The Truth About Christopher Columbus, page 1

The Truth About Christopher Columbus

Who was Christopher Columbus? Was he really the first to discover America? Did he really do it to prove the Earth was round? Is there a reason the continents he discovered weren't called Columbia? What is the real truth about Christopher Columbus? Even on ATS, I've read a lot of threads with wrong information and assumptions about Columbus and the discovery of America. It is for this reason, I've decided to write this contextual history answering the biggest questions about the man. Read on, to find it out. Some of it you probably already knew, some of it you probably suspected, and some of it will probably surprise you.

Who Discovered America First?

Common sense should immediately indicate Columbus was not the first to discover America, otherwise he wouldn't have encountered natives. Human remains in America that we have found so far date back as early as 13000 years ago. The three primary trains of thought as to where the natives came from are:

Land Bridge Theory - Mongolians crossed a land bridge from Eastern Siberia, across the Bering Strait, and over to Alaska, then migrated their way southward, somewhere between 16-11,000 years ago.

Boat (Kon-Tiki) Theory - First proven possible by Thor Heyerdahl in the Kon-tiki, it is entirely possible that mankind was perfectly capable of crafting boats from native materials and safely navigating them through the Polynesian Islands till landing on the West Coast, thus allowing for a continuous stream of people to migrate to America throughout the ages.

Creation Legends - Most Native American tribes had a creation legend of some sort that states that they've always been there since the point of creation, rather than having migrated. This is not technically theory, as there are no scientific data to be analyzed and tested. It is belief, but is worth including for discussion's sake.

In any event, America was originally discovered thousands of years before Columbus. So then one must further qualify the statement.

Was Columbus the first European to discover America?

Certainly not.

Basque cod fishermen were regularly sailing America's coasts long before Columbus, but didn't tell anyone about it because it was a prime fishing spot. America's coasts were a Basque's best-kept trade secret, and the massive hauls they could procure off of an unoccupied coast were a major contributing factor to their fame as fisherman.

Then of course, there's the story most of you know about the viking Leif Erikson discovering America first. Except that this is a very common mistake that even school teachers will make. In point of fact, Bjarne Herjulfson discovered America before Leif, by accident in AD 986, while trying to meet his father (who was part of Erik the Red's traveling party) on Greenland. When he realized he was in the wrong place, he turned around, found Greenland, told his father about it, who told Erik the Red, who's son, Leif, then went to the spot Bjarne described, and thus explored Newfoundland.

However, all firsts must be qualified with the phrase "that we know of," because a 9200 year old human fossil known as The Kennewick Man was found in the state of Washington that completely breaks all known genetic rules of native inhabitants. The skull and facial reconstruction of Kennewick man are more like "a Caucasoid European accountant" than a Paleo-Indian hunter. To add further controversy, he was apparently killed with a weapon that didn't see common use until 5000-8000 years ago.

So why does Columbus get credit as being the first to discover it? A few reasons:

No one else claimed widespread credit - Quick question? Who invented the light bulb? Thomas Edison, right? Wrong. It was Joseph Swan, 50 years before Jefferson. Jefferson simply told a big lie, and told it enough times, that people believed it. People believe what they are told, because they rarely have a reason not to. Now in actuality, Columbus didn't even claim to have discovered The New World. As of his third voyage to America, he still thought he was still in the Indies, off the coast of East Asia, for reasons we'll discuss later.

Columbus had a publicist - In 1507Martin Waldseemüller was the first (that we know of) to realize and map that North and South America were a separate continent, and not, in fact, the eastern coast of Asia, based on the detailed accounts of explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci had written. Unfortunately for Columbus, Waldseemüller mistakenly thought that Amerigo had, thus, been the one to discover the new world. So he latinized the name, and the West Indies became America. Later, in 1513, he was made aware of this mistake, and tried to correct his mistake, renaming it alternately "The Indies" or "Terra Incognita", and correcting his publishings to state that Columbus had, in fact, been the first to discover the New World. However, news traveled slowly. By this time, six years had passed, everyone who already knew about Waldseemüller's map was already calling the new land America, and the map itself was still being spread into new areas. The newer map name never really caught on, but thanks to the publishings of Waldseemüller, Christopher Columbus was at least firmly established as the Discoverer of the New World.

None of this actually mattered to Columbus himself, who died in 1506.

Why Did Columbus Sail Across the Atlantic?

After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe as a whole fell apart at the seams. What had once been a unified continent had become countless war-torn nations, always changing hands and boundaries. Almost no one traveled, almost nothing was produced, and nearly every technology and work of literature was lost. Imagine if, in America, we lost all electricity, gas, running water, international, interstate, even intercity trade. In the desperate attempt to simply survive with no more distribution of food, water, and infrastructure, one's choices were to either live off the land, or live off the good graces of the local warlord. In one short generation, the great minds died off or busied themselves trying to find something to eat, and everyone else pretty much followed suit.

As a result, Europe became an ignorant backwater area of men who had become little more than animals with weapons. There wasn't even a concept of economics, and thoughts of anything more than a couple of miles away simply didn't occur. No one traveled, except perhaps to raid their neighbors for food, women, and land. It was a terrible, ruthless time, though also an understandable result of starting from scratch when civilization simply ceases to exist. For over 500 years, these barbarians were only held in check by those with military might, and The Church. Anyone who wasn't Catholic was one of Them, and one of Them (usually Jews or Muslims) were, in merciful times, banished and run out of town at spear point, or alternately just killed.

The rest of the world, however, had done pretty well for itself. Over in the Muslim lands, art, science, and commerce had flourished. Jews and other non-Muslims were even rather warmly tolerated, needing to pay only a token tax to be allowed to exercise their religions freely. As a result, ideas were rather freely exchanged, discussed, and evolved. Mosques were not just places of worship, they were places of learning, of study of arts, sciences, and economics, to the point that in AD800, the Muslim Empire began a Scientific Revolution that lasted about 500 years. In turn, Agriculture flourished, especially a wide variety of spices.

Now, around AD 1000, the Church, which was the only trans-continental unifying force, had a monopoly on education in Europe, and Jerusalem, the Holy Land, was considered to be, literally, the center of the Universe. When the Muslim Empire expanded westward into Anatolia, and the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire called for help from the Church, the Church raised an army, promising that each person who died fighting would automatically go to heaven, that all sins previous to their fighting in the Crusade would be forgiven (including those committed en route to battle), that it was okay to kill non-Christians, and that they could keep any spoils they found along the way. Since about the only thing Europe was good at at this point was killing, taking other people's stuff, and being good Catholics, the first army saw massive numbers join up, and The First Crusade saw its inception.

But no one had any idea how to equip, move, march, and feed an army of that size, or to get it from Point A to Point B. Literally, the science of Logistics had to begin development in Europe. So these people who, for the last 20 generations, had never traveled more than a couple of miles, figured out how to launch long-distance expeditions involving many, many people.

Moving forward, after several Crusades, and people traveling back and forth between Europe and Jerusalem, the Europeans realized that all the wealth in the world was concentrated around the Indian Ocean. They had gold, art, music, science, gadgets, literature, and the crown jewel of everything, Spices. When you live in a hellish backwater where your nightly meal is either the same grains you've been growing for 500 years, or whatever boiled meat you could manage to find, and even so much as having salt was a luxury, the concept of spices was magical. The art was pretty, the science was neat, the gadgets were nifty, and the gold was shiny, but to a barbarian, Spiced food was heaven on Earth. Enough so that pepper corns became the accepted widespread currency of Europe.

Now the problem was this. The coastlines of the Indian Ocean were really far away. The lands were terribly treacherous, and bandits didn't make the trip any better. This made such journeys to obtain spices rather seldom and very expensive. If they could only get there by boat, they could cut costs dramatically, but how?

The first idea that might occur to one is to sail around Africa, but keep in mind the terrible ignorance that gripped Europe as a result of 500 years of no educational system, and no long-distance travel. All one knows for certain is that if you go far enough North, the land is pure ice, and you freeze to death. If you travel South, it gets hotter and hotter. It stands to reason that if you travel far enough south, eventually you would encounter a land of fire, and you would burn to death. So for centuries, Europeans never even thought to try seeing if there was even a way around Southern Africa.

However, technology advanced, slowly but surely, and eventually Europe saw more and more navigational equipment, such as the compass, astrolabe, and the caravel, as well as great advances in mapmaking, ideology, and (thanks largely to the failures of later Crusades) independence from the confines of Church thought, made the idea of long-distance boat travel possible. In the latter half of the 15th century, the Portuguese, lead by Prince Henry the Navigator, began experiments to see if Africa could, in fact be sailed around, and in 1486, Bartholomeu Dias proved it, though Henry had died by this point.

However, it was still a long journey, and Spain, Portugal's main competition, was looking for their own route to the Indian Ocean's wealth, but was completely tied up the Reconquista to recover Spain from the Moors, and couldn't spare the money or the focus for such an expedition, much less, had no men who would even know how to make such a journey.

Along comes Columbus, experienced, educated Genoan sailor who has, for years, been gathering an indisputable case that he can sail west across the Atlantic, all the way to the Indian Ocean. He has knowledge, maps, math, books, and everything he needs to back up his claim, except money. He needs a lot of money. He tries England and France, but they are too busy with wars and domestic affairs, and pay him little mind. He tries Spain, who were interested, but they were far too busy with the Reconquista, and then tries Portugal.

The Portuguese almost hire him. Almost. Unfortunately, in the course of negotiations with Columbus, Dias returned and proclaimed that, not only had he found the Southern tip of Africa, but that he also did not, in fact, burst into flames! The Portuguese thanked Columbus for his time, and showed him the door.

In 1492, the Reconquista ended. Spain was once again whole, and looking to get in on the action in the Indian Ocean. Columbus makes his sales pitch to Isabella, who almost turns him down because of his ludicrous demands (10% of all wealth, and ownership of any lands he finds), but her advisers inform her they can just agree to it now, and kill him afterward, assuming he even returns from sea.

So, on August 3rd, three seaworthy caravels, the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, each about the size of a double-wide trailer home, begin their journey west, after stopping briefly in the Canary Islands for Provisions. The plan was that he would sail about 4000 miles, land somewhere off the Eastern coast of Asia, and discover a shortcut to the vast wealth that the Indian Ocean held.

Thus, he did it mostly for Spices.

Didn't he sail to prove the Earth was round?

There are several common misconceptions about why Columbus sailed the ocean blue. The biggest being "to prove the Earth was round."

Educated people already knew the Earth was round. In fact, the first known globe was invented as early as 1490 by Martin Behaim. Aristotle is the earliest known literature to claim it. Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276BC - 194BC) even went so far as to rather accurately calculate the Earth's circumference. Even up to around AD820, Khalif El Ma'mun used two surveyor teams to discover the Earth's radius.

Even the idea of sailing across the ocean to India was not unique or unheard of. Right around the millennial turn of BC to AD,Strabo deduced one could sail due west to India from Europe. Unfortunately, Strabo played rather fast and loose with his numbers, and inexplicably ended up reducing the stated size of the Earth from Eratosthenes's estimated 250,000 stadia to 180,000, and further claimed that half of 180,000 was 70,000.

As is often the case, one work gets based upon the findings of another, which becomes the basis for another, and by the time Ptolemy's Geography is released, the Earth's size is fully 25% less than accurate.

However, the fact remains that mankind had known for well over a thousand years that the Earth was round, and this was commonly accepted as fact by the educated, explorers, and merchants. In fact, the only people who didn't know the Earth was flat were typically the common layperson who lived and died within a couple of miles from home, who never had cause to travel, read a book, or accept any truth other than the truths it took to feed them each day, and whatever they were told by the Church. Even the Church knew the Earth was round, they simply refused to take it into consideration, because it opened far too many questions about the veracity of the Bible, despite there being several Bible quotes that even allude to the Earth being round (though other quotes also claim it to be flat). At a time when the Church was the only unifying force holding together a fractured, backwater continent that had only recently pulled itself out of the Dark Ages, followed by the worst Plague in human history, it could not afford to show any sign of weakness or uncertainty. It was not that they were violently opposed to the idea of a round Earth, it was that they simply did not like to admit any change that might unseat their authoritative grip on accepted truths. Thus, it is understandable that despite being faced with logic, reason, and science, the church would seldom ever change its mind on any subject.

