Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

MiszaBot

For some reason, the bot doesn't seem to be archiving this talk page (all the current content should have been archived already). Does anyone know how to fix this? ClovisPt (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't figure it out; since it hasn't yet worked on this talk page, I'm removing it, and will continue to manually archive older discussion. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Background needed

It should be mentioned that the idea that there were other people before Columbus hearkens back to what Bruce Trigger calls the "Imperial Synthesis" period (c1770 (Edward Long) to c1890) which was eventually replaced with the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian school of thought which began in the 1880s.

John Lubbock thought were echoed in the idea of unilinear evolution so popular back then: The most primitive were doomed to vanish as a result of the spread of civilization, since no amount of education could compensate for the thousands of years during which natural selection had failed to adapt them biologically to a more complex and orderly way of life" (Trigger pg 117). This mindset in part led to the Boasian mentality of recording these "doomed" people in detail before civilization's advancement made them go the way of the dodo.

In addition Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg in 1862 put forth the idea of Atlantis being a "Golden Age" civilization that became popular with the masses with Donnelly's 1882 Atlantis: The Antediluvian World and since plate tectonics didn't exist as a theory until 1912 the required land bridges (need for the movement of animals and people) made the idea less fringe then one would think. Nearly all the developmental theories formed in this period have since been rejected due to new discoveries or that the original theories were more based on racial or nationalistic grounds (many times to justify suppression of indigenous populations in colonies) than any real data.

On a side note I should mention this is why the Vikings landing in North American theory had such a hard time of it in the 1960s and 70s--most of the scientific community saw it as a revival of the old Imperial Synthesis idea that the Native Americans couldn't have produced any "civilization" without outside (mostly European or European-like) help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This reads like a potentially beneficial contribution to the article. If you have some sources to support it, feel free to try and work it in. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-settlement contact

I would like to see discussion of claims that European fishermen used the Grand Banks, and sometimes landed in Newfoundland, long before they settled there, and before Columbus. People used to say Cartier discovered Canada, but now Wikipedia says more accurately he "was the first European to describe and map[5] the Gulf of Saint Lawrence" since he himself said French fisherman had been drying fish on the shore there before him. So, that was one century after Columbus, and I do not claim to know what happened. But it is at least reasonable that fishermen would find the Grand Banks well before 1490 and would use them with no interest in either settling or claiming discoveries. Colin McLarty (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sinclair and Clovis/Kennewick Man

Don't these merit a mention? The Sinclair "discovery" is quite well known in Scotland, and Rosslyn Chapel likes to advertise it.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese in Albequerque

I recall at a tourist pueblo some discussion of the pueblo peoples having receive the visiting Chinese exploratory expedition in their oral history; if anyone can find a reference for this it would surely belong on this page 65.46.169.246 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Contact between Chumash and Polynesians?

The following article provides linguistic and archaeological evidence of possible contact between the Chumash (Native Americans historically occupying what is now California) and Polynesians:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40035309

Then the following is an article that disputes the conclusions of the previous article:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40035811

74.174.201.173 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)BrowsingWikipediaWhileatWork

Voyage Of Saint Brendan

Said to have occurred in the 6th. century. Needs a mention. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Arabic-Brazil?

Maybe, it looks odd but some people say: "The name Brazil came from Arabic Birzali dynasty of Carmona, Spain (1029-1067)" You can find Birzali here: http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofthemoha032395mbp/historyofthemoha032395mbp_djvu.txt other names: Birzâlî, Benû-Birzâl, Beni Birzal, Birzala

• and Brazilwood = Pau-Brasil, where did this name come from? Böri (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can find no sources for what you say some people say, but for the wood, see Caesalpinia echinata. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: 1550s, from Sp./Port. terra de brasil "red-dye-wood land," from Sp. brasil or It. brasile, probably connected to Fr. braize (see braize) for resemblance of color to a glowing ember (but O.It. form verzino suggests a possible connection with Arabic wars "saffron"). Originally the name of a type of wood from an E. Indian tree, used in making dye; the name later was transferred to a similar South American species. Brazil in reference to the wood is attested in English from late 14c. Complicating matters is Hy Brasil, a name applied by 1436 to one of the larger Azores Islands, later transferred to a legendary island or rock off the west coast of Ireland (sighted in 1791 at lat. 51° 10', long. 15° 58'). from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Brazil&searchmode=none Böri (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Eskimoes in Norway?

About 20 years ago Natural History Magazine had a article on the Eskimo Umiak. It said that during the middle ages a boat arrived in Norway manned by 'dwarves' and that the boat was hung up in the Trondheim cathedral as a wonder. It was suggested that these were Eskimoes. I have never seen this anywhere else, possibly because it is nonsense. It would be interesting if someone could track it down. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing much certain seems to be known, but it appears that there were numerous reports of Eskimos arriving in northern Europe, starting in the 15th century. See p. 79ff in "In order to live untroubled: Inuit of the central Arctic, 1550-1940" by Renée Fossett (much of which can be read on Google Books). This should definitely be included in the article, in the section on Trans-oceanic travel from the New World. Hans Adler 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I would put some cronicles Eirik the Red and the brothers Zeno (see Ramusio)

The discovery of America by Columbus is an affair of State. With an intentional colonization of overpopulated western Spain (for the tecnology of the time). Before, during Romans the europe was empty there weren't public (State) need.

Before there were certainly occasional contacts. Indeed we have spent a lot of time to understand that America was not India. Columbus himself thought he was in India (Asia is wide term) The Romans knew Canaries island ... Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans(of all empire) commonly browsed in the Atlantic. Between Iberian Peninsula and noth European Roman Empire territories (England and North France) The Greeks and Romans were aware giuncathat the earth was a sphere and not flat and knew the Alisei.

In medieval era the Vikings and Normans fleets arrived in mediterranean for raids. I remember the venitian "Muda of Fiandra" that was a seasonal very big commercial fleet that start from Venice to North Europe: Hanseatic cities, London, North France and also in Scandinavia peninsula, I remember the naufrage Querini ship in the north of Norway. The same is for Genova and Catalans. I do not speak of pilgrimage trips. The Caracca is a mix of Roman Empire Annonaria Ship (pratically also used as Usciere with doors for horses) a big round ship with latin sail with North European Square sail (for Alisei). Very efficient in Atlantic open sea browse and manageable with little crew. This kind of ship was in use in the XIV century, a centuries before Columbus in the commercial fleet. Before from XII with only latin sail. But Roman Annonaria Ship had also square sail. Venetian call them Nave (XIII-XIV), Cocche was little different and are specificated in documents. Into the mediterranean sea in the Mude fleets the Caracche and Cocche were escorted from the "Galee a remo". The big round ships transported 30.000 crusaders further animals to Constantinople in 1204. Also today similar logistic would be difficult.

Some private ship we would be gone ... without exploration or colonization intention... well before Columbus the tecnology there was.

--84.222.77.198 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Andriolo

what about Chinese?

why don't Wiki put some Chinese contact on the main? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.79.152 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Claims of Chinese contact are in the article already. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Farley Mowat Alban Theory

Farley Mowat's Alban theory is that a pre-Norse people from northern Britain traveled to Greenland and parts of Canada. His work is here:The Farfarers: Before the Norse. Can this be mentioned on article? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I read the book and thought it was nonsense. It is well-written and entertaining if you treat it as fiction, but he does not seem to give any proper evidence. I would treat as fiction written as non-fiction Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Benjamin Trovato here. It doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Eurocentric?

Im European and Im not very sympathetic to accusations of Eurocentrism. But I can't help notice that this article minimizes or dismisses polynesian contact and greatly underlines the Norse contact. I have removed the title where Polynesian contact is termed "possible". I mean sweet potatos in Polynesia with the same name as in Quechua is total and undisputable proof. Who in there right mind is saying that its "disputable"? What are the sources? Polynesian contacts with Americas did not only involve much longer distances to travel than Scandinavians in the Artic, but was much earlier. So whats the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.183.47 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine

"If the tobacco plant was imported to Egypt in the sixteenth century, the question remains of whether it is possible that a plant in approximately 200 years rapidly developed new wild forms or whether the nicotiana plant, at least in wild forms, was already present in ancient Egypt. The evidence of coleoptera in the tomb of Tutankhamon and the mummy of Ramses rr and the remains of nicotiana plants and nicotine present in the mummy, speaks for this assumption." Detection Of Nicotine And Cocaine In Ancient Human Remalns From Different Locations Out Of America And An Archaeologlcal Perlon Spans A Range From 9.000 Bc To 700 Ad.ByDoz. Dr. Svedana Balabanova - interesting. 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Thanos, would you please find another source, as that is just a paper written for Chemical Ecology EN 570 at [1]/ which doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good eye Doug. Removed reference for now as the authors faculty status cannot be verified. I offered it as a supplement to the other sources.

In the same article you cite he also says, "The origin of the plants and nicotine could be native, however an import of both nicotiana plants and nicotine, can not be excluded....It is possible that cocaine was imported or have come from unknown Old World plants. Further investigations may clarify the precise origin of both nicotine and cocaine". Found that site the other day though. Lots of interesting stuff.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent paper: [2] . I'm chasing some recent papers by Balabanova. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This paper does not seem to adress the topic of trans-oceanic contact, only of nicotine consumption. It also concludes that there is no positive evidence for consumption as the minuscule amounts of nicotine in three mummies could be the result of recent contamination.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Doug-I've only skimmed it for now, but you might find this interesting:[3]. He talks about fragments of tobacco found in 1976 in Paris in the abdominal cavity of the mummy of Ramses II as well the discovery of tobacco beetles found in Ramses II and the cave of Tutankhamen which supposedly are genetically exclusive to the Americas prior to Columbus. While this source itself may not qualify he provides an extensive bibliography to cull from. I'll also be reviewing this [4] which touches on several topics not discussed in this article.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would advise extreme caution with including more material unless you can satisfyingly show that the theories and or "pieces of evidence" have received significant attention in reliable secondary sources. NEARA.org is not such a source and neither is Dominique Gorlitz. Rather than digging around on the consipracy web where everything is possible - I´d suggest trying to find resources published by established scholars who review the body of contact-theories.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you, Maunus, for one to actually read what is written before responding: "While this source [Dominique Gorlitz] itself may not qualify he provides an extensive bibliography to cull from". And NEARA.org is the source of the reproduction of the article by Professor and Chair Emeritus at UC Davis Stephen C Jett, not the source itself. Secondly, I would advise you need to check yourself and do not assume to know others, especially me, simply by the fact they may or may not agree with you. Thanos5150 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course NEARA is fringe. And Christine Pellech thinks there are 14,000 year old world sea maps in Spanish caves, etc. . Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was confusing NEARA with NERA the Northeastern Educational Research Association which is obviously not fringe. I corrected my error. Regardless, Stephen C Jett is not fringe though is he? And you mean Dr. Christine Pellech? I will read her paper, but maybe there are 14,000 year old world sea maps in Spanish caves. Wouldn't that be interesting.Thanos5150 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

'Evidence' in section headings

I was wondering about the appropriateness of this word also, because it seems to be stating that anything in the section is actual evidence, which is not necessarily the case. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Worse is the fact that in colloquial use evidence is always evidence of or for something of which it implies objective truth. Perhaps simply have the relevant discipline in the section header e.g. "archaeology", "linguistics", "physical anthropology" etc.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Penon Woman III

I've restored most of my original edit. Removing the name of a journal with an edit summary "added additional info from this paper which is still unlear who these guys are or what this paper is from. Source needs to be provided for DNA data." is a terrible idea. If you care who they are, look them up, it's easy to do, eg [5] but not relevant. We don't need to see the source of the data. Comments about what the paper doesn't contain are OR and 'there are similar skulls. The comment about DNA is in the paper but irrelevant in this case without linguistic and archaeological data about Penon woman. And we don't need a citation for a citation. And don't reply on Wikipedia articles for your information, that article is incomplete. Dougweller (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I also corrected myself on both occasions and removed the Wiki link as well, but of course you do not mention that. You should limit your comments to the final edit. And no, it is not a "terrible idea" that an additional source be provided for the actual DNA data because as they say they only received this information via "personal communication" which is meaningless beyond the article itself. If you don't need the source of the data then you need to make it clear they are the source and cite them by name, which is common sense, so it is strange you think who they are is irrelevant. Your original edit was totally lacking of any context and was misleading. The comment about the DNA is very relevant as it again adds context to the finding which you seem unwilling to do.Thanos5150 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't replace the name of the journal. You didn't search to see who the authors were. We don't need an additional source for the DNA data unless you are claiming the article isn't a reliable source, but I'm fine with stating the author's names.. The comment about the DNA would indeed be relevant if they were discussing other forms of evidence. My original edit wasn't misleading, it was factual. What exactly was misleading? And the DNA comment would be relevant in the context of a discussion of other forms of evidence, but without that discussion I don't think it's relevant. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why add the reference twice? Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was admittedly too busy doing other things and reacted hastily to your edit. I made errors, realized them, and corrected them very quickly. Unlike you I do not devote several hours of my day editing Wiki, instead I have a $200k+/yr business to run 7 days a week, and often make my edits while multitasking. My mistakes are rare, but you should know my edits well enough by now to at least give me the benefit of the doubt regardless of the fact we obviously agree on nothing, and at least I admit my mistakes and take it upon myself to correct them despite my POV.

Regardless, the journal name, "Hispanic American Historical Review 85:2 Copyright 2005 by Duke University Press", is listed in the actual article, but as I am sourcing the actual article itself I obviously didn't omit your reference on purpose. The only point of listing it twice is to do you the courtesy of not removing your reference and allow the reader the opportunity to actually read the article. I'm not sure why this would be a problem, so I agree, the one source should be the link to the actual article itself. Obviously, making my corrections I did later search to see who the authors were because I was the one who added their names, but regardless, you shouldn't have any problem stating their names as this is generally common practice. I do not doubt the validity of the source, but as they state they received the results only from a "personal communication", which in most cases is inadmissible, and as such must be attributed to the persons claiming to have received it especially when there is no other source for the data, otherwise it's just hearsay. While I'm sure the authors are fine individuals, just because of their academic accreditation they are not above reproach and need to be held to the same standards as anyone else. If Gonzales had received differing information in a "personal communication" you'd be all over it for the same reasons. Your original edit was misleading because it states something as fact with no context. Like the one line edit about the Roman head saying "However it is sometimes dismissed as a deliberately planted hoax, perhaps intended as a joke. (ref: See Michael E. Smith for doubts on the find). I don't know if you made this original edit, but regardless you didn't see fit to correct it either. The greater context of this statement tells a much different tale than what is implied.

I disagree because the statement is being made by the authors themselves as a "prefatory clarification" which puts whatever data they provide, including that of Penon woman III, in the greater context. If they feel the need to add the qualifier "We do not take the view that DNA data should take precedence over other kinds of textual, linguistic, or archaeological evidence" I don't really understand why we shouldn't as well especially considering we are quoting them. It's not like this statement is being taken from somewhere else and attached to this edit, it comes from the source itself as part of their article. While the DNA might say one thing, it does not address the shape of the skulls creating a circular argument by ignoring the whole point of why it is relevant in the first place.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a courtesy not removing the reference, I cited it properly using the template built into the Wiki interface and following WP:CITE, a simple url to an online copy of the article is not a properly done citation.

I've no problem with mentioning their names, but you're wrong about personal communnications. They're fine in reliable sources, only a problem when editors try to use personal communications to themselves. I don't understand the concept of holding authors if articles which are reliable sources to the same standards as Wikipedia editors. If it had been an article by Gonzales with a personal commmunication to her I would have had no problem with that. I don't see the lack of context in my edit.

The bit by the authors about other kinds of evidence is a general statement about an article which is not specifically about Penon Woman. It would be fine if there were "other kinds of textual, linguistic, or archaeological evidence"" in the article about Penon Woman, but there isn't, in fact there is no such evidence at all I believe that could be relevant. The shape of the head is not discussed in the article nor is it archaeological, nor in fact is it a big issue. Not only does mtDNA trump head shape, this isn't unique as you would know if you'd researched this. I have other things to do but I will work on that when I have time.

