Bows and Arrows

roger wrote:

Well, Jock, he cites sources. What do you cite - your own inate knowledge? What sounds good?

Do you own research . Find you own sources , and as you do so , you will find that the "sources 'that Setanta cites are wrong.

By the by, "WE will tell the world about us."

So, you're Maori?

Or do you just speak for everyone in New Zealand by appointment?

I know Setanta is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles, but I must say Jock you are acting like someone stuffed a popsicle up your anus. Relax, we come here to have fun- not to start flicking chips off each others shoulders.

Jock wrote:

roger wrote:

Well, Jock, he cites sources. What do you cite - your own inate knowledge? What sounds good?

Do you own research . Find you own sources , and as you do so , you will find that the "sources 'that Setanta cites are wrong.

I submit, Jock, that the challenge posed to the veracity of your assertion stands unmet. Demonstrate the superiority of your position as opposed to merely claiming to have a superior position while engaging in empty snide commentary. Add something to the pot, don't just stir it.


Your serve.

What an extremely disgusting individual you are .

I have told the member that the information is wrong . I have pointed the way to resourse material . I do not spoon feed .

The member has made an exedinly stupid comment , That is that people have only been on this land for "a few hundered years "
With one so misinformed , almost any position is superior .

... The only indigenous mammals in New Zealand are bats. All other wild mammals in New Zealand arrived with humans.

... With the exception of two species of bat, no indigenous mammals are native to New Zealand.

... Indeed, New Zealand possesses only two truly indigenous mammals, both being rare species of bat.

The only indigenous mammals in New Zealand are bats. All other wild mammals in New Zealand arrived with humans ...

... With the exception of two species of bat, no indigenous mammals are native to New Zealand.

... Some researchers, such as Richard Holdaway, have attempted to show that extinctions or population declines of bats, lizards, frogs and smaller birds (petrels, the owlet-nightjar, Finsch's duck) prior to 1300 may be due to the predatory Pacific rat. This would mean that humans had also been present in this earlier period. But proof of extinctions or population declines is hard to find, as most dead animals leave very little evidence as to what killed them. Because of this the decline of species in New Zealand can only be linked circumstantially with rat predation, if at all. Rat-gnawed snail shells from Northland provide the earliest concrete evidence to date, but these only occur after 1250.

If there were rats in New Zealand before 1300, why is there no evidence of them gnawing on snails and seeds? The research on gnawed seeds and snail shells does not support the theory that rats arrived as early as 50-150. There is clearly a need for further research.

It is only when many different dating methods, from many different parts of New Zealand, on several different lines of evidence, all converge to show similar results that most scientists will feel comfortable in determining a first arrival date earlier than the generally accepted date of 1250-1300.

... When the first human settlers arrived in New Zealand from Polynesia in the 13th century, they found a terrestrial flora and fauna unique in the world ...

... there is no supporting archaeological or palaeoecological evidence for the presence of humans in New Zealand before about AD 1280, despite years of excavations and research on this subject.

... New Zealand was the last major land mass to be discovered and colonised by humans. A mere 850 years ago, Polynesian seafarers arrived in a land with no terrestrial mammals.

... Like the equally extinct dodo, the moa apparently carried signs saying "Free meal enclosed" when the first humans began settling sometime around 1280 AD.

... Seven hundred and fifty years ago, the ancestors of modern Maoris reached New Zealand and killed off some 160,000 ostrich-like moas, driving an entire genus of birds to extinction in a matter of decades.

... Pigs and rats arrived on New Zealand with the first Polynesian settlers 800 years ago.

... Moa would have been very vulnerable when the first humans arrived in New Zealand, thought to be around 700 years ago.

What time does the debate on the meaning of 'few' start?



~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for that info, timber. It's greatly appreciated. No debate about that.

Honest - I'll be gentle. Not only gentle, whatever comes of this particular fencing match, but dispassionate and functionaly uninvolved should this at best nascent issue escalate.

the Robin Hood story as now known was created by Walter Scott in Ivanhoe.

I don't claim the Robin Hood tombstone is authentic, and don't really care if it is. I am pointing out that if it were, a date of death of 1251 makes it highly improbable that he had anything to do with Richard I, as claimed in Ivanhoe, given that Richard died in 1199. It's possible, but improbable.

That does not alter that the long bow was introduced to the English army by Edward when the Welsh of Powys allied with him to defeat Llewelyn ap Griffith.

I did not state that the Welsh invented the long bow, i only pointed out that in the 13th century, its use was first noted by chroniclers by the Welsh of South Wales in general, and Powys in particular.

It is noteworthy that you claim the Anglo-Saxons used the long bow, but then mention Viking archaeological sites.

Given that longbows commonly appear in Saxon art, I think any archaeologist would find it acceptable to use Viking longbows to deduce what the Saxon artist meant to depict. (I have a degree in Anglo-Saxon and Viking archaeology, BTW.)

Setanta wrote:

Charming new member . . . have we welcomed him yet?

New member ??? Research is a marvelous thing , pity you do not do any .

Jock, since you're new to A2K, and perhaps understandably, and certainly unarguably evidently unaware of local folks and customs, lemme show you how we typically "point the way to source material" hereabouts..........................

Again, you seem to speak Saxons in Britanny and not Saxons in their homeland(s), I suppose?