When many of the early explorers first visited New Zealand, they were astounded at the phenotypical diversity of the natives. In some areas, the locals supposedly had skin that was nearly black, while in others they could pass as white men. Some of the tribes were typically tall, others short, some generally had curly hair and fat noses, while others had straight hair and hook noses, etc.

One early French explorer, Captain Julien Crozet was astonished when some native New Zealanders boarded his ship in 1772, and wrote in his diary that there were three kinds of men in this country. The first of the three races was what he classed as the true native race, with yellowy-white skin, straight black hair and the greatest average height.

The second people were darker, shorter, and with more frizzled hair, and the third of the race he referred to as “true negroes”. Crozet was very clear in his diary when he wrote that he was most certain that the whites are the true Aborigines, or native inhabitants of New Zealand, and he gave a description of their appearance.

Their colour is generally speaking like that of the people of Southern Europe, and I saw several with red hair. Amongst them were some who were as white as our sailors, and we often saw on our ships a tall young man five feet eleven inches high, who by his colour and features might easily have passed for a European.

In 1830, George Craik also wrote on the New Zealanders. He presented the theory that the original White New Zealanders had at some point been joined by a foreign Black population, probably of New Hollanders (aka Australian Aborigines), and that their mixing had produced the intermediate Brown race.

Captain Cook remarked that the natives of the Bay of Islands were much darker than those he had seen to the south, where he had visited places like Cook Strait and Palliser Bay. The missionary Samuel Marsden noted that the natives of Hokianga were much fairer than those on the East Coast, and another missionary, William Colenso agreed, saying that the Maori were more varied in colour than other Polynesians.

1807 John Savage wrote that the natives, taken as a mean average, resembled European gypsies. But there was considerable difference between the groups, and they varied from a dark chestnut colour to “the light agreeable tinge of an English brunette“.

Three Maori, three colours

To this day, there are many Maori with light skin, and there are many with red hair. By all accounts, this is no new thing, and therefore cannot spring merely from mixing with Pakeha. There has always been a white component among the Maori, but why?

Elsdon Best broke down what we call the Maori into four phenotypical groups:

1. The Polynesian:

The Polynesian is probably the original “Maori” group, and it’s features are familiar to us through the modern day unmixed Tongans, Samoans, etc., who have immigrated to New Zealand. Today many Maori people still would fit into this group, though the vast majority have at least some recent white ancestry, which has given them lighter skin and more European features.

2. The Melanesian:

This group represents Austronesian peoples, as well as the mixed Polynesian and Austronesian peoples, such as the Fijians. Certain tribes such as the Tuhoes were historically noted to be noticeably darker skinned than others, and would fit into this group. Elsdon Best thought that this race might have come about through mixing of the original Polynesian Maori and darker Austronesian peoples on their long migration to New Zealand.

3. The Mongolian:

We now know that the Polynesians come originally from what is now Taiwan, spreading through the pacific in several waves of immigration over millennia, and finally reaching New Zealand around the year 1350, so this “Mongoloid” group is probably a genetic throwback to the Polynesians’ distant ancestors. This group doesn’t really differ from the Polynesian in anything other than the shape of the eyes, and maybe a slightly lighter skin tone.

4. The Urukehu:

This is the most interesting of the groups, and represents a light skinned and often fair haired race, generally with European-shaped features, which lived alongside and amongst the darker populations. Elsdon Best said that they were actually a distinct people, “a white, fine-featured, and in a word, an Aryan people.

According to tradition, these white Maori are descended from the pre-Maori populations, the Turehu or Patupaiarehe, supposedly a race of tall, fair-skinned, blue-eyed, red-haired fairy people that lived deep in the hills and forests. They had their own cultural practices, they were never tattooed, they sailed not in waka but flax coracles and they wore red clothing. Their woven flax fishing nets would be copied by the Maori.

The fairy people supposedly guarded their territory jealously, shunned outsiders, and were unfriendly or even murderous to Maori men who entered their lands, but they had a love for Maori women, and from these couples the Urukehu Maori descend. Elsdon Best recalled meeting with one of these people at a hui at Ruatahuna;

The Urukehu was as the remnant of a long-lost race and I could not place her in any of the old but well-remembered camps. For the mass of gold red hair took me far away to the land of Thor and in the small mouth, thin lips and straight nose I saw an Arya of the Aryans, the strong, slightly prognathous jaw located her among the ancient Celts or the Esthonians of the Baltic, but her surroundings were Polynesian as her language. The Urukehu is a sphinx.”

