Vikings in Australia?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34344
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 07:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Vikings in Australia?
Posted By: toyomotor
Subject: Vikings in Australia?
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2014 at 20:57
|
An Australian, Rex Gilroy , claims that Vikings came shore near Cairns in North Eastern Australia some 700 years before Captain James COOK, that would have made the date around the mid 11th Century CE.
Of course Gilroys claims have been met with hilarity. He has no credibility in the scientific world, and is not even considered "a gifted amature".
But, is it possible that Vikings did in fact reach Australia?
The fact that no reports exist of their voyage could well be explained by them never being able to return home, or even not choosing to.
Could they have mixed with local Australian Aborigines and over time been totally assimilated into the Aboriginal population?
There are some Aboriginals whose hair is very fair, compared to the majority. Could this be an explanation?
What do other readers think?
|
Replies:
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2014 at 22:43
|
It hurts my brain to even consider such. But, if the Dutch are to be considered as V-Kings, or even U-Kings, then of course, but it would be in the era of Dutch exploration! LOL
The "U" could of course be substituted for the "V", and of course one of the top cities in this area in Europe was Utrecht! Just a wild guess! Smile Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2014 at 01:53
|
Geez Ron, that was a bloody wild guess.
We're talking the year 1070 CE here, or thereabouts.
Having regard to early Viking voyages around the North Sea and the major rivers of Europe, could they have possibly reached Australia? Please don't mention the Dutch again :( ------------- |
Posted By: open mind
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2018 at 21:15
| Just wondering if any of you have actually read any of Rex Gilroys books? No matter hat you think of the man you cannot deny the hundreds of artifacts that he has found have historical value and raise many interesting questions. Read the books first before you give an opinion. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2018 at 06:57
So what's your opinion?If they have ever existed?Have a nice time here open mind.Hope skull still protects core! ------------- Na"De"Na"J=From Worshiping =Praising God-Compensation=Refund=Tax-Bank=Money=Cash=Coin originated-positioned-suited... Population=People-Mortality=Lethality-Action=Activity=Business=Trade=Culture(Ja) |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2018 at 12:51
|
I had a little bit of contact with Gilroy a decade or so ago and re-published one or two of his articles in my defunct publication Historia-Pangaea. Gilroy apparently had a natural history museum and he seemed to have done quite alot of field tripping so he may have had some genuine finds. Note that the place-name 'Cairns' is of possible interest. (Cairns like in megalithic western Europe?!) Depends on what the evidences are like if and what artefacts or records there are for it. Probably there is not much evidence of Vikings in Australia/Pacific, there are more earlier/ ancient and later connections. Vikings and Polynesians are among the great seafarers of world history. Bolton's 'Lords of the Soil' mentions some similarities between Norse and Maori cultures (eg Tikis look similar to figures of Odin, similiar houses, etc). The Norse god Freyr is connected with seafaring/seafarers. Celts had deep water ships in 55 bc. London was a great port with 700 vessels in 359 ad. Antarctica is known in some early maps like the Piri Reis map. S Compton's 'Exodus Lost' mentions possible evidences of Vikings in Mexico (and some claim that Quetzalcoatl was Eric Gnupson). ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |