New lands 'beyond Thules', or Iceland, could be nothing but Greenland and North America."
That's inspiring. So, before the Vikings, the New World wasn't an impossibility. It was in fact as old as any other point on Earth.
New lands 'beyond Thules', or Iceland, could be nothing but Greenland and North America."
That's inspiring. So, before the Vikings, the New World wasn't an impossibility. It was in fact as old as any other point on Earth.
There's also the curious case of the apparent Roman-era shipwreck that was discovered off the coast of Brazil[2]. It's a little tinfoil-hatty, and possibly a hoax, but it is interesting.
One of these is not like the other...
Nobody had crossed the Ocean Sea before. So if they were reasonable enough, they'd understand that the general distribution of land vs ocean they were seeing relied on them standing on the land part (vs in the middle of a potentially empty Ocean).
I think it is more likely he drew that conclusion because he knew you could go quite a bit north in Europe, south in Africa and east in Asia. Those are all things you probably could learn from talks to merchants.
But any coastal population must have known the curvature of the earth by basic empirical analysis of maritime traffic. In other words, watching the fishing boats disappear over the horizon.
> That's inspiring. So, before the Vikings, the New World wasn't an impossibility. It was in fact as old as any other point on Earth.
Very well said. If nothing else this also shows the deep origins of the development of the scientific method: propose a theory based on (in this case) extrapolation, then prove it later on with evidence. In many ways, human civilization, and especially human knowledge can be thought of as a manifestation of this simple formula.
The existence of a kind of extrapolation-based forethought prior to the actual process of exploration undertaken by humankind evidenced here would fall neatly into this progression.