We are left with several questions. Who were the Turehu, the ancestors of these inexplicable white Maori? Did they really exist, or are they merely myths? Is there any proof of non-Maori settlement in New Zealand? Are the Urukehu just a freak of genetics?

One theory is that the Urukehu descend from later (but still earlier than recorded) white settlers, rather than the original inhabitants of the islands. We know that Alvaro de Mendaña lead a Spanish fleet from Peru to colonise the Solomon Islands near the end of the 16th century, and though this arrangement didn’t last very long, it’s possible that there were other now lost expeditions.

Cristóvão de Mendonça may have discovered New Zealand as early as the 1520s, and Juan Fernandez led an unauthorised expedition from Valparaiso in 1576 which discovered an unknown land in the Pacific, a land “mountainous, fertile, with strong-flowing rivers, inhabited by white peoples, and with all the fruits necessary to live”.

A Spanish helmet, dating to roughly 1580, was found in Wellington Harbour around the turn of the 20th century, and in 2004 a skull found in the Wairarapa was confirmed through both a study of its physiognomy and its DNA to that of a European, or European-descended woman.

This skull was dated to between 1619 and 1689, a time at which New Zealand was supposedly uninhabited by white peoples, and quite possibly before Tasman’s ship even visited – and remember, nobody of Tasman’s expedition made it ashore, so the skull is the earliest evidence of Europeans in New Zealand.

The Ruamahunga skull, like the Spanish helmet, is now in deep storage and is not open to the public. Neither are any of the blond remains found in the Northland area at the turn of the 20th century, if any of them even still exist. Most were soon ground into fertiliser.

Pohutukawa tree, Corunna, Spain

Was the Ruamahunga woman a member of a Spanish expedition, one that had been forgotten in the centuries since because of its presumed collapse or absorption into the Maori culture? Maybe she was a member of a colony like those in the Solomons. She may have even been born in New Zealand.

Another possible piece of evidence pointing to Spanish involvement in pre-Tasman/Cook New Zealand is the existence of a centuries-old pohutukawa tree in the city of Corunna for which we have no real explanation, though some now claim that this tree only dates back to the 1800s.

Yet another is the myth of the ship of Rongotute (named after the mythical captain), which supposedly wrecked at Cape Palliser long before Captain Cook had visited New Zealand.

Even after Cook, Maori from the local iwi were able to produce supposed artifacts of this wreck, such as camblets, ornaments made out of pieces of patterned dinner plates, an axe made out of scavenged metals known as Kaitangata, and a tomahawk blade taken off the ship that had been mounted in a whalebone handle and called Te Whata-o-te-Rangi.

There had been a few survivors of the ship’s crew, and they were captured and enslaved. Supposedly the survivors were forced to make bread for their captors, just like the historic survivors of the ship Boyd (sacked in 1820) were forced to make fishing hooks, before being murdered.

Three of the men supposedly escaped and sailed up the east coast in a raft. There are also myths of Turehu/white fairies living on in the Tararua Mountains on the northwestern border of the Wairarapa. It’s possible that some of these stories are mythologised accounts of European sailors escaping their captors into the hills. Was the ship of Rongotute carrying Spanish colonists for New Zealand?

The historic phenomenon of the Pakeha Maori, white men who lived among the natives and assimilated to their culture, marrying their women and raising their children as Maori, may be older than is commonly believed. Perhaps the Urukehu of the 1800s were actually the descendents of mixed marriages centuries earlier.

There is disagreement as to when the Rongotute event took place. Charles Davis and Thomson say 1740, James Buller 1640, John White doesn’t give a date, but implies it was before at least Cook and possibly Tasman, and Captain Cook heard a possible variant of the myth which he supposed to have taken place around 1765.

Yet another interesting tidbit from Wairarapa history is the 1897 discovery, by workmen at Cape Palliser Lighthouse, of an old carronade (a type of small cannon) measuring three feet and nine inches. Local Maori claimed that it had come off a French man-o-war, and it was assumed that the survivors “may have made a meal for the ancestors of the present historians.”

