View Full Version : Who really discovered America? (excluding the native Americans)


MrPresident
Jan 18, 2002, 06:23 AM
We all know the story of how Columbus decided to sail the ocean blue, in 1492. However is this the true story of how America was discovered. Was it the vikings, they discovered Greenland and it is possible that they made the short trip the North America. How about the Irish priest who headed west to find someone to convert. The Spanish note that some of the natives they encounted performed a religious procession very similar to that to a catholic one. How about the English fisherman who having been banned from the bountiful shores off Iceland continued to bring in abundant loads. Then when they were invited to return to Iceland they turned down the offer. What do you think?

DingBat
Jan 18, 2002, 08:15 AM
I think there's two ways to view history.

1) There's real history, which is what really happened. Good luck figuring this out without a lot of digging, if ever.

2) There's recorded history. If you did something but no one recorded it, then it didn't really happen.

Columbus gets the nod for discovering the new world because someone recorded it.

Was he the first? Not likely. That honor probably goes to some drunken Norseman who got really, really, lost on his way back from a good pillage.

Then again, the asiatics who crossed over to North America on the land bridge may dispute that it was ever "discovered" at all.

So, I say let Columbus have it. Any other discussion and you might as well ask who discovered Europe.

/bruce

Nahuixtelotzin
Jan 18, 2002, 08:40 AM
Though I voted for the Vikings, knowing the purpose of the poll, I would give the honor to Columbus and Vespucci. From Columbus on, his discoveries were remembered and continued and it was Vespucci who "invented" the concept of a new continent. And finally Waldseemüller, for he named America America, what had a huge cultural historic influence as we know...

Stefan Haertel
Jan 18, 2002, 08:48 AM
There's clear evidence that there was a Viking settlement in Newfoundland around AD 1000. I don't have it here, but there's something extensive about this in the Chronicle of Canada.
Apart from that, I think it possible that Phoenecian or Roman sailors did set foot on American lands (though I doubt they ever saw their home again).

Lefty Scaevola
Jan 18, 2002, 08:50 AM
Polynesians, perhaps? Also some possibility of an Egytian or other African voyage. All largely umiportant. It is not the discovery that matters so much as the conquest. Slaughtering, raping, enslaving, the indigenous peoples and conquering and colonizing their lands to found new realms is what counts in history.
:rocket2:

Vrylakas
Jan 18, 2002, 10:37 AM
Depends entirely on what you mean by "discovered". Does that mean simply being the first non-native to land in the Americas, or being the first to realize that this was truly a new land, or the first to propagate the discovery?

Here's the scoop:

The North Atlantic's currents flow in a large counter-clockwise circular pattern that makes it fairly reasonable to believe that the occasional European vessel did accidentally end up on American (continental) shores. (I recall reading of what appear to be ancient Celtic glyphs written on some stones in modern Virginia; most likely shipwreck survivors.) How many of those who did make that unfortunate journey and returned to tell of it is probably next to nil, if not nil. It is fairly well established that the Vikings did indeed establish a settlement in Newfoundland sometime around A.D. 1000-1018, but how many outside of the small Viking communities knew about or even understood the magnitude of the Viking "discoveries"? There are claims by a handful of historians that other expeditions pre-dated Columbus' and this may indeed be so - but the simple bottom-line fact is that Columbus was the first to make the voyage, come back, and tell the rest of world. After Columbus, all of Eurasia became increasingly aware that there were "new" lands in the West.

I recall reading a trendy Archaeology magazine some years back, and in an article about recent Moche ruin discoveries some person made the following statements: "These ruins were "discovered" by [forgotten name here], a white man who just trod into the jungle one day and asked a young local native child about ruins, and this child had led him to them. The local native villagers had known about these ruins for generations, and yet we say that when a white man shows up, they are "discovered". Why is that?" Why? Because when the local native villagers had exclusivce access to the ruins, a small group (c. 150-200) of very localized people knew of their existance, and knew nothing about their origins or history. When someone from the modern outside world "discovered" them, they not only began a formal study process but they also informed the rest of the world. Now, people on every continent are aware of these Moche ruins, and of the on-going studies into their significance in both local and larger human history.

Moral: Just showing up doesn't always count as "discovering". something.

Sodak
Jan 18, 2002, 11:43 AM
Vrylakas, that is how some white guy is credited with "discovering" Machu Picchu. He asked the locals about a hidden city, some secret place the Spanish never found. A bartender sends him to a local peasant whose son shows him how to get there. Some discovery. :rolleyes:

Akin to saying Hillary was the first man up Everest. After Norgay, that is.

Columbus gets credit because he was indeed the first to return and tell a tale that got written down. No, he was not the first, but is the best known.

The vikings did settle in Newfoundland - guess where the name comes from! Hmm... ;) They didn't stay long, but o well.

Archaeology has shown several examples of Celts, Romans, and some west Africans having landed, tho none of them likely lived to return, if they even survived the journey.

However, Polynesians were involved in trade with South America many centuries before Columbus. This goes slightly against the commonly accepted settlement times of the pacific islands, but the spread of plants makes it very hard to argue against it. (See my agriculture thread for more tidbits!) As I love to point out, if they could find Easter Island, they could sure as heck find South America. They couldn't not find it, really. And settlement of the islands is usually dated from hard evidence - something notoriously scant in wet, tropical climes that generally lack stone.

Kennelly
Jan 18, 2002, 12:10 PM
I´ve recently seen a documentation about a secret potuguese expedition to America in 1473.So even in the Age of Explorations Columbus doesn´t seem to be the first one.Guess,he was just a good PR manager.
Anyway I voted for the Vikings,because they´re the ones who are proven of having seen America first excluding Polynesians and the people coming through Alaska.But who knows what was lost in Alexandria?

Thorgalaeg
Jan 18, 2002, 12:52 PM
It depends: about what we are speaking?. If you refer for Europe and for the western or current world, in a word, the reality, the only correct one is the first option, the rest are only mythology, anecdotes, stories, rumors...

knowltok3
Jan 18, 2002, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
It depends: about what we are speaking?. If you refer for Europe and for the western or current world, in a word, the reality, the only correct one is the first option, the rest are only mythology, anecdotes, stories, rumors...

You can argue it many different ways, but viking settlements in Newfoundland are documented and true.

kIndal
Jan 18, 2002, 03:06 PM
if vikings is a good choice, why not Asians or polynesians ones?

The question must be, which Europeans were the first...?

Vikings? it is true they were there, the first nobody knows it, there are lot of tales about celtic fisherman or about Phoenicians, Egypcians or Romans...I can believe that a lost fisher ship lost in a storm could arrive to New Foundland but we cannot say that they discover anything in the same way vikings didnt discover anything because they didnt give this knowledge to the World. Discover something is more than have some luck, use it some time and forget it forever.

I forget...:) My Choice: Spanish, they were the first to say(discover) to the World that something new was in the other side of the ocean.

Thorgalaeg
Jan 19, 2002, 05:56 AM
I agree with Kindal
Probably vikings (and others) was there before, but they did not discover anything. A troglodyte can build his house on an Uranium deposit and die of cancer. It does not mean that he has discovered the Uranium. ;)

catullus
Jan 21, 2002, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
I agree with Kindal
Probably vikings (and others) was there before, but they did not discover anything. A troglodyte can build his house on an Uranium deposit and die of cancer. It does not mean that he has discovered the Uranium. ;)

So. Columbus did NOT discover America, since he just happened to get stuck on some small islands on his way to Japan, China, India and Indonesia. He never realized what those islands were. He never searched for new land, and the islands he saw on his failed mission to Asia are still absurdely named the West Indies.

If Romans, Celts, Phoenicians, Troians, Berbs or whatever ever arrived in the New World, it is unlikely such a "discovery" would have been a result of an effort of finding new land. A troglodyte discovery.

The vikings, however, DID search for new land. They were discoverers by heart, and spent quite some time mapping the Arctic region. While the first sighting of North America was by accident (missed Greenland on the voyage west), the first landing by Leif Eiriksson was a result of a real discovery expedition.
They pretty much realized they had found a land mass unknown to the rest of Europe, and the region was named as a new land, not West Greenland or somefink. A very true discovery. Admitted, the discovery never made a large impact, neither in America nor in Europe, and it was quickly forgotten by most. But never completely, as recordings of this land existed all the time, both in writing, and in the stories of Icelanders and Norwegians.

Taking this discovery away from the vikings is like taking the
invention of concrete away from the Romans, just because the method of production got lost some centuries.

C.

kIndal
Jan 21, 2002, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by catullus
So. Columbus did NOT discover America, since he just happened to get stuck on some small islands on his way to Japan, China, India and Indonesia.

Well, you can say that, ok, Columbus didnt discover America, but Spanish did it, you cannot negate, Columbus opened the way for other real discover voyages when in Spain (and all the World) knew that this lands werent ASia.
As comment I have read a story about Columbus really knew that America was here, He lived some years in Cape Verde or Madeira(i amnot sure) and some Portuguese shipwrecker came to the islands after discovered Brazil when the ship went to India by Africa. But Columbus didnt say anything or Portuguese had claimed for these new lands(in fact they claimed for it in the treaty of Tordesillas (and Brazil hadnt been discovered yet!!) I dont believe this story but could be nice kow what is true and what is false :)

If Romans, Celts, Phoenicians, Troians, Berbs or whatever ever arrived in the New World, it is unlikely such a "discovery" would have been a result of an effort of finding new land. A troglodyte discovery.

and what difference are with Viking discover?Greek, Roman, Persian, Egypcians, Chinese voyages were too real discover voyages.

While the first sighting of North America was by accident (missed Greenland on the voyage west)

as Columbus right? ;)

the first landing by Leif Eiriksson was a result of a real discovery expedition.

as all Spanish voyages next to Columbus.
So if Columbus havent landed in America, just returned to Spain and said that something new were here, would it be a real discover voyage?

But never completely, as recordings of this land existed all the time, both in writing, and in the stories of Icelanders and Norwegians.

But it just stories and tales, there were too stories about dragons and monsters in the ocean that nobody believe it. it isnt a correct reason to make true this.

one question(is not sarcastic:)): what real facts about Vikings presence in N America are there? villages?axes?writing? of course, I amnot talking about Northern stories, i am asking for real facts. if can somebody add some link?

Sodak
Jan 21, 2002, 11:42 AM
The Viking presence in north america is archaeological and historical. There is a village site in Newfoundland, of which I forget the name, that was occupied for years. Written records exist in old norse/icelandic. I've never looked for it on the web... They left traces as far south as modern new england.

Arguing about what makes a sighting a discovery is a bit silly. Did the Vikings share their knowledge of a new land with others? No, and why should they have? There was good fishing and abundant timber they could use. It was 1000ad. Who were they supposed to tell? The nearest significant political entities (other than half-Norse england) were feudal kings in France and central europe. Were they supposed to tell Byzantine scribes in order to qualify as discoverers? Also, being written in old norse may qualify as being lost to the world, but it was recorded.

The Spanish clearly were the first to act on this discovery. They set about busily settling/plundering the new-found-land (had to slip that in :D ) while the Vikings were already waning into the pages of history. This does not make them the discoverers, tho. Discover means to find, not to use.

Anyway, the polynesians beat the vikings to it. ;)

Jimcat
Jan 21, 2002, 12:37 PM
For a good reference on the Viking settlements in Newfoundland, see Samuel Eliot Morrison's book _The European Discovery of America_ (Volume I, The Northern Voyages). Morrison was a naval and maritime historian who did extensive research on the subject, and although the book is about thirty years old, it's still considered one of the most definitive in the field. It also contains all you might ever want to know about Viking settlements in Greenland, the search for the Nothwest Passage, the mythical city of Norumbega, and the (probably inauthentic) "Viking inscriptions" in New England and the Great Lakes states.

Jimcat
Jan 21, 2002, 12:49 PM
This thread also made me remember something amusing that I noticed a few years ago. In a park in Newark, New Jersey, there is a statue of Christopher Columbus that was commissioned by the local Italian-American organization (Columbus was born Cristoforo Colombo in Genoa, and the Italian-Americans won't let anyone forget it).

The inscription on the statue reads, in part: "Erected by the Italians, in the land discovered through his genius".

That one always made me laugh. "in the land blundered across through his folly" would have been more like it! Columbus was aiming for the Indonesian/Philippine islands, and in order to convince the Spanish monarchs that his voyage was possible, he took the smallest estimate for the diameter of the Earth, and the easternmost estimated location of the spice islands -- and then he exaggerated both of them! No educated person in 1490's Spain seriously doubted that the Earth was a sphere. The controversy was whether some small caravels could make it all the way around to Asia by sailing west. And they couldn't have. If there hadn't been this big durned continent in the way, Columbus and his expedition would have starved to death and never been heard from again.

Thorgalaeg
Jan 21, 2002, 01:19 PM
Sodak, spare me yours vikings stories. The fact is that NOW you would NOT be speaking about America if the Spanish had not discovered it. Dont agree?

Waku
Jan 21, 2002, 01:48 PM
Whether vikings reached the N/america coast or not, their trips were so relevant to the history of America as the anual migrations of salmons, whales or icebergs :p

Kahran Ramsus
Jan 21, 2002, 07:03 PM
The Vinland settlement was a part of King Canute's North Sea Empire. They knew about it at the very least in the British Isles, Norway & Denmark.

Sodak
Jan 24, 2002, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
Sodak, spare me yours vikings stories.
I hope this is just a language mistake, and not intentionally condescending... :mad: Anyway, I only recounted a few facts about the Viking presence in N.A. Not myths, stories, or other easily rejected claims - actual archaeological finds. You seem very convinced that only the spanish should get credit. Sorry, but the polynesians were there (probably) before the Vikings, who were there centuries before Columbus. The Spanish impact in the new world cannot be argued, but that still does not make them the discoverers.
Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
The fact is that NOW you would NOT be speaking about America if the Spanish had not discovered it. Dont agree?
It depends on who your ancestors are. :D Tho I understand your point - again, the Spanish had the greatest impact (by far) of all the early non-natives, but they didn't find it first.

Rowan
Jan 24, 2002, 08:00 PM
:crazyeyes Aliens:D
[dance] :beer: [dance]

AdamSmo
Jan 27, 2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
Sodak, spare me yours vikings stories. The fact is that NOW you would NOT be speaking about America if the Spanish had not discovered it. Dont agree? lol! You don't think anyone else in the few hundred years would have ever discovered America by now?

By now we definitely know that the Spanish weren't the first.. some say that Northern Africans first discovered South America, and there's evidence, with statues of Africans in South America.. dunno.

Just my two cents..

Waku
Jan 28, 2002, 11:06 AM
phoenicians, chinese, vikings, africans, greeks, egyptian, whales, salmons, aliens, and icebergs, they all meant the same, nothing. :p

There was only one trip which changed the history of the world.

Kahran Ramsus
Jan 28, 2002, 07:39 PM
Cabot left in 1497, which had little to do with Columbus. All the major powers were planning a similar thing. At least Cabot was intelligent enough to realize that he landed in an undiscovered land (Canada). Columbus died thinking that he was in the Far East. The Spanish merely got there first, and had very little to do with the US anyways, other than Florida.

England would have had an earlier foothold in the Americas too, had Cabot & colonists that he was taking over not disappeared in the Atlantic on his return trip.

Waku
Jan 29, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
Cabot left in 1497, which had little to do with Columbus.

Cabot decided to find a route to the west for himself on hearing of Columbus's voyage.

Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
All the major powers were planning a similar thing.

ROTFLMAO

only after hearing of the Spanish trip.
(Spain was not the first place to be visited by Columbus looking for support)

Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
At least Cabot was intelligent enough to realize that he landed in an undiscovered land (Canada). Columbus died thinking that he was in the Far East.

At least Columbus was intelligent enough to get back home (Cabot didn't even know pretty well how to sail back in his first trip).

And, sorry but if Columbus made a mistake Cabot made exactly the same mistake, they both tried to find a pass thru what none of them knew was a big continent, and none of them knew the biggest ocean in the world was behind. If Cabbot had come back home he would have swear he reached some islands in front of Catay in order to get more support

Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
The Spanish merely got there first, and had very little to do with the US anyways, other than Florida.

Were we talking about the US?
Anyway, sorry, I forgot US history had been rewritten and there never was any pirate settlement against the Spanish in the nowadays US East coast.

Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
England would have had an earlier foothold in the Americas too, had Cabot & colonists that he was taking over not disappeared in the Atlantic on his return trip.

Fort Navidad, the first spanish settlement was destroyed too, so what's your point here? if England did not send another expedition earlier is because they probably hadnt' got guts enough by then

pavelsu
Jan 29, 2002, 12:46 PM
The Spanish clearly were the first to act on this discovery. They set about busily settling/plundering the new-found-land (had to slip that in ) while the Vikings were already waning into the pages of history. This does not make them the discoverers, tho. Discover means to find, not to use.
Reading this thread it seems that the Spanish were the last ones to arrive. How is it possible that were the first ones in "using"?. This makes me think that those that arrived before (phoenicians, chinese, englishmen :crazyeyes , vikings, africans, greeks, egyptian, aliens :goodjob: ) or they were all ecologists :lol: or were too silly to "use".

Shaka Naldur
Jan 29, 2002, 02:02 PM
there were just two archaelogical proves that the vikings had reached north america,

one was a map which it was proven that it was false, it was a portuguesse map of the XVI century

and the other one is a stone with some vicking characters, but never the stone itself or a picture has been shown to the people
probably because is as false as the map

you can´t deny that trading with the new world started with columbus,
columbus wasn´t stupid for thinking that he had reached china, remembered that at the moment people thought that earth wasn´t spheric
until americo vespuccio nobody said that it was a new continent, americo´s first voyage was on 1499, after cabot´s trip

and about cabot and all that
can we say that the arrival of americans to the moon wasn´t important because russians were trying to do the same????

Centrifuge
Jan 29, 2002, 02:15 PM
Many different people "found" the American continents before Columbus. Aside from the Vikings and Polynesians, there is also archeological evidence of Africans in or around S. America. The evidence that I'm referring to are statues, dating back long before Columbus that show faces of people with distinct African characteristics.

MCdread
Jan 29, 2002, 02:16 PM
This has been alredy said, but there is an an archaeological site were ruins and artifacts have been found and proved to be nordic. This place, located at L'Anse Aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, was discouvered in the 60s.

Or is this information yet to arrive at Spain?

pavelsu
Jan 29, 2002, 02:45 PM
If it has just arrived to Portugal surely it has arrived to Spain (And to the rest of the world) decades ago. :D

Shaka Naldur
Jan 29, 2002, 06:49 PM
did you read my post McRead????

just two REAL archeological proves,

and one is false

Shaka Naldur
Jan 29, 2002, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Centrifuge
Many different people "found" the American continents before Columbus. Aside from the Vikings and Polynesians, there is also archeological evidence of Africans in or around S. America. The evidence that I'm referring to are statues, dating back long before Columbus that show faces of people with distinct African characteristics.

and i´ve also read that in the bahamas it has been found roman colums

and i don´t where in south america coins of alexander the great

do you actually believe everything that you read???

catullus
Jan 30, 2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Shaka Naldur
did you read my post McRead????

just two REAL archeological proves,

and one is false


I guess he read your post. But your information is out of date. The viking map is disputed, but I don't think it is proven false. The Kensington (sp?) stone (with rune letters), however, is quite certainly a forgery.
The point is, there is another large archaelogical finding, which is undisputedly real. There is no doubt the Vikings made a trading post, and later a settlement, in Newfoundland. There is no doubt, because evidence exist both in writing and in site findings. There is quite some discussion of how long the old world - new world contact lasted, in the end the Vikings even disappeared from Greenland. Apparantly the impact was limited.

But:
There are some evidence Columbus sailed to both Britain and Norway prior to 1492. He may have been in contact with people knowing the Norse sagas, or some of the British fishermen who were using the Newfoundland fishing bank. So he would have been sure there really was a land to the west. As other has noted, his estimate of earth size was absolutely way off. He may have been mislead by the fact that he KNEW the land was there.

C.

pavelsu
Jan 30, 2002, 11:27 AM
There are some evidence Columbus sailed to both Britain and Norway prior to 1492. He may have been in contact with people knowing the Norse sagas, or some of the British fishermen who were using the Newfoundland fishing bank. So he would have been sure there really was a land to the west. As other has noted, his estimate of earth size was absolutely way off. He may have been mislead by the fact that he KNEW the land was there.
:confused: Where such evidences are?, only in your mind I am afraid.

Nevertheless there exists the theory of which Colon obtained a copy of the Piri Reis's mysterious map. Piri Reis (a Turkish admiral) had found it in an old store of Istanbul (now Piri Reis's map is exposed in a museum in Turkey, you can see it there). They believe that the map is a copy of other much more ancient map(Egyptian possibly and this a copy of other much more ancient...). In the map is drawn with great precision (much more precision of that was possible to obtain in the 15th century ) the whole east coast of America and the coast of the Antarctica ... but without ice!

evidences here for example... (http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/piri_r~1.htm)

Waku
Jan 30, 2002, 11:38 AM
the Piri Reis map was made afterthe spanish explorations and was drawn up based upon them, and what seems to be the antarctic coast is only the Southern South America coast but the draftman was running out of paper :p

MCdread
Jan 30, 2002, 11:42 AM
Shaka Naldur, did you read my name?:mad:

My post was exactly a reply to yours. You are refering to two proofs, one that is false and another one that is probably false too. And in my post I remind you (or perhaps you actually didn't know about it) that besides those two, there is THE archaeological proof.

Sodak
Jan 30, 2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by pavelsu
Reading this thread it seems that the Spanish were the last ones to arrive. How is it possible that were the first ones in "using"?. This makes me think that those that arrived before (phoenicians, chinese, englishmen :crazyeyes , vikings, africans, greeks, egyptian, aliens :goodjob: ) or they were all ecologists :lol: or were too silly to "use".
First, I would bet that any phoenecians, africans, greeks, romans, or egyptians - if they ever did "find" america - did so accidentally. That is, they got lost at sea and ended up there. Probably as dead men, not as hungry sailors excited to see land. Ocean currents will carry a ship from SW europe to the caribbean with no human intervention.

The polynesians traded with the south americans. This was small scale because of the technology - boats, not fleets of ships. A very minor impact outside food production in the pacific.

The vikings were undoubtedly in america, they settled! The impact was minimal. They stayed for a while, but what they found was no better than whence they had come. The settlement was not a massive moving of people and materials, as the spanish later would undergo, but just a migration of a growing population. Once greenland ceased to be inhabiltable, there was no easy connection back to europe, so it fell out of use. (Sorry Shaka, there is no doubt at all that the vikings settled... :( ) In fact, Greenland itself was only first settled because some vikings in iceland were exiled "for some killings." Another accident of history. Had Eric the Red (iirc) been a bit more even-tempered, the vikings may never have reached Newfoundland.

The Spanish were next - the other europeans followed once they learned of what the spanish had found. Far more riches than the vikings would have known of, far more people than the vikings encountered, more fertile lands and seas - in other words, the spanish stumbled upon a much greater prize than the vikings, and they had the means to act upon it. The vikings did not. The rest is history.

Yes, the piri reis is a copy of other's explorations and maps. Few maps from that time period were originals. Almost all were copied from "reliable" sources by somebody who'd never been anywhere.

pavelsu
Jan 30, 2002, 12:51 PM
The map that drew Piri Reis dates back of the year 1513. Then still they had not discovered (and no way drawn in maps ) the majority of the lands that appear in this map. On the other hand, how you explain that should draw the Antarctica and without ices?

you contradict yourself

Discover means to find, not to use

I would bet that any phoenecians, africans, greeks, romans, or egyptians - if they ever did "find" america - did so accidentally. That is, they got lost at sea and ended up there.

and now you say that vikings was first because they settled

Waku
Jan 30, 2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by pavelsu
The map that drew Piri Reis dates back of the year 1513. Then still they had not discovered (and no way drawn in maps ) the majority of the lands that appear in this map. On the other hand, how you explain that should draw the Antarctica and without ices?

It's a lovely theory indeed Pav, but it's wrong :rolleyes:

Piri Reis, or the scribe who copied
his work, may have realized, as he came to the Rio de la Plata,
that he was going to run off the edge of his valuable parchment
if he continued south. So he did the logical thing and turned
the coastline to the east, marking the turn with a semicircle of
crenelations, so that he could fit the entire coastline on his
page. (http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/art/LUNDE01.ART)

Shaka Naldur
Jan 31, 2002, 02:31 PM
Shaka Naldur, did you read my name?

My post was exactly a reply to yours. You are refering to two proofs, one that is false and another one that is probably false too. And in my post I remind you (or perhaps you actually didn't know about it) that besides those two, there is THE archaeological proof.


sorry for mispelling your name


could you tell me the url of any serious web page where they talk about THE proof

Sodak
Feb 01, 2002, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by pavelsu
you contradict yourself
...and now you say that vikings was first because they settled
Not at all! Right from the start I stated that I considered the Polynesians first. I added the Viking facts because they were part of the discussion. I've never thought they were first. :cool:

Shaka Naldur
Feb 03, 2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Shaka Naldur

could you tell me the url of any serious web page where they talk about THE proof

so anybody knows about the vikings settling north-america but there isn´t a single serious web page with TRUE information about it,

that makes me think

MCdread
Feb 03, 2002, 02:34 PM
Why don't you try to go to a search engine and type L'Anse aux Meadows. I think you'll find plenty. This is an official one from the Canadian Government.

http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/newfoundland/anse_meadows/anse_meadows_e.htm

I really can't believe you haven't heard of this. :rolleyes: This place is a World Heritage Site from UNESCO.

PS- go to the Canadian Quiz and at lest find out the average number of civfanatics who know about this.

Oda Nobunaga
Feb 03, 2002, 09:35 PM
And to make it easier to Mr. Naldur...

http://www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/main.htm

Unesco world heritage site short description of the place in question.

What they have to say on L'Anse aux Meadows :

"At the tip of the Great Northern Peninsula of the island of Newfoundland, the remains of an 11th-century Viking settlement are evidence of the first European presence in North America. The excavated remains of wood-framed peat-turf buildings are similar to those found in Norse Greenland and Iceland. "

€ønqui$tadør
Feb 06, 2002, 05:25 AM
i would define the discoverer of America as someone who has knowledge about the land being a new continent different from the Old World.

fine then this should go to the Vikings but not enough proof about their existence in N. America exists.

so i think credit goes to Vespucci, not Columbus. Columbus, till his death, insisted that piece of land was Asia/India.

willemvanoranje
Feb 09, 2002, 05:59 AM
All I know is that there are leads which show us that a Phoenician ship already got there and a Chinese fisher that landed in the Aztec-area. The last one seems a bit doubtful to me, since the Pacific Ocean is a very large one to cross.....

insurgent
Feb 09, 2002, 03:44 PM
Well, you actually missed an option out. There are many things (i.e. Maya statues with bearded men, American drugs found in Egyptian pharaos' stomaches etc.), that indicate the possibility, that the Egyptians had contact with the South Americans long before the Vikings arrived.

willemvanoranje
Feb 10, 2002, 03:27 AM
There you have it! I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptians had contact: They were an African tribe and had contact with about the entire African continent, so it wouldn't be weird if they made the jump from West-Africa to South-America.

PoohDov
Feb 23, 2002, 05:30 AM
How about those strange Olmec negroid faces?
They are dated up to II mil. BC.

gerryandersson
Feb 27, 2002, 11:33 AM
The viking tales is based on real events.
:viking:

muppet
Mar 01, 2002, 08:57 PM
Maybe the Vikings that landed in Newfoundland thought they had died and gone to Valhalla?:D

Don't mind me. Just had surgery, and I'm a little drugged up at the moment.

Kinniken
Mar 10, 2002, 05:04 AM
Fresh news: Chinese explorers 'discovered America'

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/primenews/story/0,1870,106236,00.html

Actualy what's interesting there is the idea that they made the first journey around the world - unlike discovering America, that's a one-off event which was attributed to Magellan. (BTW, I've alway felt that the first civ to get a unit to circumnavigate the world should get a bonus of some sort). I'm waiting for the guy's evidence, though. The size fo the ships, if confirmed, is also amazing... 500 sailors in each ship!

Anyway, on America: nobody discovered it. The idea that there was no contact between America and the rest of the world until Colombus is a modern western myth. What Colombus did was to make the fact known in western europe, and thus open the way for colonization; it was huge, but it was not "discovery".
Oh, and to who-ever asked why the other "discoverers" (egyptians, romans, vikings, irish...) never exploited their discovery, the answer is simple: they did not have the technology to. It's one thing to be have a ship managing to cross the oceant once, possibly by mistake; it's an other to have ships capable of transporting men and resources accross the oceant with enough reliability to allow colonization. The vikings might have done so, but they were too few.
Oh, and then "early discoverers" also missed something crucial for colonization: gunpowder. True, they had iron weapons, but that's not enough. Give Cortes a force of roman legionaires the size of his, and he would have gotten nowhere.

Actualy, I believe only the Chinese could have etablished lasting and important colonies in America, but by that time China was already turning inward. Actualy, what the Chinese could have done in the middle-ages with more of an expensionist mentality would have been amazing... but that's an other problem.

Just my 0.02 €

Kinniken

SKILORD2
Mar 25, 2002, 03:26 PM
Bah Columbus never really made it to "America" (either continent) To say who discovere it isn't to describe his role in it.

HOWEVER
He opened it up for europe, he introduced europe and the Western hemisphere

Sobieski
Jul 20, 2002, 12:49 PM
There is the distinct possibility that the Chinese made it there.

redtom
Jul 20, 2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Depends entirely on what you mean by "discovered". Does that mean simply being the first non-native to land in the Americas, or being the first to realize that this was truly a new land, or the first to propagate the discovery?

Here's the scoop:

.... (I recall reading of what appear to be ancient Celtic glyphs written on some stones in modern Virginia; most likely shipwreck survivors.)....


There is no such thing as Celtic writing because they never wrote anything down, hence, we know very little about the Celts and more the about Roman history. You are probably referring to celtic symbols like swirling lines and "cups". These are the only known celtic symbols I have heard of, they are quite common in northern Northumbria, England.

They didn't develop writing until they became (Roman Catholic) christianised in the late 7th century as monks came pouring in from France in England and Scotland. (not including Wales, as Wales has been mostly Christian since Roman times). In Ireland, according to most sources, became christianised when St. Patrick converted a king. They would all had used Latin script (possibly French/Italian) if they were to write anything down.

P.S. Sorry, Vryraklas your wrong for once!

Sobieski
Jul 20, 2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by redtom


There is no such thing as Celtic writing because they never wrote anything down, hence, we know very little about the Celts and more the about Roman history. You are probably referring to celtic symbols like swirling lines and "cups". These are the only known celtic symbols I have heard of, they are quite common in northern Northumbria, England.

They didn't develop writing until they became (Roman Catholic) christianised in the late 7th century as monks came pouring in from France in England and Scotland. (not including Wales, as Wales has been mostly Christian since Roman times). In Ireland, according to most sources, became christianised when St. Patrick converted a king. They would all had used Latin script (possibly French/Italian) if they were to write anything down.

P.S. Sorry, Vryraklas your wrong for once!

By glyphs he meant pictures ;)

redtom
Jul 20, 2002, 04:00 PM
About the glyphs, just trying clear up any confusing that symbols do not mean writing

Sobieski
Jul 20, 2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by redtom
About the glyphs, just trying clear up any confusing that symbols do not mean writing

By writing he probably meant communicated through glyphs, but writing is just the word he is use to using. But hey I don't know.

redtom
Jul 20, 2002, 04:42 PM
The problem with such symbols is that they are quite intentional whether they are art for communicating or writing for communicating. There are similar palaelithic samples throughout the world of art that communicates eg Rock art. But these aren't glyphs and neither is the lines and "cups". This is what i mean by writing and glyphs is a way of writing.

Sobieski
Jul 20, 2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by redtom
The problem with such symbols is that they are quite intentional whether they are art for communicating or writing for communicating. There are similar palaelithic samples throughout the world of art that communicates eg Rock art. But these aren't glyphs and neither is the lines and "cups". This is what i mean by writing and glyphs is a way of writing.

You are probably write, I was just clarifying what I thought he meant. I really don't know that much about ancient Celtic culture.

newfangle
Jul 20, 2002, 05:20 PM
Everybody knows that Jesus made people in the North America, and when him and God made the universe they implanted the history textbooks into the world.

To say anything esle would be evil and hell-going worthy.

Ribannah
Jul 21, 2002, 03:03 AM
And the humans went full circle and planted god(s) into the world .... :D

The first humans to discover the Americas were of course the Siberians and Tunguz who crossed the landbridge in several waves.

Then came the Chinese. Around 2250 BC emperor Yu sent expeditions to the four corners of the world. They found America, calling it Fu Sang, and are likely to have introduced glyph writing.

Next, around 1000 BC, it seems that the Africans made it. There are some Olmec kings with distinct African features and names.

The Vikings landed probably in both 500 AD and 1000 AD and set up a few settlements. May have taught the secret of Iron Working to the Shawnee - who knows.

Centuries later the Iberians arrived, and the rest is well-known.