By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
6:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
cheesecake
To explain the rock work found in the forest, Imagine once upon a time, a Viking village was under threat of death by invaders, so a bunch of Viking captains with access to boats and sailing knowledge decided to do a Captain Blythe trick, and migrate to parts unknown, so they arranged a small fleet of did just that. Well if I had their boats and sailing skills, I would risk sailing off the edge of the world to stay alive too. Wouldnt you?.
We all know it took about six months for the old sailing ships to sail from London to NZ, so why is it not possible for group of Vikings to hop, skip and jump their way to NZ, in just a few years, and end up building stone huts in the forest, Maybe the reason they didnt build more stone huts elsewhere, was because they didnt flourish as a group, because there was a lack food. Or because there was far more men than woman, so infighting and interbreeding, and infant as well as female mortality could have been the main limiting factors. Perhaps the last of them decided to migrate North East, in the search for a continent with more food, without realising how far it was to Chilli, and perished on the way. And thats the end of it. Years later the Moriori and Maori arrived and what luck they came across the stone buildings that gave them new ideas. There you go. Problem solved. Faark your alphabets. I deserve a Nobel Prize for that. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
6:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mar_ja
I have absolutely no idea where your last post was going, suffice to say, I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong about being a skeptic.
After all, wasn't Galileo skeptical about the theory that the all the planets and the sun orbited the earth?
Hard evidence is the key to being able to establish facts and to move beyond heresay and conjecture.
Even your mathematical example required someone to prove it! |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
6:53 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
wassullivan
Ok, then maybe you can shed some light on 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, so even the Vikings themselves follow this pattern of migration and settlement. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
6:54 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
wassullivan
It's all fun and games until you are required to think, ins't it? |
|
By: lucky.rita@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
6:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
lucky.rita@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| UNI sucks. Been there 6 years - boring theory and pompous dribble. Brain washing is rife!!!! |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:06 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
that was the intent of the response, theorys still to be proven, not all can be discounted.
And I do agree with the last poster about Tertiary, it is not about what you know, it is what they provide andwant you to learn and making sure you fit the accepted criteria for marking and passing.
Been there so to speak, better to have a world view.
"Debunking myths" sociology quote. All good, bit brain numbing at times.
Why does maths have to be proven? It is a fact of life and science, astrology, life in general. Maybe born out of theory but made a reality. |
|
By: lucky.rita@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:13 am Yahoo! Profile:
lucky.rita@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| the 'fathers' of sociology were scotsmen. Yet another interesting discovery by an intelligent race spawn from the celts. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Your error is in your assumption that the Vikings needed proof NZ existed before they sailed here. Im suggesting they had good reason to leave where they were, to explore the rest of the world. Fortunately for them, they didnt fall off the edge of the planet, but found their way NZ by accident. If so, then life here would not have been easy. You try to survive in NZ bush today without any outside help and see how you get on. You would die of exposure and starvation within a month. So they either died out too or moved on. They didnt bother with fancy Keystones and things because it was all they could do just to survive with stuff all tools. Their king might have even sent them to look for a magical heavenly place on earth. So off they went to find it. Surely if its possible to sail from London, which is on the other side of the world, to NZ, in six months, it is also possible for Vikings to sail to NZ in a few years, in the quest for the magic land. NZ would not have been it, a thousand years ago. So why stay? |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:19 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Ferguson and Smith
Comte and Weber Marx Durkheim and so on, but yes the celts are there as well, no doubt another theory to some, what a debate lol! All good. |
|
By: gorjusgeorge@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
gorjusgeorge@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim are funny names for Scots. |
|
By: gorjusgeorge@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:24 am Yahoo! Profile:
gorjusgeorge@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Oops you got there before me maj - teach me to read the last post before I reply :) |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:25 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| they are just in there because they are also sociology founding fathers other than Ferguson etc..... of course they are not scotsmen lol gorgeous. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:26 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| all good tho gorgeous, just adds a spin too the debate at hand......???? |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
7:54 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
cheesecake
The only way pasture survives over bush is because of animals grazing those areas to keep them clear. But there were no grazing animals in NZ a thousand years ago. Just heaps of baron bush, birds, fish, and lizards. Hardly the garden of Eden they may have been looking for eh. Perhaps the only reason NZ was not known about, till much later, was probably because the Vikings didnt make it back home, to pass on what they discovered. Hence the Moriori and Maori thought they were here first. But if the Moriori and Maori can get here in dugout canoes, so could the Vikings. Their boats were far better. So whos to say they didnt sail down to the bottom of Australia, then sail North East across to here, but then kept going North East to Chilli, and then died of thirst at sea because theres no more land between Chilli and here? |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
8:01 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
hello people! how come the navigation thread topic has now turned into the makings of a menu, Mozarella has been called Pizza boy and now he has become a dessert - Cheesecake LOL!!!
Please supply a recipe for either or, is that possible for and preferably one that is modern and not off a viking ship or celtic one or even a waka, please, thanks and too the victor the spoils.......have a nice day. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
8:09 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
wasullivan
I'm not saying the vikings needed proof. What I am saying is that if they knew NZ existed then they obviously had prior knowledge of NZ's existence, so where is the proof of this?
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?
wasullivan - the vikings didn't just sail from scandinavia to north america. That migration required a shorter migration to greenland first.
As I said before, 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.
I'm not being closed minded but your argument is not logical.
