By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
2:40 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
maybe even with the Celts/Vikings etc.... if Columbus was able to circum navigate, the idea of giving creedence to the Celtic/Viking theory at present.
I do not have 100 percent proof Mozarella, other than early World history in regards too sailing the globe. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
2:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
"Mozarella! It would have been possible to have sailed and navigated from anywhere many moons ago using star navigation. As it is already documented there were pre-european Polynesian/Maori etc living in New Zealand well before Colonisation, as far back as the date you have expressed 1200 a.d."
Yes, I agree - but, the difference is that we have evidence of gradual polyneasian migration that required many generations of exploration.
By the time NZ was settled by polyneasians, the rest of the south pacific had already been settled, so the migration took time. It didn't just happen over night.
My issue with the Celtic/Viking migration story is this:
* If the ancient Celts or Vikings made it here, then which route did they take? If we are to believe that they got here in one generation, then they must have had prior knowledge of the existence of NZ. Where is this evidence?
* If they got here over a period of generations, as is common with human migration, then it is not unreasonable to expect to find evidence of settlements along the migration path. Where is this evidence?
When the Vikings invaded the UK they settled in the Shetlands to the north of Scotland. When they visited america they had already settled greenland.
We also know that they settled parts of russia over time, so even the Vikings themselves follow this pattern of gradual human migration and settlement.
Why is this not so in the case of NZ? What makes the NZ experience so different? |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
2:56 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
I don't think Columbus did circumnavigate the globe. I think that honour goes to Ferdinand Magellan.
Even so, the period of Columbus's exploration occured 300+ years after the supposed arrival of the ancient Celts/Vikings in NZ at a time when many had great difficulty accepting the fact that the world was not flat! |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
3:00 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68;
In order to make a connection to give the Celtic/Viking theory credibility, and I could be given off topic here but all circumnavigation by others should be considered.
Ferdinand Magellan is reported as the first European/Spaniard to have actually reached the Pacific during the 1400s, ok even though he got his lolly there (sorry), Phillipines, he documented and stated clearly that Arabic trade was thriving and had done so for many many years, even centuries prior to his discovery via the Spice Islands.
Is it possible from your point of view that the Celt/Vikings may have had help from the Middle East via the Arabians? another possibility! |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
3:01 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I realise that Mozarella, I just posted too soon. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
3:05 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Actually I take that back, I believe the credit due for being the fist to circumnavigate the globe under one captain goes to Sir Francis Drake since I just read that Magellan actually died during his attempt to do the same. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
3:13 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Francis Drake is documented at a much later date.
There was Arabic trade back in the tenth and llth centuries, and as it was described as progressive, and the Celtic/Viking also were voyagers, possibilities of them having crossed paths may have been likely, hence the theory that through purchase of goods such as fresh water and supplie etc may have been necessary. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
3:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
"Is it possible from your point of view that the Celt/Vikings may have had help from the Middle East via the Arabians? another possibility!"
Yes, but then we need evidence that the peoples of the middle east knew of NZ's existence and where to find it.
Also, we would need to know exactly which parts of the "Silk Road" were known and which routes were used in 1200 AD.
As I understand it, and this is just an "educated" opinion, the Silk Road did not extend into the pacific, so I have trouble accepting that they could have passed this information on considering that they didn't actually know about it to begin with. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
3:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
You raise a lot of interesting points for consideration. I don't know why so many others have trouble doing the same. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
3:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
Alexander the Great was a conqueror and traveller as well, and his feats are historically recorded, even though he died at a young age, it is fact that he was in the Middle East etc and in Persia very very early on in history.
His descendants even though there are many one being the Pashtun people, would be an accepted part I believe in order to give another view too the Celtic/Viking theory. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
3:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Ok, Alexander the Great was a conqueror and traveller, but did he discover NZ?
Where is the connection between him and NZ? |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
3:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Are you serious? The point was to provide if not fact but proof that the Viking/Celtic may have reached here.
So in order to try and give creedence to that is to make some possible connection, does that make sense?
Alexander the Great was a conqueror pre-dating the time 1200 Ad, hence it is established in earlier posts that Arabic trade existed, and that trade may have happened with the Celts etc......moving along connection to Magellan...moving along....Pacific..trade happening!
So if there is any connection with anyone, be it Alexander or the Celts let alone history in regards too seafaring and who got to NZ, other than the polynesian/Maori, history links them all. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
3:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Here is another topic to argue: If the alledged "fitted stone" structures in NZ's forests are evidence of Celtic/Viking dwellings, then do those features include purpose built fittings such as doorways and windows?
We know that the Celts/Vikings inhabited areas in extended family groups, so why aren't the "stone citys" much larger than they are?
We also know that they made other types of dwellings such as food stores and utility shelters since we see evidence of these in europe, so where are they in NZ.
A pile of stones in the middle of the forest proves nothing. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
4:00 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
Lol! not "argue", debate ok! so for that I will give you an F.( that is so funny, when you mark the responses, it adds a bit of humour to it all}.
I would say from an educated guess, that maybe through natural changes in the weather patterns over time that erosion and wearing down may have occurred. And yes, you are right a pile of stones in the middle of the forest does not prove a thing, but in order to give some "proof", archaeologists and science want to give it fact, by its mere presence.
Look at the Moeraki boulders as an example, their presence in the lower half of the north island is world reknown, why? there are other such spherical objects made up of the same elements in other parts of the world, America, Australia and the Mid east and Britain.
If there are doors and windows that you are describing, and I am not being sarcastic here because they have already been described as dome like by some, it could have been the inspiration for Hobbit ville - Peter Jackson-Lord of the rings. Just a thought mind you. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
4:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Ok so back to migration.
You make good points, and now I see the point of your earlier post.
In order for NZ's existence to have been known during Alexanders time then that presupposes that either he or his people or the people whom he came into contact with knew about NZ and where to find it again.
That is not trivial since it means that you must be able to find NZ in the vast south pacific ocean as a deliberate action, and not simply by chance!
Also, it presupposes that all of the Silk Road (or similar) must have been known, traversed, mapped and in use during his time in order for the information of NZ's existence to travel from the south pacific to the middle east or to ancient greece.
It's not like you could just pick up the phone and call someone in ancient greece and say "Hey, we just found NZ" and then expect everybody in the known world to know about NZ all of a sudden.
It's like you are suggesting that the ancient greeks already knew about 2/3 or the earths surface!
That is simply not true! |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
4:25 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mikef596-
quote"cor blimey", lol possibly attributed too the good old kiwi bloke, Fred Dagg springs to mind. Much like the late Billy T - " you fullas". How about "Trev, trev and trev".
Have a great day Mike and thanks for the response on the other post in regards to Christianity. You do not shout to get the point across, thank you. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
4:30 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Thanks for not taking this so seriously that you can't see the humour in grading some of the posts here!
I think you pushed aside my point about deliberate "fitted" features such as doorways and/or windows.
Well, I will argue that a dwelling without a doorway of somekind is of little use!
In order for that to happen we need some tools to shape the stone to make these things, so it's not unreasonable to expect to find tool markings on some of the stones used for such dwellings, or at least something that is so deliberate as to rule out an accident of nature perhaps? |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
4:38 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68.
originally the post from my interpretation was to debate a theory of Celtic/Viking presence or its possibility.
Your final statement in the last response "That it is simply not true".
My response is this a very typical one, "Why can it not be true"?. Of course NZ at that time cant simply be explained as "we just found NZ", that is a subliminal response, no disrespect.
However people descended from someone, somewhere, somehow going back in history, so my educated/un would be that accepting that history itself could possibly be missing certain possibilities and occurences through revision.
That is not a theory, revised history it is a fact in order to understand world history alone, and NZ as part of the world, it should be acknowledged that certain practices in regards to navigation should be at least greeted or entertained with possibles which could give foundation to the topic at its onset. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
4:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
Okay! humour is good Mozarella, history is full of humour, example Columbus "world,-flat might sail and fall of the side", however nature itself cannot be left out of the equation in regards to the said dwellings you describe.
Were there tools in order to fashion such a dwelling, i will say yes, maybe sharpened stone itself fashioned into a tool to serve a specific purpose. What did neanderthal man use before iron? My guess and it is only a theory, that sticks and stones etc would have been fashioned in order for it to serve its purpose- " maybe fitted structures and doorways".
Therefore if history can be recorded using stone and such like and etching on cave walls, maybe this knowledge passed down to following generations etc and into the global arena via sea-farers. Possible and should not be discounted, theory does at times have factual foundations no matter how airy fairy it may be. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
5:12 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
What do you think away from the obvious already expressed, say by your input or educated guess is an explanation for the navigation debate, be it celtic/viking or past explorers Polynesian and so forth, even the spanish and dutch. Are we learning anything as people who are living today?
An interesting debate though seafaring itself I mean. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
5:19 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
"originally the post from my interpretation was to debate a theory of Celtic/Viking presence or its possibility.
Your final statement in the last response "That it is simply not true"."
I apologise - I didn't mean it that way. All I am saying is that you seem to be suggesting that the ancient greeks already knew the whereabouts of perhaps 2/3 of the earths surface which, Ok, maybe possible, but is not generally accpeted as an historical truth.
All I can do is go by the information I can access, so your point may be valid - all I am saying is that I can't find anything nor do I know of anything that can support what you are suggesting.
Of course this doesn't automatically validate my points either - so you see, I can be fair! |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
5:30 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
Neanderthals living in a cave in europe is one thing - but ancient celts/vikings living in nz sometime in 1200 AD in stone dwellings which, presumably are similar to the same stone dwellings in europe is quite another!
A pile of stones doesn't prove anything to me - that's just my opinion.
I would be happy with the evidence of just a partial dwelling but there isn't one to be found, and what people like Martine Doutre are reporting to be dwellings in the middle of the forest do not look like structures that existed in europe at the time.
Also, there are no food stores, no utility dwellings which were common to the ancient celts and vikings at the time.
Why?
There is one thing that would definitly get my attention as to the authenticity of ancient celtic or viking dwellings, and that is if they found an example of that center stone that is commonly found in many archways in ancient dwellings.
I don't know what it is called, but it has a peculiar shape, almost like a V but with a wider angle, and is the center horizontal pice of an archway that you might use as a doorway.
It's purpose is to complete the arch and it uses gravity to push down the vertical sides of the doorway on it's two sides.
It's a common design feature in the ancient world, but unknown in NZ. So if you can find that in NZ, then we have some explaining to do! |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
5:31 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
that is fine, navigation and discovery are good topics to discuss for a change, regardless of theory. There were excellent explorers during history from several cultures inclusive of Polynesian and British to varying degrees.
To close ones mind I feel, to possibilities let alone theories, a discussion to give some credibility is healthy, even if at different ends or perspectives without resorting to vitriole and abuse. That is definitely fair, even though some might disagree, freedom to express and share. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
6:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
That center stone is called a "keystone". Here is the definition of it from Wikipedia:
"A keystone is the architectural piece at the crown of a vault or arch and marks its apex, locking the other pieces into position"
If they found something like this in NZ then I would be more open to the idea of a pre-Maori, perhaps even Celtic settlement in NZ because it suggests two very important things:
1. That we are in fact talking about a true dwelling and not just a pile of stones.
2. That whoever built the keystone was most likely not polyneasian since I believe keystones are not a design feature of the south pacific.
So until that happens, I am very skeptical about the idea that ancient celts/vikings settled here at any time. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
6:26 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
Your original post regarding Doutre - "anyone not accepting.....marxist"(us ed ellipses so you do know the quote anyway).
Theory comes about to make it a reality, originally a thought or possibly invention if the result we want is to become a reality and maybe turn into proof, that is my response. Skepticism always abounds until hard evidence is given beside anecdotal.
Basic mathematics should or could be entered into the debate as well in regards to the "Keystones", you mention and still in the theory sense, I hope.
The order of the addends does not affect the sum, so if we adjust the first two numbers, we effectively get the same result, such as 2x3=3x2 so on and so forth. Basic maths and scientific principles which have been around forever back to Da Vinci or even Euclid, they are fact, not theory.
Application to Navigation and possibly the shaping and building of said abodes you have mentioned earlier. |
|
