Catholicgauze links to one:
So how could a European woman be on the North Island? There was established European trading in India, Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia but the closest historical trade port was approximately 4,500 miles (7,500 kilometers) away (and that’s a direct path through the heart of Australia. If it was the skull belonged to an European woman she was a) lost or b) part of a expedition that ended horribly.
Not everyone agrees that it was a European.Â SomeÂ state theÂ skull dating is wrongÂ or the skull belongs to a Maori. There is a legitimate debate because the history does not work out. Unfortunately there are those who argue itÂ mustÂ be Maori so the investigation should be closed. The former point is legitimate and must be weighed while the later is the politicization of science.
Here’s an example of the politically-correct spin:
Akaroa-based botanist Warwick Harris said the preliminary information attached to the finding of the skull “should be immediately dismissed as implausible in view of what is accepted as the history of European voyaging to New Zealand, i.e., nothing before Tasman and Cook”.
I’ve always enjoyed books such as Lands Beyond and Phantom Islands of the Atlantic, so I’m for strange and mysterious explanations. The scientist in me knows better, and wants to see the evidence. Â Unlike the politically correct dismissers of the New Zealand skull.