Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
|
|
200.149.94.243, I can see that you are putting a great deal or work into this page, but I have trouble taking it seriously at the moment, as I don't understand why you are claiming that no-one believes in pre-columbian Atlantic voyages. In 1930 that may well have been true - I'm not sure when knowledge of the Norse voyages became public, but it certainly hasn't been true for many years. Hey - I'm 43 now and I was taught about Erik the Red and the Viking voyages in primary school - that must have been in the 1960s, and I have no reason to think it was in any way unusual. While I've not taken any especial interest in this subject in the years since then, off the top of my head I could probably find three or four books I've read in the last year or two that mention the Norse settlements in Greenland and eastern America in passing, all solid mainstream stuff, nothing outlandish. Tim Flannery's The Eternal Frontier: An ecological history of North America and its peoples comes immediately to mind: he is possibly Australia's leading palentologist and holds positions at the South Australian Museum, the University of Sydney, and at Harvard. I don't see how you can get much more mainstream than that. Tannin
The page is looking much better now. I am tempted to clean it up a little further, make it clearer that no-one seriously disputes the Viking contacts these days, but before I do that, I should check: is there anyone of any stature who still disputes it? Tannin 12:34 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
Final call? Tannin 00:55 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)
I am very reluctant to delete anything that may be useful. It seems that no-one has paid any attention to this page (despite my prodding) in almost a month. I make no claim to any expertise in this field, but my reading of the situation is that this article was originally placed here by a highly POV writer who was determined to (a) construct a conspiratorial straw-man myth about biased historians willfully ignoring evidence of pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic voyages, and (b) demonstrate that these historians have it all wrong.
I know enough about relatively modern history to correct this first part of the article (at least in its broad thrust) and this I did a month ago. However, I know little about the events claimed to have taken place in the following two sections (both now deleted). I left it go a month in the hope that someone with the appropriate background would come along and then (a) say "this is good stuff, leave it alone", or (b) "this is worth editing into shape, I'll take care of it, or (c) "this is the exact same sort of biased nonsense that the first part was".
But no-one has. It seems, then, that it's up to me to make a decision as best I can. Based on the clear evidence that the first section was 80% biased nonsense and 20% historical fact, on the balance of probabilities I have decided to be bold and remove the remainder. (If in doubt, it's better to say nothing than to get things wrong.)
For the record, the text from the original author's final draft follows. (Note that this is taken from his last edit, and is from before other Wikipedians began to prune it - so if you plan a restore, use the page history rather than this older copy.) - Tannin
- It had long been qualified that the transatlantic or transpacific voyages belong to the dream world and they are all unscientific theories. On the other hand, it is widely accepted in linguistics that the main language of Madagascar was imported there from Indonesia. It is hard to accept that if the Malay-Polynesian navigators more than a millenium ago were able to cross the vast Indian Ocean, why would similar or shorter crossings of the other two oceans remain taboo issues. Whatever is the case, these conflicting theories exist, and they are waiting for final solutions.
- In the 20th century, several attempt have been made to prove the possibility of long survival on oceans, like that of Alain Bombard. The Norwegian scholar Thor Heyerdahl have used light boats (named Rá and Kon-Tiki)of reed that was used by peoples of North Africa and Bolivia. He was able to cross oceans by his fragile but resistent boats successfully. These were the first scholarly proofs for the possibility of crossing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. However, many conservative scholars seemed to be unimpressed by his scientific conclusions and achievements, and the reluctance in dealing with the historicity of early records of such crossings is still around. The best example is the question of the Viking discoveries. There is a growing number of scientific proofs for the historical truth for America's discovery by the Vikings. Most of the modern handbooks, encyclopaedias and encyclopedic dictionaries discredit those discoveries, at least by a silence. Practically all of them claim that America was discovered by Christopher Columbus. The archaeological excavations at L'Anse aux Meadows at the northern tip of Newfoundland have proved that the ramains of a real Viking settlement have been unearthed. Helge Ingstad, Westward to Vinland (New York: St. Martins, 1969) is the best source for the conclusions. In reality, most teachers and professors have heard something about these, and believe their historicity at home. However, they have to forget their knowledge on their cathedras, and teach the students that Columbus had been the first European to cross the Atlantic. Many progressive scholars claim that they are innocent about the strange attitude taken by the editors of most encyclopaedias and the compilers of the curriculum in the educational institutions of the world.
