My Point being this was not established to the point one watching would say "ok, "well they tried everything else"
It wasn't? It has a scene where two guys say "We've got no guns, how can we hunt?" / "Yeah, even if we saw any game" and another scene where a character proves the same point by not being able to catch the one animal they see. So it needed a
third scene to make the same point because ... what? Because there might be really, really dumb people in the audience who didn't get it the first two times the point was made? Do you work for a Hollywood studio or something?
The Tasmanian Aborigines were a very primitive tribe and while obviously being capable of finding food they relied on herding techniques for hunting and the use of tools made from bone or simple rocks.
Bollocks. The Tasmanian Aborigines lived in Tasmania for 40,000 years and had an extremely sophisticated basis for getting food from their environment. The fact they didn't live in this part of this environment shows how poor in food it was. They lived in south west Tasmania, but largely towards the coast. The SW highlands were too tough even for them.
Its also interesting that you immediately presume that becuase the convicts are from the british isles and ireland that they would be rendered so disbaled when attempting to hunt. The convicts will have been undoubtedly exposed to hunting and the forms of hunting throughout their entire lives. You suggest it would be the equivalent of asking ET to change a car tyre.
I "assume" nothing. The hunting they
may have been exposed to at home relied on guns and dogs. They had neither. If you think Nineteenth Century Irish, English and Scottish men, even if they were from the country, could fashion spears and go hunting you're delusional.
You are making generalizations here as the Mimegin group of the paredarerme tribe inhabited the south west region of tasmania
Who lived over near Macquarie Harbour and along the SW coast.
Perhaps between cheese sandwiches on your next trek ask your tour guide how people actually DID comfortably survive in that environment all those years ago
Thanks, but given that I've been there, I know the relevant history and I have done
survival training in the area, including a (hungry) week living off the land, I think I know what I'm talking about.
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.comHistory vs The Da Vinci Code
reply
share
MakoKiller
14 years ago
__________________________________________________________________
It wasn't? It has a scene where two guys say "We've got no guns, how can we hunt?" / "Yeah, even if we saw any game" and another scene where a character proves the same point by not being able to catch the one animal they see. So it needed a third scene to make the same point because ... what? Because there might be really, really dumb people in the audience who didn't get it the first two times the point was made? Do you work for a Hollywood studio or something?
__________________________________________________________________________
I will continue to disagree with you on this as the fact they used a couple lines of dialogue as a cheap offering to explain the lack of attempt at hunting tells me the filmmakers were lazy. The scene you refer to where an animal was chased was also poorly conceived. No animal was shown and the characters attempt was ridicled - thus giving the possible impression there was no animal at all.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Bollocks. The Tasmanian Aborigines lived in Tasmania for 40,000 years and had an extremely sophisticated basis for getting food from their environment. The fact they didn't live in this part of this environment shows how poor in food it was. They lived in south west Tasmania, but largely towards the coast. The SW highlands were too tough even for them.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The first time I have ever heard the work 'sophisticated' with Tasmanian aboriginal hunting - a tribe that only began using sharpened stone tools in the later part of their history.
As you would know aborigines are a nomad race and move from area to area in search for food and often moved inland for hunting during seasons of the year.
Your statement that they never ventured away from the coast is wrong and ill informed.
I also refuse to accept statements such as "I have done survival training" and "I have been there" as basis for concluding any discussion. I have travelled extensively and experience bushwalking, desert trekking and jungle camping in many different parts of the world as well as having a strong interest in Aboringine and other tribal cultures. I am also very good friends with tasmanians who are from the bush so I too also "think I know what I'm talking about"
reply
share
Sextus
14 years ago
The first time I have ever heard the work 'sophisticated' with Tasmanian aboriginal hunting - a tribe that only began using sharpened stone tools in the later part of their history.
That is simply wrong. And they were sophisticated enough to live comfortably off the land in a harsh environment for 40,000 years.
As you would know aborigines are a nomad race and move from area to area in search for food and often moved inland for hunting during seasons of the year.
And we know from archaeology that the range of the SW tribe didn't include this area for precisely the reason I've highlighted - lack of food supplies.
Your statement that they never ventured away from the coast is wrong and ill informed.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said their range was closer to the coast and the Macquarie Harbour area and not as far west as the country Pearce and Co crossed.
I also refuse to accept statements such as "I have done survival training" and "I have been there" as basis for concluding any discussion.
How very convenient for you. Unfortuately I have done survival training in Tasmania and I haven't just "been there", I LIVED there for over 20 years. But keep telling yourself you somehow know more about how to live off the land there than me if it makes you feel better.
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.comHistory vs The Da Vinci Code
reply
share
MakoKiller
14 years ago
Then do your research
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002548.html
reply
share
Sextus
14 years ago
Then do your research
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002548.html
You don't seem to have a grasp of the relevant geography. I'm quite aware of the significance of the Kutikina Cave site. I also, unlike you it seems, know where it is. It's a mere 20 kms east of Port Macquarie. There is no evidence of Aboriginal inhabitance further east, in the territory that Pearce and Co. traversed, until you get to the upper stretches of the Derwent and Florentine Valleys, which was the territory of the Big River tribe.
I also notice you haven't backed up your nonsense about how the Tasmanian aborigines didn't use stone tools until later in their history.
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.comHistory vs The Da Vinci Code
reply
share
MakoKiller
14 years ago
What region are you saying these convicts were lost in because you seem to be changing your stance on this, first it was SW tasmania was uninhabitable - that was incorrect, now you are pointing towards the south eastern/central region. Pearce was picked up around Ouse, he had travelled east to get there, barely an hour south of Kutikina cave. Are you therefore saying Aboringines lived happily in this region but were incapable of living 80-90 Kms south of there?
" mere 20 kms?" That is laughable especially when you arguement is based on how difficult the terrain is to travel on. It is safe to say tribes did not commute this distance day to day.
reply
share
Sextus
14 years ago
What region are you saying these convicts were lost in because you seem to be changing your stance on this,
No, I’m not. According to Paul Collins’ book
Hell’s Gates, which the film-makers used as their primary source of research, they seem to have headed due east, passing south of Mount McCutcheon and crossing the Engineer Ranges and heading to the upper Derwent.
first it was SW tasmania was uninhabitable
Where did I say “uninhabitable”? I said the Aborigines didn’t include this area in their range because of the relative lack of food compared to the coastal area and the areas near Port Macquarie. That doesn’t mean it was “uninhabitable”, but it does mean that if the locals didn’t go there much because of the lack of food a group of clueless convicts would have little to no hope of sustaining themselves off the land.
now you are pointing towards the south eastern/central region.
I’m doing nothing of the sort.
Pearce was picked up around Ouse
Which is almost directly east of Port Macquarie on the route I mention above.
he had travelled east to get there
Yes.
barely an hour south of Kutikina cave.
What? Kutikina Cave is on the frigging Franklin river and is about 60 kms
west of Ouse. What on earth are you talking about?
Are you therefore saying Aboringines lived happily in this region but were incapable of living 80-90 Kms south of there?
“South”? You’re now more lost than Pearce ever was. Try to keep up. The Aborigines lived near Port Macquarie. Kutikina Cave is only 20 kms
east from Port Macquarie (ie “near”). But they didn’t range much further east than that because difficult country between there and the upper Florentine and Derwent was relatively food-poor. So we find no Aboriginal sites in this area.
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.comHistory vs The Da Vinci Code
reply
share
MakoKiller
14 years ago
What? Kutikina Cave is on the frigging Franklin river and is about 60 kms west of Ouse. What on earth are you talking about?
______________________________________________________________________________
Forgive my lazy description here, I was referring to the fact that the trail the convicts took would have passed south of this region and that the regions shared similarities in terms of environment and wildlife, indeed the Franklin-Gordon wild rivers national park has numerous aborinal sites, proof aborogines lived in these areas, much further east then you suggest.
_____________________________________________________________________________
But they didn’t range much further east than that because difficult country between there and the upper Florentine and Derwent was relatively food-poor. So we find no Aboriginal sites in this area
______________________________________________________________________________
http://facesoftheflorentine.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/florentine-factsheet.pdf
- This website will advise you of the richness the upper Florentine Valley produces and the Aboriginal heritage it beholds - dating back over 30,000 years
Some of your statements - much as you have likely found mine, have been somewhat presumptuous and ambiguous however its all good for healthy debate. I would love to visit this region myself one day, I'm sure its beautiful.
If you are really keen on bush survival and tales of extreme survival be sure to look out for any shows by Ray Mears, one particular episode detailing WW2 pilots crash landed in Arheim Land in NT - oh and avoid any shows with Bear Grylls
reply
share
cailyoung
14 years ago
No, I’m not. According to Paul Collins’ book Hell’s Gates, which the film-makers used as their primary source of research,
Whilst I appreciate your spirited defence of the reality depicted in the film, please don't make any assumptions as to the research sources for the writers of Van Diemen's Land.
reply
share
Corrette
14 years ago
Have been following this thread with great interest. Just wrote a lengthy message but lost the lot when my computer unexpectedly crashed. What follows is an abridged version.
Completely agree with Da-Vinci-Code-Is-Garbage. I'm a born and bred Taswegian, now resident in Europe; my forefathers arrived in Tassie in 1823, and I am well familiar with the countryside, the native flora and fauna, and the conditions that Pearce and co. would have encountered upon their 'escape'.
I found 'Van Dieman's Land' to be thought provoking, wholly credible, and a realistic representation of what must have happened.
I'm sure that none of the convicts would have been familiar with hunting and/or fending for themselves 'in the wild' back in Britain or Ireland, just as I'm certain that they probably wouldn't/couldn't even have known exactly what wildlife existed in the south west of Tasmania. Given that they only had axes and knives, or at least no real hunting implements, I don't see how they could have hoped to capture native animals which, as Da-Vinci-Code-Is-Garbage correctly points out, are nocturnal. They had no torches, flashlights or candles for night hunting.
I can't see that that what the aborigines did or didn't do is terribly relevant; they knew where to find food and how to capture it, whereas the convicts did not.
Cheers,
Florio
To midnight purple, who complained that she 'unfortunately' had to live in Tasmania for 2 years, I can only say that the state is probably better off without her if she could not appreciate what a beautiful and unique place Tasmania is.
reply
share