Skip to comments.Briton found America in 1499
Posted on 08/29/2009 12:03:39 AM PDT by OldSpice
The first Briton sailed to the New World only seven years after Columbus, a long-lost royal letter reveals.
Written by Henry VII 510 years ago, it suggests Bristol merchant William Weston headed for America in 1499.
In his letter the king, right, instructs his Chancellor to suspend an injunction against Weston because "he will shortly with God's grace, pass and sail for to search and find if he can the new found land".
Bristol University's Dr Evan Jones believes it was probably the earliest attempt to find the North-West Passage - the searoute around North America to the Pacific. He said: "Henry's letter is exciting because so little is known about early English voyages of discovery.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
Well the letter says he set off...it doesnt say he made it. Note also that the king lifted and injunction against him - he might have agreed to set off on the basis that the injunction was lifted, and then scarpered off!
It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that Vikings or some other Norsemen from Europe got here first, but didn’t make it back, or made it back and the whole story lost due to a lack of infrastructure capable of surviving the centuries to come. Like, where are the Viking Dead Sea Scroll equivalents, if such a thing ever existed at all?
Exactly, I wondered if due to the hour I was missing something. The article fails to tell us:
1. if he left,
2. if he made it to North America,
3. if he returned to England.
Yours in Christ,
LOL! You are in the transformation no?
Uhh... the vikings did make it here first. ~1000 AD if I remember correctly. It’s not too controversial.
Little did the Indians know that their open immigration policy would lead to their demise.
Really?? The ones out here seem to be quite lively, happily scalping the white man every day in their casinos.
Yes, and I think John Cabot mapped the coast of North America two years after Columbus stumbled upon an island in the Caribbean that he thought was the East Indies.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
Sure miss Bill’s threads.
It's all about perspective. How does one group of people "discover" a land that already has 20 million people living there? Whether the ancestors of those who were already living here in "the new world" in Viking times came by way of a land bridge from Asia or sailed here from across the Pacific, the fact is there were millions of people living here at least ten centuries, and probably a lot longer, before the Vikings ever thought about sailing west.
:’) Me too. Luckily, a bunch of people have been filling that job. And not just luckily for all, also luckily for me. :’)
I'm not Irish, but the people who carry me home are...
Pure academic dishonesty.
What a silly discusison given that “america” was never lost but also that so-called indigenous Americans arrived thousands of years ago...
In fact, mt-DNA Haplogroup X almost certainly arrived In North America from Europe, long before the Irish or Erikson or Columbus et al. The genetic code indicates the closest relationship with humans originally from the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe.
Think of St Johns, NFLD (John Cabot 1497). The Brits and others were over here fishing for cod long before Columbus was a glint in the postman’s eye. But they kept the secret of a good cod fishing ground secret so they could exploit it. IMHO.
British historian Iain Wilson’s 1992 book ‘The Columbus Myth’ showed that English fishermen from Bristol almost certainly landed in America in 1481.
This story is hardly new.
Rune stones found in MN, among other locations?
There’s no real proof for any European discovery of America before Columbus. There MAY have been — most likely yes the Vikings, Irish etc. could have found parts of N Am, but the only one for which we have definite proof and who had the lasting historical impression and who set up contacts was Signor Columbus
So, are you inferring that you have a lower IQ than a 4 year old? The context of your post is meaningless because the notion that Vikings came here first is dead wrong. They only context in which your statements could be considered correct is if you said that the Vikings were likely the first Europeans to discover North America, but that is not the context you used. You can claim "context" and that I am "ignoring it" all you want, but your statements are still wrong. You can make a complete fool out of yourself by changing the subject and attacking me if that is how you get your jollies, but the fact remains that there was a large indigenous population here thousands of years before Europeans ever thought about taking to the ocean and sailing west. This is an undeniable fact.
The Vikings were not the first to discover North America, nor was Columbus and no mater what context you put it in the notion that they were the first to "discover" this continent is provably wrong. Instead of accepting and discussing well known history you chose to propagate distorted Euro centric perspectives about who came to North America first, meanwhile ignoring millions of indigenous people who predate European arrival by tens of centuries. So, when I point out your folly you chose attack me rather than addressing this fact. Talk about lack of context!
When you have to attack someone who is in opposition to your flawed opinions rather than rely on facts, you have lost the debate. Any high school debate coach will tell you that. You were wrong. You lost. Get over it.
Yours in Christ,
But in 1960, undeniable proof of Vikings in North America came to light at LAnse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada. Several Norse Viking pieces and clear Icelandic- style house foundations gave proof positive that Vikings had indeed landed, and briefly settled, in North America 500 years before Columbus.
More recent archaeological work has revealed over 300 years of sporadic contact between the Greenlandic Norse and various Indian, Inuit, and other Native American peoples, concentrated primarily in the Canadian Arctic. (http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/1137.html)
That’s one article — the “proof” hasn’t been accepted as fact. I’m not denying they MAY have, but there is no incontrovertible proof. Even the article stating that is not “proof” per se, just one man’s opinion
Forgive my trespasses for I had not understood, my son, that archaeological proof accepted by virtually every authority around the secular world was not the sort of proof you require.
I did not understand that you require conclusive proof, cosmic proof, everlasting proof, proof positive, transcendental proof, ineffable proof, beyond a reasonable doubt proof, 180 proof, Jesuitical proof.
yours in Christ,
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
Bronze Age Forum
Excerpt, or Link only?
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.