Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  How can this fit in the page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: i agree with wiglaf...there are numerous academic references to earlier voyages and some accounts that are not fully documented...cant we take this article out of neverneverland and get it better referenced and on a higher plain? Anlace 07:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The tone of the text

message: 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)
thread_title:  Native Americans in Europe 

message: 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)
thread_title: Large chunk of irrelevant material removed

message: 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)
thread_title: So-called "Early proponents"

message: 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)
thread_title: Initial Parapraphs

message: 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)
thread_title: Perspective

message: The following was added by an anonymous user after the reference to Hey:
:This is debatable, however, as the prevailing scientific view prevented, until recently, serious research on possible pre-Clovis settlements ("you don't dig deeper than Clovis"), whereas Hey's samples and conclusions are limited to Amerind peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to trans-Bering Landbridge immigrants (excluding Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene and 'unusual' Amerind tribes).
This is too detailed for an intro paragraph, and anyway has a strong whiff of trying to make a case - Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  However it could possibly go back in later in the article, if anyone can see a suitable place, and can clean up the style. seglea 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content removed

message: 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.
: As regards the Yupik, this is evidently not true:
:: Eskimo is a term used for a group of people who inhabit the circumpolar region (excluding circumpolar Scandinavia and all but the easternmost portions of Russia). There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit of northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East (the latter group is known as Siberian Yupik or Yuit). ... The term "eskimo" is still used in Alaska to refer to the state's Arctic peoples in general, whether or not they are Eskimos culturally or linguistically. For example, while some Yupik people prefer to be called "Yup'ik", they do not generally object to being called "Eskimo", but they do not consider themselves "Inuit". 
: However, in this case, the more-specific term Inuit seems correct.
:—wwoods 17:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eskimo/Inuit-Yupik 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! In Scandinavia, where I live, this voyage is pretty much unknown.--Wiglaf 10:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Wiglaf, re: Sinclair's purported voyage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lost tribes of Israel 

message: I've made a number of changes, including:
#Removed the 2nd paragraph; it's an imprecise summary and not particularly helpful: "This article summarizes the main claims that have been made for Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic content."  The article includes the Bering-Strait migration, which is not exactly trans-oceanic. "Some of these claims are no longer seriously defended, and none is widely supported": The Bering-Strait migration and Viking settlement are widely supported.  "Nonetheless, archaeology is always changing as new discoveries, techniques, and technology add new evidence and engender new theories.  While the land bridge theory of America's settlement has dominated archeological thinking for years, like any scientific theory, it is open to challenge": uninformative, and not necessary after the 1st two sentences are removed.
#Unified fragmented references to Viking voyages (confusing to have them cited in the "consensus finding" category and again later as a "possibility").
#Removed the "religious accounts" references to the Book of Mormon as uninformative and nonevidentiary.
The article still needs a LOT of reworking, for grammar and organization in particular.Ex0pos 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc changes... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More overhaul 

message: 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)
replies: text: In that case, Zanturaeon, you might like to take a look at the article 1421 hypothesis, which discusses this idea of Gavin Menzies. If you're familiar with his work, by all means give it a go to summarise his hypothesis, its supporting arguments, and its critiques. For overall arcticle balance, there's probably only need to mention the most central of these.--cjllw | TALK 07:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on '1421' 

message: 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."  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."  Astrokey44 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the sources you cite here are not encyclopedic in the slightest. You would need a nice scholarly reference to go on, not a new age site and a black power site. What professional linguist has published something saying the two languages are related? If you find one, then rewrite what you had to say that So and So With Real Credentials Claims/Asserts/Says That...' instead of stating if it were an actual facts. Odds are good that even if you turn up someone with real credentials that the vast majority of scholars would dispute it, assuming they even heard of the idea. TV documentaries and random websites are not encyclopedic sources. DreamGuy 15:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there was no "Mende script" until one was invented in the 1940s. Tmangray 01:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  olmec language 

message: I have started a major cleanup and reordering of this article. Please wait a couple of hours before pitching in. Note also that
:Once a belief, claim or theory has been widely circulated, it becomes significant cultural/historical fact by itself; and, as such, it deserves to be described in detail — no matter how absurd or patently false it seems.
:It is not necessary to precede every questionable word in a sentence by warnings such as "contested", "controversial", "alleged", etc.. Placing such warnings to a separate sentence at the end of the offending paragraph, or even to a separate paragraph, is often cleaner and just as effective.
:Controversies about the original settlement of the Americas do not belong here, but to the Models of migration to the New World, Arcaheology of the Americas, etc.
Jorge Stolfi 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the Bering Land Bridge (BLB) model must be discussed, since it provided the main argument for the isolationist view. Is the new text OK? Jorge Stolfi 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major overhaul in progress

message: 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. 
:: lol, I also just read that article and went here. Intresting stuff.. I definetly think someone has been to america between indians 9000 BC and CC 1592 AD. Vikings, accidents, whatever. We don´t know , of course, and we never will, but it is an exciting and possible thought. Btw. would be nice with some article on old maps from different cultures, I find old maps intresting for some reason.
:Me too. It's all very intriguing and fascinating and perfect material for fictional boys' books (such as the adventures of Jules Verne). And since there is no hard evidence to most of these speculations, we will probably never know. In any case, the vast distances mean that any trans-Oceanic contacts between the Americas and the rest of the world (other than hunting parties across the Bering Strait) would have been sporadic and not been permanent routes for trade or systematic colonization prior to the Norse expeditions, which did evolve into deliberate and systematic voyages. Other peoples renowned for their seafaring skills (such as the Malays, Phoenecians, Polynesians, Haida and later Basque fishermen and Irish monks) are not likely to have left any substantial impact on the societies they may or may not have encountered. But contact is feasible; in fact, odds are that a few of the countless ancient vessels would have accidentally landed on distant shores with surviving crew. And the many clues given in the article may or may not be mere coincidence or myths. But perhaps the text should be more explicit about the speculative nature of all these hypotheses? =J //Big Adamsky 05:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   China map lays claim to Americas 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmm, at first blush it appears to be a bit of a clearinghouse for some diffusionist monographs and books which otherwise would not get a guernsey in more established archaeological circles; but there's probably more to the society than that. Personally, I'd be cautious about relying on at least some of the materials there as wholly authorative (there's no mention of any formal archaeological qualifications, perhaps more of an enthusiast rather than professional/academic outfit). I suppose however that that does not automatically disbar the article from a claim of sufficient notability (they seem to be referenced by a few similarly-minded sites). I think the present rewrite gives a fair enough account.--cjllw | TALK 07:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm the one who created the NEARA stub, and the assumption that the group consists mostly of amateurs is a correct one to the best of my knowledge.  That's not to say all of their work is worthless, but their general adherence to pseudohistorical theory makes it somewhat difficult to take them seriously.  However, as a group spreading interest about pre-Columbian history in New England, their existence has inherent worth.--Caliga10 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New England Antiquities Research Association 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further about farther 

message: I found references to claims by Hjalmar R. Holand that a viking grave was found near Beardmore at Lake Nipigon.
: What is the modern view on this?
: Where are the artifacts discovered?
* Westward from Vinland: An Account of Norse Discoveries and Explorations in America 982-1362 by Hjalmar R. Holand Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York 1940 
* Viking Weapons found near Beardmore, Ontario Canadian Hist. Rev., Vol. 20, 1939, pp. 4-7.
-- Petri Krohn 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking grave at [[Lake Nipigon]]