Saint Helena - first inhabitants?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,451
Portugal
#11
If pre-Columbian transatlantic crossings are likely to have happened, then it is unwise to discard the possibility of ancient human settlement on the island.
If…

But, by curiosity, why do you say that they are likely? As far as I know, we don’t have any sources that prove it or even to imply it, so what are the premises of such “hypothesis”?

Note that you were talking about “transatlantic crossings” not the random event of a boat dragged by a storm.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#12
If…

But, by curiosity, why do you say that they are likely? As far as I know, we don’t have any sources that prove it or even to imply it, so what are the premises of such “hypothesis”?
I provided two of them in my last post.

And here are several more clues: http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/01/23/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-prove-black-people-sailed-to-the-americas-long-before-columbus/

Note that you were talking about “transatlantic crossings” not the random event of a boat dragged by a storm.
Yes, during which the charting of the Central Atlantic may have been led out to a great extent...
just as nearly all the islands of the Indian and Pacific oceans would have undergone human settlement at some time.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#13
^Why would navigational bridges have existed across all oceans except the Atlantic though? Given the likelihood of pre-Columbian crossings, it is more than possible the island once saw human settlement.

Why they eventually left or disappeared may be a tougher question.
In the case of Africa, a lot of the western coast lacks good harbors, and the winds and currents are tricky. The Portuguese wiith thousands of years of sailing history behind them had a tough time sailing down the coast, and that would have discourage Africans from developing the kind of sea going craft needed,

While pre-Columbia crossings are claimed, there is actually no evidence for them except the Vikings. If there were pre-Columbian crossings, how come they were all too selfish to sell iron tools to the peoples of the Americas, snd teach the knowledge of iron working? Native Americans could have benefited from iron tools, irons knives and such were popular trade items with the Native Americans. And why were these pre-Columbian travelers too stupid to recognize the benefit of New World crops like peanuts, tomatoes, potatoes, and the like. Why weren't the Pre-Columbian travelers smart like the Spanish and realize the benefit of such crops?

South Americans also had barriers to develop ocean going travel. It took thousands of years of experience in sailing in the relatively sheltered waters of the Mediterannean Sea (compared to the stormy Altantic), and the Indians didn't have a nice, relatively friendly sea to start off in to build up their ocean going skills in. The jump may have been too great. And the peoples of the Americas didn't have nice iron tools to help them builf ocean going ships because the mean, selfish Pre-Columbian travelers wouldn't share their iron working technologu or sell them iron tools, the bastards.

Also, St. Helena is pretty remote from anywhere. Unless you do a lot of sailing arount the southern tip of Africa, or into hunting the soithern whales, there is no reason to go there and unlikely you would accidently discover it. The is a reason Napoleon was exiled there, it was so remote they didn't have to worry about him escaping, you are not going to do it in a little rowboat. Only Europeans were regularly sailing around Africa, and the island was discovered only a few decades after the Portuguese started doing it.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,451
Portugal
#14
I provided two of them in my last post.
Youtube videos are premises? Sorry, I didn’t saw it. Can you resume it here, writing it.

“10 Pieces of Evidence That Prove Black People Sailed to the Americas Long Before Columbus”

Humm… sorry, besides the fact that Columbus and Balboa saw black skinned people (and Africa didn’t had and still doesn’t have the monopoly of black skinned people) I mostly see pseudo history there and a lot of confusion.

And let me quote a passage:

“As Dr. Julian Whitewright, a maritime archaeologist at the University of Southampton, explained, the voyage from Africa on ancient ships was “quite a plausible undertaking, based on the capabilities of the vessel of the period and historical material stating it took place.”

I never heard about Dr. Julian Whitewright, but I can agree with him. It was plausible, but we don’t have sources about it. “quite a plausible undertaking?” The “quite” seems to be pushing it. It could happen? Yes. Did we know that happened? No. Do we have evidences? No.

I don’t know much about pre-Columbian American history, so someone correct me here if I am wrong. The first humans that arrive to America seem to be in a migration through the Bering Strait. Due to the capacity demonstrated by the Polynesians to jump form island to island it is possible (due to their dispersion in the Pacific, but as far as I know, it is a thesis, still to be proven) that they arrived to America.

And we have the arrival of the Norsemen in the NE. We have the Sagas and Archaeological evidences. It as an ephemeral presence, apparently without major consequences for Europe and America.

And finally we have the discovery by Columbus that connected firmly and decidedly America to the other continents.

Besides these already pointed is it possible that other humans, from other regions have reached America? Yes, it is possible. Due we have evidences? No.

