Christopher Columbus was Scottish

[macwilkin]

I recall reading somewhere that the Aztecs with thier slings and clay pellets were far more effective both in rate of fire and accuracy that Cortez's muskets.

Could very well be. The Aztecs certainly got the jump on Cortes on La Noche Triste.

T.

[Bryan]

If anyone is interested, I read a great work on pre-Columbian America recently. It's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.

[Bryan]

I recall reading somewhere that the Aztecs with thier slings and clay pellets were far more effective both in rate of fire and accuracy that Cortez's muskets.

Much like the plains tribes early in the 19th century with their bows. Muskets used up into the 19th century were mostly smooth-bore, single shot muzzle loaders. Very inaccurate. It wasn't until the advent of the repeating firearm that things really changed.

[thanmuwa]

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that suggests St. Brendan ever made it anywhere in North America. The first evidence of Europeans in the New World is the remains of a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, dated to around AD 1000.

Where is the archaeological evidence that Columbus made it to the Americas? Or that Darwin made it to the Galapagos, or that anyone has ever circumnavigated the world? Come to think about it, what about asking an archaeologist to prove that man landed on the Moon without telling the archaeologist where to start looking?
Just because there is no archaelogical evidence doesn't mean it did or didn't happen, it may just mean that they were tidy when they got there or archaeologists are looking in the wrong place. Archeology is after all a limited tool and can only really spot signs of relatively large, relatively permanent settlements, and usually only when given a clue as to where to look. Put another way, archaeology can only prove presence, not absence.


I have to say, I love the idea of Pedro Scotti though .

[Bigkahuna]

There are in fact archeological sites in the Caribbean that prove Columbus was there. National Geographic had an article about them a year or two ago.

[Bryan]

Where is the archaeological evidence that Columbus made it to the Americas? Or that Darwin made it to the Galapagos, or that anyone has ever circumnavigated the world? Come to think about it, what about asking an archaeologist to prove that man landed on the Moon without telling the archaeologist where to start looking?
Just because there is no archaelogical evidence doesn't mean it did or didn't happen, it may just mean that they were tidy when they got there or archaeologists are looking in the wrong place. Archeology is after all a limited tool and can only really spot signs of relatively large, relatively permanent settlements, and usually only when given a clue as to where to look. Put another way, archaeology can only prove presence, not absence.

1. I never said it didn't happen. You're implying that I did. I said there is NO archaeological evidence that St. Brendan ever came to North America.

2. Because there is NO archaeological evidence one must infer that the story is indeed legend (much like the Norse coming to NA until the site at L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered and researched). Until sufficient evidence is found, St. Brendan's voyage can NEVER be said with authority to have happened.

"Archeology [sic] is after all a limited tool and can only really spot signs of relatively large, relatively permanent settlements..." That is just plain wrong. Study the archaeology of the Southwestern United States. Or the Southeastern states if you prefer. There were very few "large, relatively permanent" settlements. In fact, most sites dating to before the arrival of Europeans in the US are kill sites the size of a small camp.

[Carolina Kiltman]

Just another bit to throw into the discussion: I remember reading, and seeing photos of stone heads of bearded men, in South America (do not remember the specific country, but it was on the Atlantic side).

As the Indians did not have beards, the article made the surmise that they were the result of (possibly) a visit by St. Brendan. There are, of course, a great many things we do not know. People did get around a lot, even back then.

How bout a name in my family, Turrentine? They came to the US in the early 19th century, from Ireland, go figure.

[Bugbear]

Where's David Hume when you need him?

[Bryan]

Just another bit to throw into the discussion: I remember reading, and seeing photos of stone heads of bearded men, in South America (do not remember the specific country, but it was on the Atlantic side).

As the Indians did not have beards, the article made the surmise that they were the result of (possibly) a visit by St. Brendan. There are, of course, a great many things we do not know. People did get around a lot, even back then.

Mesoamericans also have carvings of feathered serpents (e.g. Quetzalcoatl), but that doesn't mean they exist. lol

[Nick]

Where's David Hume when you need him?

Outconsuming Schopenhauer and Hegel.