However, it was not the Church that Columbus wanted to impress. Contrary to popular opinion, Columbus was a very educated, experienced, and intelligent man. He was meticulous and methodical in his approach to proving he could sail west to the Indian Ocean. He had read up on all of the accepted scientific texts of the time, including Ptolemy, and Ma'mun

Unfortunately, due to the difference between Arabian and Greek measurements, Ma'mum's rather accurate radius estimate got cut in half, which meshed perfectly with the Ptolemy texts based off of Strabo's inaccurate numbers. Even the famed physician, astronomer, and mathematician Paolo Toscanelli had estimated the distance from Lisbon, Spain, west to Japan to be only 3000 miles, and to China only 5000 miles.

Columbus, therefore, had every reason to expect that, not only was the world round, but that around 4000-5000 miles west of Europe, he would find the Eastern coast of Asia. He really had done his homework, and everything known at the time backed him up. Only the Church held a different view, and only because of political reasons, not for lack of knowledge or proof.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

(edit: Fixed the Toscanelli link)

[edit on 1/24/2008 by thelibra]

[edit on 1/24/2008 by thelibra]

How could Columbus think he was in India?

First off, it wasn't India. He thought he was in the East Indies. And when he made landfall on October 12th, and shortly afterward off the coast of Cuba (then Hispaniola), he found natives that somewhat matched the swarthy skin and primitive ways that Marco Polo had described of the East Indies.

The land was about the right distance as his estimates. The shape of the coastlines was roughly what was known of East Asia. Compare the East coastline of North and South America to the coastline of Asia and Australia to see for yourself. And the natives looked enough like the same natives that Marco Polo had described.

Columbus had every reason to think he'd succeeded in finding a shortcut to Asia, and captured a few local "Indians" to take back to Spain as proof. In his second and third voyages, he continued to believe this to be the case, but for some reason, couldn't seem to find a waterway from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, and couldn't find any of the cities (like Hangzhou) that were known to exist.

It is suspected that, after his third and final journey in 1498, Columbus began to realize he'd found a different continent entirely, and not China, but by now he was considered to have failed in his mission, and sadly died in relative obscurity in 1506. Further explorers after Columbus, including Amerigo Vespucci, returned with enough information for Waldseemüller to deduce with authority that it was, in fact, a new, unknown land.

The New World was then Explored?

Yes, but not on purpose. This "New World" was no more new to the Europeans than Africa was. It was already heavily inhabited by tens of millions of well-armed, established people who spoke an unfamiliar language, and didn't have the marketplaces and trade cities they were looking for. All Europeans wanted to do, for the longest time, was simply find a way around it, so they could continue on with getting to the Indian Ocean.

In fact, had North and South America been separated by enough of a stretch of water to even get one Caravel through, the Europeans probably would never have bothered with America at all. Perhaps some trade would later be established with the American "Indians", but the Spanish really would just preferred to have gone about their merry way. When it was realized that this huge, contiguous stretch of land was too big of a pain in the rear to get around, they tried to figure out how to go through it, still with the intent of just getting on their way to India.

But in the process of going through America, they found gold and silver. LOTS of gold and silver. So much so that for the next 400 years, the Spanish gold and silver mines produced more than ten times the combined production in the rest of the world.

"That'll do, Pig... That'll do..."

Suddenly, even though in 1513, Vasco de Balboa found the Pacific Ocean by crossing the Isthmus of Panama, the Spanish realized they had an investment far more lucrative than the wealth of the Indian Ocean. After all, why sail all the way to the Indian Ocean, and PAY someone to get spices you could only get the resale value for (minus travel costs), when you could simply take everything this other land had, free of charge?

Thus began the advent of the Conquistadors, Spanish settlement, and the subsequent rape of the land, along with the subjugation and destruction of the native inhabitants of America.

None of this could have really happened without perfect timing. Columbus was the right man, with the right experience, at EXACTLY the right time, where the right equipment was available to use, and he was there to fulfill a need that was big enough to risk an enormous sum of money on. And even though America was discovered by accident, and the attempts to simply ignore her and continue onward were tenacious, the eventual realization of this golden land led Spain into a Golden Age.

America was never discovered because of a desire to see what was out there, it was discovered because of a solid business venture that paid out considerably well.

And that, my friends, is real the Truth about Columbus.

[edit on 1/24/2008 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibra

Was Columbus the first European to discover America?

Certainly not.

Basque cod fishermen were regularly sailing America's coasts long before Columbus, but didn't tell anyone about it because it was a prime fishing spot. America's coasts were a Basque's best-kept trade secret, and the massive hauls they could procure off of an unoccupied coast were a major contributing factor to their fame as fisherman.

Uh, pardon me but your link does not support this statement.

From your source:

In the Northwest Atlantic study, which has components from the Gulf of Maine, Greenland and Newfoundland fisheries, researchers will be delving into older data. Spanish and Portuguese records of cod fishing on the Grand Banks are available from the late 1500s and early 1600s when there was strong demand for salted fish in Europe and a large fleet sailed the Atlantic.

"Basque fishermen and whalers knew about the area before Columbus 'discovered' America," Smith said.

That's the Grand Banks, not the coast of North America. The extent of the Grand Banks eastward is such that Basque fishermen could easily have fished 400 miles (or more) from the coast of Newfoundland and still be fishing the Grand Banks. You can't see land from that far off. So, no, they didn't discover the new world that way. As far as anyone knows, anyway.

Harte

(MOD EDIT: snipped quote from OP down to relevant portion.)

[edit on 1/24/2008 by thelibra]

Originally posted by Harte
Uh, pardon me but your link does not support this statement.

Sorry if the link wasn't the best supporting info, I tried my best to carefully go over each source I used, but apparently I misread this one. The assertion that Basque fished off the coast of America before Columbus is still a valid one, even if I read the link's info incorrectly.

Here are three links to make up for it:

Compact Histories

Micmac

Together with the Beothuk on Newfoundland, the Micmac were probably the first Native Americans to have regular contact with Europeans. This may have occurred as early as the 11th century with the early Viking settlements on the coast of North America, or perhaps with Basque fishermen who visited the Grand Banks before Columbus' voyage in 1492 but kept quiet about where they were catching all their fish. The first known contact was made in 1497 by John Cabot who took three Micmac with him when he returned to England. The Micmac may not have appreciated this, since Cabot disappeared in the same area during his second voyage a few years later.

In the book Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, Kurlansky provides a detailed and compelling case for the Basque having already discovered the coasts of North America long before Columbus.


From Guyana News and Information:

Long before Columbus, however, Basque fishermen from the Bay of Biscay, had reached these Canadian shores. Henry Cabot, the early explorer, had reported seeing fish on the Newfoundland Banks, like a floor of silver! France was Catholic, a fish eating country requiring days of fasting. Thousands of its fishing boats were afloat from the North Atlantic to Newfoundland and the Gaspé.

Additionally, a Google search will show various other sources, mostly detailed articles on the histories of cod or cod dishes, that make mention of the Basque fishing off America's coasts long before Columbus. Tonight, if you'd like, I'll inquire of my history professor where some additional credible material may be found. Rest assured though, it's a fairly well accepted assertion that the Basque knew about America long before Columbus did.


[edit on 1/24/2008 by thelibra]

reply to post by thelibra

---

hi there,

i will try to dig out some info for you from my friend at the fishing museum in Portugal.

they have very old records of cod fishing going way back ...

as i said earlier,thanks for this thread

snoopyuk

reply to post by thelibra

---

hi libra

yes i am the same , that is why i love ATS, as it has all the best subjects and topics with actual experts sprinkled in with everyday people.

i have a great deal of interest in old maps, i own a few old maps that i have bought through auction houses in London UK. they are mainly v early Roman maps and Portuguese and Spanish maps. i live between Portugal and the UK now, so i often come across people in Portugal who have old knowledge or old artifacts.

i would love to help you in any way with a follow up thread if i can be of any use that is.

take care

snoopyuk

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by Harte
Uh, pardon me but your link does not support this statement.

Sorry if the link wasn't the best supporting info, I tried my best to carefully go over each source I used, but apparently I misread this one. The assertion that Basque fished off the coast of America before Columbus is still a valid one, even if I read the link's info incorrectly.