And still in the Wairarapa, there were a large number of megaliths and stone structures that, if Maori, would be the very earliest archaeological proof of Maori in New Zealand. An unabbreviated account of these unique unnatural features can be found in Austin Bagnall’s 1976 history, “Wairarapa – An Historic Excursion”.

Structures visible from the air, Washpool, Cape Palliser, Wairarapa

The walls stretched from the Whatarangi Stream near Putangirua to the Black Rocks. At Te Humenga there were more structures, and on the right bank of the Pararaki were a number of conical stone heaps. There was a smaller group of walls between the Pararaki and the Waiwhero, with the largest group on the right bank of the Waiwhero.

There were also heaps of stones in the Omoekau/Whangaimoana Valley, and the track to Whatarangi passed along a terrace that was in places “covered with immense stone mounds and… long lines of various sized stones half or almost wholly embedded in the earth.”

The Maori, supposedly, did not build in stone, and these structures in any case may predate the currently accepted date of Maori arrival in New Zealand at around 1350AD. This date is also much earlier than those proposed for the visit of the ship of Rongotute, and would also be too early for any feasible Spanish imperial expedition.

So even if the Ruamahanga woman was Spanish, possibly a survivor of some failed expedition, and if it is from the Spanish that this pale race of Maori springs, who were the earlier white peoples that Juan Fernandez wrote of inhabiting the island he visited, and who built the ancient Wairarapa stone structures?

A possibility is that they were an Aryan (aka Indo-European) population, possibly of Scythian or Iranid origin, which in the distant past migrated east into Asia and eventually arrived at the Pacific. This isn’t as absurd as it sounds, as we now know that there were many such peoples historically living in eastern China, such as the Ordos people, the Yuezhi, the Wusun, the Tocharians and the Xiongnu.

Some of these nations were very far east, and had been living in the area for centuries before they came under Chinese domination. The first Polynesian migrations took place around 800 BC, yet it wasn’t for another 2000 years that New Zealand was settled. This leaves plenty of room for a lost group of “Turehu” to flee east from the Chinese conquest, rather than west, and eventually end up in New Zealand.

There are a number of words in Maori that correlate to words in Sanskrit and other old world languages. J. Macmillan Brown presented a number in his history of the Maori. The word ane (to blow or breathe) for example is possibly related to Aryan root that lead to such words as the Sanskrit animi (to breathe) and Greek anemos (the wind).

Mumu (to hum) could be related to the Indo-European root mu (to utter a slight suppressed sound), which appears in words such as the Latin mutire (to mumble) and murmurare (to murmur) as well as the English mumble. According to Macmillan Brown, the Maori word koi (sharp) is cognate to the old Indo-European root ka (to sharpen), and koke (to creak) may be related to the Sanskrit kakh (to laugh) and English quack.

He gave a number of examples of words that he thought indicated an Indo-European origin of, or at least influence upon the Maori language. Edward Tregear in his work, The Aryan Maori, also gave a number of examples, but the Maori language is overwhelmingly Polynesian (excusing modern day loan-words), which would lend to a theory of Aryan influence on rather than origin of the language.

There are also theories that the original white inhabitants of New Zealand may have been of ancient Celtic, rather than Iranian, origin. These theories mainly rely on supposed megalithic evidence similar to those found in Celtic regions of Europe, but either population could have just as easily built the monuments, and the much closer Tocharians/Scythians have been found to have had traits we would class as Celtic, with remains from modern day China exhibiting red hair and tartan attire.

Some of these same remains, found in the Tarim Basin, also show spiralled, vaguely “tribal” tattoos.

The mythologies of the Kahungunu iwi of the Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay record that the arts of tattooing, weaving and net-making were given to them in remote times by a fair-skinned race, while the art of wood carving was brought by the people of Tangaroa, the blond god of the seas.

According to myths recorded by Elsdon Best, if a Maori met a Turehu, he had to refer to him by the title “Tu-ariki”, essentially “My Lord”. If he did not do so, the Maori would be killed. Does this myth preserve some memory of an ancient caste system established by the Aryans when the two races began to mix? It would certainly be in keeping with the systems established in other lands conquered by ancient Aryan tribes.

