|
Dear Ramsay;
Enjoyed your spirited dialogue this morning. I wanted
to jump in to give a bit of my 2 cents worth from a Canadian Perspective. I have
read all of Pohls works which were very remarkable at the time he wrote them
(1950's and 60's) and it is my perspective that he contributed to history in a
significant way by attempting to educate Americans that Cristopher Columbus
wasn't the first to cross the Atlantic and that yes, there were others. In his
writings he shares many of the viking excursions over to North America as well
as the Henry voyage. In his travels around the Maritimes I was impressed
with his appreciation of geography and linking it to the scraps of hard evidence
that existed. Much of this I satisfied with my own eyes and a degree of applying
common sense. I came away giving him remarkable marks for his understanding of
information in so far as it went. Yes he also used conjecture, speculation and
attempted to fill in the blanks. Much of this I find was not supported factually
yet I can not join you by dismiss the entire work as easily. His geographical
references, references to the Mikmacs and conjectures were reasoned and not
without a sound logic to them.
Now I diverge to share that the historical
appreciation of crossings across the Atlantic are treated very differently in
the United States and Canada. Both countries are demonstrating a deplorable
attitude to history generally, but in so far as the teaching of history goes the
emphasis is different. In the United States where we get trotted out that
Columbus discovered America. Ask any school kid. Well yes he did, but it wasn't
the continental United States either. And what the real discovery was is omitted
He really discovered was the trade winds that made the journey possible.
Thereafter regular crossings were possible and were made even before his return
voyages. But here too he may not have been the first to ever have done so
crossing the Atlantic to the Carribean. But from a documentary perspective
he is at least from a scientific perspective real. We have a diary. Others that
were undocumented can be dismissed or should they? If Africans or
Egyptians crossed the Atlantic then because they did not document it, one can
not jump to the conclusion that they did not make such a voyage. That is not
what the experimental voyages in the 60's prooved. The best that might be said
is it was or was not feasible given technologies. School kids coloring the sails
of the Santa Maria have not a shred of evidence that they sported Templar
crosses Only we draw them that way. In Corpus Christie the models of the
Columbas ships appear with crosses. Interesting there are no contemporary
sketches that I am aware of.
So I take a balanced view of historians, not
everything they report is accurate, still many are uncanny in pointing out what
the scientific community subsequently verifies. Indeed we have historical
reconstructionists, revisionists and so on working all the time as scientific
information changes the way we understand things. (Then again we have Hollywood
which will redraw history any way they see fit and the world may take that
version as gospel. )
Now having shared all that, I also sympathise
with the academic process of testing verification and finding of facts. Let me
explain the Canadian perspective. Most Canadian history books all document
the travels of the vikings to Canada as the first explorers. This is frequently
omitted in US texts that ignore anything beyond the borders of what is currently
the United States. The Canadian texts described in great detail the various
Viking voyages and until the last 20 years had not one shred of tangible
evidence that they did so. In fact all the history we were taught was based on
Nordic folktales retold through generations of bards of over a thousand
years . But this does not mean that these voyages did not exist. A scientist may
dismiss this evidence but a historian can not. Despite there being not a
shred of physical proof the voyages to the new world were appreciated. Was the
history wrong? No. In the 1960's when Pohl was writing his "heretical
stuff" about pre Columbian crossings an excellent archeologist made a
remarkable find which supported Pohl in some of the histories. To show
that a blend of archeology and history is complimentary I enclose an excerpt
from one of the many tourist web sites on the discovery of the physical evidence
that Vikings made it to North America and created settlements. You will
appreciate the scientific approach.
A Viking Age settlement with
evidence of Norse artifacts has been uncovered on the northernmost peninsula of
Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows located at about 52 degrees north latitude.
(See Map) Facing Epaves Bay on Black Duck Brook, Dr. Helge Ingstad and his
archaeologist wife Anne discovered a small group of stone and turf buildings
similar in style to those used in Iceland and Greenland. This location fits the
"Promontorium Winlandiae" of some medieval maps.
