Christopher Columbus was Scottish

[Bryan]

Columbus being Scottish...

Couldn't agree more. It's silly.

[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.

[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

[thanmuwa]

Because there is NO archaeological evidence one must infer that the story is indeed legend

No, actually, I don't have to infer anything of the sort. You seem to be saying that the written evidence should be regarded as legends (ie not based in fact) when there is no archaeological evidence. That implies that the stories of Norse landings in North America were legends before L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered, and based in fact afterwards. In actual fact, those stories were just as true before L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered as they were afterwards.
Let me restate, no proof of presence is not the same thing as proof of absence. For example, we have a television programme here in the UK called TimeTeam. It is a programme where archaeologists go to a site and do their stuff. There are plenty of episodes where the archaeologists can't prove presence of a building even though the site was picked due to other evidence that something was there. That other proof sometimes even included drawings and sometimes even photos for the more recent buildings. By your logic, should we regard the drawings as legends (ie fake) because the archaeological evidence didn't support them?
Apologies if I seem not very impressed with archaeology, but we physicists consider it very much at the astrology end of the astrology-astronomy scale of sciences. Indiana Jones was cool though

[Gunnar]

America was discovered by an ICELANDER!

[Bugbear]

Um... I'm open to conjectures that there is a great deal of unknown and lost history, but I don't know about this one...

[Bugbear]

As I posted before:

Um... I'm open to conjectures that there is a great deal of unknown and lost history, but I don't know about this one...

When I was growing up, I was tought many myths and much incorrect history by the schools and especially by family members. Lots of that was towrn down later on, and I also found that there is some history that was overlooked, and possibly taboo, until not too long ago.

I don't really buy into the artical, just to clarify my view. I was talking about a different subject in the post you quoted, though, eiry.