Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Clean up this article

Some of these information in this article ranges from plausible to ridiculously stupid and ethnocentric. Intranetusa 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Overcompensation

"However, there is no evidence at all that they are anything more than the result of post-Columbian intermixture."

Tmangray, I don't believe you need to bend over backwards to refute every point laid out here. If the text is written well enough to begin with, it should be clear that the main theories are being presented here. What's more, the statement above doesn't really refute anything; it's just a dismissive response to the Melungeon question. Every claim does not have to be followed by an authoritative-sounding negation. I don't disagree with most of the points you make, it's just that the style might not be the best fit for an encyclopedia.

I researched the original Fernando Colon quote. He originally wrote "Pero los del oriente, ácia el Cabo Gracias á Dios, son casi negros, brutales, desnudos, en todos respetos salvajes, y segun el indio Jumbo, comen carne humana y pescado crudo, cuando pueden cojerlo."

Twalls 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be dismissed. It's relevant. Geneticists have found only post-Columbian mixture among the Melungeons. Else the claim should be deleted. Tmangray 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polynesian chickens

Is the evidence on wandering Oceanic chickens strong enough to move it out from under the "Circumstantial evidence" section? - BanyanTree 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the criteria for "Circumstantial" vs. "NOT" circumstantial: The carbon-dating is unambiguous and definitive... for that *ONE* test. The usual scientific criteria calls for some degree of repeatability / verifiability before the working theories are revised. That said, the results appear to be unusually strong: there is a unique, polynesian-only mutation, identified in these bones, and the bones in turn are positively carbon-dated to pre-Colombian times, with the carbon-dating clearly matching the stratum where the bones were found. In archeological terms, this is a nearly-ideal find, with each datum closely time-matching with the others. How important is it that Wikipedia be cutting-edge? Maybe the time to move it out of "circumstantial" is after the NEXT test confirms this find (assuming that it does so!) . - Steve 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Padre Crepi

Can anyone search the Padre Crespi collection added with Valdivia Culture, i thinks it links much of the trans oceanic contact with the addition of the report in Pacific intcoastal migration and the report of Dna, can anyone comment back soon?

[edit] Dubious claim

Many people, including orthodox anthropologists, believe pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact was virtually impossible, and therefore the only cultural kin to Native Americans were other autochthonous people. Mainstream scholarship is dubious about pre-Columbian transoceanic voyaging for a reason, however. Some historical evidence has been destroyed, while other evidence is still buried.

The above seems a bit dubious to me. Firstly many people is weasel wordy and should be avoided. Also, the above seems to suggest to me that most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact was possible. This seems dubious to me and I doubt it's true. Perhaps most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact occured (although even that seems dubious to me) but it doesn't mean they think it's impossible Nil Einne 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the wording can be changed to 'unlikely.' Contacts were unlikely, but no one can say they weren't possible, as they clearly were. That was the point of Heyerdahl's multiple voyages - to show that transoceanic travel was possible with limited technology. Indeed, Precolumbian contacts have been confirmed for the Norse and look increasingly likely in the case of the Polynesians, with the discovery of the chicken bones in South America with near-identical DNA matches to those of Polynesian origin.
Perhaps we are creating a straw man. Is there really monolithic opposition to the idea of contact ever having happened? Has anyone ever polled archaeologists or anthropologists? Scholars, quite rightly, tend not to accept spurious claims or wild-eyed speculations (some of which are presented in this Wikipedia article and others), but they cannot rule out any contacts whatsoever. All they can say is that is probably didn't happen, other than in the case of the Norse, and maybe Polynesians. Twalls 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This part of the article, along with others, seems to me as totally symptomatic of a paradigm that prevails in anthropological research about pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts. (Please read my comment about the article on Thor Heyerdahl.) I notice that the only place in the entire article where Heyerdahl's name appears is the part on "feasibility" -- which seems to me exceedingly brief and incomplete. No mention is made of Heyerdahl's other voyages that prove that transoceanic travel by primitive cultures was possible. Why is there no mention of Heyerdahl's supporting evidence like the pottery discovered on Easter Island? In my opinion, it is not a "straw man" that you are discussing: it is a giant bias of anthropological opinion against the issue of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact.

--Adamwie 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Created

The talk page was getting pretty long, so I archived it. It didn't look like there were any active discussions going on in the material that I archived, but if anyone has any objections or would like to revive a discussion, please accept my apologies and feel free to do so. -Sarfa 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circumstantial Evidence

In "Africans" section: "resemble"--meaning to appear like, be similar or bear likeness to, fits better. "Apparently" means based solely off of appearances, which is not the case. Resemble is more suitable for the sentence, since it's an inclusive word, leaving room for other possible historic evidence of inter-cultural contacts. (Not just the short mention of physical attributes) -ariagia 09:57, 3 July 2007 (ETC)

[edit] BCE vs. BC

An anonymous user went through the page and changed all of the dates from BCE/CE format to BC/AD format. The Manual of Style is, uncharacteristically, ambivalent about this subject. I feel like we should change them back to BCE/CE, but I have no concrete reason why other than my own personal feeling, so I figured I'd open it up for a discussion. Any thoughts? -Sarfa 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the BC/AD format, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. One could maintain that the religion-neutral terms should be used -- but even with BCE/CE, the calendar itself still uses the birth of Christ as a starting point, so I think of it rather token to change it to BCE/CE. Thanks, Twalls 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be whichever was used originally, and be consistent through the article. It looks like BC/AD was used first, and that anon was just making a recently-added section consistent with the rest.--Cúchullain t/c 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, the version immediately before that anon's changes used mostly BCE's, as did the earliest consistent version of the article that distinguished dates by era ([1]). But I guess the conversion to BC/AD is fait accompli, now... --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I was wrong, I was wrong (I was looking at an old version, but perhaps not the most accurate for this). But the real key is making the usage consistent, which is done now. I surely would not object if someone wanted to convert them all to BCE/CE, as long as they made sure to change them all.--Cúchullain t/c 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I prefer BCE and CE for two reasons - first it is difficult for many non-Christians to use an abbreviation which literally means "in the year of our Lord". Secondly, according to almost all scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, the presumed date of Jesus' birth was several years prior to the beginning of the era and, as such, the system is incorrectly named. Therefore, "Common Era" is a good, widely-recognised neutral term which not only shouldn't offend anyone - it is not inaccurate. John Hill 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect this to be ironed out anytime soon, but I have trouble understanding how the BC/AD convention could be considered "offensive" - offense would imply a conscious slur or insult towards certain individuals. As this system has been the tradition in the West since about 700 AD, it is the basis of just about everything. Again, when using BCE/CE, the starting point is still based on the supposed birth of Christ. Using the Anno Domini terminology doesn't imply that you are a Christian; it means you use the same calendar system everyone else uses. I'm not against change, but I don't think the possibility of some people being "offended" is a viable complaint. I don't follow the Chinese Zodiac, but I accept the fact that it provides the basis for naming years and would follow it in that context. That said, this is a very interesting discussion and I'd like to hear others' input as well. Thanks, Twalls 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This subject has been the source of numerous painful Wiki-fights. Presently there is a pseudo-policy of simple consistency outlined Here. Right now the article is consistent; therefore unless there is a truly compelling reason to change it, it should stay AD/BC. The only argument I could muster one way or the other is that professional archaeology may have a tendency to use CE/BCE instead of AD/BC, but that is original research. I personally dislike both CE/BCE and AD/BC, but there is no viable alternative that would be comprehensible to the English-speaking audience of Wikipedia (BP, for example, is confusing for most people to read). Hence, since we know our audience, these are the only options. TriNotch 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can only replace BP by some sort of explanation, not by AD/CE whatever. It isn't original research to note that CE and BCE are used by archaeologists and historians, is it? Anyway, I agree with consistency. It's consistent now. :-) Dougweller 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I still think I'm right, but I've been overruled by an Administrator. But I don't mind, because he's introduced me to something I can't believe I missed, Hancock's Law! Dougweller 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did it because it was already consistent before, and the guideline specifies not to change between one and the other without a good reason. Archaeologists and historians use both systems, so as long as its consistent, it doesn't matter which is used here, and BC/AD seems to be the earliest used. And thanks for noticing Hancock's Razor, it seems to be particularly relevant in subjects like this one ;)--Cúchullain t/c 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the opposite direction

People seem to be obsessed searching for evidence about people X going to the Americas, but what about native Americans going to other continents? For example, Tupac Inca is said to have sailed to the Pacific, meet some islands inhabited by black people, and return after 10 years. A voyage like that could explain the claimed chicken bones in South America.--150.244.23.221 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of that info was included at the bottom, under the "late contact" section. I created a seperate section for New Worlders supposedly contacting people outside of the Americas.--Cúchullain t/c 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on origins

Just wondering if there's any more data available on where, more exactly, in Asia, settlers came from. That is, if one accepts the traditional account of the settlement of the Americas, could the origins of these settlers be located to some specific region of Asia/Siberia? Have genetic studies shown close similarities to any specific present-day Asian populations? And a related question: is it possible to determine any significant variations between larger groups of native American peoples? Are natives from the Northeastern USA distinctly different from those of Central America, for example? If so, are there any theories on whether this is a result of separate "waves" of immigration or differentiation after arrival in America? Kitreya 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, check out the National Geographic Genographic project here [2]. There are also some nice graphs of Old and New World mtDNA Haplogroups out there, for example here [3] and here [4]. The exact route of Haplogroup X is disputed; some claim it was carried by early migrants who came via a North Atlantic route. Twalls 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The X haplogroup in America is different from the one carried by Europeans. X2a is characterized by mutations at 200, 16213 (+ others listed in the Reidla paper. This is the haplotype found in Amerindians. In Europe you have haplotypes X2b and X2c which are characterized by the ABSENCE of 200 and 16213 but both do have a mutation at 225. X2b has a mutation at 226 and X2c at 227. see: Reidla, M., et al. 2003. “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:1178–1190.Itzcoatl 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No scholar claims the European X and the New World X are identical; neither is New World X and the strain of X found in the Altai Republic, the only place in Western Asia where any trace of X has been found. The New World X is quite ancient, whichever route it took. Obviously, we don't know which route it took, but maps of the Last Glacial Maximum certainly make the question very interesting. In any case, the Eurasian and New World subclades are still part of X2, and the split has been estimated to have occurred about 15KYA. Twalls 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not contradict your point, but just an update. A new paper finds that the Buryats and Teleuts (in addition to Altaians-Kizhi) have haplotype 2Xe. Derenko, M. et al. 2007 “Phylogeographic Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA in Northern Asian Populations,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 81: 1025-1041.Itzcoatl 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thank you! Twalls 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


why detail so much conjecture when you could focus on what the natives themselves beleive?Charred Feathers (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Discovery of America"

This article is linked as "Discovery of America." Christopher Columbus needs more substantial treatment in the article. Even though it is generally accepted that he was not the first European to set foot in North America, his importance in the discovery of a new continent by his bringing this finding to the masses of at least Europe deserves further description. 129.237.2.66 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about pre-Columbian contacts. There is ample treatment of Columbus elsewhere. In other languages, the title is indeed "Discoverer of America". If the article were titled such, you would be correct. Perhaps it was at one time. Thanks, Twalls 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


how can you discover some place where there are already people? columbus's title is undeserved.Charred Feathers (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "References"

There appears to be quite a bit of unreferences stuff here, should it be allowed to stay? My opinion is no. Eg the Tupac Inca Yupanqui comments - the original story is one thing, vague claims with no references though..? Or "Some observers have noted stone imagery carved on Olmec and Mayan stelae seem to depict interactions between Africans and Native Americans." Dougweller 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one: "A bottom survey by Harold E. Edgerton, an MIT researcher, located what seemed to be remains of two disintegrating ships.[citation needed]" People have looked for a citation before on this, no one has found one, the only relevant publication by Edgerton doesn't mention anything like this, can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There are a number of supposedly direct quotations from Columbus and de las Casas with absolutely no citation. These are very doubtful quotes and footnote 15 refers to a BBC program and is is not a citation from Columbus.Itzcoatl 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'according to Van Sertima' stuff has no real reference, it should go also. Dougweller 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much Models of migration to the New World info in this article

The definition of this article says that it addresses "the alleged interactions between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and peoples of other continents – Europe, Africa, Asia, or Oceania – before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492". However, there is a loooong section at the outset that discusses how those indigenous people got here. This really takes away from the main thrust of the article and is already covered at Models of migration to the New World. I therefore propose that we summarize the present sections dealing with this (2 Solutrean hypothesis, 3 Pacific intercoastal migration, and parts of 1 Overview) and add "Main|Models of migration to the New World" to point out further information. Yours, Madman (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved ahead and summarized the material duplicated on Models of migration to the New World. More summarization is needed, but thought I'd not try to do too much at one time. Hope you like it, Madman (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right. Much improved! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent set of edits, Madman. ClovisPt (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
<blush> Gosh, thanks. Madman (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC) </blush>

[edit] models of migration kinda meaningless.

i dont think that the models of migration are actually worth thier salt, why not include m,ore of what hte people who were here say about how all that stuff happened instead of focusing on the views of others? Charred Feathers (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I further summarized it today (and deleted the "diffusionist" paragraph as POV, no value added). If you feel the Models of Migration section should be completely deleted, please do. I would support that. I'm just not that bold. Madman (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to retain your summarized version. It's best to have the initial migrations mentioned in order to provide context for the main focus of the article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The summarizations are very good and I think they should be kept as they do provide context for Westerners' evolving understanding (and misunderstanding) of the origins and development of native civilizations. Twalls (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The single item in the 'Latest research' section doesn't really stand too well on its own nor does it add much to the page. We might wish to add another item or two (such as sites like Monte Verde pushing the entry dates back) or merge it into the "Other models of migration to the New World" paragraph above it, or even remove it. Twalls (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have just been looking at the external links (and added 2). I am not happy with several of them and think they should be removed. Specifically these are the first three and the last. The first and the last links are religious sites, one Hindu, one Christian. The second link seems to be a personal webpage and the third not much better. If these are allowed, where do we draw the line? We already have links to Clyde Winters who most linguists and archaeologists consider to be rather a kook.Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sm8900

Whoever this is, would you please add some references? 'Prominent sources', 'some researchers', etc. are not enough. Also, if you are going to mention something or someone, eg Leif Ericson, who has a Wiki article, please make a link with name Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Solomon

The references don't appear to meet Wikipedia requirements as I don't see any reliable sources. FreeRepublic is an openly rightwing political site and in any case the article is by Gene Savoy, who is definitely not a reliable source. The Andean Explorers website is again Gene Savoy's, one of the others seems to be almost anonymous. The one by Gustavo Perednik is ok I guess. The section needs rewriting.--Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The late Gene Savoy is not completely an unreliable source; for instance, his 1970 book Antisuyo is a pathbreaking work, devoid of the speculative theories common to his later work. Twalls (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for that. I know him through his claims about Ophir, etc and his follower Gary Buchanan. Are you sure he didn't appropriate other people's work in it?--Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i appreciate your input. I deliberately made it very concise and brief in order to simply state the most basic facts of these theories, without undue elaboration, and to leave room for others' contributions here. my goal was only to mention these theories, which are notable, and have been cited many times in various books and articles down through the years. i used those sources only because they were the only complete online references which i could find via the web. there are also several books on this, published over the last few centuries, some of which i found through Google books. So obviously I will accept any edits on this. My only goal, again, was simply to indicate that these theories and hypotheses do exist, in several places and sources. thanks.
I will continue looking for better sources, and am open to anyone;s suggestions on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the wording. At the moment it says: Several sources have theorized that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to America in search of gold and other resources. there is some evidence that Peru may have been one such place. This theory has appeared in several books and articles. There are somne references to Ophir, a land of gold mines, and Tarshish, a land famous for mineral wealth. It is unclear which lands either of these might have been, and some theorize that one of them or both might have been in America.

Perhaps something like:

Arguments have been made that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to the Americas in search of gold and other resources, and that Ophir might have been in Peru/

And link to Gene Savoy's site (only one of them) and the Gustavo Perednik -- the other one has no identifiable author. That would still leave me with one problem -- King Solomon. If he ever existed, the archaeology argues that his kingdom was tiny. Then there is Hiram - the Wikipedia article on Hiram I is dreadful, virtually no sources. Damn. Now I've seen it... hard to leave it alone.--Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

well, we could also rephrase it to state "the ancient Israelites", or somethign similar. i appreciate your input on this. I'm open to most ideas on rephrasings, so i appreciate that. Re the article on Hiram, i understand and sympathize. you sound like a true Wikipedian! :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am still a novice. 'Ancient Israelites' is, I'm afraid, another can of worms. Actually, you might want to look at the article on Solomon which at a quick glance seems not too bad in that it doesn't just treat him as though you could take the Biblical story literally, unlike the Hiram I article.--Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 'head' as evidence of possible Old-New World contact

I'd added something about a possible shipwreck, which Madman removed, maybe correctly. But, how do I make the point that even if the head is really Roman (still not proven) and got there before 1492, it may have been simply a shipwrecked Roman ship blown off course. I've changed 'interaction' to 'contact' because I think contact is less specific and interaction implies some form of interaction between people, while a shipwreck might not. So, is that ok, and how do I get the possible shipwreck in as opposed to a deliberate voyage?--Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FTN

see Wikipedia:FTN#Pre-Columbian_fringe_garden. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otokichi

Should the example of the Japanese ship in the 1800s making it to North America be included as an example of historic long-range travel? It's well after Columbus, and the Japanese had had ongoing contact with Europeans for hundreds of years by then. The only way I can see keeping it is by explaining that, and backing up with some reference, junks had remained essentially unchanged since the 1400s. I will not change it to that, since I do not know that is the case. I am considering deleting it. I am adding this to my watch list, and if I see no response soon, I will remove it.Andy Christ (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seriousness please!

As an historian, I think this article has to be made more serious. For example, including the claim that Israelis visited the Americas in 1000 BC, from a tiny kingdom in the Middle East, is clearly, clearly modern pseudo-mitology, it is too ridiculous to be included as another viable theory... I'm very disapointed with this article. --Damifb (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed a bit. Suggestions are always welcome.--209.183.20.25 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polynesians contact

Besides the seriousness stuff as discussed in the previous section, I have also changed the Polynesian trans-oceanic contact from "possible" to "confirmed". The point here is the answer to whether or not they have ever contacted America in pre-Columbus time, NOT whether some earlier claims are contentious, as long as there is a real proof. It is TRUE that the "Chumash stuff" is contentious, but that is only an earlier hypothesis and is now insignificant. The trans-oceanic contact is proved from the 2007 study of chicken bones, not from the contentious Chumash stuff. So they did contact America in pre-Columbus time after all, and this is the main point. Contentious suggestions such as the Chumash stuff can be mentioned but should be distinguished from the real proof, i.e. the chicken bone one.--209.183.20.25 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the radio-carbon dating is right (and it probably is given the DNA tests) what we have is 5 chickens whose bones were found at El Arenal (where nothing else unusual has been found), right? Now I agree this means 'contact', and obviously by boat -- but could it have been a shipwreck of a drifting boat? We won't know unless more chicken bones are found -- chickens do spread rapidly! There are written records of Spaniards finding chickens but the early explorers also saw turkeys and named them after a bird they knew, the peacock. Still, with a caveat about how it got there, I'm happy to call it confirmed. But the rest of the stuff under that heading is not confirmed and knowing how people cut and paste with abandon from Wikipedia, I don't think it should be included in a section called 'confirmed'. I'm still not convinced we should have a heading called 'confirmed'.

If you are interested in the sweet potato and Chumas stuff, the discussion here [5] has some good stuff and links to recent scientific reports - 2007 as opposed to the 'current thinking' 1994 reference!--Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also thought about that, and that's why I inserted a new paragraph between the chicken bone one and the rest of the stuff. But I think you are correct too regarding people cut and paste with abandon from Wikipedia, so how about doing this: split the Polynesian stuff, with the chicken bone one in the heading called "confirmed", and the rest (i.e. "unconfirmed") in the one called "possible"? --209.183.20.25 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Much better. I have noticed that 'however' gets edited out as a weasel word, you might want to take it out but I'm not too fussy. Thanks for listening.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure.--209.183.20.25 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant?

Is this relevant? "In 1963, what appeared to be Roman coins were discovered in New Albany, Indiana, across from Louisville, Kentucky.[41] All but two of the coins have vanished; the remaining ones appear to depict Roman Emperors Claudius Gothicus and Maximinus. More recently, what appear to be Roman coins from the same period have been found on the other side of the Ohio River. The coins were found buried in what might have been a disintegrated leather pouch. There is no evidence that these were buried/lost before 1492."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Brendan the Navigator

Now I'm no historian, but it seems to me that an article about pre-colombian trans-oceanic contact which includes sections on proposed voyages ranging in credibility from those of lief eriksson to the theory of prehistoric Atlantean transatlantic connection should mention the voyages of St. Brendan the Navigator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiach McHugh O'Byrne (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] linguistic connection between siberian and indian languages

according to this article linguists have connected the two languages: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/005462.html

seems like something that should be in the wikipedia

It already is. See Na-Dene and Dené-Yeniseian languages. While a promising link, this is only one study and has yet to find wide acceptance. It may or may not be relevant to this particular article; as it probably predates most of the subjects touched on it should be covered in the Models of Migration article. I don't know if we want to get that granular here. Twalls (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peruvian mummies revert

I need to explain why. First, it reports what is little more than a press release in a university magazine as though it was fact. Secondly, there are real problems with the claim about the resin. The Araucariaceae family includes the Agathis sp. and the Auracaria both contain diterpenes in the resin derived from the labdane skeleton, which is the one used to distinguish the resin. see:

Brody, R.H., H. G. M. Edwards , and A. M.Pollard. 2002 "Fourier transform-Raman spectroscopic study of natural resins of archaeological interest," Biopolymers (Biospectroscopy) 67: 129-141, 2002 Abstract Resins from several different genera are studied using Fourier transform (FT)-Raman spectroscopy. Tree resins can be broadly divided into those that contain diterpenoid components and those that contain triterpenoid components. The diterpenoid resins analyzed are from the genera Pinus, Cedrus, and Agathis (kauri resin) and the triterpenoid resins examined are samples from Pistacia, Boswellia (frankincense), and Commiphora (myrrh) genera. A protocol is developed to nondestructively distinguish diterpenoid and triterpenoid resins and to differentiate the genera within the two types. The effects of oxidation on the discrimination of the FT-Raman spectra are considered.

p. 136 "The spectra collected from the kauri resin, species Agathis, are quite different than the spectra of abietic acid and Pinus and Cedrus resins (Fig. 4, spectrum a). The FT-Raman spectra of the kauri resin appear to be easily distinguished due to the presence and absence of certain bands. A weak feature is seen at 3081 cm 1 that is assigned to the (CH) vibration of the exocyclic methylene group found in many compounds with a labdane skeleton [e.g., agathic acid in Fig. 1(C)].

Mills, J.S. and R. White. 1977 "Natural Resins of Art and Archaeology Their Sources, Chemistry, and Identification," Studies in Conservation 22, No. 1, (Feb., 1977), pp. 12-31 describes a number of labdane compounds found in several genuses including agathic acid and points out that they are also found in Auracaria. The article gives no reason why the resin could not have come from Chile.

Wikipedia's guidelines say extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (or something like that). We need something a bit more solid before we can go to town on this in the way the stuff did that I reverted. I think I'll email Buckley and see what he has to say about publication.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot all about this. He plans to publish in a major science journal. I don't think he has anything to say about why seafarers might have made this trip with this 'cargo'. The odd accidental journey is quite different from something like this. I'll wait a few years to see how it plays out with the scientists, or until some archaeological evidence comes along. Meanwhile I'll restore it but it isn't 'fact' or 'proven' even when the article comes out. Doug Weller (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Polynesian contacts -- needs better sourcing

Polynesian contact with the prehispanic Mapuche culture in central-south Chile has been suggested because of apparently similar cultural traits, including words like toki (stone axes and adzes), hands clubs similar to the Maori wahaika, the sewn-plank canoe as used on Chiloé Island, the curanto earth oven (Polynesian umu) common in southern Chile, fishing techniques such as stone wall enclosures, a hockey-like game, and other potential parallels. Some strong westerlies and El Niño winds blow directly from central-east Polynesia to the Mapuche region, between Concepcion and Chiloe. A direct connection from New Zealand is possible, sailing with the "roaring forties". In 1834, some escapees from Tasmania arrived at Chiloé Island after sailing for 43 days.[Rapa Nui (Portuguese). Retrieved on 2007-06-05.]

This needs reliable sourcing, the web page isn't enough. If it's significant it shouldn't be hard to find, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong. I'm not impressed by things like earth ovens being used to suggest contact either. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)