Besides, when the Portuguese explored the West Coast of Africa, during the 15th century, and that exploration is relatively well documented, they didn’t found any seafaring civilization, or civilizational complex, as they found in the Indian Ocean, or as we know today that the Polynesians were. The boats encountered were used for costal and fishing. Even if we know that the riverine use seemed more intense.

The most close to a record that we have is from Arabic origin, since the Muslim had also seafaring traditions both in the Mediterranean and even in the Atlantic (in today’s Morocco coast and in the West of the Iberian Peninsula). But the source is not clear. It states about a group of sailors that leaved Lisbon and after a storm it was dragged to the sea and arrived to an inhabited island before returning home sailing east. Even if the source is not clear, it is almost consensual that the island was probably one of the Canary Islands.

Some of the “evidences” shown on that site seem more a wishful thinking than anything else. But again, if you have a evidence please write it here.

The Portuguese wiith thousands of years of sailing history behind them had a tough time sailing down the coast, and that would have discourage Africans from developing the kind of sea going craft needed,
Indeed, it took almost a century to go from the North Africa to the Cape. And a single travel to go from the Cape to India.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#15
In the case of Africa, a lot of the western coast lacks good harbors, and the winds and currents are tricky. The Portuguese wiith thousands of years of sailing history behind them had a tough time sailing down the coast, and that would have discourage Africans from developing the kind of sea going craft needed,
The route to the Americas is less tricky however.

While pre-Columbia crossings are claimed, there is actually no evidence for them except the Vikings.
Simply because nor the Africans nor the Native Americans kept elaborate records of events as the Vikings did.

If there were pre-Columbian crossings, how come they were all too selfish to sell iron tools to the peoples of the Americas, snd teach the knowledge of iron working? Native Americans could have benefited from iron tools, irons knives and such were popular trade items with the Native Americans.
Simply because they couldn't have benefited from them. In fact Native Americans today make the most prolific ironworkers.

And why were these pre-Columbian travelers too stupid to recognize the benefit of New World crops like peanuts, tomatoes, potatoes, and the like. Why weren't the Pre-Columbian travelers smart like the Spanish and realize the benefit of such crops?
Perhaps because that wasn't their main concern.

South Americans also had barriers to develop ocean going travel. It took thousands of years of experience in sailing in the relatively sheltered waters of the Mediterannean Sea (compared to the stormy Altantic), and the Indians didn't have a nice, relatively friendly sea to start off in to build up their ocean going skills in. The jump may have been too great. And the peoples of the Americas didn't have nice iron tools to help them builf ocean going ships because the mean, selfish Pre-Columbian travelers wouldn't share their iron working technologu or sell them iron tools, the bastards.
Source?

Also, St. Helena is pretty remote from anywhere. Unless you do a lot of sailing arount the southern tip of Africa, or into hunting the soithern whales, there is no reason to go there and unlikely you would accidently discover it. The is a reason Napoleon was exiled there, it was so remote they didn't have to worry about him escaping, you are not going to do it in a little rowboat. Only Europeans were regularly sailing around Africa, and the island was discovered only a few decades after the Portuguese started doing it.
Have another look at the website I provided in my last post. Given the number of times the crossings that are likely to have happened, it is more than likely that they came at one point to either Saint Helena or Ascencion Island, both in the mid-Atlantic. Perhaps you may be confusing the islands location with Tristan da Cunhas', located somewhat further south.


Youtube videos are premises? Sorry, I didn’t saw it. Can you resume it here, writing it.
Given the content, it would be better if you just read them both.

Humm… sorry, besides the fact that Columbus and Balboa saw black skinned people (and Africa didn’t had and still doesn’t have the monopoly of black skinned people) I mostly see pseudo history there and a lot of confusion.
Err, why?

I never heard about Dr. Julian Whitewright, but I can agree with him. It was plausible, but we don’t have sources about it. “quite a plausible undertaking?” The “quite” seems to be pushing it. It could happen? Yes. Did we know that happened? No. Do we have evidences? No.
Because we have no records.

Besides, when the Portuguese explored the West Coast of Africa, during the 15th century, and that exploration is relatively well documented, they didn’t found any seafaring civilization, or civilizational complex, as they found in the Indian Ocean, or as we know today that the Polynesians were. The boats encountered were used for costal and fishing. Even if we know that the riverine use seemed more intense.
Many of the voyages could have debuted much earlier and/or further inland.

Some of the “evidences” shown on that site seem more a wishful thinking than anything else.
Such as?
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#16
The route to the Americas is less tricky however.
Irelevant. The point is you would have to go from hugging the coast to full fled ocean travel in a single step, and that is too big a step. The fact is, neither the Americas nor Sub Saharan African developed ocean going travel, why is just speculation. If you are asserting that they did, it is up to you to produce the evidence, the same as if you were asserting they had spaceships.



Simply because nor the Africans nor the Native Americans kept elaborate records of events as the Vikings did. 
We know the Vikings traveled to North America based on archaeological finds, not elaborate records, the same kind of finds we should find for other Pre-Columbian travelers and DO NOT FIND. Find some archaeological finds of an unmistakeable nature, such as iron tools in the Americans and stop speculating.The burden of proof is on you to provide, just the same if you claim they had spaceships. Don't have evidence of spaceships, then we must say they didn't have, just the same for Pre Columbian travelers. There is the Speculative History section you can post Pre Columbian travelers in.



Simply because they couldn't have benefited from them. In fact Native Americans today make the most prolific ironworkers.
Your statement makes no sense. Of course, Native Americans would have benefited. It shows that an the Native Americans needed was someone to show them how to make iron, but your mythological Pre Columbian travelers were just to selfish, and kept the knowledge to themselves. All the potential mythological Pre Columbian travelers, Africans too, knew how make iron, so they were just being plain mean to keep the knowledge to themselves, real scum. Anyone could see how the Native Americans would benefit from the knowledge of how to make iron.


Perhaps because that wasn't their main concern. 
It wasn't the Spanish main concern either, they were looking for gold, but it didn't stop them from realizing the benefit of these new plants as food, and carrying them around the world. The value of the new crops, of plants like peanuts, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, from tne Americas far exceeded the importance of the gold and silver. Either the mythological Pre Columbian travelers were not smart, idiots, or it didn't happen. I prefer to think these mythological Pre Columbian travelers weren't stupid and weren't traveling between the Old and New World.





Source?


Have another look at the website I provided in my last post. Given the number of times the crossings that are likely to have happened, it is more than likely that they came at one point to either Saint Helena or Ascencion Island, both in the mid-Atlantic. Perhaps you may be confusing the islands location with Tristan da Cunhas', located somewhat further south. 



Given the content, it would be better if you just read them both.


Err, why?


Because we have no records.


Many of the voyages could have debuted much earlier and/or further inland.


Such as?
Some of your quotes were from another poster, but you didn't include his name, leaving the false impression that I made those remarks. In the future, you should always include the name of all the posters your are quoting and replying to, not just some of the names.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#17
Irelevant. The point is you would have to go from hugging the coast to full fled ocean travel in a single step, and that is too big a step. The fact is, neither the Americas nor Sub Saharan African developed ocean going travel, why is just speculation. If you are asserting that they did, it is up to you to produce the evidence, the same as if you were asserting they had spaceships.
And is is up to you to provide the evidence that the west coast of Africa was "Impossible" to traverse.
I have given many clues that increase the likelihood of it having happened (i.e. well above 50%).
Besides, exactly what level of evidence are you after anyway?

We know the Vikings traveled to North America based on archaeological finds, not elaborate records, the same kind of finds we should find for other Pre-Columbian travelers and DO NOT FIND.
Either because we have not conducted them or they did not leave such evident traces as the Vikings did.

Find some archaeological finds of an unmistakeable nature, such as iron tools in the Americans and stop speculating.
Unnecessary; see above

Your statement makes no sense. Of course, Native Americans would have benefited. It shows that an the Native Americans needed was someone to show them how to make iron, but your mythological Pre Columbian travelers were just to selfish, and kept the knowledge to themselves. All the potential mythological Pre Columbian travelers, Africans too, knew how make iron, so they were just being plain mean to keep the knowledge to themselves, real scum. Anyone could see how the Native Americans would benefit from the knowledge of how to make iron.
Frankly I don't know to what extent ironworking plays a role in shipbuilding, but either way there is no proof that the Native Americans did not possess the slightest level of expertise in the subject.

It wasn't the Spanish main concern either, they were looking for gold, but it didn't stop them from realizing the benefit of these new plants as food, and carrying them around the world. The value of the new crops, of plants like peanuts, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, from tne Americas far exceeded the importance of the gold and silver."
Not having the same esteem for these "riches" as Europeans doesn't imply stupidity.

Some of your quotes were from another poster, but you didn't include his name, leaving the false impression that I made those remarks. In the future, you should always include the name of all the posters your are quoting and replying to, not just some of the names.
:suspicious: No they weren't - which shows how much attention you're paying.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#18
Irelevant. The point is you would have to go from hugging the coast to full fled ocean travel in a single step, and that is too big a step. The fact is, neither the Americas nor Sub Saharan African developed ocean going travel, why is just speculation. If you are asserting that they did, it is up to you to produce the evidence, the same as if you were asserting they had spaceships.
And it is up to you to provide the evidence that the west coast of Africa was "Impossible" to traverse.
I have given many clues that increase the likelihood of it having happened (i.e. well above 50%).
Besides, exactly what level of evidence are you after anyway?

We know the Vikings traveled to North America based on archaeological finds, not elaborate records, the same kind of finds we should find for other Pre-Columbian travelers and DO NOT FIND.
Either because we have not conducted them or they did not leave such evident traces as the Vikings did.

Find some archaeological finds of an unmistakeable nature, such as iron tools in the Americans and stop speculating.
Unnecessary; see above

Your statement makes no sense. Of course, Native Americans would have benefited. It shows that an the Native Americans needed was someone to show them how to make iron, but your mythological Pre Columbian travelers were just to selfish, and kept the knowledge to themselves. All the potential mythological Pre Columbian travelers, Africans too, knew how make iron, so they were just being plain mean to keep the knowledge to themselves, real scum. Anyone could see how the Native Americans would benefit from the knowledge of how to make iron.
Frankly I don't know to what extent ironworking plays a role in shipbuilding, but either way there is no proof that the Native Americans did not possess the slightest level of expertise in the subject.

It wasn't the Spanish main concern either, they were looking for gold, but it didn't stop them from realizing the benefit of these new plants as food, and carrying them around the world. The value of the new crops, of plants like peanuts, potatoes, maize, tomatoes, from tne Americas far exceeded the importance of the gold and silver."
Not having the same level of esteem for these "riches" as Europeans doesn't imply stupidity.

Some of your quotes were from another poster, but you didn't include his name, leaving the false impression that I made those remarks. In the future, you should always include the name of all the posters your are quoting and replying to, not just some of the names.
:confused: No they weren't - which shows how much attention you're paying at the moment.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#19
And it is up to you to provide the evidence that the west coast of Africa was "Impossible" to traverse.
I have given many clues that increase the likelihood of it having happened (i.e. well above 50%).
Besides, exactly what level of evidence are you after anyway? 
I never said it was impossible, merely hard. I don't have to provide anything, because I was merely proposing a possible mechanism to explain the lack of ocean ships going by Africans. You are the one keeps evading providing the required evidence for your claims. As I daid before, move the thread to speculative history if you can't.



Either because we have not conducted them or they did not leave such evident traces as the Vikings did. 
If we can find the meager traces of a handful of Vikings that only stayed a few years, we should be able find traces of these mythological Pre Columbian travelers. The burden of proof is on you, until you can find it you have no justification for making the claim.




Frankly I don't know to what extent ironworking plays a role in shipbuilding, but either way there is no proof that the Native Americans did not possess the slightest level of expertise in the subject. 
Yes we do. We have the evidence of explorers who visited the various tribes, and have examples of canoes and other boats they did posses. If we can find dugouts and other boats, then we should have found ecidence of the larger ocean ships, but we don't. The burden is not on me to show the expertise did not exist, it is on you to show it exist. You are going to make claims they built spaceships, you need to provide the evidence.

Making a ocean going ship, which are larger in general, woulf be a lot easier with iron tools. Try building one witn stone tools, and come back after you had. There is a reason people switched to iron tools, and it wasn't because they ran out of stone.



Not having the same level of esteem for these "riches" as Europeans doesn't imply stupidity. 
The Europeans preferred not to see people starve, like the mythology Pre Columbian travelers. Not only are they only not smart enough to see the advantages of these new foods, tney would prefer to see their fellow humans starve instead of bringing them new foods that could save tneir lives. How utterly selfish these mythological Pre Columbian travelers were. Not bright and selfish, what a combination these mythological Pre Columbian travelers were/

And despite the oft made claim, non Europeans were just as interest in riches as Europeans. Piracy was just as common in China as in Europe, and the Chinese did not give away their porcelain for free as you seem to imply. The only differenc is the non Europeans lacked the courage to risk the dangers in unknown waters and travel where none had travel before, and face unknown dangers. Known dangers, to commit acts of greed like robbery and piracy, the non Europeans were willing to face. They were more willing to become pirates than face the dangers of legitimate traders and risking sailing across the world as the Europeans did. So it is a myth they weren't into profit and making money as Europeans



:confused: No they weren't - which shows how much attention you are paying at the moment.
The some of quotes were from Tulius, not me. I suggest you read what I posted, and what Tulius. Perhaps you think all westerners write the same, so you can't tell us apart?
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions