3 ms·

While it may be a possible that the Maori discovered Antarctica hundreds of years before the Europeans, I am not sure the evidence is there for likely. I have

While it may be a possible that the Maori discovered Antarctica hundreds of years before the Europeans, I am not sure the evidence is there for likely. I have seen this pattern too many times. Many times a historian with a point to prove (often in the service of something about their nation) looks at poetic writing/oral tradition, and interpreting them in the best possible light, makes a statement that such as such was in fact known hundreds of years before. Other examples include people who talk about the Bible or the Koran having sayings that allude to quantum physics or modern astronomy. Another example is Nostradamus, where his poetry is fluid enough that any interpretation can be pushed into it after the fact. We should just be very leery when a researcher find what they were wanting to find when using very malleable sources(oral poetry tradition many hundreds of years after the fact).

jmopp 5y ago
The difference is that there is no way that Biblical or ancient Islamic scholars would have the equipment to study quantum physics or advanced astronomy. It is entirely plausible that Polynesians who settled as far south as the Chatham Islands could sail further south. Granted, with no archaeological evidence, we can't say for sure. A better parallel I think would be the Viking discovery of America. Before we found the archaeological evidence, all we had was the sagas and the medieval reports. It's certainly enough of a lead to warrant looking at the ice with some ground-penetrating radar.
- jeltz 5y ago
  Yes, it is similar but one difference is that the Norse oral histories were written down only 250 years after the events plus that there are a couple of references to later expeditions in the Icelandic chronicle, including a logging expedition to the Americas blown off course. So the Norse contact had really strong support even before the archeological evidence.

jmopp 5y ago

The difference is that there is no way that Biblical or ancient Islamic scholars would have the equipment to study quantum physics or advanced astronomy. It is entirely plausible that Polynesians who settled as far south as the Chatham Islands could sail further south. Granted, with no archaeological evidence, we can't say for sure. A better parallel I think would be the Viking discovery of America. Before we found the archaeological evidence, all we had was the sagas and the medieval reports. It's certainly enough of a lead to warrant looking at the ice with some ground-penetrating radar.

jeltz 5y ago
Yes, it is similar but one difference is that the Norse oral histories were written down only 250 years after the events plus that there are a couple of references to later expeditions in the Icelandic chronicle, including a logging expedition to the Americas blown off course. So the Norse contact had really strong support even before the archeological evidence.