John Dee, Atlantis, and the Welsh Indians

3/24/2013

The story of Atlantis has been well-studied, and the development of the myth is well-known. But I found an interesting sidelight that ties claims for Atlantis in with some of alternative history’s other weird ideas, thanks to John Dee, Renaissance occultist extraordinaire.

Our story begins in 1552, when the Spanish historian Francisco López de Gómara makes an audacious claim. Noting that the Aztecs frequently use the syllable atl in their words, he proposes that Mexico and the Caribbean are the lost continent of Atlantis.

But there is now no cause why we should any longer doubt or dispute of the Island Atlantide, forasmuch as the discovering and conquest of the west Indies do plainly declare what Plato hath written of the said lands. In Mexico also at this day they call that water Atl, by the half name of Atlantis, as by a word remaining of the name of the Island that is not. We may likewise say that the Indies are either the island and firm land of Plato or the remnant of the same: and not the Islands of Hesperides or Ophir, or Tarshish, as some have thought of late days.

I have published Gómara’s statement about Atlantis in full here and have provided extensive explanatory notes about his references. Of particular interest is the claim that others identified Atlantis with the Biblical Tarshish. This Renaissance-era speculation still exists today, advocated as recently as 2011, when Richard Freund appeared in a National Geographic documentary to claim that Plato’s Atlantis was proof that the Bible was literally true.

But today I’m more interested in the idea that Gómara thought Atlantis was America. Gómara was writing in the Historia general de las Indias, a highly influential account of the Spanish conquest of the New World, and one that caught the attention of Richard Eden, an alchemist and translator sponsored by the Earl of Northumberland, a dedicated opponent of the Spanish empire. Eden included selections from Gómara on Atlantis as an appendix to his 1555 translation of Peter Martyr d’Anghiera’s Decades (1530). His translation is the one I have adapted above.

Two decades later, John Dee was also in the business of promoting English empire-building at the expense of Spain, and he tried to directly rebut Gómara. In an unpublished 1576 manuscript (discussed by Robert Barone here), Dee relocated Atlantis from the Spanish-controlled Caribbean to the north, where British interests lay:

The Lord Madoc, sonne of Owen Gwyndd prince of North Wales, leaving his brothers in contention, and warre for their inheritance sought, by sea (westerlie from Irland), for some forein, and—Region to plant hymselfe in with soveranity: wth Region when he had found, he returned to Wales againe and hym selfe wth Shipps, vituals, and men and women sufficient for the coloniy, wth spedely he leed into the peninsula; then named Farquara; but of late Florida or into some of the Provinces, and territories neere ther abouts: and in Apalchen, Mocosa, or Norombera: then of these 4 beinge notable portions of the ancient Atlantis, no longer—nowe named America.

“Apalchen” is the Appalachian mountains, and “Norombera” is Norumbega, the fictional advanced civilization of pre-Contact New England.

Dee, a Welshman, relates this new Atlantis to Madoc, the Welsh prince who sketchy legends vaguely told had sailed westward from Wales in the Middle Ages. By the 1570s, there seems to have been an oral tradition that Madoc’s westward land was America, backed up by traveler’s tales that the indecipherable languages of Native Americans were corrupt Welsh.

In Dee’s hands, Madoc became the centerpiece for Tudor claims to control all of America; for, if the Welsh had colonized North America around 1170, they had prior claim before that upstart and knave, Columbus, and his perfidious Spanish benefactors. The Tudors had finished the incorporation of Wales into England, and the Welsh thought of them as a “Welsh” dynasty. Dee passed the story on to George Peckham in 1582, and he published it in A True Reporte Of the late discoveries and possession taken in the right of the Crowne of Englande, of Newfound Landes (1583), the first printed claim that Madoc had reached America.

This, in turn, gave rise to the myth of the Welsh Indians, which Lewis and Clark’s men believed, and which some alternative historians still advocate down to the present day.

Peckham, in turn, was working with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to build an empire in America. Gilbert obtained a royal charter for vast tracts of North America and died trying to found a colony in Newfoundland. His claim passed to his half-brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, who sponsored the ill-fated Roanoke Colony in an attempt to keep the royal charter from expiring. Dee, too, received a charter for vast territories, but no evidence exists that anything ever came of it—claims for the Newport Tower notwithstanding.

Thus ended the great Atlantis-Madoc empire-building mission.

The claim that Madoc reached America fell into abeyance under the Stuarts, who, hailing from Scotland, had no interest in promoting Welsh ideas. Not until the Welsh cultural revival of the 1780s and 1790s did the Madoc story reemerge, in time to influence Americans in their westward expansion—a useful propaganda tool for the Americans, as heirs to British claims south of the Canadian border as per the 1783 Treaty of Paris—to use to promote claims to the Louisiana Territory.

Interestingly, wherever the Welsh Indians were sought, they were always just beyond the horizon. The “Welsh” Indians first thought to live near the east coast disappeared when sought, and the claim shifted to the Appalachians. When not found there, they were then thought to be up the Missouri. After searching there, reports placed them somewhere in the Plains or the Rockies—anywhere just beyond reach, a phantasm of the imperial imagination.

78 Comments

Gunn Sinclair

3/24/2013 07:22:35 am

"...they were then thought to be up the Missouri."

Exactly. They were called Mandans. They are evidence of early European exploration. What else could they be?

Jason Colavito link

3/24/2013 07:26:45 am

Seriously? Even the Victorians recognized that the Mandan claims were nothing but hot air. The Mandans had been in constant contact with Canadians and French since the early 1700s by the time American explorers started claiming these "untouched" Natives were white. The Welsh explorer John Evans concluded that they were not Welsh--in the 1790s!--because they were (a) not white enough and (b) didn't speak Welsh.

But you do know that there are still Mandans around today. You can go visit them and see for yourself whether you find them white enough to be Welsh. Their language, for the record, is part of the Siouan family, not Welsh.

3/24/2013 07:36:45 am

Please read the book I referenced earlier. The Mandans became extinct. Also, I claimed in an earlier post that I believe they were of Scandinavian DNA, not Welsh, as seems to be indicated by the numbers showing white traits of blond hair and blue eyes, and also indicated by the presence of many Scandinavian-type stoneholes and other evidences (without provenance) throughout the region.

3/24/2013 07:39:28 am

They aren't extinct. You can visit them online: http://www.mhanation.com/

The Mandan suffered geratly in a smallpox epidemic, and as a result of that and later population displacement, they merged with two other tribes into the Three Affiliated Tribes. The last full-blooded Mandan recently died, but those with Mandan ancestors continue to live in ND and carry on their traditions.

3/24/2013 07:51:35 am

Okay, the last full-blooded Mandan became extinct, then.

Hopefully, some day we'll have a better understanding of what all these "evidences" around SD mean. They appear to be medieval and Scandinavian...kind of like the Mandans, from the same general area.

I know I can't convince you, but that's okay. That book about Sheheke is very good end-of-winter reading. I found it interesting that the L & C expedition took along blacksmiths, even. They made useful things for the Native Americans there in Mandan territory.

3/24/2013 07:54:17 am

They did, but they didn't think the Mandan were white; in fact, their color did not impress them in the least. They expedition actually thought the Flatheads were the only whitish "European" tribe they encountered, because their language was so confusing they mistook it for Welsh. It wasn't Welsh either.

Mary T.

1/28/2018 12:28:33 am

I realize that this is an older discussion. I have an acquaintance, James Scott, who shared his authenticated discovery on his Facebook account. Somewhere in the wilds of Kentucky he found a stone statue of an obvious Viking (Welsh) dressed man. He posted a photo of the statue, and where he made newspaper headlines with his pre-Columbus find.

If I recall correctly, the Red Bird Creek Stone (boulder) of Manchester, Kentucky also contains Welsh inscriptions that predate Columbus.

While I do not know the origin, Troy T. Dickerson shared a video on YouTube of some ancient-looking stone structure (partial temple-like building), which he said is located on Lookout Mountain, Tennesse. He believes it to be Solomon's Temple???

So I read, some say that the Red Bird Creek boulder could have been altered to suit some agenda. But it fell from a cliffside that also had a cave above, reportedly, with like inscriptions of at least eight extinct written languages. I highly doubt that some prankster scaled that cliffside to leave those numerous inscriptions, and without detection.

In my mind, the fact that various Countries hoped to lay claim to America doesn't carry enough weight to explain away all (physical) evidence of the probability of pre-Columbus exploration and settlements in America.

3/24/2013 08:02:41 am

Don't be so selective, Jason. If you do a bit of research, you'll find other references describing the Mandans much differently than you just did. To me, they are evidence of early European blood-mixing. The Scandinavians are much lighter in eye color and hair color--in general--than the French.

That's a good point you make about the French mixing in the 1700's, but I don't think that occasional mixing in that specific, remote area was enough to produce the other descriptions of light hair and skin, especially of the females.

3/24/2013 08:09:45 am

I'm not being selective. The "White" Mandan reference comes from George Caitlin, a Pennsylvania artist, in 1832. Against him you have John Evans, Lewis and Clark, a dozen Canadian fur traders, David Thompson, Henry Breckenridge, Prince Maximilian, Rudolph Kurz, and more who all visited the Mandan prior to 1851 and NOT A SINGLE ONE other than Caitlin felt that they were especially white.

I'm not being selective; it's the weight of evidence.

The Other J.

3/24/2013 02:48:27 pm

Something has been bothering me about this White Indian argument and the insistence for or against some kind of European influence.

What would you say about certain genetic traits, like lighter-colored hair, eyes, and/or skin, developing independently of any European help? Because that has happened in the past among other populations. Probably the most prominent case is among certain Melanesian populations (Vanuatu, Fiji, New Guinea, Solomon Islands) -- people who are generally have dark skin and hair, but a recessive trait among them gives some blond or reddish hair. For the longest time it was thought there must have been some European influence, but DNA testing has proven that it was a separate and independent genetic mutation that resulted in some physical characteristics that resemble characteristics also found in Northern Europe. Similar, but independent.

Then consider one of the more important influences on the evolution of skin color -- vitamin D, which breaks down into two hormones that are important for bone development, metabolism, and neurophysiological function. Humans get most of their vitamin D through the sun; uvb reacts with 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin to produce vitamin D3. As populations migrated to cooler, darker climates, sun exposure was far less and protective melanin became a detriment because it inhibited the ability for the skin to be exposed to uvb. That led to developmental disorders that wouldn't really promote population growth (like rickets). A genetic mutation that allowed for less melanin in the skin became selected for because less melanin allowed for more exposure to uvb and more production of life-sustaining vitamin D3; those who didn't have the mutation in those climates had more health problems and didn't pass on their genes. However, along northern coastal regions, there was enough vitamin D in the diet (seals, whale, etc.) that the mutation which led to less melanin in the skin wasn't selected for.

This genetic change as a result of changes in climate and environment occurs over many, many generations, but can also occur rapidly. I'd be happy to dig it up if needed, but a few years back the BBC reported a study done on a relatively isolated population in southern India who were very dark. What the DNA study showed is that they had migrated from northern India, and their closest cousins were comparatively quite light. The study showed that in the right environmental conditions, the amounts of melanin a population produces can be selected for and changed relatively rapidly, within a few generations.

So who's to say that didn't also occur among some Native American populations? Over 90% of Native Americans were wiped out, so we're dealing with a limited population today. Since as you've already said the last full-blooded Mandan is long-dead, could it be possible that some of the Mandan, or some other tribe that interacted with the Mandan, had a recessive gene that gave them fairer features, a gene that developed independently from any European influence?

Knowing that, and knowing that Native American populations arrived over the Bering Strait land bridge, wouldn't it be possible that as they migrated farther into the continent and farther away from a vitamin D-rich diet that a genetic mutation which allowed for less melanin in the skin might be selected for -- no Scandinavians or Welsh necessary? And wouldn't it be possible that since the vast majority of Native Americans are now gone, that any minority population with less melanin may have died out with the rest of them? I can see where 200 years ago people might have heard of lighter-skinned Native Americans and jumped to the conclusion that it must have been European influence, and then tried to fit archaeological and folktale puzzle pieces together to make some sense of the tales. But the science suggests that such populations didn't necessarily need help. Would evidence of an independent genetic mutation leading to fairer features among Native American populations change your opinion about European influence at all?

John McKay link

3/24/2013 03:59:23 pm

Black hair and red hair come from the same pigment. In times of famine, black hair will turn red. To oversimplify, hair color comes from more than one gene. For black and red hair, one gene specifies that pigment and another specifies how much. Good and bad food years are more than enough to explain why some travelers report red or fair-haired Indians and Eskimos and others don't and why none are seen today. The tribes aren't extinct, it's just that true famine is extinct in North America.

By the way, woolly mammoths had the combinations of genes that produce red and blond hair. The colors would have been similar to those in retrievers (dogs), from medium blonde to dark auburn.

3/24/2013 07:17:06 pm

Right on about the mammoths -- I'd forgotten about that.

Fair point about famine times and lighter hair, but would that explain fairer skin as well? I know that's not the case with Melanesian populations, who aren't living under famine conditions and plenty of people are born with blond hair (although it's a recessive trait). Once it was shown that the mutation that led to their blond hair was different from the mutation that led to Europeans blond hair, that kind of blew traditional stable concepts of ethnic traits wide open. I wouldn't be surprised if famine conditions would be enough to account for fairer-haired Native Americans, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a recessive trait -- independently developed from European influence -- that's now extinct.

3/24/2013 08:15:31 am

1738, La Verendrye: "The women are fairly good looking, especially the light colored ones, many of them have blond or fair hair."
(page 69, "Sheheke, Mandan Indian Diplomat."

By the way, this LaVerendrye found what was probably a runestone in ND, now kind of named after him...it went to Canada and then disappeared in France!

3/24/2013 08:20:08 am

That differs not a lick from the descriptions of other tribes, including the Crow, that were graded on a color scale. Native Americans are not all the same shade--then or now.

L Bean

3/25/2013 04:22:57 pm

Again, evolution is the likely explanation, given the accounts of similar instances in other tribes, and indeed throughout the history of global native peoples.....just trying to counter teh cray.

3/25/2013 04:53:50 pm

Sorry, don't know why that last reply ended up here

3/25/2013 07:39:59 am

I'm ignorant of the where the vectors of the early French fur trade would lie on a timeline. Is La Verendrye considered to be the first European to have contact with the Mandan, based solely on his claims of such? If the Mandan were known to have history or connections further east, or even if not; all it takes is one white wanderer 50 years or so earlier, and you'd have a bunch of light or fair Mandans. The fur trade had been going on long enough before that. Some pretty serious exploratory expeditions and the like a la the 'gold rush', must have been going on pretty much continously no? Small bands of (independent)undocumented explorers, included.

I favor the evolutionary explanation, personally, but this is another possibly which would rank above the Viking or whichever whitey-o-the-day is being hoisted up as a Mandan ancestor. Unless I've got the above plot completely wrong. If so, apologies.

3/25/2013 07:50:49 am

La Verendrye is the first recorded European visitor to the Mandan in 1738/9, and they were in more or less constant contact with French fur traders thereafter.

3/25/2013 10:55:23 am

French trappers/fur traders were working their way into Wisconsin as early as 1650. I'm not sure of all the points of entry -- coming in from Canada in the north or up the Mississippi, but I'd guess the latter. Following the Mississippi and its tributaries and connecting rivers, a person could canoe pretty much all over the Midwest to much of the land west of the Appalachians.

For what it's worth, there's quite a bit of documented interaction with the natives. The Wisconsin Historical Society did research on this (presented on Wisconsin Public Television about a decade ago). The trappers were living among the native tribes and sending letters back home about how they organized themselves politically -- like how they voted for a chieftan and and used communal property. Some of those letters made their way into Jean-Jacques Rousseau's hands, and influenced both his ideas on the noble savage and on the social contract. Rousseau's social contract arguments in turn influenced Thomas Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence.

So in an odd way, Native Americans indirectly influenced the formation of the government that would later take much of their land.

3/25/2013 04:18:17 pm

Well I know the general history, but might it not be possible that Mandans came in contact with other traders, previously? It's not like they'd necessarily TELL that La Verendrye chap about it, lol. Especially if it were contact of the 'shameful' variety.

3/24/2013 08:22:40 am

We'll have to agree that it's a mystery. I'm just speculating based on what I've discovered, personally, so far. There are a lot of weird things that appear both medieval and Scandinavian up here, which cannot be very well explained away. There looks like a pattern. I'm going to visit a site in SD in a few weeks, hopefully. Anyway, it's fun up here, trying to make sense of all this! Peace, Brother.

Matt Mc

3/25/2013 07:44:37 am

I think the correct way to put it would be "we will have to agree that I [Gunn] thinks its a mystery.

Speculation is fine, but that does not make things a mystery

3/25/2013 11:26:07 am

Jason, thanks for the acknowledgement and clarification about La Verendrye. Now we can probe a bit further, if you don't mind. We know there were several villages of Mandans, according to reports. I don't know the numbers, but I think we can guess there were at least several hundred or a few thousand individuals represented.

The report says there were "many" with blond hair. Now, to me, this is key, because "many" with blond hair would, in my mind, be hard to come by with only an occasional Frenchman being around at that time when, supposedly, La Verendrye was the first European (actually, Euro-Canadian) to visit the Mandans.

So, I was just wondering, again, how about this idea of Scandinavian DNA being introduced centuries earlier? Apparently, the degree of blond hair (and light eyes, too) was well established into the population before many Frenchies arrived.

I hope I'm not being too logical for you, or that you think I'm purposely harassing you. It's just that the reports of blond-haired blue-eyed people should be better understood. Why? Because they weren't a myth.

Again, with all the "Scandinavian evidences" found near the border of MN in SD, it isn't overly-white to see a POSSIBLE connection between the "medieval Scandinavian" evidences and the very real evidence of "many" pre-French "white Indians" to be found in ND.

Again, I hope I'm not being too logical based on "insufficient evidence." I'm not saying there is a connection. But I am still saying, maybe there is a connection. Perhaps further exploration and evidence will one day show that there is a connection. It's not really that important to me...more of a side-curiosity alongside all these other "evidences" I and others see around us up here.

Of course, I like to try to persuade people. I guess we all do.

3/25/2013 02:54:11 pm

All of that is contingent upon the Native Americans being partially Caucasian, when the best that can be said is that some were lighter in skin tone than others. Given that the Spanish found the same thing in South America, the evidence indicates that prior to contact Native Americans had a much more varied genome and the population today represents only a fraction of the diversity that existed before genocide and disease.

Sean

3/24/2013 12:54:24 pm

Does anyone else find the complete denial of actual evidence and subsequent insertion and advocacy for the existence of Welsh (or Scandinavian) Indians in the modern age just as racist as it's ever been?
I'm sorry if that word offends the delicate sensibilities of those advocating this position but the history of this country with regard to natives has been one of conquest, bloodshed and racism. There's no denying that. Every land grab, shady deal, and broken treaty was perpetrated under the belief that these people were "savages"; lesser than the colonials who were violating, at every turn, every sacred tenet of their culture.
The "manifest destiny" of western colonial expansion never considered any Indian sovereignty in it's consumption of the lands of in what became the modern United States but, apparently, it's fine to use their presence to advocate for even earlier white claims to the land?
Perhaps those who want this myth to be true don't have a personal grudge against American Indians and therefore feel that describing advocacy for these ideas as "racist" is too harsh a criticism. I would simply say that I think you'd feel different if you were on the other side of the equation.

The last thing I'll say on this subject is that I'm aware that some people don't like hearing that this idea is racially bigoted but some of us cannot, in good conscience, sit idly by while such claims are purported. As the saying goes, tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

3/24/2013 02:42:41 pm

Looking for truth where it can be found is not racist. Following perceived evidence is not racist in and of itself. Apparently, some people can make the judgement of who is doing what and why. I have not been able to figure out how to do that, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of misjudging another person's motives or heart.

I agree that the bloodshed, conquest and racism that happened here in America was terrible...just as terrible as when the same things (and even worse) happened on all continents throughout all history. It's called human nature. Yes, it happened here, too. We still see a considerable amount of violence on the landscape, even today...everywhere.

The Native Americans were savage towards one another, too, before and after the white man showed up. There was not a sign up here saying: Welcome to Hiawatha-Land. Even though the Native Americans generally didn't believe in private ownership of land, it would seem that they do now, which is as it should be as we're living in modern times.

(For example, the Chippewa up here today owning land were once not up here, according even to their own history...they migrated from the East Coast, displacing those already up here when they arrived.)

As far as I know, no race of people are better or worse than others when it comes to tormenting others, so I wish some here would not indicate otherwise. I've never been especially proud of the fact that I'm white, nor ashamed of it either. Speaking for myself, I've never hurt a Native American. I did serve with some in the US Army though, side-by-side.

Christopher Randolph

4/2/2013 05:46:09 am

Well said all the way around, Sean.

3/24/2013 07:34:04 pm

I'm guessing Gómara didn't consider that Atlantis may have derived from Atlantic, which refers to the ocean west of the Atlas Mountains, and is linked back to the Greek Titan. Which makes sense, considering the dude who first wrote about Atlantis was a Greek. What are the odds that a Greek philosopher would use a word derived from a land and culture he's never actually experienced as opposed to a word that sounds pretty dang similar to multiple words in his own tongue? And it's not like a combination of a vowel and two consonants is automatically specific to one language. Or does the Norse name Atli also come from the Mesoamerican Atlantis?

B L

3/25/2013 05:13:52 am

"Racism"?! C'mon! I haven't seen any in this thread. Jason has touched on this subject before. Could a person be racially motivated to find a white European connection to pre-Columbus America? Sure. Do I think the respondents to Jason's blog have showed such a motivation? No way! Coming up with a hypothesis about the Mandans based on what one has read doesn't make one a racist. Although, not taking the time to dig deeper, and maybe ask a Mandan descendant might make one lazy it certainly doesn't confirm the leap to "racism". It becomes very interesting to imagine that one's own ancestors may have accomplished a lot more than what conventional history suggests. What's wrong with looking into such things? Later, after further research is compiled and weighted, then Gunn's opinions might change. If, however, knowledge is ignored, myth is accepted, and action is taken based on the myth to subjugate a specific group of people, then holla "racism" all you want. If Gunn Sinclair's comments up to this point could be considered racist then things like affirmative action, Black History Month, and even Columbus Day would be racist too. Just by throwing out the term "racism" all the time for every little thing we marginalize the term and turn it in to a punch line.

3/25/2013 07:02:40 am

You're right. Jason has touched on this before elsewhere on the blog, on this post and in the comment thread back and forth with "Gunn". As Jason has and does point out over and again there isn't any evidence supporting this myth. In fact, as Jason has noted, if you trace back the history of the myth it brings with it an enormous amount of evidence of when and how the whole thing was made up.

If one weighs no evidence against substantial evidence wouldn't you have to conclude that the evidence wins out?

So in light of the actual evidence that this is only a myth with a traceable origin and conversely there is no Scientific or Historical evidence to support the existence of a race of white, European descended, Indians isn't the pushing of such a myth without evidence kind of a bigoted position to take? Just because it's "very interesting to imagine" doesn't make it historically accurate and shouldn't be accepted as such, even in the smallest degree, without proper evidence of any kind.

"If, however, knowledge is ignored, myth is accepted, and action is taken based on the myth to subjugate a specific group of people..."

I think it's been established that knowledge has been ignored and that some have accepted the myth. What is left is to define what is meant by "action" and "subjugate". If you only mean violent acts causing physical harm and/or unlawful imprisonment then that's a fairly narrow view of prejudice but if that's your threshold for racism so be it. I don't think you'd be alone in that view. That being said I would propose that inserting unsubstantiated historical narratives without proper evidence to the detriment of a culture/civilization is an act of subjugation. This is a harmful act that robs a culture of its history and sense of itself, denying its importance to the benefit of another group.
The distinction to make here is that while the "white Indian" myth may not be overtly racist in that it doesn't physically harm anyone it does accomplish a benignly racist end. This would be the retroactive (and further) subjugation of a particular minority group.

I don't think I'm alone in believing that bigotry comes in degrees and doesn't always come from the same place. Nonetheless I believe we need to call it what it is if we want to move past it. I hope I'm not the only one who reads this blog who thinks that.

3/25/2013 08:17:05 am

I'm at odds with you here, Sean. Based on what I've read in this thread I don't think Gunn Sinclair is ignoring evidence. He seems like he's taking in most of what is being said. Instead, I think he believes he is privy to some information that the rest of are not taking into account (the stone holes he's seen first hand). I think he's wrong, but he will eventually figure that out for himself. He's trying to reconcile this information with what is known, and to do that he's asking questions. Based on what I've read on this thread you will not convince me that Gunn Sinclair is a racist. As far as robbing a culture of its history and sense of self...I don't see it here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions. Sean, you seem like a very intelligent person. Knowledge is a journey. I'm sure you will agree that a person's point of view will change as more information becomes available. I have no doubt that Gunn Sinclair has not reached the end of his knowledge journey on this subject. Let's wait until he has before we label him a racist. I highly doubt you have never questioned the establishment on anything.

3/25/2013 08:51:21 am

I appreciate your viewpoint but it seems pretty clear we have seen what he has and yet he would still have us believe in this myth as history despite all evidence to the contrary. Belief and evidence aren't the same thing.

I'm sure that he will continue to explore this subject but until there is more than a belief to present there's no reason to suggest any validity to such claims.

Perhaps I'm a little more sensitive when it comes to casual racism and revisionist history because of my own experiences but based on those experiences I don't expect that "Gunn" will ever come to the conclusion that a total lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary, is cause to change ones mind. For all the things that Scott Wolter isn't he is a great example of the diffusionist mindset which is, 'I didn't find anything so I must be right!'

I understand that you don't see it and my goal is not convince you personally. Thank you for keeping a tone of civility in this conversation. It is a rare commodity in contemporary discourse.

3/25/2013 09:43:14 am

I'm going to put myself at your mercy here (don't tear me apart too viciously, Sean). I don't consider myself a diffusionist, but I am kind of curious about these stone holes or "mooring" holes as some have called them.

I will now pause while you take a deep breath, and wipe the coffee from your monitor that you just sprayed out in laughter.

Some think these holes were left by pre-Columbian European explorers. A hypothesis with extremely little supporting evidence. And, as Jason has pointed out in the past, many believe these holes were left behind by those who would use dynamite to break these stones up into smaller rocks for construction purposes or for clearing farm land. However, this idea is an unproven hypothesis in also. Granted, the later makes sense, and I agree with it to a certain extent. However, I also FEEL that this does not explain EVERY stone hole. If you are not from Minnesota, Iowa, or South Dakota then there is no way you can understand how prevalent these holes are. They are not everywhere, but they are not rare either. I have personally seen man-made holes in rocks too small to dynamite; weathered, rounded rocks that are already the correct size for construction. I have also seen many of these holes that appear to be vastly older than the 150 or so years that people of European descent have been living in these areas. These triangularly shaped holes can be found in stones on small islands in the middle of lakes (no one in their right mind would blast a rock they would then have to paddle to shore when huge boulders can be readily found in more convenient places). And, some stone holes can be found in rocks located on land that has never been farmed.

Do I believe the Norse came to Minnesota in the 1300's, left the Kensington Rune Stone, and a bunch of holes, but didn't leave garbage, evidence of dwellings, etc.? No. I don't believe that, but I do think the stone hole mystery has not been completely solved.

There is a certain romanticism to things like this that a certain personality type can get carried away with. Romanticism is not racism. Suggesting that we know everything about the subject to the point where the act of further investigation is ridiculed is the same degree of wrong, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I feel like I'm rambling, but here is my point....as far as the stone holes go we have a lot of belief and not a whole lot of evidence on either side. Jason cited one source that indicated the holes were for blasting. That is the opinion of the author of that one source. It would be like me claiming that all dogs have blonde fur. How do I know this? The only dog I have ever personally seen was a Golden Retriever.

Belief and evidence are not the same thing; no argument there. But, there needs to be sufficient evidence on a subject before belief can be changed for all. And, I don't think that degree of evidence exists for these stone holes yet.

I appreciate your civil tone as well. Please remember, many of us weirdos out here are just curious. We don't desire to hurt anyone.

4/2/2013 05:57:18 am

Should there not be a great deal of genuine Viking artifacts strewn across the country if this were true? Should there not be a large number of runestones discovered and not one if it were indeed commonplace for Vikings to leave those lying about?

Shouldn't this variety of Viking archeological find be COMMON in North America if the Vikings were all over the place?

http://archaeology.about.com/od/11/tp/Viking-Sites.htm

Shouldn't this variety of Welsh archeological find be COMMON in North America if the Welsh were here?

http://www.arch-wales.co.uk/surveys-finds/

3/25/2013 07:10:57 am

"The Native Americans were savage towards one another, too, before and after the white man showed up."

So it wasn't anything they weren't used to? Therefore genocide is okay?

"There was not a sign up here saying: Welcome to Hiawatha-Land."

Really? This sentence should have started with "I'm not sayin' it was right to wipe 'em out but..."

John R

3/25/2013 07:16:47 am

Well if there were any Welsh Indians, the Iroquois turned them into Welsh Rarebit long before the Jesuits could come along and tell them no no no.
Heh

3/25/2013 08:54:35 am

Ha! Well played!

3/25/2013 10:11:48 am

Everyone knows the expression, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

I contend that "Evidence is in the eyes of the beholder," too.

I find it somewhat humorous that some find my remarks racist without any basis. Thanks BL, for advocating my innocence. By dissecting the remarks of the few who thought I was being racist...it seems to stem from whether or not "evidence" is judged correctly or not. Is evidence worthwhile, credible? Undoubtedly, everyone looks at evidence with their own judgments and considerations.

The problem, as pointed out above, is when someone supposes they know the mindset of the person presenting their own version of what so-called evidence means. It is so-called evidence, or is it actual evidence? What are the chances that it is real? Who will make that determination? Who knows exactly what another person knows? What is the total conclusive evidence in a person's mind? What is the preponderance of evidence?

Finally, who will be the judge?

I would like to make one thing clear. There aren't just a few so-called evidences up here in the area where the Kensington Runestone was discovered back in 1898. The museum in Alexandria has about a dozen medieval-era metal artifacts that were turned over to the museum over the years. It's true that none have provenance. But we also have literally dozens of "very old-looking" stoneholes, too, often associated with what could be other Scandinavian evidences.

For example the KRS itself was surrounded by a dozen or more stonehole rocks. How many people know that carvings of Scandinavian items are found in the SD area, close to the MN border? The evidences take on a special meaning when you discover them yourself. In that area are carvings of a typical medieval drinking horn (looks like a powder horn), a typical Scandinavian table knife, and I myself discovered an owl carving, made with an iron chisel...deeply carved. This is my very own personal preponderance of evidence.

Some bloggers here think seeing and trying to understand these very real evidences is racist. Again, I'm not offended because the idea is actually quite funny. So then, one can supposedly be judged racist or not based on the perception of whether or not the evidences are deemed worthy...according to...a particular standard? Who sets up the standard? I guess these folks who are worthy of judging...even to the extent of what is in another person's heart or mind.

Once again (mainly because I admit to having a mild touch of untreated OCD), I invite readers to look over some of the "evidence" I myself am currently considering:

www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries

Please keep in mind that I have two very distinct goals that I've been working on: one, to show that the many stonehole rocks were not to moor Viking ships, and two, to show (mainly locals) that the Vikings had nothing to do with the runestone, separated by 250 years.

If one believes in the authenticity of the KRS, one can readily see that there is a Christian expression carved into it. It is not a pagan document. These distinctions matter a lot to me, because they convey what I think is truth-in-history. Of course, many don't see it that way. Exactly: everybody sees things differently.

As a Christian, I know what a racist is, and I can assure everyone that I'm not a racist. Of course, my Asian wife of over 30 years already knows that! And guess what? Most of the Native Americans came here from Asia. Pretty funny stuff, huh? You know what, now that I think about it, I really do love Native Americans! I'm way beyond a racist...as dutifully explained.

3/25/2013 12:34:51 pm

"As a Christian, I know what a racist is, and I can assure everyone that I'm not a racist."

Well, that's a relief because you sound like a white-nationalist advocating that the genocide of the American Indian was inevitable.
I think we're all glad to hear that you meant something else.
What that is, I can assure you, we have no idea.

3/25/2013 03:03:00 pm

T, you have no idea because of your shallowness. I will speak the truth here. Why Not? You are the proverbial stone-thrower, or in modern times, cyber-bully. You have a very strange way of extrapolating.

Above, you thought I was saying genocide was okay because the Native Americans were used to savage treatment. Where did you pull that from?

A genocide of the Native Americans did happen, no doubt, but I said nothing to indicate that it was inevitable. Where did you pull that from?

If I were a teacher and you were a student, I would give you a F in extrapolation. Your inability to make sense does seem to be pretty funny; your comments were good for another chuckle here.

3/25/2013 05:18:26 pm

You're wife is Asian therefore you love Native Americans!? Does your wife know that even though she's Asian you consider her Native American?

So what did you mean by this?

"The Native Americans were savage towards one another, too, before and after the white man showed up."

Yeah, and the Africans enslaved each other so it wasn't wrong for us to do it! It's just Human nature to commit violent acts so all violent acts are equal, right? Or maybe they didn't know any better, huh? Silly savages. Can you feel the love?

or

"There was not a sign up here saying: Welcome to Hiawatha-Land."

I'm sorry, that's f*#kin' racist. If you replaced "Hiawatha" with any other term to generalize a race of people you'd officially be labeled your own hate group. How about the African slave trade? Was there a sign up in Africa?

or how about

"Even though the Native Americans generally didn't believe in private ownership of land, it would seem that they do now, which is as it should be as we're living in modern times."

So it's all good! They believe in private ownership now so it's okay retroactively to have violently displaced them in the past!

And what does being Christian tell you about what a racist is? That makes no sense at all.

Thanks for putting me in my place. I can see now how wrong I was.

Stick to being the preeminent scholar in holes you can't explain.

4/2/2013 06:00:19 am

"I contend that "Evidence is in the eyes of the beholder," too."

That's a big part of your problem right there.

J.J.

3/25/2013 11:29:52 pm

just a comment on the stone holes: I have researched them since 1998. The carving of the drinking horn is on private property formally on the land my Dad lived on, one mile from where I live today. I started out as a 'true believer' in the work Marion Dahm did and he called them 'mooringstones'. My views have evolved and changed over the years. All the holed stones can not be put in one basket. Yes, research needs to be done on them- that takes money. Glacial granite eratics have a make up of many minerals. It takes a certain time for each to weather. Some hold water in the hole, some don't- that could be a key as to why some look so old. Since there are so many pro and con stories out there- this information is interesting but not something one would use to be an 'end all' to the discussion. The use of science, we hope, will go farther to tell the story of the holed stones.

3/26/2013 03:52:35 am

T, you are a master of twisting things around...as I said, your method of extrapolation is wanting. You try to make it look like people say things they aren't saying, which is at least unwholesome. Your personality is not worth commenting on further.

3/26/2013 04:05:22 am

Jason, you started this with your description of the very real blond-haired Mandans as a "phantasm of the imperial imagination."

Evolution does not adequately explain away these White Indians, as their body-structure was described as different than the surrounding Native Americans, too.

In light of what you stirred up, it would be nice if you could open up your imagination just a tad to now accommodate the POSSIBILITY that the White Indians were not a myth, as you boldly say in your blog opening. Peace again, Brother.

3/26/2013 04:08:48 am

I didn't stir anything up, Gunn. The "Welsh" Indians were a product of the imperial imagination. Whether there were some Native Americans who were lighter in skin tone or hair color has nothing to do with the fact that, whatever else they were, they were not Welsh.

3/26/2013 04:31:26 am

How can you be any more sure about the "Welsh" Indians than you were about the Mandans? You still seem to be questioning whether or not there were some Native Americans who were lighter in skin tone or hair color.

I really hate to ask you this, Jason, but how can you be SO SURE the Mandans weren't Welsh (even though I personally see Scandinavians)? You are making a conclusive finding based on non-evidence. In other words, I think you may sometimes have a tendency to be too dismissive...an earlier charge.

I was hoping you could see the possibility of blond-haired Native Americans as not being a myth so conclusively. Remember above you alluded to the concept of White Indians being up the Missouri as part of the elusive myth. I have shown that they were real, and should be considered while also considering other perceived early European exploration "evidences" up here.

I'm just curious, but can you explain where the "whitey" thing is springing up from? It's a little bit baffling.

3/26/2013 04:54:48 am

You're the one reading "white" for "Welsh."

In scientific questions, the burden of proof is on the claimant. I can't be sure there were no white Natives, any more than I can be sure there were no black Natives or green ones. (Indeed, why does no one care about the darker than average Natives?)

What I can be sure of is that no one demonstrated a single fact that established anything Welsh about the Mandans or any other group. Indeed, those who met them concluded that there was no Welsh resemblance at all.

Similarly, you have never proved that "White Indians" were "real," only that some travelers felt some Natives had lighter skin tones. This is not the same as saying they were Caucasian. The flap over Kennewick Man is another example of confusing phenotype and genotype.

3/26/2013 05:03:49 am

Okay, what the heck. Do you have OCD, too? You don't want to believe La Verendrye's eyewitness accounting of "many" with blond hair, plus other reports? I think I've gone about as far as I can with you on this one, but that's okay...it had to end sometime! Thanks for sticking with it for so long.

3/26/2013 05:20:30 am

Verendrye actually described the Mandans as "half black and half white." Do you also believe that they had African ancestors? What else could "black" mean, by your logic? It's fairly clear that he meant that they had lighter and darker skin tones, as noted by later travelers, who found it entirely within the range of other tribes. Verendrye also claimed that only the women had European physiognomy, while the men looked like Indians. There's a fine one for you.

Verendrye was primed to look for "white" Indians because he had been fed tall tales about them by the Assiniboine, who claimed the Mandan were wealthy and possessed of advanced civilization. They weren't.

As for hair color, the phenomenon of gray and white hair among Native Americans could be seen among the Crow and the Hidatsa; earlier generations of scientists thought that albinism was a recessive trait among these groups.

At any rate, no later study identified any European physical characteristics or any European genes among the Mandan. Evolution tells us that isolated populations can experience dramatic genetic changes, and there is no reason to imagine Europeans where no other evidence exists.

3/26/2013 08:42:24 am

Something that's missing in this weird "white Indian" debate is one of the reasons Europeans wondered if Native Americans weren't related to the Welsh: rather than blond Indians with light skin, it was because so many Welsh were so dark. Same with the black Irish. It's not as common today with the more cosmopolitan lifestyle in the Celtic hinterland, but some phenotypical characteristics that marked some Celts as different from the English and continental Europeans was black hair and more olive-toned skin, and it can still be seen today. (I've even seen Gaelic-speaking black Irish be mistaken for foreigners by other Irish.)

And there's a good reason for that: When DNA tracking began in earnest in the 1990's and populations historical migratory paths began to be mapped, it turned out the Irish and Welsh had more in common, genetically, with people from Spain, the Mediterranean and North Africa than they did with continental/northern Europe. (Full disclosure: I took part in that study.) Of the many migrations that landed people on those islands, one path was coastal that took people from the Mediterranean up around and through Spain, and the next land masses you hit if you're sailing along with the currents are southern Britain (Wales) and Ireland.

But that wasn't verified until quite recently with the DNA studies. So for centuries, other people tried to figure out where these different-looking Celts came from, and that's where an incorrect link with Native Americans was assumed -- they both had black hair and darker skin, so why not?

It just reads weird conflating "Welsh" with "white" when the origins of that debate had it the other way around; some Welsh were "dark" like the Indians.

3/26/2013 06:14:12 am

I just read on page 65 of the aforementioned Sheheke book that La Verendrye was told that the Mandan were a very numerous and prosperous people.

The Cree told the explorer that the Mandan were the same height as other Indians, but that some had red hair, some blonde, and some black.

When it says, the nation is mixed white and black, he was almost certainly saying Native American and white. No other explanation makes much sense. Like saying dark and white.

Here is a more complete picture of La Verendrye's accounting, following: This nation is mixed white and black. The women are fairly good looking, especially the light colored ones, many of them have blond or fair hair.

Later he says: The men are stout and tall, generally very active, fairly good looking, with a good physiognomy and very affable. The women have not the Indian physiognomy.

So, Jason, I think you are still being selective as you offer "fluffy" grey and white hair into the picture, and I think you still have it wrong. But I'm basing your supposed error on what other folks back in history were saying. Don't take it personal. How about if we just conclude that the blonde hair is a mystery?

3/26/2013 06:18:54 am

There you have it: You want to take "white" as literal and "black" as figurative based on your own notion of what "makes sense" to you. You don't get to pick and choose.

3/26/2013 06:24:42 am

Yes, we do get to pick and choose, Jason. It's called speculation, which we both were doing. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking white as literal (actually, mixed) and black as figurative, as an expression of another person's vocabulary back in time. You are trying to set the rules for speculation. We get to pick and choose.

3/26/2013 06:28:32 am

I think that about says it all.

3/26/2013 08:55:20 am

Gunn, I mentioned this above, but you didn't respond.

Blond hair isn't a mystery. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with European influence. John McKay noted that famine conditions can result in dark hair turning red, and what I noted was documented cases of a recessive gene resulting in blond hair in the South Pacific (Melanesia) independent of any European influence. The genetic mutation that results in the recessive blond hair trait among people from the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, and other islands in that region is a different mutation from the one that resulted in blond hair in Europe. Similar results, different mutation, independent development.

So you tell me: If there absolutely was blond Indians, why does that necessitate European influence? Why could that not be, like in Melanesia, a similar recessive genetic trait resulting from an independent genetic mutation? And since they would have been a minority wouldn't it make sense that 400 years ago -- when trappers and traders and conquerors didn't know the first thing about genetics -- they would have seen people with similar features and tried to fill in a missing back story for how they came to be that way? If they'd never seen other blond people before, they would naturally assume European influence -- as was done with the blond Melanesians. But that was proven false.

I believe the problem is we don't have nearly enough Native Americans today to get that far into their DNA tree and find a recessive trait that would have died out long ago. But there is more hard evidence of independently develop genetic mutations resulting in blond hair than there is of Welsh or Scandinavians in the Upper Midwest 1,000 years ago.

3/26/2013 09:32:50 am

The Other J, I don't discount the possibilities you bring up. But I don't want folks to discount the possibility of the Mandans deriving from Scandinavians, either. Both of our speculations are fine as long as they are somewhat based on science or logic.

In my mind (and others') there is ample evidence of Scandinavian medieval exploration up here, aside from the Mandan issue. But it seems logical to try to link them together, since the locations are so very close, SD and ND.

By the way, it hasn't been discussed here, but if one checked out the distribution of the stonehole rocks in SD, one would be amazed how many there are, many concentrated along the Whetstone River, over miles and miles of land. It would seem that there was a very large group of making these stoneholes. It took a long time. One has to ask the question: what happened to the people who made these stoneholes, if they were made in medieval times?

It's a mystery, as much as it's a mystery about what happened to the "missing" Greenlanders, if in fact they were missing at all and not reintegrated back into the Scandinavian populations in Europe.

I hope this clears it up for you...if not, I'm willing to discuss it further.

3/26/2013 09:16:16 am

No, Jason, it doesn't quite say it all yet.

Blackfoot Native Americans call themselves Blackfoot, not because they have black feet, but because they wore darkened moccasins. This is an example of the figurative use of blackfoot.

People may possibly say black and dark meaning almost the same thing, too, when describing objects...or even when describing people, especially a few hundred years ago.

For example, the "white Indians" weren't really white; they were merely referred to as white for convenience; they were mixed. The black Indians were probably referred to that way to distinguish them from the lighter-skinned Indians. Why the description of "black" was used is uncertain, but I would think the most logical reason is because some Native Americans were "dark" compared to others.

We should be able to pick and choose whatever seems to be logical, based on our own interpretations. Was there a settlement of African-Americans established in ND back in the 1700's? I doubt it, but that is my own speculation. Maybe some early slaves escaped and ended up in ND. Why not?

Your argument still does not dispel the fragmentary evidence of blond-haired Native Americans possibly being well-established into the Mandan society before the 1700's. You cannot dismiss the possibility that Scandinavian DNA may be responsible for the "white Indians" up the Missouri River.

I understand very well that you would like to dismiss the idea as a certain myth, but you cannot do that. You must leave open the possibility that good ole Gunn might be onto something.

If you'd like, I can let this go now that I've shown how nothing ever says it all. The answers are out there waiting to be discovered, but we must remain open-minded. I appreciate your willingness to dig a bit deeper into things. There's so much we don't know, but it's fun to speculate about things, trying always to base it on logic and knowledge...and new discoveries, too.

3/26/2013 09:22:15 am

Please see The Other J.'s comments about blond hair, genetics, and the dark complexion of the Welsh.

What I am trying to say to you, Gunn, is that you want to attribute every shade of dark to natural variation but reserve the lightest shade for Caucasian race-mixing. But if you agree that there is natural variation, then there isn't any need to postulate European genes. You're simply arbitrarily declaring that only certain shades of brown are "natural" for Native Americans, which is little more than an assumption without factual support.

3/26/2013 09:34:44 am

3/26/2013 09:45:04 am

I hope my comments to The Other J cleared this confusion up for you, Jason. Some shades of dark aren't by variation, but by description in one's mind. I do not reserve the lightest shade for Caucasian race-mixing. Where did you pull that out?

I agree that there is the possibility of natural variation, of course, because it does exist. How could I deny it? There seems to be something wrong with your extrapolation, too. One can see the possibility for natural variation and also for blood-mixing; they are not exclusive of one another. I just happen to believe more strongly in the possibility of Scandinavian blood-mixing over evolution.

Am I being illogical or racist? Not at all. Press on if you will, but I hope you finally address the issue of where all this "whitey" negativity is coming from. Not you, right?

3/26/2013 09:50:08 am

I didn't accuse you of racism, Gunn. But what conclusion am I to draw from the fact that you happily ascribed all of the darker shades of brown to natural variation but claim that lighter shades are due to Caucasian contact? This implies that you have in mind a particular shade of brown as the baseline (natural) shade of Native Americans, below which is natural variation but above which is race-mixing. In reality, though, people of all races come in a variety of shades, in rather fine gradation.

3/26/2013 09:26:25 am

Being open minded as you state is not dismissing Black but accepting White.

Sounds very closed minded to me.

3/26/2013 10:00:45 am

I guess we should probably stop, Jason. Earlier, I said it was possible that slaves escaped and went to 1700's North Dakota, causing a natural variation of darkness, and I also said it is possible that evolution created lighter people, so your conclusions are wrong, based on faulty input. Where is the "whitey" thing coming from?

3/26/2013 10:15:35 am

"In reality, though, people of all races come in a variety of shades, in rather fine gradation."

Thanks for the great summation! You never know when you'll learn something new. (Duh.)

3/26/2013 10:37:12 am

You are the one making racial a claim I was critiquing on logic and evidence. I have never used the word "whitey."

3/26/2013 12:07:30 pm

No, Jason, and I didn't specifically say you did. I'm just asking where it's coming from. It seems to be coming from you and a few others who have visited the blog and made cyber-personal-attacks. You are more subtle:

Review of Mysteries and Monsters in America S01E01: "Appalachia"
03/25/20138 Comments

Before we begin today, I want to point out that the discussion we’ve been having about Welsh Indians and pre-Columbian European colonizers isn’t just academic; the battle to control the cultural narrative has real consequences. On Facebook, John W. Hoopes linked to a discussion by David Barton, a Christian activist best known for his claims that the Founders meant for America to be a Christian nation. Barton explained in the discussion that Native Americans deserved to be killed off between 1650 and 1900 because they were warring against “all the white guys and went after the white guys,” necessitating genocide unless and until they accepted white rule and Euro-American civilization. In his view, “bringing the Indians to their knees” is part and parcel of expanding Christian civilization, which he explicitly identifies as “white” and “American.”

In a roundabout way, this desire to universalize the specific cultural values of conservative, religious, rural Americans brings us to today’s subject.

_________end

Jason, We are both trying to use logic and evidence, not just you. I think the evidence is in that I am more open-minded and you.

I also think it absolutely drives you nuts that maybe Templar remnants got to America before Columbus, and maybe Scott Wolter is right about something.

Truth-in-history is not black, white, brown or whatever. It is as it is found, factual, without color. If white folks came to the middle of America back in the 14th century, so be it. If African-American slaves came to ND in the 18th century, or even the 17th century, so be it. Once and for all, I don't care about color at all when considering what I think are medieval evidences up here. If the Chinese came and made the stoneholes, so be it. Personally, I think it was Scandinavians connected possibly to remnants of the Templars...so what? If the Templars were red, I don't care.

People keep wanting to interject race into the conversation in a negative-white way, which is kind of irresponsible, in my own opinion.

I've enjoyed this blog for stirring my imagination, but I think it is biased in favor of Christopher Columbus!

3/26/2013 12:55:04 pm

I don't think there's anything subtle about calling out a Christian extremist for using racial language ("the white guys") in terms of what he sees as a battle between civilization and savagery.

What on earth would bother me about Europeans coming to the Americas before Columbus? The Vikings did it. The (non-European) Polynesians almost certainly did it. That's the same argument Scott Wolter and Philip Coppens used: That I am afraid that they would be right because my head would just explode.

There's nothing sacrosanct about pre-Columbian America. The only thing that bothers me is people wanting me to believe things that lack demonstrable proof.

3/26/2013 04:02:00 pm

It always comes back to "demonstrable proof," as it should; meanwhile we speculate. We differ on what demonstrable proof is, as we can see in our own comments. I went on at length way above somewhere showing how people evaluate "proofs" differently. Evidence is one thing to one person, something else to another, which is why we have jury trials.

I meant your general subtlety in projecting a sort of anti-white sentiment throughout the blog, not referring to a particular Christian. Which reminds me:

We have very different starting points, if you will, which feeds into why we each have our own vastly different "world view." For example, I sense an imposition of a lack of Christian values into your blog, too, but I'm not surprised.

Not to hurt your feelings, but I consider people like you and Scott Wolter and some others visiting here as "the walking dead," needing the forgiveness and mercy of God.

This will be my last post, at least for awhile. I've enjoyed some of the bantering. No hard feelings.

3/27/2013 02:19:36 am

Belief is a strong thing. I fully support and recognize the value of a given individuals belief system be they Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, ect.. But when it comes to history or science a researcher should be able to set those beliefs aside and look objectively and non biased at the given subject. That can be a challenge but objectivity should be more important to find out the answers, by bringing a belief system into the equation bais is automatically applied. Many great historians and scientist have been able to separate personal religious beliefs into there explorations and because of that we gained some great knowledge.

3/27/2013 03:06:58 am

It seems inevitable that you will return to this blog and enter some other conversation so there are some things in your approach and methodology that, if you want make a proper argument, you need to realize and/or change.

"...people evaluate "proofs" differently. Evidence is one thing to one person, something else to another, which is why we have jury trials."

This seems to be a parallel that Scott Wolter likes to draw as well. Unfortunately for you and Wolter Science and History aren't evaluated like a court of law. Your ideas aren't true until proven false. It is, in actuality, the exact opposite. "Proof" requires multiple pieces of verifiable evidence that can be independently evaluated and confirmed and THEN is interpreted into a narrative that reflects the evidence. Unless that's the case the established theory is still the standard. "Speculation" doesn't enter into it. The very definition of the word means to conjecture without firm evidence. Speculation is completely and totally irrelevant to a conversation about History and Science.

This is not an "agree to disagree" situation. That's the way it is. You can't introduce ideas with only your own interpretation of observation as evidence and expect it to be treated on equal ground as established fact.

"I sense an imposition of a lack of Christian values into your blog, too, but I'm not surprised."
"Not to hurt your feelings, but I consider people like you and Scott Wolter and some others visiting here as "the walking dead," needing the forgiveness and mercy of God."

If you feel the need to inject your religious beliefs into the conversation you should consider finding another forum that might be more reflective of your views to contribute to. Those kind statements show a distinct lack of objectivity and an acute bias as does the mention of "anti-white sentiment" that you see. I don't believe that anyone here needs the "forgiveness and mercy of God." and it's entirely inappropriate for you to say.

This is for your benefit so I hope you're listening. I, for one, hope that you don't bother ever posting on this site again but when you inevitably do know that you're still going to have the flaws in your argument highlighted and discussed. That's how this works.

3/27/2013 10:10:19 am

"'Proof' requires multiple pieces of verifiable evidence that can be independently evaluated and confirmed and THEN is interpreted into a narrative that reflects the evidence."

You're right about that, but therein also lies the problem -- the evaluation. The method of evaluation also must stand up to scrutiny and discarded when shown to be wanting and/or more accurate methods are devised.

What we're seeing with AU and other such programs (even the paranormal stuff) is the creation of questionable evaluation methods that are either not independently verifiable or, if they are and are found wanting, are supported by the "agree to disagree" stance. it's the difference between making your own picture and then cutting it into a jigsaw puzzle, and starting with the random pieces of a puzzle and trying to figure out how they fit together -- the first methods starts with a conclusion that is inserted to the various premises of the argument (the actual definition of 'begging the question'), the second starts with the available data and determines a conclusion based on that data.

Another problem arises with the alternative side accusing science of an orthodoxy that precludes them from entertaining anything but the established narratives. That argument assumes science follows the same 'begging the question' conclusion-first methodology, and ignores the many instances where new evidence and new testing methods alters the current state of knowledge on a subject. (For instance, the DNA proof that most Celts in Wales and Ireland were genetically closer to Spanish, Mediterranean, and North African ancestors than to continental European ancestors. Or the constantly changing debates about what caused mass extinctions in the past.)

Evidence is not in the eye of the beholder; it's in the eye of the testing method. But those testing methods are also up for scrutiny, and if those are also questionable, then questioning their results is completely fair and necessary. Disagreements may exist on testing methods, but then the argument shifts to that and supposed conclusions are suspended.

3/27/2013 11:44:26 am

"You're right about that, but therein also lies the problem -- the evaluation."

I don't find the evaluation of evidence to be as much of a problem as long as the people doing it are actually trained. If you have multiple experts (real experts not AU "experts") what you'll end up with is, at least, a base consensus of what you're looking at. Although there can and are disagreements in interpretation it will still be about the interpretation of tangible evidence. The other side wants to, as you say, have a conclusion-first methodology.

The real problem is the amount of these alternative, amateur "researchers" who have no base knowledge, experience, or education in fields that they're jumping into and then claiming to be experts in to those who don't know any better. They create their own websites and get television shows and believe (that's the dangerous part) they know what they're talking about. Of course they don't and when the inevitable backlash comes, by those who do actually know what they're doing, they cry conspiracy and unfortunately some people buy into it.

Real researchers do retest and reevaluate evidence. The alternative doesn't bother finding it in the first place.

With all the nonsense that's being put out there all we can do is keep fighting the good fight.

Thanks for the response.

3/27/2013 12:44:52 pm

Sean, a good example of what you're describing might be this:

A few years back I heard an interview with a paranormal research group who were comprised of mainly actual scientists and engineers in their day jobs. One of the researchers was a physicist by day, and he was discussing the whole electronic voice phenomena and what might actually be happening.

He went into a pretty in-depth discussion of radio waves, signals, etc. and how conversations on those waves might bounce around and be picked up on recording equipment. Short version: Two of the members in different vehicles had a conversation just before pulling in to the location (either cell phone or walkie-talkie or CB, I don't recall), and later picked up that same conversation on their equipment while exploring the location. It startled them at first because they were hearing their own names, but they also quickly realized what was going on (and replicated the test -- I think weather conditions were a factor). They didn't discount the possibility of EVP's, but said there was another possibility.

I never heard from that group again.

3/27/2013 01:53:47 pm

That's an example of people who are trained in science but then doing paranormal research anyway. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot so not really sure what you're point is. Otherwise there wouldn't be shows like 'Finding Bigfoot' or 'America Unearthed'. Sometimes people go crazy. No matter what they've done previously once that break with reality occurs their reputation is worthless.

Framing this kind of pseudoscience or pseudo-history as "keeping an open mind" is simply and unequivocally ridiculous.

Clearly this conversation is going nowhere. Have a good night.

3/28/2013 08:37:40 am

"That's an example of people who are trained in science but then doing paranormal research anyway. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot so not really sure what you're point is."

Sean, you misunderstand me -- I'm not saying whether the research is valid or not. I'm saying people who are actually trained and practicing scientists set out to test the methods used to establish claims by paranormal research groups (evp's), and demonstrated problems with the "scientific equipment" and how the evidence the equipment gathered need not be paranormal at all.

They didn't just go crazy and do paranormal research anyway; their aim was to test the methodology and practices of paranormal research groups in the same setting, not doing paranormal research themselves. They came up pretty empty, which is probably why they faded -- nothing to see, so nothing to do.

So in case the point is still unclear: My original point was about the evaluation of testing methods. If those are found wanting, the tools and methods used to establish evidence don't mean much, no matter how sciencey they sound. The example I just gave is showed the same sort of problem in a different but related area -- paranormal research. Your average paranormal researchers are using 'scientific tools' to gather 'evidence,' but those tools and how they gather evidence are not exactly precision instruments yielding foolproof results. The group I mentioned simply demonstrated how the average paranormal research group's evaluation of their own testing methods is incomplete at best, since completely natural phenomenon could explain the so-called supernatural evidence gathered with the same tools. That doesn't make them paranormal kooks; that means they said "Okay, here are your claims, and here's the methods you used to gather evidence for those claims. Let's test that and see if the methods, evidence and claims hold up." And they didn't.

Clearly this conversation is going nowhere if you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you and adding to your argument. Sleep tight.

3/27/2013 05:36:47 pm

projecting...anti-white sentiment on this blog.

SAY NO MORE

No really, say no more.

cverrastro link

1/18/2021 09:43:43 pm

Being relatively new to this blog I am just backreading tp earlier posts. Dee did in fact attempt to create a picture of a greater "British Empire" (his neologism) that could take in most of North America upwards from the Spanish Florida claims. And, yes, like Raleigh he had designs for his own settlement project in the New World (he did get a river named after himself, even if his settlement failed).
But he was scholar enough to cite earlier traditions such as Irish Monks, a bold Oxford friar,Greenlanders, et al. And his claims for King Arthur were not just fantasies cooked up in his own head. Many far older Celtic claims were made extending Arthur's victories far beyond the relatively modest picture in Gildas and even Geoffrey.