MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Americka? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We all know that America is named after Amerigo (Amerigus) Vespucci, the Italian explorer, but what if I was to say there is evidence to the contrary?

Firstly, naming conventions of countries always tended to be the last name of the "discoverer", eg, Columbia, Rhodesia. Therefore, America should actually be "Vespucciland" or something similar.

This alone doesn't discount Amerigo, but what if there was another candidate for the naming of the continent? There is. His name was Richard (sometimes John?) Americk (From Ap Meurig) a Bristol businessman of Welsh descent. He was one of the men who financed the trip of John Cabot to North America, the principal benefactor, he was, in essence, Cabot's "boss". Did Cabot name the land he had "found" after this boss of his? "Americka"?

Is the land named after an Italian explorer or an Anglo-Welsh Bristol businessman?
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You've been watching QI, haven't you, Tel?

The way I heard it -- on telly, years ago -- all or most of Cabot's crew had probably been before. Columbus' pilot drew a map very early on (~1495?) and labelled the north-west Atlantic "the sea the English discovered". There was a Cod War that drove our fishermen west from Iceland in the 14th century or summat. There are customs records for fishermen returning from the American coast in about 1480. There are Eskimo carvings of what look like bearded Europeans wearing tabards with crosses rather than Eskimos of any stripe. There is some indication that the Vatican knew about earlier missionaries, but didn't consider the effort to convert those souls warranted until after Columbus.

Lack of evidence of Europeans is not evidence of lack of Europeans: the French are known to have visited the same spot every year for a century, yet out of the 1000+ artefacts retrieved from the bay, 3 were from the French fishery.

"Ap Merrick-a" sounds perfectly plausible to me. {Or "A-Merrick-a"? Why does "Thomas-à-Becket" persist?}
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I love QI, but that's not where I got it from, don't think I've seen that episode.

Very enlightening about the visits to America, I think there are also some drawings and stuff from South America (Mayan/Aztec) that shows what look like Europeans, well before the "age of discovery"
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I love QI, but that's not where I got it from, don't think I've seen that episode.

Well, you were almost word perfect!


I think there are also some drawings and stuff from South America (Mayan/Aztec) that shows what look like Europeans, well before the "age of discovery"

The arguments rage over whether Quetzalcoatl (was it him?) as a bearded, white man coming again from the east was really in their mythology before Columbus and the Conquistadors... Check out the Hall of Ma'at.

---

I've lost track of the status of the Solutrean argument.

By the way, that silly programme that said the Clashing Rocks probably refers to opposing top and bottom currents through the Bosporus was on again recently... and said something to the effect that once through the Clashing Rocks, there was a long, desolate coast before Jason reached Colchis, dominated by a great river.

I've harboured thoughts on icebergs as clashing rocks for ages... but, once defeated, the Clashing Rocks no longer clash, whereas icebergs do. Still, we have discussed elsewhere a few circumstantial allusions to the strait of Dover as the Clashing Rocks {which at one time, as the Channel filled up, must have been a dangerous but tempting shortcut to the Scandinavian/North Atlantic coast}, including a Norse legend about a giant ship getting stuck there (and getting free by applying soap to the sides of the ship, which scraped off to make the white cliffs of Dover white)... and on passing the strait and following the "coast" westward, there would be a desolate expanse of ice, followed by a land with a great river, the St. Lawrence.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Tel wrote:
I think there are also some drawings and stuff from South America (Mayan/Aztec) that shows what look like Europeans, well before the "age of discovery"

My son has been reading some chap called Jim Allen (who locates Atlantis in Bolivia) and told me there's a statue of Cleopatra overlooking the oldest pyramid, in Mexico I think it was; pyramids would appear to scream out a connection between Ancient Egypt and Meso-America (how old are the pyramids in Central/South America, Tel?), not so farfetched bearing in mind the Phoenicians' seafaring propensities, but what really startled me was his mention of cocaine found in Egyptian mummies, internal use rather than part of the embalming process (medicinal purposes perhaps). The coca leaf is native to South America and was of course known to the indigenous peoples long before the Spanish arrived but it doesn't grow anywhere else.

Maybe your "Europeans" were Phoenician traders, the middlemen in a triangular trade between America and Egypt; galleys of the type the Phoenicians sailed in have been found in Central America. There's no evidence the Olmecs and Ancient Egyptians were in direct contact yet striking similarities between their civilisations are often mentioned (my son says you can get sent to prison on less evidence).
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

TelMiles wrote:
We all know that America is named after Amerigo (Amerigus) Vespucci, the Italian explorer, but what if I was to say there is evidence to the contrary?

Firstly, naming conventions of countries always tended to be the last name of the "discoverer", eg, Columbia, Rhodesia. Therefore, America should actually be "Vespucciland" or something similar.

?


I totally agree with you TelMiles, over a decade ago I met the author of a book Cabot & The Naming Of America, Peter MacDonald, who developed this thesis.

It is shown that Amerike/Ap Meryck donated more money than anyone else to funding the construction of the ship. Also, as no wood was readily available nearby, oaks from Amerike's family estate were cut down and floated down the Wye from Ross to Chepstow, over the Severn and then up the Avon to the Bristol dockyard.

The similarity of Ap Meryck's coat of arms to the American flag is tempting, too, but likely to be pure coincidence, given its complicated and well documented evolution.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why not the simple answer?

The Roman name for the peninsula of land that protrudes from modern France into the Atlantic Ocean was Armorica. ... Aremorio means 'ar' ('at', or 'before', or 'next to'), plus 'mor/mare', which means 'sea' or 'ocean'. In other words it means 'next to the sea'.


It's at the extreme edge of the known world in the west. America is another Armorica.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

America is another Armorica.

Haven’t we covered that before? ... If not we should have done.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've got a map that has Mexico named "Mexique" and America named "Amexique."

Spelling conventions went two different ways for English and Spanish and we got Mexico and America.

How is it this is even an issue when such a map exists?!? Do historians do no research???
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I've got a map that has Mexico named "Mexique" and America named "Amexique."

It's been said that the name Mexico means "center of the world".

Mexico could mean "Center of the World," and, in fact, it was represented as such in various codices

So I wonder if it simply just means "middle". That would make America then mean "a-middle" i.e. "not the middle".

Also if you pronounce the 'x' in Mexico to sound more like an 's' then Amexique is not too dissimilar to Amazon. Maison means home as well. So that would fit with the idea of something being in the centre or at the middle of a map.

Meso means middle too, and we describe that general part of the world as Meso-america. I mention it as it reminds me of the Mason-Dixon line stuff from the "Did The Dark Ages Exist?" thread.

(The word mazon also comes with some feminine word meanings. It's said to mean breast - the famed Amazonians were so named because they cut off one of their breasts (a-mazon) so they could shoot a crossbow more easily apparently. Likewise we have the word maze, and mazes are sometimes viewed as being symbolic of the womb. Probably overlapping with maps and journeys too - to mosey. Womb / woman is the ultimate home starting point in all languages I would guess. At home in the bosom of the family, etc.)
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's the Amazon river on the other side of the middle bit too of course.

Interestingly in the Alexander Romance, which tells the story of Alexander the Great, the land of the Amazonians is described like this:

We live in the hinterland across the river Amazon. Our country is completely encircled by a river, and it takes a year to travel around it. There is only one entrance.

Though it's supposedly in the old world it's actually quite a decent description of the South American continent. Especially if you view the Isthmus of Panama as the single entrance point and the river as the ocean. The Isthmus of Panama is also known as the Isthmus of Darien, which has been linked to the Persian King Darius. In the Alexander Romance Alexander spends much of his time fighting this king.

Also when Alexander threatens to conquer the Amazonians in the tale he says this:

We have made ourself lord of the three continents and we have not failed to set up trophies of all our victories. It would be seen as shameful in us if we did not campaign against you too.

If the three continents are taken to mean Asia, Africa and Europe then it would make Amazonia an extra continent. Furthering the comparison.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most beguiling. If we could only get the Mongols into the picture my happiness would be complete.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Most beguiling. If we could only get the Mongols into the picture my happiness would be complete.

Coincidentally, yesterday, when I was reading through the Did The Dark Ages Exist? thread I came across this.

Mick Harper wrote:
Well.... there's always my Mongols-are-manipulating-the-world theory.

..which then spurred me on to try to find more threads where I could read about this. The 'Origins of Mankind (Somewhat Experimental)' and 'A Sample Treasure Hunt Level : Level One' threads are now on my to read list. I'm not sure I'm in the right ball park though. Are there others threads I should be looking at?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The problem is, Scotty, is that the full theory was set out in a Treasure Hunt we conducted back in the days of the Quest Group. What you can read on this site is scattered across hundreds of posts in all kinds of threads -- I've just looked at the Search results and was mildly astonished at how many there are -- and may not make much sense. It is very exciting and highly all-embracing. Right up your dubious alley.

I shall soon be looking for the subject of my next book and this is a candidate, though I currently favour a change of pace by doing either a DVD on SLOP theory or a series of lectures on Great Power theory. However, if anything occurs to you feel free to post it up somewhere relevant and I will respond as appropriate. If it is too near the knuckle I shall shift proceedings into the Books section.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One thought does occur to me. You are in the ideal position -- not too much knowledge, but enough -- to use the stuff here to come up with a thesis of your own. Which you might start posting here, or down below. That way you can cease to be a Conspiracy Theorist and become a Theorist of a Conspiracy. But don't let any Mongols into the house.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group