![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
by Gunnar Thompson
"On DeVirga's map, the northwestern continent is called "Norveca." This title, appearing under the symbol of a crown, identifies the huge land as a province under the sovereignty of Norway. Other maps also show a huge land attached to northern Norway. On the 14th-century Andreas Walsperger map, the region is called "Regnii Norwegie" (the realm of Norway); maps by Sebastian Munster (1532) and Joachim Von Watt (1534) call the region "Septentrio;" a circular map by Battista Agnese 1543 shows "Terra Nova" extending from Norway to the North Pole.
Maps that portray a huge northern territory reflect the 1261 proclamation of King Haakon IV extending Norse sovereignty over all the lands from Norway to the North Pole. The "North Pole" he had in mind was the magnetic--not the geographic pole. A 14th-century writer, Philippe de Mezieres, reported that Norway's overseas realm was so extensive that it took three years for the king's tax collectors to complete their rounds and return to Bergen.
One of the territories that Haakon annexed in a 1262 treaty along with Greenland and Iceland was an otherwise obscure place called landanu or "New Land." The Kongfriget Norges historie (1778) identified an Icelander named Rolf as the discoverer of this New Land--also known as Nyaland--in 1258. It was also identified as part of the North American mainland. Bishop Gissur Einarsson noted that the direction of sailing to Nyaland from Iceland was southwest. In that direction lies Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The region had many names that changed over the years as successive waves of Europeans landed on its shores. As late as 1347, Icelanders referred to Newfoundland as "Markland"--which was an ongoing source of lumber. Sailors from Bristol called the coastal isles "the Icelands." Circa 1350, a Spanish Franciscan reported an isle called "Ibernia" in the northwest Atlantic that was under Norse sovereignty. After that date, Bubonic Plague swept through European cities devastating maritime centers. Norway was particularly hard hit--forcing the abandonment of overseas colonies. English, Portuguese, French, German, and Danish merchants fought over the western isles. After 1380, Denmark took control of Greenland, Iceland, and mainland in eastern Canada. The "new" Danish mainland appears on the Claudius Clavus map of 1424 as "Gronlandia Provincia." Thus, the name "Norveca" was already archaic by the early 15th century when it found its way onto DeVirga's map. Portuguese maps of the early 16th century feature the names of Joao Fernandes (The Labrador) and the Corte-Real family along the East Coast of North America..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the dear Dougweller can claim quite rightly in many cases that the relate of Marco Polo could be speculation, however Gunnar Thompson cites the words of his own reporting and book, book attributed to him, Marco Polo, as a documental source for these claims in the American Pacific coast, as well as indirect sources more speculative on the several centuries later(and even from his time) world maps, wich indicate where the lands designated by the Chinese and by the Venetian-Dalmatian Explorer were.
Pedro-Lisbon
"Hurricain" is american and native! - apart some misterious etymologies in any word- I do not know what he said to you in what context - I mean all discussion and all context of such statement. I have many doubts about many points as in Gavin Menzies`s work that I respect both, but J. Gunnar Thompson have also some interesting poins and with reliable sources in some cases, I mean, not on all, but some points - I mean medieval nordic, british, portuguese oral/doc. traditions etc. as exemple.
"He has told me"... Your discussion was here in Wikipedia or in personal!? some Conference-workshop or any other intellectual debate? if I may put the question! Sorry Its only curiosity and its interesting. (Sorry, I know this is not a forum)
Pedro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I proposed the AfD for Fuente Magna and my only concern is that it's not even notable enough to be included here. If Fuente Magna is found to be notable enough to survive the AfD then I will support the merge. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
this doesn't make sense. There is no way "Fuente Magna" is notable enough for a standalone article, but I frankly see no harm in a brief mention of the artefact in this article under "fringe theories". We have a 1985 article in some obscure journal claiming there is "Proto-Sumerian" writing on a pre-Columbian artefact. If this can be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, it would probably be in this article under "fringe theories, Mediterranean Anqituity". -- dab (𒁳) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I could found a lot of into about some 1955-discovered letters in Spain, which all suggest that Bristol sailors DID in fact discover newfoundland some 5-15 years before 1492. The article Richard Amerike certainly seems to support this. - What's actually in these letters? does anyone know? - Is this actually true? - Could anyone bring the two articles in line with the answer please? cos the Amerike article could be misleading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.86.167.251 ( talk) 12:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Documents discovered by Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo, 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia in the Archivo de la Casa de Medina Sidonia (one of the most important private archives in Europe going back to the 13th century) are taken by her to prove that some time before Columbus, arab-andalusian or Moroccan sailors traded with ports in Brazil, Guayana and Venezuela. She published this in her books No fuimos nosotros (It wasn't us) and África versus América ( Fundación Casa Medina Sidonia).
I would not dare to dismiss the result of years of careful work as one of "lots of ideas like this floating around". -- AHert ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Some basic thoughts:
Then, it appears to be compelling to assume that from time to time one or the other boat has been blown from Africa across the ocean to (South) America, whether they were Phoenician, Arab, African, or other boats. Those who were not killed stayed on, if they liked it. Others will have tried to get home and if they succeeded, nobody will have believed their story - or will have kept it secret.
It would be nice if some evidence would be found, but I consider it wrong to argue that there were no pre-Columbian crossings just because no evidence has been found. -- AHert ( talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |