This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
The following was added by an anonymous user after the reference to Hey:
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)
In the section discussing ice-age era contact the term used is 'Eskimo', since both the Yupik - aboriginal Alaskans & Siberians - and the Inuit - aboriginal Canadians & the ones who probably would have done what is described - do not like this word used to described them, it has been removed.
The story of Henry Sinclair's alleged voyage to America is actually rather well-known, although it is not generally accepted that the voyage actually took place. Our articles on Henry Sinclair, Westford Knight, La Merika and Rosslyn Chapel list a number of references and external links that discuss the theory from various different viewpoints, and I don't think it is necessary to duplicate all these references here. I have, however, changed the wording from "legendary voyage" to "purported voyage" to make it more clear that the Sinclair episode is not exactly uncontroversial. -- Ferkelparade π 10:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this section really belong here? The only reason "Indians" are equated with Native Americans is an error made by Columbus. This section suggests the ancient Romans made the same mistake! What a coincidence! And this mistake presented as the only proof too!-- Countakeshi 12:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still very skeptical about this section, India and its people have been known in the West since Alexander the Great's contact with them. Hellenized kingdoms established by the Diadochi linked Greece to India. Classical writers described the history of Sandrocottus ( Chandragupta Maurya) and their kings. They directly traded with one another. I doubt they can fail to distinguish an Indian when they see one. -- Countakeshi 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This speculation appears in the Religious dogma section. As anonymous speculation, it probably shouldn't be included. But can anyone expand on it? Is it just a variation on the lost tribe in Asia? Is there a protestant "founding-fathers" element to it?-- shtove 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I've made a number of changes, including:
The article still needs a LOT of reworking, for grammar and organization in particular. Ex0pos 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Reorganized and rewrote many parts. I've tried to neutralize the POV, and I've removed some parts that seem rather pseudohistorical (such as the Farley Mowat novel, and bit about Gaoussou Diawara, which, as far as I can tell, is based largely on oral storytelling of an ancient African king who said west and was never heard from again).
I'm inclined to remove the bit about Didrik Pining because of lack of information, but I'll leave it for now.
I've left the wildest stuff (lost continents and flying saucers). Not because it's credible but because it's at least noteworthy crackpottery. o.O Ex0pos 03:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've been reading Gavin Menzie's '1421: The Year China Discovered America'. Once I finish the book, I'm going to try and do a good write up article about the book. In the mean time, I think the section on his ideas should be expanded by anyone who is familiar with his book? "Menzies' effort at historical revisionism, or at least his presentation of the idea, has been found unconvincing by most historians, but it is intriguing enough that it has led to proposals of other Chinese-American contacts, e.g. by off-course Ming Dynasty ships. The possibility of Muslim trips from Asia (see Sung Document) has also been discussed." It may be found unconvincing by most historians, but perhaps it should also be noted just how much evidence he has to corroborate his theory? I won't make the edit unless I think someone else also feels this should be mentioned, at least as much for balance as for information. Word up. Zanturaeon 06:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I saw a tv documentary once which said that they had used the language of West Africa to decipher the language of the Olmecs, i.e. proof that the Olmecs had come from West Africa. Also here: "The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa." [2] and here "Studies done by Clyde Winters show that the Olmecs used the Mende script, a writing system used among the Mandinkas and other Africans in West Africa. When the writings on Olmec monuments were translated, it was found that the language spoken by the Olmecs was Mende." [3] Astrokey44 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears as though the Mormon issue has been addressed before, in a possibly biased way, and was removed. I believe their theories on how Native Americans are really from another continent are important enough to include in this article. I'd like to see some kind of addition of this. UtmostCathode 17, November 2005
I have started a major cleanup and reordering of this article. Please wait a couple of hours before pitching in. Note also that
Jorge Stolfi 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I do think we should include info on the "original" settlements, as archaeologists now think there were several waves occuring at different times. It should be a short overview, however, and have links to the articles you mention above.-- Cuchullain 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The second half of the article still needs cleanup, but I must go home now. Back tomorrow... Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear all, "NPOV" does not mean "supress any arguments for the side that I am sure is wrong", but rather "present all the arguments for both sides of the issue, in the best possible terms, and let the reader decide".