Here are three links to make up for it:

Compact Histories

Micmac

Together with the Beothuk on Newfoundland, the Micmac were probably the first Native Americans to have regular contact with Europeans. This may have occurred as early as the 11th century with the early Viking settlements on the coast of North America, or perhaps with Basque fishermen who visited the Grand Banks before Columbus' voyage in 1492 but kept quiet about where they were catching all their fish. The first known contact was made in 1497 by John Cabot who took three Micmac with him when he returned to England. The Micmac may not have appreciated this, since Cabot disappeared in the same area during his second voyage a few years later.

Sorry, Libra, but this quote does say "perhaps." Note also that it only unequivocally states that the Basques are known to have fished the Grand Banks, and not that they actually reached the shore of N. America.

I don't believe that this idea has been "accepted" as anything but speculation.

Originally posted by thelibra
In the book Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, Kurlansky provides a detailed and compelling case for the Basque having already discovered the coasts of North America long before Columbus.

I couldn't reach this link because I'm at work and our server won't accept cookies from the NYT.

I'd sure like to read it though

Originally posted by thelibra
From Guyana News and Information:

Long before Columbus, however, Basque fishermen from the Bay of Biscay, had reached these Canadian shores. Henry Cabot, the early explorer, had reported seeing fish on the Newfoundland Banks, like a floor of silver! France was Catholic, a fish eating country requiring days of fasting. Thousands of its fishing boats were afloat from the North Atlantic to Newfoundland and the Gaspé.

This website makes the statement without supporting it. I understand it, but I see no reason to believe it.

Originally posted by thelibraAdditionally, a Google search will show various other sources, mostly detailed articles on the histories of cod or cod dishes, that make mention of the Basque fishing off America's coasts long before Columbus. Tonight, if you'd like, I'll inquire of my history professor where some additional credible material may be found. Rest assured though, it's a fairly well accepted assertion that the Basque knew about America long before Columbus did.

Yeah, I looked around and didn't see anything but the claim.

But I did find this:

Historians have debated whether the Basques may have reached North America before Christopher Columbus's arrival in 1492. The weight of opinion today is that they did not. There are no historical documents demonstrating that they did, and there are no oral traditions in the Basque country of a pre-Columbian exploration of the New World. Fifteenth and 16th century Basque seafarers were not explorers or colonists in the tradition of some other European nations. Indeed, rather than publicize their voyages, the Basques desired to keep their discoveries secret in order to protect them from competitors.

Source: The Labrador Straits Region of Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada

I don't mean to imply that the Basques didn't reach North America, I just wanted to assert that as far as we know, there's no reason at all to think that they actually did.
Of course, there may have been some new evidence turn up I don't know about. I certainly appreciate your offer to provide more info. I look forward to reading it.

Harte

[edit on 1/24/2008 by Harte]

reply to post by thelibra

---

You forgot the CELTS!



There has been evidence that Celtic peoples also made their way to the New World..

Even evidence that the Knights Templar as well.

But as an example I give you a Welsh legend, and as we know, legends are often derived from some kind of fact.

Madog ab Owain Gwynedd..

This is primarily a Welsh legend, but behind all legends, there is a truth.. it is possible that this man made it to the New World, and at the end of the legend, he came back from the New World, told of its wonder, took a few settlers with them and went back, never to be heard from again.

According to this legend, Owain’s description has historians believe he landed somewhere around Mobile Alabama.. and after attaining a group of settlers for his second voyage, in the year 1169 Owain established a settlement in the Mississippi.

Sadly enough, historians hypothesize that it is rather likely that the Welsh settlers continued north into the Dakota regions, and where found by American’s during the Revolutionary War, and where entirely wiped out as a race…… by small pox.

Soldiers accounts said the Mandan Indians as they where called, where light skinned, light haired, and had long beards. Sounds almost European huh?

Historic insight into the language used, their writing skills which is few among Indian peoples, and their engineering abilities closely relate to Celtic in nature, possibly Welsh..

During the Revolutionary War, a Welsh soldier had reported once that while serving in the Ohio region, that he conversed in broken Welsh with one Indian Tribe, though it cannot be solidly verified.

My Thread

Further from my thread, the naming of America:

According to research conducted by an English College professor, America did not take its name from Amerigo Vespucci, but from a senior collector of Customs at Bristol, the main port from which English voyages of discovery sailed in the late 15th century. Dr. Basil Cottle, who is himself of Welsh birth, tells us that the official was Richard Amerik, one of the chief investors in the second transatlantic voyage of John Cabot, which led to the famous navigator receiving the King's Pension for his discoveries.

John Cabot landed in the New World in May 1497, becoming the first recorded European to set foot on American soil. As far as Amerik's Welsh connection is concerned, the word "Amerik" itself seems to be derived from ap Meuric, Welsh for the son of Maurice. (The later was anglicized further to Morris). There was a large Welsh population in Bristol in the late 15th century.

Because Cabot's voyages were made before the year 1500, they pre-date Amerigo Vespucci's interest in the New World. Professor Cottle reminds us that new countries or continents are never named after a person's first name, always after his or her second name. Thus, America would have become "Vespucci Land" if the Italian explorer really gave his name to the newly discovered continent (i.e. Tasmania, Van Dieman's Land, Cook Islands, etc.). It seems that countries or territories are named after first names only when the name is that of a royal personage such as Prince Edward Island, Victoria, etc.).

(taken from Britannia see thread for link.)

This subject is always enough to make one think..

Think that is, of how little we know about our ancestors, our history... and we always forget that a Human is a Human.. and a Human 5,000 years ago is the same Human today, same intelligence, same feeling, same enginuity, same genius.

It is not that we are smarter, and thus, could build bigger boats to find America, we always had the same intelligence, it is however, our understanding that changes, and it is not impossible for ancient people to understand a logical method of getting to where they needed to be.

reply to post by mojo4sale

---

I'm of the belief that if we were to get a good analysis of Kennewick man, it would turn out he was related to the Polynesians or perhaps the Ainu, rather than the daffy claim that he was a North european.

I wish people would realize that human hair turns reddish as it decomposes and oxidizes, and this does not mean that a mummy with red hair was from Sweden or something.

reply to post by freight tomsen

---

I just want to point out...

“The Phoenicians were not confined to the Mediterranean and the Middle East. They landed in Britain around 3,000 BC and unmistakable Phoenician artefacts have been found in Brazil, as well as possible Egyptian remains in the Grand Canyon in America. The Phoenicians landed in the Americas thousands of years before the manufactured ‘photo opportunity’ better known as the journey of Christopher Columbus. The reason that the native legends of the Americas speak of tall ‘white gods’ coming from the sea bringing advanced knowledge is because that is precisely what happened, if you forget the gods bit.”
-David Icke, “The Biggest Secret” 63

David Icke is a moron, repeating the claims of mor(m)ons. There are no "tall white gods" who "come from the east." That is what as known as propaganda, fed to the people the Spanish conquered as an attempt to syncretize the native beleifs with Catholicism while encouraging a slave state. This junk was later seized upon and popularized by Mormons who used this fake myth about a fake religion to claim that Jesus was here in the Americas.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mojo4sale

---

I'm of the belief that if we were to get a good analysis of Kennewick man, it would turn out he was related to the Polynesians or perhaps the Ainu, rather than the daffy claim that he was a North european.

I wish people would realize that human hair turns reddish as it decomposes and oxidizes, and this does not mean that a mummy with red hair was from Sweden or something.

Agreed walkingfox. However i'll probably alienate you with my belief that the Phoenicians were in contact with the america's.
Such is life.

LiveScience

Polynesians made contact with the west coast of South America as much as a century before any Spanish conquistadors, her findings imply.

wikipedia

The Polynesian voyagers reached the South American mainland and there are suggestions that they made contact with indigenous South Americans. Carbon-dating of chicken bones found by Chilean archaeologists on the Arauco Peninsula in south-central Chile date from between 1321 and 1407 AD. DNA analysis of the bones match those found in prehistoric samples from Tonga and American Samoa, and a near identical match from Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The sweet potato, known in Polynesian languages as kumara or kumala is widely grown around the Pacific but originated in the Andes. There are also linguistic similarities - sweet potato is kumar in Peru. There is no conclusive evidence that Pacific peoples actually settled on the South American mainland or that South American peoples voyaged into the Pacific.

www.archaeology.org

Most scholars assume that the chicken, like the horse, was unknown in the New World before the arrival of the Spaniards. But now radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis of a chicken bone excavated from a site in Chile suggest Polynesians in ocean-going canoes brought chickens to the west coast of South America well before Europe's "Age of Discovery."
Some 50 chicken bones belonging to five chickens were recently recovered from the site of El Arenal-1, on Chile's Arauco Peninsula. The site is the first excavated settlement of the Andean people known as the Mapuche, who lived on the southern fringe of the Inca empire from about A.D. 1000 to 1500.

