Saint Helena - first inhabitants?

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#21
I could seeing some Pre Columbian ship being washed up on shore as result of some storm, but it would be a one way trip.

You sometimes hear legends about some people sailing west before Columbus, but you never hear them coming back. You don't get credit for a one time one way trip. Columbus sailed back and forth 4 times, and we have his logs to proves, as well as the testimony of crew and the objects he brought back, including people.

Anyways, the lack of people on St. Helena before the Portuguese support the premise of no Pre Columbian travelers. If there were Pre Columbinan travelers, then it might have been previously inhabited, but since we know it wasn't., just another blow against the PC theory.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,455
Portugal
#22
Anyways, the lack of people on St. Helena before the Portuguese support the premise of no Pre Columbian travelers. If there were Pre Columbinan travelers, then it might have been previously inhabited, but since we know it wasn't., just another blow against the PC theory.
It is interesting to note that even Islands much more close to the African continent were inhabited. Islands that were after intensely colonized by the Portuguese like the ones in the archipelago of Madeira, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe.

Also interesting is the pre-colonial human presence in the island of Fernando Pó (today’s Bioko), quite near the São Tomé and Príncipe archipelago and in other quite interesting case, in the Canary Islands, quite near Madeira. But these later cases travelling from the African continent can be considered coastal navigation.

Edit:

On the other hand, on the other side of the Atlantic the Taínos and Caribes in the Caribbean seemed to have some seafaring traditions, but as far as we know never reached Europe or Africa. Even if there are some stories that some bodies and wrecks arrived to Azores or Madeira, can’t recall.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#23
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.
- "Three currents can carry Africans to the Americas: one current off the Cape Verde islands, one current off the Senegambia coast, and one current off the southern coast of Africa."
- you still have no evidence that west African waters was impossible to traverse

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.
Traces of human presence are rarely easy to come across - the longer ago and the shorter presence the harder it is.

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.
The Europeans arrived perhaps centuries later.

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.
Whether iron tools were a compulsory shipbuilding component or not, you have no evidence validating that pre-Columbian journeys were impossible.

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/
Which foods are you referring to and how can we certify they did not originate from the other side of the Atlantic?

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.
Please reformulate.

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
Absence of records does not imply absence of event.

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?
I addressed both of your comments separately; why do you imply I didn't?

Tulius said:
Exactly, I agree with you. We have no records.

We have no records, written, archaeological, or other… so… it is purely speculation until such a record can be found.
Only Europeans had explicit records. We have many clues however (cf. the links I provided).

Bart Dale said:
Anyways, the lack of people on St. Helena before the Portuguese support the premise of no Pre Columbian travelers. If there were Pre Columbinan travelers, then it might have been previously inhabited, but since we know it wasn't., just another blow against the PC theory.
see above

Tulius said:
Also interesting is the pre-colonial human presence in the island of Fernando Pó (today’s Bioko), quite near the São Tomé and Príncipe archipelago and in other quite interesting case, in the Canary Islands, quite near Madeira. But these later cases travelling from the African continent can be considered coastal navigation.
cf. first comment
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#24
- "Three currents can carry Africans to the Americas: one current off the Cape Verde islands, one current off the Senegambia coast, and one current off the southern coast of Africa."
- you still have no evidence that west African waters was impossible to traverse 
It is not my job to prove anything, that is your job. If want to claim there was Pre Columbian travel to the Americas, you havd to provide the evidence. It is not my burden or others to disprove it, it is yours to prove it. To say that it is possible does not even come close to saying it happened.

For examples, it was entirely possible the Chinese could figure out the world was a sphere, same as the ancient Greeks, but the fact is they didn't. Some Chinese scholars were still insisting the world was not a sphere even people had sailed around the world. Simply because something is possible is not the same as showing it happened.



Traces of human presence are rarely easy to come across - the longer ago and the shorter presence the harder it is. 
Not quite true. We found evidence for the Viking Pre Columbian travel, for example. The Vikings stayed neither a long time nor were there many of them.




Whether iron tools were a compulsory shipbuilding component or not, you have no evidence validating that pre-Columbian journeys were impossible. 
Never said it pre-Columbian travel was impossible, merely that there is no evidence that it happened, and until there is, we can't say it happened.



Which foods are you referring to and how can we certify they did not originate from the other side of the Atlantic? 
I already said, tomatoes, potatoes, maize, peanuts, etc. We can date pollen remains, written records, carbon 14 dating, etc., to show when these new foods arrived arrive in the Old World. Nobody doubts whar crops arrived from the New World.

And we can date when horses re-appeared in the Americas, even without written records and the accounts of the Natives. Even if all written records disappeared, we could trace the arrival of horses in America and its impact on tne life style of the Native Americans.




Absence of records does not imply absence of event.
It can, if we should have those records, but don't. If we have detail records and accounts of life and no mention of horses, and no archaei0logical evidence, we can say those peopke did not have horses. And absent of of evidence certainly does not prove existence.

Nor does "possible" even begin to be the same thing as "it actually happened".




Only Europeans had explicit records. We have many clues however (cf. the links I provided). 
Others, like the Chinese, had had explicit records too. It is just that they always claim to the equivalent of "dog ate our explicit records" when they don't have any records to steal credit. The Chinese never hesistent point to "explicit" records when claiming for priority for something. Although European records are probably more comprehensive and complete.

The evidence of pre-Columbian Viking travel does not depend on any written records
 
Jan 2015
3,288
Front Lines of the Pig War
#25
^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.
Some of this would have to do with the position of the trade winds and the ITCZ, in which St Helena is not well positioned to the trade winds.

Also, the area of Africa that would have provided colonists to St Helena is endemic with Tsetse flies, so perhaps did not develop shipbuilding.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#26
It is not my job to prove anything, that is your job. If want to claim there was Pre Columbian travel to the Americas, you havd to provide the evidence. It is not my burden or others to disprove it, it is yours to prove it. To say that it is possible does not even come close to saying it happened.
The onus is on those who refute highly potential scenarios whilst always necessitating 100% evidence.

For examples, it was entirely possible the Chinese could figure out the world was a sphere, same as the ancient Greeks, but the fact is they didn't. Some Chinese scholars were still insisting the world was not a sphere even people had sailed around the world. Simply because something is possible is not the same as showing it happened.
We have hardly anything to prove that Gaulish and Brythonic were spoken throughout France and Britain respectively. We assume this by instinct, not by empirical evidence.

Not quite true. We found evidence for the Viking Pre Columbian travel, for example. The Vikings stayed neither a long time nor were there many of them.
That is a lone example.

Never said it pre-Columbian travel was impossible, merely that there is no evidence that it happened, and until there is, we can't say it happened.
For this case though, prima facie evidence is more relevant than 100% evidence.

I already said, tomatoes, potatoes, maize, peanuts, etc. We can date pollen remains, written records, carbon 14 dating, etc., to show when these new foods arrived arrive in the Old World. Nobody doubts whar crops arrived from the New World.
We can assume that food trading was not their utmost concern and as Columbus noticed, they were to remain in the New World.

And absent of of evidence certainly does not prove existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Others, like the Chinese, had had explicit records too. It is just that they always claim to the equivalent of "dog ate our explicit records" when they don't have any records to steal credit. The Chinese never hesistent point to "explicit" records when claiming for priority for something. Although European records are probably more comprehensive and complete.
100% evidence gambit


Lord Fairfax said:
Some of this would have to do with the position of the trade winds and the ITCZ, in which St Helena is not well positioned to the trade winds.
"Three currents can carry Africans to the Americas: one current off the Cape Verde islands, one current off the Senegambia coast, and one current off the southern coast of Africa."

Saint Helena is also located below the ITCZ, hence would be more easily attained than Ascencion Island, at least during the norther summer.

Also, the area of Africa that would have provided colonists to St Helena is endemic with Tsetse flies, so perhaps did not develop shipbuilding.
Why would this pose a major hindrance though? :notrust:
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#27
The onus is on those who refute highly potential scenarios whilst always necessitating 100% evidence. 
No, the onus is on those making a claim. You are making the claim of Pre-Columbian travel, you prove it. If you don't have evidence, then you can't say it happened. Saying it is possible is not the same as saying it happened.


