First Man to Go Around the Globe
Nestor Enriquez
From Phil. News Agency" <p...@gaia.psdn.org>
Subject: pn: Historian seeks help in tracing roots of Cebuano who
circled
globe first
Cebu City, Oct. 21 (PNA) - Former Education Secretary Alejandro
Roces has asked Cebu historians to help him uncover the ethnic origins
of the man who first circled the world.
Roces, a renowed historian, has contended that it was not Ferdinand
Magellan who firt circled the globe but a slave the Portuguese explorer
met in Malacca and brought with him in his voyage.
From Italian Chronicler Antonio Pigafetta's writings, Roces
claimed, the slave which Magellan named Enrique might be a Cebuano.
He urged the Cebu Historical Association to petition the Manila
Historical Association to study the facts related to the issue and
decide if these have merit.
The former education secretary held a press conference at the CAP
Cebu, Art Center Sunday afternoon to answer questions from local
historians concerning the issue.
At the same time, he presented to the museum a narrative account
by Pigafetta of the first circumnavigation of the world.
The two volumes consist of the original facsimile in the Beinecke
rare book and manuscript library of Yale University in French and an
English translation by R.A. Skelton.
Roces said one way of determining whether Enrique was Cebuano is to
study the languages, not only of the Philippines, but also of the
neighboring countries such as Malaysia.
In studying Pigafetta's writings, Roces said he came across words
used by Enrique that exist in the Cebuano language.
Enrique was said to have been able to communicate with King Humabon
of Cebu.
The Filipinos owe it to themselves to correct the inaccuracy, he
said.(PNA) RGC/EB/ad
Enrique was also the first Pilipino to come to America..Visit my Pilipino
Website and learn more about this forgotten Malay.
Nestor Palugod Enriquez
greatxgreat grandson of Enrique
http://pages.prodigy.com/NJ/pilipino
Elson Trinidad
Nestor Enriquez <DNT...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<54l3lj$17...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>...
> From Phil. News Agency" <p...@gaia.psdn.org>
> Subject: pn: Historian seeks help in tracing roots of Cebuano who
> circled
> globe first
> Cebu City, Oct. 21 (PNA) - Former Education Secretary Alejandro
> Roces has asked Cebu historians to help him uncover the ethnic origins
> of the man who first circled the world.
I hate to discount the achievements of our ancestors, but I don't see how
it's possible for the said Cebuano to travel "around the globe."
I may be missing some facts, but if Magellan left The Old World, obviously
with no indigenous people from the to-be-named Philippines, then eventually
landed there (and getting killed in the process), and even if his ships'
crew picked up indigenous people and landed back in Europe, wouldn't the
said Cebuano merely have been the "first Indigenous Filipino to travel to
Europe?"
What I'm saying is, doesn't it take an entire *round trip* around the world
in order to qualify for a "trip around the world"? If this Cebuano got on
board in the Philippines, then he would have only travelled roughly halfway
around the world. The ship would have to continue on past the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans once more in order for him to have a complete *round trip*
around the world. So technically, the "first man to circle the world" was
some person from Magellan's crew who happened to be standing in front of
the boat when it arrived at port.
I could be wrong on this, but Magellan himeself only made one voyage to the
Philippines, right?
Elson
ngo...@hkucc.hku.hk
In article <54l3lj$17...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>, DNT...@prodigy.com (Nestor Enriquez) writes:
> From Phil. News Agency" <p...@gaia.psdn.org>
> Subject: pn: Historian seeks help in tracing roots of Cebuano who
> circled
> globe first
> Cebu City, Oct. 21 (PNA) - Former Education Secretary Alejandro
> Roces has asked Cebu historians to help him uncover the ethnic origins
> of the man who first circled the world.
> Magellan who firt circled the globe but a slave the Portuguese explorer
> met in Malacca and brought with him in his voyage.
> From Italian Chronicler Antonio Pigafetta's writings, Roces
> claimed, the slave which Magellan named Enrique might be a Cebuano.
> He urged the Cebu Historical Association to petition the Manila
> Historical Association to study the facts related to the issue and
> decide if these have merit.
> The former education secretary held a press conference at the CAP
> Cebu, Art Center Sunday afternoon to answer questions from local
> historians concerning the issue.
> At the same time, he presented to the museum a narrative account
> by Pigafetta of the first circumnavigation of the world.
> The two volumes consist of the original facsimile in the Beinecke
> rare book and manuscript library of Yale University in French and an
> English translation by R.A. Skelton.
> Roces said one way of determining whether Enrique was Cebuano is to
> study the languages, not only of the Philippines, but also of the
> neighboring countries such as Malaysia.
> In studying Pigafetta's writings, Roces said he came across words
> used by Enrique that exist in the Cebuano language.
> Enrique was said to have been able to communicate with King Humabon
> of Cebu.
This is generally taken by historians not as proof that Enrique was
Cebuano -- other documentation describes him as coming from Sumatra, now part
of Indonesia -- but as proof that Cebu was part of an international trading
network which shared a common "lingua franca", probably "bazaar Malay" (pesar
Melayu), which was indeed spoken from Sumatra to the Philippines. That, as
well as the common "Austronesian" roots of Philippine/Malay/Indonesian
languages, would account for words used that still exist in Cebuano.
In terms of knowledge about the pre-Hispanic past, it seems to me (as a
non-Filipino, I hasten to note) more important for Filipinos to realize that
the Philippines was very much part of an integrated Asian economic and cultural
scene -- did you know there was a significant community of "Luzones" in
Malacca? and that there was regular traffic between South China and the Phils?
-- than to try to prove that a Filipino was the first to circumnavigate the
world which, even if it were true, would be almost a historical accident.
Norman Owen
ngo...@hku.hk
badong
Nestor Enriquez wrote:
>
> From Phil. News Agency" <p...@gaia.psdn.org>
> Subject: pn: Historian seeks help in tracing roots of Cebuano who
> circled
> globe first
The man who was Magellan's servant and bodyguard was definitely a
brown-skinned Malay, although probably not a Cebuano or a "Filipino."
It's more likely that he was from Malacca (now in Indonesia) where
Magellan previously sailed as a Portuguese sailor. It was from the
Malays in Malacca who Magellan probably heard from about islands
farther north, now known as the Philippine islands. Even if Magellan
wasn't already aware of the islands farther north, his Malay servant
Enrique, certainly realized he was back among his people when they
landed in Philippine shores. The fact that Enrique, his Spanish given
name, understood "Cebuano" doesn't necessarily mean he was a Cebuano.
At the time, Malay (which was the dialect of the brown-skinned Malays
around the Malay peninsula) was the lingua franca or trade language
among the various Malay tribes. Because of its influence, Malay came
to be used as the name for all the related languages and related
brown-skinned peoples. It would not have been surprising if Enrique,
understood Cebuano since Cebuano is also a related language of Malay.
Even though Enrique most likely wasn't Cebuano or even a Filipino, we
can still be proud that he was a Malay. The claim that Enrique was
the first to circumnavigate the world is the established fact he was
from those islands and that he, and not Magellan or any of Magellan's
crew, was the first to set foot ashore on Philippine soil. As a
historical note, Magellan's crew was composed of people from various
nationalities.
Nestor Enriquez
Magellan before coming to the Philippines sailed for Portugal.
He volunteered for an expedition to the Moluccas, known as Spice Islands.
His ship reached Malacca and had he gone hundred more miles north he
could have landed in the Philippines that he did years later coming from
the opposite direction. Sometime during his stay in Moluccas he picked
up a Malay boy who came back with him to Europe. The boy was given the
name Enrique and this is just another speculation of mine that this was
probably done after the great Portuguese , King Henry , the Navigator
(angilized for Enrique). Magellan left Portugal and persuaded the King
of Spain to finance his westward voyage
The rest is history but Magellan was killed in Mactan Island before he
could really complete the circumnavigation of the word. Sebastian Elcano
successfully steered the only remaining vessel, Victoria back to Seville,
Spain. Where did Enrique fit in this historic voyage? He was aboard the
ship when it left Spain and when it landed in the Philippines in 1521. At
this point of history Enrique had circled the globe. He served as
Magellan interpreter and even Pigafetta the expedition's historian did
not trust him because the way he mingled with the local Filipinos. He was
very friendly and spoke the dialects well with the natives. Trade and
commerce between these islands as far as Indonesia was already well
established. People from the Philippines were already sailing the region.
It is very probable that Enrique was visiting Malucca Island when
Magellan first came in contact with him . When Magellan discovered the
Philippines, it was also Enrique's homecoming. That day should be as
marked as the day when the first man went around the world as
significant as man landing in the moon. It is only fitting that the first
man to accomplice the feat would come from the descendants of the ancient
mariners of the Pacific. Enrique might not be First Malay to come to
Europe but he I am almost sure that he is the first one to sight the
Americas. He also might not be a Cebuano but I am sure that he died as
Cebuano (he was left in Cebu by Elcano) and there are among us his great
great grandchildren.
badong
Nestor Enriquez wrote:
> Nestor Palugod Enriquez
> greatxgreat grandson of Enrique
> http://pages.prodigy.com/NJ/pilipino
--------------------------------
Of course, you have proof that you're a direct descendant of Enrique.
vigil
ngo...@hkucc.hku.hk wrote:
>
> This is generally taken by historians not as proof that Enrique was
> Cebuano -- other documentation describes him as coming from Sumatra, now part
> of Indonesia -- but as proof that Cebu was part of an international trading
> network which shared a common "lingua franca", probably "bazaar Malay" (pesar
> Melayu), which was indeed spoken from Sumatra to the Philippines. That, as
> well as the common "Austronesian" roots of Philippine/Malay/Indonesian
> languages, would account for words used that still exist in Cebuano.
>
> In terms of knowledge about the pre-Hispanic past, it seems to me (as a
> non-Filipino, I hasten to note) more important for Filipinos to realize that
> the Philippines was very much part of an integrated Asian economic and cultural
> scene -- did you know there was a significant community of "Luzones" in
> Malacca? and that there was regular traffic between South China and the Phils?
> -- than to try to prove that a Filipino was the first to circumnavigate the
> world which, even if it were true, would be almost a historical accident.
>
> Norman Owen
> ngo...@hku.hk
It's possible that Enrique was from one of the islands that is now
part of the Philippines, but this is unlikely since Magellan met him
in Malacca, now part of Indonesia. However, since there was already
much trade and movement between the islands during that period, it's
possible that Enrique was from Cebu or one of the Philippine islands
who was trading or visiting relatives in Malacca. It's true that
there were communities of people from Bisayas and Luzon in that part
of Indonesia who were there as traders, and even as mercenaries. When
Magellan met him, it's possible that Magellan got him interested in
going back to his island home to the north by sailing around the
world. It should be noted that Magellan did not really treat Enrique
as a slave but as a co-navigator and a guide. Magellan knew that
Enrique would be an extremely helpful guide. Would Enrique, assuming
he had a choice, turn down the opportunity for adventure? Enrique was
a Malay who was probably a skilled seaman like those early
Malay-Polynesian voyagers who reached the shores of Africa, the
distant Pacific islands, and perhaps even the American continent. By
the 15th century, the Malay-Polynesian world, at least, stretched as
far as the island of Madagascar near the coast of Africa to Easter
island near the coast of South America. It's not really that
important if Enrique was from one of the islands which is now part of
the Philippines because he was first a Malay who considered that
region of the world his home.
Nestor Enriquez
It is just my gut feeling. My chance of being his direct descendant is
the same as any other Filipino and if you are Cebuano you probably have
greater chance. This is my blanket ancestral claim. Enrique's value to
the voyage could be measured when Magellan provided in his will that
Enrique would have shares of his wealth and prizes upon his death.
My other disappointment in life was when I missed being onboard the
nuclear submarine (USS Triton) when she made the first circumnavigation
of the world underwater by tracing the route that Magellan and Enrique
took in the 15th century. I did not have all the security clearance
required but the voyage was compromised anyway because a Cebuano fisher
spotted the submarine periscope while she was passing Mactan. Rufino
Baring from Mactan had his brief moment of fame when the submarine took
his picture looking down at the periscope. Trivia but he was featured in
the National Geographic.
Nestor Palugod Enriquez
http://pages.prodigy.com/NJ/pilipino
Hector Santos
Yeah, almost everyone in Mactan and Cebu are either descendants of Lapu-Lapu or of Enrique. This is what I gather from many people who have
emailed me. There is no record at all about Lapu-Lapu and Enrique after Pigafetta left Cebu. Forty some years later when Legazpi returned, no
mention of them either.
So go ahead everyone, stake a claim that you are a descendant of Lapu-Lapu or Enrique. No one can prove you wrong. (You can't prove you're
right either, but that doesn't matter.)
---
Hector Santos <hect...@ibm.net> Los Angeles
Katalogo ng mga Apelyidong Pilipino - http://www.bibingka.com/names
2500 authentic Filipino family names - No Graphics, All Data, One Page
Stephanie Domdom
That was a very interesting story. I wish I could trace my
family's surnames, but I think I'd have to do my research in the
Philippines, not over the internet.
Stephanie Domdom
great-great-great-(great?) granddaughter of Lapu-Lapu
JonZ93111
vigil <vi...@edsa.com> wrote:
>It's possible that Enrique was from one of the islands that is now
>part of the Philippines, but this is unlikely since Magellan met him
>in Malacca, now part of Indonesia. However, since there was already
>much trade and movement between the islands during that period, it's
>possible that Enrique was from Cebu or one of the Philippine islands
>who was trading or visiting relatives in Malacca. It's true that
>there were communities of people from Bisayas and Luzon in that part
>of Indonesia who were there as traders, and even as mercenaries. When
>Magellan met him, it's possible that Magellan got him interested in
>going back to his island home to the north by sailing around the
>world. It should be noted that Magellan did not really treat Enrique
>as a slave but as a co-navigator and a guide. Magellan knew that
>Enrique would be an extremely helpful guide. Would Enrique, assuming
>he had a choice, turn down the opportunity for adventure? Enrique was
>a Malay who was probably a skilled seaman like those early
>Malay-Polynesian voyagers who reached the shores of Africa, the
>distant Pacific islands, and perhaps even the American continent. By
>the 15th century, the Malay-Polynesian world, at least, stretched as
>far as the island of Madagascar near the coast of Africa to Easter
>island near the coast of South America. It's not really that
>important if Enrique was from one of the islands which is now part of
>the Philippines because he was first a Malay who considered that
>region of the world his home.
Vigil,
Dude, Malacca is now part of Malaysia not Indonesia. Anyway, I personally
go with the theory that since Bahasa Malay was the common trading language
that it would not be surprising that people throughout the region would
speak the language. Since travel was quite common throughout the region
speculation as to where Enrique "really" came from before Magellan met
him.
Jon Zimmermann
Santa Barbara, California
vigil
JonZ93111 wrote:
>
> Dude, Malacca is now part of Malaysia not Indonesia. Anyway, I personally
> go with the theory that since Bahasa Malay was the common trading language
> that it would not be surprising that people throughout the region would
> speak the language. Since travel was quite common throughout the region
> speculation as to where Enrique "really" came from before Magellan met
> him.
--------------
Oopps, Malacca or Melaka is part of Malaysia on the Malay peninsula.
Melaka was captured by the Portuguese in 1511. The Dutch captured
Melaka from the Portuguese in 1641. In comparison, Magellan arrived
in the Philippines, which is only a short distance away from the
Indonesian islands, in 1521. Anyway, that region of the world even
prior to the arrival of the Europeans, was already a crossroads in the
expanding international trade that extended from Arabia, India, the
Malay archipelago, and China. Melaka was one of the major trading
centers. The Moluccas, which is part of Indonesia, became a major
part of the spice trade. For more discussion on this subject, see the
works of Philippine historian William Henry Scott.
An Austronesian (Malay-Polynesian) language spoken around the Malay
peninsula became the trade language of the region. Bahasa Malay and
Bahasa Indonesia, and probably some of the lowland dialects of the
Philippines, were derived from that language. Malay, however, wasn't
the most widely spoken Austronesian language, even now. But, it
achieved enough influence to become the name for all the Austronesian
languages of the region and its related peoples.
vigil
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> There really is not much evidence that Bahasa (Malay/Indonesia) was spoken
> widely in the Philippines during Magellan's time. If that were the case, then
> probably many in Magellan's crew, and even Magellan himself could have conversed
> with the natives. Magellan lived many years in Malacca and in Indonesia before the
> voyage. Enrique was not able to speak to any of the peoples they encountered on
> Samar or Leyte. He was able to communicate with Cebuano-speaking people though.
>
===================
The Malay language spoken around the 15th century may not have been
understood by the common people who had their own dialects, but it's
possible that it was used extensively by traders between the islands.
At about the same period and earlier, there were already many Malays
from parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Borneo who started migrating
northward to the Philippines. Most of the lowland Malays are probably
their descendants.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that Magellan understood or
spoke Malay or any other related dialects. It's also not surprising
if Enrique, who apparently knew Malay, did not understand the language
of people in Leyte or Samar since there were already many sub-groups
and dialects of the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) language family
even at that time. Even Malay, which was the regional language around
the Malay peninsula, was not even the Austronesian language with the
most speakers, which is true even now. There are other Indonesian
languages, I believe, like the language of Java, which have more
speakers.
The fact that Enrique was able to communicate with Cebuanos probably
testifies more to the metropolitan and trading center status of Cebu.
Cebuano was probably understood by Malay-speakers like Enrique because
of trade contacts with them.
It's interesting if Enrique not only knew how to speak Cebuano but
that he's also a Cebuano. This, however, is just historical
speculation.
Do you know if Enrique died in Cebu or he returned to Malacca?
>
> So, when Magellan purchased Enrique he may have enquired as to where the
> boy came from. Upon hearing that Enrique was from the very area that he believed
> the Lequios to be, Magellan would have found the perfect assistant!
>
> Paul Kekai Manansala
> Homepage: http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/index.htm
repost:
vigil <vi...@edsa.com> wrote:
>It's possible that Enrique was from one of the islands that is now
>part of the Philippines, but this is unlikely since Magellan met him
>in Malacca, now part of Indonesia (corrected: Malaysia). However, since there was already
>much trade and movement between the islands during that period, it's
>possible that Enrique was from Cebu or one of the Philippine islands
>who was trading or visiting relatives in Malacca. It's true that
>there were communities of people from Bisayas and Luzon in that part
>of Indonesia who were there as traders, and even as mercenaries. When
>Magellan met him, it's possible that Magellan got him interested in
>going back to his island home to the north by sailing around the
>world. It should be noted that Magellan did not really treat Enrique
>as a slave but as a co-navigator and a guide. Magellan knew that
>Enrique would be an extremely helpful guide. Would Enrique, assuming
>he had a choice, turn down the opportunity for adventure? Enrique was
>a Malay who was probably a skilled seaman like those early
>Malay-Polynesian voyagers who reached the shores of Africa, the
>distant Pacific islands, and perhaps even the American continent. By
>the 15th century, the Malay-Polynesian world, at least, stretched as
>far as the island of Madagascar near the coast of Africa to Easter
>island near the coast of South America. It's not really that
>important if Enrique was from one of the islands which is now part of
>the Philippines because he was first a Malay who considered that
>region of the world his home.
Paul Kekai Manansala
There really is not much evidence that Bahasa (Malay/Indonesia) was spoken
widely in the Philippines during Magellan's time. If that were the case, then
probably many in Magellan's crew, and even Magellan himself could have conversed
with the natives. Magellan lived many years in Malacca and in Indonesia before the
voyage. Enrique was not able to speak to any of the peoples they encountered on
Samar or Leyte. He was able to communicate with Cebuano-speaking people though.
There was a Filipino community living in Malacca when Magellan bought Enrique
there as a slave. Magellan may already have had an idea of the region he wanted
to explore by that time. It was known in the works of Barbosa as the Lequios
Islands, as was located somewhere north of the Moluccas. When Magellan reached
a point near the meridian of the Moluccas, he purposefully steered towards the
latitudes of the the Philippines. In a copy of Barbosa owned by Magellan, he crosses
out references to the Lequios and replaces them with "Tarsis and Ofir," the biblical
lands of gold and silver. Probably he though these fabled lands were located at these
latitudes.
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <327992...@edsa.com>, vigil <vi...@edsa.com> wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
>> There really is not much evidence that Bahasa (Malay/Indonesia) was spoken
>> widely in the Philippines during Magellan's time. If that were the case, then
>> probably many in Magellan's crew, and even Magellan himself could have conversed
>> with the natives. Magellan lived many years in Malacca and in Indonesia before the
>> voyage. Enrique was not able to speak to any of the peoples they encountered on
>> Samar or Leyte. He was able to communicate with Cebuano-speaking people though.
>>
>The Malay language spoken around the 15th century may not have been
>understood by the common people who had their own dialects, but it's
>possible that it was used extensively by traders between the islands.
Of course its possible, but I'm not aware of any evidence that this is so.
Pigafetta never mentions the Malay language being spoken on the islands.
>At about the same period and earlier, there were already many Malays
>from parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Borneo who started migrating
>northward to the Philippines. Most of the lowland Malays are probably
>their descendants.
>
I don't think there is any evidence of such migrations during this period.
Certainly I would not say that most lowland Malays are the results of such
migrations (during the period around 1500). Some of the rajas from Borneo
had helped bring Islam to Luzon, but these contacts were likely established
long before Islam came into the area.
>There is no evidence that I am aware of that Magellan understood or
>spoke Malay or any other related dialects.
Nor is there any evidence that the people of the Bisayas spoke Malay.
It was common for seafarers to learn the languages of places the frequented.
Magellan lived in the region for a long time before returning to Europe.
> It's also not surprising
>if Enrique, who apparently knew Malay, did not understand the language
>of people in Leyte or Samar since there were already many sub-groups
>and dialects of the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) language family
>even at that time. Even Malay, which was the regional language around
>the Malay peninsula, was not even the Austronesian language with the
>most speakers, which is true even now. There are other Indonesian
>languages, I believe, like the language of Java, which have more
>speakers.
>
But why didn't the people of Leyte and Samar speak Malay?
>The fact that Enrique was able to communicate with Cebuanos probably
>testifies more to the metropolitan and trading center status of Cebu.
>Cebuano was probably understood by Malay-speakers like Enrique because
>of trade contacts with them.
This is possible. It is also possible that Enrique belonged to the Filipino
community in Malacca under the service of the king.
>
>It's interesting if Enrique not only knew how to speak Cebuano but
>that he's also a Cebuano. This, however, is just historical
>speculation.
>
It is speculation either way you look at it. Whether Enrique only spoke Cebuano,
or actually was Cebuano does not dilute the fact that the first known person to
circumnavigate the world was a fellow Austronesian who could likely speak the
language and who stayed on the island after Magellan left. He sided with the Cebuanos
rather than the Spanish. This is still something for Cebuanos to be proud of, regardless
of Enrique's precise identity.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Larry Pendarvis
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> the first known person to
> circumnavigate the world was a fellow Austronesian who could likely speak the
> language and who stayed on the island after Magellan left.
>
Ummm... hadn't Magellan ALREADY travelled partway around the
world BEFORE he hooked up with Enrique?
Wouldn't that mean that he would have completed a circumnavigation
BEFORE Enrique finished his own??
I guess the relevant information would be, AT WHAT POINT ON THE
GLOBE did Magellan come full circle? Certainly before Mactan.
BTW, where did Magellan GO after he left the island?
--
Larry Pendarvis
http://www.Filipina.com
Mail Order Brides from the Philippines
"Hey, this isn't rocket science, it's only brain surgery."
-- C. Montgomery Burns
JonZ93111
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> writes:
[clip]
>BTW, where did Magellan GO after he left the island?
The last I heard he'd had inspired a fish (the lapu-lapu). ;)
Larry, Magellan was killed at Mactan.
Actually, there were close to twenty Portuguese on Megallen's voyage
initially and any one of a number of them could also have sailed
previously for Portugal and have lived in and around the area in question.
Larry Pendarvis
JonZ93111 wrote:
>
> The last I heard he'd had inspired a fish (the lapu-lapu). ;)
> Larry, Magellan was killed at Mactan.
>
That's what I had heard.
(I was married in Lapu-Lapu.)
That's why I was puzzled to see the reference to
Enrique's staying behind when Magellan "left
the island." Perhaps another island was meant.
In any case, I totally fail to see how someone who
travelled PART OF THE WAY with Magellan could
possibly have been the FIRST to complete a full
circumnavigation. Surely Magellan went everywhere
Enrique went. More or less. And I think there
has been a statement here that getting off the
ship first at Mactan is what made Enrique the
first. This would be significant only if Mactan
were the beginning point and therefore the
ending point of the circumnavigation process.
Surely this was completed long before Mactan.
That is why I would like someone who appears
to know about this subject to tell us just where
the circumnavigation was completed.
I believe this will clear up the entire discussion.
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <327B2F...@digital.net>,
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>>
>> the first known person to
>> circumnavigate the world was a fellow Austronesian who could likely speak the
>> language and who stayed on the island after Magellan left.
>>
>
>Ummm... hadn't Magellan ALREADY travelled partway around the
>world BEFORE he hooked up with Enrique?
>Wouldn't that mean that he would have completed a circumnavigation
>BEFORE Enrique finished his own??
>I guess the relevant information would be, AT WHAT POINT ON THE
>GLOBE did Magellan come full circle? Certainly before Mactan.
>
The general idea is that Enrique was the first to leave a native
speaking area from one direction, and then reach the same native
speaking region coming from the other direction. When he called
out to the ship off Limasawa, and they understood him, is seen
as marking the first circumnavigation. Technically, Magellan did not
circumnavigate the globe, although El Cano and some other crew members did.
There are some who have suggested that Magellan may have visited the Philippines
*before* undertaking the circumnavigation but the evidence is very flimsy.
Unless, Enrique was born in the Philippines, Magellan may have covered as much
or more of the earth's longitude than Enrique, but it was not technically in
a circumnavigation. Of course, we don't know what kind of voyaging Enrique
had under his belt prior to the journey either.
>BTW, where did Magellan GO after he left the island?
>
Magellan was killed at Mactan (if that is what you mean). Enrique stayed
on the island after siding with Lapu-lapu. Whether he journeyed after that
is unknown. A fair proportion of the crew members that made the journey
with El Cano to Europe were local "Indians" from somewhere in the region. They
were recruited to replace those who had died en route. It would be interesting to
know whether or not any of these Indians were Filipinos. There is a painting
from the period showing El Cano returning on the last leg of the trip,
with a ship filled mostly with g-string wearing "natives" having their hair
bound in topknots.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <327B85...@digital.net>,
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
>JonZ93111 wrote:
>>
>> The last I heard he'd had inspired a fish (the lapu-lapu). ;)
>> Larry, Magellan was killed at Mactan.
>>
>
>That's what I had heard.
>(I was married in Lapu-Lapu.)
>
>That's why I was puzzled to see the reference to
>Enrique's staying behind when Magellan "left
>the island." Perhaps another island was meant.
>
>In any case, I totally fail to see how someone who
>travelled PART OF THE WAY with Magellan could
>possibly have been the FIRST to complete a full
>circumnavigation. Surely Magellan went everywhere
>Enrique went.
No that's not true. We don't know everywhere Enrique went.
He was about 13 years when Magellan acquired him as a slave
and he lived on after Magellan died.
More or less. And I think there
>has been a statement here that getting off the
>ship first at Mactan is what made Enrique the
>first. This would be significant only if Mactan
>were the beginning point and therefore the
>ending point of the circumnavigation process.
>Surely this was completed long before Mactan.
>That is why I would like someone who appears
>to know about this subject to tell us just where
>the circumnavigation was completed.
>I believe this will clear up the entire discussion.
Magellan was still completely unaware of how close he was
to his destination until Enrique communicated with the
boatload of "natives" from Limasawa. The journals of Pigafetta
show they were generally correct in their estimation of longitude
up to about 15 degrees or so (about 900 miles). But sometimes
their errors were considerably greater. They could know their
latitude correctly as long as the sky was clear, but this still
did not give them any idea of how far they had to go before
reaching their destination (clearly the Philippines). It was not
until Enrique was able to communicate with the people of Limasawa
that Magellan knew he had reached his primary destination.
Larry Pendarvis
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> In article <327B85...@digital.net>,
> Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
> >
> >In any case, I totally fail to see how someone who
> >travelled PART OF THE WAY with Magellan could
> >possibly have been the FIRST to complete a full
> >circumnavigation. Surely Magellan went everywhere
>
> No that's not true. We don't know everywhere Enrique went.
> He was about 13 years when Magellan acquired him as a slave
> and he lived on after Magellan died.
>
Oh come on, I obviously meant that Magellan went everywhere
Enrique went UNTIL MAGELLAN DIED.
All of my logic has been based on my having been told that
Magellan DID SO circumnavigate the globe BEFORE HE DIED.
If you are saying now that this is not true, then I think
this is a more remarkable discovery than that a Malay may
have done so first.
I mean, it's in all the books. Now they are wrong?
I know it wouldn't be the first time, and I am not
disputing it if you have knowledge I do not have.
I just want to make sure this is what you claim.
> >And I think there
> >has been a statement here that getting off the
> >ship first at Mactan is what made Enrique the
> >first. This would be significant only if Mactan
> >were the beginning point and therefore the
> >ending point of the circumnavigation process.
> >Surely this was completed long before Mactan.
> >That is why I would like someone who appears
> >to know about this subject to tell us just where
> >the circumnavigation was completed.
> >I believe this will clear up the entire discussion.
>
> Magellan was still completely unaware of how close he was
> to his destination until Enrique communicated with the
> boatload of "natives" from Limasawa.
>
All of this means nothing if Magellan did not in fact
ever in his life circumnavigate the globe.
If he DID, though, please tell me exactly WHERE the
circumnavigation began AND ENDED (presumably you will
agree that these must be the same point on the globe).
Are you saying that it BEGAN IN THE PHILIPPINES?
Surely not, since it is not believed that Magellan was
ever there before the end of the circumnavigation.
Therefore, IF he ever did circumnavigate the globe,
then he did it BEFORE HE EVER ARRIVED IN THE PHILIPPINES.
Quite simply, what we need is:
1. DID Magellan EVER circumnavigate the globe?
2. If so, WHERE did he begin (and end) the
circumnavigation? (The fact that he may thereafter
have proceeded to the Philippines is irrelevant).
JonZ93111
pmana...@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) writes:
[megaclip]
>Enrique was not able to speak to any of the peoples they encountered on
>though.
[megaclip]
Paul,
Forgive the massive clipping but I just wanted to ask what sources you are
using for this part of the story. My reading of Noone's account does not
seem to reflect that Enrique was able to communicate with anybody other
than the Datu and the Siamese merchant in Cebu - both classes of people
who would seem more likely to be multilingual.
bRAM
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote
:
: BTW, where did Magellan GO after he left the island?
:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On May 4, 1989, Magellan embarked on a new journey where Enrique had not
gone before; arriving at Venus on August 10, 1990 and was inserted into a
near-polar elliptical orbit with a periapsis altitude of 294 km at 9.5.
Magellan's highly successful first mapping cycle of the planet was
completed in 1991. Magellan continued to gather data until October, 1994.
Interviewed why he didn't bring along his Enrique during the successful
trip, he remarked, "What? Filipinos would again claim and credit my
houseboy as the first to do a near-polar elliptical orbit of the planet
Venus. I already learned my lesson with that circumnavigation of the globe
thing."
- - - from the Signora Piggy's "Cornycle of the First Near-Polar Elliptical
Orbit of Venus"
____________________________
--
"Insanity is doing the same things over and
over again expecting a different result."
--Rita Mae Brown
Hector Santos
Larry Pendarvis wrote:
> I mean, it's in all the books. Now they are wrong?
> I know it wouldn't be the first time, and I am not
> disputing it if you have knowledge I do not have.
> I just want to make sure this is what you claim.
Name one book. I've read at least six Magellan biographies and I haven't heard of this claim. (There might be one or more though and I'd
like to read it.) The farthest point he reached travelling east does not match the farthest point he reached travelling west (and where he was
killed). Enrique shares this same shortcoming. We can all speculate on things they did but were not recorded but that doesn't prove anything.
Magellan could have done this and he could have done that. Enrique could have done this or could have done that. Why don't we consult a
psychic and get it over with.
Orion Perez Dumdum
badong <bad...@smoky.mtn.com> wrote:
According to some historical sources including Antonio Pigafetta's
writings, Enrique couldn't really understand Cebuano and couldn't
be understood by the Cebuanos as well when he first set foot. What
he could do, though, was to pick out some of the words that were
similar between Bahasa and Bisaya like "jalan and dalan" which both
mean road/street/way. (the former is Bahasa, the latter is Bisaya^)
From that, he tried to speak as slowly as possible, using so many
hand-gestures, prompting the Cebuanos to do the same when
speaking to him. That way, they could understand each other to
some extent. He also had to spend time with the natives, in getting
immersed so that his understanding of their different grammatical
affixes, vocabulary, and morphological sound shifts, so that if
Magellan had to speak with the Cebuanos, Enrique wouldn't
keep gesturing "could you repeat that again, please." or show
a facial expression that meant "Oooops, I didn't quite get that."
Bahasa and Bisaya are no doubt related, but the differences
between the two are very much greater than differences between
Spanish and Italian, or Spanish and Portuguese. Vocabulary-wise,
I was told by some linguist friends of mine that the Philippine
language which is closest to Bahasa is Kapangpangan. Don't ask
me why, but that's what many other people tell me too.
Besides, Cebuano and Tagalog are so different from each other
anyway. In any instant, a Tagalog won't be able to communicate
with a Cebuano who knows only Cebuano, unless the two take some
time out to "compare notes" and gesture to each other to "speak
slowly." One other thing... Take away all the Spanish words that
Cebuano and Tagalog have (many of which are shared in both) and
you've got something close to the tower of Babel. Luckily today,
many Cebuanos know English and Tagalog, and Tagalogs know
English too, so communication becomes easier.
I've also tried surfing the various cable channels we have on SKY
Cable. I try listening to the Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia
on their respective channels and I can't understand a thing!
Even if I know Tagalog and Cebuano, it still doesn't help.
Orion Perez Dumdum
Loyola Heights, Q.C.
Philippines
prov. address:
Villa Victoria, J. Adlawan St.
KM 13, Minglanilla, Cebu
Philippines
PS. Here are some examples to show how Italian, Spanish, and
Portuguese are so similar:
English: How are you?
Italian: Come sta? (formal)
Spanish: ?Como esta? (formal)
Portuguese: Como esta? (formal) KOMo eSHTA
English: Very well, and you?
Italian: Molto bene, e tu?
Spanish: ?Muy bien, y tu?
Portuguese: Muito bem, e tu? MUITuh BehNG, e TU
English: How much does this cost?
Italian: Quanto costa questo?
Spanish: ?Cuanto cuesta esto?
Portuguese: Quanto costa esto? KWANtu KUSHta ESHtuh
(Ramos-Horta, BTW, is pronounced "RAMUZH-ORTuh")
Here are some examples on how Bisaya and Tagalog are very different:
English: bird
Tagalog: ibon
Bisaya: langgam (and langgam in Tagalog means ant)
English: What is that? English: What's your name?
Tagalog: Ano ba yan? Tagalog: Anong pangalan mo?
Bisaya^: Unsa man 'na? Bisaya: Unsa'y imong ngalan?
....... It's easier to be a linguist in European languages that
belong to the same immediate family, than it is to be a linguist
in Malayan languages.
Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia, BTW are the same
language, albeit written with different spelling biases. One, the
Indonesian version has Dutch-like spelling (using the OE instead of
the U, and a J where an I or Y normally is), while the other, the
Malaysian one, uses spelling rules similar to the ones used in
Tagalog. The story there is that the people of those two countries
were using the same language, mainly because they were formerly
connected politically, and were also migrants from the original
source of the language, but were separated when they were split
between two colonizers. Of course, today, one version has
English loan words sprinkled in it, while the other has Portuguese
and Dutch loan words.
I have an Indonesian friend whose family name is SOEROSO.
She says it's pronounced "SUROSO," while Suharto's name is spelled
"SOEHARTO" in the Indonesian way.
Here's a what-if:
OK. Let's see. What if the Tagalog region was split between
two colonizers. One remained under Spanish rule and influence,
while the other was taken by the Americans. Let's pretend that
the Spaniards retained the Western part of the region, which is
Bulacan, Manila, Cavite, and Rizal, while the Americans took
Quezon and Laguna. One side, the Western side would
continue spelling Tagalog in the Spanish way:
Quinuha nan~g man~ga ta-o ang man~ga cagamita'n.
Caca-in dao sila nan~g saguin~g na guinata-a'n.
... while the other, the Eastern side, might spell it the way we
spell it now...
Kinuha ng mga tao ang mga kagamitan.
Kakain daw sila ng saging na ginataan.
...Just an attempt at explaining the difference between
Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia.
Jabir H Qalindoz
In <327C9D...@islander.com> alexander <alex...@islander.com>
sinabi n'yo sir:
>
>The Malays were once the greatest navigators and explorers. Their
>feats of exploration were unmatched until the modern era. From their
>ancestral homeland somewhere in Southeast Asia, they journeyed to
>Taiwan and the Malay archipelago and beyond.
You probably mean South China, not Southeast Asia? Otherwise
pa-akyat pana-og tayo n'yan sa SEAn region.
>Today, the Filipinos, who are one of the nations of Malay descent, are
>all over the world. The journey and the spirit of adventure
>continues.
About Malay and Indonesian, they are terms of colonial
preference. The Dutch drove the Portuguese out of the area and called
the islands within their control Indonesia or Indian islands. The
people there became known as Indonesians. Came next the Brits carving
for themselves a niche and called their territory Malaya after Malay
the base of the hybrid trade language most commonly spoken and
understood within their sphere of influence. (Malay btw is junior to
the much older Philippine tongues.) The turn of the previous century
saw the emergence of a Filipino literati aching for identity and
ancestry of a self-gratifying sort and the likes of Rizal began the
popularization of a concept of Malay and Indonesian as racial stocks.
.../Jai H Quison
Hector Santos
Larry Pendarvis wrote:
>
> Hector Santos wrote:
> >
> > Name one book. I've read at least six Magellan biographies and I haven't heard of this claim. (There might be one or more though and I'd
> > like to read it.) The farthest point he reached travelling east does not match the farthest point he reached travelling west (and where he
>
> that Magellan circumnavigated the globe?
> Is that what you just said?
Yes, I said I never heard of such a claim in the books I've read. I have heard such claims but only from dubious sources. I choose my books
carefully, though. So I asked for a title and you did not provide one.
Learn something wrong everyday, don't we.
badong
Orion Perez Dumdum wrote:
>
> I was told by some linguist friends of mine that the Philippine
> language which is closest to Bahasa is Kapangpangan. Don't ask
> me why, but that's what many other people tell me too.
----------------
Kapampangan, Pangasinan, and Ibaloi are supposedly closely related
dialects.
> I've also tried surfing the various cable channels we have on SKY
> Cable. I try listening to the Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia
> on their respective channels and I can't understand a thing!
> Even if I know Tagalog and Cebuano, it still doesn't help.
---------------
The other reason that Bahasa words are incomprehensible to Tagalog or
Cebuano speakers is because many Arabic or Islamic words have been
incorporated into the Bahasa languages, just like the Philippine
languages have borrowed a lot of Spanish words.
It's really amazing to study the Malay-Polynesian or Austronesian
languages. I've learned so many Hawaiian words that sound similar to
Philippine languages. For example, the Hawaiian word "lahui" is same
as the Tagalog "lahi." The Hawaiian word for "niyog" is "nioc".
Larry Pendarvis
Hector Santos wrote:
>
> Larry Pendarvis wrote:
> >
> > Hector Santos wrote:
> > >
> > > Name one book. I've read at least six Magellan biographies and I haven't heard of this claim.
>
>
No, just look at the quote above.
You said that "I HAVEN'T HEARD OF THIS CLAIM."
Okay, so now are you clarifying what you said, and what
you really mean is that you never saw this claim IN ANY
OF THE MAGELLAN BIOGRAPHIES, although you were perfectly
aware that it IS in other books?
Is this really what you are now saying?
And you believe that, in all of those biographies, not
a single one of them ever ever mentioned the popular
myth that Magellan circumnavigated the globe?
Are you truly saying that not one of those books said
that this popular myth in INCORRECT?
Are you saying the every single one of those books
totally ignored the FACT that many writings (even,
yes, books) do make such a (false) claim?
>
> I have heard such claims but only from dubious sources.
>
What "sources?" Were they maybe... um,... BOOKS?????
Conrad Gonzalez
In article <55fjq9$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, pmana...@csus.edu says...
> Technically, Magellan did not circumnavigate the globe, although El Cano
and some other crew members did...
Just can't resist this one.
The credit of the "first man to circumnavigate the globe." was given to
Magellan since he was the leader of that expedition that left Seville, Spain
in Sept 20 1519. Following the death of Magellan in Cebu in 1521, Juan
Sebastian del Cano assumed the leadership of the expedition and sailed around
the world in the ship Victoria. The Victoria reached Seville, Spain in Sept
8, 1522, thus marking the the first cirmcunavigation of the world. Although
Magellan did not actually complete the first circumnavigation, his skill and
massive, if not ruthless determination made that achievement possible.
--
Conrad Gonzalez
Hanover, VA
Orion Dumdum
jonz...@aol.com (JonZ93111) wrote:
>Paul,
Absolutely correct!
Henrique (Enrique's Portuguese name) was not able to speak directly to
the Cebuanos immediately when he got there. He needed the help of the
Siamese merchant who also spoke Bahasa and Cebuano, since his work
requires him to know the languages of the people he transacts business
with.
I also read this from Noone's book (which is based on primary accounts
of the crewmen), and another book which the Historical Conservation
Society distributes to members.
I repeat: Cebuano and Bahasa are MUTUALLY UNINTELIGIBLE.
I'm a Cebuano and I can't understand a single thing from the
Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia channels on cable
television.
Orion Perez Dumdum
Loyola Heights, Q.C.
Metro Manila, Phils.
Orion Dumdum
badong <bad...@smoky.mtn.com> wrote:
I was told by some linguist friends of mine that the Philippine
language which is closest to Bahasa is Kapangpangan. Don't ask
me why, but that's what many other people tell me too.
Besides, Cebuano and Tagalog are so different from each other
anyway. In any instant, a Tagalog won't be able to communicate
with a Cebuano who knows only Cebuano, unless the two take some
time out to "compare notes" and gesture to each other to "speak
slowly." One other thing... Take away all the Spanish words that
Cebuano and Tagalog have (many of which are shared in both) and
you've got something close to the tower of Babel. Luckily today,
many Cebuanos know English and Tagalog, and Tagalogs know
English too, so communication becomes easier.
I've also tried surfing the various cable channels we have on SKY
Cable. I try listening to the Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia
on their respective channels and I can't understand a thing!
Even if I know Tagalog and Cebuano, it still doesn't help.
Orion Perez Dumdum
Loyola Heights, Q.C.
Paul (Kekai) Manansala
b$f...@boursy.news.erols.com>;
Distribution:
Conrad Gonzalez (con...@erols.com) wrote:
: In article <55fjq9$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, pmana...@csus.edu says...
: The credit of the "first man to circumnavigate the globe." was given to
: Magellan since he was the leader of that expedition that left Seville, Spain
'
That's not really the case. Most of the more sophisticated books I have
read don't credit Magellan with the first circumnavigation. However,
many history texts do, or they did, at least. Call it kismet, but Enrique
the Austronesian is quite commonly seen as the first to make the full circle.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Orion Dumdum
pmana...@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>In article <327992...@edsa.com>, vigil <vi...@edsa.com> wrote:
>>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>>
>>> There really is not much evidence that Bahasa (Malay/Indonesia) was spoken
>>> widely in the Philippines during Magellan's time. If that were the case, then
>>> probably many in Magellan's crew, and even Magellan himself could have conversed
>>> with the natives. Magellan lived many years in Malacca and in Indonesia before the
>>> voyage. Enrique was not able to speak to any of the peoples they encountered on
>>> Samar or Leyte. He was able to communicate with Cebuano-speaking people though.
>>>
>or actually was Cebuano does not dilute the fact that the first known person to
>circumnavigate the world was a fellow Austronesian who could likely speak the
>language ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
Only after staying long. But whether he spoke it when they first
landed in Cebu? No way. Historical facts prove otherwise. (He
encountered a Siamese trader who spoke Cebuano and Bahasa. So Magellan
would speak
to Henrique in Portuguese, then Henrique would speak in Bahasa to the
Siamese guy, then the Siamese would speak in Cebuano to the Cebuanos)
>and who stayed on the island after Magellan left. He sided with the Cebuanos
>rather than the Spanish. This is still something for Cebuanos to be proud of, regardless
>of Enrique's precise identity.
For sure, he was MALAY. But it is also true that he was NOT CEBUANO.
Wala hinuon siya nakasabut sa mga tawo ngadto... Mao ra sab gihapon.
Lisud kaayo na nga mo-ingon ta og sugbuanon si Enrique, nga ang
gi-sulti sa tanang mga libro, "Wala sila mag-sinabtanay ni Enrique,
kay dili man siya sugbuanon gayud." Ug usa pa, lahi ra kaayo sa tanan
ang Bahasa og ang Bisaya nga Subbuanon. Bisag-unsaon og bali-bali,
dili gayud 'na^ sila mahimog parehas. Ako baya, sigui baya^ ko'g
tan-aw sa cable TV og mga Bahasa channels... Wala gayud ko'y nakit-an!
Orion Dumdum
prov. address:
Villa Victoria, J. Adlawan St.
Linao-Lipata boundary,
Minglanilla, Cebu, Phils.
Eric Cardenas
Conrad Gonzalez <con...@erols.com> wrote in article
<55lm1b$f...@boursy.news.erols.com>...
>
> The credit of the "first man to circumnavigate the globe." was given to
> Magellan since he was the leader of that expedition that left Seville,
Spain
> in Sept 20 1519. Following the death of Magellan in Cebu in 1521, Juan
> Sebastian del Cano assumed the leadership of the expedition and sailed
around
> the world in the ship Victoria. The Victoria reached Seville, Spain in
Sept
> 8, 1522, thus marking the the first cirmcunavigation of the world.
Although
> Magellan did not actually complete the first circumnavigation, his skill
and
> massive, if not ruthless determination made that achievement possible.
>
Specifically, Hernando de Magallanes is credited as the first man to
circumnavigate the globe. He did it in two trips. He was in Malacca before
and by some longitudinal arithmetic he's been around the world indeed.
Sebastian del Cano is the first man to circumnavigate the world in a single
trip.
Need we discuss it further?
Eric
JonZ93111
"Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> writes:
>Specifically, Hernando de Magallanes is credited as the first man to
>circumnavigate the globe. He did it in two trips. He was in Malacca
before
>and by some longitudinal arithmetic he's been around the world indeed.
>
>Sebastian del Cano is the first man to circumnavigate the world in a
single
>trip.
>
>Need we discuss it further?
>
>Eric
Sure we do! Why not? :)
Let us not forget that Magellan did not just sit around when he was in
Malacca. While stationed there he was in charge of an expedition to
explore the Maluku islands (spice islands). Thus, by the time that he had
arrived in the Philippines (to the north and WEST of the Maluku's) he had
technically circumnavigated the globe in two voyages. In addition to this,
the voyage under his command was able to circumnavigate the globe in one
voyage (although with a rather high attrition rate). So there we have it.
More goodies to talk about.
transAtlantic+Pacific
Stephanie Domdom <sd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> That was a very interesting story. I wish I could trace my
>family's surnames, but I think I'd have to do my research in the
>Philippines, not over the internet.
> Stephanie Domdom
> great-great-great-(great?) granddaughter of Lapu-Lapu
Hi Stephanie,
I happen to share your family name, although we spell it
differently. Mine is spelled "Dumdum" and my father's family
hails from Balamban, Cebu. I hear from my grandfather, that
many among you who spell it "Domdom" are also our relatives,
albeit from a branch who settled in the areas of Masbate and Bicol.
Others who retained the "U spelling" went to other parts of the
Visayas such as Panay Island and Negros, while others went to
Davao in Mindanao. I used to think that our family name was
derived from Indians ("Bumbays") who went to Balamban, but as
I can see no real evidence to support that speculation, and as
the word "Dumdum" exists in the Visayan languages to be the
root for the word "remember," I think it is a Visayan-derived family
name, and not an Aryan Indian one.
Orion Perez Dumdum
P.S. An airport in Calcutta is named "Dumdum International Airport."
The Dumdum bullet (which breaks into so many pieces, thereby
causing much injury upon impact) is called such because it was
developed in that particular part of the city of Calcutta,
India.
Hector Santos
Larry Pendarvis wrote:
> >
> > I have heard such claims but only from dubious sources.
> >
>
> What "sources?" Were they maybe... um,... BOOKS?????
>
No, you and the URL "source" you posted. It was a commercial site-- nothing to do with history.
Hector Santos
"Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Specifically, Hernando de Magallanes is credited as the first man to
>circumnavigate the globe. He did it in two trips. He was in Malacca before
>and by some longitudinal arithmetic he's been around the world indeed.
>Sebastian del Cano is the first man to circumnavigate the world in a single
>trip.
>Need we discuss it further?
Yes, we do. Circumnavigation means starting and ending in the same
exact place, not just starting and ending in the same longitude, while
going through a major circumference and travelling in the same
direction. Even if we allow that Magellan did it in two stages, Mactan
is still not Malacca. He had not closed the loop.
This can best be illustrated by plotting his travels on a globe then
erasing all the globe's features including longitudinal and
lattitudinal lines. You will not see a complete circle.
In fact, you can cirumnavigate the world by going halfway around the
world if we allow your definition. This can be done by starting one
degree south of the North Pole and going North continuing past the
pole (going South now). After you pass the South Pole, you would end
up the same longitude you started from although you only went a little
past halfway around the world. You would not have closed the loop.
Worse yet, you can make a circle around the North Pole just south of
it. You would have closed the loop but not while travelling along a
major circumference of the globe.
By all definitions, circumnavigation means starting and ending in the
same point on a sphere while travelling in the same direction along a
major circumference. Close, but no cigar for Magellan. Same for
Enrique.
