Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Amerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 19>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Amerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus
    Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:57
Yes they were called the Vikings
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 05:33
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Yes they were called the Vikings
 
The norse weren't the first to arrive to Greenland. I though you knew that. From wiki.
 
The first humans arrived around 2500 BC. This group died out and were succeded by several other groups of people immigrating from continental North America. To Europeans Greenland was unknown until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on the south-western coast. This part of Greenland was apparently unpopulated at the time when the Vikings arrived; the direct ancestors of the modern Inuit Greenlanders did not arrive until around 1200 AD from the northwest.
 
At least four other cultures lived in Greenland before Norse arrived there.
 
The Saqqaq culture: 2500800 BC (southern Greenland).
The Independence I culture: 24001300 BC (northern Greenland).
The Independence II culture: 8001 BC (far northern Greenland).
The Early Dorset or Dorset I culture: 700 BCAD 200 (southern Greenland).
 
Something more about the Saqqaq
 
 
 
 
So Norse weren't the first, I am afraid Wink
 
A picture from Thule culture (Inuits) whalings.
 Immagine:ThuleGreenlandersWhaling.png
 
Now, for the origin of the Kayak, the boat is a lot earlier than the Inuits arriving to Greenland! The boat is thousand of years old.
 
Here is an history of the Kayak
 
 

The sea kayak in the arctic and Canada has a history which spans at least 5,000 years. "It is a fitting tribute to the arctic peoples, builders of the first sea kayak that it survives today as the worlds most popular self propelled watercraft."

The birth place of the kayak was almost certainly the inhospitable coast of Siberia. We know that the peoples who eventually settled the Americas crossed over sometime time during the last Ice age when a land or ice bridge known as Berengia connected the two continents. The kayak or qajaq or its more primitive ancestor the umiak probably first appeared in the North American arctic about 10-15 thousand years ago, arriving with Americas first people. The oldest known archaeological evidence of a kayak goes back 2,000 years B.P. and there is inferential evidence dating it back another 2,000 years. However, given the reality of surviving the harsh environment, most likely  arctic peoples had some way of getting onto the water to hunt or fish as long as they have been there. An 8,000 year existence is possible but we will probably never know for sure.

 
 


Edited by pinguin - 20-Apr-2008 at 05:52
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 05:57
The entrance of Inuits and pro-eskimos to Greenland
 
 
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 06:34
Originally posted by pinguin

There was people in Greenland before the Inuits. At least that's what I saw in a National Geographic documental.


That is true but they were not the Sadlermiuts, who lived in the Hudson Bay of modern Canada.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 06:40
my mistake, thanks
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:35
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Some believed that between Caspian Sea you can reach to the Baltic by water. On the other hand Indian didn't mean only from Indian peninsula, and sometimes it was just a vague reference for "beyond Iran" (Persia/Parthia etc.).
   
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Lets have a kick summary:
1st evidence: 62BC a Germanic king gives "Indians" to a Roman consul.
2nd evidence: 1160s AD a bunch of "Indian" traders found in the Baltic or Friseland.
3rd evidence: 1150s AD another Indian found in Lubeck.
4th evidence: the same
5th evidence: 849 AD Inuits arrive in the Netherlands.
It is obvious that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th evidence are likely to be the same. The 5th is highly dubious. Only the 1st seems to be slightly stronger. Not too good a result. But as Pinguin said, the main interest here is the discussion.

Originally posted by King John

It is more likely that these were people who were in the North Sea area already. Maybe the Sami or another ethnic group of a darker Asiatic complexion.   


The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA.

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.







Edited by omshanti - 20-Apr-2008 at 16:01
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:57
Originally posted by omshanti


The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA.
 
Yes. Following the coastal lines, of curse.

Originally posted by omshanti


In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
 
Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuits are welcome LOL
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 20-Apr-2008 at 15:58
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:03
I was wondering. Wouldn't population genetics be able to shed some light on whether there were native Americans in Europe before Columbus. It would certainly be very interesting if it were true.
Considering that it is already a known fact that East Europeans are heavily mixed with Altaic/turkic peoples after the time of the Huns, and that Native Americans could be distant relatives to Siberians therefore Altaic/Turkic peoples, If this (theory of native Americans in Europe before Columbus) was to be true, it means that all Europeans, regardless of being Western or Eastern, can possibly have some Siberian/Altaic/Turkic elements in them.



Edited by omshanti - 20-Apr-2008 at 16:04
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:11
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by omshanti

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
[Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuitsare welcome LOL]

Which one is more likely? To cross the Atlantic ocean between continents, or to travel inland through rivers?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:26
Originally posted by omshanti

I was wondering. Wouldn't population genetics be able to shed some light on whether there were native Americans in Europe before Columbus. It would certainly be very interesting if it were true.
Considering that it is already a known fact that East Europeans are heavily mixed with Altaic/turkic peoples after the time of the Huns, and that Native Americans could be distant relatives to Siberians therefore Altaic/Turkic peoples, If this (theory of native Americans in Europe before Columbus) was to be true, it means that all Europeans, regardless of being Western or Eastern, can possibly have some Siberian/Altaic/Turkic elements in them.

 
They would had hardly any genetical impact if we are talking about just a couple of times that happened in history.
 
