To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=47046
36 messages

BS: Columbus was second

28 Apr 02 - 10:29 AM (#699790)
Subject: Columbus was second
From: Gareth

This was in the "Observer" (UK) today. 28th April 2002

I reproduce it so that all 'Catters may consider the matter and decide wether "Columbia" is in fact the correct name and description.

Something to declare:


America named after Welsh Customs man

AMERICA was named after a British Customs officer and not, as historians have long believed, the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci, who participated in Christopher Columbus's voyages to the New World.

Martin Waidseemuller, whose 1507 map of the world was the first to show the so-called Unknown Territory as a separate continent, has long been credited with naming the new land after the Florentine nobleman. But according to a new book by Rodney Broome, Amerike, The Briton Who Gave America its Name, the country was named in 1496, years before Vespucci's voyage, by John Cabot, the Bristol-based explorer who stumbled on the continent while searching for trading opportunities.

'Cabot didn't know he had discovered a separate contnent during his earlier jour journey but he mapped the land he saw in detail and named it after the main sponsor of his trip, a Welsh aristocrat called Richard Amerike,' said Broome. Amerike or Ameryk-both Anglicised versions of Ap Maryke - was a wealthy landowner and merchant trader who lived with his wife, Lucy, and their two teenage daughters in Bristol's Clifton Manor.

He built a profitable career by trading with merchants in Spain and Portugal in the lat ter half of the fifteenth century. In 1486 he was made King's Customs' Officer and was encouraged by the King to send his ships on journeys of discovery. When Cabot was given per mission by Henry VII in 1496 to challenge Columbus the race to discover a trading route through the mysterious land mass that barred Europe's route to valuable trading opportunities in Asia, America was in the perfect position to help, says Broome.

According to papers Broome discovered in Westminster Abbey's archives, Vespucci and Columbus used Cabot's maps secretly. 'As their fame grew and Cabot's declined, the misconception grew that it was they who had named the new land,' he said.

I Think there might be a song there somewhere !

Gareth

28 Apr 02 - 10:37 AM (#699792)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: mack/misophist

Maybe even third. Who knows?

28 Apr 02 - 12:00 PM (#699820)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Owain

Hi Gareth, I've, also heard about a document called the Law of Hywel which granted significant status to women, re divorce, property rights, etc. and a representative form of government. Is this true? And it was dated in the 900s which would pre-date the Magna Carta by some 300 years. Being of Welsh heritage I'm doing a study and would be thankful for referrals in this direction.

28 Apr 02 - 12:04 PM (#699826)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Shields Folk

Sorry to burst your bubble lads but the world doesn't revolve around Wales..

It revolves around Tyneside!!!!!!!!!!!!!

28 Apr 02 - 12:45 PM (#699846)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Gareth

Owain- Hereith a few clikies, first two condensed history, the third the catalogue of the Universiuty Press which might assist in more detailed research.

Potted History

The BBC potted history

The University Cataloge

But Yes Hywel Dda (The Good) did codify the law, protecting womens rights, and the rights of inheritance well before Magna Carta.

On the othe hand there is this version of Welsh History.

Regards

Gareth

28 Apr 02 - 12:57 PM (#699857)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,mg

there is a book out about this, and I personally believe it makes a lot of sense. It never made sense to me to name a country after someone's first name...mg

28 Apr 02 - 01:02 PM (#699860)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: cyder_drinker

From "Gurt Big 'Ead" by The Wurzels:
(Lyrics spoken, over a tune that sounds like the Hovis advert music)

Back in 1497
John Cabot says to 'is Dad
"I thing I'll go and discover Americal,
Cos times is lookin' bad.
'Course, I'll ave to borrow a coupla quid,
And some clothes and yer old Top 'At,
'Cos a 'At like that is ten years old,
And bin slept in by the cat."

'Is dad looked up from 'is paper,
wi' 'is glasses on the end of is nose.
"Whatever d'you think you'll look like," 'e said,
"Dressed up in my old clothes?
They ain't never goin' to fit you, my old son,
'Cos you'm much too bloomin' well fed"
He looked at his hat,
He lookd at John's head,
"Cor blimey blinkin' O'reilly" he said,

"You'll never get a gurt big head like thine
in a tiny little hat like this.
The odds is all against thee,
I should knock 'ee off thee list.
If 'ee were to try and force 'im on,
the sides would all buckle and twist
No, thee's never get a gurt big 'ead like thine
in a tiny little 'at like this."