- === Possible Irish crossings of the Atlantic ===
- One of the earliest travel records of the Irish relates the navigation of Saint Brendan or Brandan to several islands in the north and the west. In Italy, in the 1970s, it has been published also in an original Old Italian dialect. The story reports a huge column of glass standing out from the sea (that was interpreted as an iceberg), also an event of landing on a small "island" and making a fire on it. After which, the island disappeared, for it turned out to be a sleeping whale. A beautifully illustrated early medieval map depicts this whale with the event, and St. Brendan's Isle to the northwest of Africa, west of Spain and northeast of the Insulae Fortunatae. See Z. Simon's book mentioned above (1984: 149). Based on its position and particular outline, the author identifies it with Great Inagua Island of the Bahamas.
- Z.A. Simon (1984: 9-31) offers a new solution to the Mexican calendar and concludes that its starting point was October 23, 4004 BCE. He observes that the Aztec calendar and the Irish records give exactly the same date, probably for the latest creation of Man. This matching could easily be explained by the transatlantic voyage of St. Brendan. He and his companions, all priests, may have heard and recorded the number of of days elapsed since the calendar's beginning, which data ended up in the parish of Armagh, founded by Saint Patrick. Glyn Daniel, 150 years of Archaeology (1975: 27) his Man discovers his past (1968: 20), John Philip Cohane, Paradox: The Case for the Extraterrestrial Origin of Man (New York: Crown Publishers, 1977: 43), and the Archaeoastronomy magazine (1982: pp. 20-21) mention that according to James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, the world had been created in 4004 BC. In 1701 an unknown authority inserted his dates into the margins of the King James Version of the Bible. Bishop John Lightfoot, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, declared, "Man was created by the Trinity on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. at nine o'clock in the morning." There is no explanation for the unparalled matching of these revered dates, except the possibility of an information received from the ancestors of the Aztecs passed to the Irish priests. (Since any theory supposing the common origin of the Irish and the Mexicans, or the existence of a common cladle, is considered as unscientific.) According the earliest Mexican records, as reported by Fray Diego Durán, the Aztec tradition located their old country, the flooded Aztlan, with its seven towns, at an island near Florida. He recorded its name as Aztlan, Lugar de la Blancura o de las garzas (That means 'Place of the Whiteness and the herons.') It may refer to the Mexican population dressed in white, the thousands of white herons of the bahamas, or, to the cradle of the white race. The latter also exists in the Scandinavian traditions as Hvitra-mannar-land that is, 'White men's Land.'
- === Possible Phoenician crossings of the Atlantic ===
- The Phoenicians were the first users of the color called purple. Pliny recorded that once Uba Numidian king intended to establish a stock farm of purple Murex in the west, 12,000 kilometres distant from Cadiz, apparently in Central America.
- There are very colourful Maya paintings that depict naked men belonging to a different race, with the drawings of Murex shells on the coast. They are all captives with reddish hair, quite white-skinned and circumcised. The latter detail must have referred to the members of a Semitic expedition, because Indians did not practice the circumcision. Almost identical statues have been found in Mexico, Sardinia and Susa (Iran). All the three of them represent the same naked woman with the same hairstyle, wearing a similarly braided veil, all lifting up her breasts: they must have belonged to the Phoenician goddess Ishtar. The first one can be seen in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Cagliari, or in the book of Parrot-Chehab-Moscati, Die Phönizier (1977), originally taken from Photothek (Univers des Formes). The second one is a wooden figure in the Museo Nacional, Mexico, see the book of Z.A. Simon (1984: 95), as a courtesy of Irmgard Groth-Kimball. (Taken from The Art of Ancient mexico by Thames and Hudson. Another tiny jade statuatte was part of the great Maya Exhibition that had visited Toronto (Royal Ontario Museum) and other cities. It has a greenish or turquise color, depicting a man holding a lion-cub, in the style of the oriental statues depicting Gilgamesh.
- We have a similar situation regarding the the early mentioning of the potato's name in the Near East. The Treasure Trove, or the Origin of the Tribes, a very ancient Syriac text translated by Carl Bezold, mentions an edible root called khamotz. This word seems to be the equivalent of the Mexican (Nahuatl) word kamotl or camote. The Spaniards may have borrowed it as camote, similarly to the words coyotl, ocelotl or chocol-atl, now coyote, ocelot and chocolate. These "coincidences" and "out-of-place" findings can be explained easily by the travels of the Phoenician mariners. There are many authorities now who have admit these possibilities of pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts in their scholarly publications. However, others have still consider all evidence as mere coincidence.
Finally, I should mention that this same writer contributed a number of other tracts in a similar vein. These too need a careful look. Tannin 11:20 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the statement that historians dismissed any asias-mesoamerican by the start of the 19th century. I've seen a number of papers in reputable journals from after this period that claim a link. I mention a number of them on my own website at http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran/games/pachisi-patolli.html. --Imran 20:22 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Merged pages
I merged into this page the Ancient visitors to the Americas page. Please find below the corresponding discussion.
Jorge Stolfi 03:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Begin merged contents from Talk:Ancient visitors to the Americas
What's the name of the Irish saint that's supposed to have gone to America? St Brendan? Tuf-Kat 02:34 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Was it Saint Gildas? Supposedly the Welsh colonized Mobile, Alabama ... -- Zoe
- Brendan I think - according to list of explorers anyway. :-) Stan 03:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, it was Prince Madog I was thinking of. According to http://www.welshdragon.net/resources/Historical/wales_timeline.shtml: "Prince Madog of Gwynedd, accompanied by a group of followers, made landfall on what is now Mobile Bay, Alabama some time in 1169. The explorers then traveled up the Missouri, where a remnant inter-married with the Mandans and left behind some of their customs and their language." -- Zoe
- St Brendan or Brandan is the Irish monk. I don't know about Welsh princes -- Error
Someone (maybe me) needs to expand the list of cultures whose representatives are claimed to have visited North or South America before 1492 (with a brief summary of evidence): Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Arab, Turkish, Chinese, sub-Saharan African, Irish, English, Welsh, Portuguese, and post-Leif Norwegian, among undoubtedly others.
Also, about 1960, Charles Boland (author of They All Discovered America) coined the term NEBC Principle as a description of the unbending attitude of most historians: the "No Europeans Before Columbus" Principle. ---Michael K. Smith 19:48, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
End merged contents from Talk:Ancient visitors to the Americas
How can this fit in the page?
many historicians points the similritudes between egyptian and aztec cultures. Sun gods, pyramidsall that to prove that tehy have influenced and contacted one another. How can this fit in the page?
--Alexandre Van de Sande 00:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The tone of the text
Reading this text, I got the impression that the idea of transatlantic voyages before Columbus (except for the Vikings) was ridiculous. However, the scientific paper on the roman head was much more positive in tone, than this article is. Is that on purpose? I believe this text could be given a more positive tone for the sake of NPOV. In my mind accidental voyages were not only possible they are likely to have happened even though no one returned.--Wiglaf 22:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Native Americans in Europe
I remember reading a book called 'De ontdekking van Amerika voor Columbus' (The discovey of America before Columbus) by Pieter Verhoog when I was at the secondary school. I rember he wrote that at least two times a Native American accidently reached the Roman Empire. He based it on writings of Roman authors, unfortunatly I forget which. Does someone have more info about this? --Mixcoatl 15:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From Lies My Teacher Told Me: Once from Canada to Scandanavia or Scotland, "millennia ago". Two Indians washed ashore in "Holland" (Netherlands or the region of Holland, I'm not sure) in 60 BC (p 46). The footnote gives Forbes, Black Africans and Native Americans, 7-14; Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus, chapter 12. It also recommends checking Alice B. Kehoe, "Small Boats upon the North Atlantic", in Riley, et al., Man Across the Sea, p 276. Jason 22:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first Romans entered what is now the Netherlands in the 6th decade BC. So it would be extremely coincidental if excactly then Native Americans would have visited the Netherlands. --Mixcoatl 23:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Large chunk of irrelevant material removed
While this page seems to be a happy hunting ground for all sorts of crackpot ideas, and to be tolerated as such, the addition of the following large chunk of junk seems to be going too far. I have dropped it in here in case it has just got misplaced from some article in which it really does belong, but it certainly has no place here. seglea 00:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but you belong tending animals, not dictating things like this. Version restored. 24.255.40.174 15:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seglea is right - the article is about preColumbian trans-Oceanic contact. Whatever this is about, it isn't that. I'll go back to tending my sheep now, and refrain from personal abuse. Redlentil 15:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, see, he is primarily interested in animals-Just check his page! He obviously doesn't know Southron American myths at all to any degree. I certainly added depth to the myths in order to put them into perspective. You shouldn't judge before you know what you're talking about. 24.255.40.174 15:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The User:24.255.40.174 is the banned User:Kenneth Alan, and as such all additions by 24.255.40.174 may be legitimately removed - MPF 17:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
British colonization of the Americas
The Commonwealth of Nations was the British Empire, yet British North America had been the first colonial empire, starting at least with the interest of King Henry VII of England, the first Tudor monarch who paved the way for the Renaissance in the British Isles. Australia and New Zealand were settled as a direct result of American independence, although those folks were originally destined for North America. There is some scanty and fringe contention on whether some places in this former British Empire, were there from old times before John Cabot. An argument for this conjecture, is the sheer prosperity of the United States of America, which would not have survived otherwise. That, and the fact that the colonies had extensive knowledge and leverage on their Indian frontier("Indiana"), yet no settlement in that area until the Revolution gave them full power to do what they desired and with little problem enacting Manifest Destiny. America is often considered an amateur yet more advanced British Empire(although founded on Puritan lines, as opposed to Anglican), with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 defining just how powerful the colonies were and the attempt of the King to limit their hungry expansion. This would mean, that they had been there for an inordinate amount of time, discounting French furtrapping aid along the Ohio River and Mississippi River. In expansive and timely dynastic succession from the Northern Maritime Provinces(which is connected to Vinland/Newfoundland-see Saint Brendan, the Norse settlement explored by Cabot) to the Southern 13 colonies, apparently blocked in 3 sections of colonies each(that assimilated large groups of other European peoples), divided by the length of each dynasty by amount of throne holders and including Bermuda:
- For the Dark Ages; proprietary New England colonies tied in with the early feudal land tenure of manorialism and which comprised in it's extent: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and New Hampshire, which may have been discovered/settled during the Dark Ages due to the names of places of a formerly sovereign Kingdom of England and its precursor the Kingdom of Saxony: Brunswick and Hampshire for Anglo-Saxons, (Prince Edward Island is a province with an Anglo-Saxon first name). The Salem Witch Trials may be a relic of early religious persecution with the advent of Christianity, of which England itself had undergone. There is also the Newport Tower of Newport, Rhode Island and the Westford Knight of Westford, Massachusetts; both of which may be related to the Knights Hospitaller, the Priory of Sion and the Pilgrims to the Holy Land. For Nova Scotia, one can look to the Lord of the Isles in Scotland and the legend of Henry Sinclair to decide for oneself. This may also explain the Norwegian artifact found in Maine, called the Maine Penny. Puritan religion was firmly established here, much as many of the earliest reformers of the Catholic Church had been from well established Anglo-Saxon families back in England. The general disestablishment of Roman(although not Celtic) culture was common amongst the heretical Christians in the British Isles(and to a lesser extent, Gaul's Vercingetorix alongside the ignoring of and manipulating the papal power by Franks in their early empire), preferring Avignon Papacy. For instance, Calvinism had developed on the Rhine by Franconian folks, a reflection of the ancient Roman-Germania border. In this region, Celtic Christianity rather than Greek or Roman culture is strongest, which happens to be reflected in the large number of Irish and French(Vermont and Maine are both French names) Catholics there today. Consequently, this area has much in common with eastern Canada: French Quebec and the Celtic Atlantic Provinces. British Israelism is rather popular here, including a tendancy to greater monastic achievement in the form of higher education-Ivy League universities. It is also from here that the most innovative forms of Christianity were developed in the past few centuries, such as the Religious Society of Friends, Mormonism, Unitarianism and Congregationalism-suggesting the longevity of Christianity in this region, undisturbed by Christian hegemonial efforts in much of Europe along the same time. For the most part, this area's culture would be remniscient of Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. Agriculture is also the most pastoral and privatised in this part of the nation and not simply due to space requirements-most people simply don't have the patience for mass farming in the rugged environment and so they prefer to be white-collar workers.
- Also, the Middle Ages for Middle Colonies(later, Mid-Atlantic States); because New York and New Jersey would be for the Danes and Normans of Yorkshire and Jersey(Normandy was lost to France). Pennsylvania is a latinism, due to Roman Catholicism when the Angevin Plantagenets wrote everything in Anglo-Norman(and even were responsible for the management of royal forests, when Pennsylvania means "Penn woodland"). Delaware has a West Country name De La Warr due to the prominence of the House of Lancaster. The House of York was those who colonised Maryland which also led to the Pilgrimage of Grace and the suppression of such faith at the end of the Mediaeval times. It is argued that when the Dutch settled the New Netherlands, that the land was stolen by the Dutch government, from England, as the whole coast was called Virginia after their Queen Elizabeth I of England. No complaint was made to the Swedish presence in New Sweden, as they had already been incorporated to the Dutch acquisition. Republican Federalism of the Roman Empire(inspired by the contemporary Holy Roman Empire) was developed in its strongest in this area, by way of the large banks and corporations. Needless to say, most Germans and Scandinavians emigrated along this path after the Dutch and settled the Lutheran Midwest. The Imperial Electorate of the H.R.E. modeled the course of the American electoral system in a Federal Republic, the combination between Germanic and Romance traditions. This culture has a background of Crusades and is to do with the current drive for a new Crusader state by Christian Zionism for the state of Israel, especially in connection to New York City. Like Germany, this area would be the highest military-industrial complex amongst general manufacturing and with very powerful, consolidated and centralised government to differentiate itself from its neighbours, who revolve around it. Much like fellowships of knights, workplace labor unions are strongest here with the majority of employment being in blue-collar workers. As in Europe, this would form the most solidified part of North America with the greatest weight or say in affairs, which stretch from the Great Lakes States to Ontario. Populist politics are supreme in this region, which suggests strong community politics and cosmopolitanism. This culture represents much of the time period between the formation of the North Germanic nations as incorporated into Europe and their rising dominance in international affairs.
- Then, in historical succession was the Northern Renaissance for the Southern Colonies(later, the U.S. Southern states). This would lead to American Independence with the nearby Washington DC named after a commander whose name is from Washington, County Durham, England George Washington effectively adopted the same governmental rank as Oliver Cromwell-Lord Protector, as the first American President and establishing Cromwell's Commonwealth of England type of government. The presence of monarchical names for colonies was due to the Church of England establishing its earthly Godhead as the monarch in the Protestant Reformation, which was accelerated by absolute monarchy and enlightened despotism. Here are the colonial blocks: the Tudor Kingdom of England and Wales settling the Virginias; Lady Jane Grey's reign laying down the District of Columbia; the Stuart Kingdom of Great Britain settling the Carolinas; the Cromwellian regime settling Bermuda(notice how it isn't a state? Cromwells weren't kings) and finally the Hanoverian Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland settling Georgia. Its institutions reflected the enslavement notions of autocratic monarchs in relation to their subjects, something taken to heart by those under royal rule to acquire labour from West Africa(as Greeks did of North Africa). Since this section of land happened to be the most modern of culture it developed the Confederate States of America(they mark their ethnicity as American), according the Democratic Confederation of Ancient Greece(inspired by the contemporary Byzantine Empire). This region was also the most inclined to rebellion against King George III of the United Kingdom(a "tyrant" like the Greek "tyrannos"), due to his marriage with Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a mulatto. It was considered a severe perversion for the King to engage in equal miscegenation with a Moor, and has remained a popular taboo in this region to this day. This region would blend into zealous Mediterranean Christian traditions alongside the people of the Louisiana Purchase(Occitan) and Mexico's cessions such as the American Southwest and Florida from New Spain. This contributed to the large number of fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell and including such organisations as Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition Of America and 700 Club, with sensational interest in traditional Christendom politics including Judeo-Christianity. This part of America stretches out into the Rocky Mountains states and Western Canada which developed its services and farming as the most advanced in the nation, along with "Southern hospitality", both learnt from their colonial culture.
So-called "Early proponents"
I have moved the following utterly unsupported text here: "In the 18th century and early 19th century many writers and antiquitarians believed that various Old World cultures were responsible for the ancient monuments found in the New World. Part of this was due to ethnocentrism, for they did not believe that Native Americans — generally portrayed as uncivilized savages — could be capable of such feats." Any published speculations on the origins of Mesoamerican culture by Spanish ecclesiastics etc might be quoted here. As it stands this is non-historical "wanna-were." --Wetman 01:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Initial Parapraphs
The initial paragraphs state "professional archaelogists have demonstrated" and "the sole exception" which are absolutes.
Acutally, the whole thing is fluid with new information being uncovered all the time. In fact, the other day I saw something where a group of archaelogists definitely attached the Colvis culture to Europeans. I think. Maybe.
Anyway, shouldn't the article say something like "arch. currently think" In other words, the absolute seems, well, too absolute.Johnwhunt 00:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perspective
This article seems, for like of a better word, off-kilter. I posted a comment (directly above) twelve days ago and have had found no response. I wonder why. I'm going to try to make the article more balanced. How about some discussion?"Johnwhunt 16:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vikings in America
Some webpages I dug up concerning the Vikings in America.
Sources:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C001692/english/index.php3?subject=explorers/database/show&id=5
http://www.athenapub.com/vinland1.htm
http://www.viking.no/e/info-sheets/canada/canada.htm
http://www.ewetel.net/~norbert.fiks/columbus/seiten/chrono2.htm
http://www.biztravel.com/Articles/20000327.html
Content removed
The following was added by an anonymous user after the reference to Hey:
- This is debatable, however, as the prevailing scientific view prevented, until recently, serious research on possible pre-Clovis settlements ("you don't dig deeper than Clovis"), whereas Hey's samples and conclusions are limited to Amerind peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to trans-Bering Landbridge immigrants (excluding Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene and 'unusual' Amerind tribes).
This is too detailed for an intro paragraph, and anyway has a strong whiff of trying to make a case - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. However it could possibly go back in later in the article, if anyone can see a suitable place, and can clean up the style. seglea 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)