By: proudcannabal
29/08/2008
9:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
proudcannabal Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| tommyonions@xtra.co.nz im telling you a fact a proven one and i didnt say alexander went on further i said he went back to greece but some of his men may have stayed and eventually moved on can see how what one says can get distorted real quickly . |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
10:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| In the past 2 months Ive been on these threads Ive learned a lot about all sorts of things and ok I concede the Vikings probably didnt make it this far. However it was a fun debate. And thats the thing I like about proper debate. One doesnt have to believe in one side of an argument, for or against to participate. I used to be part of a debating team in Parri medium and one day we beat the Auckland university. The moot was - does high fences make for better neighbours? -. We were on the affirmative side and chose to interpret fencing as in, moving stolen goods, so high fences in that sense did make for better neighbours and the University werent prepared for it. Anyway all good. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
10:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| But I did ask the question, slightly off the thread. Does anyone think, that if all the ice melted off the South Pole, there might be evidence of human habitation found there?. Perhaps its just my crazy brain that thinks of things like that. |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
11:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
wasullivan
Once had a debate where the topic was "modern kids have gone to pot" we had the affirmative and argued that kids were cooking more... the unexpected creates an advantage... lol
Now I remember seeing soem where that one of the ancient societies had a map of land which is almost identical to the land mass under the ice of anarctica???? |
|
By: aphume
29/08/2008
11:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aphume Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Though I've never fully read this guys book regarding ancient celts in NZ, I have heard of this theory and seen some of his evidence explained. Such "evidence" that I have seen has consisted of a random piles of stones and rocks, obviously completely natural with nothing "man made" about them. To suggest that a random pile of rocks is "evidence" of ancient celtic civilisation is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I live in the UK and have seen plenty of ancient stone monuments and I can tell you that nothing that even closely resembles a henge (stone circle) has ever been found in NZ. You also have to consider the geographical seperation between NZ and Europe, the vikings at the height of their seaward expansion only just managed to cross the north atlantic reach the North-East coast of America in their long boats, what chance would they (or celts) really have had of crossing the vast, near infinite oceans to reach NZ. Other contrary evidence is the fact that Maori culture were a pre-iron age culture (they were still in the stone age), if the celts or viking really were in NZ 1000 years ago, surely the Maoris would have developed iron tools and weaponry, they didn't so that prooves that the celts/vikings were never here. Also before Abel Tasman discovered NZ in the 1600's, there was no European knowledge of the NZ's existence, if the celts or vikings had known about NZ, surely that knowledge would've still existed in the 1600's, it didn't so that prooves the celts/vikings were not in NZ 1000 years ago. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
11:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
abu
Lol, and I suppose it could have been easily squashed flat by the other side saying, modern kids dont know how to cook anymore. Which is fairly true as its all too easy to open a packet of instant noodles. But I digress.
Antarctica has always fascinated me as an unknown land mass regards what secrets might lay hiddin under all that ice. And it is melting as it has before. Wouldnt it blow peoples away if something alien in structure, like a pyramid, but not a pyramid. But something that was even more mind boggling than that, arose from under all that ice like a time capsule that finally gave us the answers to how we got here and our purpose in life. Like it was put there on purpose so we couldnt find it till mankind was ready to understand it. Like another 500 years from now. |
|
By: abu2@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
11:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
abu2@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
found this on the net...
In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.
Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
11:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Aphume
Im not going to argue against the Vikings not being here, but in my line of debating it earlier, I suggested that the homeland of where pre Polynesian voyagers might have come from might not have necessarily known about NZ if they never made it home again. However I am fairly sure no one else got here first because like you say, there is no evidence of it anywhere yet found. NZ, pre Polynesian times, was one of the most lifeless, bush covered islands on earth. I have to take my hat off to Maori for have survived as they did. They must have got pretty sick of eating fish and birds. Ive tried eating cabbage tree and fern roots etc and its really bland tucker. |
|
By: aphume
29/08/2008
11:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aphume Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Another thing I forgot to mention is the relative lack of ruminant animals in NZ prior to European settlement. Had celts or vikings made the journey to NZ, surely they would have brought horses/cattle/sheep with them. Note that none of these animals existed in NZ before European settlement. Other than birds/reptiles/insects etc the only animals in NZ that the Maori had before the Europeans arrived were perhaps a pig (kuni kuni) and maybe one dog breed. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/08/2008
11:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
abu
Thanks, Thats exactly the info I was after. So the last time the south pole was clear of ice was 4000 bc. Wow. Makes one wonder how they were able to draw a map its northern coastline eh. That puts me back to the ufo theory or super narcotic theory again I suppose. I mean. What if our earliest human inhabitants knew what it looked like because they flew over it. Or they ate a plant that had powerful mind drug properties that enabled them to use the parts of the human brain we cant use today, that allowed them to Astro travel. But that plant became extinct eons ago. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
12:01 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
aphume
I think they also had a breed of rat. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
12:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Aphume
How would the Vikings fit a horse etc, plus all the animals tucker into the boats they had? Also no point in just one horse or one of anything. They would need several of each type of animal to breed from. More likely if anyone accidentally discovered NZ, pre Polynesian times, it would have been as a scouting mission, or because they were lost, or blown off way off course. |
|
By: adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
12:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| i don't think you'd find any self respecting geologist that would agree with the statement that piri reis map is actually of the antarctic coastline. statements like these sell pseudoscientific books like wiseman's. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
12:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
A_V
Well thats a bugger. If its not fact, then why arent such publications found only in the novel section of our bookstores. Fair Go should jump right onto things like that. I bet the Bible is not sold in the novel section either. |
|
By: adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
12:48 am Yahoo! Profile:
adam-victoria@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
yeah, sorry, its kind of disappointing in a way i know. but then again the existence of the map itself is exciting, and you have to wonder what WAS going on in the world 6000years ago. before that, it was pretty much ice as far as the eye could see anywhere near the poles, for over a hundred thousand years, which doesn't leave much room for global maritime exploration by ancient civilizations.
on the other hand, the chinese have a long and complicated history, in oceanic navigation in particular. they did manage to populate almost all ove the pacific islands, after all... |
|
By: aphume
30/08/2008
1:01 am Yahoo! Profile:
aphume Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
That's a good point you raise wasullivan. Supposing there were celts or vikings in NZ in 1000 years ago think about the following scenarios.
1. Supposing that celts or vikings settled in NZ before the Maori and developed their own home and culture. These people must have brought iron working knowledge with them. Since Maori had no iron working knowledge the only possible scenario is that the Maori completely wiped out the celtic/viking culture and completely exterminate any archeological evidence that they were ever here. In doing so they would have to have also wiped out any iron working knowledge that the celts/vikings had. The chances of this having happened are extremely unlikely as if the celts/vikings were in NZ in any significant numbers they would not have simply rolled over to Maori conquest without a fight and would have left plenty of archeological evidence and also their iron working skills.
2. Another possibility is that some celts/vikings arrived in NZ after Maori settlement. Unless they arrived in significant numbers it is unlikely that a few boatloads of celts/vikings would have been a match for the Maori and would probably have been killed. In this case they would not have left any evidence at all of their presence and this would just be a hypothetical argument for which could never be prooved or disprooved.
Both these scenarios are extremely unlikely, if not impossible.
You also need to think about what could have been the motive for celts/vikings to come all the way across the ocean and settle in NZ (a tiny country in the south pacific). Why not America for example, it's much closer, bigger and easier to get to than NZ, why all the way to NZ? Yet there is only evidence that the vikings made it to North-Eastern America and no evidence of the celts having been there. |
|
By: mozzarella68
30/08/2008
2:13 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: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
2:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
A_V
Perhaps you just supplied the answer to early migration when you said large areas where covered in ice. Im now thinking of early Eskimos who simply walked between landmasses on the ice, eating seals as they went.
And/or hitched a ride on super big ice burgs. |
|
By: mozzarella68
30/08/2008
2:19 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello People!
It's great that this thread has managed not to disentegrate into name calling and/or a forum where people just rant.
I know the "rules of engagement" are stupid!
But, it's an honest attempt, however futile, to provide a common framework for people to argue their points.
If there is no common framework then we are just ranting, and quite frankly, there are plenty of other threads available for that.
This thread is obviously open to all - we are all equal here, the point is to use your own common sence, reason and intelligence. |
|
By: mozzarella68
30/08/2008
2:20 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: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
3:05 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Aphume
Point 1, - assumes a lot. Like the early Viking explorer was intending to habit a new land rather than just see what was there. And even if they did settle for awhile it assumes they intended to do so for a long time, rather than a short time and move on. It also assumes the hypothetical adventurers were successful enough to survive in NZ in order to expand rather than had a hard time of it and didnt survive at all. It also assumes they were not capable of getting here even if they died trying. It also assumes that amongst the number of those who sailed boats, there was the will, or even the where-with-it-all, to make iron in NZ as a legacy of their existence, rather than spend their time coping with what NZ would have been like in those days.
Point 2, - is a possibility, that cannot, entirely, be discredited.
Point 3, - Motive. - I suggest it could be the same motivation that drove humans to climb Mt Everest, or reach the moon, or explore the depths of our oceans. Because until we do these things and more, the challenges are there to be tested, and the mysteries are there to be solved. It is in our nature to push boundaries, so why is it not possible for a Viking version of Huckleberry Finn to exist? Why are we so quick to assume, that in all the time Humans have been on earth, that no one thought to jump in a boat or walk across ice to be the first to discover a new land. Perhaps the only reason we dont know about them is because they died in the process of trying to get home?. Look at what happened to Scott on his mission to the South Pole. Had he done that 1,000 years ago, no one would be any the wiser. However he did make it to the pole. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
3:13 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cheesecake
Thankyou for your wise judicature. An excellent thread Master you do make. Your on my shopping list next time I feel like making macaroni mozzarella. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
3:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mozarella68:
As stated earlier, in order to give any credibility to the Celtic/Viking presence in N.Z. at the time stated in Doutres book, which is obviously still a THEORY, your quote to my response in regards to Mathematics is as follows
re-Quote "Hard evidence is the key to being able to establish facts and to move beyond hearsay and conjecture." in addition you also indicated, re-quote "even your mathematical example required someone to prove it".
However I did indicate the early father of geometry who lived 300 BC etc, not a conjecture, a fact.
As it is a theory that is being discussed, my response from history would attribute the knowledge of "Euclid", and what is known commonly as "Euclids elements".
It would make sense to me from an educated/un view to inject the theory with factual recorded works of past Geometrists or Mathematicians whose works are still used today. Pythagorus is another example, ( pythagorus theorum ), he lived in 500 BC, which I am sure you would already know.
You mention Galileo, why? He came well after the aforementioned two above. He is recognised as the modern father of astrology in the 1500s etc well after the supposed Celtic/Viking theory.
Astrology is recorded and documented back in the time of the ASSYRIANS, who conquered BABYLONIA thousands of years before. I am just putting that out there to maybe create another possible, but possibility from facts.
To give Doutres theory an injection for the sake of realism. Mathematic principles and astrological evidence in regards to navigation. Just something to expand upon to give expansion to Alexandra the Great and his recorded feats and travels. For someone to have died at a young age possibly 32 as stated in some history books, it must be acknowledged that he put a lot under his belt so to speak in laymans terms. |
|
By: mar_ja@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
3:22 am Yahoo! Profile:
mar_ja@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| continued - for the purpose of further debate Mozarella, past history and knowledge for those that followed after and set out to discover new lands did so and would not have just sailed off into the wild blue yonder without any sort of purpose, land discovery if by sheer luck would have been an added bonus. Passing on knowledge through the generations whether it be oral or written is also documented in history as you would possibly know, so my continued offering would be to consider these things. |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
30/08/2008
3:29 am Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
morning mar
The cheesecake theory is thus. Average IQ = a pass, Low IQ = an F. I wonder what I get for mine? After all, I did notice the thread Master has not yet acknowledged me worthy of a Nobel prize. And what a surprise that would be. Whooopee. Strait to the top of the class eh. |
|
