Greeks, Romans, Egyptions and Chinese in the New World?

I repeat maybe some sailors got blown over. And while Roman boats were not exactly ideal for the Atlantic, they were not imossible to travel in.

 

Mediterranean vessels couldn't even navigate past Cape Bojador or as far as the Azores until the 15th century. How was a vessel launched from that area supposed to be able to cross the Atlantic over a thousand years prior? 

The Polynesians did perform some marvelous feats over great distances but the thing to note there is how they left behind much more than a few pots and coins.  Where land was uninhabited, they colonized, where there was an existing population, they traded extensively and for long periods of time.  The distance between say Iberian Greek/Roman colonies and the Azores is certainly comparable to distances between pacific islands, yet they remained  uninhabited.  It doesn't make sense that the Greeks/Egyptians/Romans etc. would have this navigation ability but do nothing about it and mention nothing in their otherwise comprehensive histories. Same with the Chinese.

Originally posted by Loknar Decibal. How can you actually prove that the first post was wrong? You give nothing to back it up, only mere claims. What was a Roman coin doing in America? How did it get there? There are many possible explanations but you provide none.

Loknar, I said that most of the claims in the original articles were hoaxes because I had read about many of them. In most cases, the coins or inscriptions have been planted there, and whoever found them cannot prove that he/she proceeded in a scientific manner to uncover them; nor do they have any reliable witnesses. I've also seen claims on various websites which seem completely made up: like the Chinese coins from 2637BC that I mentioned in my first post. The link below points to an article which debunks many of the claims made at the beginning of this thread.

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file =article&sid=74

Here's an article debunking claims that Jews were ever in America; it shows how the Bat Creek stone is a forgery.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat1.html

Here are a few articles debunking claims that Ogham inscriptions were ever found in the Americas, or other claims that the Irish or Celts were there before Columbus.

http://ydli.org/dakinfo/celticp.htm
http://cwva.org/controversy/ogham_intro.html
http://cwva.org/ogam_rebutal/lesser_cult_arch.html

This site contains many articles debunking claims of contact with Pre-Columbian civilizations. Just scroll about 2 thirds of the way down.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/

Archaeological speculation can be fascinating and fun.  However, if it's not something that was written down by contemporary writers, it's not really history; it's just speculation or theory.  It could even be a hoax.   A lot of times you will find that there are a number of explanations of how a particular artifact ended up in a certain place.  For example, ancient Roman coins found in America have been explained as having been lost or buried by modern soldiers who had been to Europe and had collected the coins there.

My question is this: if the Romans (for example) made voyages to the Americas, why didn't they write about it?  I know of at least one Roman shipwreck that was discovered off South America, but that was pretty much determined to have been a case of a vessel blown off course.


Edited by Scytho-Sarmatian

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian My question is this: if the Romans (for example) made voyages to the Americas, why didn't they write about it?

Simple answer - they never did.

The first connections across the Atlantic happened where the distances are the shortest. Quite logic.

The paralells between the "Red Ochre People" of the North Sea and the "Red Paint People" of East-coast America is a clear proof of paralell cultures - from neolittic time already.

The fisrt sailors known from the Atlantic Ocean reached - and populated - Ireland, Scotland, the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Faroe Islands already 9.000 years ago.

Their successors populated the entire area of the North Sea/North Atlantic. Furthermore they exercised organized traffic and trade across the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea - exchanging specific tool-material (flint, quarts) over a signigicant area - already 7.500 yr BP.

The megalittic civilisation of continental Europe was recently defined to be 8.500 yrs old. The Mound Builders from the NA islands existed already 9.000 yrs ago. Some incredible, giantic constructions is still intact on the Orkneys, dated to 6.000 BP - prior to the famous Stonehenge.

The contemporary "Mound-Builders" of central and eastern US have the very same characteristics - of tools, boats, buildings, architecture and regional trade.

Mainstream history have no problems accepting that the paralell cultures - discovered in Ireland,  the Orkneys and the Faroe Island was brougth to these islands by arctic Europeans - able to build boats and sail. We just cant accept - or rather belive - that they were able to reach Greenland and North America - too.