I think that most of the article is already as NPOV as it could be. Disputed evidence is said to be disputed, pro and con arguments are given, etc.. In particular, two years ago I have heard a famous American archeologist, who used to be a stern defender of the BLB model, say that the issue is again wide open, and propose coastal navigation as an alternative route.
Moreover, this article is not about "history of the Americas", it is about "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts"; therefore, it should ideally list any theory or claim about such contacts that has been widely aired, whether it is "fringe" or "bogus" or whatever.
Finally, the pro and con arguments do not have to be intertwined on the word basis! (As some mathematician once said, the two key rules for good writing are: #1 if you don't have anything to say, don't write it; and #2 if you happen to have two things to say, first write thing 1, then write thing 2.) Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad choice of words, I did not intend to turn this into a flame war. However, I think those criticisma are unwarranted.
I know enough of this subject to know that the BLB model is a very plausible theory, but (like most pre-historical theories) it relies on lots of suppositions to bridge over the many gaps in the data. It is still possible that it will be proved wrong or incomplete. If that happens, it would hardly be the first time that a "mainstream dogma" -- that experts in the field believed proved beyond doubt -- had to be adjusted to accomodate a so-called "fringe" theory. See for example the prion story, or the decipherment of the Mayan script. (BTW, in reports of the prion story, the word "dogma" is often used in a non-pejorative sense to describe the belief that all heredirary information is carried by DNA/RNA; a belief that used to be so strong that it led most scientists to reject Prusiner's claims a priori, without even checking his data). And, by the way, I would NOT bet on most of the claims listed in this article.
In any case, once again, the BLB model is not incompatible with other contacts, or even with other migrations before or after the last Ice Age, and vice versa. Jorge Stolfi 13:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, um, sorry, I am a bit upset at the moment; I just noticed that my article on the "american Aborigines" theory, which I wrote last year, has been completely erased, and the history has been moved to god-knows-where. Now, even if that is nowhere near "mainstream" (yet), it is a bona-fide scientific theory, supported by several unquestionable finds and by several scientists with full credentials. So you tell me about POV...
Anyway:
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Greenland was a part of Danish-Norwegian kingdom from 12th century.-- Nixer 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The Inuits had been there from the beginning and weren't going anywhere.
"Over the last 20 years, the dates and anatomical features of human remains found in Mexico and South America have led some archaeologists to propose that those regions were first populated by Polynesians, several millennia before the Ice Age migrations.".
I have a hard time seeing how Polynesians should have been able to reach the Americans "several millenia before the Ice Age migrations", as is proposed in the article (I am not sure as to when the "Ice Age migrations" are to have taken place, but I assume it to be several thousand years back). This would add up to that Polynesians might have arrived "several millenia before several millenia ago". My suggestion is that if in fact they did reach the Americas, it can not have been more than approximately 2000 years ago. I base this on readings I have done on the settling of the Pacific Islands. It seems to be suggested that the Society Islands and the Marquesas Islands of today's French Polynesia were settled only around 200BC, and from there, a last expansion took place in which for example the Hawai'ian islands and Easter Island were settled. My suggestion is that if the Americas were reached by Polynesians, it must have been from these easternmost cornerns of the Pacific that I just mentioned - those that are not thought to have been settled "several millennia before the Ice Age migrations".
I, too, take issue with the wording of this passage. How could Polynesians have arrived in the Americas several millenia before the ice age immigrations, which ocurred around 11,000 years ago, when Polynesian culture itself is not nearly that old? True, Australia was setttled by an early human migration 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, but the Australian Aborigines there are not related to the Polynesian, Melanesian (perhaps some ties here?), and Micronesian peoples of the South Pacific. My understanding is that these groups' origin is traced to the Lapita culture that dates to around 1350 BC, which itself is linked to Taiwan and Southern China. However, there does seem to be genetic evidence, thanks to the genographic research of Spencer Wells and others, of coastal migrations to North America that may have pre-dated and/or overlapped with the migrations of the Siberians across the Berring Strait land bridge. Do these migrants share common ancestors with the Lapita people? Could we be so bold as to include the Taiwanese aborigines and the Ainu, or at least the Jomon people of Japan?
Maybe the term used in this passage should be "Proto-Polynesian", though I'm pretty sure there is a more accurate term than this. The fact that someone as casually interested as me can spot this error means it is pretty glaring. Can someone with some authority please fix it? User: Jesse Saba 1/13/06
Comment on text; Didrik Pining was German and not Dutch
Recall the time scale we are discussing, from maybe 500BC to almost 1500AD. It would be difficult do believe that in 2000 years, some coastal hugging voyages (near Europe) would not have been storm-swept across the Atlantic. Similar statements can be made for any ocean.
If these crossing had any impact on the local culture is the real question.
As for coastal voyaging, in the last few years there was some archaeological dredging along the BC and Alaska coasts, at about the level that would have been beach during the last ice-age. Charcoal was found, if that was from a natural or man-made fire would be the question
Logically colonisation of an unoccupied area would either need a minimum group of several thousand people or frequent access to the homeland to be genetically stable. This implies a large and well organised expedition ( ie to have enough food to feed all those people ). Any ship wrecked or off course sailors landing in an uninhabited area would simply disappear from history with no trace. David J James 6 September 2006
Okay, I didn't know this stuff was controversial. I just landed here after seeing this link and it ended up being a fun read. Would be fun to reverse history by the way. [4]
Perhaps on the section about Native Americans who crossed over to the Old World, it should be included that several 17th Century natives, frustrated with the Virginian middlemen who extorted their furs, attempted and failed to cross the Atlantic in canoes, hoping to sell their product directly.
Another user recently posted a stub article on the New England Antiquities Research Association. Their website reveals upon inspection, and I've found elsewhere a quote, that "NEARA is also a hotbed of 'Diffusionist' thought, the belief that the Americas were widely visited by European and Asiatic cultures before Columbus." Anyone who knows this topic well enough to look at that organization and comment on notability, or to improve that article, is more than welcome. GRBerry 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
They lived both in America (Alaska, Canada and Greenland) and Siberia. Is this distribution very recent or is previous to Columbus voyages?
So typical somebody has taken it upon himself to revert my edits. What is this talk about Viking and Norse??? Leifur Eiríksson was an Icelander and it was Icelanders that found America not people from NOrge.
Please stop vandalizing this page, it was not people from Noryeah that discoverd America it was Icelanders and what is this reference to Norse sagas? Will the people of Norway next claim Björk as one of their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
I made the following edits
I renamed the section the vikings in newfoundland to the Icelanders in newfoundland which describes the people who visited newfoundland better. Calling this only a viking trip is not as accurate and it's sorta similar to calling the italian victory in the worldcup of 2006 the Latin victory of the worldcup.
The Vinland sagas are commonly called Íslendingasögur og Icelandic sagas and using the term norse is simply not apropriate, furthermore having a link to a page about norway behind it is not apropriate.
I changed out the Norweigan version of the name Leifr Eiríksson (Leif Eriksson) to the english version of the name Leifr Eiríksson (Leif Ericson), it has been discussed thouroghly what this man should be called under the article Leif Ericson and I think that it's only apropriate that the same name is used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
This vandalism must end. I have made good arguements for my edits to this article and been as diplomatic about them as I possibly could have been but yet you keep on reverting my edits. This is totally unaccaptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
Not to be too picky about it, but "farther" and "further" are typically used interchangeably - however, most useage guides (e.g., Strunk and White, "The Elements of Style") do recommend that "farther" be used when speaking (as here) of distances. I'd suggest reverting to the generally more accepted "farther" in this context. NorCalHistory 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The information that 67.164.8.213 keeps adding is interesting, but it's about 90% too long for the section and has numerous style issues. 67.164.8.213, why don't you make this MUCH more concise, add Wikipedia links and scholarly documentation, spell-check, tighten up the style etc.? As it stands, it's written like a typical Pseudoarchaeology tract. And why the repetitive references to the "Mali Empire – Exploration and Relations Navy" and "Spanish Admiral Cristobal Colon"? I think you do have something to add, particularly with the various Spanish reports of Blacks in the New World, but you would do well to cite verifiable academic sources for these passages. This doesn't have to become a revert war. Twalls 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems like 67.164.8.213 copied and pasted snippets from a handful of other sites:
"Michael Coe even reported that Alonzo Ponce spoke of a boatload of "Moors" who landed off what is now the Republic of Mexico – Campeche and terrorized the natives."
This is taken from http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm
Note there is no prior reference in what 67.164.8.213 posted to Michael Coe, but there is on that AOL member page. I tried to change it a bit, but it's really a struggle to try and clean this up. I tend to think we should revert to 11:13, 29 September 2006 RussBot -or- 14:04, 29 September 2006 Cuchullain Twalls 07:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found out that the early European accounts in what 67.164.8.213 posted is directly (or indirectly, via the Afrocentrist sites) from pp. 30-31 of Ivan van Sertima's _African Presence in Early America_. This can be viewed on http://books.google.com. Most of the mistakes were perpetuated from what was taken from those sites, not the original. Twalls 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Twalls edited the section on Africans, deleting much of the material. [5] There might be something in the old version worth saving, or better yet, moved to its own article. -- Petri Krohn 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Africans reached the Americas. Think about remote islands in the Atlantic such as Ascension Island, Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha! When they where found by Europeans they where compleatly uninhabited. If Africans crossed the Atlantic why did they not settle on those islands? Sub-Saharan Africans could not had reached the Americas because they lacked the economical resoursers for doing so. (An explaination for this can be found in Guns, Germs, and Steel.) This seams to be typical for legends: to attribute deeds to people who – in the real world – lacked the nessesairy means!
2006-11-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
If I an not completely wrong Sub-Saharan civilisations was not nearly as wealthy as contemporary Eurasian (or North African). However, the kind of wealth I thought about may not be crucial. After all, the Vikings crossed the Atlantic when their civilisation was still in it’s infancy. For a culture to cross an ocean it have to develop widespread sea travel first. Did the Mali empire really have that?
Of the three islands I mentioned only Ascension is quite barren. When first found by Europeans Saint Helena must have been quite lush. The environment was later largely destroyed by irresponsible use of resources. In the early 19the century a group of Britons settled on Tristan da Cunha. By farming potatoes and having livestock they managed to live well on their own for generations. However, the island’s climate may be too cold for African crops. In that case it would have remained uninhabited anyway. But if Africans crossed the Atlantic by themselves at least Saint Helena ought to have become inhabited. That is the very opposite of what we find!
2006-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I'm removing the suggestion that the African stuff be given its own article. It has one: African exploration of the Americas. -- BrianSmithson 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the latest info posted by the IP address that had copied info from other sites (such as http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm), and re-added the last two edits of P4k and BrianSmithson. Twalls 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Fayssal - I am unsure if Columbus' use of the term "Mohammedans" to describe natives in the West Indies can be described accurately as "orientalist." The fact that "Mohammedans" was the historical (or archaic) term used is conveyed by the quotation marks. I think Orientalism is a very specific assessment of Western perceptions of Eastern cultures, and while it may be able to explain the use of that term in some contexts, it may not be fitting in this article. Columbus' use of the term is not at issue, but the tendency of European explorers to assume New World cultures were somehow derived from known Old World cultures is. Thanks Twalls 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I found references to claims by Hjalmar R. Holand that a viking grave was found near Beardmore at Lake Nipigon.
-- Petri Krohn 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some more links:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
The following was added by an anonymous user after the reference to Hey:
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)
In the section discussing ice-age era contact the term used is 'Eskimo', since both the Yupik - aboriginal Alaskans & Siberians - and the Inuit - aboriginal Canadians & the ones who probably would have done what is described - do not like this word used to described them, it has been removed.
The story of Henry Sinclair's alleged voyage to America is actually rather well-known, although it is not generally accepted that the voyage actually took place. Our articles on Henry Sinclair, Westford Knight, La Merika and Rosslyn Chapel list a number of references and external links that discuss the theory from various different viewpoints, and I don't think it is necessary to duplicate all these references here. I have, however, changed the wording from "legendary voyage" to "purported voyage" to make it more clear that the Sinclair episode is not exactly uncontroversial. -- Ferkelparade π 10:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this section really belong here? The only reason "Indians" are equated with Native Americans is an error made by Columbus. This section suggests the ancient Romans made the same mistake! What a coincidence! And this mistake presented as the only proof too!-- Countakeshi 12:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still very skeptical about this section, India and its people have been known in the West since Alexander the Great's contact with them. Hellenized kingdoms established by the Diadochi linked Greece to India. Classical writers described the history of Sandrocottus ( Chandragupta Maurya) and their kings. They directly traded with one another. I doubt they can fail to distinguish an Indian when they see one. -- Countakeshi 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This speculation appears in the Religious dogma section. As anonymous speculation, it probably shouldn't be included. But can anyone expand on it? Is it just a variation on the lost tribe in Asia? Is there a protestant "founding-fathers" element to it?-- shtove 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I've made a number of changes, including:
The article still needs a LOT of reworking, for grammar and organization in particular. Ex0pos 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Reorganized and rewrote many parts. I've tried to neutralize the POV, and I've removed some parts that seem rather pseudohistorical (such as the Farley Mowat novel, and bit about Gaoussou Diawara, which, as far as I can tell, is based largely on oral storytelling of an ancient African king who said west and was never heard from again).
I'm inclined to remove the bit about Didrik Pining because of lack of information, but I'll leave it for now.
I've left the wildest stuff (lost continents and flying saucers). Not because it's credible but because it's at least noteworthy crackpottery. o.O Ex0pos 03:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've been reading Gavin Menzie's '1421: The Year China Discovered America'. Once I finish the book, I'm going to try and do a good write up article about the book. In the mean time, I think the section on his ideas should be expanded by anyone who is familiar with his book? "Menzies' effort at historical revisionism, or at least his presentation of the idea, has been found unconvincing by most historians, but it is intriguing enough that it has led to proposals of other Chinese-American contacts, e.g. by off-course Ming Dynasty ships. The possibility of Muslim trips from Asia (see Sung Document) has also been discussed." It may be found unconvincing by most historians, but perhaps it should also be noted just how much evidence he has to corroborate his theory? I won't make the edit unless I think someone else also feels this should be mentioned, at least as much for balance as for information. Word up. Zanturaeon 06:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I saw a tv documentary once which said that they had used the language of West Africa to decipher the language of the Olmecs, i.e. proof that the Olmecs had come from West Africa. Also here: "The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa." [2] and here "Studies done by Clyde Winters show that the Olmecs used the Mende script, a writing system used among the Mandinkas and other Africans in West Africa. When the writings on Olmec monuments were translated, it was found that the language spoken by the Olmecs was Mende." [3] Astrokey44 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears as though the Mormon issue has been addressed before, in a possibly biased way, and was removed. I believe their theories on how Native Americans are really from another continent are important enough to include in this article. I'd like to see some kind of addition of this. UtmostCathode 17, November 2005
I have started a major cleanup and reordering of this article. Please wait a couple of hours before pitching in. Note also that
Jorge Stolfi 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I do think we should include info on the "original" settlements, as archaeologists now think there were several waves occuring at different times. It should be a short overview, however, and have links to the articles you mention above.-- Cuchullain 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The second half of the article still needs cleanup, but I must go home now. Back tomorrow... Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear all, "NPOV" does not mean "supress any arguments for the side that I am sure is wrong", but rather "present all the arguments for both sides of the issue, in the best possible terms, and let the reader decide".
I think that most of the article is already as NPOV as it could be. Disputed evidence is said to be disputed, pro and con arguments are given, etc.. In particular, two years ago I have heard a famous American archeologist, who used to be a stern defender of the BLB model, say that the issue is again wide open, and propose coastal navigation as an alternative route.
Moreover, this article is not about "history of the Americas", it is about "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts"; therefore, it should ideally list any theory or claim about such contacts that has been widely aired, whether it is "fringe" or "bogus" or whatever.
Finally, the pro and con arguments do not have to be intertwined on the word basis! (As some mathematician once said, the two key rules for good writing are: #1 if you don't have anything to say, don't write it; and #2 if you happen to have two things to say, first write thing 1, then write thing 2.) Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad choice of words, I did not intend to turn this into a flame war. However, I think those criticisma are unwarranted.
I know enough of this subject to know that the BLB model is a very plausible theory, but (like most pre-historical theories) it relies on lots of suppositions to bridge over the many gaps in the data. It is still possible that it will be proved wrong or incomplete. If that happens, it would hardly be the first time that a "mainstream dogma" -- that experts in the field believed proved beyond doubt -- had to be adjusted to accomodate a so-called "fringe" theory. See for example the prion story, or the decipherment of the Mayan script. (BTW, in reports of the prion story, the word "dogma" is often used in a non-pejorative sense to describe the belief that all heredirary information is carried by DNA/RNA; a belief that used to be so strong that it led most scientists to reject Prusiner's claims a priori, without even checking his data). And, by the way, I would NOT bet on most of the claims listed in this article.
In any case, once again, the BLB model is not incompatible with other contacts, or even with other migrations before or after the last Ice Age, and vice versa. Jorge Stolfi 13:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, um, sorry, I am a bit upset at the moment; I just noticed that my article on the "american Aborigines" theory, which I wrote last year, has been completely erased, and the history has been moved to god-knows-where. Now, even if that is nowhere near "mainstream" (yet), it is a bona-fide scientific theory, supported by several unquestionable finds and by several scientists with full credentials. So you tell me about POV...
Anyway:
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Greenland was a part of Danish-Norwegian kingdom from 12th century.-- Nixer 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The Inuits had been there from the beginning and weren't going anywhere.
"Over the last 20 years, the dates and anatomical features of human remains found in Mexico and South America have led some archaeologists to propose that those regions were first populated by Polynesians, several millennia before the Ice Age migrations.".
I have a hard time seeing how Polynesians should have been able to reach the Americans "several millenia before the Ice Age migrations", as is proposed in the article (I am not sure as to when the "Ice Age migrations" are to have taken place, but I assume it to be several thousand years back). This would add up to that Polynesians might have arrived "several millenia before several millenia ago". My suggestion is that if in fact they did reach the Americas, it can not have been more than approximately 2000 years ago. I base this on readings I have done on the settling of the Pacific Islands. It seems to be suggested that the Society Islands and the Marquesas Islands of today's French Polynesia were settled only around 200BC, and from there, a last expansion took place in which for example the Hawai'ian islands and Easter Island were settled. My suggestion is that if the Americas were reached by Polynesians, it must have been from these easternmost cornerns of the Pacific that I just mentioned - those that are not thought to have been settled "several millennia before the Ice Age migrations".
I, too, take issue with the wording of this passage. How could Polynesians have arrived in the Americas several millenia before the ice age immigrations, which ocurred around 11,000 years ago, when Polynesian culture itself is not nearly that old? True, Australia was setttled by an early human migration 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, but the Australian Aborigines there are not related to the Polynesian, Melanesian (perhaps some ties here?), and Micronesian peoples of the South Pacific. My understanding is that these groups' origin is traced to the Lapita culture that dates to around 1350 BC, which itself is linked to Taiwan and Southern China. However, there does seem to be genetic evidence, thanks to the genographic research of Spencer Wells and others, of coastal migrations to North America that may have pre-dated and/or overlapped with the migrations of the Siberians across the Berring Strait land bridge. Do these migrants share common ancestors with the Lapita people? Could we be so bold as to include the Taiwanese aborigines and the Ainu, or at least the Jomon people of Japan?
Maybe the term used in this passage should be "Proto-Polynesian", though I'm pretty sure there is a more accurate term than this. The fact that someone as casually interested as me can spot this error means it is pretty glaring. Can someone with some authority please fix it? User: Jesse Saba 1/13/06
Comment on text; Didrik Pining was German and not Dutch
Recall the time scale we are discussing, from maybe 500BC to almost 1500AD. It would be difficult do believe that in 2000 years, some coastal hugging voyages (near Europe) would not have been storm-swept across the Atlantic. Similar statements can be made for any ocean.
If these crossing had any impact on the local culture is the real question.
As for coastal voyaging, in the last few years there was some archaeological dredging along the BC and Alaska coasts, at about the level that would have been beach during the last ice-age. Charcoal was found, if that was from a natural or man-made fire would be the question
Logically colonisation of an unoccupied area would either need a minimum group of several thousand people or frequent access to the homeland to be genetically stable. This implies a large and well organised expedition ( ie to have enough food to feed all those people ). Any ship wrecked or off course sailors landing in an uninhabited area would simply disappear from history with no trace. David J James 6 September 2006
Okay, I didn't know this stuff was controversial. I just landed here after seeing this link and it ended up being a fun read. Would be fun to reverse history by the way. [4]
Perhaps on the section about Native Americans who crossed over to the Old World, it should be included that several 17th Century natives, frustrated with the Virginian middlemen who extorted their furs, attempted and failed to cross the Atlantic in canoes, hoping to sell their product directly.
Another user recently posted a stub article on the New England Antiquities Research Association. Their website reveals upon inspection, and I've found elsewhere a quote, that "NEARA is also a hotbed of 'Diffusionist' thought, the belief that the Americas were widely visited by European and Asiatic cultures before Columbus." Anyone who knows this topic well enough to look at that organization and comment on notability, or to improve that article, is more than welcome. GRBerry 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
They lived both in America (Alaska, Canada and Greenland) and Siberia. Is this distribution very recent or is previous to Columbus voyages?
So typical somebody has taken it upon himself to revert my edits. What is this talk about Viking and Norse??? Leifur Eiríksson was an Icelander and it was Icelanders that found America not people from NOrge.
Please stop vandalizing this page, it was not people from Noryeah that discoverd America it was Icelanders and what is this reference to Norse sagas? Will the people of Norway next claim Björk as one of their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
I made the following edits
I renamed the section the vikings in newfoundland to the Icelanders in newfoundland which describes the people who visited newfoundland better. Calling this only a viking trip is not as accurate and it's sorta similar to calling the italian victory in the worldcup of 2006 the Latin victory of the worldcup.
The Vinland sagas are commonly called Íslendingasögur og Icelandic sagas and using the term norse is simply not apropriate, furthermore having a link to a page about norway behind it is not apropriate.
I changed out the Norweigan version of the name Leifr Eiríksson (Leif Eriksson) to the english version of the name Leifr Eiríksson (Leif Ericson), it has been discussed thouroghly what this man should be called under the article Leif Ericson and I think that it's only apropriate that the same name is used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
This vandalism must end. I have made good arguements for my edits to this article and been as diplomatic about them as I possibly could have been but yet you keep on reverting my edits. This is totally unaccaptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.172.43 ( talk • contribs)
Not to be too picky about it, but "farther" and "further" are typically used interchangeably - however, most useage guides (e.g., Strunk and White, "The Elements of Style") do recommend that "farther" be used when speaking (as here) of distances. I'd suggest reverting to the generally more accepted "farther" in this context. NorCalHistory 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The information that 67.164.8.213 keeps adding is interesting, but it's about 90% too long for the section and has numerous style issues. 67.164.8.213, why don't you make this MUCH more concise, add Wikipedia links and scholarly documentation, spell-check, tighten up the style etc.? As it stands, it's written like a typical Pseudoarchaeology tract. And why the repetitive references to the "Mali Empire – Exploration and Relations Navy" and "Spanish Admiral Cristobal Colon"? I think you do have something to add, particularly with the various Spanish reports of Blacks in the New World, but you would do well to cite verifiable academic sources for these passages. This doesn't have to become a revert war. Twalls 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems like 67.164.8.213 copied and pasted snippets from a handful of other sites:
"Michael Coe even reported that Alonzo Ponce spoke of a boatload of "Moors" who landed off what is now the Republic of Mexico – Campeche and terrorized the natives."
This is taken from http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm
Note there is no prior reference in what 67.164.8.213 posted to Michael Coe, but there is on that AOL member page. I tried to change it a bit, but it's really a struggle to try and clean this up. I tend to think we should revert to 11:13, 29 September 2006 RussBot -or- 14:04, 29 September 2006 Cuchullain Twalls 07:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found out that the early European accounts in what 67.164.8.213 posted is directly (or indirectly, via the Afrocentrist sites) from pp. 30-31 of Ivan van Sertima's _African Presence in Early America_. This can be viewed on http://books.google.com. Most of the mistakes were perpetuated from what was taken from those sites, not the original. Twalls 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Twalls edited the section on Africans, deleting much of the material. [5] There might be something in the old version worth saving, or better yet, moved to its own article. -- Petri Krohn 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Africans reached the Americas. Think about remote islands in the Atlantic such as Ascension Island, Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha! When they where found by Europeans they where compleatly uninhabited. If Africans crossed the Atlantic why did they not settle on those islands? Sub-Saharan Africans could not had reached the Americas because they lacked the economical resoursers for doing so. (An explaination for this can be found in Guns, Germs, and Steel.) This seams to be typical for legends: to attribute deeds to people who – in the real world – lacked the nessesairy means!
2006-11-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
If I an not completely wrong Sub-Saharan civilisations was not nearly as wealthy as contemporary Eurasian (or North African). However, the kind of wealth I thought about may not be crucial. After all, the Vikings crossed the Atlantic when their civilisation was still in it’s infancy. For a culture to cross an ocean it have to develop widespread sea travel first. Did the Mali empire really have that?
Of the three islands I mentioned only Ascension is quite barren. When first found by Europeans Saint Helena must have been quite lush. The environment was later largely destroyed by irresponsible use of resources. In the early 19the century a group of Britons settled on Tristan da Cunha. By farming potatoes and having livestock they managed to live well on their own for generations. However, the island’s climate may be too cold for African crops. In that case it would have remained uninhabited anyway. But if Africans crossed the Atlantic by themselves at least Saint Helena ought to have become inhabited. That is the very opposite of what we find!
2006-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I'm removing the suggestion that the African stuff be given its own article. It has one: African exploration of the Americas. -- BrianSmithson 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the latest info posted by the IP address that had copied info from other sites (such as http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm), and re-added the last two edits of P4k and BrianSmithson. Twalls 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Fayssal - I am unsure if Columbus' use of the term "Mohammedans" to describe natives in the West Indies can be described accurately as "orientalist." The fact that "Mohammedans" was the historical (or archaic) term used is conveyed by the quotation marks. I think Orientalism is a very specific assessment of Western perceptions of Eastern cultures, and while it may be able to explain the use of that term in some contexts, it may not be fitting in this article. Columbus' use of the term is not at issue, but the tendency of European explorers to assume New World cultures were somehow derived from known Old World cultures is. Thanks Twalls 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I found references to claims by Hjalmar R. Holand that a viking grave was found near Beardmore at Lake Nipigon.
-- Petri Krohn 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some more links: