Pre-Columbian Contact with the New World

#41
I agree. There is also the ancient Roman shipwreck discovered off the coast of Brazil. Though that may simply be a case of a ship getting caught in the currents and blown off course.

It would be interesting to see if the native peoples of the region have any oral traditions of encounters with outsiders who fit the description of Roman seafarers.
Show me evidence

Sent from my Z832 using Tapatalk
 
#42
That is actually commonly accepted. The Inuit arrived in Alaska in 1000 AD. They were the last of the indigenous people groups to arrive in the New World.

Contact with Viking settlers and a group of invaders known as the Skraeling were recorded in the Icelandic Annals. This account is believed to describe the arrival of the Inuit in Greenland.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-gGUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false
Believe what you want. I can make you, you can't make me

Sent from my Z832 using Tapatalk
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,686
Portugal
#44
I don't think that there is any evidence that humans had migrated out of Africa as far back as 200,000 years ago.
(some year(s) later…)

Sorry for raising this thread from the Dead, I jumped from thread to thread and landed here, but the mentioned link between Africa, well Madagascar to be more precise, and Australia is quite interesting and not that old, and maybe in the middle of his/her confusion it was what she was mentioning.

But I think that genetics (that I am only mentioning by pass) but mostly linguistics seems to prove that the migration originated in South East Asia/Australia (the Portuguese called it Insulindia: Insulindia - Wikipedia), since the Malagasy is an Austronesian language.

Anyway any tip about this Austronesian connection would be appreciated…
 
Mar 2017
870
Colorado
#45
There's at least one other thread on this exact topic. A summary is that there has been a lot of circumstantial evidence that's been building up for about the last 80 yrs. Ceramics, stone carvings, other "hard" items that shouldn't be in South America, but are ... typically discovered in sites where other typical local items can be dated. The problem is, it's like finding a Roman coin in your backyard ... there's no "story" ... no reasonable explanation of how it got there. This is complicated by some of the "false" evidence: the amphora in Brazil that can be traced to a man who made them in the 60's and aged them in the bay to sell as authentic items. It's not clear if the Roman wreck actually exists ... even if it does, some archaeologists wave their hands and say "probably blown off course."

As I said, the "hard" evidence has been piling up. There is a formal branch of archaeology that has formed around it, generally under the heading of "trans-oceanic pre-Columbian trade". It hasn't "gone anywhere" because it hasn't been possible to build the entire scenario: where did the article come from, how did it get to SA, why were they traveling, what did they do when they got there, etc.

What's new, in the last 10 yrs, is DNA evidence. There are chickens in Peru whose DNA identifies them as Polynesian. There are plants in South American that could only have come from Asia in pre-Columbian times. Likewise, there are plants in Asia that could only have come from South America. There's a human parasite ... a roundworm, I think ... in indigenous people in South America that could only have come from Asia (and it wouldn't survive the cold of the Bering Strait land bridge).

In the article I read (listed in my thread), there's a single plant in South America that came from Africa.

None of these plants could have survived drifting across the oceans on a log (I forget the scientific term). There is no other explanation for their presence other than people transported them. There *WAS* pre-Columbian contact .... still no "how, why".

I saved the best for last: cocaine Egyptian mummies. This is a big controversy because it breaks so many theories. There are three groups of researchers. One evaluates mummies: the detection of cocaine has been duplicated in multiple European laboratories. These people stay away from any explanations: "this is what we found." There's a group of German researchers that did studies on coca plants: "there was never an ancestor in the Old World, it could only come from South America, it could not survive oceanic drift." ... and then there's people who try to use the simplest possible explanation, and are roundly attacked by the archaeological community .... that is, until the other DNA evidence started building up. Now SouthAmerica-to-Africa transport of cocaine is a recognized "possibility" ... but it just raises more questions. "If trade was possible, why isn't there more?" On last count, the total number of cocaine mummies was around 18 spanning something like 1000 yrs.

----
I don't know anything about Mansa Musa, but he was running around in the 1300's. Why does the picture have him in papyrus reed boats for an ocean trip?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,686
Portugal
#46
There's at least one other thread on this exact topic. A summary is that there has been a lot of circumstantial evidence that's been building up for about the last 80 yrs. Ceramics, stone carvings, other "hard" items that shouldn't be in South America, but are ... typically discovered in sites where other typical local items can be dated. The problem is, it's like finding a Roman coin in your backyard ... there's no "story" ... no reasonable explanation of how it got there. This is complicated by some of the "false" evidence: the amphora in Brazil that can be traced to a man who made them in the 60's and aged them in the bay to sell as authentic items. It's not clear if the Roman wreck actually exists ... even if it does, some archaeologists wave their hands and say "probably blown off course."

As I said, the "hard" evidence has been piling up. There is a formal branch of archaeology that has formed around it, generally under the heading of "trans-oceanic pre-Columbian trade". It hasn't "gone anywhere" because it hasn't been possible to build the entire scenario: where did the article come from, how did it get to SA, why were they traveling, what did they do when they got there, etc.

What's new, in the last 10 yrs, is DNA evidence. There are chickens in Peru whose DNA identifies them as Polynesian. There are plants in South American that could only have come from Asia in pre-Columbian times. Likewise, there are plants in Asia that could only have come from South America. There's a human parasite ... a roundworm, I think ... in indigenous people in South America that could only have come from Asia (and it wouldn't survive the cold of the Bering Strait land bridge).

In the article I read (listed in my thread), there's a single plant in South America that came from Africa.

None of these plants could have survived drifting across the oceans on a log (I forget the scientific term). There is no other explanation for their presence other than people transported them. There *WAS* pre-Columbian contact .... still no "how, why".

I saved the best for last: cocaine Egyptian mummies. This is a big controversy because it breaks so many theories. There are three groups of researchers. One evaluates mummies: the detection of cocaine has been duplicated in multiple European laboratories. These people stay away from any explanations: "this is what we found." There's a group of German researchers that did studies on coca plants: "there was never an ancestor in the Old World, it could only come from South America, it could not survive oceanic drift." ... and then there's people who try to use the simplest possible explanation, and are roundly attacked by the archaeological community .... that is, until the other DNA evidence started building up. Now SouthAmerica-to-Africa transport of cocaine is a recognized "possibility" ... but it just raises more questions. "If trade was possible, why isn't there more?" On last count, the total number of cocaine mummies was around 18 spanning something like 1000 yrs.

----
I don't know anything about Mansa Musa, but he was running around in the 1300's. Why does the picture have him in papyrus reed boats for an ocean trip?
Sporadic contacts most likely happened as ships/boats dragged by a storm, like that story that Columbus heard about a raft in Iceland (or Ireland?) that arrived there with two bodies with a description that led us to think that they were American Indians.

What it seems that didn’t happen before Columbus was a constant and permanent contact with trade. Even the Polynesian “bridge” seems too stretched to be constant. Even in the Easter Island they lost contact with the other Polynesians.

About Mansa Musa the source with the part about the Atlantic voyage was already posted in this forum several times, and it only with some imagination we can think that the source mentions America as a destiny. In the West coast of Africa, South of the Sahara the Portuguese only found coastal navigation when they arrived there in the 15th century, so…

But, as you say there are signs of contacts, further explanations and interpretations are needed, the main problem in our times seems to be the rush to quick unsupported conclusions and exoteric explanations.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#47
There's at least one other thread on this exact topic. A summary is that there has been a lot of circumstantial evidence that's been building up for about the last 80 yrs. Ceramics, stone carvings, other "hard" items that shouldn't be in South America, but are ... typically discovered in sites where other typical local items can be dated. The problem is, it's like finding a Roman coin in your backyard ... there's no "story" ... no reasonable explanation of how it got there. This is complicated by some of the "false" evidence: the amphora in Brazil that can be traced to a man who made them in the 60's and aged them in the bay to sell as authentic items. It's not clear if the Roman wreck actually exists ... even if it does, some archaeologists wave their hands and say "probably blown off course."

As I said, the "hard" evidence has been piling up. There is a formal branch of archaeology that has formed around it, generally under the heading of "trans-oceanic pre-Columbian trade". It hasn't "gone anywhere" because it hasn't been possible to build the entire scenario: where did the article come from, how did it get to SA, why were they traveling, what did they do when they got there, etc.

What's new, in the last 10 yrs, is DNA evidence. There are chickens in Peru whose DNA identifies them as Polynesian. There are plants in South American that could only have come from Asia in pre-Columbian times. Likewise, there are plants in Asia that could only have come from South America. There's a human parasite ... a roundworm, I think ... in indigenous people in South America that could only have come from Asia (and it wouldn't survive the cold of the Bering Strait land bridge).

In the article I read (listed in my thread), there's a single plant in South America that came from Africa.

None of these plants could have survived drifting across the oceans on a log (I forget the scientific term). There is no other explanation for their presence other than people transported them. There *WAS* pre-Columbian contact .... still no "how, why".

I saved the best for last: cocaine Egyptian mummies. This is a big controversy because it breaks so many theories. There are three groups of researchers. One evaluates mummies: the detection of cocaine has been duplicated in multiple European laboratories. These people stay away from any explanations: "this is what we found." There's a group of German researchers that did studies on coca plants: "there was never an ancestor in the Old World, it could only come from South America, it could not survive oceanic drift." ... and then there's people who try to use the simplest possible explanation, and are roundly attacked by the archaeological community .... that is, until the other DNA evidence started building up. Now SouthAmerica-to-Africa transport of cocaine is a recognized "possibility" ... but it just raises more questions. "If trade was possible, why isn't there more?" On last count, the total number of cocaine mummies was around 18 spanning something like 1000 yrs.

----
I don't know anything about Mansa Musa, but he was running around in the 1300's. Why does the picture have him in papyrus reed boats for an ocean trip?

Some.of.rhe recrnt DANA studies have actually undermined the theory of contact with South America and the Polynesians. Genetic studies of the sweat potatoe indicate that the South American and Polynesian versions are quite different. After seeing Ll the stuff that washed up on the shores of North America after the Japanese tsunami, I think people are to quick to rule out natural means of transportation. There is a difference between an.unlikely event and an absolutely impossible one. Perhaps some.ancient massive storm washed a clump trees and other matter together, so if formed a kind of natural raft? Unlikely, but not necessarily impossible.

You have to look at the objects found, but those that were not found.as well.. if there was an ancient trade, why didn't thrley trade something useful like chickens? The South American had no chickens before the Spanish. You might find some prsle Columbian chicken bones in SA, but they could have just washed up on shore after a big storm.

In the case.of America and Africa, if there was trade, why didn't they trade useful items like iron objects? Donkeys, and other Old World animals and plants that became.a fixture in the Americas but not before. When someone states the plants could not have been transported by drift, the hey are stating an opinion, not necessarily actual fact. An object might have been unlikely to have been transported by natural means, not necessarily impossible.

And if a ship blown off course winds up on the other continent, it could have transported items btween to the 2, but that is not trade, if the ship couldn't return to it's home and do it repeatedly. Over thousands.of years, I am sure a some ships managed to be blown off course by some giant storm to the other continent, transporting goods between the 2, but that is not trade. The Roman ship found off Brazil shows they didn't make it back, so any trading they tried was a failure.

For all the talk of pre Columbia contact, the fact we can find some tiny Viking fishing post in North America raises the issue why we haven't found any sites for the alleged others. And we had the Viking Sagas of Vinland, while we don't have other such stories. People talk about stories allegedly someone sailing to the west, but in none of the same stories don't talk about people.actually returning from those same journeys.

Some poor unfortunate Greek or Arab sailor might have washed up on the shores of the Americas but that does not qualify as contact, since he was unable to return.

The biggest argument against Pre Columbian contact is all.the things from the.d World that became well established in the Americas after the Spanish but not before,and the reverse. Where only the Spanish smart enough to realize the potential of New World crops to transport them back to the Old World, or realize that the peoples of the Americas could use donkeys, pits, chickens, iron tools, etc.? If Pre Columbian traders existed, they must be classified as dumbest traders ever to miss out on some many opportunities.

No, the random nature of the objects found is better supported by accident shipwreck, and nature drift than the result of acfual contact and trade.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,582
San Antonio, Tx
#48
What I say....Colon arrived to America because he bought a ticket to a tour-operator... that the reason because Pizarro-Almagro-Cortes-Valdivia-de Soto-Coronado-etc etc found lot of vikings, irish, swedish, italian, chinese, Poles Kenyatan and Mauritian in North-Central-and South America when they arrived there....

Nothing as to inmigrate to USA to invent a history to say you discover America... but the FACT.. the only FACT.. when spaniards arrived to Ohio or to Kentucky.. they found...not even one viking.....
Is this intended to be funny?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,582
San Antonio, Tx
#49
What I say....Colon arrived to America because he bought a ticket to a tour-operator... that the reason because Pizarro-Almagro-Cortes-Valdivia-de Soto-Coronado-etc etc found lot of vikings, irish, swedish, italian, chinese, Poles Kenyatan and Mauritian in North-Central-and South America when they arrived there....

Nothing as to inmigrate to USA to invent a history to say you discover America... but the FACT.. the only FACT.. when spaniards arrived to Ohio or to Kentucky.. they found...not even one viking.....
And when I went to Spain - lovely country! - I found not a single Viking. Imagine that.
 

Similar History Discussions