I ask because I just read a bit about a local artefact (Dighton Rock, in Dighton, MA). It is claimed by a Portuguese-American historian, that this rock was carved by a Portuguese explorer, round about AD 1450. In addition, evidence exists that the portuguese were fishing the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland), as early as the 1430’s…presumably the fishing captains kept the location secret, so as to protect their monopoly on the salt cod business. I can’t find any evidence that they came ashore (on the N. American mainland), but it certainly sounds possible.
So, should we be clelebrationf Gaspar Cortreal Day, instead of Columbus Day?
Nope, it was St. Brendan the Navigator.
around 500 A.D.
It was supposed to be Miguel Cortereal, brother og Joao Vaz Cortereal, or maybe the other way around. If you’re interested, the book The All Discovered America by Boland has brief sketches of about 20 supposed pre-Columbian “discoverers” of America, including Cortereal, Brendan, and others (like Prince Henry Sinclair, Hoei-Shin, and a whole slew of Vikings). I take his suggestions with a lotta salt, but they’re interesting to read.
I tried to visit Dighton Rock with my wife, once, but we got there too late and the rock was closed! (It’s in a small building in a park) She still hasn’t seen it, though I have. The rock originally was a little offshore, and has weathered considerably. They have a light playing across the surface so you can make out the barely-incised lines. For the record, there’s no agreement on what the markings even are, let alone what they say. One suggestion is that the local Indians carved it, which seems eminently reasonable to me.
As far as solid evidence goes, Leif Ericsson was the original European discoverer of America. There’s the old Icelandic eddas as well as the actual remnants of his “trading” village in Newfoundland.
You’ll note from the page you referenced, it is only “a highly plausible tale” that anyone predated Leif. And I suspect that whoever put up this page may be biased.
If we want to talk about conjecture, I’ve heard almost plausable tales that the Romans and before them the Greeks may have had ships blown off course and arrive in the Americas. And, of course, there’s the whole “lost tribe of Israel” mythology …
All this time I thought nomadic tribes from northeastern Asia discovered the American continent. There appears to be some evidence that North and South America weren’t quite as unknown to exist as was commonly thought. I think it is commonly accepted that the Vikings (at the very least) knew of this land. There is also some documents and maps, if not actual physical evidence that some Irish monks MAY have been here as well. Not so commonly accepted as fact.
I recently read some articles which claim that during the first millenium (aprx.1000ad +/- 50 years) the world experienced a raise in temperature which caused Greenland’s southern coast to be farmable. It also explained how Vinland/Nova Scotia and New Foundland could produce the abundance of grapes and mild winter as described by the Vikings.
As far as the Portugese “knowing” the Americas existed before Columbus…who can say for sure. I’m not sure they even knew it then. But, if you believe the Piri Reis story it leaves one curious if nothing else.
Since this is Great Debates however, I think I’ll keep my opinions in the proper forum. Suffice it to say, I believe there’s a lot of man’s history which is lost forever. Very sad. 
Or maybe it was these guys
Just kidding.
Actually, the Brendan thing is almost impossible to prove. I’m just really impressed that Dr. Severin built the boat and sailed it himself. I remember the National Geographic article and it helped fuel my great love for Irish history.
Plus, I think that we should be celebrating St. Brendan’s day about 6 months after St. Patrick’s day, gives us a nice, balanced year.
Plus, I also actually got to set foot on the boat itself, the “Brendan” . wow!
So, I am as biassed as hell.
The combined weight of the literature is that numerous someones from the European/Near Eastern/North African cultures, at various points in ancient and medieval history, either found or figured out there was something out about a month and a half’s sailing West. The Vikings even set up residence for a short while. Just that nobody really seemed interested in going out in force to take over, until Chris C. came at the right time and place, with the right (meaning, completely wrong and possibly cooked up) calculations, to sell to his patrons a gamble that whatever was West would be profitable to take over.
Nope. The only concensus is that the Vikings did visit North America, but no other trips by other groups (Irish, Portuguese, Chinese) has any generally accepted collaborative evidence. If you have some reputable cite that confirms your statement, let’s see it.
The L’Anse aux Meadows excavations in Newfoundland settled the Viking matter once and for all. There is no generally accepted evidence that other groups visited N.A. or know of its existence.
“…knew of its existence.” 
I think the difference is settlement, rather than just having come here or seen the shore.
Yes, Leif was the first to establish a settlement in N.Am. But it would be very suprising indeed if other individuals had not been shipwrecked or whatever here from time to time throughout the course of history.
The Irish monk thing is bolstered by the sagas, in that when both Iceland and Greenland were discovered, Irish monks were allready living on both (though if I remember correctly only one or two were found living on Greenland, or the remains of their caves/hovels/whatever). Supposedly it was these same monks who told the Norse of other islands to the west, though Leifs expedition was based primarily on the reports of other captains who had been blown to the west before returning.
Again, Im very sure individuals or small groups from ships accidentally encountered N.Am from time to time for thousands of years and got stuck here; its pretty much a certainty. Japanese, Chinese as well in the Pac region. But none of them came there with the purpose of, and had no demonstrable success in, establishing a settlement. Given the raw materials most of them probably had to work with, its not suprising we havent found more evidence. But it wouldnt really be proof of anything anyway beyond the ‘so people did shipwreck here’ thing, which kinda goes without saying.
:smack: You got me, Mace – I lost an entire line from the post that changed the whole meaning of it, namely the one you bring up, that none of that “weight of the literature (about pre-Columbian expeditions)” actually provides proof :o That’ll teach me to edit…
Other than the Vikings, the most plausible pre-Columbian discovery story I know of is Farley Mowat’s theory about a people he calls the “Albans”. His hypothesis is that a group of people preceded the Vikings to Iceland, Greenland, and Labrador in search of walrus tusks and other luxury goods, and that the Vikings actually stumbled upon the New World because they were trying to steal these same goods. IMHO, though, his evidence gets flimsier the further west he follows the people.
We’ll need a cite in a peer review publication order to believe that.
It is anything but a certainty, except as reported on flimsy Discovery Channel pop-science type programs. Don’t cofuse that with the real thing (science, that is).
JRD: Understood.
I’m not expert on this by any means, but I think the supposition that random storms would blow unlucky European or Near Eastern mariners to North American is unlikely. Most of the wind patterns and current patterns in the North Atlantic would drive a vessel eastward, not westward. It took sailors a lot of luck, effort, and most of all time to go west.
To suppose that a storm would propel a sailing vessel out of it course across the North Atlantic implies a storm that it strong enough to overwhelm the efforts of the crew to get where they want to go, and which lasts long enough to get them that far. Long-lived gales or tropical systems just don’t have westward tracks that often in the North Atlantic - quite the opposite, in fact.
It’s not a new claim. It’s not even a new claim it was carved by the Portuguese. It’s a case of join the queue.
The obvious place to start is Fanastic Archaeology (University of Pennsylvania, 1991, p213-7), which is Stephen Williams’ entertaining survey of dubious claims about American prehistory. His outline of claims about the rock manages to cover the entire range of bonkers theories relating to Precolumbian contacts. Some of the inscriptions are old: Cotton Mather refers to them in 1690. But they’ve propably been vandelised over the centuries and Williams concludes that there’s probably nothing original beyond some native American carvings.
As for the Portuguese, that idea dates back to at least 1918 and relates to suggesting Miguel Cortes-Real being in the vicinity in 1502 (or perhaps 1511). Which is interesting, but not that interesting. Pushing the dating back to 1450 looks like taking this thin claim and trying to mutate it into something sensational.
Personally, I don’t see anything Portuguese about the carvings.
paperbackwriter
I agree that it is not likely to happen, but happen it did, according to Pedro Alvarez Cabral. He set sail from Portugal in 1500 bound for India by way of Africa around the Cape of Good Hope. Strong winds forced his ship off course and he landed on the eastern coast of Brazil. He did of course continue his journey after claiming Brazil for Portugal. Some claim this was his objective all along.
However, if we are to abide by the historical account then it is possible for a ship to “accidently” cross the Atlantic.
aside: The line of Demarcation which divided the world between Spain and Portugal was the Pope’s solution to prevent war between the two nations. (Treaty of Tordesillas) It just so happened that a piece of South America was on the Portugal side of the line and Cabral accidently landed there. BUT we must stick to the documental history and try not to speculate.
Anyway, discovery by accident rather than on purpose is quite usual, wouldn’t ya say?
I’m not going to get into a long drawn out debate about accidently discovered islands in the Pacific but I know there are several accounts by islanders as having arrived from elsewhere. I’m pretty sure the people of Easter Island came from somewhere else and it’s…what 2000 miles from Chili? I doubt they went there on purpose. That’d be comparable to the trip that Cabral made. Except he had a lot bigger landing area. 
I would say (considering odds vs. likelihood) it’s almost certain that the “America’s” were discovered before Columbus or the Vikings. Whether or not they returned is another thing.
Well, not sure why you would need such a thing for something taught in high school, but heres one quick link to Dr. Thor Heyerdahl:
http://www.vikingart.com/Mill/Ar_Thor01.htm
- "We in Norway like to think that we discovered Iceland, but Irish monks had settled on the West Coast before we arrived. They did a great benefit to those Norwegians who escaped when King Harold the Fairhair, united Norway from 12 little kingdoms into one country…We have good reason to be happy they did go to Iceland and learn to write Latin from the Irish monks. Thanks to what they preserved in Iceland we have a history to look back upon. *
Well, no, I dont watch the discovery channel.
All I was saying was that, given the number of years, from the Phoenecians on, that ocean going vessals have plied the waters from western europe to western Africa and even southern Africa, just using simple rules of probability its a given that every hundred years or so a handful of people washed up here and there on either the N. Am or S. Am coasts. And yes, the gulf stream flows east in the north Atlantic, but it flows west in the south Atlantic. Add in the number of years that the Chinese and Japanese, not to mention Polynesians, have had ocean going vessals, and the probability of a few washing up here and there increases, especially around Alaska or western Canada, in the case of the Chinese and Japanese. I would say that to assume nothing of the kind ever happened would be unscientific in the extreme, as one is blatantly ignoring the rules of probability.
I dont think its any kind of revolutionary thing, its not like its some kind of planned expedition Im talking about. Just the normal probability given the great amount of time and great amount of shipping. Im sure even more starved to death before they ever saw land. Thats why I was drawing a distinction between ‘came for settlement’ and ‘accidently got here’.
Now, if you want a flimsy discovery channel pop science thingy, here you go. Its pretty funny:
http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/wv/features/petroglyphs/index.htm
In 1981, archaeologist Robert L. Pyle of Morgantown, West Virginia began exploring the mountains of southern part of the state studying petroglyphs (markings on stone) that at first glance resembled archaic runes and were different from traditional ancient American rock carvings. His archaeological research focused on petroglyph sites in Wyoming County, West Virginia, and Manchester, Kentucky. Research indicated the markings were an ancient alphabet known as Ogam (or Ogham), found in the British Isles, especially Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
…
Dr. William Grant, Edinburgh University, Scotland, and Dr. John Grant, Oakland, Maryland, both Celtic linguists/scholars, participated in Pyle’s Ogam research in southern West Virginia and endorsed the West Virginia petroglyphs as authentic archaic Ogam.*
Pedro Alvarez Cabral did not cross the North Atlantic, but closer to the equator. According to this site, Cabral sailed south along the West African coast and then turned West to cross the Atlantic at its narrowest point, near the Equator. He first sighted land near Monte Pascoal made landfall near Porto Seguro. Their locations are not visible on this map, but they would be south of Salvador de Bahia. As you can see, the South Equatorial Current and Brazil Current are perfectly placed to make an “accidental” trans-Atlantic journey plausible in this area.
It was the Irish who did it first! Check out this link: http://www.thedance.net/~roth/SONGS/brendan.html
The Easter Islanders have a Polynesian language and culture, like the indigenous Hawaiians and the Maori of New Zealand. It’s likely they arrived from the west, not the east.