There's more but can't remember it at the moment.

28 Apr 02 - 01:17 PM (#699867)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)

One of my ancestors was among those who first discovered what is now called America. I believe they came across from Asia, over the Behring Straits, quite a few thousand years ago. Since then, the land has been overrun by foreigners.

28 Apr 02 - 01:24 PM (#699872)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Uncle_DaveO

There goes the neighborhood!

Dave Oesterreich

28 Apr 02 - 01:56 PM (#699880)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Rollo

Dicho, Pagans don't count. They are just part of the pittoresque scenery that awaits a bold explorer at the end of his voyage.
We need this eurocentristic image of the world, you should understand. Otherwise we must admit we descend from african natives - or even - lord beware - small upright walking apes! No true patriot of whichever european country or landside you may insert here must tolerate this thoughts. They lead to the fact that "civilisation" was once invented in an area now nearly totally covered by islamic countries, or to the fact that while we had proud alexander the great, proud rome, and proud charlemagne the world in truth evolved around china that area, and we were just a forgotten appendix to the asian land mass. or to the fact that after more than 2000 years of written history in europe no european native can any longer deny that his blood heritage not only probably includes 95 % of all other european countries, but definitely that of his most hated neighbor. Or to the fact that it might not be right to think thoughts like "I do not want my daughter to marry an albanian, they all steal and hit their women and eat sheep balls, thank you!"

28 Apr 02 - 02:46 PM (#699901)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Nigel Parsons

A fuller, earlier article on this book can be seen Here.
Also contains an interesting comment on the US flag!

28 Apr 02 - 02:53 PM (#699904)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Anahootz

Actually, the Basques had been using northern New England and Newfoundland as a convenient summer fishing grounds for about 600 years before columbus got lost and had to ask the natives where he was.

28 Apr 02 - 03:13 PM (#699918)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Little Hawk

And then there are even earlier claims...by the Atlanteans and the Lemurians. Since they were part of a previous epoch, however, their licenses have expired, and most people don't even know about them. There's simply no justice out there.

- LH

28 Apr 02 - 07:17 PM (#700045)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: McGrath of Harlow

The special thing about the trips made by Columbus and Cabot is that they had the effect of setting up a continuing involvement between the two continents. It was for both continents a Catastrophe: "A sudden and overwhelming event, which upsets and makes a break with what has gone before."

The world changed for ever.

The previous discoveries had never had that effect. Either the word never got back home, as with the travellers across the Bering Straits, or the voyagers kept effectively quiet about it, maybe for commercial reasons (eg the Basques).

I remember a sitcom which had a character who used to tell how his uncle was an explorer from India, who discovered Birmingham, I think it was.

28 Apr 02 - 08:19 PM (#700060)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Owain

Thanks Gareth! The people in Heather Rose Jones' version seem similar to my 'hillbilly white trash' relations of central/east Tennessee and Virginia. lol Stubborn, territorial and contrary.

29 Apr 02 - 12:52 AM (#700192)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Coyote Breath

Dicho has the correct answer!

CB

29 Apr 02 - 01:31 AM (#700216)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Bert

'course Dicho is right. That was eleven or more thousand years ago. Next we hear is from plato a few hundred years BC. Then The vikings get a mention and then the Welsh. And Anahootz could well have a point about the Basques. And St Brendan has a good claim for having made it over here and the Chinese also arrived on the Pacific coast.

Poor ol' Chrissy was a relative latecomer.

So let's join in a chorus of...

Ol' Chrissy Columbo, was a right one and a rare one and a bummo - was old Chrissy Columbo

29 Apr 02 - 04:59 AM (#700253)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,A Spaniard

Just wait...we didn't discover America. With a bit of luck, we didn't have anything to do with Inquisition, either. The Basques in Newfoundland in 900 AD! Well, I have to tell you that they were also the first to land on the moon, not you Americans. They were looking for stones to lift. Unfortunately, they couldn't write and didn't leave any message. Sorry folks!

29 Apr 02 - 05:30 AM (#700262)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: rich-joy

I agree, Little Hawk!! But methinks justice is maybe not tooooo far away now???
Cheers! R-J

29 Apr 02 - 05:53 AM (#700267)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Teribus

From various web sites, as far as discovery from Europe you get:

St. Brendan - 70 year old Irish Monk along with 17 others sailed the Atlantic for 7 years and found America around 563AD. No archaeological evidence to support the claim.

Leif Eriksen - Viking arrived around 1001 AD. Claim backed up by archaeological evidence of settlement.

Prince Madoc of Wales - Landed in Mobile around 1170 AD. Disputed archaeological evidence, three hill fort sites exist similar to Celtic hill forts, exist along the river in the area they are supposed to have "colonised". The Mandan Indians are reportedly the descendents of these early Welsh explorers.

Henry Sinclair - Earl of Rosslyn and Prince of Orkney, landed in 1398. Voyage and landing supported by archaeological evidence.

Christopher Columbus - 1492.

Dare say there will be a few more before too long on this thread.

Cheers,

Bill.

29 Apr 02 - 06:03 AM (#700269)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Paul from Hull

Interesting! I hadnt heard of Prince Madoc, or Henry Sinclair

29 Apr 02 - 06:15 AM (#700273)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,The Same Spaniard

Nothing remains from the forts Columbus built (with the wood from of the ships). They were burnt, attacked by Indians and rioted several times. Mainly made of wood, they simply disappeared. Builders and bricklayers came a bit long after. What archaelogical evidence did Sinclair and his crew leave in America? Did he foresee where he was going and decided to ask some architects on board? and concrete? and stones?

29 Apr 02 - 06:20 AM (#700274)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: sian, west wales

Thanks, Gareth, you made my Monday!

On a fish-related note, I read a book titled "Cod" a couple of years back - well worth getting for those interested in Europeans' early visits to N. Am. (I think the author has recently brought out another - "Salt")

sian

29 Apr 02 - 06:29 AM (#700278)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: greg stephens

What about the Picts?I read a very interesting book recently called "The Alban Quest " recently, sorry cant remember the author's name.Anyway it argued most persuasively(they're always very convincing these books) that Picts from Scotland, displaced by the Gaels invading from ireland, settled Iceland, Greenland and then various American places. Backed up by (disputed) achaeological evidenceof course. But lets not forget the Manx Shearwaters, who were taking American holidays long before humans had figured out how to walk round the corner to the pub.

29 Apr 02 - 06:42 AM (#700281)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: greg stephens

It's also a little noted fact that after Prince Madoc arrived in Mobile he wrote the famous song"In Mobile", sung in Welsh Rugby circles to this day.

29 Apr 02 - 06:45 AM (#700285)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Queen Isabela's Herald

Yes; The Prince must have been a woman, as well. Everybody knows that's the origin of the song La Donna in Mobile...

29 Apr 02 - 08:10 AM (#700318)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Teribus

Hi greg - liked the "In Mobile" - nice one.

Guest, The same Spaniard:
Sinclair left the following:

"They traveled southward, perhaps carried by a northeaster, to the New England Coast, just north of Boston. The party landed and spent the winter, living peacefully with the Indians. To the west they could see a hilltop from which the Indians frequently sent smoke signals. Accompanied by his 100 men, Henry marched inland to the summit of this hill, now called Prospect Hill, located in Westford, Massachusetts. It is 465 feet in altitude and afforded a good view in all directions.

"While at this area, one of Prince Henry's loyal attendants by the name of Sir James Gunn, also from Scotland, died. In memory of the lost companion, the party carved a marker on the face of a stone ledge. It consisted of various sizes of punched holes, which depicted a Scottish knight, with a 39 inch long sword and shield bearing the Gunn Clan insignia. The punch-hole method of carving involved making a series of small impressions with a sharp tool, driven by a mallet. Where glacial scratches or rock colorations existed, they were incorporated into the man-made design. Some holes were larger and deeper than others, probably due to the dulling of the carver's tool and centuries of weathering. In the words of Frederick Pohl, 'the following are undeniably man-made workings: the pommel, handle, and guard of the sword; below the guard the break across the blade that is indicative of the death of the sword's owner; the crest above the pommel; a few holes at the sword's point; the punched-hole jess lines attached to the legs of the falcon; the bell-shaped hollows; the corner of the shield touching the pommel; the crescent on the shield; and the holes that form a decorative pattern on the pommel.' Now weatherworn and faint, one can see just enough of the carving to visualize the rest of it.

"Of course, there have been many investigations to verify the authenticity of this carving. There remains little doubt that this memorial is not a hoax, nor some Indian marking, but rather, the true monument created by Prince Henry Sinclair, nearly 600 years ago!"

As to archaeological evidence wrt wooden forts built by Columbus - it would still exist even if the forts had been burnt.

Cheers,

Bill.

29 Apr 02 - 08:13 AM (#700320)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Foe

RE: Treibus mention of Prince Henry Sinclair of the Orkney's in 1398. Read Frederick Pohl's (not the Sci Fi writer but the other one) book, "Atlantic Crossings Before Columbus". Pohl in researching Sinclair found many identical characteristics between Sinclair and the legendary hero of the Micmacs and other NE originals, Glooscap".

29 Apr 02 - 08:39 AM (#700332)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Pied Piper

I might as well put my ten pen'th in.Its possible that the first people to arrive in the Americas came from Australasia into south America maybe as long ago as 30,000 years.Also I think I read that the Romans might of had a go to. All the best PP

29 Apr 02 - 08:55 AM (#700337)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: Mrrzy

What about all those anthropologists who would dig down to the Clovis layer and then stop, since everybody KNEW who the first folks to get here were?!?

And it WAS the Basque, first of the Europeans at least.

29 Apr 02 - 09:15 AM (#700347)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,greg stephens

Mrrzy, tell us why the Basques WERE the first.In this field of rewarding speculation with inadequate evidence, it's rare to find someone sure enough to use capital letters like tha. What do you know that we don't?

29 Apr 02 - 09:49 AM (#700359)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Owain

Seems we all got a little distracted from the point of Gareth's post. Wasn't it the origin of the name 'America'?

29 Apr 02 - 09:52 AM (#700360)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,Puzzled Spaniard

Do you mean there is significant evidence of pre-Columbus discovery but kids study Columbus and the Catholic Kings and all that just because of laziness ("oh yes, we know of Sinclair and Brendan but, you know what, you never know who may come up next, so let's stick to the Spanish stuff and that will be all"). Never thought we were still so powerful.

How did they know it was a Basque? WAs it wearing a BAsque bonnet?

29 Apr 02 - 10:05 AM (#700373)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: McGrath of Harlow

However no matter how many times it may have been discovered previously, the only time it stayed discovered was when Columbus made his trips. (I suspect that if it hadn't been for Columbus, Cabot would be another of the pre-discoveries that turn up when you dig into the records deep enough.)

Which raises the question, what was it about the Spanish discovery that made it different?

29 Apr 02 - 11:19 AM (#700412)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: sledge

I would imagine the thing that makes the Columbas discovery of the Americas differant is that it opened a prolonged period of exploitation that could be said to affect us to this day, the influx of gold and silver into Spain affected European politics and economics for over two centuries.

Spain being one half of a huge European empire Could then afford to play power politics on a large scale in its various wars with England, France and in the low countries. The scale of the consequences then tends to overshadow Brendan and others as their visits were not followed up in the way Columbas was.

The bit about the Basques being early visitors to North America is mentioned in book about cod, it damn fine read, the basques made long fishing voyages, it is thought to the Grand banks where they fished for cod, which they later sold dried all over Europe. They produced so much it is thought they had some sort of base where the fish were processed and stored until the fleet returned to European ports.

Cheers

Sledge

29 Apr 02 - 11:41 AM (#700439)
Subject: RE: BS: Columbus was second
From: GUEST,greg stephens

columbus discovering america was a bit like lonnie donegan discovering folk songs. Lots of people knew about folksongs before, but when lonnie came upon them something big HAPPENED.