Difference between revisions of "Talk:Leif Erikson"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
::::You say you care about history and the truth, but provide a Spanish name for an Italian and claim it's his "proper name."  How does that jive? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 
::::You say you care about history and the truth, but provide a Spanish name for an Italian and claim it's his "proper name."  How does that jive? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::Sorry, I was thinking of the original agreement between Columbus and the Spanish Crown, which referred to him a Cristobal Colon. However, it still stands that the assertion that the Norse did not reach North America is obviously incorrect. --[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 13:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 17:30, August 3, 2008

I am not certain if you grasped the nuance of Jeff Bolster's argument. Archaeological evidence for a Viking presence in North America, circa 1000 AD does exist, in Newfoundland. However, there is no evidence for a Viking presence in New England, Minnesota, and Kansas. Part of the suspicion regrading claims of a pre-Columbian European presence goes back to the nineteenth century, when Scandinavian-American societies, citing Norse myth, claimed that Leif Erikson landed in North American centuries before Cristobal Colon (his proper name). Some individuals went so far as to plant archaeological forgeries in Minnesota and Kansas, that have come to be known as rune stones. They are large rocks with inscriptions made on them by metal tools. Close examination revealed them as modern fakes (the nineteenth century, BTW, saw many archaeological frauds. A number of "artifacts" of supposedly Etruscan origin surfaced in western Michigan in the 1890s). So, while scholars like Julius E. Olson and Edward Gaylord Bourne did not accept that the Norse had landed in North America, they still included excerpts from the Vinland saga in their edited volume The Northmen, Columbus, and Cabot, 985-1503 (Scribner's, 1906). However, the controversy about a Norse presence was finally laid to rest in 1960, when artifacts of Scanadiavian orign, dating to about 1000 AD were discovered in Newfoundland.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]--JBoley 10:36, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I looked at your initial cites and found nothing persuasive. One or two tiny artifacts can be easily forged or misunderstood, and are not evidence for an actual settlement.--Aschlafly 10:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I find it unpersuasive that Aschlafly actually read the cites I provided in four minutes. Perhaps, as Dr. Lenski noted, reading is not your strongest suit?--JBoley 10:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, insult Andy with a non sequitur. That's the way to win him over. Jinxmchue 10:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
"Cristobal Colon (his proper name)" An Italian whose "proper name" is Spanish? Jinxmchue 10:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I care about history and the truth. Andy said he did not find the cites persuasive, without even looking at them. Perhaps Dr. Lenski had a point?--JBoley 10:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
You say you care about history and the truth, but provide a Spanish name for an Italian and claim it's his "proper name." How does that jive? Jinxmchue 13:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I was thinking of the original agreement between Columbus and the Spanish Crown, which referred to him a Cristobal Colon. However, it still stands that the assertion that the Norse did not reach North America is obviously incorrect. --JBoley 13:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)