 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / March 2006Old paradigm is rocking!
"....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American mainland was utilized for furs, falcons and timber beyond the thirty years or so that the houses in Newfoundland lasted." Page 1 Opinion Piece Viking America: Historical Archaeology http://www.smcm.edu/Academics/soan/cneha/Number62.pdf "...... Euro-American contact on both a casual cultural and biological basis has to be assumed from at least 950 CE on........" continued article page 3 same url. Now the Old paradigm is rocking and there is definitely a large hole in the brickwall that naysayers used to protest against Pre-Columbian contacts outside Newfoundland...... Inger E > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American mainland was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Inger E Nothing is rocking because there is nothing new, not even your selective quoting. Here is the complete 'opinion piece', not worth the 4 mb download: " OPINION PIECE Viking America: Historical Archaeology by Michael Cohn The existence of a Norse settlement in Newfoundland is now generally accepted by archaeologists and historians. Since the 1960s, scattered finds of Norse artifacts from northern Maine to Hudson Bay, as well as the excavation of butternut husks in context at L'Anse aux Meadows, make it almost certain that Norse ships probably based at Greenland explored America widely, both in space and time. Ramah chert from Labrador has been found in Greenland. Since the Greenland colony lasted into the 15th century, it can be assumed that the American mainland was utilized for furs, falcons and timber beyond the thirty years or so that the houses in Newfoundland lasted. During the same period of time, Basque, English and Norse fishermen hunted whales and cod in the Western Atlantic. The possibility that they landed on the American continent to dry fish, obtain firewood and fresh water must be given serious consideration. All of this places historical archaeologists in a quandary. The concept that the year 1500 CE divides prehistoric from historic eras seems no longer sustainable. Euro-American contact on both a casual cultural and biological basis has to be assumed from at least 950 CE on, and the early official explorers are likely to have had more than an inkling where they were headed. "  Signaturep.a. > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American mainland was [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > official explorers are likely to have had more > than an inkling where they were headed. " Not many people would dispute the possibility of Europeans landing on the east coast. Maine and Labrador are still a long way from Minnesota and North Dakota. It will take more than that to rock the paradigm. Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Alan Alan, you must have missed the line "....make it almost certain that Norse ships probably based at Greenland explored America widely, both in space and time...." Apart from that you as well as Peter Alaca missed the most essential information provided by many scholars the last two years. That Norse artifacts been found in Hudson Bay. Supressed before now out in the open. The Old paradigm is more than rocking, it's more or less into the chaos before a new paradigm is formed. Inger E > -- > Alan Crozier > Lund > Sweden > > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > The Old paradigm is more than rocking, it's more or less into the chaos > before a new paradigm is formed. I think the author means that they explored widely along the Atlantic coast. No paradigms shaking there. Anyway, if the Vinland Map is genuine, it proves that the Norse did not get very far inland, and believed North America to be a small island. The VM knows nothing about Hudson Bay. How do you explain this discrepancy between (a) your thesis of extensive Norse exploration and penetration into North America, and (b) the failure of the VM cartographer to record any of this? Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden > > > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > I think the author means that they explored widely along the > Atlantic coast. No paradigms shaking there. NO he most certainly doesn't! I guess that this show the difference between a scholar of Linguistic and a scholar of History. In the education from BA up(C-essay needed for BA, D-essay/thesis needed for MA together with a certain amount of points for each degree) in other word: among the courses needed to be able to write a C-essay as well as essay/thesis above one need to be able to validate the text. What you missed is that the writer wrote: "...scattered finds of Norse artifacts from northern Maine to Hudson Bay, .... " In his first paragraph's second sentence. The first paragraph is usually either a summery of what's to come or a more careful explination of what the scholar refer to in the article below. Since he did that and continued with: "......make it almost certain that Norse ships probably based at Greenland explored America widely, both in space and time.... " in same paragraph, it's hard to understand it otherwise that he by that meant that the Norse ships explored America at least from northern Maine to Hudson Bay. In other words by no means does the scholar behind such a paragraph indicate that he meant the eastcoast!!!!! Definitely more than a rocking paradigm, added to this should for example Deslien's first map from 1544 which Queen Elisabeth I:s got and which show NORWEGIAN Calmar Union flag on several settlements in the area between Hudson Bay and Newfoundland. Not to mention several other maps edited before 1560's..... More than the Old paradigm rocking - it's a complete chaos for that one! > Anyway, if the Vinland Map is genuine, it proves that the Norse > did not get very far inland, and believed North America to be a > small island. The VM knows nothing about Hudson Bay. Well here you are wrong. Deadly wrong btw. The Vinland map doesn't show anything more than the SWEDISH territories of Vinland in 1430's, neither the Norwegian, which were along the northern artic coast from Hudson Bay to Newfoundland, nor the Danish which were in the southwestern corner of Hudson Bay, from which they did export furs(!) at least 60 years before Munk's voyage. Placename? Dania Nova. On early French as well as early other maps. > How do you explain this discrepancy between (a) your thesis of > extensive Norse exploration and penetration into North America, > and (b) the failure of the VM cartographer to record any of > this? Because I know as well as many others why only Swedish(!) part of Vinland was shown on the map. That was what it was about - the Swedes did from that time up to Gustav Vasa try to make themselves independent from the Danish Crown and the Calmar Union. I thought you had read about that period in Swedish History. Inger E > Alan > > -- > Alan Crozier > Lund > Sweden > > > > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > NORWEGIAN Calmar Union flag on several settlements in the area between > Hudson Bay and Newfoundland. I think you'll find that Desliens was claiming that territory as French. > > Anyway, if the Vinland Map is genuine, it proves that the Norse > > did not get very far inland, and believed North America to be a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bay, from which they did export furs(!) at least 60 years before Munk's > voyage. Placename? Dania Nova. On early French as well as early other maps. You have never provided a reference so that the rest of us could see these early maps with Dania Nova on them. > > How do you explain this discrepancy between (a) your thesis of > > extensive Norse exploration and penetration into North America, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Crown and the Calmar Union. I thought you had read about that period in > Swedish History. I'll ignore the insinuation that I am ignorant about Swedish history. Instead I will compliment you on your interesting and original interpretation of the VM. The map shows lots of other territories even though Sweden can't have claimed them. Or did Sweden claim Greenland and the Islands of Brendan? Did Sweden claim Iceland and Japan, which are also marked on the map? Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden Alan, before we continue this discussion, please read closer about what happened to King Erik of Pommern who married the English King's sister and also King Erik's relation to the Swedish Bishops and Noblemen. There are a lot more to be learnt from the Swedish Religious History as well as ordinary Swedish History when 1430's is on the agenda. http://www.svenskhistoria.se/bocker/839.html http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbrekt_Engelbrektsson "Under åren 1430-1440 byggdes birgittinernas underbara klosterkyrka i Vadstena, och några år senare grundades Nådendal nära Åbo. " http://www.katolik.nu/html/hist3.htm It was a period when Vadstena once again came to be an important town as did Linköping. Inger E > > > > > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > > > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > Lund > Sweden > > > > > > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in > > > > > > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > which are also > > marked on the map? > Alan, > before we continue this discussion, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It was a period when Vadstena once again came to be an important town as did > Linköping. None of this answers my questions or explains why a cartographer would deliberately fail to draw land if he knew that it existed, merely because it did not belong to Sweden. Wouldn't it have been possible to draw all the known land and write something on the map to indicate which bits were claimed by Sweden? Or was the cartographer a total bozo? Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden <snip> > You have never provided a reference so that the rest of us could see these early maps with > Dania Nova on them. <snip> Alan: I've seen maps with "Dania Nova" ("DN") on them; they go from Munk's, with "DN" on the west side of Hudson Bay, to a hybrid showing Munk's "DN" as one possible version of the coastline beside another (later, and much more accurate) version, to a relocation of Munk's "DN" coastline to the west side of Baffin Bay, to a simple label of "DN" on the northern part of the west side of Baffin Bay. When maps of the future Canadian Arctic were produced as a result of Royal Navy expeditions meant to chart the area, "DN" was not included. Conclusion: Munk's "Dania Nova" was a crude approximation of some coastline west of the eastern end of Hudson Strait that was superceded by accurate depictions of coastlines west of Greenland. - Daryl Krupa > <snip> > > You have never provided a reference so that the rest of us could see these early maps with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > some coastline west of the eastern end of Hudson Strait that was > superceded by accurate depictions of coastlines west of Greenland. Daryl, Do any of these maps showing DN date 60 years before Munk's voyage? Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden > > I've seen maps with "Dania Nova" ("DN") on them; <snip> > > a simple label of "DN" on the northern part of > > the west side of Baffin Bay. <snip> > Do any of these maps showing DN date 60 years before Munk's voyage? Alan: No. The earliest use of "Dania Nova", or anything similar, was Munk's map. The latest mention of Munk's discoveries that I have seen is from the end of the 18th Century, e.g. Wilkes' 1797 map of the British Colonies: http://photolab.elmer.uaf.edu/gallery/maps/G3300/large/G3300%201797%20N43.jpg OR http://tinyurl.com/nufyv There, he has this label at the northern end of Hudson Bay: "Christian Sea Discovered by [...] Munk in 1619" That would match Munk's "Mare Christian", which was at the right-hand side of his map: http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/munk04.htm This was usually interpreted as a north-to-the-top map, so that "Mare Christian" would be Hudson Bay, but if one assumes that the indented coastline is at least partially accurate, then Baffin Bay would be a better candidate, requiring Munk's map to be seen as a west-to-the-top map. This is not a particularly outlandish viewpoint, because if Munk's map was drawn as Magnetic-North-to-the-top, then it could be seen as northwest-to-the-top, which would match a cartographic presentation of a voyage through Davis Strait ("Fritum Cristiano") to Baffin Bay. The Wilkes map seems to be about the last nod to Munk; after the Napoleonic Wars ended and surplus Royal Navy ships were sent on more voyages of expolration, nobody seems to have tried to remember him anymore. That 1797 map seems to be a copy of one 1763 map or another, BTW: http://www.canadianheritage.org/reproductions/20386.htm http://www.canadianheritage.org/reproductions/10161.htm Colour version, 1797: http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/search/1797Wilkes-1.jpg "Dania Nova" is a toponym that only appears after Munk's map was produced, i.e., after 1622. - Daryl Krupa > > > I've seen maps with "Dania Nova" ("DN") on them; > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the end of the 18th Century, e.g. Wilkes' 1797 map of the British > Colonies: http://photolab.elmer.uaf.edu/gallery/maps/G3300/large/G3300%201797%20N43.jp g > OR > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa Problem will that assumtion. First of all Munk and his crew had more problem at sea and after landing than most, only a handful Munk included made it back to Denmark. Secondly for one reason or an other Munk and a few of the survivors hide instead of coming forward when they heard people in a village close by. They definitely didn't search furs to trade :-) Thirdly the trade is noted from same area from 1524(!) French explorer were told about the trade and the route up from Lake Nippigon upstreams rivers crossing over water to the area in question for a furtrade that had been going on for 'several generations'. I send the ref and qoute to this four years ago. I don't intend to repeat myself but suggest that you look closer at the story told to other explorers about the fish-eating people who origined from a salt sea in north. Look at the information given by them of how long it took up to Hudson Bay and the amount of days it took to travel from Hudson Bay to the sea in east. The forth problem with your assumption is that there are maps, plural, before Munk's days and up to 20 years later showing a much larger area as 'Dania Nova'. The fifth problem of yours is that one of the merchandisers in Skane who happened to be a leading man in society at that time stopped his furtrade on owned ships before the date you give 1622. Sixth problem the trade can be tracked in tull-, shipsdocument as well as in other official sources before Munk returned. The first documentation from before he was born. Seventh problem with that assumption, you can if you want and can read Scandinavian Language read about the furs traded via Greenland before Columbus was born that didn't origin from Greenland nor from Island. Ref for this as well as quotes I sent more than once six and seven years ago. Inger E <snip> > http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/munk04.htm > > This was usually interpreted as a > north-to-the-top map, > so that "Mare Christian" would be Hudson Bay, <snip> Munk's map is actually usually interpreted as a "south-to-the-top" map. Thamn dis lysdexia! - Karyl Drupa Daryl, I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that 'Munk's' area is only a very minor part of Dania Nova. Haven't you had the 'a' of the 4 parts of a map???? If not send me a private mail. Inger E > <snip> > > http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/eng/munk04.htm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - > Karyl Drupa > Daryl, > I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that 'Munk's' area > is only a very minor part of Dania Nova. Haven't you had the 'a' of the 4 > parts of a map???? If not send me a private mail. Inger E; I have no idea what you are talking about. I have received no parts of any map from you, or any indication that you intended to send me anything. Give me the title of teh map, and its date, and its cartographer, so that I might be able to find it myself. - Daryl Krupa >> Daryl, >> I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa Try this: Moses Pitt, 1654-1696. "A map of the North-Pole and the Parts Adioining" Oxon: At the Theatre, 1680. Signaturep.a. > Try this: > Moses Pitt, 1654-1696. > "A map of the North-Pole and the Parts Adioining" > Oxon: At the Theatre, 1680. Pater (also known as Peter and Petros): Thank you for that pointer. That mapcan be seen here, at this excellent zoomable site: http://ve.tpl.toronto.on.ca/frozen_ocean/hbc_north_pole_1680.htm A later map has a notation in Baffin Bay: Thomas Jefferys. Chart containing part of the Icy Sea with the adjacent coast of Asia and America, and Chart comprising Greenland with the countries and islands about Baffin's and Hudson's Bays. London, 1775. http://ve.tpl.toronto.on.ca/frozen_ocean/hbc_jefferys.htm "This noble Discovery was made in search of a N.W.Pafsage, by Capt. Rob't Bilot, conducted by Will'm Baffin, in 1616 not 22: Neither did Munck ever enter this Bay, or give it the Name of Chriftian's Sea as some late Charts and Maps, Englifh as well as French, would have it." Whatever was the land that supposedly supplied furs, which was known as New Denmark or something similar, it was not the land on the west side of Munck's Christian Sea. It may have been land on the Atlantic seaboard, e.g. Labrador, Newfoundland, Quebec, or Nova Scotia. Munck'smap does not depict the west side of Hudson Bay with any accuracy, so either it was an intentionally false depiction, or the cartographer had no idea what the west side of Hudson Bay looked like. In either case, the labelling of New Denmark on maps as being the western side of Hudson Bay was in error, and as soon as it was properly charted, map-makers stopped using the name for the west side of Hudson Bay. - Daryl Krupa >> Try this: >> Moses Pitt, 1654-1696. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://ve.tpl.toronto.on.ca/frozen_ocean/hbc_north_pole_1680.htm Yes, I know, but when I checked the link, the zooming dit not work properly. That's why I only gave the title. You can see "New Denmark" and "Munck's Winter harbor" on the west side of Buttons bay > A later map has a notation in Baffin Bay: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > was properly charted, map-makers stopped using the name for > the west side of Hudson Bay. Do you know this site? http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/exploration Signaturep.a. > news:1143248307.813395.33500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > zooming dit not work properly. That's why I only > gave the title. I'm sorry about that. It may require some sort of flashy plug-in. > You can see "New Denmark" and "Munck's > Winter harbor" on the west side of Buttons bay Yes; if Munck saw the west side of Hudson Bay, he saw the mouths of the Churchill and Nelson Rivers, but I am not convinced that he saw them, because his map does not depict that area, unless all involved were heavy users of nutmeg. <snip> > Do you know this site? Yes; it is a fairly accurate rendition of history, but the map that shows Munck's voyage must necessarily be an interpretation of niformation that does not match reality well, and so that representation of Munck's troute is not necessarily a depiction of what Munck did (assuming that he actually did any real exploration): http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/exploration/exploration/hu - Daryl Krupa P.S. re: nutmeg and its ability to turn sea cows into mermaids: http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=6371 news:1143311616.320384.308700@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >> news:1143248307.813395.33500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'm sorry about that. It may require some sort of flashy plug-in. It's working fine again. My pc is a bit confused now and then. >> You can see "New Denmark" and "Munck's >> Winter harbor" on the west side of Buttons bay [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his map does not depict that area, > unless all involved were heavy users of nutmeg. I think "Munck's Winter harbor" is based on the find of a wreck. > <snip> >> Do you know this site? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=6371 Cheap, but not realy a pleasure. There are (overhere) enough better products available.But in my early years, when the situation here was the same as in the US today, I tried stranger things than nutmeg. Signaturep.a. Daryl and Peter. One of the first who used the maps(actually seacharts) which Tycho Brahe had access to were Ortelius. Reason why a copy of the seachart in question where in the Netherlands were that King Erik XIV of Sweden in 1559/60 had sent a seachart where Hudson Bay was on but nothing else to Amsterdaam where he ordered his regalie - the Swedish 'Riksäpplet' made to his coronation. It's the same seachart version which the English earlier in 1550's had access to during the marriage negotiations between him and Elizabeth I. It was much closer to a marriage than what's been said here before. Erik had loaded a ship here in Gotha Elf area and was about to board the ship when a servant came telling him that his father Gustav Vasa was ill and that Erik was soon to be the new King. When he didn't arrive as promised in England Elizabeth wrote her wellknown Dear Johan letter.... Inger E > > Try this: > > Moses Pitt, 1654-1696. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa > "Daryl Krupa" skrev >>> Try this: >>> Moses Pitt, 1654-1696. >>> "A map of the North-Pole and the Parts Adioining" >>> Oxon: At the Theatre, 1680. >> Pater (also known as Peter and Petros): >> Thank you for that pointer. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> - >> Daryl Krupa > Daryl and Peter. > One of the first who used the maps(actually seacharts) which Tycho [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which the English earlier in 1550's had access to during the marriage > negotiations between him and Elizabeth I. Why did they need a seechart for a mariage? And why gave Elisabeth a map with Nova Dania on it to Erik? And if it was in the 1550s then it is not only a unknown map, but also a unknown and very old Danckerts.Old Cornelus was born in 1603 and started business in 1630. . > It was much closer to a marriage than what's been said here before. > Erik had loaded a ship here in Gotha Elf area and was about to board > the ship when a servant came telling him that his father Gustav Vasa > was ill and that Erik was soon to be the new King. When he didn't > arrive as promised in England Elizabeth wrote her wellknown Dear > Johan letter.... So? You did not answer one of the by Daryl and me riased questions. Signaturep.a. Peter one short answer above, you had a longer one last summer re. same marriage negotiations. In the negotiations between England and Sweden the English called for being allowed to fish in all Swedish waters. That included areas outside Sweden. Same pact which in early 1400's was made between the English Royal Family and King Erik who married the English King's sister Philippa. Inger E > > "Daryl Krupa" skrev > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > -- > p.a. > > Daryl, > > I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that 'Munk's' area [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa The early edited version of the map I am talking about exists as far as scholars searched only in one exemplar, it was edited by Denkert the Older, not exactly the same as the version of the map edited much later by his son on behalf of Denkert the Older. Denkert the Older got his information via Janzon who had had it when he worked in his youth for Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). So if you want to have the early version where you can see for yourself that Dania Nova was much larger area then the Munk's area, you can have it or you can go looking for Dankert the older's son's edition of it where some of the names and locations of the Indian tribes around 1600 aren't the same as on the early one. Inger E > "Daryl Krupa" skrev >>> Daryl, >>> I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the Older, not exactly the same as the version of the map edited much > later by his son on behalf of Denkert the Older. Denkert the Older Please try to use the correct names. I have told you many times that the family is called Dankerts. Which Dankerts are you talking about an which son? > got his information via Janzon The name of the family was Jansonius. Which Jansonius are you talking about? > who had had it when he worked in his > youth for Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). So? Brahe was an astronomer. > So if you want to have the early version where you can see for > yourself Telll us where we can find this map. > that Dania Nova was much larger area then the Munk's area, > you can have it or you can go looking for Dankert the older's son's > edition of it where some of the names and locations of the Indian > tribes around 1600 aren't the same as on the early one. If you ask me, you are making this up. Signaturep.a. > > > Daryl, > > > I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that 'Munk's' [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > names and locations of the Indian tribes around 1600 aren't the same as on > the early one. Inger E: So far, you have given me "Denkert the Older", "Dankert the older", and "his son", as "editor", no title, and only an approximate date, i.e., sometime after the birth of Tycho Brahe in 1546. This is insufficient information. I repeat: > > Give me the title of the map, and its date, and its cartographer, > > so that I might be able to find it myself. I have found a map made by I. Danckerts (usually known as Justus Danckerts, and also known as Danckaerts,danckers, and Danquerts) "Novissima et Accuratissima Totius Americae", from 1680. It can be seen here: http://www.raremaps.com/cgi-bin/map-archive.cgi?Oceana+Oceana+0066 And a later version, titled "Recentissima Novi Orbis Sive Americae Septentrionalis et Meridionalis Tabula.... ", is here (date 1690): http://www.raremaps.com/cgi-bin/map-archive.cgi?Oceana+Oceana+3204 A clearer image of that later Danckerts map is here: http://sanderusmaps.com/antique-maps/america/america_11283.cfm?site=ok Are either of these the map that you thought that you sent me? I have seen notations that indicate that Danckerts copied much of his material from the cartographers known as Blaeu, not Janzon (usually Jansson, or Janssonius) or Brahe. Perhaps you mean Cornelis (also known as Conelius) Danckerts. Please, regarding the map that you thought that you had sent me, what is the full name of the cartographer of the map, what is the date of the map, and what is the title of the map? - Daryl Krupa Daryl, I write above. None of them are identical in all details. Denkert had some of his information from Blaeu, but for the information for example regarding where tribes were he had it via Janzon who also as well as Blaue both were concurrents and had some private contacts. The information on the later maps correspond with a map from 1700 with small differences from maps later 18th century. Please check for the full information regarding Munk if you plan to use either of the ones you have access to. Munk didn't trade furs on the journey from where only a few survivers ever lived to return home. Inger E > > > > Daryl, > > > > I thought I sent you one where you could see for yourself that 'Munk's' [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa > Daryl, > I write above. None of them are identical in all details. Denkert had some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > access to. Munk didn't trade furs on the journey from where only a few > survivers ever lived to return home. Inger E: To reiterate; > I repeat: > > > Give me the title of the map, and its date, and its cartographer, > > > so that I might be able to find it myself. - Daryl Krupa > > Daryl, > > I write above. None of them are identical in all details. Denkert had some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Give me the title of the map, and its date, and its cartographer, > > > > so that I might be able to find it myself. No use. Sorry but Liberians and Carthograph specialists looked around in Europe as well as in North America where one Prof emeritus of Geography and Carthogarphy hadn't seen this one but had knowledge of some alike by other Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies were made. The one I have copyrights to use on net, in articles and in books seems to be the only one left at least in good condition. I own the rights to some other old maps and seacharts as well. It's from them I taken some facts and figures I used together with written sources over the years. The oldest seachart for NA I have is from 1424. Sorry no title privately owned, but I am allowed to use it and will give full title and background for all who reads my book under-work. Hudson Bay can be seen in it's eastern parts down and in southern parts over to Nelson River. I have knowledge of seacharts where Greenland and parts of NA is seen drawn/carthogarphed in 13th century. I haven't had time to check them out in detail. Due to my cracked knee....... nothing is the same here since Oct 30th ....... Inger E > - > Daryl Krupa <SNIP> > No use. Sorry but Liberians <snip> What does Liberia have to do with this? TK > <SNIP> > > No use. Sorry but Liberians > <snip> > > What does Liberia have to do with this? tk, you know I have spelling problems - think for yourself for once instead of trying to make fun of dyslexia! Inger E > TK > > <SNIP> > > > No use. Sorry but Liberians [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you know I have spelling problems - think for yourself for once instead of > trying to make fun of dyslexia! Mistaking "Liberia" for, I presume, "Librarian" is not dyslexia. Your problem is not have dyslexia. tk >>> <SNIP> >>>> No use. Sorry but Liberians [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > tk With a sore knee it is impossible to write 'Librarians'. Signaturep.a. In sci.archaeology message <P.Alaca@206.nn> . . . : >>>> <SNIP> >>>>> No use. Sorry but Liberians [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > With a sore knee it is impossible to write 'Librarians'. Libraaaarrrrgggghhhhhians? SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm > "Peter Alaca" . . . : >> tkavanag wrote: >>>> "t(nospam)kavanagh"skrev >>>>> <SNIP> >>>>>> No use. Sorry but Liberians >>>>> <snip> >>>>> What does Liberia have to do with this? >>>> tk, >>>> you know I have spelling problems - think for yourself for >>>> once instead of trying to make fun of dyslexia! >>> Mistaking "Liberia" for, I presume, "Librarian" is not >>> dyslexia. Your problem is not have dyslexia. >> With a sore knee it is impossible to write 'Librarians'. > > Libraaaarrrrgggghhhhhians? No,' Libèèèèèhhhhhrians' Signaturep.a. >> > <SNIP> >> > > No use. Sorry but Liberians [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Mistaking "Liberia" for, I presume, "Librarian" is not dyslexia. Your >problem is not have dyslexia. Actually, it's like my writing 'area' rather than 'error'. And I agree, it is not dyslexia, I definitely do not have dyslexia. And as I said, what do librarians have to do with this? Unless they have a different function in Sweden. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ > <SNIP> > > No use. Sorry but Liberians > <snip> > > What does Liberia have to do with this? Looks like they are getting Charles G. Taylor back. Maybe he knows where this map is, and will tell us to avoid being killed? Anyway, I like my story better than Inger's. In sci.archaeology message <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> . . . : > <SNIP> >> No use. Sorry but Liberians > <snip> > > What does Liberia have to do with this? They are shorter than libertarians but about the same as librarians. <SNIP> > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies were > made. The one I have copyrights to use on net, in articles and in books > seems to be the only one left at least in good condition. > I own the rights to some other old maps and seacharts as well. If something was published "between 1600 and 1644," it is long out of copyright. tk > <SNIP> > > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If something was published "between 1600 and 1644," it is long out of > copyright. I have the photo and image copyrights for the one still existing copy. when a thing was edited doesn't matter if the owner of the map gives me or in other cases the rights. Sorry you are way out of your own areas. Inger E > tk > > <SNIP> > > > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other cases the rights. > Sorry you are way out of your own areas. BWAHAHAHAHA tk In article <2qhVf.49815$d5.206273@newsb.telia.net>, IE J wrote: >> <SNIP> >> > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a thing was edited doesn't matter if the owner of the map gives me or in > other cases the rights. Under US copyright law an exact reproduction of a 2D object, such as a photocopy, or a photograph that 'slavishly reproduces' the original, does not gain its own copyright. (Bridgeman vs Corel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm) > Sorry you are way out of your own areas. Well someone certainly is. Of course the fact that the imagined map almost certainly doesn't exist renders the point somewhat moot. > >> <SNIP> > >> > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited copies [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of course the fact that the imagined map almost certainly doesn't exist > renders the point somewhat moot. Make no mistake - it does exist and further you better learn that it isn't US law that sets the laws for Copyrights of photos, articles, old and new manuscripts etc etc. Inger E In article <_UbWf.50113$d5.206755@newsb.telia.net>, IE J wrote: >> >> <SNIP> >> >> > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > US law that sets the laws for Copyrights of photos, articles, old and new > manuscripts etc etc. And in the EU copyright in the map would have lapsed, as it is more than 50/70 years after the death of the author. If I remember the dance from last time you were wrong about copyright I will now point to Project Gutenberg, Gallica and similar organisations, who publish text or images of old documents, manuscripts and maps, and you will claim that they somehow have magic rights that normal people don't. Paul Murray, the photo of the map was taken by a photographer 5 years ago. Long to wait 50 years or even 25! Good Night. Inger E > >> >> <SNIP> > >> >> > Carthographers made between 1600 and 1644. Originally 100 edited [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > publish text or images of old documents, manuscripts and maps, and you will > claim that they somehow have magic rights that normal people don't. > Paul Murray, > the photo of the map was taken by a photographer 5 years ago. > Long to wait 50 years or even 25! > Good Night. > > Inger E So to be protected by copyright the map photographed was made less than 50 years ago. Dave In sci.archaeology message news:442a4bc0$0$21270$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au by "hyperoglyphe" <hyperoglyphe@schlockmail.com> . . . : >> Paul Murray, >> the photo of the map was taken by a photographer 5 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So to be protected by copyright the map photographed was made > less than 50 years ago. No, dummy, you double the tin in your tin foil cap. Extra protection from dridlers. >> Daryl, >> I write above. None of them are identical in all details. Denkert had [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > > cartographer, >> > > so that I might be able to find it myself. Why do you bother asking? She just makes this stuff up most of the time. And even if the map is "real," it won't support what she says it does. David Signature_______________________________________________________________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan "You're a loony, you are!" "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..." "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" David Johnson, stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA scholars, or had you been among the 21 here in group who have seen the mapimage you would have known that it does exist and say exactly what I say. Even if you were among the 32 who had had a later rarely discussed version of same map(no image on net) you would have known that all I said re. the Dania Nova and Munk question are 100% correct. You wouldn't have had some of the information where the Indian tribes had their mainareas in 1600, but it's only two major movements among them from the early map to the one the 32 have had information about. So trolley you are a real troll in the Swedish definition of a troll and you are a trolley walking on rails in your own way. Rails are like blinders, they prevent you from seeing things far from the rails. Inger E > >> Daryl, > >> I write above. None of them are identical in all details. Denkert had [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..." > "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" >David Johnson, >stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA scholars, >or had you been among the 21 here in group who have seen the mapimage you >would have known that it does exist and say exactly what I say. Off the top of my head, there aren't any NEARA 'scholars' I can think of I'd trust. If there are 21 in this group, perhaps one of them will explain what you mean here. And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, what should it have been? I don't see the relevance of librarians to this discussion, so it must be something else. >Even if you were among the 32 who had had a later rarely discussed version >of same map(no image on net) you would have known that all I said re. the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" > SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >> David Johnson, >> stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of I'd trust. If there are 21 in this group, perhaps one of them will > explain what you mean here. The only ;NEARA scholar' here is Inger. She is the only one regulary refering to that strange organisation. " The New England Antiquities Research Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to a better understanding of our historic and prehistoric past through the study and preservation of New England's stone sites in their cultural context." > And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, what should it have been? I > don't see the relevance of librarians to this discussion, so it must > be something else. Signaturep.a. >>> David Johnson, >>> stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and preservation of New England's stone sites > in their cultural context." So, what's so strange about that? Apart from that, as far as I know, Inger has no direct connection with NEARA. >> And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, what should it have been? I >> don't see the relevance of librarians to this discussion, so it must >> be something else. Eric Stevens Eric, sorry but I thought I kept you informed about those contacts starting with two scholars 6 years ago and for the last years regular contacts with 2 of the others. I have sent you a mail which if you can't open it, large images included in the mails I have sent copies of, please write me a line and I resend it part by part in the evening. BUT please don't reveal the names nor the information you can read. Inger E > >>> David Johnson, > >>> stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Eric Stevens > "Peter Alaca"wrote: >>>> David Johnson, >>>> stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA >>>> scholars, or had you been among the 21 here in group who have seen >>>> the mapimage you would have known that it does exist and say >>>> exactly what I say. >>> Off the top of my head, there aren't any NEARA 'scholars' I can >>> think of I'd trust. If there are 21 in this group, perhaps one of >>> them will explain what you mean here. >> The only ;NEARA scholar' here is Inger. >> She is the only one regulary refering to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> and preservation of New England's stone sites >> in their cultural context." > So, what's so strange about that? They have little to do with unknown (non-existend) 17th c maps and Dania Nova. > Apart from that, as far as I know, Inger has no direct > connection with NEARA. Did I say that? I never referred to NEARA and I can't imaging referring to it in the future.It is a typical Inger site. Signaturep.a. <snip> > And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area <snip> ^^^^ Gee, Doug, I didn't know you were dyslexic ;-) tk ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >tk I should have read the thread before replying to my own post -- yep, that's the same kind of error Inger made. Probably has a formal name, which isn't dyslexia. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ <snip> > I should have read the thread before replying to my own post -- yep, > that's the same kind of error Inger made. Probably has a formal name, > which isn't dyslexia. Doug: It's "malapropism": http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/M0055300.html And from Wikipedia: <BEGIN QUOTE> However, it might be more appropriate to call such confusions "Dogberryisms" after Sergeant Dogberry in William Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, who was making them almost two centuries earlier, for example: "Comparisons are odorous." (i.e., odious) "Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons." (i.e., apprehended; suspicious) "Thou wilt be condemned into everlasting redemption for this." (i.e., damnation) <END QUOTE> - Apurk Lyrad Daryl why do you continue Doug's stalking? Neither of you have any knowledge what so ever about dyslexia - most people don't have reading problem when having dyslexia many does but not most. BUT most of us do have spelling problems. Stop your stupid abuse! Inger E > <snip> > > I should have read the thread before replying to my own post -- yep, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - > Apurk Lyrad >Daryl why do you continue Doug's stalking? I am neither stalking nor abusing you. I asked a serious question about what librarians have to do with this. How is that abuse or stalking? I also pointed out that I made a similar spelling error to yours, and that I am not dyslexic. How is that stalking or abuse? If you can't make explicitly clear how I have stalked or abused you in the legal sense of the words, you have libelled me. Doug >Neither of you have any knowledge what so ever about dyslexia - most people >don't have reading problem when having dyslexia many does but not most. BUT [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> Apurk Lyrad > SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ > >Daryl why do you continue Doug's stalking? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you can't make explicitly clear how I have stalked or abused you in the > legal sense of the words, you have libelled me. Of course you're not Doug. It's the old ' Inger changes the subject because she has, once more, been found out to be wrong' Same old same old <snip> > And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, what should it have been? <snip> Spelling area = Beverly Hills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_90210 Here is a local library: http://bhhs.bhusd.org/library.jsp NEARA-by Liberians: http://maps.citysearch.com/location/32774229? - Apurk Lyrad Daryl why do you add to Doug's abuse? Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to joke about such! Please remember that Albert Einstein and many others did have dyslexia. Inger E > <snip> > > And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, what should it have been? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - > Apurk Lyrad > Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to > joke about such! But Inger, whilst you are correct in what you write above, there is a subtle matter of understanding that evades you. Yes, it is very rude and indeed uncharitable to make fun of people who are dyslexic, or indeed to call a dyslexic person stupid because they are dyslexic. However, the subtle difference in your case is that you are a stupid person who may (or may not be) be dyslexic. It is perhaps uncharitable to point out your stupidity, or indeed your propensity to tell lies, but it is funny. However, the fun is not at the expense of your (real or imagined) dyslexia. Tony Smith Tony, I am only rude to people who been rude and abusive to me more than three times!!!! Yes I count them. I am not stupid - those who calls me that better look in the mirror before they ever calls an other person stupid. Apart from that I am dyslextic and I have the right no matter what you think of me to call for you and others stop making fun of misspellings and such!!!!!!! You are violating UN:s Human Rights as well as your country's law. One time is abuse - continued lines such as from you below, 31st time and I might have missed many, is stalking!!! Inger E "Tony Smith" <adolphuzspriggs@ _hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet news:xn0ek84pw3b0os000@news.individual.net... > > Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to > > joke about such! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tony Smith > Tony, > I am only rude to people who been rude and abusive to me more than > three times!!!! > Yes I count them. Then you cannot count, because you are almost always rude and abusive to people. You started to abuse me at a moment that I never said one wrong or bad word about you, what's more, you started after I spoke in your defence. So shut up and count to ten before you reply > [more dyxlesic stupidities snipped] Signaturep.a > Tony, > I am only rude to people who been rude and abusive to me more than > three times!!!! Lie no.1 > Yes I count them. Lie no.2 > I am not stupid - Lie no.3 (perhaps wishful thinking would be kinder) > those who calls me that better look in the mirror > before they ever calls an other person stupid. > Apart from that I am dyslextic and I have the right no matter what jury still out on that one, - possible lie > you think of me to call for you and others stop making fun of > misspellings and such!!!!!!! > You are violating UN:s Human Rights as well as your country's law. Lie no.4 > One time is abuse - continued lines such as from you below, 31st time > and I might have missed many, is stalking!!! Lie no's 5 & 6 Do please go on you stupid lying cow! At the rate you are digging that hole, I guess we can expect you to emerge in china any day now Tony Smith > Daryl why do you add to Doug's abuse? > Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to joke > about such! > Please remember that Albert Einstein and many others did have dyslexia. Inger E; I am sorry that my attempts at humour gave you offense. I did make fun of my own example of dyslexic transference when I noted that ihad got my directions wrong re: the Munck map. After that, I poked fun at Doug, whom I assumed could withstand some relatively gentle poking. I tried to avoid making fun of you and whatever you had written. I did not intend to offend you. Please accept my apology for not making it clear that I did not intend to make fun of you or whatever you had written. - Daryl Krupa Daryl, appology accepted. Inger E > > Daryl why do you add to Doug's abuse? > > Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to joke [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa >> Daryl why do you add to Doug's abuse? >> Dyslexia and dyslextic persons are neither stupid nor is it funny to joke [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > After that, I poked fun at Doug, whom I assumed could withstand >some relatively gentle poking. No problem, I knew you were joking. > I tried to avoid making fun of you and whatever you had written. > > I did not intend to offend you. > Please accept my apology for not making it clear that >I did not intend to make fun of you or whatever you had written. But I didn't abuse Inger. I did two things -- ask what librarians had to do with the issue and, having managed to write 'area' instead of 'error', point out that my mistake was similar to Inger's and that I don't have dyslexia. It was a different type of spelling error. I have no idea why she thinks I've abused and stalked her in doing the above, but she doesn't seem able to clarify and justify her reasons or to apologize for her error. Which is a shame. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >>David Johnson, >>stop telling lies. Had you been in contact with some of the NEARA scholars, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And if 'Liberians' is a spelling area, That's what happens when you write when you'r exhausted. Spelling 'area'? :-) what should it have been? I don't >see the relevance of librarians to this discussion, so it must be >something else. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>> "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" >> SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ Daryl, area you refer to aren't complete. Only part of it. Apart from that there are documentation that Dania Nova exported furs to Skane before Munk set foot on a ship! That's and more I have in my manuscript, but the specific note about Dania Nova's export I owe to one Swedish archaeologist who probably didn't think twice when he noted the documented trade, with a ref, in a bi-sentence. That one made me go looking for trade and tull-documents..... Which one? Come on you and the rest have had five years since I first spoke about it. Can't you among your friends find one who knows what archaeologists noted in works and reports the last 50 year? You maybe not, but others have had more hints than needed. Inger E > <snip> > > You have never provided a reference so that the rest of us could see these early maps with [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa > > <snip> > > > You have never provided a reference so that the rest of us could see [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > some coastline west of the eastern end of Hudson Strait that was > > superceded by accurate depictions of coastlines west of Greenland. > Daryl, > area you refer to aren't complete. Only part of it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > find one who knows what archaeologists noted in works and reports the last > 50 year? You maybe not, but others have had more hints than needed. Some people give hints. Other people give references. I prefer the latter. References are easier to check and make life easier. That's why they are so common in scholarship. Alan SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden > "Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet >> I think the author means that they explored widely along the >> Atlantic coast. No paradigms shaking there. > > NO he most certainly doesn't! Do you know him personally > I guess that this show the difference between a scholar of Linguistic > and a scholar of History. AFAIK the author Michael Cohn is no historian but probably some kind of linguist. And he is a fiction writer with the vikings as subject. > In the education from BA up (C-essay needed > for BA, D-essay/thesis needed for MA together with a certain amount [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > understand it otherwise that he by that meant that the Norse ships > explored America at least from northern Maine to Hudson Bay. It only means that the author wrote that. But what is the evidence? > In other words by no means does the scholar behind such a paragraph > indicate that he meant the eastcoast!!!!! > [...] > More than the Old paradigm rocking - it's a complete chaos for that > one! It is a complete chaos in your head. Take care of your old paradigm. > [...] Signaturep.a. >> > > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in >> > > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] >and (b) the failure of the VM cartographer to record any of >this? But what if the island depicted on the Vinland map was not meant to be the whole of North America? Is there an island which it might be intended to represent? Eric Stevens > "Alan Crozier" skrev >> Not many people would dispute the possibility of Europeans >> landing on the east coast. Maine and Labrador are still a long >> way from Minnesota and North Dakota. It will take more than that >> to rock the paradigm. > Alan, > you must have missed the line "....make it almost certain that Norse [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > artifacts been found in Hudson Bay. Supressed before now out in the > open. So, information provided, but suppressed by many scholars? How do they do that. And why? > The Old paradigm is more than rocking, it's more or less into the > chaos before a new paradigm is formed. Hooray! The second coming at last. Signaturep.a. In sci.archaeology message <P.Alaca@206.nn> . . . : >> The Old paradigm is more than rocking, it's more or less into >> the chaos before a new paradigm is formed. > > Hooray! The second coming at last. At your age? > "Peter Alaca" . . . : >> IE J wrote: news: >>> The Old paradigm is more than rocking, it's more or less into >>> the chaos before a new paradigm is formed. >> Hooray! The second coming at last. > At your age? Yes, thanks to a new paradigm and a lot of rocking. Signaturep.a. >> > > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in >> > > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Inger E That Norse artifacts are there is barely worth noting. It doesn't even prove the Norse went there. The Inuit may well have brought them. Any sign of settlements? >> -- >> Alan Crozier >> Lund >> Sweden In sci.archaeology message <name1.name2@telia.com> . . . : >> > "....... Rameh chert from Labrador has been found in >> > Greenland.........it can be assumed that the American [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > way from Minnesota and North Dakota. It will take more than that > to rock the paradigm. NO argument there Alan, the paradigm none the less rocks, as the rocks rattle in the madams bellfry. Peter Alaca quoted somebody as saying, from a larger piece: > The concept that the year 1500 CE divides > prehistoric from historic eras seems no longer > sustainable. That statement is not only wrong, it is SILLY. The year 1493 AD (I'm not sure what they mean by "CE") separates the history of North America north of Mexico from the prehistoric. That's perfectly clear. Before the arrival of Columbus in the Carribbean, the only historical records in America are those of the Mayans, whose extant historical records cease about the year 950 AD, though later ones probably existed but were burned by a catholic bishop named Landa. Europeans certainly visited America before 1492, but they left no historical records of it of significance. The significance was of what happened as a direct result of Columbus's visits. Doug McDonald > Peter Alaca quoted somebody as saying, from > a larger piece: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > significance was of what happened as a direct result of > Columbus's visits. The last 'statement' is one of the worst and most false information ever provided. Historical record exist from 1070!!!!!!!!! Ever heard of Adam of Bremen???????????? Inger E > Doug McDonald >> Peter Alaca quoted somebody as saying, from >> a larger piece: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Inger E No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message