Pre-Columbian Contact with the New World

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,164
Portugal
You don't have to believe me. But my family passed down history from Long before Columbus arrived. I'm black. We had treaties with my great grandma tribe from East coast long before Columbus. Believe as you will
We agree on this: I don’t have to believe you.

Most specially if you make claims about a certain book and then you aren’t able to give the proper information about it. Basic things, like that allow to identify any book. The correct title, the author…

See: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html

This is a history forum, knowledge here is not achieved by “believing”, but by presenting sources and a rational reasoning. History is a Human and Social Science, not a religion. While in a religion believing is essential, in history it is often an obstacle.

Indios? Look up what it meant in 1492
I didn’t mention “Indios” in the quoted post. So I don’t know what you are trying to say here. That word is not related with the post. As for the meaning of the word “Índios” in 1492, yes, I know what it means. It is a word in Portuguese and Castilian used to designate peoples from India, or the “Índias”. The concept of “Índia” in 1492 was still pretty vague, basically meant a wide area around the Indian Ocean, an area that Columbus tough that he had arrived. So the word was used to designate the pre-Columbian populations of America, that they found, the Taínos, the Caribs, etc…

Later, when the Spanish arrived to the Philippines, they used the same word to designate the locals.

Yes my family history
This words aren’t a proper sentence and are not related with the post that you quoted. If you write proper full sentences and if the quoted part is related, I will understand you better. English is not my mother language, and I also think that is not yours, so full proper sentences help us to communicate better.

Book is America by John oliby
If you are talking about the previous “secret” book that you were mention (post #65), that can “You can only read the book in library of Congress”, you said that the title was “mysterious of ancient America”, and now you say it is “America”, by John Oliby, you should know that the book is available online for any person that wants to read it:

America: Being the Latest, and Most Accurate Description of the Nevv VVorld

By the way, the book seems pretty much like a compilation of previous works.
 
Mar 2016
168
US
We agree on this: I don’t have to believe you.

Most specially if you make claims about a certain book and then you aren’t able to give the proper information about it. Basic things, like that allow to identify any book. The correct title, the author…

See: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html

This is a history forum, knowledge here is not achieved by “believing”, but by presenting sources and a rational reasoning. History is a Human and Social Science, not a religion. While in a religion believing is essential, in history it is often an obstacle.



I didn’t mention “Indios” in the quoted post. So I don’t know what you are trying to say here. That word is not related with the post. As for the meaning of the word “Índios” in 1492, yes, I know what it means. It is a word in Portuguese and Castilian used to designate peoples from India, or the “Índias”. The concept of “Índia” in 1492 was still pretty vague, basically meant a wide area around the Indian Ocean, an area that Columbus tough that he had arrived. So the word was used to designate the pre-Columbian populations of America, that they found, the Taínos, the Caribs, etc…

Later, when the Spanish arrived to the Philippines, they used the same word to designate the locals.



This words aren’t a proper sentence and are not related with the post that you quoted. If you write proper full sentences and if the quoted part is related, I will understand you better. English is not my mother language, and I also think that is not yours, so full proper sentences help us to communicate better.



If you are talking about the previous “secret” book that you were mention (post #65), that can “You can only read the book in library of Congress”, you said that the title was “mysterious of ancient America”, and now you say it is “America”, by John Oliby, you should know that the book is available online for any person that wants to read it:

America: Being the Latest, and Most Accurate Description of the Nevv VVorld

By the way, the book seems pretty much like a compilation of previous works.
Once again the book is America by John oliby.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Mar 2016
168
US
We agree on this: I don’t have to believe you.

Most specially if you make claims about a certain book and then you aren’t able to give the proper information about it. Basic things, like that allow to identify any book. The correct title, the author…

See: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html

This is a history forum, knowledge here is not achieved by “believing”, but by presenting sources and a rational reasoning. History is a Human and Social Science, not a religion. While in a religion believing is essential, in history it is often an obstacle.



I didn’t mention “Indios” in the quoted post. So I don’t know what you are trying to say here. That word is not related with the post. As for the meaning of the word “Índios” in 1492, yes, I know what it means. It is a word in Portuguese and Castilian used to designate peoples from India, or the “Índias”. The concept of “Índia” in 1492 was still pretty vague, basically meant a wide area around the Indian Ocean, an area that Columbus tough that he had arrived. So the word was used to designate the pre-Columbian populations of America, that they found, the Taínos, the Caribs, etc…

Later, when the Spanish arrived to the Philippines, they used the same word to designate the locals.



This words aren’t a proper sentence and are not related with the post that you quoted. If you write proper full sentences and if the quoted part is related, I will understand you better. English is not my mother language, and I also think that is not yours, so full proper sentences help us to communicate better.



