History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAmerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 19>
Author
Sander View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 16:59
Zierik with it's - rik , is a normal germanic name, just as Roderik, Hendrik etc. ( old spelling -ric )
 
The standard explanation  from the Zierikzee community is that Zierikzee comes from Zierik's 'Ee , meaning the Ee of Zierik. The ee refers to a creek.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 17:17
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Pinguin, that book says the tradition says 849 AD, but tracing back the boat goes to 18th century. So, as far as the evidence goes, that voyage happened in the 18th century, not in the 9th.
 
First, if it happened in the 18th century why couldn't happen as well in the 9th century?
The fact is there are many testimonies of Inuits arriving to Europe in post-Norse times but most are post-Columbian. With respect to the second kayak, the book I have says there is another.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 17:18
Originally posted by Sander Sander wrote:

Zierik with it's - rik , is a normal germanic name, just as Roderik, Hendrik etc. ( old spelling -ric )
 
The standard explanation  from the Zierikzee community is that Zierikzee comes from Zierik's 'Ee , meaning the Ee of Zierik. The ee refers to a creek.
 
From where came the idea the guy came in a Kayak? Any clue?
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 18:04
The Dutch were major traders in the Arctic Area. They discovered a.o. Spitsbergen and Nova Zembla. So an Inuit didn't sail to Zeeland, but rather Dutch sailors they took it with them from Greenland.

from http://www.museum.nl/MUSEUMnl/handler.cfm?event=museum&id=400243FF-7B8F-11D5-8F00-0002A508D0B7&collectie=long:
Quote Bijzonder is verder de Groenlandse kayak die in de achttiende eeuw door Zierikzeese schippers op terugreis is meegebracht.
Noteworthy is furthermore the Greenlandic kayak which was brought back in the 18th century by sailors from Zierikzee.



Edited by Mixcoatl - 19-Apr-2008 at 18:05
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 19:57
Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.

Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 20:26
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

First, if it happened in the 18th century why couldn't happen as well in the 9th century?
The fact is there are many testimonies of Inuits arriving to Europe in post-Norse times but most are post-Columbian. With respect to the second kayak, the book I have says there is another
It could happen, but there's no evidence it really did. Actually it also could happen that Native Americans reached Europe without having a single evidence they did, but it's not really a useful hypothesis for our understanding, because we can't verify that.
Also, if you remarked, the author of that book believed that the kayak was brought back by Dutch explorers (reaching those lands in the 17th century), not that it is an evidence for a Inuit explorers. But even if we'd regard it as evidence, we're stuck with the dating of the boat which does not confirm the oral tradition.
According to that book, the first Eskimos in Europe came as captives during the 16th century.
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 20:31
And if Inuit ending up in Europe post-1492 counts as evidence for Inuit in Europe before 1492; there are numerous stories of Japanese and Chinese ships being blown of course and ending on the North American west coast in the colonial and independent eras. Does that mean we should accept Japanese and Chinese in the Americas before 1492?
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 21:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
From where came the idea the guy came in a Kayak? Any clue?
A quick search make reveals it's related to the whale hunts of the 18th century, where kayaks or even living inuits were brought back as "souvenirs". But I guess it's more interesting to believe in ancient explorations than facts. Wink


Edited by Styrbiorn - 19-Apr-2008 at 21:29
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:01
Wikipedia is your friend and it says:

1. Before the 1200s there were no Inuits in Eastern Canada.
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
3. Before the 1300s there were no Inuits in Greenland.
4. Before the late 1300s, there were no Inuits in Eastern Greenland.
5. After 1350, the Inuit whaling went down hill due to change of whale migrations related to the small Ice Age.

These 5 factors make Inuit contacts with Europe unlikely and plain impossible in the mid-9th century.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:18
Lets have a kick summary:

1st evidence: 62BC a Germanic king gives "Indians" to a Roman consul.
2nd evidence: 1160s AD a bunch of "Indian" traders found in the Baltic or Friseland.
3rd evidence: 1150s AD another Indian found in Lubeck.
4th evidence: the same
5th evidence: 849 AD Inuits arrive in the Netherlands.

It is obvious that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th evidence are likely to be the same. The 5th is highly dubious. Only the 1st seems to be slightly stronger. Not too good a result. But as Pinguin said, the main interest here is the discussion.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:00
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.
 
Not really. Please analize the map of sea currents I put some post ago. If you see that map you will realize it is easier to reach Northern Europe from Norther South America, rather than any other trip. Going from the Caribbean to Spain is almost impossible and the distances are too much.
 
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:


Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?
 
Not yet. Without suspense there is no way this thread is kept alive. Be patient, please Wink
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:08
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Wikipedia is your friend and it says:

1. Before the 1200s there were no Inuits in Eastern Canada.
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
3. Before the 1300s there were no Inuits in Greenland.
4. Before the late 1300s, there were no Inuits in Eastern Greenland.
5. After 1350, the Inuit whaling went down hill due to change of whale migrations related to the small Ice Age.

These 5 factors make Inuit contacts with Europe unlikely and plain impossible in the mid-9th century.
 
Yeah. But that doesn't mean Columbus didn't see Inuits in Ireland Wink
 
The interesting thing is that contact from the Americas may have happened from people that used the same sailing technology than Caribbeans had: large canoes with sails. Unlikely Caribbeans themselves but more probably coastal people of the eastern coast of the United States.
 
Second, the fact there are many witness account of inuits comming to Europe in kayaks in POST-Columbian times, shows it is likely they went once in a while in pre-Columbian times as well. Now, in the case of Inuits I think if that happened was in post-Norse times.
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:13
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

And if Inuit ending up in Europe post-1492 counts as evidence for Inuit in Europe before 1492; there are numerous stories of Japanese and Chinese ships being blown of course and ending on the North American west coast in the colonial and independent eras. Does that mean we should accept Japanese and Chinese in the Americas before 1492?
 
Two points are important here. First, if Amerindians reached Europe in ancient times that would explain the legends we have seen here so far about "Indians" reaching Europe. I know evidence is not conclusive but the fact is SOME evidence exist. Beside, those legends are crucial to explain Columbus behavoir and its own writings.
 
Second, if Inuits reached Europe ONCE IN A WHILE in post-Norse but pre-Colombian times, that would explain many legends in Europe, but also what Columbus saw in Ireland.
 
In short, rather than explain conquists, this is an attempt to explain some obscure facts in the life and knowledge of Columbus.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:18
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

...A quick search make reveals it's related to the whale hunts of the 18th century, where kayaks or even living inuits were brought back as "souvenirs". But I guess it's more interesting to believe in ancient explorations than facts. Wink
 
Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.
I wish people would get the same reaction, and be as much skeptical, when they put forward those wild fantasies of European, Africans,  Asians or Polynesians reaching the Americas in pre-Columbian and pre-Norse times.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.

 

Not really. Please analize the map of sea currents I put some post ago. If you see that map you will realize it is easier to reach Northern Europe from Norther South America, rather than any other trip. Going from the Caribbean to Spain is almost impossible and the distances are too much.

 

Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?

 

Not yet. Without suspense there is no way this thread is kept alive. Be patient, please Wink


Interesting that you keep holding on to this current (Ocean that is) argument. The map I found shows that people coming from SAmerica and the Southern USA would be more likely to hit Northern Spain, Brittany, Cornwall, or pass between north Scotland and Iceland on their way to Scandinavia. This is also what your maps say. So by accepting the notion that these people landed in Lubeck or other Germanic settlements is in fact grasping at straws. The evidence just doesn't hold up. It is more likely that these were people who were in the North Sea area already. Maybe the Sami or another ethnic group of a darker Asiatic complexion. I'm not saying that these people were Sami or another indigenous group but the possibility is greater than Amerindians.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:50

Well, I am thinking in the North Atlantic current. If you are push by them you can end anywhere in Europe, a lot more more likely in Britain or Scandinavia rather than in Germany, of course. However, we are talking about just two or three extraordinary events that never repeated again. So, probabilities are not much of a clue in these cases.

Now, with respect to the real earth, it is better to see in a globe rather than in mercator projection. The distances are quite different if you observe them in a globe. For instance, the distance from Labrador to Britain seem to be the same than from Brazil to Africa, which is false. This is the same seen by a polar projection for instance, where the distances look closer in the North

Now I ask you. If Inuits went paddling from Labrador to Greenladn, why they couldn't do the same from Greenland to Island or from Island to Ireland or Sweeden? The distances are about the same.


Edited by pinguin - 20-Apr-2008 at 03:54
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:56
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

...
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
 
There is just a small problem with that hypothesis. How did Sadlermiuts reached Greenland? I bet they didn't swim there but got there in kayaks or equivalent boats.


Edited by pinguin - 20-Apr-2008 at 03:57
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:15
By the way, those that doubt about Amerindian navigation skills, please take a look at this thread. Particularly to Mayan navigation, that have the same skills than Caribbeans and some North American peoples.
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:16
The Sadlermuits from what I understand weren't in Greenland just the Hudson Bay and other Canadian areas.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:30
There was people in Greenland before the Inuits. At least that's what I saw in a National Geographic documental.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 19>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.