Posted on 01/20/2006 8:18:53 AM PST by blam
PBS had a very interesting show with Menzies? on talking about the whole great chinese fleet thing. At first glance, alot of the things he talked about seemed reasonable, but when they brought the individual experts in, he got shot down pretty bad.
Supposedly everybody hates America but it would seem that everyone also wants to take credit for finding it. Hmmm.
Space Aliens, the first?
I forgot how the Mormon story goes.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I think it goes that Jesus came to the Americas after the resurrection, not before.
Many may have stumbled upon the new continent, tripped over it, visited it, dreamt about it in a dug-induced dream, whatever, but...
Columbus not only visited it, documented in painful detail, not once, not twice, but four times; mapped it, reported on it and shared it with the rest of the known world which mattered in the significant stream of history.
Everything else is curiousity BS.
On the other hand, Admiral He's map does not show that he circumnavigated the world. Rather, it assembles materials known from Mongol (Ming) sources as well as his own discoveries made by parts of his vast fleet that sailed far to the West, and the other parts that sailed far to the East. Several of McWallace's officers continue to share the honor of being the first to circumnavigate the globe.
The Chinese ships were very large and were able to sail anywhere.
There is a common myth that the Mandan people of North Dakota are in fact the decendants of Welsh colonists who sailed form Wales under Prince Madog. Do a web-search for ÃÂÃÂMandanÃÂÃÂ with ÃÂÃÂWelshÃÂÃÂ and you will find a plethora of pages promoting this story. Various pieces of evidence have led to this claim, most notably: Fair-skin/blue-eyes, Welsh style boats, and of course, that Welsh and Mandan speakers understand each other. There have been word lists published that apparently show evidence that Welsh and Mandan are one and the same language (or at least Mandan is a product of Welsh). I would like to use this space to claim that these theories are patently incorrect (maeÃÂÃÂn drwg iawn ÃÂÃÂda fi). Welsh is an Indo-European language, Mandan belongs to the Siouan family. The two languageÃÂÃÂs sound systems couldnÃÂÃÂt be more different. Welsh has about 21 consonant sounds, Mandan has at most 11. Welsh has a lavish vowel inventory numbering 23 (including diphthongs), Mandan has 9 (including 3 nasal vowels not found in Welsh). Welsh uses 4 liquids: /l/, /ll/, /r/, /rh/, but Mandan has only /r/. I could go on and on, e.g. Mandan has a glottal stop, Welsh does not. Mandan grammar is charactaristically North American, with long sequences of prefixes and suffixes on the verb, while Welsh is very European, marking tense and subject agreement only using portmanteaux suffixes. Welsh, like other Celtic languages, is famous for its system of mutations (changing the sound of the first letter of a word in certain lexical and grammatical environments). Mandan certainly does not do this, but instead, rotates between /s/, /ÃÂÃÂ/, and /x/ for semantic reasons (e.g. /ÃÂÃÂ/ being more intense than /x/, as in ÃÂÃÂpuÃÂÃÂakÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂcourse grainedÃÂÃÂ vs puxak ÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂfine grainedÃÂÃÂ). I hope the vocabulary examples below magnify the differences. |
Welsh | Mandan | English |
iÃÂâ | xo: | ice |
troed | ÃÂÃÂi | foot |
cwningen | wa:xtik | rabbit |
dannedd | hiʔ | teeth |
du | psioʔÃÂÃÂ | be black |
gwraig | wį:h | woman |
melyn | ÃÂÃÂi:re | yellow |
mellt | kÃÂÃÂįkÃÂÃÂe | lighnting |
melys | skųh | be sweet |
cau | ÃÂÃÂowok | hollow |
ceg | i:h | mouth |
dyn | ruwąʔk | man |
dw iÃÂÃÂn rhedeg | wapte:hoʔÃÂÃÂ | IÃÂÃÂm running |
mae eÃÂÃÂn dweud wrtho i | wąkirąoʔÃÂÃÂ | he tells me |
tŷ | ti | house |
Welsh | Mandan | English |
un | wxa | one |
dau | rųp | two |
tri | rą:wrį | three |
pedwar | to:p | four |
pump | kixu: | five |
chwech | kiwą: | six |
saith | ku:pa | seven |
wyth | te:toki | eight |
nau | wąxpe | nine |
deg | pirak | ten |
Welsh | Aeth y dyn tu ÃÂôl y tŷ |
Mandan | Rųwąʔk ti irąÃÂÃÂita re:hoʔÃÂà|
English | The man went behind the house |
Welsh | Maen nhwÃÂÃÂn gallu ei fwyta eÃÂÃÂn gyflym |
Mandan | Orutrį:te ahkakreoʔÃÂÃÂ |
English | They can eat it quickly |
Of all these examples, the two languages share only one word in common, ÃÂÃÂhouseÃÂÃÂ. Statistically, there is bound to be at least one or two common words between languages, this does not imply they are related. That the word for ÃÂÃÂmanyÃÂÃÂ in Korean is [mani], and ÃÂÃÂtwoÃÂÃÂ is [tu(l)] does not imply a Korean colonisation of England in the distant past. Nor does the fact that the Mohawk pronominal affixes for 1st and 2nd personÃÂÃÂ/k/ and /s/ÃÂÃÂ match the Hungarian affixes make it reasonable that the early Iroquois settled Hungary. These sorts of similarities are bound to happen. Historically, Mandan ÃÂÃÂtiÃÂÃÂ would be related to /tʰipi/ in Dakota, while Welsh ÃÂÃÂtŷÃÂÃÂ is derived from Indo-European *tegos meaning cover/roof (English thatch). So these two words, although superficially the same, stem from different sources. To be fair, I will present some data which people have used to show Mandan to be Welsh. The information below is from a letter by George Catlin (in North American Indians, Peter Matthiessen ed., Penguin 1989), an early American explorer of the interior of North America. Along with cultural evidence that I wonÃÂÃÂt speak about, he gives the following word list. The modern Welsh and Mandan words are given in [square brackets], proper translations are given in (parentheses). |
Welsh | Mandan | English |
Mi [fi] | Me [wį-] | I |
Chwi [chi] | Ne [rį-] | You |
A [e, o] | E [i-] | He |
E [hi] | Ea [i-] | She |
Hwynt (they) | Ount [ąʔt] | It |
Ni | Noo [rųÃÂÃÂak] | We |
Hwna, hona (these) | Eonah [?] | They |
Hyna | Yrhai [ąʔt e: wą:kahe] | Those ones |
Nag oes | Megosh [wįkoʔÃÂÃÂ] | There is not |
Pen | pan [paʔ] | Head |
Mawr penaethir (Big principal) | Maho peneta [?] | The Great Spirit |
As can be seen, the correct Mandan words (where I have been able to find them) are somewhat similar to what Catlin recorded ÃÂÃÂ assuming a sound change from ÃÂÃÂrÃÂÃÂ to ÃÂÃÂnÃÂÃÂ. However, Mandan uses pronouns (the majority of the list) vanishingly rarely. These are not in fact pronouns, but pronominal prefixes, which almost always have to be placed at the beginning of a verb root, so that a better translation of English ÃÂÃÂIÃÂÃÂ or Welsh ÃÂÃÂfiÃÂÃÂ is ÃÂÃÂwįoʔraÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂ ÃÂÃÂit is me, that being meÃÂÃÂ. By taking a Mandan pronominal prefix and identifying it with a Welsh pronounÃÂÃÂwhich occurs after the verb, Catlin made a huge mistake in judgement. In any case, Mandan is what is called an active-stative language (common to several North American Native language families). This system of organising nouns in relation to the verb is quite different from the nominative-accusative model of Welsh. What is a sentence in Welsh or English is a single word in Mandan:
Is the fact that the Mandan word begins with ÃÂÃÂwa:ÃÂàand the Welsh with ÃÂÃÂweiÃÂàa clue to their common heritage? ÃÂÃÂWa:ÃÂàin Mandan is a negative prefix, whicle the ÃÂÃÂweiÃÂàin Welsh is a mutation of ÃÂÃÂgweiÃÂàwhich is the first part of the root ÃÂÃÂworkÃÂÃÂ. No match. Great care has to be taken in historical linguistics, not to see cognates where there are none. The only examples from Catlin that I see as similar are possibly: ÃÂÃÂheadÃÂàand ÃÂÃÂthere is notÃÂÃÂ. Unfortunately for the latter, the morpheme analysis shows otherwise: in Mandan, ÃÂÃÂwįkÃÂàis the verbal element, while in Welsh it is ÃÂÃÂoesÃÂÃÂ. The pronouns are extremely dodgy (as are grammatical affixes) because they tend to simplify themselves over time due to frequent use. It is unlikely that one will find a language with a common first person singular pronoun like ÃÂÃÂtxwirpwylÃÂÃÂ. As an example, the Welsh nominative 1st sg. pronoun is ÃÂÃÂiÃÂÃÂ, and the English is ÃÂÃÂIÃÂÃÂ. A match? The pattern of evolutin for these pronouns is: Welsh ÃÂÃÂiÃÂàis from ÃÂÃÂmiÃÂà> ÃÂÃÂfiÃÂà> ÃÂÃÂiÃÂÃÂ, whereas the English ÃÂÃÂIÃÂàis from ÃÂÃÂicÃÂà> ÃÂÃÂiÃÂÃÂ. A better match is Welsh ÃÂÃÂiÃÂàwith English ÃÂÃÂmeÃÂÃÂ, but this would not be obvious by simply comparing the two words without a full philological study. This is moot as the Welsh and Mandan pronouns donÃÂÃÂt match anyway, and contrary to Catlin, Mandan does not have separate pronominal prefixes for masculine and feminine. If you are a firm believer of MadogÃÂÃÂs voyage to North Dakota, please do not email me with additional proofs or complaints. I am a Welsh speaker, I have met a Mandan learner, we could not communicate even a little bit. It is my hope that the history of the Mandan people can be respected for what it is, I donÃÂÃÂt imagine they appreciate their oral history being relegated to second class by a European myth. There have been enough prejudicial theories against Native history: from the foreign builders of Cahokia to Egyptian influence in Maya writing. At least (in my opinion) the Welsh-Mandan story can be dispelled by solid linguistic evidence. This is not to say that Madog did not make it to North America in the twelfth century, but simply that the Mandan language is not in any way Welsh. Many historians believed that the Norse never made it to North America, and that their stories were just that, stories. Now that archÃÂæologists have dug up LÃÂÃÂanse aux Meadows, we can be sure that the Vikings were not just making up amusing tales. Perhaps real evidence will surface, showing that Madog did in fact land in North America; that evidence has not and will not be found in the Mandan language. Still not convinced? My advice is learn to speak Welsh, and then try and read this. |
No, you get credit for "discovering" if and only if you return and report on your discovery. The earliest settlers apparantly never turned back.
Don't forget the Africans in the 1100s. Since the Native Americans, all others just visited and left, or got stranded and died out. Only Columbus started a constant communication and trade between the Americas and the rest of the world. That's why he matters and the others are just interesting historical footnotes.
Were not Viking artifacts found in Vineland?
No Americans discovered and settled both Europe and Asia in 10000 B.C., the rest is history.
I'm funin' y'all but if you believe this, I gotsa bridge in Biloxi that you can have!
Per previous, wrong drug, same conclusion.
http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html
How much is the bridge in Biloxi? I've got some prime pre-coastal land here in California I might trade for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.