Rating: 
Summary: fell's weak linguistics led to major basic errors
Review: Through careful archaeological scholarship we now know that the Vikings reached Newfoundland, and they quite probably went further south. And some other specific diffusionist scenarios have enough prima facie evidence in their favour to warrant further scrutiny. However, Barry Fell's pro-diffusionist use of epigraphic and linguistic evidence (often supported by very little evidence of other kinds or by none) reveals that his approach to these disciplines was of a type which was superseded in mainstream scholarship very many decades ago - because it can be demonstrated that it is unreliable. This vitiates most of his etymological and epigraphic proposals - as has been pointed out for various individual cases by Peter Berresford Ellis and others. Fell did know many languages, but that is not the same thing at all.Some suggest that Fell's linguistic and epigraphic claims are rejected because he had no qualifications in these subjects, but that is not true. Ventris, the decipherer of Linear B, was also an amateur, but he demonstrably 'knew his stuff' and his findings were generally accepted (even though they were surprising). In contrast, Fell repeatedly demonstrates that he is unaware or dismissive of C20 theoretical and methodological gains in these disciplines. His specific `findings', eg his interpretation of the Indus Valley Script as representing Sanskrit, his identification of Ogam script in the Americas, etc, are rightly rejected as unreliable or worse by virtually all those with the relevant expertise. In particular, Fell makes the usual error of believing that the odds are strongly against chance linguistic similarity. Even in Fell's most active period there was no excuse for this error. The case is still worse for those who continue to promote his views; it is difficult to see how anyone who is familiar with the cross-linguistic evidence and with the recent work of Ringe and others on the statistics can adopt such a stance. Even a casual examination of the data reveals a plethora of false cognates such as English much and Spanish mucho, German haben and Latin habere, etc, etc; but we can now demonstrate this point systematically. In general, professional historical linguists who are not active skeptics - even Nostraticists, who adopt less stringent criteria in identifying likely cognates - will not even trouble to discuss views such as Fell's. Until defenders of Fell demonstrate genuine understanding of historical linguistics, and can rebut the mainstream objections to his methods (which appears unlikely), their position will not warrant or receive scholarly attention. Those who do not themselves know linguistics and epigraphics should provisionally accept the mainstream consensus against Fell.
Rating: 
Summary: It Captures the Imagination
Review: _America B.C._ is a book that captures the imagination of its readers. It is fascinating to think that Old World travelers somehow managed to reach the New World long before the time of Columbus. Phoenicians came to Vermont where they dedicated a building to the sun god Bel. Druids and Celts also landed in New England. Egyptians visited eastern Canada. In his book, Fell proposes scores of examples of trans-oceanic visitations. Though it does capture the imagination, I would like to mention that I have done a more thorough study of one of Fell's examples and found that he claims much, but can really prove little. On page 310, Fell writes about the Los Lunas Decalogue. Fell says that the script is like the Moabite Stone which he dates to about 1000 BCE. Patina tests show that the writing is to be dated 500 to 2000 years BP (before the present). Also Fell says that the _punctuation_ matches Greek manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus. In response I would first say that the reason that paleography can be used to date a writing is because scripts are used at a particular time in history and then fade out of use. So if Fell finds that the script of the Los Lunas Decalogue is like the Moabite Stone, then he is dating it to sometime around 1000 BCE. Second, I would say that patina tests are notorious for offering older dates than can be verified by other tests. Even so the patina tests on the Los Lunas Decalogue managed to date the writing to only 2000 years BP. Of course this mismatches the paleographical dating by almost a thousand years. Third, I find that the _punctuation_ of the Los Lunas Decalogue includes dots at the ends of sentences which we call periods. Looking at high resolution pictures of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that at their
time Hebrew did not use dots as markers for the end of a sentence. Did Fell reach his conclusions for his scores of other examples based upon such a poor foundation? Though I have not done such indepth research on all of Fell's examples, I would say yes. So although it captures the imagination to think that Old World travelers came to the New World long before the time of Columbus, Leif Ericsson looks like as good as it gets.
| 