The paralellity in life-style and culture between Denmark/Holland and the Brittish Isles are obvious. So are the paralells between mesolittic Scandinavia and arctic America.

Thus the question; Since when did "belief" become a scientific term? Wouldnt historical science be better off if excevated objects - and scientific dating methods - are given priority over "qualified assumptions", "long-held views" or "widely accepted theories"?!

---

According to Barry Cunliffe - and collegues - we had a inter-connected Atlantic civilisation - facing the ocean, from Spain to Denmark, already 8.000 years ago. Furthermore Cunliffe et al. have proven that these mariners had a populated the rivers to the inland of the continent - creating a steady trade with the Mediterranean culture already 7.000 yrs BP. No wonder if an odd Roman coin could reach America, three millenias later...  

 

 

Edited by Boreas

Originally posted by Boreas According to Barry Cunliffe - and collegues - we had a inter-connected Atlantic civilisation - facing the ocean, from Spain to Denmark, already 8.000 years ago. Furthermore Cunliffe et al. have proven that these mariners had a populated the rivers to the inland of the continent

Cunliffe has said nothing of the sort. He has a theory about an interconnected cultural area on the Atlantic coast of Europe, called the Atlantic Facade - but you are misrepresenting his work, he has never postulated contact across the Atlantic, at least not before the 11th century with the discovery of Vinland.

Edited by edgewaters

Edgewaters,

Try reading my reply once again, will you?

Then you may edit your answer accordingly.

Cunliffe has said nothing of the sort. He has a theory about an interconnected cultural area on the Atlantic coast of Europe, called the Atlantic Facade - but you are misrepresenting his work, he has never postulated contact across the Atlantic, at least not before the 11th century with the discovery of Vinland[Quote]

Actually he has! I have several of his books at home and inevery one he states that the world was interconnected before Columbus.

And if such travel was impossible pre-Colombus then how did humans get so wide spread in the first place ? Remember we all originally came from Africa.

Originally posted by QueenCleopatra Actually he has! I have several of his books at home and inevery one he states that the world was interconnected before Columbus.

Yes, by the Vikings, not Egyptian astronauts.

Originally posted by QueenCleopatra The piont is that if the Vikings could travel then there is a possibility other peoples could too. They weren't the only culture with boats you know!

They were the only culture that (a) had the kind of boats they did, (b) any traces have been found of in the New World and (c) didn't have to cross the high seas to get there. A crossing could have been made up around the Bering Strait too, quite easily, but there's no trace of any influence at all in Alaska or BC, no artifacts, no outposts, nothing. The only possibility of prior contact is the Polynesians, and there is very little evidence that they ever did.

Ever heard of the Cocaine mummies ? Explain to me how Amercian Tobacco could have gotten from one side of the world to the other - Egypt thousands of years ago?

They never found cocaine associated with any mummies. They found alkaloid compounds similar to what you might find in cocaine residue, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's from cocaine. There are plants in Africa that can leave the same alkaloids. All plants of the erythroxylum produce the coca alkaloid - and many of them are not native to the New World, eg. erythroxylum monogynum or erythroxylum areolatum, the leaves of which are both eaten in India. There are still many erythroxylum being used in traditional medicines in Africa, for instance, the "Bois de Ronde" in Mauritia used as a diuretic (actually is four different species - E laurifolium, E sideroxyloides, E macrocarpum and E. hypericifolia - and they are all native).

Same with tobacco. Nobody ever found any tobacco - toxicology tests turned up nicotine. Nicotine is not exclusive to tobacco or to the New World. Most of the nicotine-positive mummies have levels of about 35 times the lethal dose of nicotine, indicating that whatever they did involved a concentrated extract - and since nicotine is present in many different plants, including for instance eggplant (native to India in the wild), there's no need to assume they extracted it from tobacco necessarily.

Also we might be dealing with a single alkaloid from some unknown plant species, and not two separate nicotine and cocaine alkaloids, which is close enough to both to generate false positives.

Edited by edgewaters