Subject:      Re: Moorish sailors discovered the New World?
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/07/04
Message-ID:   <5pj0eo$j2p$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   rec.org.mensa,soc.culture.african.american,alt.archaeology,
	sci.archaeology,soc.history,alt.folklore.science


David and Mary Cannon ([22]dcannon@voyager.co.nz) wrote:

[Someone else:]
: > These other trips may or may not have occured.  They remain unconfirmed.

: They remain unconfirmed, but they deserve to be investigated.  I have
: *NOT* said that the evidence for African and other voyages is conclusive.
: What I have said is that the possibility is plausible, there is evidence
: to support that possibility, and that such evidence deserves to be
: investigated - not rejected out of hand, as is so often the case.

Yes... evidence... See below.

: I've studied history, Martin, and I can tell you that in most
: universities, historians don't always try to be objective.  There is the
: unwritten and unspoken rule that "truth" as handed down by tradition
: should not be challenged.  The traditional "truth" is that Columbus was
: the discoverer of the New World, and that Vikings may have got there
: before him.  All other claims are rejected out of hand, without even being
: considered.

How true...

: I have first hand evidence of this.  Here in New Zealand, there is a
: wealth of evidence that the Maori people had contact with the Incas of
: South America.  That evidence is in their legends, as well as in the
: vocabulary of their language.  But guess what?  The history and
: archaeology departments of our universities won't investigate it, or even
: consider it.  They dismiss it as rubbish without giving it a second
: thought - or even a first fleeting thought.  I see the same thing
: happening with claims about who found the Americas.  Many academics (many,
: not all) treat any claims - and *especially* African claims - with
: suspicion and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why "it couldn't be" -
: without addressing any of the evidence.  I can only wonder whether racism
: is a factor in all of this.

There's no doubt in my mind that Eurocentrism is to blame in large measure
for the unwillingness of our mainstream scholarship to accomodate or even
to acknowledge the growing and very persuasive evidence of trans-Pacific
contacts and co-operation of Native tribal cultures in ancient times.

Now, in the hope of introducing some substance into this rather heated but
so far quite aimless discussion, how about the following bits of
evidence?

Arabs in America before Columbus?

In 1787, Thaddeus Harris, while travelling along Cambridge-Malden road
(now Rt. 16) was able to observe a site where a trove of hundreds of
bronse coins were found by some roadworkers. The coins were unknown at the
time, and nobody was able to read the script on them. They were considered
worthless, and everybody was welcome to take a few. Harris reported the
find in a letter to John Quincy Adams. Later his account, and
illustrations of coins were published by American Academy of Arts and
Science, in Boston.

Barry Fell, who wrote about this in SAGA AMERICA, p. 26, says the coins
are Arabic and the inscriptions on the coins are in medieval Kufic script.
The coins are square-shaped and 2 of them are shown on p. 31.

What's the story with this find? Has someone "refuted" it yet?

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky   | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
     -=-         | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
 in Toronto      | and the most modern serpents."  F. Nietzsche
 ----- my webpage is for now at: [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku -----
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.