 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Early Visitors to North America
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lonesome EJ Date: 27 Aug 01 - 02:52 PM OK, McGrath. Substitute "white people" in each instance where "Caucasians" appears, although Pink or Beige people might be more accurate. When speaking of the "Kennewick Man" I used Caucasian rather than European, because of the possibility that the individual could have come from Asia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: GUEST,petr Date: 27 Aug 01 - 04:09 PM Clinton, just wanted to point out that Columbus went to his grave thinking he reached asia. (although at the time of his expedition there was some discrepancy on the size of the Earth, he believed it was significantly smaller while there were some scholars that correctly surmised that the size of the Earth was much larger than he believed and raised that as problem in reaching CHina and Chipango (or Japan) I read in the papers recently (a few weeks ago) that through DNA studies (at least one wave of emigration from asia - came from Japan (the Jomon culture of 15,000 b.p.) and recently scholars have suggested that the migration during the Ice age was along the coast of alaska and b.c. as there would be an abundance of food (specifically salmon) and that is certainly a faster way to get to south america than by land. its also possible though there is no evidence that Japanese (and Chinese) fishermen may have been shipwrecked on the bc. coast in prehistoric times. the ocean current follows that path and often there are glass floats from Japanese fishing nets found on the coast. re: kennewick man, as far as I know he has not been reburied, perhaps people are confused with bc.s "Iceman" a body of a native hunter found frozen in the rockies (dating back 550 to 600 years) that has been studied and after 2 years was returned to the First Nations for cremation and reburial. PEtr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Aug 01 - 04:31 PM An excellent description of the Viking discovery in Newfoundland.. http://www.wordplay.com/tourism/viking.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lee Shore Date: 28 Aug 01 - 04:05 AM Lepus Rex- You're absolutely right..it IS Lepus! I still think King Wolf would have been cool, but hell, it's your name, spell it anyway you like. So what's a Lepus? I did check the website Kat suggested for Kenniwick Man, and found it very informative. I've no doubt that there are assholes who would indeed use Kenniwick Man (If it is confirmed to be a Caucasian) to "prove" that that gave us the right to screw over the Indians, but those assholes who insist on such things will do so with or without evidence. What I don't like is the idea of covering up scientific evidence that might help us understand human history. The fact that some lone honkie happened to stumble onto this continent 9,000 years ago means nothing more politically than does the fact that Columbus ran aground in the West Indies. There are no rights involved in territorial conquest. There is just what IS, and the winners will write the history books as they have always done. It don't make it right, but it do make it what IS.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lepus Rex Date: 28 Aug 01 - 04:49 PM Lepus=Hare. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: CRANKY YANKEE Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:01 PM Take these FACTS for what they're worth and draw your own conclusions. In Touro park, Newport Rhode Island, USA,. There stands a round stone structure of unusual shape, about 30 feet high. Inside, there is an alcove and chimney about 6 feet long and 3 Ft. high . History says that it was here when the first English Settlers arrived. Benedict Arnold (not the traitor and much later in history)oone of the first settlers, used it for a mill. We locals call it, either Arnold's mill, or the Viking Church. Scandinavian visitors, in my experience, unanimously concurred that there are hundreds of exactly alike edifices all over Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They say that it is a pagan worship site. Leif Ericsson called his (failed) colony, " Vinland" because of the wild grape vines that were growing there. THE ONLY TWO PLACES IN NORTH AMERICA WHERE THERE ARE WILD GRAPEVINES GROWING TO THIS DAY, are the islands of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts and the island of "Rhode Island" "proper" (yes there is an actual Rhode Island) also called by it's Narragansett Indian name, "Aquidneck". On Rhode Island there are only three copmmunities, the town of Portsmouth, the village of Middletown and THE CITY OF NEWPORT. As the tower was here when the first English settlers arrived, AND, THE FIRST AMERICANS (the Indians)COULDN'T HAVE BUILT IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE WHEREWITH OR THE TECHNOLOGY TO BUILD EACH ROW OF STONES EXACTLY PARALLEL AND LEVEL, NOR THE MORTAR FOR LAYING THE STONES. Yoy draw your own conclusions. Jody Gibson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: CRANKY YANKEE Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:24 PM By the Way, Columbus already had been to the Western Hemisphere. His writings reecount voyages to Iceland, Ireland, Greenland and a voyage to a land far to the west, with Norse Pirates.
Of course, you all kinow that piracy was the colombo's family business. Don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:25 PM C.Y. 1. Isn't there an archeological way to tell if the thing is 1000 years old, Rather than a few hundred? Why hasn't this been proved already? 2. It is commonly supposed that Lief Ericsson lied about Vinland to get people to move there. There are millions of blueberrys in that part of the island in the fall. and to someone from Europe, where blueberrys do not grow wild they probably look quite grapelike. 3. The Ingstads used Ericsson's accounts to find the site in Newfoundland. 4. The Newfoundland site contains hundreds of artifacts. Do you believe threre would be none in the "real" Vinland. Most of the world has already drawn their own conclusions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:48 PM Also there's good evidence to support the theory that Vinland was mistranslated by the squinty monk who first wrote it down... Vinland could mean Land of Grapes... it's also very possible, because they are spelled so closely, that Vinland actually meant "Pasture Land" or "Grain Land"... Until the climate goes back to what it was like around 1000 ACR (After Common Reckoning) we just might never know for sure one way or the other... the climate then and now are VASTLY different... so the evidence of wild grapes at "Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts and the island of Rhode Island" is totally immaterial... We do know for sure that the site at L'Anse aux Meadows is the ONLY authenticated Viking site in North America... Someone way earlier in this thread mentioned Greenland... ya... they were there too, but Greenland isn't part of North America... I've also heard the evidence that Chris Col. roamed around with Norse Pirates, and so the theory that he died believing that he found India holds very little water with me... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: katlaughing Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:54 PM Thanks, Jody, another interesting one to look into. Here's a great looking link with piccies and references for each theory: Old Stone Tower in Newport, RI |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 28 Aug 01 - 05:56 PM This is from the Rhode Island tourist site about "The Old Stone Mill" "Much time and effort have been spent to determine the mill's origin. Most popular theory is that it was built by Norsemen before Columbus' voyage; academic theory has it built by a Colonial farmer." I always trust the academics over 'popular theory' Popular Theory... don't the publish the Weekly World News?? LoL!!! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Gareth Date: 28 Aug 01 - 06:58 PM TEmpted as I am to claim the sucess of Prince Maddoc's voyage for us Welsh (Question : Would he have sailed into Mobile Bay without sighting other land enroute) I also beg to raise the subject of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Whilst the Ingoldby Legends ( a Victorian fantasy) mention the diappearence of the Ankle Biters of Hamlin Low grade historians say that this is backed up by a tribe of european apearence in Native Americans. Hmmm ! Question not the Childrens Crusade, which if my memory of history is correct originated in the German Lowlands - which may have a connection with the legend of Hamlin. Just a rock tossed into the pool of the Mudcat !!! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: GUEST,petr Date: 28 Aug 01 - 07:14 PM Actually everything Ive ever read about Columbus says that he died believing he reached Asia (its certainly not a theory), heck even Champlain in his exploration of St. Lawrence carried a Japanese Kimono in the vain hope he would encounter Japanese dignitaries. who says blueberries dont grow wild in Europe, I dont know about the Scandinavian countries but I certainly did my share of wild blueberry picking in Czechoslovakia as a kid. Petr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 28 Aug 01 - 08:54 PM Everything about history, most sciences for that matter, is theory... When it comes to history, it's all so open to interpretation, that there very nearly is NO fact... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: katlaughing Date: 28 Aug 01 - 10:48 PM Here's a little bit more to stir into the pot: Islam and Muslims were not new to the Americas. Columbus' idea, the theory that the earth is round, had been elaborated by Muslims, who had measured the earth's circumference seven hundred years before Columbus. In 1312, Mansa Abu Bakr of Mali is believed to have traveled from the Sengambian region of the African coast to the Gulf of Mexico. This account, which has recently captured the attention of scholars in Britain and America, comes to us by the way of al-Omari, a Muslim historian whose work shed much light on medieval African kingdoms in the sub-Saharan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lee Shore Date: 29 Aug 01 - 05:35 AM Gareth: Yes! Prince Maddoc...that was the guy. According to the book, Children of the First Man, which may well be bullshit, but is nonetheless a good read, There were actually two trips: the first to the East coast of the Florida Penn. which resulted in most of the party dying of various fevers in the Everglades, and a second, which is when the Welshmen sailed around into the Gulf and up to Mobile Bay, whence they traveled up the Mississippi Valley to around Louisville, then up the Missouri Valley. Somewhere along there they encountered the Mandans and mated with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Willie-O Date: 29 Aug 01 - 09:40 AM Don't know from Prince Madoc, but Madoc Ontario is sixty miles west of here as the land liner rolls... I said: It is entirely credible that they would have set up expeditions to Newfoundland, Labrador and possibly farther inland. BUT NOT TOLD THE WHOLE WORLD WHERE THEY WERE GETTING THEIR GOODS for obvious reasons. They didn't want the competition here. Logically they might have set up at least seasonal, and possibly semi-permanent settlements to organize their resource-harvesting activities LEJ replied:
The last question has already been answered. You can get here via Greenland, with enough luck, navigation skills, and warm clothing, but it ain't a pretty picture. Before that, I didn't say the knowledge was widespread as such. I'm sure the crews who made the voyage and returned would have talked about it. Doesn't mean it got written down in any enduring form. And bear in mind, we could be talking of not only pre-Columbian but pre-Viking era voyages. Yer late Dark Ages. Awhile back there was a similar thread where I was referring to Farley Mowat's interesting recent book "The Farfarers". It's his hypothesis of a seafaring people--he calls them Albans-- who, squeezed north and west by the competition of the Celts and Picts, preceded the Vikings into Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland and Labrador in pursuit of walrus. Hypothetical being the keyword, but Mowat makes note of an ethnic group of Newfoundlanders, known there as "Jakatars", who he believes to be the descendants of his Albans. W-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Peg Date: 29 Aug 01 - 10:26 AM I wish to know how one states with authority something like "THE ONLY TWO PLACES where wild grapes are found etc."????? have you travelled and explored every damn inch of this continent, C.Y? No? I didn't think so. I grew up hundreds of miles inland from Cape Cod and Rhode Island; and we had wild grapes all over the place. It's a quaint pronouncement; but it ain't a FACT.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Willie-O Date: 29 Aug 01 - 10:41 AM Just read a lot of the Prince Madoc stuff, very interesting. Note that this story is not nearly as hypothetical as Mowat's and my general conjectures above, since there is evidence both in recorded Welsh history and in American archeology, anthropology and oral, later written histories. Makes one wonder, what's the case _against_ the Prince Madoc story? How else might those stone forts have originated? Madoc's motivation and means is also credible, as he was a prince, thus had means, but not the firstborn, so would have always been a second, or third, or tenth fiddle at home... I don't suppose he ever made it to his namesake town in Ontario though. W-O
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 29 Aug 01 - 11:02 AM Regarding Kennewick Man, a number of similar skeletal remains have been found in North America (if I recall correctly, about 14) and he is indeed old(10,000+). However he did not resemble Polynesians, the closest morphologically similar skull structure is that of the modern Ainu of northern Japan, who's bone structure is similar to to that of Caucasions.
Apparently the bones of the same people have been found throughout Asia, dating until about 30,000 years ago, but they disappeared (or became assimilated) in Asia earlier than they did in North America and the Ainu are the only closely similar remnant population remaining. The latest is, that these people were the forebearers of the Amer-American indiginous population and that they persisted morphologically unchanged in North America longer than the resident population of Asia (excluding the Ainu). There was a documentary on the Discovery Channel about a month ago regarding recent ideas and discoveries regarding Kennewick Man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 29 Aug 01 - 11:11 AM Here is a bit of information that was covered in the documentary click here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: harpgirl Date: 29 Aug 01 - 12:45 PM ...excuse me if someone has already mentioned this but I just read "The Seven Daughters of Eve" which is about Bryan Sykes mitochondrial DNA research and it is a must read if you are interested in the origins of homosapiens or geneology. His website : www.oxfordancestors.com will track your ancestors using your DNA. It's a bit pricey but well worth it I think. I lent the book out already or I would be able to quote but he addresses many of the preceding issues with his DNA research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Aug 01 - 02:43 PM I like best the idea of generations of anthropologists digging down to the "clovis" layer - and then STOPPING because everybody already knew that there were no earlier settlements... and I would also recommend The World History of the Basques, which tells how they were there for what might have been centuries, fishing and not telling anybody where their fishing grounds were... Also, fun fact to know and tell even if it is thread creep: If Columbus' sails hadn't been made of hemp he'd have foundered half-way across when the sails rotten off the masts and rigging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Aug 01 - 03:14 PM Petr, I read that thing about the blueberrys a long time ago in an article about this very subject. I'll try to find it again to see exactly what the guy said and what evidence he used. Peg, From what you said. It looks like the grape/berry factor proves nothing. Who knows what grew where 500-600 years before any records were kept? Clinton I also think you are right Vinland referred to pasture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: MMario Date: 29 Aug 01 - 03:29 PM according to this page and several others blueberries are a native american species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lepus Rex Date: 29 Aug 01 - 03:39 PM MMario, maybe petr meant the closely related and very similar bilberry. Metchosin, how the Hell could I forget about the Ainu? Thanks for the correction. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Lepus Rex Date: 29 Aug 01 - 03:44 PM Go here for some better vaccinium info. I'm so lame. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Aug 01 - 04:21 PM I'm not right or wrong about vinland refering to pasture land... it's just a theory... like the Wild Grapes thing... No one can say with 100% authority what "Vinland" means... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Grab Date: 30 Aug 01 - 09:16 AM Blueberries grow on bushes a couple of feet high. Bilberries grow on little plants about the size of heather plants (and indeed are often found amongst heather in Britain). Difficult to see how either could be confused with grape-vines, even if the berries were similar... Graham.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Aug 01 - 10:26 AM ClintonHammond, about vinland meaning pasture, I was just stating what I think. The blueberrys in Newfoundland grow on bushes one two three feet high. There is a species here in the South that grows on bushes as tall as a man. The species are closely related. Did Lief mean pasture? Was he like the salesmen in Glenngarry Glen Ross, lying to "make" a sale? Did he believe that blueberrys were grapes? (growing up in Iceland, he probably wouldn't have seen a lot of grapes.) or did he actually find a place with wild grapes in abundance? We will never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: GUEST,petr Date: 30 Aug 01 - 01:08 PM sorry clint, but there is no evidence that Columbus believed he reached anything other than asia. Its no accident he named the islands the Indies and the natives Indians, there are also surviving letters, reports and journals. Of his 4 voyages to the new world the last was 1504, he died in 1506. Many Europeans continued to think for another hundred years that the newly discovered lands were parts of eastern asia. His contemporary Amerigo Vespucci (whom the continent is named after) didnt think so, also the fact that he sailed in the Northern atlantic to Iceland and may have been aware of the Norse sagas doesnt mean he wouldnt think its asia that the land refers to. Someone also mentioned above that Islamic scholars knew for hundreds of years the earth was round and calculated the circumference. Actually Eratosthenes the Greek calculated the circumference of the Earth in 200 B.C. and was off only by 4%. In Columbus's time that the earth was round was an accepted fact it was the size that was in dispute. In fact people who believed the earth was much bigger than Columbus thought raised this as an objection to the trip, which would really have been a problem if the Americas werent there. petr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Kaleea Date: 31 Aug 01 - 01:39 AM My anthropologist friends tell me that the current theory re: north America is that someone(s) crossed over from east of Alaska on the ice and later the peoples from Arctic regionss came south. After that came the Europeans to South America and later north America. Or perhaps Elvis in a previous life came from Lemuria via Atlantis--at least that is what I believe. He brought with him the magnificent culture of total communion with God through gyrations (still practiced in many cultures such as the Turk spinning circle dancers, the "Native American" snake dances, and the formerly popluar "Shakers" aka "Quakers"; not to mention the breathtaking arts He brought to us such as painting on Velvet and the ever popluar rituals of gatherings in Los Vegas for group Divine Communion before and after ritual gambling practices, of course. Thank you---Thank you very much! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Aug 01 - 11:48 AM You really believe that tired old wives tale that he named them Indians because he thought they were in India!?!?!?! That theory's been shot down for years!!! They were refered to the "People with God"... In Dios! (sp?) and it got mis-heard... I'll come back with references when I can dig 'em up... ;-) *walks away muttering to himself "Now where the hell did I read that..."* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: MMario Date: 31 Aug 01 - 11:55 AM CLinton - I would be interested in seeing those references if you can find them - I personally find the "India/Indian" connection much more plausible then the latter theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Sourdough Date: 31 Aug 01 - 12:00 PM THere was a mention on NPR yesterday of some Japanese fishermen who were caught in a typhoon and ended up in the NW US in the 19th century and couldn't get home again. More than glass floats for fishing nets apparently have made it across the Pacific. If it happened in the 19th century, it could have happened a lot earlier. It might not have made much cultural differences but each time could have injectd fresh DNA into the genetic pool. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 31 Aug 01 - 12:11 PM I'm surprised that no one has brought up Prince Henry of Orkney into this discussion. My daughter recently visited Rosslyn Chapel, outside of Edinburgh, that has new world plants carved into it's stone work, including Indian corn. All done well before Columbus's visit to North America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 31 Aug 01 - 12:41 PM Most certainly the Sinclair family is convinced of Henry's exploits as noted here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: MMario Date: 31 Aug 01 - 01:16 PM Given the skill of the other carvings - I would say that if it is indeed "maize" the carvings are suppossed to represent - then the stonemason had no models to work from. The "maize" could as easily be lotus pods or poppy seedheads. In fact - the resemble both of those objects more then they resemble maize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 31 Aug 01 - 01:46 PM MMario, Prince William apparently provided drafted plans for the stone masons to use as templates for their carvings according to Father Richard Augustine Hay, Canon of St Genevieve in Paris and Prior of St Piermont. He examined historical records and charters of the St Clairs and completed a three volume study in 1700. I've seen my daughter's photograph of an "ear of corn" and it does not resemble a poppy seedhead, however, she did not take pictures of the various cacti and other new world species referred to at the website, so I can make no comment on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: MMario Date: 31 Aug 01 - 02:23 PM I was going by the carvings on display on the web identified as "ears of corn" - which *do* resemble poppy seedheads or lotus seedheads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: MMario Date: 31 Aug 01 - 02:43 PM This is the same chapel that they claim has a piller graphically representing DNA and a ceiling with encoded musical notation, correct? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Gloredhel Date: 31 Aug 01 - 06:05 PM Kaleea--Shakers and Quakers are two different groups. I want to know why no one believes the St. Brendan thing? I know I haven't heard lots of evidence in favor of it, but I haven't heard any evidence against it either. Comments, anyone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Aug 01 - 10:43 PM It's not important to present evidence to DISPROVE an event... the burden is on the "TO PROVE" side... It's a lack of hard, imperical evidence to back up the claim that leads me to believe it's more than likely untrue... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 Aug 01 - 11:15 PM "In Dios" easily becomes the Spanish indio which refers to both the American and Asian "Indians." The Sinclair and Brendan stories will remain just that unless some supporting evidence is found. Maybe they discovered the Isle of Man and the natives got them drunk enough to believe that they had been afloat for months. You never know. The Canada goose discovered Hawai'i long before the Polynesians and survives as the nene. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: katlaughing Date: 31 Aug 01 - 11:19 PM I realise they were most likely biased, but when I lived in CT, I went to a showing, by the local Hibernian Society, of a docu on some guy who duplicated the the supposed St. Brendan voyage. I think it has since been shown on tv. It was quite interesting and seemed plausible. Maybe Columbo just had a better marketing agency than the guys who went before him.:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Sourdough Date: 01 Sep 01 - 01:20 AM I hada chance to spend an afternoon with Admiral Samuel Eliot Morrison, the outstanding historian and author of Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea. When I see Columbus brushed off as a minor figure by people who know him only as a carboard cutout, I remember Morrison's admiration for the seamanship of Columbus. Morrison spent several years following the voyages of Columbus using his logs for guidance. Columbus' shortcoming regarding social justice are well known but what isn't appreciated, Morrison believed, was his personal courage and his seamanship. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Metchosin Date: 01 Sep 01 - 02:59 AM MMario, I've never heard anything about DNA or musical notes, but I'm sure there are people with a penchant for dabbling in the arcane who try to find connections in anything, no matter how remote and obscure, as some sort of proof of their theories.
Myself, I try to remain fairly open minded about seemingly odd possibilities, despite a healthy dollop of skepticism. After all, if Europeans didn't maintain some doubts regarding the "conventional" theories of the time, they might still be worrying about dropping off the end of the world if they venture too far out into the Atlantic.
My daughter did say there were weird things on the ceiling, but they looked like stars to her. Gee, come to think of it, the symbol for medicine looks like a DNA model too.....weird.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Sep 01 - 12:30 PM I think there have been a couple of people who have redone St. Brend's supposed voyage... An interesting exercise, and a hell of a challenge to any sailor, but just because it can be done in theory, doesn't mean that Brender-boy actually did it... There's still no hard evidence... I'm not sure even what hard evidence would be in this case... We'll probably never find any... Unfortunately |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Early Visitors to North America From: Sourdough Date: 01 Sep 01 - 02:43 PM > An interesting exercise, and a hell of a challenge to any sailor, but just because it can be done in theory, doesn't mean that Brender-boy actually did it... That is a really important point. Take Thor Heyerdahl for examp[le. Thor Heyderdahl made his Kon Tiki journey -8,000 kilometers on a balsa wood raft more than fifty years ago from Ecuador to Polynesia- to prove his theories by experimental archaeology If anyone has seen the documentary about the trip, it is a classic, a real adventure. However, the anthropologists said exactly what Clnton Hammond said, just because he had done it did not mean that he had proved how the peopling had taken place. He also made another series of provocative (as well as controversial) voyages in papyrus boats. He showed that it is possible to cross the Atlantic in these vessels with quite a high degree of safety. He however did not say this is what happened, just that it was possible for a voyage such as this to have taken place. Heyerdahl is now in his eighties, still active, I think. After sixty years as an anthropologist, he has left his mark on the field and no one can talk about the peopleing of the New WOrld or the Pacific islands without at least making reference to him. He may not have discovered THE way these thngs happened but he seems to have proven a way that they MIGHT have happened in conjunction with other processes. Soudough |
|
Subject: Early Visitors... From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Sep 01 - 03:28 PM The Vikings used to have a saying that applies so well to Thor Heyerdahl... "Luck will often save a man, if his courage holds." ;-) |