Pre-Columbian Contact with the New World

[Lord Harry]

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Well, that would have to be all nonsense. I don't know of this guy, but where did he get his education? Saturday morning cartoons?

He has a bachelor's degree in Geology.  That is honestly all I know of this man.  Other than his asinine theories.

[Jarocal]

10 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Exactly.  Also, I found him to be too quick to accept anything as evidence for pre-Columbian contact, no matter how unlikely.  He wasn't skeptical in the least.  While one shouldn't arbitrarily dismiss evidence, neither should one accept any and all "evidence" without question.  A healthy dose of skepticism is essential in investigating any claims of pre-Columbian trasnoceanic contact with the New World.

I firmly believe in intermittent contacts. Storm blows a vessel off course and the currents will carry it across. I would even go with a larger Norse Exploration than has been attested thus far. The dating for Monte Verde alone implies a far more mobile Ancient human than is currently widely asserted. Coastal hugging small skin boats down from Beringia explains the rapidity of entry that far South but does nothing to explain why so many habitable sites were passed over and a race to the southern tip was on.

[Lord Harry]

Just now, Jarocal said:

I firmly believe in intermittent contacts. Storm blows a vessel off course and the currents will carry it across. I would even go with a larger Norse Exploration than has been attested thus far. The dating for Monte Verde alone implies a far more mobile Ancient human than is currently widely asserted. Coastal hugging small skin boats down from Beringia explains the rapidity of entry that far South but does nothing to explain why so many habitable sites were passed over and a race to the southern tip was on.

There are also alleged Norse finds in Minnesota, though I can't recall the exact location off the top of my head.  It is also possible that the Chinese had sporadic contact with the coastal populations of western North America.  For some time, the Chinese were intrepid navigators and explorers, until one of the Ming emperors unexpectedly and for reasons unknown put an end to such maritime voyages.

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

Well, in all fairness I haven't actually read the account of St. Brenden.  Like I said in my above post, I recently developed an interest in pre-Columbian contact but am far from being an expert in the subject.  Though I must say, in spite of the obvious embellishments in his account that you point out, it should be noted that the experimental archaeologist Tim Severin successfully navigated a period Irish currach across the Atlantic, conclusively proving such a voyage would have been at least possible.

Note: below when I use the word "you," I'm not referring to the OP. I'm just using the generalized, second person plural, like the French might use "on" or the German "Mann." I gots no beef with Lord Harry or any action/post he's made.

I also probably need to point out that I think there probably was accidental, non-recurrent contact across the Atlantic, so I have no problem with his major contention. I just usually find the historiographical approach to such contact to be... lacking. Take that St. Brendan story, for example: on its face, you can't pick and choose parts of the story (as in, "he made it to the New World" but not "a magic fish attacked the boat, but then another magic fish attacked the first, split it into three parts, and then all the monks had a convenient fish supper of a Friday evening.")

Well, you /can/ do that, but not without twisting the specific aims of the author creating or passing on the tale (for whom the location/existence of the New World is far less relevant than the direct interventions god makes on behalf of his faithful). Even if you try to play the "I'm only ignoring the parts that seem impossible and only adopting the parts that seem rational and likely to me" card, you're only substituting your own cultural imperatives about believability and rationality, which are just as arbitrary or fictional as the monks writing about Brendan. There's a very similar issue with Severin's crossing, I think -- all he really did is prove that a modern archaeologist armed with substantially more knowledge about trans-Atlantic travel than any early medieval monk could make the crossing. A good historian will try to understand the context of the original story and be frank about the intentions s/he has with his present work, and admit to (as much as s/he can) his own cultural assumptions. I've written an article trying to trace a possible history of the god Zagreus/Dionysis from the Greek Dark Ages up to Classical Athens, but I admit there's not really enough solid evidence to ever confirm my ideas, and that there are other ways to put the same facts together to arrive at a different story.
 

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

38 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

There are also alleged Norse finds in Minnesota, though I can't recall the exact location off the top of my head...

Would this be the infamous Kensington Runestone? I spent a good chunk of my life, including a large portion of my childhood, in Minnesota. Any Minnesotan worth his salt knows of the Runestone. We learned about it in junior high, and even that far back in ancient history, when I was a cute little mummy, the Runestone was regarded by most as a hoax. But it was only after joining UM that I learned some people still try to believe it's real. I don't and never have.

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

Would this be the infamous Kensington Runestone? I spent a good chunk of my life, including a large portion of my childhood, in Minnesota. Any Minnesotan worth his salt knows of the Runestone. We learned about it in junior high, and even that far back in ancient history, when I was a cute little mummy, the Runestone was regarded by most as a hoax. But it was only after joining UM that I learned some people still try to believe it's real. I don't and never have.

Yes my Danish/Norse side wants it to be real just like Burrough's Barsoom.

 

Sadly they are not

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

Would this be the infamous Kensington Runestone? I spent a good chunk of my life, including a large portion of my childhood, in Minnesota. Any Minnesotan worth his salt knows of the Runestone. We learned about it in junior high, and even that far back in ancient history, when I was a cute little mummy, the Runestone was regarded by most as a hoax. But it was only after joining UM that I learned some people still try to believe it's real. I don't and never have.

Yes my Danish/Norse side wants it to be real just like Burrough's Barsoom.

 

Sadly they are not

[Lord Harry]

10 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Would this be the infamous Kensington Runestone? I spent a good chunk of my life, including a large portion of my childhood, in Minnesota. Any Minnesotan worth his salt knows of the Runestone. We learned about it in junior high, and even that far back in ancient history, when I was a cute little mummy, the Runestone was regarded by most as a hoax. But it was only after joining UM that I learned some people still try to believe it's real. I don't and never have.

That, and also alleged skeletal remains which some have considered to be Norse in origin.  Interestingly, the mid-west is where the mounding builders civilization was located.  They were alleged to have been a race of giants.  I am not sure what to make of this, as some of the evidence I have read regarding giant remains seems fairly convincing.  Though I hardly believe in a Smithsonian coverup.  Human beings of gigantic stature have been described in ancient legends for thousands of years.  I think it is possible such a race of giant men once existed in antiquity.  Though, if true, they were normal humans in every way except for size and physical strength.  They certainly weren't the offspring of human beings and aliens.

As for the Kennigston Runestone, I agree it was a hoax.  And not a particularly good one at that.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Lord Harry

[jaylemurph]

52 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

That, and also alleged skeletal remains which some have considered to be Norse in origin.  Interestingly, the mid-west is where the mounding builders civilization was located.  They were alleged to have been a race of giants.  I am not sure what to make of this, as some of the evidence I have read regarding giant remains seems fairly convincing.  Though I hardly believe in a Smithsonian coverup.  Human beings of gigantic stature have been described in ancient legends for thousands of years.  I think it is possible such a race of giant men once existed in antiquity.  Though, if true, they were normal humans in every way except for size and physical strength.  They certainly weren't the offspring of human beings and aliens.

As for the Kennigston Runestone, I agree it was a hoax.  And not a particularly good one at that.

Okay, this /is/ for the OP: there are legends of gods, too. Does that make Jupiter real?

--Jaylemurph

PS: The square-cube law does a good job of putting paid the idea of giant humans: http://ianchadwick.com/blog/hoax-five-meter-giant-skeletons/

[Peter Cox]

10 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I thought someone was trying to resurrect the sorry cocaine-and-tobacco nonsense in ancient Egypt, and nearly hurled my computer across the room. Then I saw the OP was written by Lord Harry, and breathed a sigh of relief.

KMT - I have asked on several occasions that you keep "our" ancient trade routes and products on the down low.....

[Lord Harry]

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Note: below when I use the word "you," I'm not referring to the OP. I'm just using the generalized, second person plural, like the French might use "on" or the German "Mann." I gots no beef with Lord Harry or any action/post he's made.

I also probably need to point out that I think there probably was accidental, non-recurrent contact across the Atlantic, so I have no problem with his major contention. I just usually find the historiographical approach to such contact to be... lacking. Take that St. Brendan story, for example: on its face, you can't pick and choose parts of the story (as in, "he made it to the New World" but not "a magic fish attacked the boat, but then another magic fish attacked the first, split it into three parts, and then all the monks had a convenient fish supper of a Friday evening.")

Well, you /can/ do that, but not without twisting the specific aims of the author creating or passing on the tale (for whom the location/existence of the New World is far less relevant than the direct interventions god makes on behalf of his faithful). Even if you try to play the "I'm only ignoring the parts that seem impossible and only adopting the parts that seem rational and likely to me" card, you're only substituting your own cultural imperatives about believability and rationality, which are just as arbitrary or fictional as the monks writing about Brendan. There's a very similar issue with Severin's crossing, I think -- all he really did is prove that a modern archaeologist armed with substantially more knowledge about trans-Atlantic travel than any early medieval monk could make the crossing. A good historian will try to understand the context of the original story and be frank about the intentions s/he has with his present work, and admit to (as much as s/he can) his own cultural assumptions. I've written an article trying to trace a possible history of the god Zagreus/Dionysis from the Greek Dark Ages up to Classical Athens, but I admit there's not really enough solid evidence to ever confirm my ideas, and that there are other ways to put the same facts together to arrive at a different story.
 

--Jaylemurph

Fair enough. Though it should be pointed out that stories involving fantastical beasts were a common motif in early Medieval chronicles. Take Adaman's account of St. Columba for example. Adaman is an excellent source of historical knowledge regarding St. Columba's missionary journeys in Scotland during the mid-6th century AD, and yet he also relates an outlandish account regarding a water monster in the River Ness which terrorized the local highlanders. St. Columba allegedly made the sign of the cross upon the approach of the beast, which then submerged back into the watery depths, never to attack another human being again.

Are we to dismiss Adaman's account of St. Columba in its entirety simply due to the inclusion of this element? Now you do bring up some good points regarding the voyage of St. Brendan, and I agree any such accounts must be read with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ask Kmt Sesh and Hanslune, they will tell you that I am not prone to uncritically accept fantastical theories. However, I felt the need to point out that such elements, especially those regarding strange beasts, were a common early Medieval motif, and were even included within what are otherwise considered to be historically accurate accounts.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Lord Harry

[Kenemet]

13 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

It was years ago already but my uncle sent me Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. We had discussed the book at a dinner party and I hadn't read it. He thought I should. He was right. I really enjoyed this book and found a lot of Diamond's premises to be plausible. 

We should have a thread for that - I thought that his idea held up well until around 1400 AD and then it fell apart.

As to European contact, I'm really very skeptical about that.  Ships didn't have the food/storage/space for a long ocean voyage - it took the Mayflower 66 days to cross the Atlantic and that's with good wind technology.  European ships in those days weren't able to carry three months' worth of food.

Polynesian... I can sort of see that.  But unless they went up to Iceland or across the ice sheets, I don't see European travel possible until they got better and bigger ships.

 

[Kenemet]

12 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

 I just usually find the historiographical approach to such contact to be... lacking. Take that St. Brendan story, for example: on its face, you can't pick and choose parts of the story (as in, "he made it to the New World" but not "a magic fish attacked the boat, but then another magic fish attacked the first, split it into three parts, and then all the monks had a convenient fish supper of a Friday evening.")

Well, you /can/ do that, but not without twisting the specific aims of the author creating or passing on the tale (for whom the location/existence of the New World is far less relevant than the direct interventions god makes on behalf of his faithful). Even if you try to play the "I'm only ignoring the parts that seem impossible and only adopting the parts that seem rational and likely to me" card, you're only substituting your own cultural imperatives about believability and rationality, which are just as arbitrary or fictional as the monks writing about Brendan. There's a very similar issue with Severin's crossing, I think -- all he really did is prove that a modern archaeologist armed with substantially more knowledge about trans-Atlantic travel than any early medieval monk could make the crossing. A good historian will try to understand the context of the original story and be frank about the intentions s/he has with his present work, and admit to (as much as s/he can) his own cultural assumptions.

There is also the context (very ancient) that heaven/the land of the dead/the blessed isles lay to the west (and occasionally Faerie.)   Tales of traveling to see the dead or to the land of the dead and returning are present in almost all cultures that I can think of and surely influenced some of these tales.  The Arthurian cycle also makes use of a "land to the west" in the context of a mythic legendary isle that is related to this concept and not really related to the Americas, etc.

[Hanslune]

15 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

We should have a thread for that - I thought that his idea held up well until around 1400 AD and then it fell apart.

As to European contact, I'm really very skeptical about that.  Ships didn't have the food/storage/space for a long ocean voyage - it took the Mayflower 66 days to cross the Atlantic and that's with good wind technology.  European ships in those days weren't able to carry three months' worth of food.

Polynesian... I can sort of see that.  But unless they went up to Iceland or across the ice sheets, I don't see European travel possible until they got better and bigger ships.

 

Yes and it was water that was the critical component. Which is why a Roman ship carrying wine from/to what is now Morocco might have made it! Water storage is the primary problem not just for drinking but for preparation of salt-cured meat as food. You can soak it in sea water but must use freshwater to reduce the salt level.Yeah the later day Polynesians had the technology and the techniques and perhaps the desire - I hope still that something will be found on the SW coast of SA at some point.

-------------------------------------------------

Here is a modern yachting view of crossing the Atlantic from East to West. The conditions they mention were probably the same for thousands of years - a need to avoid hurricanes (which would be unknown until you encountered them from June to November) and lapses in wind, etc.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/features/the-best-route-for-an-atlantic-crossing-it-depends-when-you-go-64859

 

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Hanslune

[Lord Harry]

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Okay, this /is/ for the OP: there are legends of gods, too. Does that make Jupiter real?

--Jaylemurph

PS: The square-cube law does a good job of putting paid the idea of giant humans: http://ianchadwick.com/blog/hoax-five-meter-giant-skeletons/

The difference is, alleged physical remains of giants have been found in North American archaeological contexts such as the mid-western burial mounds, and in Chaco Canyon.

Now, I'm not saying that these are unequivocally the remains of an extinct race of giants. What I am saying, is I believe there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

[Kenemet]

1 minute ago, Lord Harry said:

The difference is, alleged physical remains of giants have been found in North American archaeological contexts such as the mid-western burial mounds, and in Chaco Canyon.

Now, I'm not saying that these are unequivocally the remains of an extinct race of giants. What I am saying, is I believe there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

Do you have any links to reputable sources?  The ones we know of here are fringe and easily discounted (in general, tales from the "Wild West" magazines.

[Lord Harry]

14 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Do you have any links to reputable sources?  The ones we know of here are fringe and easily discounted (in general, tales from the "Wild West" magazines.

I will try to find some reputable links.  I am not an expert in this subject, and have only recently developed an interest.  And unlike Cladking, I will freely admit that there is a strong probability, over 50% most likely, that I am wrong here.  However, I still think this is worth investigating.

Not sure how reputable it is, but here is a link describing alleged giant remains found in Wisconsin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-humans-you-decide-here-what-i-have-found-mark-anthony-garrett

While the general accuracy of the finds cannot be determined, the article links to several contemporary newspaper accounts of alleged giant skeletons found throughout the mid-west and western North America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Lord Harry
found a link

[Jarocal]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

We should have a thread for that - I thought that his idea held up well until around 1400 AD and then it fell apart.

As to European contact, I'm really very skeptical about that.  Ships didn't have the food/storage/space for a long ocean voyage - it took the Mayflower 66 days to cross the Atlantic and that's with good wind technology.  European ships in those days weren't able to carry three months' worth of food.

Polynesian... I can sort of see that.  But unless they went up to Iceland or across the ice sheets, I don't see European travel possible until they got better and bigger ships.

 

The thing is you don't have to rely on wind speed if you have filtration methods available. Boil sea water and collect the condensation (unattested technology). Rain catchment into vessels. Not claiming reliance on these methods is ideal but can extend a voyage.

[Hanslune]

Question for our resident stone worker. How long would it take a mason to create this considering he was on a expedition? I was wondering if my base section of my patrol had been wiped out I wouldn't have hung around for the attackers to return.

 

This is an image of the Kensington stone

 

The stone is carved from greywacke, is 79 cm long, 41 cm wide and 14 cm thick (31×16×5½) inches: these are maximum dimensions, as the stone is not perfectly rectangular) and weighs around 104 kg (230 lb). It was reported that, "The stone has broken along natural lines of cleavage and none of the faces was dressed in preparation for the inscription".

Edited July 31, 2017 by Hanslune

[ShadowSot]

5 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I will try to find some reputable links.  I am not an expert in this subject, and have only recently developed an interest.  And unlike Cladking, I will freely admit that there is a strong probability, over 50% most likely, that I am wrong here.  However, I still think this is worth investigating.

Not sure how reputable it is, but here is a link describing alleged giant remains found in Wisconsin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-humans-you-decide-here-what-i-have-found-mark-anthony-garrett

While the general accuracy of the finds cannot be determined, the article links to several contemporary newspaper accounts of alleged giant skeletons found throughout the mid-west and western North America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The sources, part from the news articles, are pretty bad. 

 As for news articles, we're looking at the great time of yellow journalism and where finds of mammoths morphed into reports of giants. 

 *commenting for updates 

[jaylemurph]

5 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

The difference is, alleged physical remains of giants have been found in North American archaeological contexts such as the mid-western burial mounds, and in Chaco Canyon.

Really? All you have to do to make that believable is produce the evidence. And by evidence I mean actual, physical bones. It's common knowledge that fakers and hoaxers are by no means a modern phenomenon, especially in the 19th Century, when newspapers, eager for paid circulation, were eager to produce or finance such hoaxes and there was no legal mechanism to stop them from publishing known fraud.

--Jaylemurph

[back to earth]

6 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

Fair enough. Though it should be pointed out that stories involving fantastical beasts were a common motif in early Medieval chronicles. Take Adaman's account of St. Columba for example. Adaman is an excellent source of historical knowledge regarding St. Columba's missionary journeys in Scotland during the mid-6th century AD, and yet he also relates an outlandish account regarding a water monster in the River Ness which terrorized the local highlanders. St. Columba allegedly made the sign of the cross upon the approach of the beast, which then submerged back into the watery depths, never to attack another human being again.

Are we to dismiss Adaman's account of St. Columba in its entirety simply due to the inclusion of this element? Now you do bring up some good points regarding the voyage of St. Brendan, and I agree any such accounts must be read with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ask Kmt Sesh and Hanslune, they will tell you that I am not prone to uncritically accept fantastical theories. However, I felt the need to point out that such elements, especially those regarding strange beasts, were a common early Medieval motif, and were even included within what are otherwise considered to be historically accurate accounts.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[back to earth]

6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

We should have a thread for that - I thought that his idea held up well until around 1400 AD and then it fell apart.

As to European contact, I'm really very skeptical about that.  Ships didn't have the food/storage/space for a long ocean voyage - it took the Mayflower 66 days to cross the Atlantic and that's with good wind technology.  European ships in those days weren't able to carry three months' worth of food.

Polynesian... I can sort of see that.  But unless they went up to Iceland or across the ice sheets, I don't see European travel possible until they got better and bigger ships.

 

?

From Ecuador to Australia by  balsa raft     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_Alsar_Pacific_raft_expeditions

 

 

 

 

 

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

The difference is, alleged physical remains of giants have been found in North American archaeological contexts such as the mid-western burial mounds, and in Chaco Canyon.

Now, I'm not saying that these are unequivocally the remains of an extinct race of giants. What I am saying, is I believe there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

No giant remains have been found in North America. Plenty of remains have been found at Chaco - normal people though.

Chaco Canyon giants are from a native myth.

There are newspaper (and other) reports of giant bones being discovered - mostly in mounds - and no evidence they are true.

One must keep in mind the mores of journalism in those days (today's not much different, to tell the truth.) I've read in newspapers from that time of turnips grown so large that one was hollowed out and a military academy established inside it. Copied and linked that story - I believe it was here - back in my earlier days when I gave a **** about what people believed.

Harte

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I will try to find some reputable links.  I am not an expert in this subject, and have only recently developed an interest.  And unlike Cladking, I will freely admit that there is a strong probability, over 50% most likely, that I am wrong here.  However, I still think this is worth investigating.

Not sure how reputable it is, but here is a link describing alleged giant remains found in Wisconsin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-humans-you-decide-here-what-i-have-found-mark-anthony-garrett

While the general accuracy of the finds cannot be determined, the article links to several contemporary newspaper accounts of alleged giant skeletons found throughout the mid-west and western North America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Maybe click some of the links on that page. For example, the one story there that claims giant cyclops bones were found in Greece (attributed to a National Geographic story) is edifying.

The NatGeo story was about the bones  of a now-extinct pachyderm possibly being the origin of the Greek myths of Cyclopses.

Cyclopes. Cyclopi. Whatever the damn plural of cyclops is.

IOW, the page refutes it's own claim with it's sources.

Wonder if that's Mario's site?

Harte