BS: Romans Discovered America?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 12:49 PM

Bronze sword that spent 2000 years on the ocean floor? I doubt it would survive looking like the one in the pic. And the Romans were iron age folks, so it makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:49 AM

Well EBanacle
"Les, I believe the concept you a looking for is that is that either a theory or hypothesis should be capable of being tested. "

Very good point EB and I rather hope I had found that but what I was after was the use of the word theory by the people who gather evidence in the studiuos world that reveals most new knowledge.

Best wushes

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:13 AM

Are you sure Romans discovered America?

You see, wherever they went, they left a bit of culture...

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 11:28 PM

Les, I believe the concept you a looking for is that is that either a theory or hypothesis should be capable of being tested.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:50 PM

""All ancient and modern Native Americans possess mitochondrial (maternally-inherited) and Y-chromosome (paternally-inherited) lineages that are descended from those found in peoples of Siberia. They are not found in ancient or modern Europeans. Comparisons of bi-parentally inherited nuclear markers also show a close relationship between all Native Americans and Siberians, not Europeans.""



Native American Ancentry from DNA analysis 

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:53 PM

Also true and language good & otherwise

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM

They do tend to leave their y characters scattered around though, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

True

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM

Hunter gatherers leave little archeolog.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:26 PM

Pleasure HiLo, the other important point that JD makes and I completely forgot was the absence of decent grain plants in North America. No wheat, barley, rye or rice. It took people in central America a long time to selectively bread corn to the point where it was a staple.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

I have read Jared Diamond,s book and found it very interesting but not always convincing. I did read, many years ago, a book by Elaine Dewar called "Bones, Discovering The First Americans". She talked a lot about the sites in the Southern Hemisphere and asked the same question that also occurred to me. Thanks for your reply, I will now go back and have another look at both authors.
Very interesting and informative thread, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:44 PM

Good question HiLo. Hunter Gathers came round the 'top' all the evidence points to that. All the big sites containing large public buildings are found in central and south America they were built by farming communities. It is not possible to farm in the north. Farming did occur in the Mississippi Valley and large earthworks and such like were erected there.

Jared Diamond has written a lot on this in Germs, Guns & Steel:


Here

Best wishes

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:06 PM

This is not a suject I know a great deal about, so I do hope my question will be taken as coming from one who is just curious. It is assumed that people originally came to the western hemisphere over a land bridge in the far North. Then why are so many of the major archeological finds regarding early human habitations in the western hemisphere found in the far south of the hemisphere. If people came in through the North why do the sites not begin in the North. It is just that I have always wondered about that. Could people have come from the Pacific side of South America ?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:11 AM

Thanks a lot TheSnail you saved me a lot of digging about.

People outside science and for that matter outside of most academic study use the word and so the concept "theory" to mean any idea that may or may not have some kind of possibility of turning out to be right:

"Their is a theory that many Indo-European languages have so much in common that they have a common root in a language spoken thousands of years ago. "Most languages in Europe, the Middle-East, and India appear to descend from a common ancestral language known to scholars as "proto-Indo-European," as set forth by William Jones and his work with Sanskrit."

When Jones spotted the likenesses he was suggesting what scholars now call a hypothesis. After a period in which much study was carried out and much evidence collected it can rightly be called a theory. So a theory is a collection of evidence and ideas that hang together well, help to explain things and make predictions possible.

The peopling of the planet is a fascinating story which is being revealed by detailed academic study of genes, archaeology and language.

Sorry for be patronising EBarnacle but academic study leads to a deeper understanding. Suggestions built on almost no evidence at all are just a waste of time and a distraction.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM

First, EBarnacle, I think you need to check up on the meaning of Theory in the scientific world. It is different from the use of the word in everyday speech. From Wikipedia -
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
I don't think Prof. Griffhorn's ideas quite satisfy that. Les is being generous when he says "It might be a hypothesis.". I don't think it gets beyond speculation.

Against my better judgement, I watched the programme.
Unless the epidemiological
The programme itself says that TB was found at other pre-Columbian sites in South America.
and genetic evidence
There have been Europeans in South America for nigh on 500 years and the indigenous population have a significant amount of European genes, mostly from Spain. Gosh.
If you can demonstrate a valid reason for the theory to be wrong,
Not how science works, EB. It is up to the proposer of a hypothesis to make predictions that are subject to falsifiability. There are none.
other than "He's crazy,"
Hmmm.

Another interesting take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:50 AM

"Rather than making the issue one of mass [which is really an inertia issue] you should be looking at fluid resistance."

As I said, mass increases with the cube, drag by the square, all dimensions being proportional.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:19 AM

Sorry, Les, it's a theory. If you don't accept the evidence as presented, that's your choice. In either case the data, such as they are, should be testable. Now, if you want something untestable, tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Paul, as someone pointed out earlier, canoes also are ribbed vessels, dependent upon ribs for their shape. Rather than making the issue one of mass [which is really an inertia issue] you should be looking at fluid resistance. It is possible to greatly increase mass while only minimally increasing resistance. Part of the reason for increasing the number of sails in the 19th century was that ship owners needed to make sails more handleable by the reduced crews they were willing to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM

"Okay so why didn't Islamic (Moorish?) ships come over sometime around Colummbus? "

Moorish ships at that period were galleys- powered by sail when conditions were right, but mostly by oar. They didn't use the dhows of the Indian ocean (even there, trade was normally by coastwise hops). They had to be long (so you can get enough rowing manpower on board), low in the water (so the rowers can reach without the oars being too long and heavy), slender and shallow (so they aren't too heavy for the rowers to move), and you had to feed and water the rowers (you can't afford your power plant to break down mid- voyage), and that means the bigger the power unit, the bigger the fuel bunkers. In addition, they were shell- built which was excellent to keep down the weight, but not good for oceangoing strength in a big vessel, and has a definite limit on size.

Note that they don't benefit from what Brunel realised at the start of the iron ship age- that if you scale up the ship, the volume goes up by the cube of the scale, whereas the drag only goes up be the square, because they can't scale width and depth as well as length because of the oar power.

Sail powered ships have a different, smaller problem - they mass is cubed, but the sail area only squared- reducing agility and manoeuvrability. This was mitigated (much later than C's time) by adding more masts and more sails on each mast, culminating in the clippers and the three skysail yarder bound south round the Horn. The framed ship could be made strong enough to take it.

So it's the same old same old, a conflict between the construction technology and the power requirements. And that's assuming the Moors ever thought it desirable to go there.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:08 AM

Call me a pedant on this but it's not a theory at all. It might be a hypothesis. It is a poor hypothesis with no supporting evidence so not really a hypothesis at all unless someone can come up with some evidence

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:44 AM

Yes, Snail, that's the show.
Unless the epidemiological and genetic evidence can be accounted for, it's still a theory. If you can demonstrate a valid reason for the theory to be wrong, other than "He's crazy," various of the arguments on this thread might hold more water. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:51 PM

"After all, something was true in 980 that was still true in 1400, and is still true in 2016, and that's the laws of physics."

That's not what he's talking about. HOW to burn a heretic at the stake never changes. That's your physics. WHY to burn a heretic at the stake changed from 980-1400-2015AD. That's morals and priorities. So you need to adjust your theory backwards to the other priorities, whatever they were?. Hope this helps.

Phil & Paul: Okay so why didn't Islamic (Moorish?) ships come over sometime around Colummbus?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Phil, that's all a bit incoherent. I really don't think the Templars had much to do with Greenland, and I don't think anyone else does. Even bishops didn't go there much (a bishop appointed for 98 out of 400 years, and the probability that several of them never even saw the place). Promissory notes would have been small use to Greenlanders, a boatload of hay would have been rather more use, if they could have got one there often enough. Six years of tithes at one go suggests a shortage of boats, not a plethora of wealth.

We aren't, or weren't, discussing why the Catholic Church kept secret latifundia scrimshaw factories in Greenland (though it would be fascinating to see any evidence that they did). We started with a palpably fake "Roman" sword, and a discussion developed of why it took 5000 years from the beginning of seagoing navigation for Atlantic crossings to become commonplace (in either direction, and we could talk about the Pacific too).

Note that "commonplace"- we're talking here about a step change (less than 30 years) from a possible blow-in every thousand years that left no trace, to a complete disruption of society for practically every inhabitant of a continent, thanks to a conveyor belt of ships carrying social, genetic, microbial, technological and linguistic change, and a corresponding worldwide ripple (or tsunami) effect back in the other direction. Including why you might eat an Indian takeaway with tomatoes, chili and potato in it.

Perhaps something was true in 1400 that hadn't been true in 980, and that something was to do with ship technology (you can add gunpowder to that)? After all, something was true in 980 that was still true in 1400, and is still true in 2016, and that's the laws of physics.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:52 PM

Leena: For you and you alone; Meme = Banana Oil. Careful or this could go "meta."

Else: Memetics. In this context "contemporary meme" is shorthand for presentism, now and between the sixteen generations of Scandinavians. ie: What was true in c.980AD was barely true in c.1400AD and rarely true in 2015AD. So it is we who need to adjust perspective, not the dead folks. As applied to caravel/capacity:

We retroactively & arbitrarily assign the responsibility (and blame) for North American development to the Europeans and further give it a singular priority to suit (Pre-Columbianism.) Ergo if it didn't happen immediately according to the 2015 meme it must have been a lack of pre-1492AD capacity/capability on the part of the Euros. Development is defined as negative cultural impact and cooexistence as as type of European failure.

But for c.1100AD Catholics, bulk freight forwarding to and from the Middle East and the East had become such huge business it was a target for criminal elements along the trade routes. The Templars & other Orders responded by developing distributed credit and information systems to shift data in lieu of corporeal objects (eg: Letters of Credit v kilos of gold.) However these systems relied heavily on equally developed, bordering cultures at the other end (Orthodoxy to the East & Islam to the South.) The West was a cultural/technological/commercial vacuum simply not ready for prime time.

Greenlanders were grown men and women living their own lives. They were free to blame it on the backward skræling and get around to fixing somebody else's problem when it suited their own priorities (embargo, climate change, famine, plague, crusade, etc.) A matter of preference not capacity since Catholics would believe it was the management and accounting systems they needed, the bulk commodities would sort themselves out in the free markets, of which Native Americans had none... yet. Those systems were the root cause of the cultural displacements that followed in their own times not the gross tonnages they made possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM

The idea of the meme was developed by Richard Dawkins (from an earlier idea, whose, I can't remember) to express the possibility that ideas can behave like genes- they can propagate in a suitable environment, they can mutate, and that like genes they can pass from one host to another without necessarily benefiting the host. Think of a virus gene in a human being.

In fact the idea propagated well, and mutated quite a lot. It now has a life of its own that doesn't code for what Dawkins originally expressed. This not only illustrates brilliantly, if accidentally, his point, but also carries a bit of a warning about deliberate intervention in genomes. They do what they do, which isn't necessarily what we want them to do. It also means that we no longer have a word for the original Dawkins meme (though the idea is still valid).

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 12:33 PM

Somebody upthread used the word meme. I decided it's time I learned what a meme is.

"1. an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

2. a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users."
=========
It's a great word for wrangling. You can make it mean anything from the Ten Commandments to a picture of Daffy Duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

Xlnt Snail: "This was really terrible, and the only significant difference between this show and America Unearthed in terms of quality of evidence and the desire to find hidden white people in the Americas is that this show searched South America rather than North America, and its hero never claimed that there was a conspiracy trying to suppress his work."

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM

EBarnacle is this the programme - Carthage's Lost Warriors?
I found it through this - review.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:42 AM

Perhaps I should have said mid-Atlantic rather than north. I was thinking predominantly west to east weather systems plus the Gulf Stream moving the water. I know that the Vikings could do the very north Atlantic route both ways as far as Greenland so America, after that was nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 01:44 AM

Stanron: "my understanding is that if you stick to the northern hemisphere getting back is easier than getting there."

Depends, east from L'Anse aux Meadows to Bergen is over two thousand miles but one would have waypoints along the route. A month is making good time. A slightly shorter route direct from Greenland was made several times a year in different eras, depending.

On the other hand going west at the 65th parallel one may be completely out of sight of land for only about 20-25 hours. By keeping Snæfellsjökull, Iceland dead astern and sailing just north of west it's barely four days to the Skerries off Kulusuk, Geenland. The ancient eastern seaboard colony at modern day Tasiilaq is about another day coastwise. With clement weather the east crossing can actually be a bit of a let down for first-timers after the odyssean build up in their history texts.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:11 PM

Carthaginian Celts eh? Curiouser and curiouser. Afghan Maoris next, followed by Lancaster bombers on the moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:39 PM

Les, I am merely pointing in the direction of what is reported, not sitting in front of the telly with a notepad in hand. Apparently, though, the data have been peer reviewed.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:51 PM

"Based on both genetic and archeological evidence, it is likely that they ended up in Brazil,"

Really - show us the "evidence" then

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 11:36 AM

But weren't the inhabitants of Carthage Punic?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 10:45 AM

Last night, on Public Television, there was a story about the significant possibility that Carthaginian Celts were pushed out of Iberia by the Romans. Based on both genetic and archeological evidence, it is likely that they ended up in Brazil, where they disseminated through South America. This would support the hypothesis that the Romans or one of their contemporary cultures might have been the source of the wreck under discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:01 AM

Tim Severin's book "The Brendan Voyage" is well worth the read.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Stanron
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 11:36 PM

Has anyone already mentioned St Brendan's leather boat? Columbus was aware of his story and Tim Severin built a replica and managed to sail it from Ireland to America. St Brendan, if he did make it to America, also made it back, indeed my understanding is that if you stick to the northern hemisphere getting back is easier than getting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Thing #1: Detailed knowledge of North America's existence and location at northern latitudes was commerce for sixteen (16) generations before Columbus. It was a profitable Roman Catholic Diocese. Fwiw one of the safest places for a Euro to be during their 14th century famines, plagues and wars.

Thing #2: The (non-Hollywood) 1100-1300 Knights Templar and lesser known Teutonic Order were arguably the world's first multinational corporations. Native Americans had absolutely nothing like them to routinely manage information and technology across similar distances and subcultures.

Trivia: Infante Henrique (aka: Henry the Navigator) was Grand Master of the Military Order of Christ, (14th century Portugal's Knights Templar 2.0)

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM

Paul: "...was the tree named from the ship or the ship from the tree?"

The ship is supposedly descended from Latin-Greek-Arab (Moorish generic 'qârib' for ship.) The weird thing is carvel planking should be 'pinho' (for pine.) The oak is in the framing, not the planking.


"But the important thing is that up to those developments no one had the technology to make much impact on the far side of the Atlantic"

A contemporary meme. Technology follows demand and cultural impact was not part of the Greenlander's metric. If the RCC had perceived its Holy Land or Prester John to be on the Davis Strait, Sigurd's sixty ships and 5,000 men could have easily sailed west not south in 1107AD.


"so much so that pseudohistorians desperate to populate preColumbian America with anyone except American Indians have to resort to forgery and tourist trinkets to push their claims."

Indigenous migrations don't belong in a discussion of deliberate exploration and discovery (neither do "Chariots of the Gods".) It's not even apples and oranges. It's peppermint and tuna. European Catholics were the first people to explore and feck up (or develop) ALL of the Americas. Native Americans on both continents failed to reciprocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:41 AM

EBarnacle: "We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going."

Most likely outcome is it didn't (another wreck, another expert:)
http://en.unesco.org/news/shipwreck-not-santa-maria-unesco-experts-say

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

Someone has fecked it up anyway, AND IT WAS NOT THE RED INDIANS

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM

We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going.

Or rather, IF it did, which is highly questionable to say the least.

Evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:33 AM

Tis the most discovered country that's ever yet been seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 12:41 AM

We still don't know how or why the Roman ship got where it was going.

Although I don't know the story of the sword found there, I do know that a company here in the States sells [or did sell] bronze Roman swords.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:44 PM

One way of looking at it, the entire Old World - Asia, Africa and Europe - is an island.

So is the New World, but a much smaller one.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:36 AM

The Scandanavians were not wedded to clinker hull design nor was carvel a Basque trade secret.

Of course not. The important thing is that frame- built construction was strong and rigid enough to take the strain of sailing closer to the wind, and in worse conditions, than shell- built boats could manage. This in turn allowed the use of multiple masts and more complex and powerful sail plans. The function of the frame in the ship is more important than the planking- you can have overlapping planking with or without a frame, and with or without plank- to - plank stitching. Edge to edge planking needs a frame however. Also, the use of a frame doesn't necessarily imply design for Atlantic voyaging.

And the final development of the seagoing, framed, carvel built hull with more than one mast does seem to have occurred over a period of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years, along the Basque costline and neighbouring areas, and England was near enough to take part in that development. These ships enabled the Portuguese expansion along the African coast and eventually into the Indian Ocean. It also enabled the Basque, Breton and English fishing and whaling voyages that (probably) discovered the Grand Banks, and Columbus's voyages to "India" and more importantly the subsequent exploitation of the discoveries by Spanish adventurers.

Does anyone know enough Portuguese etymology to say which way their word for 'oak' (carvalho) developed - was the tree named from the ship or the ship from the tree?

But the important thing is that up to those developments no one had the technology to make much impact on the far side of the Atlantic, so much so that pseudohistorians desperate to populate preColumbian America with anyone except American Indians have to resort to forgery and tourist trinkets to push their claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: banjoman
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 05:14 AM

I was caught out with the same question. It could be argued that Australia is a continent not an island and that since the building of the Suez canal, Africa could be considered an Island.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM

My love is like a red red sheep's offal

I do love a McSween, split open and packed into a baking tray, a layer of chopped spring onion or leek, covered with a layer of mustard mashed potato. Stuck in the oven and towards the end, grilled with a sprinkling of cheddar.

I still remember at school being caught out by a question; what was the largest island before Australia was discovered?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:56 PM

Address to a Haggis
[Robert Burns (1759 – 1796)]

Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o' the puddin-race!
Aboon them a' ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o' a grace
As lang's my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o' need,
While thro' your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see rustic Labour dicht,
An' cut you up wi' ready slicht,
Trenching your gushing entrails bricht,
Like ony ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sicht,
Warm-reekin, rich!

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an' strive:
Deil tak the hindmaist! on they drive,
Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve,
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
"Bethankit" hums.

Is there that o're his French ragout
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi' perfect scunner,
Looks down wi' sneering, scornfu' view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him ower his trash,
As feckless as a wither'd rash,
His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro' bloody flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!

But mark the Rustic, haggis fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread.
Clap in his wallie nieve a blade,
He'll mak it whistle;
An' legs an' arms, an' heads will sned,
Like taps o' thristle.

Ye Pow'rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o' fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinkin ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu' prayer,
Gie her a haggis!


:::sniffle:::
Is somebody slicing onions in here?

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:55 PM

Banjoman: America has always been there so it has never been discovered except by the first inhabitants."
Just as the history of the Atlantic seaboard will not resolve itself into convient chunks to suit a contemporary meme, neither will the Pacific. "First people" Inuit culture crossed the Bering or points north almost two centuries after the Icelandic Alþingi's land grants. The Europeans lived in relative harmony with the preceding (now extinct) Thule culture for almost two centuries prior to that.

Either way nobody coming from the west was at any time importing anything like the overarching management, accounting and communication systems of the Roman Catholic Church. No one "First Peoples" came close to navigating the North & South Atlantic; the Caribbean; and the Pacific as did the Catholic Europeans. Handwriting was, literally, on the wall centuries before the arrival of guns, germs, steel, ad nauseum.


Ebarnacle: On reflection, clinker built vessels are as capable as carvel planked hulls."
The largest North American war canoes were probably as capable as the smaller European vessels coastwise and inland amongst the colonies.

The Scandanavians were not wedded to clinker hull design nor was carvel a Basque trade secret. In 1492 one of the largest ships afloat was the Hanseatic League's already thirty year old "Peter von Danzig" (51m.) The English "Grace Dieu" was even older and larger (built c.1420–1439AD, 66.4m; 1400 tons-2,750 tons.) By comparison Columbus' Niña was maybe 15m and 60 tons.

Subject: RE: BS: Romans Discovered America?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 01:20 PM

What Banjoman said.