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
-------

This is after my rather lengthy message earlier...

I was out walking and just thought of a prime example of why
documentation is so important.  Take the cannon discussed in the
symposium and elsewhere.  Without being able to read the report we don't
know if the cannon was found in the location where it should be if it
was still attached to a ship that sank.  If so, then that location would
indicate that a 14th century vessel sank in the harbor.  This would lend
support that Henry (or someone from the 14th century) arrived here.  

However, the cannon could have been dredged up or simply found lying in
the muck.  All this indicates is that a cannon was found in the harbor.
A likely explanation for that is that the cannon was used for ballast on
a historic voyage and dumped when no longer needed. Both might be true.
However, without the report of the original findings, we don't know the
truth. 

See, this is what I mean.  There are at least two explanations for every
event.  That is why we need both points of view as well as all of the
supporting information.  A true, logical explanation can not be found
until all outlooks are explored.

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
[