Possible other hints of the Indo-European origin of the pre-Maori New Zealanders can be found in their burial practices. Some bodies have been found in caves in the Waima Range and around Raglan preserved and mummified, possibly using techniques handed down through the generations from distant Urumchi in the Tarim Basin.

Another custom apparently in use among the pre-Maori was a form of the sky burial still practised today in Tibet, Mongolia and parts of India. The practice there is known to originate in ancient Buddhist and Zoroastrian traditions – both religions that come from a common Aryan origin.

In New Zealand, the bodies would be left in the open air for a year, during which time the flesh and tissues would be eaten by birds and animals. When the year had passed, the dead man’s relatives would take what was left of his remains and deposit them in a cave or fissure. Several such burials have been found around Hokianga and Waimamaku.

Like the evidence for more recent Spanish/European visitation, evidence of the ancient Aryan colonisation of New Zealand is hushed up and hidden. A dozen skeletons were unearthed in Manutahi in 1995, wearing a woven material other than flax. The burial ground and its layout were totally unknown to any of the surrounding iwi, and the skeletons exhibited European physiognomy.

When such ancient remains are discovered, they are pretty much immediately shipped off to the local iwi for a quick and quiet burial, irrelevant of whether the remains are Maori, or clearly of Aryan origin.

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we will ever have any genetic evidence for the Aryan origin theory, as just about every Maori today has at least partial European ancestry, and often quite a large amount, and it would be near impossible to figure out what was recent, and what mixing occurred pre-1840.

Despite a small movement among Maori in favour of the Iranid/Scythian origin theory, as can be seen in the Skeletons in the Cupboard documentaries on YouTube, this theory is generally disregarded by mainstream, establishment authors, who simply choose to ignore any inconvenient mythical or physical evidence.

If one does however accept the authenticity of the historical accounts and generally covered-up evidence, it seems likely that the true history of our race in this country is a lot longer and more complex than is thought.

A race of white men who were probably related to the nomadic Scythians, Tocharians or another Iranid people, originating from the far east of Asia, found their way here at some point before the arrival of the Polynesians and made themselves at home.

They have left evidence in the form of stone structures and megaliths from Waipoua to Cape Palliser to Waitapu and a dozen other places. They left some physical reminders through the “Urukehu” or pale Maori. They have left linguistic evidence in the Maori language; they may have contributed to the development of the Maori moko, they taught the Maori to weave nets and tattoo their skin…

Perhaps the first encounters between the two races were peaceful. But as a historian of Ngati Whatua recorded, after the Maoris encountered this light haired, fair skin and blue/green eyed people, they took the women as “wives” and the men as slaves or food.

After a point, the Turehu was either “bred out” passively or violently annihilated, either way becoming but a fairer strain in the general Maori population. Probably it was a combination of the two, as with the more recent Maori genocide of the Moriori, during which large scale massacres took place and a large number of people were killed, and Moriori were forbidden from marrying each other, ensuring that in a few generations there would be not one full-blooded Moriori alive.

There were survivors, and these families took to the hill tops and deep woods, where they could more easily defend themselves from the Maori. They stole babies from the Maori tribes, perhaps those that showed descend from an Urukehu or white bloodline. They killed those who found them and are remembered in myth as the more wicked spirits, but eventually they would have been hunted down or died off through exposure, starvation, disease or some other cause.

The redheaded Ngai Hotu (and their allies the Ngati Ruakopiri) were a fierce and warlike people that took many generations to destroy. The last survivors of this clan were hunted down in the late 15th century to their last five strongholds around the modern village of Kakahi near Lake Taupo. One by one the forts fell, and the inhabitants slaughtered. According to Maori folklore, the bodies of the fallen were mutilated and mounted from spikes or hung from trees.

The stone structures of the Turehu fell into disrepair, and presumably many were lost during the decades and centuries that followed. Only a few have survived to this day.

Eventually though, strangely familiar explorers from a far-away land came sailing, and very probably settling. The mythical ship of Rongotute may hide the Maori memory of a failed 16th century Spanish colony. The Ruamahunga skull, Spanish Helmet and Corunna’s Pohutukawa might show physical evidence of the expedition.

Those who attempted to colonise this country met with hostility. Those aboard the ship of Rongotute were massacred nearly to a man, but at least some survived and lived among the Maori, and there may have been multiple ships of colonists. These survivors may have reinvigorated the Aryan strain in the Maori population to a certain extent, with European Spanish blood combining with that of the ancient pioneers to make more “Urukehu”.

And then finally, less than a hundred years later, our official recorded history begins with the arrival of Abel Janszoon Tasman, a Captain of the Dutch East India Company.

But this history of various waves of white settlers is not something to which anti-white people will ever admit. To admit that whites had even possibly come ashore earlier than 1769, let alone before the Maori, would throw away the bulk of their “anti-colonial” narratives, which award complete ownership of this country to the so-called natives (as well as all the apparently “oppressed” minorities), and leaving the whites dispossessed.

Recently, the communist/anarchist website paparoa.org published an article about the theory. “Treebeard presents no real arguments or evidence as to why such a theory would be impossible, and simply insinuates that the proponents of the ancient white New Zealand theory are racists.

The idea of a cover-up is ludicrous to Treebeard. If, as he claims, there is no “control freak organisation preventing evidence from getting out, why is it impossible to examine the Ruamahunga Skull, the Spanish Helmet, and the walls of Waipoua?

Inexplicably, Treebeard takes the opportunity to deny the genocide of the Moriori people by Maori invaders that took place in the 1830s. “Of course, the Moriori were not wiped out”, he writes – which is strange, since the last full-blooded Moriori died more than 80 years ago. As an attempt to somehow implicate whites in the crime, he also mentions that the Maori arrived on European ships. He does not mention that these were hijacked and that the crews were being held hostage at the time.

Finally, the author laments that the believers of the White New Zealand theory will simply “retreat further into conspiracy theories”. Look at the evidence Doutre and others put in front of you, Treebeard says, and then check what others have to say about it.

Surely these others wouldn’t just be Treebeard’s own far-left approved sources, revisionist historians and anti-white media figures? If not, then it’s good advice.

There is a treasure trove of hidden history out there just waiting to be found. Just don’t be alarmed when what you find goes against everything you’ve been told.

7 thoughts on “Ancient Aryans?”

  1. Thank you for this.
    I’ve always felt precariously balanced on these islands, far from my parent culture and the remains of my ancient ancestors. Learning more about pre-Maori settlers, as well as our other hidden histories, is a comfort that we all should militantly indulge in. If other readers share my experience, we’ve spent too long feeling alienated and estranged, and looking back towards Europe, when all along we were forging our own New Zealand stories.
    I’m so happy to see a renewed effort in documenting the lives and legacies of European New Zealanders.

  2. Citations would be good for this one man. Seems a bit disingenuous to write off any criticism of this (as you note yourself) very speculative and genetically unsupported theory as anti-white or far left. Anyway treating moriori like they were different from other maori peoples is retarded. Maori did not consider themselves a homogenous people/race until extended contact with euro required them to. “maori extinction of moriori” is simply 1 tribe of polynesian killed another tribe of polynesian.

    are bolton & doutre your main references for this piece?

    1. It is entirely in keeping with a stupid Left-wing narrative that claims I am the originator of these theories, and very much part of a conspiracy theory perpetrated by a few Leftists of very little brain, to paraphrase A. A. Milne.

      Decades ago I wrote a photocopied pamphlet summarizing diffusionist theories on Polynesian settlement, such as those of Thor Heyerdahl , Barry Fell, and J. MacMillan Brown. That pamphlet would have had all of maybe half a dozen readers worldwide. I am not even mentioned in Dr. Kerry Howe’s book on the subject (Origins), and I have in fact had very little ongoing interest and even less input on the subject.

      Ironically, so far from this being ‘neo-nazi pseudo-history’ as certain Marxist oddities insist, it has largely been taken up by Maori interested in what they see as confirmation of their legends, and they seem to be able to talk about ‘white skinned blonde’ Turehu and Patupaiarehe without going into paroxysms about ‘white racism’; that is a reaction that seems to be confined to white Leftards.

      For my part, for whatever it is worth – or not – I would have to see far more definitive DNA and anthropological evidence than currently exists. The years of trying to classify Kenewick Man with the use of forensic anthropology (with the original opinion even among anthropologists that he was Caucasoid shown to b incorrect after many years of statistical analysis) shows the inadequacy of the weigh-and-measure technique of racial classification, as Oswald Spengler pointed out a hundred years ago.

      While DNA testing of a Ngati Hotu descendant seems to indicate that that particular people originated from a direction opposite the Taiwan route (and interestingly confirms their legends) what relevance any unorthodox theories have for current and future race relations is unclear. Despite what some advocates of such theories insist, I do not see how it impacts on the Treaty of Waitangi, however one interprets that.

      At best it remains an interesting hypothesis, and one that is very far from being the preserve or invention of ‘neo-Nazi pseudo-historians’. As for the question on whether i am a major source for the article, much of the material is unknown to me, and there is no reason to assume that the writer would have read a pamphlet that was distributed to a handful of people about 30 years ago. If however such a mythos can render a feeling of attachment to the land for those such as ‘Falwasser’ then that surely is a positive.

  3. New Zealand does not have a constitution and the very reason why the discussion is so fiercely objected is that it threatens, in a way, the current status of the Treaty of Waitangi, that is the founding document of this country in its current state. However, having the interest in history does not make anyone a conspiracy theorist or someone who wants to overthrow the state or is being racist. Perhaps the current societal set-up is so vulnerable that it triggers a hysterical reaction every time the subject is brought up anywhere in modern day internet searches on numerous websites.

    BTW Kapiti, Wanga-nu-i, Taumara-nu-i and Kai are all Slavic words and phrases with the exact sounding and a direct translation, except of Kai that ironically means “food” in Maori but “köning” in Slavic. Also the fact that current Maori toponyms are sentences and not single words, and so they sound in Slavic, is amazing.

    1. The problem with word comparisons is that words can be broken down in numerous ways to make a word accord with the origins one is looking for. For example Dr Barry Fell, the NZ born Harvard biologist who became an expert in epigraphy, breaks the name ‘Taranaki’ down to show an Egypto-Libyan origin with emphasis on ‘ra’, while Celtic NZ exponents break the word down to focus on the Celtic ‘Tara’.

      During the early days of Polynesian studies, an Indo-Aryan origin was assumed, and comparative word lists were made to show a relationship between Sanskrit and Maori. Even in recent times the linguistic expert Professor Linus Brunner in support of Fell saw a relationship between Maori and Semitic, Greek and Sanskrit. Just a few decades ago Professor Marge Lansberg of Haifa University wrote of Hebrew and Indo -European relationships with Polynesian. A Hebrew relationship with Maori was one of the earliest of theories on origins.

      Linguistic relationships are probably the least reliable of evidence, insofar as they are too arbitrary. Another example, the Maori ‘Ra’ has been considered of Egyptian origin, but Thor Heyerdahl saw it as related to the NW American Indian’ god ‘La’, which is just as legitimate (or not) because the letters ‘l’ and ‘r’ are interchangeable.

      As for the allegation of ‘racism’, etc. this is a preoccupation of white liberals and communist ‘academics’ of the mediocre type that are churned out regardless of their inability for scholarly detachment when responding to a controversy. Traditional Maori have no problem with the theory, and regard it as part of their heritage.

      1. The point is that it appears their language borrowed words straight from another language, without alteration, breaking down and with an exact meaning of that word in that foreign language. This is what makes the difference.

        Even looking at words like “Maori” (how they call themselves) and how it is said by them, it is clear that they made contact with a population from Europe on arrival, that their myths clearly confirm.

        Place-names are the best known proof so far in modern archaelogy and history of whom the land belonged to before it was taken over by another culture.

        What I don’t understand is why the very idea of an ancient cultural contact is so fiercely rejected. It has been happening all around the world and why not in New Zealand as if it is another planet? Even cave drawings in Kimberley Australia show European people with distinct features, so why not here in NZ?

        1. Your question is legitimate. As someone who has been labeled the ‘father of the Celtic NZ theory’ (sic) by a half-witted leftist ‘scholar’ and regurgitated by sundry media and leftists, even having gone to the high court over the matter, I am not unsympathetic to such hypotheses, but from a detached scholarly perspective, that is precisely what it remain, an hypothesis, albeit one that should be subjected to scrutiny without rants of abuse with headlines such as ‘say no to neo-nazi pseudo-history’ written by those laughingly presented by the mass media as ‘experts’.

          All scholarship is intrinsically ‘revisionist’ otherwise it becomes dogma. However, there is dogma aplenty enforced by laws, censure, dismissal, smear, and censorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *