American History

» Jennifer W. Miner - King Woden-lithi

WOW! This is so interesting. I cna't believe I never learned about this in high schol or college. Thank you.
Jen

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Trotter Kion - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by JenniferMiner:

Hi Jennifer,
I had not heard of this in high school or college either. Fell's book was one of my many finds in a second-hand store.

Mary Trotter Kion

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brent Sedo - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by lastword:
Perhaps you didn't lean about it, because it's not true? Visit: http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

An excerpt:

MYTH: The third misstatement has to do with repeated suggestions of Old World contact, such as in the following two segments: "This new wave of "open-mindedness" brought additional scientific theories regarding the Copper Culture people. It was further believed that a Norse King named Woden-lithi left his mark near Toronto in the year 1700 B.C. He left behind petroglyphs and writings to indicate his visit was a trading mission for a well-established copper trade that was known to have existed in the Lake Superior Region some 1000 years before his visit. Evidently the Keweenaw copper industry was well established when the Norse King paid North America a visit!" (Sodders 1990:13) and "it appears entire flotillas of Norse, Baltic and Celtic ships crossed the Atlantic to enter into trade wars with the Algonquians for rich mineral deposits" (Sodders 1990:14).

FACT: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that anyone but indigenous Americans and subsequent French, British and Euro-American miners took copper from the Keweenaw. In contrast to speculative stuff and nonsense, here's an actual archaeological fact to consider: all cultures make garbage! Show me some Norse garbage reliably dated to 1700 B.C. in the Toronto area in pristine context and I'll sign on readily in support of these hypotheses! What does it take to support them? Archaeological data! It's not much to ask, given the firm conclusions that have been reached by some authors. If these conclusions are to be accepted by science, scientific standards of skeptical inquiry must be upheld. Otherwise it's archaeo-illogic, not archaeology. Large-scale migrations leave evidence: witness the global evidence of the expansion of European technologies during the fifteenth-sixteenth century A.D. If Bronze Age folks transported themselves to North America there'd be something left behind as material evidence. Anyone who's ever been on a prehistoric archaeological site in the Upper Great Lakes knows what levels of trash can be generated by low-level-consumer cultures such as those of American prehistory. Why, in contrast to everyone else in world history, are these alleged Bronze Age people so neat, tidy, and garbage-free?

The competent excavation of many prehistoric archaeological sites in the Lake Superior basin reveals the continuous use of copper throughout the prehistoric time range, in association with all of the other items of material culture (projectile points, pottery and the like) that are without a doubt the products of native technologies. Many of these sites have been dated reliably by radiocarbon means (Table 1). Clearly, copper-working continues up until the years of aboriginal contact with seventeenth-century Europeans. The speculators could at least acknowledge these facts rather than pretend that the association of copper with indigenous people doesn't exist. The fact is, the campsites of indigenous peoples of the Upper Great Lakes contain everything consistent with a long-lived continuous regional hunting/gathering/fishing adaptation, and contain nothing attributable to European cultures until the seventeenth century A.D.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Trotter Kion - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by BrentSedo:

Dear Brent

What you say is certainly interesting however, I do not believe that my article states anything concerning "entire flotillas of Norse, Baltic and Celtic ships" crossing the Atlantic to America.

It is true, or supposedly, that large groups of people over a considerable amount of time will accumulate garbage. What this has to do with the arrival of Woden-lithi I am uncertain considering it appears that his arrival was not a large group, such as men, women, and children, and he was only in America for a few months. It is very conceivable that what garbage they produced, as they surely did, may be undetected amongst that of the native population they were trading with.

"There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that anyone but indigenous Americans and subsequent French, British and Euro-American miners took copper from the Keweenaw." This statement, however made by an educated person, is mistaken as indicated in my article. It is a known fact that some archeologists persist in denying obvious evidence discovered by other archeologists.

"What does it take to support them? Archaeological data!" This quote proves my over-all point. The archaeological data is there to be seen. Thank you for this qualifying point.

In conclusion, and probably opening a new can of worms, if Jesus walked the earth where is his garbage to prove he did so? Yes, I know he left the Bible, which he didn't actually write himself but it is used as proof of his existance. This being true, why is it that the writings left by Woden-lithi are not considered proof of his having visited America?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brent Sedo - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by lastword:
Hi Mary,

Betcha' thought you were rid of me.

It's not irrefutable that Jesus as described in the bible walked on the earth. There is actually a body of non-evidence, so to speak (ie: nothing written about him in his supposed lifetime) that would indicate he did not. Anyone who relies on the bible as proof of his life is relying on faith, not historical fact.

The weight of evidence, however, such as writings by Roman and Hebrew historians of the time, coupled with the biblical accounts, make it reasonably possible that he did exist, as described. The garbage/artifact test is a last resort in the face of no other evidence. We do not need Jesus' garbage. It's beyond dispute that people lived where and how they are described in the New Testament. Places like Bethlehem and Nazareth and Jerusalem still exist. There is a continuous historical line.

The story of Jesus is not that he came from thousands of miles away, wrote a few things on a rock and then disappeared. Which is essentially the Woden-lithi story.

The Woden-litihi theory holds that the Norwegian King, with a small group of people, and 2700 years before any known European settlement in the New World, sailed thousands of miles across the North Atlantic at the tail end of winter. They then traveled another 800 miles through the ice-choked St. Lawrence, guided by the knowledge of others who had been there before. They spent five months with the natives, then loaded up with copper and retraced the journey back. Despite at least two such journeys they left not a single artifact behind. Not a tool, not a weapon, not a piece of clothing, not a cooking utensil (ie: garbage), nothing has ever been found that can be traced to Europe circa 1700 BC. None of the textiles they supposedly brought for trade. While they surely would have paused to replenish food and water for the months-long trip back across the Atlantic (3000 years later it took Columbus 69 days to cross the Atlantic from Spain on a shorter, less treacherous route), no trace of any camp at the mouth of the St. Lawrence or anywhere else on the northern coast of North America has ever been found.

And while they supposedly went through the trouble of recording the information in the New World, there is no record in Norway (or any record of Runic writing dating to that time in Norway, for that matter) of any such journeys ever taking place. Even though that would make more sense, as it would be more helpful to future travelers from Norway. (That they could not return due to an "Ice Age", that occurred at the end of the Bronze Age - which was actually 500 BC - as you state in a later article is simply not true. The northern polar ice cap was formed 2 million years ago, not 3500 years ago, as you assert.)

On the other hand, maybe the petroglyphs in Peterborough were simply carved by the natives who lived there (as their descendents believe). Any vague resemblance to ancient European writing is pure coincidence. As you point out, other disparate cultures have shown similarities in their writing. As you point out, ogam consain "could be mistaken for a notched feather." Why can't it be just that? It's certainly more logical. At some point, logic has to play a part.

-"There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that anyone but indigenous Americans and subsequent French, British and Euro-American miners took copper from the Keweenaw." This statement, however made by an educated person, is mistaken as indicated in my article.

This "educated person" is an archaeologist who has worked in this specific field for 20 years. You say she's mistaken. Yes, you make indications, but where in your article do you provide evidence?

-"What does it take to support them? Archaeological data!" This quote proves my over-all point. The archaeological data is there to be seen. Thank you for this qualifying point.

And my point is, there is no archaeological data. Not a tool, not a weapon, not a piece of clothing, not a utensil, not a building, a camp, a piece of jewelry, human remains or a corroborating piece of written evidence. If the Woden-lithi theory is flawed from the outset, then any so-called writing he left behind proves nothing. It is not data. You can't use the very thing that is in dispute as proof that thing is true.

-"It is a known fact that some archeologists persist in denying obvious evidence discovered by other archeologists."

Barry Fell was not an archaeologist. And this is not simply a case of two rival camps with differing views. I know scientists disagree. My wife has a PhD. I understand how academic research works. The overwhelming scientific community believes Fell was wrong. Even his own supporters admit his methods were flawed and his conclusions dubious. His #1 supporter, David Kelly, determined the Peterborough inscriptions are from 800 BC. Fell would not submit his research for peer review. Rather than answering his critics with evidence and research, he dismissed them as too ignorant to understand.

In my conclusion, Woden-lithi is an unproven theory and anything that flows from it is an unproven theory. It is not scientific or historical fact.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Trotter Kion - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by BrentSedo:

Hi Bret,
No, I didn't expect to be rid of you!
Mary

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» JohnCrandall - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by lastword:

Interesting discussion, I can see that the writings under discussion may or may not be native, and that their origins would almost certainly be a matter of interpretation to any but a linguist specializing in that language. My question is this. If this Norse King has a name, how do we know it? Woden is actually a Celtic God also known as Wotan, and in Norse Odin . . . Is this a made up name, or one that comes to us from some ancient chronicle or saga? I'm doing a bit of research on Vikings myself, and I frankly find this story a bit hard to swallow, but I won't rule it out as impossible, and I'll probably do a little more reading on it when I get spare time.

-- posted by JohnCrandall

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Trotter Kion - King Woden-lithi

In response to King Woden-lithi posted by JohnCrandall:

John,
Thanks for asking. My source is listed at the end of the article. It's quite an interesting book.
Thanks, Mary

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds