Briton found America in 1499

The Daily Mirror ^ | 29 Aug., 2009 | By Tom Pettifor

[SunkenCiv]

:’) Me too. Luckily, a bunch of people have been filling that job. And not just luckily for all, also luckily for me. :’)

[Caipirabob]

Please excuse this momentary hijacking of this thread...

I'm not Irish, but the people who carry me home are...

[pabianice]

"The letter came to light by chance. It was found in 1981 and passed to historian David Beers Quinn. He failed to publish it, preferring to wait for historian Alwyn Ruddock to release research on explorer John Cabot. In her will Dr Ruddock ordered all her notes destroyed. This spurred Dr Jones to discover what she had found."

Pure academic dishonesty.

[eleni121]

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.

[Pharmboy]

This guy Cahill gets around...

[Citizen Tom Paine]

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.

[the scotsman]

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.

[afraidfortherepublic]

where are the Viking Dead Sea Scroll equivalents

Rune stones found in MN, among other locations?

[newguy357]

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.

Thanks, Pedant.

Of course, if you look at the context of the posts, I was responding to someone who was speculating about whether or not the vikings made it to the North American continent prior to the arrival of the Spaniards and other Europeans--to which the obvious answer is yes. But who would want to look at the context of the posts when, by ignoring it, one has the opportunity to spout off with superior knowledge as Dr. Professor about information that every 4 year old in the country is already aware of?

[Cronos]

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

[Cronos]

Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe.

Interesting -- you bring up the point about possible Phoenician travels West?

[Thermalseeker]

Of course, if you look at the context of the posts, I was responding to someone who was speculating about whether or not the vikings made it to the North American continent prior to the arrival of the Spaniards and other Europeans--to which the obvious answer is yes. But who would want to look at the context of the posts when, by ignoring it, one has the opportunity to spout off with superior knowledge as Dr. Professor about information that every 4 year old in the country is already aware of?

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.

[nathanbedford]

According to this article The heathen Norse left archaeological evidence of their visits to North America including a foundation which you can be assured was not of a church.

Yours in Christ,

Monsignor McBedford

But in 1960, undeniable proof of Vikings in North America came to light at L’Anse 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)

[colorado tanker]

Yes, the site at L’Anse is most certainly there in Newfoundland and is proof the Vikings were at one time in N.A.

[Cronos]

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

[nathanbedford]

My son, my son I earnestly beg your indulgence (you should excuse the expression) I did not understand what you required when you said there is no "real" proof, that there was no "definite" proof.

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,

Monsignor McBedford

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·