America Unearthed goes to find Vikings with me in Baja California!

Jun 2017
277
maine
#21
I'd like to see sources about that ship. Usually [I've spent years in the field of alternative history, so I know how these things work ... similarities and coincidences become evidences ...] I tend to prefer a local explanation when it's available ... and Mayan ships looked like the one engraved on the rock [which doesn't look exactly like a drakar ...].

So now, out of curiosity, I'm going to look for some sources about "Vikings of the Desert".
The 1939 magazine isn't online (as to be expected, I suppose). The article was by Charles C. Niehuis and should be available at major libraries. The Newsweek article (Alexander Nazaryan) IS online. A source that seems acceptable on Historum (but with misgivings), Wikipedia, has an article Lost Ship of the Desert - Wikipedia which has the positive of name all the earlier sources. I suspect that Dave K. is local? Certainly Myrtle Botts (1933) was very local.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,210
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#23
The 1939 magazine isn't online (as to be expected, I suppose). The article was by Charles C. Niehuis and should be available at major libraries. The Newsweek article (Alexander Nazaryan) IS online. A source that seems acceptable on Historum (but with misgivings), Wikipedia, has an article Lost Ship of the Desert - Wikipedia which has the positive of name all the earlier sources. I suspect that Dave K. is local? Certainly Myrtle Botts (1933) was very local.
Local or Native it doesn't make a great difference. The problem is about the approach.

Anyway I've checked on the net and I've found out that considering the tale of the ship lost in the desert [obviously natural events, even an earthquake, have made it impossible to find it again] Paleohydrology makes it difficult for a ship to have reached that point. Already in 2010 there was who, Brian Dunning, reasoned about this The Lost Ship of the Desert
 
Likes: hyuzu

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,453
Portugal
#24
Sometimes the best explanation is the easiest. I still didn’t read much about the theme, but if the main base of the Viking thesis is the petroglyph, we have to be sceptical. In history Petroglyphs had been always a matter of intense debate and many forgeries.

The main problem with this is that the engraved sketch of that ship is compatible with a Mayan ship. As we noted in a similar thread ...

[just an introduction to how Mayans traveled through the sea: Forgotten Voyagers: The Ancient Mexican Merchants Who Took to the Seas].
The site "ancient-origins" always seemed to be quite speculative and exoteric. It is a matter of strong debate if the Mesoamericans used the sails. Here it is an article at JSTOR that I already had linked in the other thread by David K.:

Sails in Aboriginal Mesoamerica: Reevaluating Thompson's Argument on JSTOR

Epstein practically denies it but he makes a good historiographic summary of the theme. Anyway more to the South of the continent sails existed as in the Pacific with the Polynesians, so why point directly to the Vikings?
 
Likes: hyuzu
Jun 2017
277
maine
#25
Anyway I've checked on the net and I've found out that considering the tale of the ship lost in the desert [obviously natural events, even an earthquake, have made it impossible to find it again] Paleohydrology makes it difficult for a ship to have reached that point. Already in 2010 there was who, Brian Dunning, reasoned about this The Lost Ship of the Desert[/QUOTE]


I agree that the site of the source is often irrelevant but I was merely following up on your statement "I tend to prefer a local explanation". The point that I have been trying to make--obviously unsuccessfully--that it is important to NOT dismiss a theory simply because one has never heard it before. What I have been trying to say is that it is important to do one's own research (even using secondary sources). If we merely believe everything that we are told, the resulting confusion would be maddening--but if we discount anything that is beyond our realm of current knowledge, we'd all still be on mother's milk.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,453
Portugal
#26
I agree that the site of the source is often irrelevant but I was merely following up on your statement "I tend to prefer a local explanation". The point that I have been trying to make--obviously unsuccessfully--that it is important to NOT dismiss a theory simply because one has never heard it before. What I have been trying to say is that it is important to do one's own research (even using secondary sources). If we merely believe everything that we are told, the resulting confusion would be maddening--but if we discount anything that is beyond our realm of current knowledge, we'd all still be on mother's milk.
Theories are not dismissed because “one has never heard it before.” “Theories” are dismissed if they don’t have grounds to support themselves. Well if they don’t have grounds to support themselves they aren’t even theories but hypothesis.

Like I stated previously, I don’t know in detail this “theory” (or should I say hypothesis), but to prove that the Norse were in California we will need more than the draw of a boat on a stone. Unfortunatly I didn’t had the opportunity to see the tv show yet, so I don’t know what are the “Viking” artefacts mentioned or what is the supposed buried Viking ship.

It would be interesting to see the opinion about that from someone that saw the show, or have read some report about it.
 
Jun 2017
277
maine
#27
Theories are not dismissed because “one has never heard it before.” “Theories” are dismissed if they don’t have grounds to support themselves. Well if they don’t have grounds to support themselves they aren’t even theories but hypothesis.

Like I stated previously, I don’t know in detail this “theory” (or should I say hypothesis), but to prove that the Norse were in California we will need more than the draw of a boat on a stone. Unfortunatly I didn’t had the opportunity to see the tv show yet, so I don’t know what are the “Viking” artefacts mentioned or what is the supposed buried Viking ship.

It would be interesting to see the opinion about that from someone that saw the show, or have read some report about it.
In this case, it seems to have been--but not by you. Unfortunately, it happens all too often. You're right: more proof is needed. Certainly more than is on a tv show. I haven't seen anything coming out of Uppsala or Oslo on this (which simply means that I may have missed it). I'd like to see more before rushing to a conclusion.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,210
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#28
I agree that the site of the source is often irrelevant but I was merely following up on your statement "I tend to prefer a local explanation". The point that I have been trying to make--obviously unsuccessfully--that it is important to NOT dismiss a theory simply because one has never heard it before. What I have been trying to say is that it is important to do one's own research (even using secondary sources). If we merely believe everything that we are told, the resulting confusion would be maddening--but if we discount anything that is beyond our realm of current knowledge, we'd all still be on mother's milk.
I am very, very, very critical with new theories [with my theories as well], just because I think a theory has to be challenged. It has happened I have changed my opinion. But at the beginning I'm the worse enemy of any new theory.

In this case "I tend to prefer a local explanation" because usually the more simple explanation is the right one. We are discussing about travelers. Which ones? Vikings or Mayans? The sea activities of Mayans and their ships can be object of debate as well, but they would be the natural "suspects" [overall noting that Scandinavian populations didn't depict their ships in that way].

And ... I wonder why we haven't got Viking inscriptions with sentences. What I see [not only on that rock, but also on other rocks] makes me think to a population using symbols and images, not an alphabet as we know it.
 
Jun 2017
277
maine
#29
I am very, very, very critical with new theories [with my theories as well], just because I think a theory has to be challenged. It has happened I have changed my opinion. But at the beginning I'm the worse enemy of any new theory.

In this case "I tend to prefer a local explanation" because usually the more simple explanation is the right one. We are discussing about travelers. Which ones? Vikings or Mayans? The sea activities of Mayans and their ships can be object of debate as well, but they would be the natural "suspects" [overall noting that Scandinavian populations didn't depict their ships in that way].

And ... I wonder why we haven't got Viking inscriptions with sentences. What I see [not only on that rock, but also on other rocks] makes me think to a population using symbols and images, not an alphabet as we know it.
Sort of an Occam's Razor? Makes sense. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Either way.