Talk:Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories

message: I believe that instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists and who is crazy we should just fix the page so that it all the citations are accurate.  There isn't much on this page that isn't factually accurate, but the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are) is to simply toss these facts and theories aside instead of properly investigating them.  This isn't a page about debunking or proving anything.  It should be a page about presenting the facts as are and leaving opinions out.  Remember the wiki rules!  The author's sources are on this page if you'd take a second to look at them instead jumping to delete his page or portions of it.  Oh and sign your freakin comments why don't ya.
Scott Free 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First you say, "...instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists..."  Then you say, "...the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are)..."  You do realize how that sounds, don't you?  Kajmal 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix it and stop the rhetoric 

message: I don't think this page is as bad as some say it is. We have an outline of a theory that does certainly exist. We have a list of many claims which one could write about, either to debunk them or support them. For example, the claim about African plants in the new world clearly debunks the gourd as evidence. But the other plants could be good evidence if we can find some support for them, i.e. evidence that the plant did indeed exist in the new world in the right timeframe.
Other items are ridiculous and rather than deleting them, we could explain why. For instance the claim that legends of a black world indicate Africans were in America a long time ago. This is a somewhat racist statement that could only be believed by a person who thinks that Africans are blacks. In fact, the majority of Africans do not have black skin. The term "black" used to refer to Africans is a cultural artifact of the USA and England. In Australia "black" means aboriginal. In Russia it means Chechen. In ancient Sumer it meant the people of Sumer, i.e. "us".
Some work with Google could provide citations to add to the article. 
I would suggest that the article be restructured in 4 parts. An intro, a list of claims that could be true, a list of claims for which the evidence seems rather weak, and a list of claims that are clear nonsense or which have some serious flaw. In addition to the black world claim, the Olmec statue claim has a serious flaw in that they have not compared the statues to other racial groups, especially local Mexicans. I know for a fact that many orientals, especially South China, and Indochina, have broad flat noses like many (not all) Africans.
One item of information that is generally ignored or poorly explained in these theories is the ocean and wind currents. My vague knowledge of these is that voyages from somewhere in the region of Mali, would easily get to America, but run into some difficulty in returning eastwards. This seems consistent with the Mali fleet story.
--Wavetossed 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to rely heavily on a single Afrocentrist-biased scholar, Ivan Van Sertima as its source.  The article is presented as accepted fact when it is far from that.  It is actually unsubstantiated speculation, heavily reliant on pseudoscientific reasoning.  Claims are also shifted across various time frames such that any coherent hypothesis is lost.  Some items initially present (since deleted) were outright falsehoods.  For instance, the word "yam" refers to two different species (not even in the same genus, order, family or class!) of plant (the sweet potato, native to America and the African yam), but the contributor confabulated them (delberately or ignorantly?), concluding that (paraphrasing) "yams were introduced from Africa before Columbus".  This article needs major re-working, or deletion. Tmangray 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page is not as bad as some think 

message: This guy isn't a very reliable source, yet his statements are taken as fact in this article. It needs to be made clear that he makes these claims and that they are unsubstantiated. Titanium Dragon 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS 

message: Cocaine Mummies of Ancient Egypt
^^I've provided a new entry into the article and welcome all opinions and discussion pertaining to it..Taharqa 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New entry: The cocaine mummies

message: ___________________________________________________
I removed Van Sertima’s claims about guanin for the following reasons:
1) Van Sertima misquotes Thacher (1903-1904, vol. 2, 380): which says “... he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people, who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call ‘guanin’ of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper.” Neither Columbus, nor Thacher referred to Africa nor to the identity of guanin with African alloys.
2) Copper/gold and copper/gold/silver alloys are not unique to Africa or distinguished from each other and are referred to generically as tumbaga.
3) Guanín is a word in Arawak, the language of the inhabitants of Hispaniola, not Mandingo and was, therefore, not imported. Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 60 ff.) show that in many Arawakan languages words like guanín or guani and words resembling karakoli, in Carib languages, designate tumbaga alloys. Rivet and Arsandaux found guanin ranging in composition from 11 to 81% gold and from 18 to 87 % copper
4) In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence (1987), Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. The percentages list gold; copper; silver.				
Columbus-guanin	(56%		25%		19%);
Guinea (Africa)		(50%		25%		25%);
Guinea (Africa)		(65%		17.2%	17.2%);
Mochica			(31%		60%		10%);
Moche			(68%		13%		19%);
Moche			(67%		11%		22%)
The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.
5) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.
references:
Bosman, W. 1967 [1705]. A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea. London: Frank Cass & Co.
Hosler, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colors of Power. The Sacred Metallurgical  Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lawrence, H. 1987. “Mandinga Voyages Across the Atlantic,” in African Presence  in Early America. edited by I. Van Sertima. 55-81. New Brunswick, NJ: 	Transaction Books
Lechtman, H. 1988. “Tradition and Styles in Central Andean Metalworking,” In The  Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, ed. R. Maddin. 344-378. Cambridge, 	MA: MIT Press. 
Lechtman, H., A. Erlij, and E. J. Barry. 1982. “New Perspectives on Moche  Metallurgy: Techniques of Gilding Copper at Loma Negra, Northern Peru.” Antiquity. 47: 3-30.
Morison, S.E. 1942. Admiral of the Open Sea. A Life of Christopher Columbus.  Boston: Little Brown.
Rivet, P. and H. Arsandaux. 1946. La Métallurgie en Amérique Précolombienne. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme.
Thacher, J.B. 1903-1904. Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Works, His Remains. NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcoatl (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Van Sertima’s claims

message: As I pointed out above, Columbus did not say that the gold alloy found in the New World was the same as that made in West Africa, wich contradicts the cited sources which are secondary and do not cite Columbus' original source.
) Van Sertima misquotes Thacher (1903-1904, vol. 2, 380): which says “... he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people, who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call ‘guanin’ of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper.” Neither Columbus, nor Thacher referred to Africa nor to the identity of guanin with African alloys.
2) Copper/gold and copper/gold/silver alloys are not unique to Africa or distinguished from each other and are referred to generically as tumbaga.
3) Guanín is a word in Arawak, the language of the inhabitants of Hispaniola, not Mandingo and was, therefore, not imported. Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 60 ff.) show that in many Arawakan languages words like guanín or guani and words resembling karakoli, in Carib languages, designate tumbaga alloys. Rivet and Arsandaux found guanin ranging in composition from 11 to 81% gold and from 18 to 87 % copper
4) In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence (1987), Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. The percentages list gold; copper; silver. Columbus-guanin (56% 25% 19%); Guinea (Africa) (50% 25% 25%); Guinea (Africa) (65% 17.2% 17.2%); Mochica (31% 60% 10%); Moche (68% 13% 19%); Moche (67% 11% 22%)
The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.
5) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.
references:
Bosman, W. 1967 [1705]. A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea. London: Frank Cass & Co.
Hosler, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colors of Power. The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lawrence, H. 1987. “Mandinga Voyages Across the Atlantic,” in African Presence in Early America. edited by I. Van Sertima. 55-81. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books
Lechtman, H. 1988. “Tradition and Styles in Central Andean Metalworking,” In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, ed. R. Maddin. 344-378. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lechtman, H., A. Erlij, and E. J. Barry. 1982. “New Perspectives on Moche Metallurgy: Techniques of Gilding Copper at Loma Negra, Northern Peru.” Antiquity. 47: 3-30.
Morison, S.E. 1942. Admiral of the Open Sea. A Life of Christopher Columbus. Boston: Little Brown.
Rivet, P. and H. Arsandaux. 1946. La Métallurgie en Amérique Précolombienne. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme.
Thacher, J.B. 1903-1904. Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Works, His Remains. NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons
18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abu Bakari

message: I think this page is fair. It says that most historians don't think this theory is true and then outlines why some people still support it.  However, one thing I wish this article could bring out is the way that the theory being rejected from the start (before it was examined more carefully) has influenced Afrocentric scholars. It's only in recent years that this idea was examined with any care and shown to be false. Initially, the theory was rejected simply because it was hard for the scientific establishment to accept the idea that Africans were capable of making boats. The Afrocentric scholars who still cling to this theory today are still bitter about that racism. You see, Afrocentric scholars were wrong about this one, but they were right about other things-- (for example, western scientists incorrectly claimed that there were no civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa, it was a part of the racist assumption that Africans are inferior and incapable of creating culture, and then there was the whole issue with the piltdown man... Scientific racism may have made some Afrocentric scholars a little pariniod, but its not like they don't have a reason to suspect that "the truth is being suppressed" --because it has happened in the past...) And because of that there's a lack of trust that keeps theories like this one in circulation. Now I'm just writing from my experience, and I don't know how we can add these ideas without a source-- do any of you have thoughts on how we could do this? I think it would help explain to people why all of this was so important. futurebird 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thoughts on how to improve this article

message: Can someone direct me to more info on the Africans discovered in the New World by early explorers in Panama.  I understand that the discovery of the two African captives occurred in 1512.  What I want to know is what wasthe possibility that these Africans were simply shipwrecked survivors from a slave ship.  The first slave ship came to the New World in 1502 (to Hispanla). Despite much of the criticism found in in eurocentric cirlces, none have seemed to address this oddity. Should there be Africans in Panama at that period in time?  Thnx in advance.  :)  Scott Free 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African colonies in the New World 

message: "Given the improbability of an Egyptian voyage to the Americas and/or an established ancient trade route, most skeptics and scholars remain tentative, seeking more conventional means of explanation to address the problem, while many alternative historians see this as proof of ancient contact between Africa and the Americas, well before Columbus."
In the 1960s (or '70s), Thor Heyerdahl, well known for his Kon Tiki expedition, mounted an expedition he named Ra, which set sail from Egypt.  Its destination?  The Americas.  Given the results of the voyage, the "improbability" of an Egyptian voyage to the Americas was rendered infinitely more probable.  Furthermore, findings of mainstream forensic anthropologists have established that the earliest skeletal remains of humans in South America are definitely "Negroid/Australoid," indications of human populations who arrived many thousands of years ago -- and that these human populations were later supplanted by "Asiatic" peoples a mere 7,000 years ago.  This information is presented nowhere in the article -- and should be.
Weird.  In searching for links, I came across this, a purported NYT article dating back to 1922.  I can't verify its veracity.
What I was actually searching for was this and a BBC News article, which I can't seem to find (but I've referenced it numerous times elsewhere on this site).  And the info about Heyerdahl's Rah expedition is easy enough to find.  
And then there's the controversial scholarship of Barry Fell and Ivan van Sertima.
While it isn't necessary to address these matters in the article at length, certainly at least some mention of them ought to be made as possibly supportive of the DNA evidence.  And certainly the matter shouldn't be left in the article as they are -- with some POV comment about the "improbability" of African contact with the New World.  deeceevoice (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I simplified the paragraph you mentioned, as well as another one.  Regarding Heyerdahl, I would think that a summary of his views and the Ra expedition would seem appropriate to the article.  Madman (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV assertion?

message: We shouldn't add  to article without specifying the reason that the article is POV.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We shouldn't add <nowiki>{{Totally-disputed|date=January 2008}}</nowiki> to article without specifying why

message: A team of U.S. researchers has proposed a new "working model" for when and how humans came to the New World  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiphus (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be this same research:   The article, which is published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, shows that the first Americans came from a single Siberian population and ventured across the Bering land bridge connecting Asia and North America about 22,000 years ago.
You have to pay for the actual article: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5869/1497 
The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas  Ted Goebel,1* Michael R. Waters,2 Dennis H. O'Rourke] - the other articles this month all say Beringia by the way if I recall correctly.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient seafarers may have been first settlers 

message: I have found this page has become significantly against the theory. lets keep the page Neutral rather than incorporating a whole heep of Eurocentric material.. much of which have no sources or references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.105.71 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is not supposed to be 'neutral', it is supposed to follow our policy at WP:NPOV, ie it " must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In particular, this article is covered by the section headed "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories" and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, You've added a duplicate section on the Olmec headed 'proof', hardly neutral in any way, moved the mainstream position down although it belongs as the beginning according to our policy, You've deleted cited text as well. You've asserted as fact that the Olmec heads have Negroid features, which is highly arguable given the epicanthic folds, their resemblance to Asian faces, etc. And you've added categories which are basically pov. I've reverted your edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page too against the theory 

message: At the end of the section it reads:
"Most mainstream scholars remain skeptical[citation needed], seeking more conventional research such as third-party examinations and original research, while many pseudo-historians see this as "proof" of ancient contact between Africa and the Americas well before Columbus."
I'd like to know who these scholars are, what they said in reference to the mummies, what their explanations were and why it deserves to be the end conclusion to the section?98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written the sentence, and added some supporting  citations. ClovisPt (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocaine mummies

message: The only citation against claims of Abubakari's success came from a website of some random graduate student in community nutrition. Now I see that after my intervention, that citation has been deleted but the associated statement that went along with it is still there. This is what I mean by original research. The editor plans to leave it there so he/she can hunt high and low for a reliable source that says the same thing. Problem being, I haven't seen too many arguments against his voyage becoming a success. None directly dealing with him at least. The only one that did was that horrible source which is now gone. Why is that statement still there. It is the comment of an editor based on a blog post.98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completly sure I'm following you here. Just to clarify, are you asking for a citation for this sentence: "However, no African artifacts, let alone the remains of even one of the 2,000 ships, have ever been found in the Americas."? ClovisPt (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mali empire

message: My opinion has no merit but I don't believe the Olmec were Africa explorers. They were Olmecs. But still, original research can't be tolerated simply to discredit a theory. At the end of the section it reads:
"The great majority of scholars who specialize in Mesoamerican archaeology and history regard these speculations as incorrect."
What "majority"? Why is this uncourced? What majority? How do we know it's a majority? Do we have a source who counted the people who specialize in this? Do we have a source that represents the majority? Who decides who represents the majority? This is weasel worded and uncited and added for the sake of rebuttal.98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These statements are well sourced in the Olmec alternative origin speculations article, we can of course borrow those references for this article, if it is necessary. ClovisPt (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Olmecs

message: With in the section, this is posted:
"Genetic and immunological studies over the past two decades have failed to yield evidence of precolumbian African contributions to populations in the Americas.[5][6][7]  The high mortality associated with the spread of Old World diseases introduced by Europeans suggests long-term immunological isolation"
1) Does this source deal directly with the controversy?
2) Does this even contradict claims of pre-columbian "contact" (it's ludacris to suggest that it does as if such proposed small contacts would affect the entire native american gene pool)
^Assuming that neither apply, why is this not original research, even desperate to some extent?98.207.93.154 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a point here. These sources, while relevant to a discussion of indigenous American genetics, do not specifically mention "Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact". If we can't find reliable, third party sources that mention this topic, we may need to re-evaluate its notability. ClovisPt (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly consensus