Re. The ouisburg story and the cannon.
Andrew based his entire proposition regarding Louisburg on the allegation
that those cannon were only in limited circulation for avery brief number of
years and that, therefore, the most likely candidate for theirdeposition was
Prince Henry. On this basis he confected the Henry/Louisburg story and then
had to stretch credulity to the limits regarding the 'smaoking mountain'
pssage in the Zeno Narrative.
The problem is that this type of cannon, while originating in Venice in the
fourteenth century, were widely copied by othersand were in general use
until the 1540s.Thus blowing away Andrew's main premis. Furthermore, similar
cannon were found in quite large numbers at a fort much further south whose
origin is wellestablished and had nothing whatsoever to do with the St
Clair/Zeno voyage, which was much earlier.
Pohl and Hobbes have established beyond all reasonable doubt the
geographical origins of the 'smaoking mountain' passage in the narrative.
This places Henry's landfall at Guysborough and we happily accept that
without reservation.
While Pohl, who laid the basic groundwork superbly, certainly made some
errors, as we all do from time to time, but on this point he was spot on.
Andrew's case for Louisburg as the landing simply does not stand any
detailed analysis. Hobbes and Pohl's version however stands up without any
major problems.
I for one, have no doubts that Basque, Breton and Bristol fisherman were
using the Newfoundland Banks as a superb fishing ground for many decades
before Columbus alleged discovery of North America. That may, or may not,
have had an influence on the later French exploration and settlement of Nova
Scotia.Undoubtedly the cannon, both there and further South, were brought by
the French.
Furthermore, plaques errected inall sincerity, can only be held to indicate
tradition or belief and not fact, unless backed up by convincing,
independant evidence. To establish the truth of Prince Henry's Voyage is the
aim of all of us, but it can only be acomplished with reasoned argument
which is based upon hard evidence. In our new book we have tried to do just
that, knowing in advance that we are going to have to defend our thesis
against sustained and vitriolic attack from the academic establishment in
North America who still cling on to blinkered thinking based upon the
falacious assumption that 'There was no European contact with America before
Columbus.'.
We are also aware that many disciplesof Pohl, who have taken his work as
holy writ, are going to dislike our approach intensively. For more of this
you will all have to wait until publication day, but, inthe meantime, ask
yourselves these questions: 'Would any experienced maritime commander,such
as Henry, have sent his fleet home leaving a party, thousandsof miles from
home completely dependant on small rowing boats? If he did would he also
build a ship fromscratch with green wood in the depths of a Nova Scotian
winter, bearing in mindthat allthe evidence from the North Atlantic Islands
such as Greenland indicates that there was a 'mini-ice-age' at that time?
That should act as an effective trailer - wait for the full production.
Best wishes
Tim
[ 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