If you are talking about the previous “secret” book that you were mention (post #65), that can “You can only read the book in library of Congress”, you said that the title was “mysterious of ancient America”, and now you say it is “America”, by John Oliby, you should know that the book is available online for any person that wants to read it:

America: Being the Latest, and Most Accurate Description of the Nevv VVorld

By the way, the book seems pretty much like a compilation of previous works.
My English is fine my typing not so much. Thanks

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,164
Portugal
Once again the book is America by John oliby.
Yes. I provided you the link for the book in my previous post. Somewhere previously you said something that the book was only available in the Library of Congress, and that no one could access it, so I posted you the link for the book.

Here it is, again: America: Being the Latest, and Most Accurate Description of the Nevv VVorld

Enjoy reading it!

My English is fine my typing not so much. Thanks
All right, my evaluation was from your written posts. So let us agree to disagree on this.

Doesn't matter what you say my family history is known by my relatives we don't need a history book to tell us about are ancestry. We told each other.
“family history” can be a source for the discipline of History. As any other sources it can be correct or incorrect. It must be seen critically by the discipline. The historical method needs to be used in any source.

But, if you don’t need a history book, may I ask, what are you doing in a History Forum? Seems quite a paradox to me! Even more if you were the one that brought a history book for the discussion, the book “America“, by John Ogilby (I presume that “oliby” was a typo). Anyway the link to the book was already provided.
 
Jul 2019
179
Ghana
The denial of African ancestry by some Afro-Americans is such a curious phenomenon... Mind you, I'm not denying that there is Native American ancestry among some Afro Americans, but it's also obvious that the bulk of Afro Americans are predominantly of Sub-Saharan ancestry with noticeable, sometimes significant European ancestry. I actually had an Afro American girlfriend once who was of part West African (South Nigerian), European (West European and Scandinavian) and Native American (West Coast) origin, in that order. But like any other case I can think of, this was clearly a post-Columbian mix. I'm also not denying that there are dark-skinned native Americans, sometimes with features that look vaguely similar to Sub-Saharan Africans, but these similarities are mostly superficial. Either way, @erinshavonne34 , your method is less than historical, and you're probably doing more damage than good, with regard to this forums knowledge on "Black Indians", which really is an interesting and undertold history.

Going back to the topic at hand, I want to stress that I'm not a proponent of Pre-Columbian African contact with the Americas, but I am sometimes intrigued by the "evidence" put forth for this. Some are easily debunked, like the big Olmec Heads, which clearly show features indigenous to the area. But I've seen some artefacts that aren't so easily dismissed. As is often the case with these kind of fringe theories, the provenance of these artefacts is not always clear. That's why I'm posting here to ask if someone knows more about these pieces.

@Tulius , you seem like quite a knowledgeable person with the ability to source, prove/disprove controversial questions, so let me ask you if you know more about these pieces. Same to anyone else that's knowledgable and able to source the origin of these pieces.

The single piece that has always struck me the most is a terracotta supposedly from the Classic Veracruz Culture which depicts a person with excessively West African looking features. Classic Veracruz Culture is "sometimes associated with Totonacs", and dated to 100 AD -1000 AD. I can't actually remember the name of the book I got it from, but it was some non-academic, generic "Mysteries of the Ancient World" kind of title. Really not academic literature and not my favorite book by a long shot, but it wasn't complete jibber jabber either. It actually spent a lot of it's time debunking myths. Anyway, the book dated the piece to 600 AD - 900AD. At first I outright dismissed it because it looks so African and I didn't know anything about Veracruz Culture, but by comparison, I later realized that the art-style has direct parallels in Veracruz Culture, and I now believe that the piece is in fact probably authentic...

So my questions now are:
Is this piece really authentic?
What time is it really dated to?
Does it actually depict a Sub Saharan African, or is even this part of the indigenous phenotype of the Gulf of Mexico?
Pre columbian americas Mexico mexican terracotta black African negro classical Veracruz totana...jpg


This isn't the only piece with "divergent" features. For comparison:
possible Pre Columbian Veracruz terracotta native American.jpg
The piece on the left is also sometimes used as "evidence" for Pre Columbian African contact, although I'd argue that it's sufficiently indigenous looking. The middle one just stands out more than any other Veracruz terracotta I've seen so far. The piece on the right isn't even controversial, but I guess the moustache and and goatee caught me by surprise. If it wasn't for the earplug, I'd say he almost looks like an Iberian fellow to me, but even that piece was dated to 250 AD - 550 AD... So are these actually "classic" Veracruz, or are they just dated to the wrong timeframe? Did Totonacs produce such terracottas in the post-classical/post-columbian contact period, or was the phenotypical diversity, even within one cultural area, so much greater than we commonly believe?

