3 ms·

There is a theory that Columbus had information that there was indeed land at the distance of America which he possibly assumed to be Asia which led to his unde

There is a theory that Columbus had information that there was indeed land at the distance of America which he possibly assumed to be Asia which led to his underestimate. Portuguese fishermen are the usually suggested source of this information. I don't know whether there is much evidence to support this theory, but there it is.

jcranmer 10y ago
I would rule that theory unlikely. The underlying idea of the theory is that fishermen discovered the Grand Banks off of Newfoundland and incidentally discovered Newfoundland itself. When the Grand Banks was discovered is unclear--it was definitely known in the early 1500s, but that postdates John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland in 1497. The usual claims of preemption seem to describe the date as "1400s". The biggest hole in the theory as described is that the nonpublication of the discovery is attributed to "fishermen keeping their new grounds secret," so why would they confide their secrets in a (rival) navigator? It also makes somewhat less sense that his voyages would have traveled in a southwesterly direction rather than a northwesterly direction if he knew that the land were to be found more to the north. There is no real evidence to substantiate that fishermen found the Grand Banks in the 1400s. The earliest claims seem to date to at best the 1580s or so and have a vein of "we totally knew about that place but somehow lost track of it until John Cabot found it again!" Given that the modern claims seem vague as to whose fisherman it was that actually found them (Bristol, Basque, and Portuguese have all been named), it seems more like an attempt to retroactively claim primacy. There's been no archaeological evidence on Newfoundland dating to the 15th century of any presence of cod fishermen--and given the knowledge that by the end of the 16th century the industry did produce a massive infrastructure on the coast, it seems unlikely that the lack of evidence is because we haven't looked hard enough.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  While I am aware of what I'll call the "Grand Banks" theory, the one that I read years ago referred specifically to the Caribbean. As to how Columbus got the information, well, people talk when they are drunk, when they are incentivised with money, just because they want to brag, and so on. Do I think the theory is likely? Not really, but it does explain a few peculiarities about what Columbus claimed and did.

jcranmer 10y ago

I would rule that theory unlikely. The underlying idea of the theory is that fishermen discovered the Grand Banks off of Newfoundland and incidentally discovered Newfoundland itself. When the Grand Banks was discovered is unclear--it was definitely known in the early 1500s, but that postdates John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland in 1497. The usual claims of preemption seem to describe the date as "1400s". The biggest hole in the theory as described is that the nonpublication of the discovery is attributed to "fishermen keeping their new grounds secret," so why would they confide their secrets in a (rival) navigator? It also makes somewhat less sense that his voyages would have traveled in a southwesterly direction rather than a northwesterly direction if he knew that the land were to be found more to the north. There is no real evidence to substantiate that fishermen found the Grand Banks in the 1400s. The earliest claims seem to date to at best the 1580s or so and have a vein of "we totally knew about that place but somehow lost track of it until John Cabot found it again!" Given that the modern claims seem vague as to whose fisherman it was that actually found them (Bristol, Basque, and Portuguese have all been named), it seems more like an attempt to retroactively claim primacy. There's been no archaeological evidence on Newfoundland dating to the 15th century of any presence of cod fishermen--and given the knowledge that by the end of the 16th century the industry did produce a massive infrastructure on the coast, it seems unlikely that the lack of evidence is because we haven't looked hard enough.

goodcanadian 10y ago
While I am aware of what I'll call the "Grand Banks" theory, the one that I read years ago referred specifically to the Caribbean. As to how Columbus got the information, well, people talk when they are drunk, when they are incentivised with money, just because they want to brag, and so on. Do I think the theory is likely? Not really, but it does explain a few peculiarities about what Columbus claimed and did.