Its fucken hard watching.
Really amateur the way its cobbled together.
Let me rephrase in order to not upset your delicate sensibilities, and try to illicit an actual answer to me question
I'm not commenting on the content of it, I want to k ow if you think the broadcaster removing it is oppression.
Let me see .. These people claim the Celts arrived here about 3,500 years ago - must be about 1,500 BCE - and came from Wales ..
Given that the Celts arrived in the UK area in two waves - the Goidelic-speaking Celts between 2000 BCE and 1200 BCE approximately 4,000 to 3,200 years ago .. and the Brythonic-speaking Celts sometime in the period 500 BCE to 400 BCE - about 2,400 to 2,500 years ago ..
It can only have been the Goidelic speaking Celts .. (they must have left before the Brythonic Celts arrived in the UK) ... who didn't bother to stop in Wales, but sailed south in the Atlantic - around Cape Horn, leaving no trace, before crossing the Southern Ocean to New Zealand ....
All in coracle boats ... yeah - really likely
Here's a Celtic boat from 1CE .. really seaworthy for a trip from the UK to here .. that's only 2,000 years old - not 3,500 years old ..
Also, Goidelic Celts were from Ireland and parts of Scotland - Welsh Celts are Brythonic - and only settled there about 2,500 years ago - and therefore cannot be the ones found n Northland, who apparently were here 3,500 years ago.
Egypt ??? What has Egypt got to do with it?a claim that the Polynesian demi-god was an historical figure who not only discovered New Zealand but was captain of a fleet of six ships from Egypt
Exactly .. early visits or even occupation - sure - early Polynesian settlers ... some Maori oral histories certainly show people here before Kupe, and before Maui ... A small group of say 50 people coming on a canoe will leave bugger all archaeological evidence - especially if hey go home again - and even if we knew where to look for it.Professor Richard Holdaway and Professor Lisa Matisoo-Smith. Both have done work that suggests rats may have arrived here earlier than first settlement – and that almost certainly arrived with people.
On the face of it their findings could give credence to the idea of pre-Māori settlement in New Zealand. Neither of them were interviewed in the documentaries and both are scathing of the ideas being promoted in them.
Lisa Matisoo Smith told Mediawatch the documentaries had misused her data. "I have communicated with these people and have pointed out the errors in their interpretations but they do not want to hear the truth."
He said his research, which can be found on open source online journals, suggests that people, probably of the Lapita culture, visited New Zealand a few hundred years before the beginning of settlement.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
So yeah - piece of shit ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Yes - that is exactly what is suggested ... maybe seaworthy - but not good enough to sail here - especially across the Southern Ocean .
Here's one built following an old one that was found from 3,500 years ago
Do you seriously think anyone could sail from the UK to here in one of these?
If you think they had boats that could get here - show me ..
However, the boats are not the only thing - the historical timing is also out ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Maybe New Zealand was over there then - tectonically speaking? - Who really knows?
Why do we need to?
This thread is about free speech. You started it. I assume that the program being aired twice but having been taken down from online viewing, is an infringement of free speech.
It isn't. It was removed because the classification was incorrect. But it got aired.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Bookmarks