We have hardly anything to prove that Gaulish and Brythonic were spoken throughout France and Britain respectively. We assume this by instinct, not by empirical evidence. 
We do have evidence, meager as it is. We assume they spoke Gaulish and Brythonic on the evidence we have, not instict.

And this a bad example. Unless you have writing, language leaves no physical trace, and the Celts did not have their own writing.

Travel and trade do leave physical traces. We can find sites of ancient campfires in the Sinai, you can still see wagon ruts left by the pioneers as they traveled to the American West in places even today. We managed to find the remains of the Franklin expedition, a single expedition in the vast region of the Artic. And we can't find a single solid shred of real undisputed evidence for non Viking Pre-Columbian travel? Bull.


That is a lone example. 
No its not. In recent years evidence for the Vikings have been found a couple of different sites.




We can assume that food trading was not their utmost concern and as Columbus noticed, they were to remain in the New World. 
Now you are making claims to be a mind reader. We can make no such assumptions. Some of the early European visitors to North America were cod fisherman. The fisheries of North America were rich. You can't know the reasons Pre-Columbian travelers came, so you can't rule out food as a concern. But food trading wasn't at utmost concern for the Spanish when they conquered rhe Americas, but they still were smart enough to release the value of these new foods.



"Three currents can carry Africans to the Americas: one current off the Cape Verde islands, one current off the Senegambia coast, and one current off the southern coast of Africa."

Saint Helena is also located below the ITCZ, hence would be more easily attained than Ascencion Island, at least during the norther summer.


Why would this pose a major hindrance though? :notrust:
These aren't my words. If your are going to reply to someone else in the same post, please include the name of the other poster you are quoting, so people do not get the mistaken impression I said them.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#28
No, the onus is on those making a claim. You are making the claim of Pre-Columbian travel, you prove it. If you don't have evidence, then you can't say it happened. Saying it is possible is not the same as saying it happened.
You've ignored the link I provided as well as my explanations on prima facie and 100% evidence.

We do have evidence, meager as it is. We assume they spoke Gaulish and Brythonic on the evidence we have, not instict.
key word:assume

And this a bad example. Unless you have writing, language leaves no physical trace, and the Celts did not have their own writing.
Just as some explorers leave less traces than others, also depending on recentness and shortage of stay.

Travel and trade do leave physical traces. We can find sites of ancient campfires in the Sinai, you can still see wagon ruts left by the pioneers as they traveled to the American West in places even today. We managed to find the remains of the Franklin expedition, a single expedition in the vast region of the Artic. And we can't find a single solid shred of real undisputed evidence for non Viking Pre-Columbian travel? Bull.
The Vikings in North America are a cherry-picked example given they just happened to leave a relatively large amount of traces.

But food trading wasn't at utmost concern for the Spanish when they conquered rhe Americas, but they still were smart enough to release the value of these new foods.
So if any transatlantic expedition does not result in a food trade, then its members are stupid? Is that what you're suggesting?

These aren't my words. If your are going to reply to someone else in the same post, please include the name of the other poster you are quoting, so people do not get the mistaken impression I said them.
That's the second time you're pretending I didn't.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
3,288
Front Lines of the Pig War
#29
The onus is on those who refute highly potential scenarios whilst always necessitating 100% evidence.:
Uh, no.
You've advanced the theory of pre-Columbian travel, its up to you to show some evidence, otherwise it just remains an unproven theory without evidence.
 
Mar 2015
1,405
Yorkshire
#30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition

Kon Tiki Expedition
When I was a kid, I was absolutely enthralled by this adventure and could not read enough books on the subject. Thor Heyerdahl was a house-hold name.

His theory, which he proved by sailing there in a reed boat from Lake Titicaca, was that it was possible for South Americans to reach Easter Island.

Easter Island, remote from anywhere, but being so much nearer South America than Polynesia, it was thought certain that he was right.

However we now know he was absolutely wrong. Easter Islanders are Polynesians and we have DNA to prove it.

Ever since then, I am skeptical of claims unless proven - we need proof of African presence in St Helena. Just because it is possible does mean it happened.
 

Similar History Discussions