Wish i could find the other link i had with the results of genetic and dna testing that proved the polynesian contact, i'll keep looking.

But there is this that i also have on file.

link to wikipedia article on pre-columbian trans-oceanic travel

Some people continue to believe that pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact may have occurred because such voyages were technically quite possible. After all, the only essential requirements for a successful trans-oceanic trip are a boat that can withstand the open ocean weather for a few months, and means to store or obtain enough food and water to keep the crew alive for that duration. The historical and experimental evidence gathered over the last few decades shows that these requirements could have been met even in remote antiquity, millennia before Columbus's time. This circumstantial evidence includes reliable records of several maritime trips of comparable distance, and modern attempts to retrace possible contact routes with reproductions of ancient boats. While these reports and experiments are only speculative, they do open up the question of such contacts.

Linguistic evidence has demonstrated that Madagascar, for example, was settled by Austronesian peoples from Indonesia. Their navigators were able to cross the Indian Ocean and large sections of the Pacific by the early 1st millennium.

In the 19th century, a Japanese junk lost its mast and rudder in a typhoon on its way to Edo, was carried by sea currents across the Northern Pacific, and reached the coast of Washington State 14 months later. One of the survivors, Otokichi, became a famous interpreter.

In 1982, Brazilian newspapers reported that fragments of amphorae had been recovered by professional treasure hunter and underwater archaeologist Robert Frank Marx, from the bottom of Guanabara Bay, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Elizabeth Lyding Mill of the University of Massachusetts has reportedly identified the finds as being Roman, manufactured at Kouass (Dehar Jedid) in Morocco, and dated them to the 3rd century. A bottom survey by Harold E. Edgerton a pioneer in the field from MIT located what seemed to be remains of two disintegrating ships.

Further proof that trans-oceanic travel was possible pre-columbian?

The researchers claim that Abubakari's fleet of pirogues, loaded with men and women, livestock, food and drinking water, departed from what is the coast of present-day Gambia.
They are gathering evidence that in 1312 Abubakari II landed on the coast of Brazil in the place known today as Recife.

Here is some of the circumstantial evidence pointing to Phoenician contact with the new World as well.

phoenician inscriptions allegedly found in Brazil

We are sons of Canaan from Sidon, the city of the king. Commerce has cast us on this distant shore, a land of mountains We sacrificed a youth for the exalted gods and goddesses in the nineteenth year of Hiram. our mighty king We embarked from Ezion-Geber into the Red Sea and voyaged with ten ships. We were at sea together for two years, around the land belonging to Ham [Africa], but were separated from the hand of Baal and we were no long with our companions So we have come here. twelve men and three women, on a...shore which I, the Admiral, control. But auspiciously may the exalted gods and goddesses favor us!
(Ouoted from my GODS OF THE CATACLYSM. New York: Harper's Magazine Press, 1976, p.136.)
This inscription correlates very nicely with the bible, King Solomon making a pact with the same Hiram of Tyre to build ships for him to go to Ophir in search of gold:

The La Fuente Magna is a bowl discovered in Bolivia containing writing of Sumerian or proto Sumerian cuneiform

It is a large stone vessel, resembling a libation bowl, possibly used for religious ceremonies. It was found in the 1950's by a farmer in the neighbourhood of Tiwanaku and has since been authenticated.

Pictures of the bowl here

I have a fair bit of other circumstantial reports of contact and of artifacts that point to a phoenician presence in thew America's. Happy to post that up as well if asked.

mojo

Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
  Posted 13 days ago with 102 member flags

Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags

The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 16 days ago with 70 member flags

Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 6 days ago with 45 member flags

Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 18 days ago with 29 member flags

42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
  Posted 5 days ago with 26 member flags

R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: