It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SwatMedic
I just want to know how you travel all the way from Europe to the Grand Banks and come back with fish that isnt rotted from the long journey.
Were the boats almost sinking from all the ice they carried?
Im not being sarcastic. Im no fisherman and have no real idea how they would accomplish this.
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.
Originally posted by SwatMedic
I just want to know how you travel all the way from Europe to the Grand Banks and come back with fish that isnt rotted from the long journey.
Were the boats almost sinking from all the ice they carried?
Originally posted by malcr
History will not be correctly revised. When you go back far enough History turns into Archeology and then you have huge problems. You are not allowed to question and definitely not revise the archeological "truth".
So you see as soon as you accept that the Americas were being visited by Europeans centuries before Columbus then you then eventually come to the conclusion that Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans and wait for it wait for it.... Northern Africans all sent visitors i.e. Egyptians. Then you are into the realms of why pyramids with the same construction technology exist in Egypt and Southern America.....oops.....not allowed.
Originally posted by malcr
History will not be correctly revised. When you go back far enough History turns into Archeology and then you have huge problems. You are not allowed to question and definitely not revise the archeological "truth".
So you see as soon as you accept that the Americas were being visited by Europeans centuries before Columbus then you then eventually come to the conclusion that Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans and wait for it wait for it.... Northern Africans all sent visitors i.e. Egyptians. Then you are into the realms of why pyramids with the same construction technology exist in Egypt and Southern America.....oops.....not allowed.
Columbus was an Italian mercenary paid by the Spanish to loot and pillage new lands to fill the Spanish royal coffers. But that doesn't sound too good does it.....so he was an "explorer" "financed" by the "Philanthropic" Spanish royal family.
Originally posted by mortalengine
... the Smithsonian Institution has the monopoly on this stuff and they practically incinirate their finds to prevent mayhem. To change what we think we know now about history changes everything... it's simply too expensive to chance. So they dont.
Basque fishermen and whalers were probably in the Grand Banks/Davis Strait region in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century, necessarily landing on the Canadian coast for water, processing catches, and trading—there are Basque words in Canadian Algonkian and Iroquoian languages (Bakker, 1989).1 At that time, they were, as Kurlansky (1999: 58) points out, ‘‘the best sailors, with the best ships, the best navigators, and a tradition of sailing the longest distances.’’
150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)
130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
Originally posted by thelibra
Wow, this thread made the leaderboard? Thanks y'all! It's exciting to see how many other people here are so interested in history. Thank you all very much for the compliments and discussion of the subject. It's very encouraging to write more articles like this when they don't die a quiet, unreplied death.
Here's some replies:
Harte: Regarding the Basque Fishermen
I double-checked with my history professor, to see if perhaps I'd misunderstood about the Basque fishermen theory, and to get references. He assured me that, yes, in today's scholarly circles, the Pre-Columbian visits from the Basque (as well as other nation's) fishermen are widely accepted. He referred me to author David B. Quinn as the foremost authority on the subject, and in searching for some of his works to reference, I found more professors also referring to Kurlanksy's works as well, so apparently he's also pretty highly regarded. It's also important to keep in mind, the fishermen did not keep records and logs of their journeys because it was a huge trade secret, so the likelihood of finding an absolute smoking gun is slim.
Here is a paper by Prof Alice B. Kehoe (Dept of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Basque fishermen and whalers were probably in the Grand Banks/Davis Strait region in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century, necessarily landing on the Canadian coast for water, processing catches, and trading—there are Basque words in Canadian Algonkian and Iroquoian languages (Bakker, 1989).1 At that time, they were, as Kurlansky (1999: 58) points out, ‘‘the best sailors, with the best ships, the best navigators, and a tradition of sailing the longest distances.’’
Aside from Kurlansky, the authoritative work on the subject appears, over and again, to be England and the Discovery of America, 1481-1620 by David Beers Quinn. I cannot find an online version of this, sorry. But apparently the work has been pretty widely accepted by enough university history professors to be regularly quoted and referred to.
So I suppose the end result is, yes, there's no absolute smoking gun that the Basques were absolutely sailing America's coasts in Pre-Columbian times, but there's enough evidence, logic, reason, and study of the subject for it to be a fairly commonly accepted "given".