Subject: So the KRS is real. Big Deal. From: email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) Date: 1997/08/25 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.nordic tom kavanagh (email@example.com) wrote: ... : (3) there is no evidence that any such voyages had any significance upon : the culture history of native North America. : : Once again, my question is: why are you arguing this point? Even if it : was true, it had no historical significance on this side. Dear Tom, You seem to assume that there was no significant impact on culture history. I believe you may be incorrect. One of the reasons I investigated the KRS, was to research the possibility that there was a wider and a more long-term Scandinavian presence in America than is generally assumed. If the KRS is genuine, and if there was a wider presence of Scandinavians in America, then two things are possible. Either they were widely present but left no impact, which would be quite curious in itself, or they did leave some significant impact, but this impact is being missed completely by our mainstream scholarship. I have a hunch that the latter may be the case. Your questions about impact and significance are certainly valid and worthwhile, and, myself, I'm interested in finding answers to them. And yet such answers are often fragmentary at this point. Sure, I would like to try to answer these questions in detail, but, unfortunately, in the existing climate of bitterness and controversy in this area, when irrationality and knee-jerk emotionalism of many responses are so obvious, it will be very hazardous to offer speculative theories for discussion. Certainly plenty of willful ignorance and misinformation exists in this area. So even when I often offer solid arguments, buttressed by respectable sources, these arguments fall of deaf ears, and/or create a lot of unreasoned hostility. Also, very often people try to twist and misinterpret what I say. Imagine what is bound to happen if I will offer less than solid arguments then? In any case, let me state some things that I believe may be valid. I believe that the presence of Scandinavians in precolumbian America, and their influence, are badly underestimated in the mainstream scholarship at this time. Most likely, the Scandinavians have been here both much longer, and in far greater numbers than is commonly believed. It is possible that when the settlements in Greenland were abandoned because of climate cooling, many of those people came to America. (Also, as a sidenote, very early Celtic presence in America was certainly also possible, and has been explored.) As well, it is possible and likely that many of the north-eastern Amerindian tribes intermarried with these Scandinavians, absorbed them, and received a significant cultural influence from them. We will have big difficulties in identifying signs of all this simply because in the first years of brutal postcolumbian European attack on Amerindian cultures, great numbers of those peoples were obliterated and had their possibly quite unique cultures destroyed. And yet we have many hints from early explorers that tend to indicate that those north-east Amerindian cultures were very special and very sophisticated in many respects. Unfortunately, they were the first to bear the brunt of modern European colonial expansion. Many intriguing problems exist in this area. Take for example the possibility that precolumbian Amerindians had the horse. (Of course, we all know that the indigenous American horse became extinct during a very early period.) Early explorers remarked on this quite often. The horses that the Natives apparently had very early were seemingly quite different from those the Spanish brought over. They, it seems, were small and varicoloured. It is possible that they derived from the Scandinavian ponies. We know that there were horses in Greenland. A look at the map will indicated how close Greenland is to Newfoundland. There are many such interesting problems in ancient American history. Rock inscriptions, and language studies present great many of them, so the KRS is certainly not unique in this area. Unfortunately, mainstream scholarship tends to avoid these problems like the plague. And then, the establishment scholars have the nerve to complain about the "cult archaeologists" who are left alone to pursue these dark areas of American history! Here's some bibliography where these matterss are explored. Mallery, A., & M. Harrison, REDISCOVERY OF LOST AMERICA, New York, E. P. Dutton, 1979 -- In this book, great many sites indicating possible precolumbian European presence are explored. McGlone, William R., and Phillip M. Leonard, ANCIENT AMERICAN INSCRIPTIONS: PLOW MARKS OR HISTORY?, 1993, Early Sites Research Society: Rowley, Massachusetts. -- This is the best recent source dealing with the great many possible precolumbian European and Mediterranean inscriptions in America. Very respectably and carefully argued. Gunnar Thompson, AMERICAN DISCOVERY, Argonauts Misty Isles Press, Seattle, Washington, 1994. -- This is a very interesting book. The author gathers plenty of sources and ideas dealing with transoceanic contacts together in one richly illustrated volume. He deals in some detail with the Scandinavian presence. While I will admit that a number of things the author says may be speculative, the amount of solid, unique, and very little known information in this volume is quite incredible. Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith _________________________________________________________________Click here to go one level up in the directory.