During the last five centuries, lot of Amerindians ended up in Europe, but still not in a demographically significant portion. Some people in England had matched possitive with Amerindian DNA. It is also know descendents of Francisca Pizarro, Tupac Amaru and many others ended in the upper classes of Europe, while Indian workers were absorved in the masses of Andalucia.
 
The most important problem, though, is that native genetics is too close to some Central Asian people that is almost impossible to distinguish both.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:28
Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by omshanti

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
[Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuits are welcome LOL]

Which one is more likely? To cross the Atlantic ocean between continents, or to travel inland through rivers?
 
In the records, people came from the ocean. Although I know norse colonized several places in Russia and Ucraine following rivers. I never heared of East Indians reaching Europe by following rivers. That's really new for me, and sounds me like Sci-Fi, actually. Marco Polo would have save lots of times following those rivers, indeed.
 
Those travellers were called "Indians" simply because they came from the DIRECTION from where India was supposed to be: crossing the Atlantic to the West. Not because Europeans knew sanscrit at those times.


Edited by pinguin - 20-Apr-2008 at 16:30
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:40
How about the recent Arabic and Sasanid coins found in Sweden from the time of the Vikings? They certainly show that the trade routes that the vikings exploited since the 800sAD were going in both directions rather than just one direction. Wouldn't this at least explain the ''Indians'' in the Baltics in 1100s AD?

Edited by omshanti - 20-Apr-2008 at 16:41
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:41
The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA.
Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:57
Originally posted by pinguin

Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.

Whenever someone proposes Europeans, Asians or Africans discovering the Americas before 1492 you call them a racist.
But when you propose revert contacts suddenly people who reject it are 'defensive'.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:01
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)
As I wrote in my previous post, I was mainly considering the incidents in 1100s AD which were after the vikings had established the trade routes. Forgive me if I was not clear.
But any way, how about between Dnieper and Volga? Or Black Sea and Caspian sea? There are quite a few water ways there. This is a map of Volga river I found in Wikipedia. Please press the following       
   LINK.



Edited by omshanti - 20-Apr-2008 at 17:21
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:02
Originally posted by pinguin

 
Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.
I wish people would get the same reaction, and be as much skeptical, when they put forward those wild fantasies of European, Africans,  Asians or Polynesians reaching the Americas in pre-Columbian and pre-Norse times.
 
Eh? Most Europeans on this forum are extremely skeptical against any non-supported wild fantasy travelling, no matter what direction they go. You on the other hand is totally open towards Americans travelling to Europe, but as soon as someone mentions Old World people going towards America you go start disregarding it as fantasies, "diffusion" and racism.
 
Back to the example: you didn't check it up where these kayaks came from. Instead you used it as a "proof" inuits might have made it to Europe. From this I can only draw the conclusion that you don't really care how the kayaks got here - you just wanted to pursue an agenda and were looking for "proof" to fit your theory. The scholarly way to do it is the opposite: creating a theories based on the evidence at hand.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:11
Originally posted by pinguin


They would had hardly any genetical impact if we are talking about just a couple of times that happened in history.
During the last five centuries, lot of Amerindians ended up in Europe, but still not in a demographically significant portion. Some people in England had matched possitive with Amerindian DNA. It is also know descendents of Francisca Pizarro, Tupac Amaru and many others ended in the upper classes of Europe, while Indian workers were absorved in the masses of Andalucia.The most important problem, though, is that native genetics is too close to some Central Asian people that is almost impossible to distinguish both.
I thought that population genetics was able to pinpoint not only the types of haplogroups that mixed in a certain region but also the time when the mixing occurred, but maybe I was wrong. Thanks Pinguin, for the interesting Information.
As a whole I am enjoying this topic, and am thankful to you for opening new perspectives for new possibilities in me.

Edited by omshanti - 20-Apr-2008 at 17:26
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:30
As I wrote in my previous post, I was mainly considering the incidents in 1100s AD which were after the vikings had established the trade routes.
That would imply the "Indians" used the same ship portage system as the Vikings/Rus. Possible, but remains to be proven. Similarly possible is that these "Indians" were some southern darker-skinned people which navigated along the western coast. Or similarly possible is that the 12th century account to be a fiction, i.e. Nepos' account retold in different coordinates, that of a 12th century "Germany".
 

But any way, how about between Dnieper and Volga? Or Black Sea and Caspian sea? There are quite a few water ways there. This is a map of Volga river I found in Wikipedia. Please press the following       
   LINK.
There's no natural water way between any of those.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:34
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

[
...
Eh? Most Europeans on this forum are extremely skeptical against any non-supported wild fantasy travelling, no matter what direction they go. You on the other hand is totally open towards Americans travelling to Europe, but as soon as someone mentions Old World people going towards America you go start disregarding it as fantasies, "diffusion" and racism.
... 
 
I am also skeptical. This thread is just an intellectual exercise. However, some interesting things come out from it. For instance, the origin of the legends that inspired to Columbus.
 
Did those "landings" happened? I don't know. There isn't conclusive evidence to say so. It is possible that some accident brought a canoe from the American trade routes to Europe, however it is very unlikely.
 
In any case, I oppened this thread to study about the evidence that exist. Please don't accuse me of hyperdifussionism LOL
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:38
Originally posted by Chilbudios

The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA.
Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)
 
Yes, it's proved. Vikings moved their ships through a portage between the rivers and travelled through Volga quite succesfuly all way down to the ancient Kwarezm and Iran on the shores of Caspian Sea.
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 20-Apr-2008 at 17:39
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.