Did the Ancient Greeks Visit Canada?

[Essan]

Probably just woo woo, and this is the Daily Fail ...... but this forum has been quiet of late so lets have some fun - and it also links in a little, perhaps, with Gavin Menzies contention that the Minoans visited North America?

The ancient Greeks could have reached

Canada in 56 AD - almost a millennium before the Vikings.

This is according to a controversial study that claims Hellenistic Greeks had such detailed knowledge of astronomy that they were able to pinpoint Atlantic currents that would propel them west. 

This idea is based on a study of the text 'De Facie' by Greek biographer and essayist Plutarch, who lived between 46 and 119 AD.

A character in the texts recounts meeting a Greek stranger who had recently returned from a 'great continent' - and scientists say this may have been Canada. 

Powered by sails and oars, they may have regularly visited Newfoundland, mined gold and set up colonies that thrived for centuries, the study claims.  

However, there is no concrete evidence of these trips and many historians and maritime archaeologists have dismissed the work as 'unfounded'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5345049/Did-ancient-Greeks-sail-Canada.html

[Herr Falukorv]

Of course they have been there. The evidence are everywhere.
For example, it was the greeks that built the moneypit on oak island.

[Piney]

Columbian Exchange, Native die off and ecosystem collapse. End of theory...

[Essan]

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

Columbian Exchange, Native die off and ecosystem collapse. End of theory...

Although we know the Vikings were there ....  so maybe not a total end of theory?  

[Piney]

Just now, Essan said:

Although we know the Vikings were there ....  so maybe not a total end of theory?  

But they still left a mark in the archaeological record and they were just a small group of explorers. They didn't set up a large scale trade route.  Gold was also too easily accessible from other sources in the Greek sphere of influence. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

56AD?

Greece was part of the Roman Empire. Rome was starting to enter a couple or Wars (Gauls? Parthians?) And had a few domestic issues (the Jews in Judea and Palestine for example). BUT if boats had been sent to a new land in that time, records would have been kept. 

[KevinCthulhu]

Right, now I'm on my ground.  Plutarch is a rubbish source to try and quote.  He came from Charonea in northern Greece, near Delphi.  As far as we know he left there a few times as a sort of town ambassador a few times as a young man.  Then he settled back there again and wrote while serving in the largely honorary role of priest at Delphi.  He wasn't a geographer and he had no knowledge of geography.  He is best known for biographies and those are fairly sketchy and lacking in detail, they are a lot about anecdotes.  What I'm saying is he had no sailing experience to speak of, no expertise in geography.  His biographies are all about character studies they are stuffed with dubious stuff.  In Alexander he tells the story of the Amazons coming to visit Alexander at Hecatompylos up by the Caspian Sea and their queen demands he father a child on her.  This story seems of similar credence.

Classical Mediterranean sailing vessels were not ideal for the Atlantic.  Certainly they would have struggled and been frequently lost.  The Romans sailed within sight of land.  I can imagine a Greek/Roman vessel being blown off course and ending up in the New World but a serious connection? No chance.  Plus, as someone perceptive says previously we'd know from written sources.

The idea of taking a reference in Plutarch for this is, frankly, laughable.

Pseudo-history, Graham Hancock style?

[Kenemet]

On 2/2/2018 at 2:26 PM, Herr Falukorv said:

Of course they have been there. The evidence are everywhere.
For example, it was the greeks that built the moneypit on oak island.

They also buried the Templar treasure there!

[sanchez710]

I remember reading something about cocaine traces being found in Egyptian mummies. Cocaine comes from South America only so the question arose as to how the ancient Egyptians acquired this. A hypothesis was put forward that there were trading links between the civilisations of South America and Africa. Was this story based on fact or was it fanciful?

[Herr Falukorv]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

They also buried the Templar treasure there!

common knowledge

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, sanchez710 said:

I remember reading something about cocaine traces being found in Egyptian mummies. Cocaine comes from South America only so the question arose as to how the ancient Egyptians acquired this. A hypothesis was put forward that there were trading links between the civilisations of South America and Africa. Was this story based on fact or was it fanciful?

The mummies were contaminated during unwrapping.  There's no basis for it.

[KevinCthulhu]

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 8:52 PM, sanchez710 said:

I remember reading something about cocaine traces being found in Egyptian mummies. Cocaine comes from South America only so the question arose as to how the ancient Egyptians acquired this. A hypothesis was put forward that there were trading links between the civilisations of South America and Africa. Was this story based on fact or was it fanciful?

You see the problem with this sort of 'popular history' theory is that it makes zero sense.

If there was enough trade between Egypt and South America to contaminate significant numbers of Egyptian mummies then we would know.  There is just no way we wouldn't.  It would be impossible for ships to appear with some cocaine, trade it and b***** off with no other contact, no more links.  It makes no sense.  A culture can't just take one resource from another without any other contact.  It makes no sense.  It's the same as aliens coming and, say, building the pyramids.  It makes no sense that they would do this and disappear with no other evidence, contact, etc.

Plus consider that cocaine itself wasn't isolated until the 19th century iirc.  Plus Egyptian sailing technology was very poor as was that of pre-Columbian America.

[Windowpane]

More comment from this blog.

[Irna]

Ioannis Liritzis has made some interesting work in archaeometry, for instance his work on surface luminescence dating of Egyptian and Greek monuments. But he also collaborated with Robert Temple (of "Sirius Mystery" fame), so I guess that the frontier between science and pseudoscience is quite blurry in his case...

[yeplid]

It can still be argued. But without concrete evidence, then it's probably all just hearsay.

[Oniomancer]

Quote

an archaeologist from the University of the Aegean

Of course they are. Is every Greek like the father in My Big Fat Greek wedding?

[Lord Harry]

Yes, yes they did. Twice. Once for the beer, the other for the fries with gravy.

[Piney]

16 hours ago, yeplid said:

It can still be argued. But without concrete evidence, then it's probably all just hearsay.

There is concrete evidence. It's called the "Columbian Exchange" making any long term pre-Columbian  impossible....

[+DieChecker]

Greeks in America around 50 AD? I really doubt it. The few Mediterranean sailors that went through the Pillars of Hercules had pretty hard times just going up, or down, the coast. They simply didn't have the kind of ships that allowed travel on the scale necessary to get to the Americas. 

I'd be open to reexamining the theory though if some actual evidence showed up and could be verified to have not been brought there much later.

[Gingitsune]

I see, so that's why we have these Greek ruins in Newfoundland.... NOT!

Greek colonies aren't hard to identify, they were build in bricks and shaped stones. If we can still found them in the Mediterranean cities, which were heavily occupied for over two millennia, it should be easy to do the same in Newfoundland, which always have been underpopulated. We have found Viking settlement building, Basque whaling stations, a Greek colonie should be even easier to find and we have none.

[Lysippos]

38 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

We have found Viking settlement building, Basque whaling stations, a Greek colonie should be even easier to find and we have none.

Why?

[Gingitsune]

Just now, Lysippos said:

Why?

Because Greek colonies and Roman colonies after them, were not simple fisherman outposts. They built cities which were meant to be independent. It means therms, theaters, temples, streets, densely build center complete with walls which are easy to defend. It would be very hard to make it pass for a Beothuk camp, even for 19th century "archaeologists". ^_~

[Lysippos]

7 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

Because Greek colonies and Roman colonies after them, were not simple fisherman outposts. They built cities which were meant to be independent. It means therms, theaters, temples, streets, densely build center complete with walls which are easy to defend. It would be very hard to make it pass for a Beothuk camp, even for 19th century "archaeologists". ^_~

Oh really? I hope you are not being serious. 

How do you think a ‘site’ is discovered?

Edited March 4, 2018 by Lysippos

[Gingitsune]

That was the fashion in colonies from the 8th century BC to the end of Roman Empire. The goal was to secure the land around to farm and keep key entry to the land under control. The Greek colonies in Southern France or the Roman colonies in Britain or exemple of this. London and Paris were Roman colonies at their origin, put there to secure the river trafic and ensure control over the surrounding lands.

As for how a site is discover, it depends. They found a Greek colonie a few your back in Béziers, France. They had no clue it was there because the foundations of the building were build over for two millennia and a half, Romans tearing everything down to rebuild in more fashionable architecture. Anyway, the locals had to dig for an underground parking and found a Greek colony with 10 meters wide streets instead of the expected modest houses and potteries.

Here's an article in French, I can't find anything in English. Just use google translate or something like it.
http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-region/2007-01-18/la-plus-vieille-ville-de-france/1556/0/40747

So that's how you discover a Greek colony in a Mediterranean context. In a Newfoundland context, where it can't hide under a more recent city, it would definitely stand out. The Norse ruins were still visible earth mounts. Ever since their discovery, people there have been looking around for these kind of archaeological sites, that's how they found the Red Bay whaling station.

[Lysippos]

54 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

That was the fashion in colonies from the 8th century BC to the end of Roman Empire. The goal was to secure the land around to farm and keep key entry to the land under control. The Greek colonies in Southern France or the Roman colonies in Britain or exemple of this. London and Paris were Roman colonies at their origin, put there to secure the river trafic and ensure control over the surrounding lands.

As for how a site is discover, it depends. They found a Greek colonie a few your back in Béziers, France. They had no clue it was there because the foundations of the building were build over for two millennia and a half, Romans tearing everything down to rebuild in more fashionable architecture. Anyway, the locals had to dig for an underground parking and found a Greek colony with 10 meters wide streets instead of the expected modest houses and potteries.

Here's an article in French, I can't find anything in English. Just use google translate or something like it.
http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-region/2007-01-18/la-plus-vieille-ville-de-france/1556/0/40747

So that's how you discover a Greek colony in a Mediterranean context. In a Newfoundland context, where it can't hide under a more recent city, it would definitely stand out. The Norse ruins were still visible earth mounts. Ever since their discovery, people there have been looking around for these kind of archaeological sites, that's how they found the Red Bay whaling station.

I’ll give you credit for above, however. 

First of all the Greeks had two kinds of colonies. One, being a polis(or attempting to be), the other a trading colony. What you described above is a polis and I would agree if a polis existed in North America, we would most likely know or suspect it existed. Not because we necessarily would have found the remains, but due to the fact the Mother Polis most likely would have kept records, in some form, of such a colony. 

I agree it is very unlikely the Greeks would have had a trading colony in Norrth America. Such colonies, however, are a lot harder to ‘discover’. If you don’t know what to look for you could easily interpret an ‘artifact’ as something else. 

A trading colony in North America would most likely be very different and hard to compare to a Mediterranean or Near East colony. It would not necessarily visibly stand out, as you claim above.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Lysippos