Subject:      So the KRS is real. Big Deal.
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/08/25
Message-ID:   <5tqsbm$dvd$2@trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,soc.history.nordic

tom kavanagh (tkavanag@indiana.edu) 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=- [22]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.