Talk:Timeline of Norse colonization of the Americas

Untitled
11-21-05

Added the tags 'historical, ahistorical and mythological' to the timeline as a thumbnail reference to mainstram archaeology and unproven hypothesis. Please do not turn the timeline istself into a discussion about the nature and validity of 'accepted archaeology'. If you have to justify it, odds are you've already lost the battle.

This is not to disparage emerging ideas (or ideas currently without sufficient evidence). This is simply to show the current breadth of knowledge of mainstream archaeology. As an encyclopedia it is as essential to illustrate this distinction as it is to be fully rounded in various schools of thought.

Lastly, I'm not entirely comfortable with the distinction between mythological and ahistorical, as it overlaps far too frequently. I would enjoy a discussion and further refinement of these terms.

Hewhocaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewhocaves (talk • contribs) 12:58, November 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Some entries are tagged as both 'historical' and 'ahistorical'. I understand that A and M overlap, but A and H? Turly-burly 08:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * early dates on archaeological findings are an excellent example. As archaeologists discover sites, carbon and radioactive dating systems (among others) provide confirming evidence for some types of materials.  Generally, although all dating systems have inherent flaws, findings using these systems are designated as "evidence" (historical).  Other materials, such as lithic tools not associated with carbon bearing hearths or datable animal remains, are much more difficult to date.  Speculation and best guess ("ahistorical") comes into play here until (hopefully) the initial findings are confirmed in other sites which can be more firmly dated.  Clovis culture was considered the oldest known American people for most of the 20th century -- but several new sites, dating methods and theories are starting to push this date backwards.  There is some datable proof (historical)for these claims, but most is educated speculation or isolated finds awaiting confirmation (ahistorical).  So I belive both designations would be appropriate here.   WBardwin 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mythological information belongs on a seperate page, if at all. I left it in pending a counter-argument 24.218.46.54


 * But.........the difficulty comes in defining "myth." One man's myth is another man's truth.  Distinguishing levels of provable contact is why the article has established categories.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why include the Mormon stuff? It is something we know for a fact is recent fiction, whereas the most of the other mythological stuff is ancient and/or may actually be true. --Peter Lund/82.143.195.114 12:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's notable, whether it's true or not, just like the other stuff.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

7th century (A) Fleeing Rome to escape barbarian invasions, the descendants of ancient Liburnian navigators from northern Adriatic sail by Gibraltar and Western Ocean to 'Westlands' called Semeray. Can the person who wrote this tell me where did he get it thank you.Miloti

Timelines are very important to the subject matter. The Egyptian pyramids, for example, predate the Mesoamerican ones by a thousand years or more. Architectural similarities don't add up to much with such time gaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKen (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)