The lies of history...

[David]

Well, not lies really, just the propaganda of empire. We were taught that Vasco da Gama crossed from Panama and was to first to sight the Pacific. Magellan reached the bottom of the America's.

Fact is that the Polynesians has crossed the pacific centuries before. Arab maps showed that the Atlantic was crossed long b4 Columbus. One thing is sure- it was Europeans who first crossed the South Pole.

It is fairly certain that hordes of people crossed the Atlantic at both ends. St Brendan and even Madoc ap Owain Gruffydd. Until James Cook arrived voyagers could not navigate by latitude to travel was fairly hit and miss.

It is a fairly unknown fact, bit the Captain of the Endeavour sired a child, a girl, in Queen Charlotte Sound. It could have been either Cook, or Banks. So descendants of either are most likely running around now.

A skull of a woman dating back to about 1745 was found in the North Island. She was a European. Mysteries abound. Including the possibility the woman was a part of a doctor's skeleton.

With the science of DNA testing in its infancy we will have to hurry to solve a lot of our world's mysteries. That is before DNA creates the short cuts.

-D>

[Roger Dewhurst]

On Feb 16, 12:26 pm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Well, not lies really, just the propaganda of empire. We were taught that Vasco da Gama crossed from Panama and was to first to sight the Pacific. Magellan reached the bottom of the America's.

Europeans crossed the Atlantic, late in the last ice age, along the
edge of the ice sheet and interbred with the mongoloid types who had
crossed the Bering Sea somewhat earlier.

>
> Fact is that the Polynesians has crossed the pacific centuries before. Arab maps showed that the Atlantic was crossed long b4 Columbus. One thing is sure- it was Europeans who first crossed the South Pole.

The Polynesians brought the kumara from South America. A pity they
left the tomato, chilli and potato to the europeans.

[David]

On Saturday, 16 February 2013 12:52:51 UTC+13, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:26 pm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Well, not lies really, just the propaganda of empire. We were taught that Vasco da Gama crossed from Panama and was to first to sight the Pacific. Magellan reached the bottom of the America's.

I understand the coconut reached the Pacific sometime during the European period. what would desert islands be without them?

[Roger Dewhurst]

Coconuts float!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Draw some conclusions from that.

[David]

On Saturday, 16 February 2013 14:34:20 UTC+13, Roger Dewhurst wrote:

> Coconuts float!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>

>
>
> Draw some conclusions from that.

Okaaaaaay... so how did they get from the East Coast of South America to the Pacific...???

[Gordon]

On 2013-02-15, David <dafy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, not lies really, just the propaganda of empire.

Yes, things do change. History needs to be understood, this takes time and
an objective view. Handicaped by humans. Bugger!

[victor]

Carried by swallows ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w

[george152]

African swallows

[David]

On Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:05:27 UTC+13, victor wrote:

> Carried by swallows ?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w

One swallow doesn't make a full tummy...

[Katipo]

In 1868, gold miners working at Bruce Bay on the West Coast of the South
Island unearthed a stone chisel and sharpening stone. They were buried 5
metres down, under forest that was around 1,000 years old. That means these
tools could have been there for 1,500 to 2,000 years.

Clearly we don't know the true story of this country's past.

[David]

That is possible... if the narrative is correct... the rivers run super fast over there and could have covered such artefacts in the course of one flood....

...if the artefacts were recorded and collected they may still be able to be identified. -D.

[Roger Dewhurst]

Why do you suppose that they originated on the east coast of South
America? They are found in Africa, everywhere in south and south east
Asia, northern Australia and throughout the tropical Pacific.
Invariably, among other situations, they occur close enough to beaches
to have been washed there by the sea. Incidentally Rendall, in 'The
Classification of Flowering Plants', does not even refer to South
America as a habitat. Closely related palms grow there, Jubaea for
example, but another comes for the Seychelles.

[Roger Dewhurst]

From Wikipedia:

Origin


The origin of the plant is the subject of debate.[23][24][25] Many
authorities suggest an Indo-Pacific origin either around Melanesia and
Malesia or the Indian Ocean, while others see the origin in
northwestern South America.[23][24][25] The oldest fossils known of
the modern coconut date from the Eocene period from around 37 to 55
million years ago and were found in Australia and India. However,
older palm fossils like some of nipa fruit have been found in the
Americas.[25]

Dispersal
Main article: Genomics of domestication

Genomic analysis of cultivated coconut (Coco nucifera L.) has shed
light on the movements of Austronesian peoples. By examining 10
microsatelite loci, researchers found two genetically distinct
subpopulations of coconut – one originating in the Indian Ocean, the
other in the Pacific Ocean. However, admixture, the transfer of
genetic material, evidently occurred between the two populations.
Given that coconuts are ideally suited for ocean dispersal, it seems
possible that individuals from one population could have floated to
the other. However, the locations of the admixture events are limited
to Madagascar and coastal east Africa, and exclude the Seychelles.
This pattern coincides with the known trade routes of Austronesian
sailors. Additionally, a genetically distinct subpopulation of coconut
on the western coast of South America has undergone a genetic
bottleneck resulting from a founder effect; however, its ancestral
population is the Pacific coconut, which suggests Austronesian peoples
may have sailed as far east as the Americas.[26]
Distribution


The coconut has spread across much of the tropics, probably aided in
many cases by seafaring people. Coconut fruit in the wild are light,
buoyant and highly water resistant, and evolved to disperse
significant distances via marine currents.[27] Specimens have been
collected from the sea as far north as Norway.[28] In the Hawaiian
Islands, the coconut is regarded as a Polynesian introduction, first
brought to the islands by early Polynesian voyagers from their
homelands in Oceania.[16] They have been found in the Caribbean and
the Atlantic coasts of Africa and South America for less than 500
years, but evidence of their presence on the Pacific coast of South
America predates Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas.[24]
They are now almost ubiquitous between 26°N and 26°S except for the
interiors of Africa and South America.

[David]

On Sunday, 17 February 2013 14:47:17 UTC+13, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>
> > Why do you suppose that they originated on the east coast of South
>
> > America?  They are found in Africa, everywhere in south and south east
>
> > Asia, northern Australia and throughout the tropical Pacific.
>
> > Invariably, among other situations, they occur close enough to beaches
>
> > to have been washed there by the sea.  Incidentally Rendall, in 'The
>
> > Classification of Flowering Plants', does not even refer to South
>
> > America as a habitat.  Closely related palms grow there, Jubaea for
>
> > example, but another comes for the Seychelles.

I had a look through google too, but not soon enough to avoid a bollocking, lol.

Segue here: we were in the USA in 2011 and i got a great book called 'Black Rice". It says that the first rice cultivated by slaves originated from West Africa, and not from Asia. As did the growing technology.

There are maybe many twists and turns in history more so that outright lies...

You can hide from your shadow, but you cannot hide from history

[colp]

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html

The book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, featured an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention, by New Zealand Government Departments, to withhold archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years.

[george152]

On 17/02/13 15:34, colp wrote:
> http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html
>
> The book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, featured an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention, by New Zealand Government Departments, to withhold archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years.
>

You -do- realise that archaeologists, Anthropologists and just about
every other history discipline would have to be in on this.
And there is no such document or intent

[David]

On Sunday, 17 February 2013 16:55:07 UTC+13, george wrote:
> On 17/02/13 15:34, colp wrote:
>
> > http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html
>
> >
>
> > The book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, featured an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention, by New Zealand Government Departments, to withhold archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years.

It is quite possible that the first human footprints on these islands were fairly early, and most likely coming from a single vessel the population growth would have been limited.

Interest in the date of first contact was raised about 10 years ago when remains of the kiore [rat] went back long way- 2000 years from memory.

It is fairly certain that if kiore came with the first voyager then its rise and spread would have been rapid.

It is very likely that the first voyagers were Polynesian. Stone walling was evident in the Marquesas and at Rapanui [Easter Island.]

Some people have conjectured that the first arrivals, firstly had Melanesian genes, and latterly had European genes.

It is possible that a range of human bloodlines crossed the American continent and the Polynesians might have picked up traces of these.

However there has been no concrete evidence that anyone but Polynesians ever arrived here prior to 1642.

-D.

[george152]

The Kiore claims have been found wanting.
The oldest verifiable remains date to 1200AD

Subscribe to
nzaawebs...@yahoogroups.com
When you're talking NZ Archaeology its a good place to start off.

[David]

On Monday, 18 February 2013 08:44:21 UTC+13, george wrote:


> The Kiore claims have been found wanting.
>
> The oldest verifiable remains date to 1200AD

Yes, I am not surprised.

There were claims, based on whakapapa that the moa hunters came over around 700 to 900 AD.
That is based on Waitaha whakapapa.

But since then it has been shown that these whakapapa were correct, but they stretched back to other places the people had come from.

So 1200 A is about the standard theory.

[Katipo]

"David" wrote in message
news:7ad86ad6-611b-4116...@googlegroups.com...

As far as I am aware there was no suggestion that a flood was responsible
for the items being buried 5 metres. Of course that would have to have
happened before the 1000 year old forest started growing. That still means
artifacts were there well before the earliest date (now disproved) that the
Maoris claimed they arrived in NZ.

Apparently the artifacts are on display in a museum in Christchurch.

[David]

On Monday, 18 February 2013 09:45:49 UTC+13, Katipo wrote:

> As far as I am aware there was no suggestion that a flood was responsible
>
> for the items being buried 5 metres. Of course that would have to have
>
> happened before the 1000 year old forest started growing. That still means
>
> artifacts were there well before the earliest date (now disproved) that the
>
> Maoris claimed they arrived in NZ.
>
>
>
> Apparently the artifacts are on display in a museum in Christchurch.

Hmmm yes... must have a look next time I am up there... I think as fast as human history is concerned it is good to have an open mind...

...I think that once genetic testing becomes standardised there will be a lot of changes and surprises...

[colp]

Go away, idiot.

[george152]

Wow! What a force of intellect. NOT
This subject has been done to death and is a nonstarter.
We know roughly when Maori settled New Zealand and we know that there
was no-one else in the world at that time capable of long distance sea
voyages and settlement than the Polynesians

[colp]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:17:47 AM UTC+13, george wrote:
> On 18/02/13 20:20, colp wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:55:07 PM UTC+13, george wrote:
>
> >> On 17/02/13 15:34, colp wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, featured an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention, by New Zealand Government Departments, to withhold archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You -do- realise that archaeologists, Anthropologists and just about
>
> >>
>
> >> every other history discipline would have to be in on this.
>
> >
>
> > Go away, idiot.
>
> >
>
> Wow! What a force of intellect. NOT

You are an idiot for asserting that the history disciplines are somehow involved in a government order to withhold information about NZ history.

[Enkidu]

Of course they are! Didn't you know that? All or most of the top
echelons in the Universities are 2 metre tall reptilian aliens from
Trafalmadore. They got here by using space ships powered by perpetual
motion machines generating free energy which enabled them to exceed the
speed of light. It must be true, I saw it on Youtube.

Cheers,

Cliff

[David]

On Saturday, 2 March 2013 20:40:31 UTC+13, A...@any.where.ver wrote:

> >You can hide from your shadow, but you cannot hide from history>
>
>

> History is written by the ruling class or in the case of war, the victors.

Too true. I was bought up and educated to belief that the poor sods who fought
and died did so to guarantee our freedom.

Oh no! The poor buggers had fought for them, and for their freedom.

[David]

On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 20:45:32 UTC+13, A...@any.where.ver wrote:

> >We know roughly when Maori settled New Zealand and we know that there
>
> >was no-one else in the world at that time capable of long distance sea
>
> >voyages and settlement than the Polynesians
>
>
>

> Nonsense, you have followed the standard line.

Well, we should always be open to alternatives.

Have you read the book- "Madoc, the Making of a Myth"
Certainly the final word, barring new evidence, was made
by David Samwell [Dafydd Ddu Feddig] On the Celtic, and
Saxon gene-influence in the South Pacific.

[george152]

The Celts did not have the maritime expertise to make such a voyage.

[David]

On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 08:12:57 UTC+13, george wrote:


> > Have you read the book- "Madoc, the Making of a Myth"
>
> > Certainly the final word, barring new evidence, was made
>
> > by David Samwell [Dafydd Ddu Feddig] On the Celtic, and
>
> > Saxon gene-influence in the South Pacific.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The Celts did not have the maritime expertise to make such a voyage.

There are legends that both Madoc and St Brendan crossed the Atlantic.

The Vikings certainly made it.

I have seen a copy of a map which shows the Arabs crossed the Atlantic and mapped the shores of South America long before the Hispanics.

It is doubtful that any of these nations made it into Pacific. it is possible that a trace of these bloodlines might have- but this would have been insignificant.

Samwell, Dafydd Ddu Feddig, says it all:

"And as to Mon's profound reply,
'gainst Madog's host so mighty,
he might with equal law deny
My trip to Otaheite

Where, led by love's enchanting smile
Among the tawney maids
We peopled more than half the isle
With Welsh and Saxon blades."
-Samwell, 1791.

[george152]

On 06/03/13 08:31, David wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 08:12:57 UTC+13, george wrote:
>
>
>>> Have you read the book- "Madoc, the Making of a Myth"
>>
>>> Certainly the final word, barring new evidence, was made
>>
>>> by David Samwell [Dafydd Ddu Feddig] On the Celtic, and
>>
>>> Saxon gene-influence in the South Pacific.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Celts did not have the maritime expertise to make such a voyage.
>
>
> There are legends that both Madoc and St Brendan crossed the Atlantic.
>
> The Vikings certainly made it.

Yup.
But no-one made it into the Pacific pre Polynesian exploration and
settlement dates.

[misanthropic_curmudgeon]

On Mar 6, 10:53 am, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
[snip]

> But no-one made it into the Pacific pre Polynesian exploration
> and settlement dates.

Well, they might have made it. But as to whether they found any land,
or made it back again ....

[colp]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:53:10 AM UTC+13, george wrote:

> But no-one made it into the Pacific pre Polynesian exploration and
> settlement dates.

George knows this because he is omniscient. /sarc

http://www.clandonald-heritage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104:birlinn-naibhig&catid=34:home&Itemid=1

Recent archeological digs have shown the pre-Viking age, Celtic people navigated the high seas in birlinn nybhaig. Celtic seafaring is a major feature of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Book of Invasions, which tells how the Celtic people first sailed to Ireland about 600 BC. According to one history of Viking longboats, Celtic sailing ships had been plying the seas near Scandinavia since the time of Caesar, but early Viking longboats did not have a mast or sail! The Viking mast was a later innovation taken from their seafaring Celtic neighbors.

[David]

On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:06:18 UTC+13, colp wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:53:10 AM UTC+13, george wrote:

> Recent archeological digs have shown the pre-Viking age, Celtic people navigated the high seas in birlinn nybhaig. Celtic seafaring is a major feature of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Book of Invasions, which tells how the Celtic people first sailed to Ireland about 600 BC. According to one history of Viking longboats, Celtic sailing ships had been plying the seas near Scandinavia since the time of Caesar, but early Viking longboats did not have a mast or sail! The Viking mast was a later innovation taken from their seafaring Celtic neighbors.

The Vikings were never a people. The word 'viking' means something else.

The Angles and the Saxons came from the peninsular next to Denmark. Perhaps they were more Scandinavian than Germanic.

I did a history of a family local to Central Otago- the de Bettencor family. The patriarch came from the Azores the family seat had been Portugal but the name originated from Normandy. The normans, including Willy and Co. were originally Norsemen.

The so-called 'facts of history' especially around nationality are 'interesting'.

I am sure there are massive cross-overs between 'Viking' and 'Celtic'.

Was it Sir Peter Buck who called the Polynesians 'The Vikings of the Sunrise" ?

Certainly the Arabs made it into South East Asia. Had the trade routes been opened up by the Phonetians and others?

Human populations are very mobile, and still are.

This does not mean that NZ was first settled by Erik The Eveready. But by his Polynesian equivalent.

[george152]

Wow. People who sailed up to 200 miles from the coast suddenly had the
technology to sail 12,000 miles through uncharted seas to unknown
landmasses leaving no sign of their passing...
Riiiiight.

[colp]

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:23:11 AM UTC+13, george wrote:
> leaving no sign of their passing...

Except for the Waitapu stones, according to Martin Doutre.

http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/2000/01/10/maori-indigenous/

[Liberty]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:36:38 +1200, Every All Where <A...@any.where.ver> wrote:

>On , , Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:23:11 +1300, Re: The lies of history..., george152

><gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>>On 06/03/13 21:06, colp wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:53:10 AM UTC+13, george wrote:
>>>
>>>> But no-one made it into the Pacific pre Polynesian exploration and
>>>> settlement dates.
>>>
>>> George knows this because he is omniscient. /sarc
>>>
>>> http://www.clandonald-heritage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104:birlinn-naibhig&catid=34:home&Itemid=1
>>>
>>> Recent archeological digs have shown the pre-Viking age, Celtic people navigated the high seas in birlinn nybhaig.

Celtic seafaring is a major feature of the Lebor Gab�la �renn, the Book of Invasions, which tells

how the Celtic people first sailed to Ireland about 600 BC. According to one history of Viking
longboats, Celtic sailing ships had been plying the seas near Scandinavia since the time of Caesar,
but early Viking longboats did not have a mast or sail! The Viking mast was a later innovation
taken from their seafaring Celtic neighbors.
>>>
>>Wow. People who sailed up to 200 miles from the coast suddenly had the
>>technology to sail 12,000 miles through uncharted seas to unknown
>>landmasses leaving no sign of their passing...
>>Riiiiight.
>

>Your ignorance is showing again.

That's a bit rich coming from the groups resident psycho. Who once claimed Maori had a special
arrangement with the government to partake in cannibalism.

[Liberty]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:13:52 +1200, Every All Where
<A...@any.where.ver> wrote:

>On , , Fri, 17 May 2013 09:22:48 +1200, Re: The lies of history..., Liberty

>You are lying, produce the post.

Been there done that. Proved you are a lying little creep.
So I don't need to repeat the exercise.

[Pooh]

"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:dn6dp8d4dae0sc367...@4ax.com...

Sorry Lib. I know it's the sort of loopy twaddle we might get from Scooter.
But wasn't that CK?

Pooh

[Liberty]

No not CK.
CK is quite lucid compared to Scooter.
If I recall scooter was being rude and disgusting about one of MC
interesting travel posts.
As what normally happens with scooter he rambles off into his never
never land.
Making silly claims that he can't back up.