Another purported Veracruz piece with divergent features:
CeramicScultpure3inchesVeracruzMexico300AD.jpg



Other pieces, I've been able to debunk more easily myself.

This Mayan piece from Iximche in Guatemale, for example is sometimes used as "evidence" for Phoenician contact with the Americas:
Iximche Guatemala pre columbian Maya.jpg


The funny thing is that Iximche wasn't even founded until the 1470 AD, and they had repeated and direct contact with the Spaniards, so it's probably not such a "mystery" who was depicted here. Definitely not a Phoenician...



Iximche controversy.png
This book said, 300 AD, lol...


This piece is supposedly Mochica, Peru, 600 AD. But it only looks vaguely comparable to other Moche pieces I've seen... Is it even Mochica? If not, from where is it? When? Indigenous features or not?
Mochica Moche vessel negro african pre colombian america northern Peru c600 AD.jpg


This piece is also shared sometimes without any information. I can't find out anything about it. Where? When? Indignous features or not?
pre colombian maybe idunno.jpeg

When reverse image searching these pictures, I usually only find them on Afro centric websites... Obviously not the best sources. But I am genuinely interested in figuring out where these pieces actually do come from.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,164
Portugal
[…]
Going back to the topic at hand, I want to stress that I'm not a proponent of Pre-Columbian African contact with the Americas, but I am sometimes intrigued by the "evidence" put forth for this. Some are easily debunked, like the big Olmec Heads, which clearly show features indigenous to the area. But I've seen some artefacts that aren't so easily dismissed. As is often the case with these kind of fringe theories, the provenance of these artefacts is not always clear. That's why I'm posting here to ask if someone knows more about these pieces.

@Tulius , you seem like quite a knowledgeable person with the ability to source, prove/disprove controversial questions, so let me ask you if you know more about these pieces. Same to anyone else that's knowledgable and able to source the origin of these pieces.
[…]
So my questions now are:
Is this piece really authentic?
What time is it really dated to?
Does it actually depict a Sub Saharan African, or is even this part of the indigenous phenotype of the Gulf of Mexico?
Hi Sundiata1,

My knowledge of the America is limited, and mostly centred in the post 1492 events, mainly in the Portuguese America and in some parts of the Spanish America.

I have curiosity by some pre-Columbian civilizations, and read something about the Taínos, Caribs, Aztecs, Mayas, Olmecs and Incas, but pretty much on a basic level. I also had the opportunity to be on some ruins and found them fascinating.

Let me also state that I don’t deny any possibility of pre-Columbian contact, either with Africa, with Europe, or with the Polynesians. We can’t deny what we don’t know. I just think that at this stage we don’t have enough sources to state that there was a contact.

Let us make the analogy with the Norse: For years we considered that the Norse Sagas were mostly talking about myths with the travels to Vinland. Only when an archaeological site was discovered we had the final prove that the Norse were indeed in America.

And, for instance, let me add that I think that is quite possible that the Portuguese had already some knowledge of some lands West of the Azores/Cape Verde, sometime before 1492. We have some sources that point in that direction. But without further information it is and it will be just a possibility. A speculation. For now there is nothing concrete to prove it.

What I think that we can state for now is that if there was a previous contact (and as natural I am excluding here the initial wave or waves of migration to America through the Behring strait), that contact didn’t seem to have relevant historical consequences. The Norse arrival to America also didn’t. An eventual ship that was dragged by a storm to America and didn’t come back also didn’t had a relevant historical consequence. It would be interesting, a historical curiosity, but not much more.

These continents begun to be linked and in a permeant way by Columbus voyage.

As for the pieces that you present here they seem interesting and raise my curiosity. Unfortunately, I don’t know anything about them, so for now I can’t help you here.

I think that is the first time that I am seeing them. At least I don’t recall seeing them before. I will take a look in my books about the Mayas if something comes up. As for physical appearance the Mayas, apparently still today, have significant differences from other peoples around them. When I was visiting Mayan ruins in Mexico people pointed to those differences often.

About the Phoenician contact with America, most of the Scholars seem to demystify it. The book “The Phoenicians”, under the direction of Sabatino Moscati, has a small chapter about it, written by Maria Giulia Amadisi Guzzo, basically to send it to the speculation field and denounce some forgeries.

Phoenicians: Amazon.co.uk: Sabatino Moscati: 9780847821945: Books

And a review at JSTOR: Review on JSTOR

Only some scholars, most linked with the Mormons, or with Bible Studies, seem to defend the arrival of the Phoenicians to America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundiata1