiped out by the Polynesians/Maori, despite often holding that the former were highly advanced and the Maori not. They also often believe that evidence of such peoples has been systemically expunged by some sort of left wing cabal. So, kooks usually.
 
Orthodoxy within academia for the last few decades is that the Polynesians were the first to explore and settle the New Zealand islands.

That being said, it is still pretty commonly thought in the wider public that there were pre Maori populations, although usually related, specifically the Moriori. This once formed the orthodox view but but it has long been accepted that the latter are just one branch of the Polynesian migration. The story usually goes that the latter arrived, settled the islands, were peaceful. Then the warlike Maori arrived later and expunged them from NZ - which tallies with the Maori invasion of the Chathams post British contact. Quite often it is political, framed this way by people who do not like the contemporary Treaty settlement.

Every now and then a story pops up that seems to indicate evidence has been found of pre Contact exploration by people that were not the Polynesians, Dutch or British, but it rarely seems to be substantiated. It is possible that someone else did explore/see NZ and land, but it will be likely very hard to ever prove beyond doubt. My view usually is that we have to look to how/who - which usually means that the most likely suspects are the Spanish or Portuguese earlier in the Age of Exploration, as it would be rather hard for any other human group to somehow end up in NZ, given where it is based, without better sailing technology, or without going the same route as the Polynesians.

Then there are the people who believe that there have been substantial settlement by other populations (Celts, Jews, Chinese, or some other Altantean like population). These people also usually believe that those populations were somehow wiped out by the Polynesians/Maori, despite often holding that the former were highly advanced and the Maori not. They also often believe that evidence of such peoples has been systemically expunged by some sort of left wing cabal. So, kooks usually.

I believe there is some belief that Polynesians may have visited New Zealand prior to the Maori for some time as evidenced by New Zealand Greenstone that has been found across the pacific which pre-dates the Maori and Rarotongan expeditions though this theory is contestable. NZ was believed to be too cold for Polynesian explorers and settlers and the eventual settlement of Maori was forced by overpopulation and tribal fighting in the Cook Islands and Tahiti. Maybe whatever factors were at play forcing the Maori colonization all those years ago differs, but of course a precise POD maybe difficult to pinpoint thanks to the lack of history for the Polynesians in that era.

On a side note on my most recent visit to Rarotonga I got into a conversation about oral tradition surrounding Maui (for non-NZ posters, Maui in Maori myth pulled the North island from the sea with his grandmother's jawbone), and the Rarotongan tradition about New Zealand is that Maui was a stowaway on his brother's expeditionary fleet. The fleet went to far south and hit the an area where the seas changed colour and became rough (probably the Roaring Forties). Maui's brother's despaired thinking they were fucked, bt Maui revealed himself and allegedly knew the correct navigation having been given the information by his grandmother (hence the notion of fishing up the north Island with her jawbone). I also met an Easter Islander who was speaking the local Rapa Nui language and I could understand basically everything he said which was fascinating.
 
Last edited:
There were other people here before, no?

No-one, until approximately 1250AD. No human artifacts older than that have ever been found. The Polynesians who became the Maori were the first. Exploratory voyages first, of course, to determine just how far away, & on what bearing, from Eastern Polynesia the new land was. They knew land of some type was out there because the cuckoo (a land bird) flew to the southwest every summer. Later, the colonising voyages took place, with trade flowing both ways for a century or two. Mayor Island obsidian has been found in the Kermadecs. It is not known why the neither the pig, nor chicken, was successfully introduced (if at all) by Maori, especially when Polynesians managed to introduce chickens to South America. Nor is it understood why contact with Polynesia was lost.

Which means, in this scenario, Abel Tasman finds an empty land, complete with all of New Zealand's prehistoric life and forests. Moa would still roam the land and the Harpagornis soars through the skies. The eagle might even get named after the mythical Roc.
 
Last edited:
Yah, clearly the settlement project by the Polynesians was multi generational, just like the later British effort.

Has there been any evidence of prior Melanesian exploration of say the Kermadecs?
 
Yah, clearly the settlement project by the Polynesians was multi generational, just like the later British effort.

Has there been any evidence of prior Melanesian exploration of say the Kermadecs?

Actually studied this last year. It looks as if Melanesian expansion halted in and around the Solomon Islands until AFTER the Polynesians leapfrogged them. The Polynesians settled Fiji and (possibly) New Caledonia before the Melanesians. Even today, there are Polynesian outliers among predominately Melanesian territories. However, there is no evidence of Melanesian expansion or exploration beyond Fiji.

The only evidence of human occupation of the Kermadecs is Polynesian, and probably only as a way station.

One big mystery is why pigs and chickens failed to be successfully introduced into Aotearoa. The Polynesians definitely had them. They even introduced chickens to South America (proven by both Spanish records and DNA testing), acquiring kumara & bottle gourds in return, before they discovered either Hawaii or Aotearoa.
 
Top