Talk:Moriori

Wiped out?

Claims that the Moriori were 'wiped out' by Maori are untrue.

How does slaughtering, canabalising and enslaving a group does not count as wiping out? There is not one single full-blooded Moriori remaining as a consequence.

I agree with you, up to a point. I do think the full-bloodedness (or the lack of it) argument is something of a red herring - where, for that matter, are the full blooded Angels, the full blooded Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, etc. that colonized England in ancient times? Even without enslavement and genocide, intermarriage would have taken its course, as happens when any two cultures live in proximity for any length of time. Having said that, I agree that what happened on the Chatham Islands was genocide. David Cannon 12:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant full blooded ANGLES? Gringo300 08:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David mostly. You seem confused. Although the Māori might have commited genocide in the modern definition, the Moriori still exist and so there is no way you can say they were wiped out by the Māori anymore then you can say the Aboriginal people were wiped out by the Australian European colonists or that the Māori were wiped out by the Pakeha colonists. Nil Einne 09:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

How many?

From what I know, the Chatham didn't support many people (with the technology available to the Moriori). Could you estimate how many Moriori lived there? Even roughly: hundreds? thousands?

• The Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal estimates around 2000 before the invasion with that figure falling by 90% by 1870. Alan 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I've put this in the Category:Maori, but it seems wrong there. Any suggestions? [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^talk ]] 09:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moriori origin confusion

I'm somewhat confused by what the article says. On the one hand it states that "ancestral Moriori migrated as Māori from ... New Zealand about 1500 AD". On the other hand it states that it is an "unsubstantiated myth that the 'Moriori' ... originally inhabited New Zealand before the fairer-skinned Māori arrived".

Although I acknowledge that the two statements do not necessarily contradict each other, they still leave me somewhat confused as to the origin of the Moriori.

I believe that a clarification is required. What is myth and what is assumed to be correct? --Oz1cz 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why call it a "debunked" myth? Also, please source the scholars who now agree about the origin of the Moriori, and whether these scholars opinions are the majority or not.

I don't quite get your confusion. Ancestral Moriori migrated from the Māori to the Chatam Islands in around 1500 AD as stated. While specific details vary, I don't think there are any scholars of any sort who disputre that the Moriori originated from the Māori or that they were originally localised to the Chatam Islands. However there used to be a myth (actually taught in school!) that the Moriori were a dark skinned race of people who inhabited NZ b4 the fairer skinned Māori took over and slaughtered them. As said in the article, this myth was seen as a justification for the later European colonisation of NZ and for their actions towards the Māori. (The Māori did it to the Moriori, we're just doing the same thing, it's the natural order). However this myth has been more of less completely debunked and I don't think any serious scholar beliefs it any more. The only time you ever hear this myth is when some idiot writes to the paper complaining about some perceived injustice or perceived bias towards Māori Nil Einne 09:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nil Einne has it right. It is amazing how these old myths keep rearing their heads long after it has been demonstrated that there is no evidence in support of them. Kahuroa 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so quickly. The problem here is actually two: a) the assumption that the Moriori were of "racially distinct stock", and b) the assumption that the Moriori trace back to earlier immigrants than "mainstream" or "modern" Māori culture (i.e., post-moa-hunting period, that is, evolving around 1300-1400ish as the resource base shifted from big-game hunting towards agriculture and marine resources), and might never have had much to do with that. The first concept is not correct at all, whereas the second is entirely possible and will be subject of debate in the immediate future considering the recent Rattus exulans paper which has shifted the debate back again to the state some 15 years ago, sans some knee-jerk stuff. "Mainstream" Māori culture seems more likely than not not to have one single origin, instead being the product of at least two major and several minor immigrations that possibly started as early as c.850AD, and had more evolutionary leeway before the depletion of big game shifted carrying capacity (downwards unless the resource base changed, which it did, and the modern Māori culture is a direct consequence and product of this). Given that the process of "agriculturalization" had a roughly N -> S trajectory, and given the Moriori-Kāi Tahu similarity and the home turf of the latter, the underlying idea could be expressed by saying "the Moriori are fairly direct descendants of the very first Māori", but more research in the relationship between the Kāi Tahu and the (far north) Ngāti Porou is needed to resolve the history of the former.

The point is that the earliest "proto-Māori" were altogether absorbed into a more unified Māori culture later on on the mainland (a significantly distinct "early immigrant" culture could have only developed on S Island in any case if at all), but that the Moriori may have been emigrated from the mainland early enough not to have been much participated in this homogenization process. A lot of genealogical and subsequent haplotype studies will be needed to really shed light on this question. Dysmorodrepanis 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with the real issue which is that Moriori weren't a dark skinned race who inhabited New Zealand before they were slaughtered by the Māori. This myth is IMHO still debunked and the recent evidence doesn't change that. Whatever the surely complex history of the Māori and whatever the history of Moriori, the fact remains they weren't a dark skinned race who originally inhabited the main land but were wiped out by the invading Māori. They may have been descendents from earlier settlers who emigrated from the main land fairly early on but this still a far cry from the old myth Nil Einne 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dys, you're quite right in some respects, but quite wrong in others. For instance, you say that "more research in the relationship between the Kāi Tahu and the (far north) Ngāti Porou is needed to resolve the history of the former", which clearly demonstrates that you have little (if any) knowledge of Ngāti Porou origins, nor Kāi Tahu for that matter. It would be a mistake to rely so heavily on an overarching definition which is so clearly incorrect.--Te Irirangi (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How does Michael Kings one book change the myth to debunked and then shift the burden of proof on to the other side? Michael Kings book is based on as much fact as you get by going to Auckland Museum (near nil) and the rest is hearsay and conjecture.60.234.238.153 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- Michael Kings book should in no way be taken as definitive. He gives very little historical evidence and bases his claim on fickle etymology in the similarities between the Moriori language and the Maori dialect of certain South Island tribes. No definitive archeological evidence backs up his claim, neither does any genetic (mtDNA) research. The truth is that the question can never be answered firmly. Whilst it is possible that the Moriori were separate 'race' to the Maori, it is extremely unlikely they were. That is not to say that the Moriori were not a Maori (or other) Polynesian group who were dispersed from the main islands by more aggressive encroachment. They may have even chosen to leave the mainland on their own account or could have done so by accident. What is clear is that the matter is in no way resolved. I also think that the current article should be edited to 'debunk' the myth that the issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hell surfer (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A very likely explanation (for which there is no evidence) is that the Moriori were ordinary Maori who fell out of favour with the vast majority of Maori and were exiled to the Chathams by them and given the name Moriori. Perhaps the Moriori had developed practices such as child sacrifice or voodoo which the main group had found abhorrent, or perhaps there had simply been a family feud. Perhaps when European sealing and whaling ships started arriving, the Maori were dismayed to find that the Moriori had ready passage back to the mainland, where they could interbreed, so it was determined that they must be wiped out. Akld guy (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the Maori slaughtered, tortured to death and ate the Moriori, it's unlikely that it was the Moriori exiled for having abhorrent practises "such as child sacrifice". Considering their moral code they may have been dissenters who rejected the abhorrent practises of the main Maori culture. Also the word "debunk" is too strong (and effectively perjorative) to describe one hypothesis tentatively gaining ground over another. It implies that the former theory is "bunk" rather than "not preferred at the moment".82.71.30.178 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Myths I believe are assumed to be correct as those myths that you are referring to are stories that have been passed on for 1000's of years, of course they may not be 100% correct as the story is only as good as the story teller and any embellish the story tellers might have added. There has to be at least some truth to stories (or myths) even if they have been changed or slightly changed over the years. The myth you are discussing is that Moriori came to New Zealand before Maori and although I'm not sure that it matters so much today. Whilst trying to make sense of if I'm not sure how it can be that a lighter skinned race resulted from mixing with a darker skinned race unless there was a lighter skinned race around at the time. As the Maori were the more aggressive did they take advantage (putting it nicely) of the Moriori women who went on to have lighter skinned children. One of the points that makes it easier to believe that the Moriori fled from New Zealand is that Maori are the aggressive race. If you won't listen to science or there is no science that is deemed validating enough you have to look at the nature of the two races and from that I believe that they are certainly two different races...if only due to one men and women being passive and the other being aggressive. Maori practised canabalism, scary enough at the best of times, fight or flight is an unarguable built in reaction of all humans. I would say understandable that the passive Moriori fled to the Chattam Islands, it makes it very easy to believe and it's where they are still found today; until recently I believe there were still in the last 100 or so years full blooded Moriori in the Chathams. Maori continued to fight among themselves and continued to practise canabalism amoung themselves, apparently they also followed the Moriori to the Chathams. The lighter skinned caucasions europeans included, arrived in New Zealand after the immigration of Maori to New Zealand. Dna evidence shows that aboriginals are the only race that have all different DNA markers...from Maori, European, British, Chinese, German etc and all of those races have some of the same markers. The big difference that I have noted in all the texts that I have read is that Maori are an aggressive people as are the Spanish while the Moriori are passive people as the Nuie Islanders are. It's why I believe the stories that you are calling myths, those so called myths have carried on throughout the years for a reason and I'd say it's because it's more than likely true. Migration is certainly the way of the world, whether it be by conquering or by immigration people move around the world and cohabitate in their new found homes. Answer the question what lighter skinned race mixed with either to result in a lighter skinned race? It doesn't make sense! (Aeriallaw (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

Moriori did not originate from the New Zealand mainland. That statement is incorrect. The details and the origins of the Moriori People are stated clearly in their deed of settlement and in the trust deed for the Hokotehi Moriori Trust. It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.224.101 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal statements are reliable sources on matters of law, but not on scientific facts. If a legal deed says one thing and the consensus of archaeology, linguistics, and genetics says another, the latter is what we follow. —VeryRarelyStable 04:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

origin of name

I shortened the convoluted sentence (partly my fault) about the origin and meaning of the word moriori. Kahuroa 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged article

I've merged most of the content from Moriori of The Chatham Islands, a more recent article on the same subject. I'm not sure that what I've added is correct, or that I haven't missed something, so feel free to check. -- Avenue 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrival

Would there be any value in changing "about 1500" to "between the ninth and sixteenth century"? Matt (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC) No. Because that is almost certainly incorrect as of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.189.177 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Iwi table

Do others think the Iwi template should be added? Not sure if its appropriate.

Matt (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate to me. Doubtless the Moriori have their own internal tribal divisions, so that should go on first. Kahuroa (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Te Ara, Moriori have, or had, nine tribes of their own. I think it would be incorrect to consider the Moriori as an iwi. Aridd (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"This hypothesis is no longer widely accepted"

False. Many New Zealanders still believe this - trying not be racist - Maori have shut this hypothesis down, as they believe they were the first here. Of cause everything is down to belief and opinions - but what I'm trying to say is the hypothesis that Moriori exsisted is actually widely belived. CipherPixel (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Any objections from getting rid of the statement? It is not really needed in the article CipherPixel (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should strengthen the statement to say "This story spread in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but was conclusively disproven from the 1960s." That some people still believe this is a good reason to explain that it's nonsense. It's also incorrect to suggest the Māori shut down the hypothesis - it was a Pakeha construct built over several Māori myths, and it is Pakeha historians who demonstrated that it is nonsense.-gadfium 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well put gadfium. I agree it should be strengthened - I think some of edits over the last six months or so, probably well meaning, made things a bit ambiguous and even took out sources which were actually helpful. You're right that Pakeha historians shot it down, and lets not forget Pakeha, well Canadian, linguists like Ross Clark Kahuroa (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree CipherPixel (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. Maori oral histories, related to anthropologists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, never spoke of Moriori being there before them. Pakeha built the whole idea from scratch, based mainly on the belief that Moriori were Melanesians who must have come from New Zealand but appeared to be a distinct people from the Polynesian Maori. The notion of Melanesian Moriori has long since been disproved. And it was a Pakeha, Michael King, who finally laid the misconception to rest. No New Zealand historian today believes that Moriori were pre-Maori inhabitants of NZ. I've read histories of NZ by King, Belich, Mein Smith and others, and there is clear scholarly consensus. To my knowledge, the only people who still like to cling on to the old nonsense are random people who have no expert knowledge of history, and simply want to find a way to deny that Maori are genuine tangata whenua. Aridd (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Have to ask...what polynesian Maori are you referring to? (Aeriallaw (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

I find all this quite confusing. Linguistic evidence does not "debunk the myth". It merely swings the pendulum back towards the likelihood that Moriori were originally Maori, from mainland NZ. The only way this issue can be resolved for sure is through DNA tests - especially since contemporary accounts stated that Moriori were physically distinct from Maori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Word origins

I took this out: Māori may have developed as a variant of Moriori. Wrong, because Māori is the older word, which we know for sure because Māori as a word has cognates in other Polynesian languages and has been reconstructed to Proto-Polynesian as maqoli or maaqoli. Moriori does not which means it has to be the younger word. Kahuroa (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Other Polynesian languages have maoli, maohi, and even maori (Cook Islands). The first Maori already had the word when they arrived. Aridd (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Polynesian prefix faka- (Māori whaka-) appears in Moriori as hoko-, which indicates that a change in some cases of a > o is a feature of the Mōriori language. A change of *Māoriori to Mōriori is entirely consistent with this. Koro Neil (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/alt_essayBody.asp?essayID=3B16 This link should help: Baucke had written an article and Shand is mentioned for the vocabulary. I believe King mentions Shand as well for this reason. Skinner is also mentioned. Lets try to have a constructive discussion which contributes Sources. It also pays to remember that back in the 1800s people were rarely innocent academics and had vested interests. Some further avenues are possible: Artifacts will have been collected by missionaries such as Baucke. Probably some will be in NZ Museums but others may be in Europe. Understanding the Colonial interaction from all angles can bring more written information to light; whalers, missionaries, commerce: trade items & merchants, linguistic information (not always in English, check German mission articles - ie Leipzig Moravians). The descendents of all Morioris have some form of the culture still a part of them so they can also be asked. They will remember what Grandma cooked or particular ways of their elders. Perhaps those interested spend 5 minutes checking out their angle and come back with a contribution of scholar based evidence. There is plenty of it out there, it will also make Wikipedia better than an old textbook. I think it would be great if Maori could give a background as to their groups who are most like the Moriori or elements they see as similar and possible points of connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simongillespie (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Politically-Skewed Article

This article is dramatically biased.

The question of whether there were pre-Maori inhabitants of New Zealand is highly controversial current topic -- with the Maori-only camp periodically claiming the issue is completely settled in their favor, and anything to the contrary is debunked racism.

The question of the ethnic origins of the Moriori of the Chathams is also not settled -- they were clearly physically distinct from the Maori.

There are political and economic issues skewing the entire debate: the Maori base their moral claims on being "the" indigenous people of NZ, not one of several invading peoples; the present day Chatham Islanders who may be slightly of Moriori ancestry can claim coverage for the Chatham Islands under the Waitangi Treaty (with huge economic benefits) only if they are the "same people" as the Maori of mainland New Zealand with whom the treaty was negotiated.

Here's the giveaway: "It [the 'myth' of the Moriori] still appears sometimes in overseas publications, such as recent editions of Encarta". Clearly something appearing in a (non-political-activist-edited) encyclopedia is not "debunked" and needs to be discussed in a Wikipedia article neutrally and dispassionately.

Sorry, but the evidence that Moriori are closely related to Māori is overwhelming. If you believe you have evidence that archaeologists have overlooked, please publish in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal, or cite such an article.-gadfium 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the truth of the origin of Moriori can be determined by a dna test, I would be interested to know the result. If the evidence shows Moriori arrived before Maori I don't think that changes anything. Maori are Tāngata Whenua. Different language indicates either a different origin or a large gap in which the two groups are seperate. This article is big on political correctness and a little short on evidence. As for the matter of the genocide of the Moriori I think the British were complicit in this to gain land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortt (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

Someone has added unsourced edits claiming that "They were systematically hunted and eaten by Maori on mainland New Zealand until they were wiped out there", and implying that such was the majority view of historians. I've reverted them, but this article may need to be patrolled from time to time to prevent unsourced opinions from being added in. Aridd (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have not seen the "unsourced edits" mentioned above, have never seen the above quote on this page. However I am sure there are some Mori Ori that read this page who will challenge your point of view. Having all your people murdered and then being told Mori ori are really Maori would kinda of suck if you ae Mori Ori. As would having to pretend you are Maori to claim your rights under the treaty of Waitangi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.132.29 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Nobody is saying the Moriori are "really Maori". They have developped a distinct culture, language and way of life, which is sufficient to make them a distinct people. (They have been seperate from the Maori for five centuries, longer than Pakeha of British descent have been seperate from the British; are you seriously suggesting that Pakeha are "really British", and hence that there is somehow no such thing as a New Zealander?) It has been established as fact that the ancestors of the Moriori were Maori who migrated to the Chathams. There was never any basis for the notion that the Moriori were pre-Maori inhabitants of New Zealand. Whether you think the Moriori's Maori ancestry "sucks" is utterly irrelevent. This isn't about my "point of view"; this is about fact. If somebody wants to "challenge" it, they'll need sources... which don't exist. Facts can't be altered just because they make people unhappy. Aridd (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Right on Arrid, especially re developing a distinct language. Moriori call the pigeon parea but Kāi Tahu call it kererū. Hangon! Ngā Puhi call it kūkupa, so that would mean either Ngā Puhi or Kāi Tahu are not Māori , using 121.73.132.29's logic. (I don't do LOLs). Anyway, I whakapapa to Moriori but don't know any rellies who believe in the Moriori-wiped-out-by-Māori nonsense. Moriori (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"current research indicates that ancestral Moriori were Māori" you apparently have not read the text you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.132.29 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"It has been established as fact that the ancestors of the Moriori were Maori who migrated to the Chathams." Please provide evidence of this 'fact' that you said no one is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.132.29 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am old enough to have seen carbon dated archaeological evidence of Moriori being here before Maori if you have contrary archaeological evidence, please present it because your artice is rich on political correctness and weak on fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.132.29 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There has certainly been debate amongst archaeologists about the time that Māori came to New Zealand. The current consensus seems to be around 1280 CE, but there is certainly a case to be made that there were earlier visits. What there is no credible evidence for is that there were a different people who inhabited New Zealand before Māori settlement. You are most welcome to provide such evidence. Any respectable peer reviewed journal would do, or any reasonable recent book by a reputable historian. If no one has published such material, perhaps you should be submitting your material to the journals. Come back when you have such reliable sources.-gadfium 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

well I guess now we are getting somewhere. Yes i agree the evidence, now hidden in Te Papa archives could point to Maori being here before 1280, but since it is hidden and not open to public scrutiny we will just have to guess at what the evidence, that we can't examine might point to. I would like to know if Maori were here pre 1280 wouldn't you? Also if the information I was given was false, and I am willing to accept that, I would like to know the truth. So why not bring out all the hidden evidence and find out.

The debunked myth of Moriori in New Zealand

How does one Historian's book "dispel archaeological myths?" Just another biast section that chooses to ignore what the majority of hard evidence says. CipherPixel (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is somewhat lacking, in that it only gives Michael King as the authority. In fact, every reputable historian would affirm that the idea of Moriori as a separate people not originating from Māori was a myth. The section could well be strengthened.-gadfium 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What about scientists that believe Moriori were here first? Just disregard that as its what many people hope isn't true? CipherPixel (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Add them to the article, with reputable sources of course. Moriori (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think adding some of the material in Māori_migration_canoes#The_.22great_fleet.22_hypothesis would help strengthen the section. -- Avenue (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Aridd here. Just passing through quickly; can't log in because I'm on self-enforced wikibreak. Just to cite James Belich, from Making Peoples, p.26: "The Moriori myth was rejected as early as 1859 by the able historian and ethnographer Arthur Thomson, and, as anthropologist H.D. Skinner pointed out in 1923, there has never been very solid evidence for it." As sources for that passage, Belich provides: Thomson, Arthur, The Story of New Zealand, Past and Present, Savage and Civilized, 2 vols, London, 1859, i, 61; and: Skinner, H.D., The Morioris of the Chatham Islands, Honolulu, 1923. Belich also mentions the settlement of the Chatham Islands, which lead to the appearance of a distinct Moriori people (pp.65-6). There were no Moriori before the 15th century or thereabouts. As Gadfium rightly points out, "every reputable historian would affirm that the idea of Moriori as a separate people not originating from Māori was a myth". CipherPixel, we're waiting for your "hard evidence" to the contrary. Who are these "scientists" you allude to? 82.121.233.50 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, K.R. Howe in Te Ara:

"The idea of a pre-Māori known as Moriori was debated by two New Zealand ethnologists – H. D. Skinner in the 1920s, and Roger Duff in the 1940s. Both men argued that the first settlers, the moa hunters, were Polynesian themselves. Duff’s excavations at the archaeological site of Wairau Bar in Marlborough established conclusively that the moa hunters were an early Māori people. He showed that differences between human tools found in different excavated layers could be explained by the evolution of a Māori culture, and were not evidence of a separate, pre-Māori people in New Zealand.

In the 2000s the generally accepted understanding is as follows. Polynesians were the first settlers in New Zealand, arriving in the late 1200s. Some time after 1300, possibly around 1500, a number of these people sailed east over some 800 km of open sea to the Chatham Islands. There they became isolated and developed their own distinctive culture. In the 1830s some Māori arrived at the Chatham Islands on a European sailing ship. This was the first time these two peoples, who shared the same Polynesian ancestry, had met in about 300 years. The Chatham Islands people decided to call themselves Moriori – their version of the word Māori." [1] 82.121.233.50 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm able to log in once more, I've added the information and references to the article. Aridd (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

academic source

So this is your first academic source, traditions are not always historically accurate, so no, you can’t validate a tradition if it describes something that didn’t actually happen. If the tradional belief is accurate then archaeology can be used to validate it.

Campbell, Matthew (2008), "The historical archaeology of New Zealand’s prehistory"

“Her specific concern was the expectations that the claimants may have had of archaeology, that it could be used to validate tradition. She concluded that generally archaeology and tradition refer to two very different understandings of the past, and neither can be used to validate the other, nor to disprove the other, though local tradition can provide a useful framework for interpreting archaeology.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortt (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

Recent posting by 60.234.131.163 reverted, raised some concerns about the rejection of the hypothesis of a racially distinct pre-Maori Moriori people:

There is concern however that virtually all the evidence used to support that conclusion arises from Maori sources, and is therefore biased by the Maori cultural need to view themselves as the original inhabitants, and a possible deliberate obliteration of any competing claim. Although this may seem unlikely, the behaviour of the Maori when encountering the Moriori in the Chathams would exactly be a pattern of behaviour that would have, if not observed by others, have lead to a virtual extinction of any Moriori people on mainland New Zealand including removal of any evidence of such a population. All evidence used for the Moriori on the Chathams as being a relativel late Maori migration from New Zealand, such as the similarity of the language, can equally be read as the cultural fragments that Maori absorbed from the exterminated Moriori during a period of slavery and extinction of them on New Zealand. There also remain a few difficult questions, such as why the Maori developed so differently from their believed ancestors in a relatively short period between their arrival and the arrival of Europeans, unless there was an external element such as interaction with a different culture, and several Maori folk tales that relate to the existence on inhabitants on New Zealand at their arrival, the description of who is a surprisingly close match to what little is known of Moriori.

I reverted this as unsourced etc, but it might be worth a comment here. Snori (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be obvious OR with an overt bias to push. Doesn't reflect the known facts or consensus at all.121.74.228.150 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There will always be people who believe in fringe theories for a variety of reasons. As we learn more about the early polynesian migrants to NZ at places like Wairau Bar,the more we find similarities with Moriori. Early "Maori " in NZ also showed no tendency towards a culture based on warriors and warfare as happened in NZ and the North Island especially, from about 1500. It seems that a variety of events happened in the South Island about 1450ish which drove Maori to migrate-some to the North Island and some to the Chathams. We are finding out more about the "1450" events every year. An underlying cause may have been climate change. Other likely causes were earthquakes and Tsunamis. As mainly coastal dwelling people, without any scientific understanding of random natural events, it must have been terrifying to live on the Otago coast then given that many food sources-especially Moa had been hunted to extinction. Anyone who could survive on the Otago coast in 1450 could survive on the Chathams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Wiki talk pages aren't the place to argue your theories. As you have been told endless number of times, Wiki articles rely on verifiable, reliable, published sources. Your own opinions are unimportant and irrelevant. Start a blog and spout away there. BlackCab (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the Taranki people in Wellington met to find a place to invade.

Ngati Mutanga and Tama were 2 small Taranaki tribes that had been obliged to form an alliance with Te Rauparaha's Ngati Toa tribe from West Waikato. If they had not joined in his heke (invasion)of Wellington their existence would have been in doubt, as Te Rauparaha was a ruthless general. The 2 smaller tribes were given land in Wellington but were subject to the ultimate authority/mana of Te Rauparaha. It is known that Ngati Mutanga and Tama were uncomfortable under Te Rauparaha's mana. Inter iwi and inter hapu squabbles could(and regularly did) lead to bad feelings and even war. In the north a petty squabble between some girls lead to a full on war. The broader answer to why the 2 tribes wanted to invade another island is -they were warlike ,it was normal (tika) in Maori society to solve problems by war,they were well armed and Maori had travelled wildly in the Pacific as sailors and whalers since 1800 so were familiar with the passive culture of the Moriori in the Chathams.At that time the Chathams were not controlled by any European power. The Chathams were not part of NZ until some 6 or 7 years after the Taranaki tribes' invasion - well after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in mainland NZ.

An additional reason for leaving was that Ngati Mutanga and Tama had fought a series of large battles with various Waikato invaders over a number of years and normally been decisively beaten. Such Waikato warrior leaders as Te Wherowhero and Te Waharoa took control of all the north Taranaki rohe and killed ,ate and enslaved prisoners throughout the early and mid 1830s. It was these same Waikatos who had forced out Te Rauparaha and his Ngati Toa, who were far more powerful militarily than the 2 North Taranaki iwi.Claudia

Chathams genocide

There are two points I would like clarified. 1. The invasion and genocide of the Moriori appears to have been British planned using local Maori to cop the blame, I say that as a person of British descent. 2. The race and origin of Moriori can be easily determined by dna testing, this article seems very short on facts and evidence, and long on speculation. 121.73.23.138

You are welcome to produce evidence re British motivation, and re DNA testing, and add it to the article. You will need references, not opinion. Moriori (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@121.73.23.138: There is absolutely no evidence or suggestion that the British planned the genocide of the Moriori. Given that the slaughtering of the Moriori by Ngati Mutunga happened in 1835, at a time when the British did not yet actually want to colonise New Zealand (the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand of 1835 was an attempt by the British to keep the French away without Britain having to annex New Zealand themselves), the notion you put forward is absurd. Aridd (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You need evidence for such a claim yourself. The fact that you yourself are of British descent is not such evidence - for example, it is very far from unheard of for a certain trendy righteousness to be felt among some of British descent to claim the British are to blame for everything they possibly can. Perhaps you are not one of those: if you have actual evidence of this, you're welcome to include it. Harsimaja (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas

I can see no reason to include the fact that it has been novelised in the sections dealing with history. If somebody wants to include this fact, then they can create a section about this in popular culture. Until then it'll be deleted. Permanent Student (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah I tend to agree. If it comes back it needs to be properly referenced too. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, was the (now-discredited) early 20th century theory about the origin of the Moriori?

The article currently isn't very clear about what, exactly, this early theory was. Was it:

1. That the Moriori came from the tropical Pacific, settled in mainland New Zealand only, but were then driven from the mainland to the (then-empty) Chathams by the (later-arriving) Maori? Or
2. That the Moriori came from the tropical Pacific, settled in both mainland New Zealand and the Chathams, but were exterminated from the mainland by the (later-arriving) Maori, leaving them only on the Chathams? Or
3. That the Moriori came from the tropical Pacific, and settled only in the Chathams (not on mainland New Zealand)?

The second paragraph of the lead - in versions of the article prior to 12 December 2018 - implied either theory 1 or theory 2. The second paragraph of the lead - following an edit by an IP on 12 December 2018 - implies only theory 1. However, the first paragraph of the "Origin" section implies theory number 3 only. We should be consistent about what, exactly, this (now-discredited) theory was. Also, perhaps, all discussion of this earlier theory should be moved to the "Origin" section, leaving the lead section to describe only the actual origin of the Moriori? Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The "early [Maori] settlement [of mainland New Zealand] also featured a pre-Maori population conquered and exiled by descendants of the first Polynesian explorers" seems to be the idea of both Smith and Best. (Imagining Moriori Page 11). I agree with your suggested fix of the introduction. What school books said about a people in the mid 20th century is not their defining characteristic. The misconception seems to have come from the children's books not the anthropologists directly. It might be best put in "The Moriori in New Zealand" section as it is not their real "Origin". Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC).

Some ideas for your introduction, it is based on the "Maori people" page to avoid rhetorical language.

The Moriori are the indigenous Polynesian people of the Chatham Islands (Rēkohu in Moriori, Wharekauri in Māori), New Zealand. Moriori originated from Māori settlers from the New Zealand mainland around the year 1500 AD, This was near the time of the shift from the Archaic to Classic Māori culture on the main islands of New Zealand. Oral tradition records many waves of migration to the Chatham Islands. Over several centuries, these settlers developed a unique culture, with their own language, a rich mythology, and distinctive crafts. Early Moriori formed tribal groups based on eastern Polynesian social customs and organisation, later, a prominent pacifist culture emerged (see Nunuku-whenua). This culture made it easier for Taranaki Māori invaders to nearly exterminate them in the 1830's during the Musket Wars. Currently there are around 700 Moriori most of whom no longer live on the Chatham Islands. However, the Moriori culture has experienced a resurgence in the 21st Century.

During the late 19th century some prominent anthropologists proposed that Moriori were pre-Māori settlers of mainland New Zealand, and possibly Melanesian in origin. This hypothesis was taught in New Zealand’s schools for most of the 20th century, long after it had fallen from favour among academics.Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC).

It's not 'my' (or anyone else's) introduction. Nobody owns that page. Your suggested text looks good to me; feel free to make this change yourself. Thanks. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

King and Richards

I got King, 2000 and Richards, 2018 (both called Moriori) out from the libaray and will be cleaning up a few things. I hope to add a bit more to the European contact section. Should not be anything controversial. Any problems let me know. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)).

Moriori oral history

I'm not going to edit this page (at least not without checking here first), but I just saw a very good documentary here in NZ, in which present-day Moriori asserted that according to their understanding of their own oral history, they arrived at Rehoku directly from Eastern Polynesia (according to those in the documentary around the same time as Maori were travelling to NZ).

It may not be the accepted historical account, but I think a people's own oral history deserves at least a mention. Here is the link:

https://www.maoritelevision.com/shows/chatham-islanders/S01E001/chatham-islanders-episode-1

Would there be any objection to my mentioning what is said in this documentary? I personally found it most interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarchris (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The oral tradition needs inclusion in the origin section, but I would like a better reference than a documentary if possible. I don't think it needs a whole section yet so it can have due weight with other evidence. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is some archaeological evidence supporting this as well – but this understanding comes from remarks made by the professor during archaeology lectures, and I don't have a published source for it. —VeryRarelyStable 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Te ara also covers this[2] just to muddy the waters. I think it shows the difference between oral tradition and its modern interpretation quite well. Anyway I need to watch this documentary. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What a great documentary. So I am just at the start of episode 2, but this seems to be the place being referenced. My concern is that the oral tradition as recorded in King Chapter 1[3] and Te ara[4] does not explicitly state that the ancestors of the Moriori came from a place other than New Zealand. However it certainly allows for that interpretation. Kings evidence for a NZ connection included NZ rocks being used as tool in the earlier sites on the Chathams. As far as language I was never able to hunt down a copy of "Moriori and Maori: The Linguistic Evidence" which is our other reference for this section. This reference is an interesting summary of the language question. [5]. NZ history hedges their bets "The people who became the Moriori arrived on the islands from Eastern Polynesia and New Zealand"[6]. So in short I feel if we are going to reference the oral history I would prefer it to be in two parts, first the oral history (both versions), second the published interpretations and maybe in its own section. Not a direct analogy but I like this paragraph from Jewish History "The traditional religious view of Jews and Judaism of their own history was based on the narrative of the ancient Hebrew Bible... Moses liberates the Children of Israel from ancient Egypt... However, the consensus of modern scholars support the academic view that the archaeological evidence showing largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan, not Egypt..." Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mobile edit is not working well but your discussion and claim about Moriori origins directly contradicts this recent NYT article that claims that this is a racist myth that you are propagating:

“Revival for a Native New Zealand Group Pushed Close to Cultural Death”[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:E26:AB01:E4C5:2FCE:9108:7E23 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved your comment here, I am guessing you are referring to the NZ stopover or not issue. The NYT says, some archeologists say yes to NZ stopover, oral tradition says no. I generally agree that this is a fair summary of recent references (although "some" is a word beneath their dignity). However, the variety of published interpretations of both archeology and oral tradition is far more interesting than this [8]. I appreciate that some Moriori are concerned that having a NZ stopover will allow some to proclaim them "just another iwi" and then in some peoples mind lessen their cultures standing. But imagine a world where Moriori spent time in NZ fist, would this make Moriori culture lesser than what you think of it now. Are Cook Islands Māori somehow better for not having come to New Zealand first. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

classic v classical

Thanks for the revert and explanation today by user:VeryRarelyStable. I ran a quick search on google scholar and got 789=maori "classical period" , and 508=maori "classic period". Thinking about it, to me classic period would fit better than classical period. The words do have different meanings so I am now assuming that the majority of authors in google scholar have confused the meanings or have copied 'classical' from another text without checking, which I did. The use of 'classical' for other periods' in history, eg Greek, adds to the confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is or was?

The 2000/2003 Micheal King book (a top rate source) uses 'was' with clear explanations as to why the Moriori of old are no longer. Lots of other sources that are not as good use 'is' to describe Moriori, a clear contradiction. The first sentence uses an opinion piece from The Guardian to confirm Moriori's current state of existence. As evidence it says 1,000 or so people ticked a box on a census form to identify as Moriori and that the govt signed an agreement with the decentents of the Moriori of old, (not the Moriori of present, because they don't exist). We do of course have the Moriori Renaissance happening where use of the word Moriori is made to mean Moriori descendents. That is the cause of the mixed use of is and was. I think it is worth mentioning this somewhere at the start because it would allow for the use of both is and was while making it clear that the desendents of Moriori today are not the same as the Moriori of old, and never can be, because the Moriori of old are extinct. If we don't make that clear this article will be full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Every Englishman alive in 1850 is also dead. Does that make the English "extinct"? Of course not. Moriori descendants are every bit as much still Moriori as English descendants are still English. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

First, I refer to what the sources say, specifically Michael King. If we remove all the sources that are not independent or are not secondary or are not experts, which we should do, then I'm not sure how many that are left would use is rather than was.

Second, we are talking about the Moriori race, not individuals. You are comparing individuals with a whole race of people but I'm not: I'm comparing one race at two points in time.

Third,, the English haven't lost their language, their history, their culture, their homeland, their heritage, their everything. That is what happened to the Moriori. By lost I mean gone, never to return, unable to be resurrected as it it was 250 years ago. But don't listen to me, or even accept what should be pretty obvious, just read chapter one in King's book. This isn't simply a matter of the last full-blood Moriori dying which makes for an interesting mark in time, it's about the loss of everything that made Moriori Moriori as they were in the past. What we have now is Moriori but it's a different Moriori from the Moriori of old. The English gene is a matted web of other races but that is not what binds them together. The only thing binding Moriori together is the Chatham Islands and a reconstructed unknown past. So, I'm sorry, but your comparison with the English is flawed. Put another way, there is a developmental line firmly joining the English in 1750 with the English in 2024: there is no such connection (or a very weak one) between the Moriori of 1750 and the Moriori of 2024 - the chord was cut in the 19th century and cannot be glued back together because one part of the chord is missing. It would be helpful if you would not automatically snap at an editor, which is what seems to be happening, but instead made an effort to improve an article by looking first at the evidence rather than what the latest version of history says that is grabbing the headlines. Back to my point - the Moriori of today are not the Moriori of the past: should that be made clear somewhere in the lead because if it isn't the article will be confusing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)