America Unearthed–Pre-Columbian Celts?

Comments on America Unearthed—Pre-Colulmbian Celts in America?Is it possible that Europeans were in America prior to Christopher Columbus?
When I was in grade school it was theorized that the old Norse legend about a guy called Leif Ericson might be true. A few years later, due to the intense archeological effort of the Norwegian explorer, Helge Ingstad, and his wife, Anne Ingstad, a site at L’Anse aux Meadows , Newfoundland, was excavated and evidence proved that the Norse were in America in Ericson’s time. The evidence consisted of a few iron artifacts and typical Norse building construction, a construction that was distinctly different from native construction.

Leif Ericson coins produced simultaneously in Iceland and US in 2000

Leif Ericson coins produced simultaneously in Iceland and US in 2000

During my life time I have heard conflicting and sometimes silly statements from alleged experts regarding the Norse explorers. I point these out to show how the educated and knowledgeable often trot down poorly considered theoretical paths in their formulation about prehistory, legendary, or mythical times.
Example 1: Eric the Red named the place Greenland to trick settlers into moving there. This statement assumes Greenland was the icy uninhabitable place we are familiar with today.
The truth is that Viking settlers farmed, raised cattle, and thrived in Greenland throughout the Medieval Warm Period up until the beginning of the Little Ice Age, centuries later. It is noteworthy that the Little Ice Age formally lasted from 1350 to 1850. Yes it ended less than 200 years ago. Are you surprised that Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age? Aren’t you pleased that it did?
Also it is said that Leif repeated his father’s trickery by naming his New World colony, Vinland, ha, ha, as if grapes could grow in Newfoundland. Maybe they could. During the Medieval Warm Period wine produced from English grapes rivaled French wines. One might ask, “Why did the Norse settle in Newfoundland if it were inhospitable? Were they afraid to sail down the American coast to a warmer, more pleasant location? Maybe we should ask it this way: Were the explorers who explored Russia, founded Kiev, founded Dublin, attacked Constantinople, etc. afraid to sail down the benign American coast to find a reasonable location for their colony? My guess is that Newfoundland was a reasonable location, warmer than now, and, yes, with grapes growing wild. I also think that the Norse explored south along the coast as well. It would be inconsistent with their character to have done otherwise.
We know the Norse were here about 1000 A.D., so why not the Celts, or someone else, at the same time or earlier?
Two main reasons are given:1. No certifiable Celtic artifacts have been found here.
Counter point: Norse artifacts would not have been found except for the effort of two people, Helge Ingstad and his wife.
2. Prior to the Vikings, there were no seaworthy ships to bring people from Europe to America.
Counter point: At Bygdoy, in Oslo, there are four museums to Norse exploration. These are: the Fram Museum, The Viking Ship Museum, the Nortic Marine Museum, and the Kon Tiki Museum (Thor Heyerdahl). Thor Heyerdahl spent his life demonstrating that humans could migrate from continent to continent in the most basic of watercrafts: a balsa wood raft in the case of the successful Kon Tiki Expedition, and an Egyptian reed boat, in the case of the almost successful Ra Expedition.
A typical Clovis Point, a tool of the first Americans

A typical Clovis Point, tool of the first Americans

Further evidence against the first argument is the presence of the Clovis point, the unique stone projectile design of the first Americans that was first found near Clovis, New Mexico. Subsequent to its first discovery, the projectiles were found on the East Coast of the US—and in France.
Solutrean tools, the Clovis points of Europe

Solutrean tools, the Clovis points of Europe

Well I lie, the projectiles and tools found in France, are called Solutrean, but this technique is remarkably close to that of the Clovis, and there have been NO Clovis points or tools found in Alaska where the original Americans were believed to have crossed over from Asia.
Furthermore, there is a plethora of Native American stories about white settlers, or brothers. Remember the Aztecs thought Cortez was a returning white god.
So is it possible that the Celts or others were in America before Columbus? No, not until we uncover evidence which is certifiable, but when we do, well, then, why of course they were here.

Total Page Visits: 2391 - Today Page Visits: 1
This entry was posted in Science Commentary, Scii-fi Science Hybrid and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to America Unearthed–Pre-Columbian Celts?

  1. Brade says:

    In response to your statement that prior to the Norse no vessels could make it to America. It is known and accepted that fishermen from the British isles and Iceland were fishing off the grand banks up to 4000 years ago. Also a man successfully completed a journey from Ireland to America and back in a period correct Celtic currach. Also Many of the surviving Celtic myth speaks of the isles of the blessed far away to the west.

    • admin says:

      Please reread what I wrote. As far as “It is known and accepted that fishermen from the British Isles and Iceland were fishing off the Grand Banks…” I would love a reference, because this is the first time I’ve heard that. As far as I know the Vikings were the first settlers in Iceland, about 1200 years ago. Wikipedia says there may have been monks there a hundred years earlier. That’s still a far cry from 4000 years ago. Again if you have a source, I would love to read it.

  2. Magyar(Hungarian) / Mayan languages (pg. 713):
    Hungarian / Penutian:

    According to the count of Timaru-Kast Sándor, what is today considered Celtic languages still share 1800 words with Magyar, here is a short translated work on the subject:
    Magyar/Scottish relationship:
    Arthurian legends / Sarmatians:

    The latter one is interesting because Arthur and the Sarmatians appear around the time of Atilla as well, which all revolves around the time of Quetzalcoatl. Atilla and Arthur, beyond also having phonologically similar names (R and L consonant morphing occurs frequently), and bearing similar colours and emblems (here I refer to the Báthory family, who are officially considered Swabian, however they had always proudly held of themselves that they are descendants of Atilla – the family coat of arms is a green dragon with red and white centre – much like the reconstruction of Galicia’s flag (once united by “Swabian” nobility – and according to Chronicon Pictum Atilla’s Ispán’s (captaincy) settled in Iberia, and henceforth it is named (h)Ispania) or the Cymraeg flag, only with the colours switched — Milesius from Irish oral tradition might have something to do with the two coasts as well?), is also interesting because both of their deaths were quite unaccounted for. Erik, by the way bears a name simply meaning “King”, and in fact, if read form right-to-left (Rovás(Magyar Runic) goes from right-to-left), it is Kire – where Király(pron:”Kiraey”) means KiNG in HuNGarian. VikiNG, also bears a telling name. Vik in swedish means bay – whereas Lik means hole in Hungarian, Lék means “hole into which water has come into”, it is pronounced like the eNGlish Lake. Bay is öBöl. L-Y are also frequently morphed into one-another. From then on it is interesting that the male form of Viking is actually ViKiNGR in old scandinavian, because Viking is feminine. “úR” is an ancient etymon found as far back as in KNGRia(what Sumerians called themselves – although “Szem” also means eye…), ÚR means lOrd – off the top of my head in Cymraeg it is Gwr, and in Breton it is Gour – this means husband, in HungArian Úr is both lord and husband (and the bride is MenyAsszony, literarily meaning HeavenWoman. In dances you can observe the man holding the epicentre of the woman who holds him within, like heaven does to the lord). If we were only to look at the “NG” particle, Enki is the water-goat that bridges the two worlds, much like Noah’s Ark (which when translated into Hungarian Noé BáRKa, with a dialectical change becomes Női BuRoK meaning “woman’s womb” (indeed there is a great sea in there, where one comes from The Old World to The New World)). Apart from that Hungarian affix -enki is used as “-body” such as Everybody: Mindenki, Nobody: Senki, etc… If broken into two particles, it is made up of “éN” meaning “Me”, and “Ki” as in who(m) (»Qui for e.g.). Summarisedly Viking would be best defined as “Lakebody”.
    Magyar is officially recognised to not have changed in the past 1000 years, and we do preserve recordedly more than 200 000 pentatonic Peoples’ songs, some of which have had their pair found in American tribes’ tradition, such as the Dakota. The pentatonic music can be accompanied by a traditional instrument – the bone flute – is the same as the bone flute found in Istállóskő, Carpatia that is 35-40 000 years old.
    Dance-wise Norwegian, Irish, Isle of Man, Sicilian, Bulgarian and Turkish, in this order, Norwegian being the closest is the closest to Magyar dancing, according to my opinion.
    The Celto-Scythe Agathyrs origin tale as recorded by Herodotus on the Scythians 5-10. 1records names that are clear Hungarian names, 2is preserved in our Peoples’ tales as of today. Norse and Celtic mythology is also made of the same elements, and I and some other scholars on the subject have been able to give understanding to the names in the afore mentioned mythologies, that had so far remained unclarified in “indo-european” terms.

  3. Walter Thomas says:

    I agree. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned about folklore is that it normally has a basis in truth. The only question is what truth and how much. While it’s true we need more concrete evidence for some theories. It’s pretty clear there must have at least been contingents of Celts here… as well as Vikings. Whether such a presence can be defined as settled as in a permanent colony is a whole different story.

  4. Ralph Walsh says:

    Modern science has only been around for 200 years, and most of what we believe as “truth” is based on folklore, legends & “what the victors of the battles wrote”. There’s so many rumored Pre-Columbian visitors to American-St. Columba from Ireland, Chinese explorers 100-200 years before Columbus, etc. We have to open our eyes, mind & countrysides to find the answers to these questions.

    • admin says:

      I would put the start of modern science at no later than Newton and Euler in 1660’s. Their principles still apply, are studied and used. For instance the landing on the moon used Newtonian physics. Einstein’s principles weren’t necessary. As far as who was here when, a shipwreck, such as that of Cabeza de Vaca or small colony, such as the Vikings’ in Newfoundland, might go undiscovered for a long time. In wouldn’t surprise me if important discoveries will come to light in the future.
      Thanks for posting.

  5. julie royce says:

    History is, indeed, a tricky and fascinating business. It’s easy to skip the documentation and jump to the conclusions.

    By the way, I downloaded your amazing novel, A Far Traveler. You did a bang-up job. Way to go Blake! I hope others discover the pleasure of reading it soon.

Leave a Reply