Also, the polyneasians didn't arrive in NZ in "dogout cannoes". They used double and triple hulled outriggers, and if you doubt me then look it up for yourself.
In fact, such sailing craft are still used in the pacific today. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
8:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Actually cheesecake is not made from mozzarella! But sulivan, we could exchange names, I mean, would we get anywhere if I said your mother enjoys my other dairy products, such as my yoghurt? |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
8:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The preposition of this thread is that the Ancient Celts/Vikings visited NZ sometime around 1200 AD as suggested by Martin Dourtre. Refer to page 1.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to use reason and intelligence to argue the point one way or the other.
I don't actually care what your point is. I only care that you make an effort to argue it intelligently.
With that in mind please observe the following rules of engagement:
* Do not make personal attacks since this only proves
that you have run out of anything intelligent to say.
* Make an effort to argue your point, don't just push
your own agenda with pointless conjecture.
* Try to use as much factual information as possible i.e.
something that can be corroborated.
* Respect other peoples opinions. |
|
By: kether93
29/08/2008
8:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
kether93 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Here's an interesting read for those who hav'nt already.
http://www.kilts.co.nz/mhorruairidh.htm |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
8:29 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| We know the Viking were fantastic sea farers and had the boats to sail across oceans. The world is still the same size now as it was a thousand years ago. How long does it take to sail from Darwin to Brisbane, then from Brisbane to NZ ? So whos to say a few happy go lucky, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn type Vikings, didnt do that in search of a magic land? If they did, but had died in the process, know one would know, apart from the stone works that survive, as possible evidence someone got here first. But didnt stay long. |
|
By: tommyonions@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
8:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
tommyonions@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There are two main reasons people explore - trade and survival. Journeys of exploration / migration by sea especially would have had to have been sanctioned / organised by people in authority and with the resources to build and provision them. They didn't just happen. One man may have had the wanderlust and just wanted to keep on going to the next horizon but for a whole group to want to dos so runs counter to all human history. People sought new land and resources - exploration was for those two key reasons.
It is highly unlikely that the first Polynesians who reached NZ did so by accident as it is simply too remote. If a group got here by accident it was even less likely to have made it back to where they came from to tell others about it. Ditto for any who may have preceded them.
We know the Celts traded all over Europe and that the Vikings traded/pillaged as far as Russia and North Africa so why wasn't the vast hinterland of Africa and Asia a more tempting prospect for trade and pillage than a vast uncharted ocean?
Having made the relatively short northern sea trip to North America, Why didn't the Vikings continue their explorations on that vast continent? They would have had to travel down the coast - stopping regularly to re-provision - but where's the evidence of that? |
|
By: tommyonions@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
8:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
tommyonions@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The Celtic civilisations were tribal and based around metal working skills and trade. The centralised Roman Empire overran the Celts and destroyed/absorbed them. At the time we are talking about, sometime prior to 1200 AD, Europe was coming out of the Dark Ages. The Romans had utilised a lot of the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks and Moorish civilisations but also destroyed a lot (being the true barbarians) and the Roman Catholic Church carried on the centralist imperial traditions.
Celtic Scotland in the 12th century was still essentially tribal although moving towards feudalism and its powerful men were much more interested in the countries immediately around them (notably England) than it was in traversing a vast uncharted ocean in search of possible new lands.
As gorjusgeorge pointed out it is improbable that the Scots knew about NZ but never documented that knowledge; that a petty feudal lord styled latterly as a 'King' was prepared / able to expend the men and resources necessary to 'banish' a family to South Westland - but didn't document that extraordinary event either.
In a land so heavily wooded as Aotearoa - why did they bother with stone buildings? People would have used stone where there was no wood - or as a defensive measure or for climactic reasons. The wood skills necessary to build ocean going boats would be used to fashion dwellings. Why waste time and energy building out of stone in the middle of vast forests?
Links between Celtic and Polynesian art forms may be found in natural forms (eg the unfurling of a fern / bracken leaf) and in common creation myths of pre-christian peoples.
And finally - given the scale of the alleged conspiracy to cover up pre-Polynesian archaeological evidence, and the number of powerful people who would love to derail the Treaty - it's a truly extraordinary coverup.
The remarkable feats of pre-Roman civilisations have been misunderstood or attributed to others; there's not much distance betwee ... |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
8:33 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
wasullivan
One more thing, you are making some huge assumptions about the skill and technology of the vikings in that period.
I totally agree that they were skilled sailors, and that their craft were seaworthy, but to sail from scandinavia in an open vessel where you are open to all the elements, the weather, storms, huge swells etc in a huge ocean to find a small country like NZ in ONE SHOT is pushing the evelope of reason in my opinion.
If their objective was to escape persecution of some kind they could have done it without the effort and trouble of sailing to the other side of the world.
It's not like the planet was over burdend with over population at the time. |
|
By: tommyonions@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
8:35 am Yahoo! Profile:
tommyonions@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
...distance between the idea that spacemen built the pyramids and the idea that the navigational, military, building and artistic skills of pre-European Maori were learned from early 'white' settlers.
It is all about denying the culture of the 'barbarian' to justify taking what they own. This was perfected by the Romans - and we inherited the Romans' view of the world. The British empire was styled on it - it fashioned the British world view that 'we are the civilised centre - all else is barbarian and inferior to us; when we conquer we are actually doing them a favour because we are bringing them civilization' - whether they want it or not. |
|
By: mozzarella68
29/08/2008
8:35 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
tommyonions
Exactly my point! |
|
