RE: 600 th anniv. of Prince Henry's visit

["Ramsey-Styer, Darwin" <RamseyD@dot.state.sc.us>]

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@zilker.net.
[ For more information, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
-------

Okay, here goes... This has to be short and to the point because I am
taking a break from a report to address these issues...

First, I haven't read Fredrick Pohl in years (since I began my
undergraduate work).  However, I know that his work is not well thought
of by many archaeologists.  I will re-read it as soon as I get time and
give you more specific answers.

Secondly, the works to which I  refer include those of Andrew Sinclair
and Niven Sinclair.  The Sword and the Grail has absolutely NO
footnotes. As to Niven's work, I don't even know where to begin.  He has
done a great thing in getting us all discussing these items but that is
about it.  I was re-reading the Symposium notes on the Web Page and was
looking at the synopses.  I have yet to see one document referenced as
to the events and their order of occurrence.  I have yet to see a copy
of the Zeno map.  I haven't actually seen a copy of the Zeno narrative.
Distribution of Henry's property does not indicate that he was going to
the New World, and I haven't seen the documents telling of this
distribution.  I want to see Mr. Hapgood's points of identity.  I want
to read the report on the canon, who found it, what happened to it, etc.
The carvings are not datable.  Appearance doesn't prove they were carved
by 14th century sailors.  The Micmac legends are interesting but they
too don't prove anything without a great deal more substantiated
materials.  Let us remember that the god of some of the Central and
South American Indian tribes was a WHITE man with a beard.  That is one
of the reasons the Islanders accepted Columbus so readily.
 
Also, I have meet Niven and discussed his ideas in person.  I am
concerned with his blatant lack of regard for the Chapel and the fact
that it is PRIVATELY OWNED.  He has done some unauthorized explorations
of the structure and grounds and could have seriously compromised both
the integrity of the building and the archaeological remains on the
grounds.  Archaeology should never be attempted by UNTRAINED amateurs
and even trained amateurs WITHOUT professional supervision and
especially permission of the landowners.

I think Pete Cummings has done an excellent job of getting people
together to discuss this issue of Prince Henry's Voyage.  However, I did
not have the funds to make a trip to Orkney for simple curiosity.
Therefore, I want copies of these papers which were presented.  The
synopses are good in giving me an overview of what was said.  However, I
want the references for their materials.  No one gives a paper without
references even though they don't  read the references during the paper.
They are there lurking in the back on the References Cited page and I
want those for my own satisfaction.  I think this is all probably true
but until I can look these sources up for myself, I will not believe it.
This problem could be solved by putting together a publication.  This
would be a good thing for those of us that couldn't make it as well as
the participants.

Jean Grisby, who has done an excellent job of collection the genealogy
of many of us, has published a book containing her findings.  She also
references everything she finds even if it must entail, "note in the
Family bible of Bob St. Clair, Sinclair County, AL".  Even if we can't
get to it without a great deal of work, we know where it came from.
This is what's important.  Without this support and reference to the
original source, the fact is USELESS!  

I think we should all hear out Brian Smith's argument that Henry might
not have made the voyage.  Until the opposite view is presented in its
entirety, one can not argue one's point logically or clearly.  Opposing
viewpoints are a necessary part of any scientific investigation.

Finally, I am not saying that these men came to start a settlement and
that's why they probably married or copulated with Indian women.  I am
saying that they were men.  They had been cooped up on a boat with other
men.  Willing women would not have been ignored.  

Proof that I would need includes these missing references and
archaeological investigations.   We discussed several weeks ago the
knowledge that could be gained from testing the "castle" site in Nova
Scotia.  I will be convinced that the Westford Knight was carved for a
fallen knight if his body turns up under the stone.  I will be convinced
about the tower date if there are 14th century artifacts surrounding it.
I have discovered that history is written by people that want to
reinforce their particular view.  If Henry wanted everyone to think he
made it to MA then that is what he would have written whether he
actually did or not.  If they actually made it, the artifacts will
support this.

I hope this is clear enough.  I am truly in a hurry but believe that
this is a fascinating and important subject.  It needs to be explored
fully.  Thank you for hearing me out.  Darwin

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	dgaskill [SMTP:dgaskill@mcione.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 28, 1998 12:00 AM
> To:	sinclair@zilker.net
> Subject:	Re: 600 th anniv. of Prince Henry's visit
> 
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@zilker.net.
> [ For more information, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> -------
> 
> Good discussion here.  I am enjoying the give and take very much.
> Thanks
> to all who have contributed.  I will direct my questions to Darwin's
> post,
> but anyone please feel free to join in.
> 
> >Supposedly, documents have been used as the basis of  the
> > original work but none of these are referenced. 
> 
> What "original work" are you referring to here?  Anything particular?
> I am
> trying to check my own list of sources against others'.  Part of the
> problem with discussing these issues is that we all come to the table
> with
> disparate knowledge bases.  I know that is normal -- and probably
> healthy
> -- but often I get the sense that we just need to work harder at
> comparing
> our sources of information.
> 
> >Someone needs to
> > complete proper research and document it. References and footnotes
> are a
> > big help in supporting an argument.  They would certainly help me to
> > believe that the Sinclairs and Gunn actually made it into the US.  
> 
> Have you read Pohl?  His is perhaps the most energetic attempt (at
> least in
> print) to supply the kind of documentation you call for here.  What
> inadequacies, specifically, do you find in Pohl?  What would it take
> to
> improve upon his effort?  What do you think of the Symposium Report
> this
> past fall?  Perhaps those who attended or know about it could add
> their
> comments to our present discussion.
> 
> >It
> > certainly looks like they did and I would truly like to see this
> > documented.  It is suggested that Columbus had a copy of the Zeno
> map.
> > This would change history.  However, until it is documented in a
> > scientific manner, it will not be believed.
> 
> What would it take, realistically, to document this assertion?  I
> agree
> that our family story of the map getting into the hands of CC through
> the
> in-law network begs for independent verification.  I just wonder where
> we
> might look for such support.  Inventories of CC's navigational
> resources
> maybe?  Has anybody done this, I wonder? 
>  
> > As to staying here, marrying Indians, etc.  They probably went home
> (we
> > know at least some returned to Scotland), they probably did
> interbreed
> > with the Indians (if not form families), and probably had a lasting
> > effect on the cultures they encountered.  This pattern has been
> repeated
> > every time one culture encounters another.  
> 
> Of course one of Pete's strong recurring refrains is that Henry's
> voyage is
> significant precisely because it departs from the norm in this regard.
> I
> don't think we should give it up this possibility too quicky.  Perhaps
> Henry's voyage had different goals than those of the Europeans who
> followed?  We definitely could use more evidence here either way.
>      
> Enough already.  Again, thanks for the interesting conversation.  Hope
> it
> continues for awhile.
> 
> Dave Gaskill
> [
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@zilker.net.
> [ For subscription, unusubscription, or other instructions, see
> [  http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> [ or send mail to majordomo@zilker.net with this single line in the
> body:
> [  info sinclair
> [
> [ To unsubscribe, send a message like this:
> [
> [           To: majordomo@zilker.net
> [
> [           unsubscribe sinclair
> [
[
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@zilker.net.
[ For subscription, unusubscription, or other instructions, see
[  http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
[ or send mail to majordomo@zilker.net with this single line in the body:
[  info sinclair
[
[ To unsubscribe, send a message like this:
[
[           To: majordomo@zilker.net
[
[           unsubscribe sinclair
[