Re: Old paradigm is rocking!

"IE J" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pSGTf.49192$d5.205536@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:6HFTf.49181$d5.205306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"IE J" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ggFTf.49177$d5.205306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:eKETf.49167$d5.205453@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"IE J" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qODTf.49144$d5.205455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:VhCTf.49123$d5.205298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:441eed8a$1$34633$dbd45001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IE J wrote: news:e5BTf.49102$d5.205331@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"....... 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

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. "

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

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.

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.

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
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.

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,
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.

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,
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.

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

--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden


.