Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MABAGANI
Search outside what is considered history by the conquerors, tradition has it that natives knew of and fought Europeans before Magellan's arrival, but its repeated over and over again that he was first, so should the claim stick? or should it read something like first "recorded" landing? caveat, which perspective do we take as truth?
|
Yes, absolutely. It's probably safest to say that Megallan was the earliest
documented (in the West) European there. It isn't hard to believe that someone got there earlier, even much earlier, particularly an individual trader/mercenary or small group of such, as there was so much trade between Europe and Asia, going back centuries, by all kinds or routes. It's not like people in Europe didn't know "The East" existed.
On the other hand, even "documented" travels are not especially reliable. Marco Polo describes the kingdom of Burma in some detail, as if from first-hand observation, but it is widely agreed that he never actually went there. Sir John de Mandeville was another medieval travellor who claimed to have gone all over Asia but is believed to have gone only as far as India, or perhaps Java, getting most of his written account second-hand (he is one of the guys who described visiting places inhabited by one-footed people, cannibals with tails, men with no heads and their faces in their chests, giant birds, unicorns, and so forth and so forth). It is hard to separate truth from fiction (maybe the unicorn was a rhino, or maybe he made it up).
Sometimes if what you are looking for is a definite date, such as that of the arrival of the "first" European, you have to settle for the first documented date, or for a date that is "at least as early as" a well-documented date. For a long time Columbus was considered the "first" European to have arrived in the Western hemisphere, even though Viking sagas describe Leif Erkisson as having arrived a few hundred years earlier. This was considered legend or fiction until archeological evidence of a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, Canada, confirmed it. There are theories of even earlier contact, based oral traditions (native or visitor) or tid-bits of physical evidence, but they are not yet regarded as reliable fact because they haven't been satisfactorily verified in some objective way. So, was Eriksson or Columbus, or someone else, "first?" Eriksson got there earlier, but Columbus was the first to create a lasting contact. Eriksson has the earliest
verified arrival date, Columbus the first
documented (i.e., in writing) arrival date. Any number of peoples (Celts, Phoecians, Egyptions, Chinese, etc., etc.) are
possible earlier arrivers, but there isn't enough firm proof to establish if, and when, they did arrive.
It really depends on what you mean by "first" and what significance you attach to it, what is the point you are trying to make.