‘Fanciful’: Historians reject fresh claims Chinese settled NZ before Māori

Leading historians have branded resurfaced theories claiming Chinese explorers settled Aotearoa before Māori as “fanciful” and unsupported by evidence. 

Independent researcher Sheng-Wei Wang, speaking at a conference in Malaysia this month, pointed to supposed shipwrecks and ancient artefacts as evidence of a pre-Māori presence. 

But New Zealand historians and archaeologists said the claims recycled theories that have circulated for decades. 

According to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, Wang cited magnetic surveys by late British surveyor TC Bell, which she said detected 78 shipwrecks around New Zealand, some more than 100m long. 

She also referred to what she described as a “scrub-covered, small-moated Chinese fort platform” at Governors Bay in Canterbury, citing carbon dates she said went back as far as 190BC. 

She also theorised that famed Chinese admiral Zheng He reached New Zealand in the 1430s before a meteorite impact destroyed his fleet. 

New Zealand researcher Robert Jones, who is behind a proposed Museum of Anomalous Antiquities, also presented in Penang and mentioned artefacts he said could indicate early Chinese or other pre-European contact, the Morning Post reported. 

Among them was a North Island rock bearing scratches that he suggested depicted an elephant. 

Jones also pointed to the Tamil Bell, a bronze bell bearing a Tamil inscription found by a missionary in a Māori village, and the Korotangi, a carved stone bird associated with Tainui. 

No credible evidence – NZ historians 

New Zealand historian Dr Vincent O’Malley said there was “not one iota of credible evidence” supporting a pre-Polynesian settlement of New Zealand. 

“There is no debate about this whatsoever among serious scholars,” he said. 

O’Malley said “fanciful” theories involving everyone from the Celts to the Chinese had circulated for years. 

“But there is zero actual evidence for any of this.” 

Auckland University of Technology professor of history Paul Moon said Wang’s claims could be “disassembled quite simply”. 

He said an earlier population would have left traces of buildings and everyday life, which existed “in abundance” for Māori. 

Moon said Māori migration accounts also corresponded closely with oral histories across Polynesia. 

“There isn’t the comparable history in other countries.” 

Moon said the internet had helped sensational theories spread without the scrutiny they would face through academic peer review. 

“Nowadays, you can make the assertion online and it starts to circulate in the bloodstream of the internet,” he said. 

Moon said pre-Māori settlement theories had been used by some to challenge Māori indigeneity, though he stressed he was not suggesting that was the motivation behind the latest claims. 

“There’s always a risk if belief precedes the evidence... I think the better way is to examine evidence using tested methods and if they show something new, wonderful. If they don’t, move on.” 

‘Hugely corrosive’ 

Tūhura Otago Museum curator Māori Dr Gerard O’Regan (Kāi Tahu), an archaeologist specialising in Māori rock art, said alternative settlement theories were “hugely corrosive” to public appreciation of heritage sites. 

Speaking about the broader effects of such narratives, he said there had been examples of people trying to add new rock art to wāhi tūpuna (ancestral places) and “reclaiming and rewriting” their histories. 

O’Regan said alternative settlement narratives could shape how people viewed and treated heritage places. 

“This kind of information has a huge impact across our community and shapes how people support and engage with our heritage places, including whether they get protected and valued in the way they should be,” he said. 

“And of course, one of the hard things for iwi and local marae looking after these heritage places is that the stories of those places and their treasures get misappropriated.” 

He was also sceptical of the supposed elephant carving, saying some of the marks on the rock appeared to be natural formations. 

O’Regan said researchers could not select markings that supported an interpretation while disregarding those that did not. 

“You can’t just count the hits, you’ve got to explain the misses.”