Yes, we can speculate about what was not recorded but that is not
history. We can also wave the part that says "one must close the loop"
and this is what most people have done for Magellan and Enrique.
Sorry to be a party pooper.
Hector Santos <hect...@ibm.net>
Katálogo ng mga Apelyidong Pilipino
No graphics, all data, one page!
http://www.bibingka.com/names/
Larry Pendarvis
Eric Cardenas wrote:
>
> Specifically, Hernando de Magallanes is credited as the first man to
> circumnavigate the globe. He did it in two trips. He was in Malacca before
> and by some longitudinal arithmetic he's been around the world indeed.
>
>
Well sure we need do:
Mr. Hector Santos has sworn a solemn oath to God that he
has read SIX (6) biographies of Magellan and that not only
does he not believe that Magellan EVER circumnavigated the
globe, he has NEVER EVER even HEARD of this assertion.
Ooopss, now he says that he HAS heard of it, but only in
some kind of unreliable source, and never in a BOOK, since
he states that he does not believe that anyone can quote a
BOOK source that mentions this assertion.
And definitely the BIOGRAPHIES never ever mentioned this,
not even to deny it as a myth.
Now I honestly do not know what to believe.
I tend to think that you are right, at one point in his
life he was at one longitude, and sometime later (no matter
how long he rested in between) he traveled eventually to
that same longitude, passing through every other longitude
along his path. I wonder if he actually crossed his own
path at some point after re-reaching the same longitude
(which is what *I* would think of as a true circumnavigation),
or merely described a sort of helical path?
Or maybe he never did it at all.
Guess we'll never know.... Mr. Santos is no help.
Anyhow, there is no chance that his cabin boy made
it before he did.
"Magellan had a cabin boy,
he loved him like a brother.
And every night,
in the pale moonlight,
they (how does this go...) one another.
.... (ah yes...)
The cabin boy, the cabin boy,
that (something) little nipper,
he lined his (something something)
with broken glass
and CIRCUMNAVIGATED THE SKIPPER."
There! I knew I heard it from a reliable source!!!!!
The Damon Knight short story.
Larry Pendarvis
Conrad Gonzalez wrote:
>
> The credit of the "first man to circumnavigate the globe." was given to
> Magellan
>
Did you read that in a BOOK?
If so, please tell us the name of a BOOK in which
that assertion appears.
Inquiring Hectors want to know.
bRAM
Elson Trinidad <el...@westworld.com> wrote in article
<01bbc161$7c141520$b53be6cd@default>...
:
: I may be missing some facts, but if Magellan left The Old World,
obviously
: with no indigenous people from the to-be-named Philippines, then
eventually
: landed there (and getting killed in the process), and even if his ships'
: crew picked up indigenous people and landed back in Europe, wouldn't the
: said Cebuano merely have been the "first Indigenous Filipino to travel to
: Europe?"
:
: What I'm saying is, doesn't it take an entire *round trip* around the
world
: in order to qualify for a "trip around the world"? If this Cebuano got on
: board in the Philippines, then he would have only travelled roughly
halfway
: around the world. The ship would have to continue on past the Atlantic
and
: Pacific oceans once more in order for him to have a complete *round trip*
: around the world. So technically, the "first man to circle the world" was
: some person from Magellan's crew who happened to be standing in front of
: the boat when it arrived at port.
:
: I could be wrong on this, but Magellan himeself only made one voyage to
the
: Philippines, right?
:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AS RECORDED AND REPORTED:
On the morning of September 20, 1519, after more than a year of
preparation, Magellan's flottila sailed from the port of San Lucar de
Barrameda, 25 miles downriver from Seville. The crew of 260 included
Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, Germans and a MALAY slave whom
Magellan had acquired in Malacca and intended to use as an interpreter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my grade seven Phil history class, we asked teacher: Why is Magellan
given the honor as the first circumnavigator of the world, when he didn't
complete the trip (he made a permanent stop at Mactan)? Teacher said he did
circumnavigate the globe but he didn't do it in one trip:
March 1505, at age 25, Magellan sailed with a squadron bound for India
under the command of Francisco de Almeida. They routed a Muslim fleet
enabling Portugal to gain solid foothold in the Indian port of Goa--which
remained in Portuguese hands for 5 centuries.
Magellan later joined an expedition of 4 ships to reconnoiter the
Malayan port of Malacca. Arriving in September 1509, they were the first
European vessels to reach the place. The Muslim ruler, after inviting them
to a city tour, deviously directed his men to attack the tourists. Magellan
suffered a wound as he held off the assailants so his comrades could
scramble back to their ships. They retreated back to India.
Determined to get even, the Portuguese returned the summer of 1511 with
a formidable armada of 19 ships under the command of Albuquerque, the new
viceroy of India. They finally defeated the Muslims after a battle that
lasted more than a month. Now a captain, Magellan again fought valiantly,
and the victory put the Portuguese in a pivotal position of this busy trade
routes of fable spice islands.
Magellan volunteered soon afterward for an excursion to explore the
Moluccas, the so-caArticle Unavailable
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <55ur8v$a...@mayumi.iphil.net>,
That's not the case. The first contact was when the expedition encountered
a vessel off the waters of Limasawa (see Pigafetta's account), when Enrique
called out to them and they understood the language. There is no evidence that
the Siamese trader ever translated for Enrique (from the primary sources).
While many have been arguing over what constitutes a true circling of the globe,
the primary reason for the expedition was to demonstrate that one could indeed
reach the Moluccas traveling to the West from Europe rather than to the East.
This would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the king and people that the earth
was indeed circular (although astronomers were already quite sure of this).
I'm quite confident that this was first demonstrated to the satisfaction of the whole
crew when Enrique first communicated with the inhabitants of Limasawa (Cebuano speakers).
Thus, he was the first to come full circle in the sense of establishing that they had
indeed reached the primary destination.
Paul Kekai Manansala
bRAM
Paul (Kekai) Manansala <sac5...@saclink2.csus.edu> wrote
:
: . . . Most of the more sophisticated books I have
: many history texts do, or they did, at least. Call it kismet, but
Enrique
: the Austronesian is quite commonly seen as the first to make the full
circle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Microsoft (R) Encarta says:
1. Fernão de Magalhães(1480?-1521), Portuguese navigator and explorer, the
first European to cross the Pacific Ocean and THE FIRST MAN TO
CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE GLOBE. Although Magellan did not live to complete the
voyage, HE DID CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE GLOBE BY PASSING THE EASTERNMOST POINT HE
HAD REACHED ON AN EARLIER VOYAGE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the same "easternmost point he had reached on an earlier voyage," he
acquired the ENRIQUE (the cause of all this trouble) from Malacca. From
this side of the globe in 1511, the TWO (Magellan and Enrique) started
their circumnavigation of the globe which they completed sometime on the
spring of 1521. How could Enrique be the first when he was just tagging
along with Magellan? They were TOGETHER.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Juan Sebastián del Cano (1476? -1526), Spanish navigator, born in
Guetaria. In 1519 he was made captain of the Concepción, one of the five
vessels commanded by the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan during his
expedition in the service of Spain. After the death of Magellan on April
27, 1521, Cano assumed command of the expedition. On September 6, 1522, he
arrived in Spain on board the Victoria, becoming THE FIRST MAN TO
CIRCUMANAVIGATE THE EARTH, although Magellan is usually given credit for
the voyage.
3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number 3 is what Encarta says about Enrique. Nothing. So, let's fill it
up! And here goes:
Enrique de Mallaca, THE FIRST MAN TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE WORLD! Alls well,
ends well.
bRAM
ENRIQUE DE MALACCA
bRAM
SEBASTIAN DEL CANO
Nestor Enriquez
History will never be exact science. There are a lot of interesting
theories out there that are not permanent and subject to interpretation.
Past historians who said Columbus discovered America are now being
challenged and rightly so. Adverse possession is defined as ownership
to a certain property derived from holding or using the land the longest.
After a while everyone thought or assumed he had the title which he
might really might not have earned.
Hector Santos was right that both Enrique and Magellan needed to
travel a couple hundred miles from their “documented” in order to earn
this title. It is a fact that both men traveled from Mallaca Island to
Spain and from there sailed westward around the Americas to the
Philippines. Jon was also right that there were some Portuguese who might
have been shipmates with Magellan on his eastward expedition to Malacca.
Portugues mainly because
King Henry the Navigator lead the eastward navigation to the Malay
archepelago. The farthest east European travelled before Magellan
was Marco Polo having reached Sumatra. Because of mutiny that
include Elcano, by the time they reached the Pacific all the ship
captains were Portuguese. Between Enrique and Magellan I believe that
the Malay had a better chance of having traveled that missing
miles. This missing link needs to be knot together. If he is indeed a
Cebuano by the virtue of the language theory brought by Kekai, then he
had the clear title. Even if he was not Sugbu it is very probable that
he might have
learned the language in Cebu. After all, we all agree that Cebu was
already a trading center during that time. He also might have
gone back to Malacca after Magellan was killed. He would probably
arrived there before Elcano onboard the ship Victoria reached Spain.
Elcano to his credit pick the easy East direction home from the
archipelago. The European did not solve the Westward navigation till
Urdaneta was able to find the northern wind. Enrique’s ancestors had
been sailing the the entire Pacific waters long before this point of
history. I was hoping that the expeditions from Spain, like Villabos
about 20 years later, had contact with him.
To give the title to anyone just because Enrique was an obscure
Malay or slave is lame and inappropriate. History will be rewritten.,
Magellan did not discover the Philippines . Years from now simply
answering who went around the world first will have to be qualified. Our
Lolo will not
allow it without at least a footnotes and our children should know.
Years from now the North Pole frigid ice caps might melt due to the
second global warming. Scientist might find under the layers of ice
body of an ancient Eskimo boy playing and making a small circle around
the north pole. His tracks carbon would reveal that he covered all the
longitude.
The headline will be “The Iceman beats Enrique”
Nestor Palugod Enriquez
http://pages.prodigy.com/NJ/pilipino
greatxgreat grandson of Enrique
Nestor Enriquez
History will never be exact science. There are a lot of interesting
theories out there that are not permanent and subject to interpretation.
Past historians who said Columbus discovered America are now being
challenged and rightly so. Adverse possession is defined as ownership
to a certain property derived from holding or using the land the longest.
After a while everyone thought or assumed he had the title which he
might really might not have earned.
Hector Santos was right that both Enrique and Magellan needed to
travel a couple hundred miles from their “documented” travels in order to
Larry Pendarvis
Paul (Kekai) Manansala wrote:
>
>... Most of the more sophisticated books I have
> read don't credit Magellan with the first circumnavigation. However,
> many history texts do, or they did, at least. Call it kismet, but Enrique
> the Austronesian is quite commonly seen as the first to make the full circle.
>
So, you too have read IN BOOKS that there is a common
myth that Magellan did circumnavigate the globe.
It seems that Hector Santos is the only literate person
on the whole globe who has never ever seen this (false)
claim mentioned in a BOOK.
Can you give him the name of one of these BOOKS?
He really does not believe that such a BOOK exists.
My showing him a Web page was met with disdain.
Even after that, he re-stated his belief that no one
could show him a BOOK which mentions this (false) claim.
Certainly this claim is not mentioned in any of the
six (6) biographies of Magellan that he has read.
He says.
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <32886B...@digital.net>,
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
>Paul (Kekai) Manansala wrote:
>>
>>... Most of the more sophisticated books I have
>> read don't credit Magellan with the first circumnavigation. However,
>> many history texts do, or they did, at least. Call it kismet, but Enrique
>> the Austronesian is quite commonly seen as the first to make the full circle.
>>
>
>So, you too have read IN BOOKS that there is a common
>myth that Magellan did circumnavigate the globe.
>It seems that Hector Santos is the only literate person
>on the whole globe who has never ever seen this (false)
>claim mentioned in a BOOK.
>Can you give him the name of one of these BOOKS?
Yes, most of my grade school texts had this information along side
that stating how Columbus was the first person to discover Amerika.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Larry Pendarvis
Hector Santos wrote:
>
> Larry Pendarvis wrote:
> >
> >
>
> No, you and the URL "source" you posted. It was a commercial site-- nothing to do with history.
So there you have it folks - this guy repeats his claim
that he has NEVER heard this claim mentioned in a BOOK.
It is not a misunderstanding - he really means to have
us believe this.
Note that we are not talking about whether the claim is
TRUE or not - we are only discussing whether this claim
is MENTIONED in any BOOKS. And he says he has read
SIX (6) biographies of Magellan, and has NEVER EVER seen
this (false) claiom even MENTIONED in any of them, or
in fact in any other BOOK. And he claims that I cannot
find any BOOK that DOES mention this (false) claim.
Well, what can you expect from a guy who was KILLED IN
A CAR CRASH yesterday, on "All My Children?"
That must have been very traumatic.
--
Larry Pendarvis
http://www.Filipina.com
Mail Order Brides from the Philippines
"The legitimate powers of Government extend to
such acts only as are injurious to others."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Larry Pendarvis
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> Yes, most of my grade school texts had this information along side
> that stating how Columbus was the first person to discover Amerika.
>
Well, of course it is not "information," but it certainly
*IS* mentioned in those BOOKS, and in many other BOOKS.
I guess all of us have seen it.
Except Hector Santos (deceased, 11/20/96, A.M.C.).
Actually, MY grade school texts also said that it was
entirely possible that Leif Ericsson discovered it too,
500 years earlier, although the evidence was not conclusive,
although the evidence for Columbus's discovery was
unassailable.
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <3293E9...@digital.net>,
Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>>
>> Yes, most of my grade school texts had this information along side
>> that stating how Columbus was the first person to discover Amerika.
>>
>
>Well, of course it is not "information," but it certainly
>*IS* mentioned in those BOOKS, and in many other BOOKS.
>I guess all of us have seen it.
>Except Hector Santos (deceased, 11/20/96, A.M.C.).
>
>Actually, MY grade school texts also said that it was
>entirely possible that Leif Ericsson discovered it too,
>500 years earlier, although the evidence was not conclusive,
>although the evidence for Columbus's discovery was
>unassailable.
>
many thousands of years before Columbus. The ancestors of the Europeans
at this time probably lived with a few hundred miles of each other.
The Viking myths are simply myths.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Kristian Jensen
On 21/11/96 16:31, in message <571ski$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, Paul Kekai
Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote:
Paul,
Being part viking myself (Danish/Pinoy), I must disagree with viking myths
being simply myths. There are now stronger evidences to support the viking
"myths". We may never know whether it WAS Leif Ericsson himself who landed in
North America, but viking artifacts (viking combs, brooches, and a stone
dwellings) have been found in New Foundland. Climatic evidences from the
ice-core extractions from Greenland also suggests that the climate was warmer
at the time, thereby suggesting that the possibility of growing vines (grape
vines according to the sagas) was realistic.
If this is not convincing enough, then it is a reknown fact that the vikings
landed in Greenland. Is Greenland not a geographical part of North America? Of
course it is. Several artifacts and viking dwellings have been excavated around
Qaqortoc in southern Greenland. These Nordic settlers were assimilated with the
Inuits (Eskimos). The Inuit Greenlanders themselves around this area possess
facial traits that are European. They certainly look distinct from Inuits of
Alaska.
The nordic settlers that settled here were gradually isolated from the
Kingdom of Norway-Denmark when the Nordic people were Christianized. Some still
ventured out to these distant lands but Christianity eventually ensured total
isolation by regarding the sagas as fairy tales and superstition. By the 14th
and 15th century, the colony in Greenland was entirely neglected. The most
distant Nordic settlers that were still contacted regularly were the
Shetlanders, the Faeroese, and the Icelanders. The Icelanders were the last of
the Nordic people to be Christianized. Their sagas and runic scriptures were
almost destroyed by missionary christians. Fortunately, these somehow survived.
Attempts by King Magnus Ericson to recolonize Greenland in 1362 failed.
Greenland was then rediscovered in the 16th century by a British navigators,
Martin Frobisher and John Davis. It was then recolonized by Norway-Denmark in
1721 and became a Danish colony by 1815. Today, it is an autonomous part of the
Danish Kingdom.
But I digress, the first Europeans to set foot on American soil WERE the
Vikings. A FACT... NOT a myth.
Kristian Jensen
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <N.112296....@ip55.image.dk>,
No, I'm quite aware of the Greenland finds which are classified as "Viking."
The fact is that there is no good reason to do so. No Nordic human remains,
nor any nordic linguistic remnants have been found from the site. I know of
no evidence suggesting that Greenland Inuits are more "European" than other
Eskimos. One has to be aware that there has been plenty of fraud concerning these
kinds of studies in the past. For example, in one study of modern Marquesan Islanders,
which attempted to show they were "Caucasians," it was later found that the
surveyors only accepted applicants who were mixed bloods of mostly European
strain. I don't know of any archaeological evidence of "Caucasian" skeletons being
found in Greenland.
All that was found was one site that *may* have dated to pre-contact
times with artifacts and iron-working that seem to come from Europe. There are
many possible explanations for this, including retrieval of these items by
the Inuit themselves. A writer from early in this century named David MacRitchie
cited the many legends which suggested Eskimo-like travelers in skin and bark craft
coming to Europe in pre-contact times. These legends are found in written form at
earlier dates than the Norse ones. Unfortunately, due to Eurocentric attitudes all
evidence is always looked at from one viewpoint.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Elson Trinidad
Paul Kekai Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote in article > earlier
dates than the
>Norse ones. Unfortunately, due to Eurocentric attitudes all
> evidence is always looked at from one viewpoint.
Paul, the problem with your thinking is that your obsession with defining
history causes you to concede that whatever culture discovers a continent
should lay claim to it. I personally don't care who discovered the
Americas, be it the Vikings, the Egyptians, Columbus or the friggin'
Martians. I personally care not do dwell on what has happened, but to
concentrate on what *could* happen - to put it plainly, you are clearly
more concerned with the past, while a person like me is more concerned with
the future. Enjoy the dark ages, homeboy. Send me a postcard when you have
the time.
E
Paul (Kekai) Manansala
lvhg$c...@news.csus.edu>
<32886B...@digital.net><56ifc7$860...@dialin.csus.edu> <3293E9...@digital.net><571ski$85o...@dialin.csus.edu> <N.112296....@ip55.image.dk> <574hg7$85o...@dialin.csus.edu> <01bbd8fb$9edd1320$816cc1d0@default>;
Distribution:
Elson Trinidad (el...@westworld.com) wrote:
: Paul Kekai Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote in article > earlier
: dates than the
: E
:
Elson,
You seem to be under some misconception that your approach is
superior to mine, which shows your flawed views. There are many
different ways to approach a problem. You can approach things
anyway you want, but don't expect me to make the same mistakes.
Paul Kekai Manansala
ferdinand
Elson Trinidad wrote:
I personally care not do dwell on what has happened, but to
> concentrate on what *could* happen - to put it plainly, you are clearly
> more concerned with the past, while a person like me is more concerned with
> the future.
Knowing history is like having a compass. Knowing what happened in
the past is not some useless endeavour. Anyone who is concerned with
the future better know the lessons of history. Hopefully, one can
chart a better future.
Paul (Kekai) Manansala
Elson Trinidad (el...@westworld.com) wrote:
: Paul (Kekai) Manansala <sac5...@saclink2.csus.edu> wrote in article
: <576cvb$3...@news.csus.edu>...
: > Elson,
: >
: > You seem to be under some misconception that your approach is
: > superior to mine, which shows your flawed views. There are many
: > different ways to approach a problem. You can approach things
: > anyway you want, but don't expect me to make the same mistakes.
: >
: > Paul Kekai Manansala
:
: Paul,
: You seem to be under some misconception that your approach is
: superior to mine, which shows your flawed views. There are many
: different ways to approach a problem. You can approach things
: anyway you want, but don't expect me to make the same mistakes.
: Elson Raymund Garrote Trinidad
Finally, you're learning, Elson!
Paul Kekai Manansala
Elson Trinidad
Kristian Jensen
On 22/11/96 16:39, in message <574hg7$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, Paul Kekai
Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote:
> In article <N.112296....@ip55.image.dk>,
> klje...@image.dk (Kristian Jensen) wrote:
> >On 21/11/96 16:31, in message <571ski$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, Paul Kekai
> >Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3293E9...@digital.net>,
> >> Larry Pendarvis <u...@digital.net> wrote:
------------------------snip-----------------------------
> earlier dates than the Norse ones. Unfortunately, due to Eurocentric
> attitudes all
> evidence is always looked at from one viewpoint.
>
> Paul Kekai Manansala
You basically state that there is no nordic remains at Greenland and that there
is only one site in Greenland, well... there are a lot of archaeological finds
in Southern Greenland - both Inuit and nordic.
I'll name a few: Of the Eastern viking settlement near Narsaq, Qaqortoq, and
Nanortalik there is Brattahlid (Erik the Red's Estate), Bishop's Residence at
Gander (near Igaliku in Narsaq), and there is the church ruin at Hvalsey (near
Qaqortoq). Of the Western settlement we have a smaller less preserved sites
near Nuuk (the capital of Greenland). Archeological finds of the Middle
settlement is near Ivittuut.
The evidences that supports that these WERE permanent settlements stems from
the fact that there ARE viking burial sites near the aforementioned
settlements. If such are not caucasian human remains, I don't know what is.
There are also remains of domesticated animals to a lesser extent.
As for linguistic remnants, well... vocally... the nordic settlers in Greenland
were eventually assimilated with the Inuits when isolation took place. The last
time Greenland was mentioned in documents was in 1409, after this the colony
faded away into the realm of the forgotten. At around this time the Little Ice
Age had already begun and brought with it climatic changes. With this in mind,
it should be obvious that the isolated settlers were left in a harsher
environment to survive in. If the settlers were ever to survive, I think the
best way was to learn from the Inuits who were better adapted to polar
conditions than the Vikings. Thus, the Viking settlers either died out or were
eventually absorbed into Inuit culture. The Nordic language in Greenland
disappeared. The vikings are also known for their ability to adapt a local
culture and language. Russia was named after a viking leader named Rus who
settled in Russia. The descendants of these vikings don't speak Scandinavian at
all. In Normandy - North-western France, vikings also settled there but today
we do not consider their descendants Scandinavians either.
As for the written linguistic remnants -runes, these were seldomly used by the
Vikings themselves except on special occasions. It takes a lot of effort to
carve runes on wood or on stone for that matter. Runes were considered magical
and only a few knew how to read them. It goes without saying that whatever
runic remains that may exist in Greenland or in N. America are very scarce.
Most of the runes would be found where there is a denser concentration of
Nordic people; Scandinavia, Iceland, and some other parts of Northern Europe.
Reflecting deeper on what you have said, I think you have confused the finds in
Greenland with the ONE site in Newfoundland. This one site, at L'Anse aux
Meadows, is unique. The site was NOT a settlement much like those in Iceland or
Greenland. It was a base of operations where Nordic travelers to and from the
New World wintered before proceeding with expeditions (due to limitations on
seasonal time spans and remoteness). Therefore, there are no burial sites here
(burial sites being a requirement for any permanent settlement). There is
strong proof from artifacts that this site was definitely Nordic. Perhaps the
strongest evidence on the site is the uncovering of an iron-ore smithery. The
native indians in N. America did NOT use iron. Several iron nails were also
found on the site. Iron was also not plentiful in Greenland.
Finally, on your last point -Eurocentric views, I agree that most of world
history is written in a European viewpoint. Even the word "Discovery" in World
History is pretty Eurocentric. It implies that Europeans discovered parts of
the world when in reality the natives were there before the Europeans. But
where do we draw the line? Do we say that the Tabon Cave-man (homo erectus
tabon) discovered the Philippines before the negritos? Still most scholars
agree that the first settlers of the Philippines were the negritos. Is this
because the Tabon Cave-man is now extinct? Perhaps. We can apply this to
Greenland. Who first discovered Greenland? Archaeologists estimate that the
Vikings and the Inuit ancestors (Thule people of the Dorset and small-tool
tradition) arrived on the Island at about the same time. But because the there
are no survivors of the Nordic settlers today, do we say the Inuits were ones
that discovered Greenland? Perhaps. But we can´t say that they were the first
who discovered North America. If we have to be concise, we probably have to say
that the South American aboriginals were the ones who discovered North America.
Discovery, is a chapter in World History. Part of this chapter is dedicated to
the Nordic Explorations. But Nordic Exploration is also a part of European
history, afterall the vikings ARE Europeans. So just because the vikings are
Europeans, Paul, you can't just assume that this Nordic history in North
America is Eurocentric. It isn't more Eurocentric than anything else that is
part of European history.
I'm cross posting this to soc.culture.nordic since they might be interested in
this discussion.
Kristian Jensen
Paul (Kekai) Manansala
Kristian Jensen (klje...@image.dk) wrote:
: On 22/11/96 16:39, in message <574hg7$85o...@dialin.csus.edu>, Paul Kekai
: Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote:
'
Are you referring to pre-columbian remains? Vikings were not Christian
so how could church ruins pertain to them? There is only one site that is
claimed to be pre-columbian.
: The evidences that supports that these WERE permanent settlements stems from
: the fact that there ARE viking burial sites near the aforementioned
: settlements. If such are not caucasian human remains, I don't know what is.
: There are also remains of domesticated animals to a lesser extent.
There is no evidence of any domesticated animals from Europe in pre-columbian
Greenland.
: As for linguistic remnants, well... vocally... the nordic settlers in Greenland
: were eventually assimilated with the Inuits when isolation took place. The last
: time Greenland was mentioned in documents was in 1409, after this the colony
: faded away into the realm of the forgotten. At around this time the Little Ice
: Age had already begun and brought with it climatic changes. With this in mind,
: it should be obvious that the isolated settlers were left in a harsher
: environment to survive in. If the settlers were ever to survive, I think the
: best way was to learn from the Inuits who were better adapted to polar
: conditions than the Vikings. Thus, the Viking settlers either died out or were
: eventually absorbed into Inuit culture. The Nordic language in Greenland
: disappeared. The vikings are also known for their ability to adapt a local
: culture and language. Russia was named after a viking leader named Rus who
: settled in Russia. The descendants of these vikings don't speak Scandinavian at
: all. In Normandy - North-western France, vikings also settled there but today
: we do not consider their descendants Scandinavians either.
I doubt very much if one could buy the idea of the Vikings being completely
assimilated by Inuits. Still, even if this was the case, one should still
expect a Nordic substratum in the local languages. There is none.
: As for the written linguistic remnants -runes, these were seldomly used by the
: Vikings themselves except on special occasions. It takes a lot of effort to
: carve runes on wood or on stone for that matter. Runes were considered magical
: and only a few knew how to read them. It goes without saying that whatever
: runic remains that may exist in Greenland or in N. America are very scarce.
: Most of the runes would be found where there is a denser concentration of
: Nordic people; Scandinavia, Iceland, and some other parts of Northern Europe.
This is really can be explained in more than one one. I don't think that
most specialists accept these pictographs as being related. We are
getting into Thor Heyerdahl-type archaeology here.
: Reflecting deeper on what you have said, I think you have confused the finds in
: Greenland with the ONE site in Newfoundland. This one site, at L'Anse aux
: Meadows, is unique. The site was NOT a settlement much like those in Iceland or
: Greenland. It was a base of operations where Nordic travelers to and from the
: New World wintered before proceeding with expeditions (due to limitations on
: seasonal time spans and remoteness). Therefore, there are no burial sites here
: (burial sites being a requirement for any permanent settlement). There is
: strong proof from artifacts that this site was definitely Nordic. Perhaps the
: strongest evidence on the site is the uncovering of an iron-ore smithery. The
: native indians in N. America did NOT use iron. Several iron nails were also
: found on the site. Iron was also not plentiful in Greenland.
Again, there is no evidence of Nordic people at L'Anse aux Meadows, just
a site of questionable dating. There are no Nordic skeletal remains,
nor any sign that Nordics were ever here in terms of the language and
physical traits of the local people.
: Finally, on your last point -Eurocentric views, I agree that most of world
: history is written in a European viewpoint. Even the word "Discovery" in World
: History is pretty Eurocentric. It implies that Europeans discovered parts of
: the world when in reality the natives were there before the Europeans. But
: where do we draw the line? Do we say that the Tabon Cave-man (homo erectus
: tabon) discovered the Philippines before the negritos? Still most scholars
: agree that the first settlers of the Philippines were the negritos. Is this
: because the Tabon Cave-man is now extinct? Perhaps. We can apply this to
: Greenland. Who first discovered Greenland? Archaeologists estimate that the
: Vikings and the Inuit ancestors (Thule people of the Dorset and small-tool
: tradition) arrived on the Island at about the same time. But because the there
: are no survivors of the Nordic settlers today, do we say the Inuits were ones
: that discovered Greenland? Perhaps. But we can´t say that they were the first
: who discovered North America. If we have to be concise, we probably have to say
: that the South American aboriginals were the ones who discovered North America.
: Discovery, is a chapter in World History. Part of this chapter is dedicated to
: the Nordic Explorations. But Nordic Exploration is also a part of European
: history, afterall the vikings ARE Europeans. So just because the vikings are
: Europeans, Paul, you can't just assume that this Nordic history in North
: America is Eurocentric. It isn't more Eurocentric than anything else that is
: part of European history.
You're not referring to unbiased scholarship here, but just the opposite.
The interpretations are forced and more reasonable alternatives are
ignored. You ignored the possiblity that the Greenland site may have
been an Eskimo settlement that made contact with Europe. The only native
people there are Eskimo not Nordic. Again, there is no evidence of
any pre-columbian European contact with the Western Hemispere.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Henrik Ernoe
In article <57i807$j...@news.csus.edu>, sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu (Paul
(Kekai) Manansala) wrote:
> Are you referring to pre-columbian remains? Vikings were not Christian
> so how could church ruins pertain to them? There is only one site that is
> claimed to be pre-columbian.
Vikings were not Christian, strange! King Harald Bluetooth of Denmark
makes Christianity the state religion in 864 AD and builds the first
church in Jelling Denmark. Numerous crosses and other christian relics
have been found in Viking graves in Scandinavia as well as in Greenland.
In fact the Vikings were christians in the whole later period of the
Viking age which is about 300 years.
> There is no evidence of any domesticated animals from Europe in pre-columbian
> Greenland.
Wrong, bones of sheep, horses and cattle have been found dating to 1200 AD
in the settlements of both Österbygden and Westerbygden in Greenland.
> This is really can be explained in more than one one. I don't think that
> most specialists accept these pictographs as being related. We are
> getting into Thor Heyerdahl-type archaeology here.
Wrong again, Numerous runic *texts*, not pictograms!, have been found
in Greenland, craved on household objects or as staves found the coffins
in the graveyard in Vesterbygden. Some of these inworking the blessings
of the saints or the Virgin Mary to protect the soul of the dead.
In addition, you should know that during the exgavation of the
graveyards of Vesterbygden more than 100 skeletons, as well as well
preserved clothes have been found. The human remains are undoubtly
european as are the clothes which have been dated to the 11th century.
> You're not referring to unbiased scholarship here, but just the opposite.
> The interpretations are forced and more reasonable alternatives are
> ignored.
What a load of BS. You are simply ignoring loads of archelogials
artefacts+ historical texts! You should really do a bit of reading on this
subject or go and visit the National Museums in Nuuk, Greenland or
Copenhagen, Denmark.
. Again, there is no evidence of
> any pre-columbian European contact with the Western Hemispere.
Bizarre, so all the artefacts and human remains displayed at the museums
mentioned above are fakes?
To claim that the are no evidence of precolombian european presence in
Greenland is so ridiculous, that there is no reason togive you any
credits for serious scholarship whatsoever.
henrik ernoe
Kristian Jensen
On 28/11/96 12:06, in message <erno-28119...@news.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe
<er...@wotan.ens.fr> wrote:
G'day Henrik,
This all started out as an innocent correction to Paul Manansala when he
mentioned in the earlier parts of this thread that the Nordic discoveries of N.
America are just myths. I have tried to give him what I know as proofs of the
Nordic settlements in Greenland since it is undoubtebly a part of N. America. I
myself thought that what I provided as proofs was sufficient enough. I would
especially think that graves and nordic remains in Greenland that is clearly
caucasian is enough proof to convince him. I really do not know what makes Paul
so stubborn.
I applaud the comments you have made and hope by now that Paul is convinced. I
have heard so much about the museum's collection of archeological finds from
Greenland's Nordic history. Before seeing your post, I had planned to go to the
National Museum here in Copenhagen to do a bit more research so that I might
better convince our friend. Despite your (in my opinion) very convincing post,
I'm still going to the National Museum tomorrow to have a peek.
Thanks,
Kristian
ta...@interport.net
er...@wotan.ens.fr (Henrik Ernoe) writes:
> In article <57i807$j...@news.csus.edu>, sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu (Paul
> (Kekai) Manansala) wrote:
>
> > You're not referring to unbiased scholarship here, but just the opposite.
> > The interpretations are forced and more reasonable alternatives are
> > ignored.
>
>
> What a load of BS. You are simply ignoring loads of archelogials
> artefacts+ historical texts! You should really do a bit of reading on this
> subject or go and visit the National Museums in Nuuk, Greenland or
> Copenhagen, Denmark.
>
> . Again, there is no evidence of
> > any pre-columbian European contact with the Western Hemispere.
>
> Bizarre, so all the artefacts and human remains displayed at the museums
> mentioned above are fakes?
>
> To claim that the are no evidence of precolombian european presence in
> Greenland is so ridiculous, that there is no reason togive you any
> credits for serious scholarship whatsoever.
>
> henrik ernoe
=============
You have to understand that Paul is an intellectual midget whose only claim to
fame is his seemingly endless capacity for ignorance!
Tac7
Rhett Valino Pascual
In article <N.112996....@ip110.image.dk>,
Kristian Jensen <klje...@image.dk> wrote:
>caucasian is enough proof to convince him. I really do not know what makes Paul
>so stubborn.
>
>I applaud the comments you have made and hope by now that Paul is convinced. I
>have heard so much about the museum's collection of archeological finds from
>Greenland's Nordic history. Before seeing your post, I had planned to go to the
>National Museum here in Copenhagen to do a bit more research so that I might
>better convince our friend. Despite your (in my opinion) very convincing post,
>I'm still going to the National Museum tomorrow to have a peek.
I was reading this thread and the best way to present these evidence is to
cite a book or a publication from a reputable historical journal. Include
the date, volume and page numbers. Otherwise, no one can see for
themselves whether what is written by someone has scientific foundation or
not.
REtong
--
Paul (Kekai) Manansala
Henrik Ernoe (er...@wotan.ens.fr) wrote:
: In article <57i807$j...@news.csus.edu>, sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu (Paul
: (Kekai) Manansala) wrote:
:
: > Are you referring to pre-columbian remains? Vikings were not Christian
: > so how could church ruins pertain to them? There is only one site that is
: > claimed to be pre-columbian.
: Vikings were not Christian, strange! King Harald Bluetooth of Denmark
: makes Christianity the state religion in 864 AD and builds the first
: church in Jelling Denmark. Numerous crosses and other christian relics
: have been found in Viking graves in Scandinavia as well as in Greenland.
: In fact the Vikings were christians in the whole later period of the
: Viking age which is about 300 years.
That the Vikings followed mostly the Norse religion during the Viking
period is verified by most historical works. Viking kings, here and
there, embraced Christianity, for example, Rollo embraced the religion
around 912. During most of the period, the Vikings were referred to in
historical works as heathens and pagans.
:
: > There is no evidence of any domesticated animals from Europe in pre-columbian
: > Greenland.
: Wrong, bones of sheep, horses and cattle have been found dating to 1200 AD
: in the settlements of both Österbygden and Westerbygden in Greenland.
I doubt if such datings are accurate. Dating is not absolute and has to
be verified by stratigraphic context. If you read a book entitled
"Forbidden Archaeology," you'll find all kinds of wild dates including
iron dated to millions of years ago. Graham Hancock might be interested
in these dates though.
:
: > This is really can be explained in more than one one. I don't think that
: > most specialists accept these pictographs as being related. We are
: > getting into Thor Heyerdahl-type archaeology here.
: Wrong again, Numerous runic *texts*, not pictograms!, have been found
: in Greenland, craved on household objects or as staves found the coffins
: in the graveyard in Vesterbygden. Some of these inworking the blessings
: of the saints or the Virgin Mary to protect the soul of the dead.
Barry Fell et al. have been trying to connect "runes" in North America
with Celtic and other scripts for some time. There is not accepted
evidence of Christianity in Greenland before Columbus.
: In addition, you should know that during the exgavation of the
: graveyards of Vesterbygden more than 100 skeletons, as well as well
: preserved clothes have been found. The human remains are undoubtly
: european as are the clothes which have been dated to the 11th century.
Sorry, no European skeletons have been found in the Western hemisphere.
Some people have tried to claim that "Proto-Caucasoids" have been found
there, but this is just Eurocentric anthropology again. The traits
considered proto-Caucasoid are simply variation that have been present
in the Western Hemisphere for the longest time. For example, Eskimos
themselves as a type have prominent noses (See Stephen Molnar's _Human
Variation-) and this has nothing to do with European admixture.
Also, I don't think the datings you give for European clothes are widely
accepted although they prove nothing concerning racial type.
:
: > You're not referring to unbiased scholarship here, but just the opposite.
: > The interpretations are forced and more reasonable alternatives are
: > ignored.
: What a load of BS. You are simply ignoring loads of archelogials
: artefacts+ historical texts! You should really do a bit of reading on this
: subject or go and visit the National Museums in Nuuk, Greenland or
: Copenhagen, Denmark.
Its just biased nonsense, like Thor Heyerdahl trying to claim Mayans and
Polynesians were blond Nordics. When the English explored Greenland
in the 16th century the only people there were Inuits. No Nordics, no
Nordic language, nada. Nor have any "European" skeletons ever been
found with verified datings from the pre-Columbian period.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Kristian Jensen
On 01/12/96 22:04, in message <57srtj$e...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Rhett Valino
Pascual <gldn...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I was reading this thread and the best way to present these evidence is to
> cite a book or a publication from a reputable historical journal. Include
> the date, volume and page numbers. Otherwise, no one can see for
> themselves whether what is written by someone has scientific foundation or
> not.
>
>
> REtong
>
> --
I am not a scholar on the subject of Nordic exploration, as such I do not read
historical journals. I do have reputable books on the subject but they are in
Danish. If I was to cite Danish books then nobody here will be able to read
them anyway. I have gone to the National Museum here in Copenhagen and have
seen the exhibit of Nordic Greenland which includes several things. On display
are artifacts from the archaeological diggings; clothing, skeletons, crosses
from the churches, rosaries, boxes with runic inscriptions, etc. Then there are
also pictures of the church ruins in Greenland. I seriously do not believe
pre-columbian inuits built churches. I have seen pictures of the graves. One of
the graves was a of a bishop in Gardar. This could be seen by the fact that the
individual was buried with his bishop's staff and his bishop's ring. Out of
respect, this grave is no covered again with a more permanent gravestone on top
with writings in both Danish and Greenlandic-Inuit. But if you people out there
want a really good book, I can cite a Danish book (I do not know if there is an
English edition of it) published by the National Museum: "Erik den Rodes
Gronland/Qallunaat-siaaqarfik Kalaallit Nunaat" by Knud J. Krogh. It is a book
written in both Inuit and Danish with a detailed account of all the Nordic
finds in Greenland. It includes pictures, maps, and diagrams. But as for an
existence of an English edition I do not know. If I was to translate the title,
it would be called, "Eric the Red's Greenland".
-Kristian
Kristian Jensen
I have recently gone to the National Museum here in Copenhagen to see the
Nordic Greenland exhibit and artifacts myself. From what I have seen and read
recently, I know that there is strong evidence of the Vikings being in North
America before Columbus.
On 02/12/96 01:25, in message <57t7lh$c...@news.csus.edu>, Paul (Kekai)
Manansala <sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu> wrote:
> Henrik Ernoe (er...@wotan.ens.fr) wrote:
> : In article <57i807$j...@news.csus.edu>, sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu (Paul
> : (Kekai) Manansala) wrote:
> :
> : > Are you referring to pre-columbian remains? Vikings were not Christian
> : > so how could church ruins pertain to them? There is only one site that is
> : > claimed to be pre-columbian.
>
> : Vikings were not Christian, strange! King Harald Bluetooth of Denmark
> : makes Christianity the state religion in 864 AD and builds the first
> : church in Jelling Denmark. Numerous crosses and other christian relics
> : have been found in Viking graves in Scandinavia as well as in Greenland.
>
> : In fact the Vikings were christians in the whole later period of the
> : Viking age which is about 300 years.
>
>
> That the Vikings followed mostly the Norse religion during the Viking
> period is verified by most historical works. Viking kings, here and
> there, embraced Christianity, for example, Rollo embraced the religion
> around 912. During most of the period, the Vikings were referred to in
> historical works as heathens and pagans.
True, the vikings were heathens during most of the viking period. But the
Nordic people themselves were Christians in the later part of the Viking period
and all of the medieval period. I myself have seen the holy runic stone at the
church in Jelling, Denmark. It portrays Jesus on the cross surounded in runic
writings. What Henrik has said is true, that Harald Bluetooth declared
Norway-Denmark Christian.
Most Vikings did not accept the Christian faith at the time, but Christianity
nevertheless spread across the Nordic world, including Greenland. By the 12th
century, all of the Nordic people where Christians to a certain extent,
although some still practiced paganism in private. According to sagas, the
first church in Greenland was built by Leif Ericsson at about 1000 AD. However,
no one is sure when exactly the first church in Greenland was built. But
numerous Nordic church ruins dot the Southern Greenlandic landscape. I have
seen pictures of these masonry ruins. Around these ruins, archeaologists have
dug out an entire grave of Nordic people. Some finds included clothes of these
people. I have seen these clothes in the National Museum here in Copenhagen and
they look very medieval - many with hoods with a long tail or tassle. The
period in which these nordic people lived in Greenland was up to the late 15th
century - the medieval period in Europe. This is the period in which most if
not all of Europe had bowed down to Christianity.
Are you telling me that these ruins were built by the pre-columbian Inuits? Are
you telling me that pre-columbian Inuits practiced Christianity and built
churches in Greenland. Are you telling me that pre-columbian Inuits carved
runes on their holy crucifixes? Are you telling me that Inuits weaved wool into
medieval European clothing? Are you telling me that pre-columbian Inuits raised
sheep, horses, and cattle? And finally, are you telling me that the over 300
archeaological sites and ruins in Greenland that has been positively identified
as Nordic is only ONE site?!?!
>
> :
> : > There is no evidence of any domesticated animals from Europe in
> pre-columbian
> : > Greenland.
>
> : Wrong, bones of sheep, horses and cattle have been found dating to 1200 AD
> : in the settlements of both Österbygden and Westerbygden in Greenland.
>
>
> I doubt if such datings are accurate. Dating is not absolute and has to
> be verified by stratigraphic context. If you read a book entitled
> "Forbidden Archaeology," you'll find all kinds of wild dates including
> iron dated to millions of years ago. Graham Hancock might be interested
> in these dates though.
>
Are you telling me that all the archeaological studies in Greenland made by the
Danish, Greenlandic, Nordic, and other governments are innacurate? Are you
telling me that the archeaologists of these countries are not competent in
their work? Don't you think you owe the several archeaologists of these
countries a little more credit?
Carbon dating has been used where appropriate. With regards to stratigraphical
studies of the soil.. studies have shown that in the layer of the
archeaological sites pertaining to when Nordic colonization took place, the
soil shows that grass was the dominating vegetation. This layer also shows an
abundant content of charcoal. This combination is typical when agriculture
based societies settle the area. Before this layer, it shows that willow
bushes/trees dominated the vegetation.
> :
> : > This is really can be explained in more than one one. I don't think that
> : > most specialists accept these pictographs as being related. We are
> : > getting into Thor Heyerdahl-type archaeology here.
>
> : Wrong again, Numerous runic *texts*, not pictograms!, have been found
> : in Greenland, carved on household objects or as staves found the coffins
> : in the graveyard in Vesterbygden. Some of these inworking the blessings
> : of the saints or the Virgin Mary to protect the soul of the dead.
>
> Barry Fell et al. have been trying to connect "runes" in North America
> with Celtic and other scripts for some time. There is not accepted
> evidence of Christianity in Greenland before Columbus.
What about the several church ruins that are seen dotting the Southern
Greenland landscape?!! When these church ruins were excavated, several church
artifacts were found. Wooden and/or narwhale-ivory crucifixes with runic
inscriptions. In a site called Gardar, a bishop's grave was found. The body was
buried together with a bishops' staff and a bishops' ring. The staff itself was
of Nordic design similar to bishops' staffs found in Iceland. Some of the
coffins also had blessings of saints and the Virgin Mary in runic. Within some
coffins, a piece of wood can be found with runic inscriptions stating who the
deceased is and where/when the deceased died. These artifacts ARE accepted
evidence of Christianity in Greenland before Columbus.
>
> : In addition, you should know that during the exgavation of the
> : graveyards of Vesterbygden more than 100 skeletons, as well as well
> : preserved clothes have been found. The human remains are undoubtly
> : european as are the clothes which have been dated to the 11th century.
>
> Sorry, no European skeletons have been found in the Western hemisphere.
> Some people have tried to claim that "Proto-Caucasoids" have been found
> there, but this is just Eurocentric anthropology again. The traits
> considered proto-Caucasoid are simply variation that have been present
> in the Western Hemisphere for the longest time. For example, Eskimos
> themselves as a type have prominent noses (See Stephen Molnar's _Human
> Variation-) and this has nothing to do with European admixture.
> Also, I don't think the datings you give for European clothes are widely
> accepted although they prove nothing concerning racial type.
Sorry, there ARE European skeletons that have been found in Greenland. Once
again, the excavations of the church ruins reveals several skeletons of
European features. If these were Inuit skeletons, then the cephalic features of
Inuit skulls would surely show. I believe that you are aware that prominent
noses is not the only thing that one looks at to identify the race of a
skeleton. Christian skeletons are also more likely to be Nordic from Iceland
rather than Inuit. As it is, the skulls in the graves are Nordic.
The clothes that are found there are also Medieval European. Are you telling me
that pre-columbian Inuits weaved clothes out of wool? Are you telling me that
the pre-columbian Inuits made and used the weaving-looms that has been found?
Are you telling me that the mill-stones that are found were used by
pre-columbian Inuits to grind grains? Inuits were not farmers, they were
nomadic and did not raise sheep or grow any grains. Are you telling me that the
woven clothes that were made were sewn together by pre-columbian Inuits to
resemble European Medieval clothing? Inuits wore seal-skin kamiks and boots.
All in all, are you telling me that pre-columbian Inuit culture resembled
European agricultural society to such a stricking degree, only to be forgotten
a couple of centuries later just before Frobisher rediscovered the island? With
so many things that have been found in the numerous Nordic ruins and sites
around Southern Greenland, I really doubt that there is any reason to doubt the
existence of Nordic people in pre-columbian Greenland.
> :
> : > You're not referring to unbiased scholarship here, but just the opposite.
> : > The interpretations are forced and more reasonable alternatives are
> : > ignored.
>
> : What a load of BS. You are simply ignoring loads of archelogials
> : artefacts+ historical texts! You should really do a bit of reading on this
> : subject or go and visit the National Museums in Nuuk, Greenland or
> : Copenhagen, Denmark.
>
> Its just biased nonsense, like Thor Heyerdahl trying to claim Mayans and
> Polynesians were blond Nordics. When the English explored Greenland
> in the 16th century the only people there were Inuits. No Nordics, no
> Nordic language, nada. Nor have any "European" skeletons ever been
> found with verified datings from the pre-Columbian period.
>
>
> Paul Kekai Manansala
No, not nonsense. This is nothing like Thor Heyerdahl. Of course Thor
Heyerdahl's theories are not widely accepted. Thor Heyerdahl only had wild
theories based on stories which he attempted to prove by his adventures on the
sea. He did not have any archeaological evidences of his wild ideas. Greenland
on the other hand not only has viking sagas that tell of Nordic settlement in
Greenland, not only has Inuit stories that tell of violent conflicts with
bearded men, it also has several Nordic ruins and Nordic churches dotting the
Southern Greenland landscape. It has church graves of European people dressed
in European clothing. There are graves of Medieval Bishops. It has European
farm artifacts such as the mill-stones and weaving-looms. There are bones of
sheeps, cattle, and horses dating from the Medieval period. There are iron
weapons and farm tools like spearheads and sickles (note that iron is not
abundant in Greenland, nor is there any evidence that Inuits used iron tools or
practiced agriculture). There are toy viking ships that nordic children once
played with. There are chess pieces that adults played with. There are so many
Nordic artifacts/findings in Southern Greenland that to deny pre-columbian
Nordic settlement in Greenland is preposterous.
Its true that when the English explored Greenland in the 16th century there was
only Inuits. No nordic people? - true. No nordic language? - true. Nada?
-false, there were ruins. Danish colonizers found these ruins without being
entirely sure themselves what they were. But today archeaological excavations
of these sites makes us quite sure.
No one really knows today what happened to the Nordic settlers, but the
generally accepted theory is that they simply died off. Early medieval
documents records trade with Greenland for fur and narwhale-ivory up until the
late 1300s. Medieval documents in Iceland records the posting of Bishops to
Greenland in the same period where the last bishop of Greenland died at 1378.
When a trade route to the ivories of Africa was found instead to be more
economical, trade with Greenland ceased. The last medieval records of living
Nordic people in Greenland was on the year 1409. After this, interest in
Greenland ceased and the colony was neglected.
Paul, you should really take a look at the the artifacts and pictures in the
Museums in either Copenhagen, Denmark or Nuuk, Greenland. If you can't, you
should take a look at historical texts regarding this. Take a look at the
pictures of the ruins. I must agree with Henrik that you ARE ignoring SO much
of these. Someone once told me that the discovery of once own ignorance is the
key to knowledge - I myself have certainly learned a lot of things I previously
did not know by researching for the contribution to this thread.
-Kristian Ligsay Jensen
PS. The sources from which I have gathered the facts for my post are Danish
books I have borrowed from the Head Library in Copenhagen, and descriptions I
have gathered at the Danish National Museum. If for some reason, you'd still
want me to cite these Danish sources, I will try and translate them for you.