In the first season, six house
sites were identified, the largest appeared to be about 60 feet long and
contained several rooms. Ember pits similar to those in Greenland were found in
some of the houses. Radiocarbon analysis of samples from the site dated 1080 +/-
70 AD. A ring-headed bronze pin, commonly used as a cloths fastener by Norse
men, was found in one of the houses. Native American stone implements and other
artifacts were not found on this site. In general, very few artifacts were
found, but the loose, acid soil made for poor preservation conditions.
In the 1962 season, a fragment
of bone needle of the type used by Norsemen was found along with a piece of
copper that turned out to have been formed by a primitive smelting process
unknown to Native Americans at the time. Carbon 14 dating of charcoal from the
hearth were these pieces were found indicated a date of 900 +/- 70 AD. Since
charcoal would likely have been made from drift wood, a date well before the
settlement period is not inconsistent.
Several lumps of iron slag were
found in one of the houses that was excavated in the first seasons. This
indicated to the Ingstads that the people who occupied this site were extracting
bog iron. This is an intricate process which had been developed in Europe as far
back as 2000 BC and was known in Norway by 400 BC. It was widely used during the
Viking age and in the later middle ages in Norway. It required very close
temperature control during smelting as well as knowlege of tempering to obtain
useable tools. A source of bog iron nodules was discovered close to the brook,
near the house site and the smithy was found across the brook from the houses.
Carbon 14 dates from the hearth in the smithy ranged between 890 +/- 70 AD to
1090 +/- 90 AD.
The large house site was further
excavated in 1963. This dwelling turned out to have been 70 feet long and 56
feet wide at its largest. It had five or six rooms. The biggest room was 26 feet
long and about 14 feet wide. Two smaller rooms at each end make this structure
look like a typical long-house. Lumps of slag, rusty nails, a needle whetstone
and a stone lamp were found inside this house. A test trench in the large house
in the 1964 season revealed a small stone ring which proved to be a Norse
spindle-whorl.
After seven excavation seasons,
Helge Ingstad concluded:
" An evaluation of the
archaeological material can hardly lead to any other conclusion than that the
site at L'Anse aux Meadows must be Norse and pre-Columbian. "
Bingo, the world now had further proof
of the history it had been teaching all along. This is now a tourist site. Oddly
enough Pohl and a portion of the academic community felt vindicated by this
discovery. Oh yes the Ballads which were a part of the history of Norway and
taught as history in that country were also validated.
Ramsay my point is this. The historian and the
archeologist are complimentary. Either can point the way to a better
appreciation and understanding of the facts. Pohl was not a lunatic. Far from
it. Nor was he the first to write about the voyage. The authentic proofs of the
zeno map have been debated both ways well before Pohl was even born. He simply
was educated enough to read the history of the period and try to advance it. I
also mention one other item I attribute to him was that the climate in 1398 was
different. As we are currently going through such a change we can recall nowdays
that there were farms in Greenland and not call it impossible.
Now I would bring some Spanish perspective into the
mix. North America was discovered before Columbus certainly. But the existance
of North America had been known well before the Vikings. It is taught although
speculative in origin that the Basque fisherman were fishing off the Grand Banks
before 1200. Of course not being literary we might discount this part of
history. But I have a hunch the largest fishing banks in the world (then) were
not secret very long. The portuguse, and spanish fised there for how
long?
Now from the Candian perspective let me share with you
the information I shared with Peter Cummings when we corresponded on this. Again
there is a Canadian bias. Henry was well documented as being the Earl with a
direct aligence to Norway. The King of Norway. Would the voyages to the eastern
shores of North America and Greenland be known? You bet. In fact official
deputations to Greenland had been something of a regular occurance. Was Henry
the first. No, he was following the sailing paths of others from Norway. If he
voyaged to Greenland and then south, was the route in keeping with trade winds
and current technologies. Yes. Would my logic be strained to support the
possibility of the voyage. No. From a legal perspective we seek hard evidence
but also know that circumstantial evidence and co-oberative evidence exists.
Sometimes it is the best we have to prove our case. We use all our knowledge and
understanding to bear on any evaluation.
The Sinclair voyage is now being documented in
histories from other authors in Nova Scotia and the cultrual and tourist
departments have added their weight in the Maritimes to support the historical
development establishing plaques and so on. Now nowhere do I suggest that
further, better and more improved evidence is not awaited, sought and desired.
Nor do I suggest that the role of solid archeological research is not needed nor
valued. This is where I can get a bit angry at the instutions; acedemic and
otherwise of this country. Of all the interesting sites to be preserved and
studied we have such ones as Oak Island, the Castle, Guysborough harbour, and
spots in Scotland. And no academic research has been done or attempted! The
acedemic community is not involved and the historical preservation of such sites
not supported by the public. I ask you to get your counterparts more interested
in documenting and supporting the historians.
I have a great deal of respect for your profession and
your solid imputs on the Sinclair list that are always well thought through. I
invite you to reflect on the Canadian perspective as well and join me applauding
the fine historians on this Sinclair list that are preserving so much heritage
that may otherwise be lost. Even academia has a bit to learn.
Keep having fun!
Neil Sinclair
Toronto/PEI/Argyll
-----Original
Message----- >Maybe it is too many years in academia but I think
Pohl is an idiot. I have From: darwin ramsey <darwinramsey@hotmail.com> To: sinclair@mids.org <sinclair@mids.org> Date: 5 August, 1999 9:02 AM Subject: Re: America's Stonehenge 2 >read his works and am seriously unimpressed with his science. I am not >saying that some trade may have been going on, however, it is going to take >a great deal more than a site that has been sacked through the years to fit >someone's ideal history to convince me. > >As to the artifacts from Latin America. We (the archaeological community in >the US) know that the cross-country migration of the ice age was not the >first. Early people migrated along the western coast all the way into South >America. We have early dates there. In fact, that was the first place the >pre-12,000 years ago date was discovered. However, here in South Carolina >we now have uncovered evidence of a pre-12,000 occupation. > >There are huge sites throughout the Mid-West and the Mississippi River >Valley that make this site (Stonehenge 2) look ridiculous. We are talking >about mounds that are hundreds of feet high and cover acres. There are >detailed astronomical calendars. In the Southwest there are the pueblos and >the Nez Perez (sp?) graphics on the desert floor that cover huge expanses of >land. Cahokia covered several miles and approximately 4,000 people lived >there during its height. Moundville is also about that large (2,500 to >3,000 residents). The rulers in these places had subject areas that >extended for miles in all directions. They had complicated alliances and >trade groups. They produced complicated weapons and beautiful artwork. >They were a very sophisticated people. They had to disband because their >population outgrew the resources. Once the population dispersed they forgot >their glory and their cities fell to dust. People moved around and often >groups that occupied the areas later had nothing to do with the original >city at all. They could not explain these huge sites to the Europeans and >so the ethnocentric Europeans assumed that the aboriginal population didn't >build these sites. > >My point is, there is lots of evidence for Indians to have constructed this >site and NONE for Europeans, Mynoans, Egyptians, etc. Remember, European >descendants wrote that description including the reference to 'Baal.' I am >unimpressed. I write copy like that but we try to avoid words that most >people won't understand or taht will confuse the audience. I work with >museums and interpretive centers. I know too well what goes on behind the >scenes to take such a reference on face value. > >Please, I know about archaeology. I have spent the last 14 years doing >archaeology and getting paid for it. It is a different perspective that >doing volunteer work. Volunteer work is a great deal more fun. I have to >have references for everything I do. If it is a "new" discovery I need a >great deal of evidence to support my claim. One piece of copy on an >interpretive display doesn't make it. I am not politically correct by any >stretch of the imagination. However, many years of research support my >claim that the aboriginal residents of the US have been treated as second >class citizens because they were "too stupid and primitive" to build >anything like this. > >I just don't believe that Europeans had to rush over here and build this >structure. I think the people who were already here had the knowledge and >technology to do so just like the British Isles aboriginal population had to >build Stonehenge. > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org >[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html |