There is quite a lot in most articles that can be improved or that is substandard. I rarely work on one article as a whole, and don't take responsibility for anything but my own work. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the last thing I should do is afford you any courtesy? Duly noted.

You just asked why I used the same reference twice and now say it's not a proper citation. It's an acceptable way to link a source and who gives a crap anyways, it's nonsense that you would have an issue with that link being there.

No, I'm not wrong about personal communications. If that is how the information was received and it exists in no other form then it must be noted for what it is. I know you don't understand as I obviously wasn't talking about "just" Wikipedia editors, but the standards of proof for people in general. You say that about Gonzales now, but given your history there is no reason to believe that would be true. Regardless, without the actual DNA results the fact this person sent them presumably an e-mail saying it "belongs" to mtDNA Haplogroup A is meaningless, especially considering the dolichocephalic skull. Is it mixed? What were the other markers? A Caucasian and an Asian can have offspring that looks no different than any other Caucasian and yet DNA will show the expressive gene as Asian therefore the child technically belongs to "mtDNA Haplogroup A" despite having a Caucasian father. The mother's skull can be brachycephalic and the child's be fully dolichocephalic like the father. This is why the data is important and without it must be cited for what it is.

It gives context to the relevance of DNA testing, but apparently this is a problem for you. I have researched it well Doug, and distinctly dolichocephalic skulls are very unique to be found amongst brachycephalic skulls 13,000yrs ago in mesoamerica which is the whole point, ass. DNA doesn't change this and as it is we don't know exactly what the tests were anyways. And by saying I haven't done my research you are saying the British archeologists didn't do their research either. Boy don't they feel idiots now risking their careers without even knowing about the proliferation of dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skull types-guess they should have talked to you first.

And if you only take responsibility for your own edits then why do you incessantly hack up any edit that doesn't support your POV regardless of it's validity and yet completely ignore the BS ones that do?

You are a waste of energy Doug and see no point in engaging with you any longer on any topic. If I didn't know better I'd say you go round and round with your nonsense for no other reason that to waste my time by having me repeat myself over and over again. And looking at the different way you respond to me and to others, especially given your prolific editing every day which almost seems too much for one person unless they have no job, I almost have to wonder if it is one and the same person. And please do not address me again on my talk page-if you have something to say to me say it in the relevant discussion area.

This is not directed at you Doug, but I want to make something perfectly clear in that my support of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is nothing more than that. I do not care what the color of their skin is and anyone who thinks along those lines, on either side, to me does not belong in the conversation and should punch themselves in the face repeatedly until either they have a fundamental transformation of moral fiber or die so that people who think like that can become extinct. It has absolutely nothing to do with that crap and the only point of this is did ancient man make transoceanic voyages by boat-any ancient man whether he be African, European, Asian or otherwise. It's not about the people-it's about the boats, plain and simple.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm retired, gives me lots of time, but I don't spend as much time in total as you thin - speed reading and fast touch typing help a lot. I've now merged the link into the citation.

Who are the British archaeologists you are referring to?

Nothing can be 'very unique', perhaps you meant 'very unusual' because presumably you know it isn't unique and that Chris Stringer noted "Most humans in the world at that time were long headed and it doesn't surprise me that Peñon woman at 13,000 years old is also long headed."

Context is important of course, but you still can't comment on what an article doesn't say. Not on Wikipedia that is.

I've never thought that you cared about color, and I'm not convinced we know that much about color 13,000 years ago anyway. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is before the mtDNA results: "Without benefit of a DNA analysis, the next best method to etsablish possible relationships is the skull form. This does put the Penon Woman close to the Pericu People of the Mexican Pacific coast. They in turn are thought to be genetically related (based again on their skull measurements) in the Americas to the Fuegians, the Parana (Argentina) and ancient populations of Brazil (e.g. "Luzia"). Outside the Americas they seem to be most closely related to the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and the Tolai people of Papua-New Guinea."[6]. . The Oyster Creek, Texas, skull is dolichocephalic and looks very similar to a Pericu.Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems like the find and group originally admitting possible alternate sources have found that this is another mesamerican source, there is no pre-colombian transoceanic alternative source. Are we keeping the whole section anyway? I guess it is helpful to show that indigenous people's weren't really the Spanish, but that feels like a given even in this context. --— robbie ^{page talk} 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Siberia

See [7] "Ancient links between Siberians and Native Americans revealed by subtyping the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a" which is a new article in the Journal of Human Genetics. "Q1a*-MEH2 likely traces a population migration originating in Northeast Siberia across the Bering Strait." However, this is a relatively late connection, "Despite the low coalescence age of haplogroup Q1a3*-M346, which is estimated in South Siberia as about 4.5±1.5 thousand years ago (Ka), divergence time between these Q1a3*-M346 haplotypes and Amerindian-specific haplogroup Q1a3a-M3 is equal to 13.8±3.9 Ka, pointing to a relatively recent entry date to America. " and "Although the level of STR diversity associated with Q1a*-MEH2 is very low, this lineage appears to be closest to the extinct Palaeo-Eskimo individuals belonging to the Saqqaq culture arisen in the New World Arctic about 5.5 Ka" Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese pre-Columbian contact: fringe or mainstream?

My understanding is that discussion of Chinese pre-Columbian travel to America used to be part of mainstream scholarship. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, discussion of this issue seems to be slowly moving toward the mainstream once again. See, for example: U.S.-China Review, Summer 2011 --Other Choices (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Which heavily uses Gavin Menzies - who are the mainstream academics in this publication? Sure, half a century ago there were a few mainstream academics believing in hyperdiffusionism, so? Chao C. Chien, for instance, is a a computer systems engineer, anothe writer writes nonsense about a polar shift 13,000 years ago. A quick look suggests the real academics in the newsletter don't mention the fringe claims. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, perhaps you're exaggerating when you say that this journal "heavily uses Gavin Menzies." The lead article (page 4) prominently but briefly mentions him, and there is a one-page interview with him. Perhaps this is evidence that Menzies himself is slowly edging toward the mainstream.

Here's a list from that journal of what appears to be mainstream scholars and references to publications by mainstream scholars. I would like to get other editors' opinions regarding whether material from this list deserves incorporation in the article:

1) Jane Lael's article (page 4) refers to Dr. Siu-Leung Lee's paper presented at a conference in Melaka, Malaysia in July 2010, in which Dr. Lee claims that Matteo Ricci's 1602 world map was based on an earlier, pre-Columbian Chinese map. Here's a website devoted to Dr. Lee's research, which states that Lee has two papers in the publication pipeline on this subject: Matteo Ricci's 1602 world Map based on Chinese map 160 years prior

2) There is an excerpt on page 5 from Dr. Hendon Harris's 1973 book, The Asiatic Fathers of America. Further information about Harris's collection of Chinese maps at the Library of Congress is here: The Asiatic Fathers of America

3) On page 6 there is an account by Harris's daughter of Gavin Menzies visiting Harris's collection of Chinese maps in 2003 (after Menzies' book 1421 was published -- maybe it would have been a better book if he had visited sooner).

4) On page 9 is an introduction to Harris's ancient Chinese map of America by Dr. Cyclone Covey, a Stanford-educated historian.

5) On page 10 is a summary of Professor Wei Chu-Hsien's book China and America by the person who is currently translating the book into English. Among other things, Professor Wei talks about ancient Peruvians importing iron from China to cut stones.

6) On page 11 is a discussion of Dr. John Ruskamp's forthcoming book which concludes that "overwhelming evidence supports the interpretation of specific, artistically complex, recurring, and grouped images in North American Native rock writing as ancient forms of Chinese script."

7) Pages 15 and 16 contain an article by the above-mentioned Dr. Siu-Leung Lee entitled, "Chinese Surveyed and Drew the First World Map Before Columbus."

--Other Choices (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It is fringe. There is overwhelming consensus that there is no evidence for this. These few margiunal sources does not change that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that editors aren't actually trying to find out who these people are (and sorry, but I think calling people 'Dr' is meant to make them sound impressive, but it isn't impressive). Cyclone Covey for instance is well known by those interested in the topic as a fringe writer, definitely not mainstream. John Ruskamp has a doctorate in education and is clearly not mainstream . His paper on Gavin Menzies site references a number of other known fringe writers (and some self-published books). Lee's papers don't seem to have come out yet (they were promised by the end of 2010) but he's not a cartographer, he's known for his work on Nickelodeon's animated series "Avatar". Etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus, it is hard to understand how there is overwhelming consensus against books and articles that haven't been published yet. I suppose it will take some time (perhaps years) before mainstream scholars give their reactions to this newly-appearing scholarship.

@Dougweller, my point in noting the academic credentials of the authors mentioned is to show that they have gone through a rigorous system of intellectual training, which is more than can be said for Gavin Menzies, who is actually mentioned in the article. At the very least, it seems that the "Chinese" section of the article should be expanded to note the views of some of these other researchers.--Other Choices (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly a doctorate doesn't necessarily mean that, and even where it does, if it's not in a relevant field it's still irrelevant (and looks like an appeal to authority). And when these ideas are discussed in independent reliable sources maybe they will be significant enough to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Dougweller, your post implies that you question the reliability of the US-China Review as a source for the existence of scholarly fringe views supporting pre-Columbian Chinese trans-Oceanic contact. If that is indeed the case, please say so. Otherwise, I will assume that you accept the US-China Review as a reliable source, and begin editing accordingly.--Other Choices (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I don't see it as a reliable source and I certainly don't see any scholarly fringe views (the scholarly stuff doesn't support this idea). Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am of course referring to the current consensus which is the one wikipedia should reflect. For a number of good reasons such as WP:CRYSTALBALL it cannot reflect future consensuses. Gavin Menzies is mentioned because his theories have generated attention - the future publications of the doctors you mention have not. Also being a doctor does not make one a reliable source for topics outside of one's area of expertise. I concur that the US-China review is not a reliable source for this type of topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur as well. The US-China Review is a community newsletter, and NOT a peer-reviewed academic publication. The papers published in it are essentially self-published and unreliable. I've looked through the magazine, and the theories presented are definitely fringe and have no serious support in the academic community. They would never be accepted for publication in a serious peer-reviewed journal and are about as reliable as Erik von Dannikenbooks about his "ancient alien" theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Since writing the above I've noted that an edit by Other Choices at Gavin Menzies has been reverted (correctly) as original research. This is a problem here, as Other Choices is trying to interpret the articles as being scholarly sources although they are clearly not in a scholarly journal. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

uh, Dougweller, my recent edit at Gavin Menzies wasn't reverted, but I did make a point of revising it in response to Jojolazzo's comment.

Remember the good old days at the Newport Tower article? Perhaps that is a precedent for the point that I raised above, which I will now repeat with elaboration for your benefit (and for Maunus, who seems to share your misunderstanding of what I was getting at): Is the US-China Review a reliable source for the EXISTENCE of fringe theories? In this particular case, I don't think "scholarly" is a synonym for "reliable." Please let me know if you disagree. In the Newport Tower article, I fought to maintain inclusion of fringe theories AS FRINGE THEORIES, and (as you will recall) I'm the one who provided a conclusive source for relegating them to the status of fringe theories. Here at this article, it has been clearly pointed out that theories of Chinese trans-oceanic contact are fringe, and I have not offered any objection to that assessment. What I propose is to use the US-China Review as a source for expanding the article's discussion of this fringe theory.

In other words, I intend to use the US-China Review as a source for briefly mentioning the theories of Hendon, Ruskamp, etc., in the existing sub-section devoted to the fringe theory of Chinese pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. If you (or others) disagree that the US-China Review is a reliable source FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, then please say so.--Other Choices (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a notability issue here. Are Hendon, Ruskamp, etc. notable proponents of the fringe theory, or just peripheral characters. If the former, then the US-China Review does not suffice to establish their notability, and reliable third-party secondary sources would be needed. If the latter, what point would their be in mentioning them at all in the article? WP is primarily based on what reliable secondary sources have to say about a topic. If the people you've listed have not generated enough attention to warrant mention in reliable secondary sources, they probably shouldn't be mentioned in a WP article, either. It's not just a question of whether they exist. Existence is not a good enough criterion for inclusion in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the basic question here concerns whether the US-China Review is a reliable source. I will submit a request for comment to get the opinion of editors who don't have strong feelings about this subject.--Other Choices (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd written an edit which was going to say what Dominus Vobisdu has said so I won't repeat that, but will bring attention to WP:FRINGE which applies here. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies isn't a reliable source for a claim like this, his works are not academic works. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the US-China Review a reliable source?

The US-China Review has been challenged as a reliable source for the existence of fringe theories regarding pre-Columbian Chinese voyages to America. This general subject seems to be highly contentious; input from uninvolved editors is requested, thanks! Other Choices (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording of this does not cover all the concerns raised above. The hypothesis that China visited America before Columbus has a number of sources that we can use (including Gavin Menzies but also including a number of others). The issue is not just whether this journal, which appears to allow articles from any of its members, is a RS, but also if [[WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE applies here. I believe it does and that the authors whose articles support this hyothesis not qualified in this field and their writings are not significant enough to be included here - as I said, there are plenty of other sources that are discussed in other reliable sources and can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say no. Fringe theories in this article generally appear to be heavily overweighted, but I guess that that is due to the nature of the topic. If you could establish the theory's notability through its discussion in a RS (some news reports from a decent sized and reputable news service, or an academic publication perhaps), then it might be appropriate to use the US China Review articles as a source to describe the theory.

I've done a preliminary search and I can't find any source that would support its inclusion as of yet. The following sources might be of some interest for this issue and the general topic more broadly: [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13].FiachraByrne (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The USCR fits the criteria for reliable sources. Whether the claims are fringe or not is not part of my expertise. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes The cited source seems perfectly adequate to me just to show that a specific fringe theory exists. We are not claiming it is widely supported. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• That is not the question. The question is whether the theories mentioned are notablke enough to be included in the article. The US-China review may be a reliable source for the existence of the theories - it is however not a reliable source for the purpose of notability - for notability purposes it should be considered a selfpublished source, since there is apparently no review process. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to this topic, academic sources should be preferred although other sources could be used to illustrate a given fringe theory. THE USCR is not an academic source it is a community newsletter. It does not establish that this is a sufficiently notable fringe theory for inclusion. What you'd really want, if the USCR was to be a relevant and reliable source for this discussion, is for a reputable and preferable academic source to discuss the USCR or Jane Lael in relation to the thesis that the Chinese had pre-Columbian contact with the Americas. Let the informed and reputable secondary sources decide for you which fringe theories and which vehicles and proponents of fringe theories are sufficiently notable for inclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the question asked by the RfC is, 'Is the US-China Review a reliable source?'. My point was that the cited source is sufficient to show that a specific theory is a fringe theory. I do agree, however, that all the fringe theories seem to be given too much weight in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone has just read/seen The Year China Discovered the World - this comes up every time "Discover" arise this .....O yes dont forget they also sailed to Italy and ignited the renaissanceMoxy (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, the RfC should be about the disputed issues, not just one of them, hence my amendment above. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone explain clearly what is disputed here please. The 'pre-Columbian Chinese voyages to America' theory is currently shown as fringe. Is it being suggested that it should be dropped altogether or upgraded to mainstream, or something else?

There seems to be consensus that the pre-Columbian Chinese contact with the Americas is a fringe theory. WP:Fringe states that: "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner"; and "for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter". WP:Fringe#Reliable sources details reliable sources as: "peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". USCR is a non-peer reviewed community newsletter with a guest editor presiding over each edition. The editor of the edition on this topic was Jane Lael who, so far as I can determine, is the "technical editor" of the Journal of the American Neutraceutical Association. She has no expertise on this topic. The USCR is published by the US China Peoples Friendship Association. While this may be an admirable organisation it does not meet the criteria for a reliable source that could be used to discuss the relationship of this fringe theory to the academic mainstream. An example of a reliable source that discusses (and indeed advocates for) fringe theories of pre-Columbian contact and which is not cited in the article is Kehoe, Alice B. (2003). "The fringe of American archaeology: transoceanic and transcontinental contacts in prehistoric America" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration. 17 (1): 19–36.. I would advocate going to this kind of rs and academic source first to establish which fringe theories are appropriate for inclusion in this article. The article should not become a compendium of every fringe theory about pre-Columbian contact and much less a compendium of every proponent and vehicle for these fringe theories. As an aside, the current introduction to the long section on the various fringe theories consists of one line. This should be expanded substantially. A broad contextualisation of the importance of the fringe to the mainstream is particularly lacking in this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne's extended commentary makes sense to me; thank you. Regarding the point that this article gives too much weight to fringe theories, I agree completely. I took the lead in paring down the verbiage devoted to the fringe theories at the Newport Tower article; I might begin to do the same here if nobody else jumps in. With that said, the US-China Review gives notice of an evolving, mutually-supporting community of researchers, reaching into academia on two continents, that is devoted to this particular fringe theory. As their works move through the publication pipeline, I suppose that this topic will get revisited a lot here at this article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two, maybe more, groups/communities in the Review. One is the fringe writers, another the academics who don't share the fringe view. I don't know what this 'reaching into academica means', but I don't see a lot of evidence of 'academia' and writers featured at Viewzone.com and Menzies' website sharing a lot of ground other than being members of the US China Peoples Friendship Association and writing for the review. I note that the fringe writers were all invited to submit articles by its editor, Jane Lael.

Maybe this needs to be made clear: "The material appearing in the US-China Review does not represent a consensus, nor does it reflect the views or policy of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association or its National Board. The Review does not accept responsibility for the opinions expressed by the authors of articles but it does accept responsibility for giving them a forum for expression and con-sideration. It strives for a variety of subjects and opinions." Dougweller (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I can see what you are getting at but could somebody please make clear exactly what possibilities are being discussed here. Is it that pre-Columbian Chinese contact with the Americas should:

1. Be removed from the article altogether.
2. Remain in the article as a fringe theory.
3. Appear in the article as a mainstream theory.
4. Something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Good question. That's why I was unhappy with the way the RfC was worded. I don't think anyone wants it removed from the article altogether. Open Future apparently believes that it is moving towards the mainstream, although what I see is it becoming more popular with fringe writers. I'd like a direct response from him but he does say in an earlier section that "At the very least, it seems that the "Chinese" section of the article should be expanded to note the views of some of these other researchers." while also saying " my point in noting the academic credentials of the authors mentioned is to show that they have gone through a rigorous system of intellectual training" - something I disagree with as irrelevant qualifications do not qualify one for something else, and all PhDs are not created equal, the 'training' involved can be radically different. This is why I raised the issue of WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying we shouldn't expand the section at any time - indeed perhaps the Liu Gang/Menzies world map controversy should be added but in line with NPOV, ie showing both 'pro' and 'con'. [14], [15] [16] Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying we are being asked to decide between 2 and 3 above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know, and the editor who started the RfC has said, if you missed it, "Regarding the point that this article gives too much weight to fringe theories, I agree completely. I took the lead in paring down the verbiage devoted to the fringe theories at the Newport Tower article; I might begin to do the same here if nobody else jumps in. With that said, the US-China Review gives notice of an evolving, mutually-supporting community of researchers, reaching into academia on two continents, that is devoted to this particular fringe theory. As their works move through the publication pipeline, I suppose that this topic will get revisited a lot here at this article." I think you need a more specific reply from him. I don't think he wants it to be turned into a mainstream argument though, so it isn't a choice between the two. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller, I'd be curious to know who you consider to be the "academics who don't share the fringe view." Where you see at least two separate groups represented in that newsletter, I see a seamless whole. The Clark piece (an excerpt from an earlier article) doesn't mention pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact; it was obviously included as background information for Lee's claims about Ricci's map (immediately preceding the Clark article). Interesting that Clark didn't mind appearing in the same venue as Gavin Menzies.

@Martin Hogbin, it seems that different people want to take this discussion in different directions, which is fine with me, but we might want to start creating new sections if this discussion continues.

The thought originally occurred to me that discussion of pre-Columbian Chinese contact has been slowly moving into the mainstream, as evidenced by the "US-China Review." However, after considering the initial discussion here, I concluded that "Chinese pre-Columbian" isn't ready to make the "species jump" to mainstream anytime soon here at wikipedia. My second thought was to bring in some material from the US-China Review to the Chinese subsection of the "Fringe" section, especially Ruskamp's conclusion that "overwhelming evidence supports the interpretation of specific, artistically complex, recurring, and grouped images in North American Native rock writing as ancient forms of Chinese script." If I had my way, I'd bring in that one sentence (with a footnote) to summarize Ruskamp's view. I'd also include a brief reference to Wei Chu-Hsien's claim about ancient Peruvians importing iron tools from China. And also a sentence referring to Siu-Leung Lee's claim that Matteo Ricci's 1602 world map was based on an earlier, pre-Columbian Chinese map. Short and sweet, one sentence with a footnote. And finally on my wish list would be Covey's reference to Hendon Harris's view that the Navajo and Hopi Indians are of Chinese origin.

But once again, I agree with others that the "fringiness" of this article needs to be boiled down considerably. In addition to some judicious pruning, perhaps things like the Roman statue head and the Carthaginian coins could be moved to a new sub-section entitled "Archeological Anomalies," because these things aren't theories as such, but rather bits of ambiguous evidence that tend to spawn various theories.--Other Choices (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Clark thought about sharing the same venue or whether he even knew it would happen. But I should not have used the plural, that was careless of me. I'm pleased we agree that this isn't ready to make a "species jump". I don't think this is an appropriate source for the fringe stuff. I've already said that the world map stuff can be included, but certainly not with just one sentence from this review, I've provided other sources that discuss it. As for the rest, again where else is it discussed? Particularly, where in the mainstream is it discussed? I don't think one fringe author supporting another meets WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So is there now general agreement that the pre-Columbian Chinese theory should remain as a fringe theory but the general prominence of all fringe theories in the article should be reduced? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, are there other reliable sources that address why this topic has so many different fringe theories? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title of the article by 'topic'? If so, I think there's quite a bit of material written about what's often referred to as 'hyperdiffusionism'. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes that's exactly what I mean by topic. In terms of the literature on "hyperdiffusion," I don't know it would depend upon whether they simply rebut the theories or try to explain why such theories exist. It would also depend, I think, on whether such treatments are of fringe or of marginal but academic positions. Sometimes the divisions are not clear but broadly they are discernible in terms of where they are published (peer reviewed journals and academic presses or self-published or "popular" texts), the methods they employ (the later is largely policed by the academic field itself) and how seriously or not they are treated by academia. WP:FRINGE is really about "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory" - a problematic concept - but most work published in academia presses or journals, unless proven to engage in deliberate falsification, cannot be considered WP:FRINGE. Although not part of the WP policy, I would also propose that previous academic treatments can become fringe over time as the academic field might increase distance over time from such positions and the methods and assumptions underlying them. The article I cited above actually largely discusses non-mainstream academic rather than fringe theories. In terms of the treatment I would look for relating the fringe to the mainstream one example is provided by Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). "On the perils and pleasures of confronting pseudohistory". Historically Speaking. 10 (5). doi:10.1353/hsp.0.0067.. While some of his general statements on "pseudohistory" are probably ott, he makes some specific and relevant points. For instance, that pseudohistory is more marketable than academic history which he illustrates by reference to Menzies: "Gavin Menzies’ original goal was to write a book about early Ming China. He even submitted a rather large manuscript on that topic. His agent and publisher managed to extract a segment of the manuscript that discussed Chinese voyages of exploration. That section was expanded to become 1421, a big book based on the claim that Chinese fleets sailed everywhere but Europe during the 1420s, preempting the European voyages of discovery. Why do that? Because it sells." He also states: "So why do people read books or watch documentaries espousing pseudohistory and pseudoscience? Pseudo knowledge has the advantage of presenting a simple message. It provides strange yet simple answers to interesting questions about the human past. Who built those mounds? A lost white race of Hebrews? Or Phoenicians? Or Atlanteans? Let’s posit any group but the most logical, the Native Americans! How could the Egyptians have built those pyramids? They didn’t. It was ancient spacemen using their super-technology. It is hard for historians, archaeologists, and scientists to compete with such answers where the real answers to those questions are quite complex, often somewhat ambiguous in their conclusions, and generally contingent on new discoveries. These days it is not really possible for scholars to give anything approaching a definitive answer to how and when the first humans came to settle the Americas. Enough contradictory archaeological evidence has accumulated to render the existing orthodoxy uncertain, but not enough evidence has been found to build a consensus around a plausible alternative theory. It is the sort of thing that makes research and scholarship fascinating for professional scholars but not all that satisfying to the public." That's the kind of stuff I'd look for to introduce the fringe in this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the dispute over now?

The subject of this dispute seems to be very diffuse and it is hard to see how outsiders can help if it is not more focused. As far as I can tell the dispute now seems to be over but can I just check please? Does anyone disagree that the pre-Columbian Chinese theory should remain in the article as a fringe theory but the general prominence of all fringe theories in the article should be reduced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Gavin Menzies is well enough known to support the inclusion of the Chinese theory without adding theories only published in the community newsletter.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that 'Yes the dispute is over' or 'Yes I disagree'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a "Yes if this following assessment of the consensus of the issue is acceptable to all then I consider the dispute to be over".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start the RfC though so others might disagree...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to question the characterization of the US-China Review as a "community newsletter" for wikipedia purposes, as opposed to a "journal." The current issue seems to be some sort of hybrid, with community-newsletter-type stuff taking up the final ten pages, and the first 20 pages devoted to articles related to the issue's general theme. From a look at their home page, it seems that this publication is aiming at a readership beyond its core community. With that said, I am not inclined to push this question further at this time. My guess is that the current issue was designed to make a splash and raise the publication's profile; perhaps it is currently evolving along with the "Chinese pre-Columbian" theory.--Other Choices (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do you agree that the pre-Columbian Chinese theory should remain in the article as a fringe theory but the general prominence of all fringe theories in the article should be reduced? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

China topic is valid; source is marginal

There are abundant sources on the theory that Chinese ships reached the Americas before Columbus. On the other hand, mainstream historians would characterize that theory as fringe. So, it can be included in the article, but needs to be identified as fringe (and it is already, so there is no issue there). Turning to the "US-China Review" source: That appears to be a very informal newsletter for a US-China friendship association. It is not authored by scholars. Since there are already other, more reliable, sources on this China-visitation topic I think the encyclopedia would be better served by omitting this marginal US-China Review source. That source does mention a couple of historians/researchers, and if someone can find those sources, perhaps they may be more authoritative and could be cited in this article. --Noleander (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I can here for an RFC/noticeboard post, and my assessment pretty much concurs with Noleander above. It is notable to be mentioned but when mentioned it must be described as fringe, and it'd be undue weight to get it much space in this article. An informal newsletter does not confirm to WP:RS rules. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

what about "beyond fringe"?

I note that some black nationalist movements present claims of pre-Columbian contact, but these aren't fringe theories in the proper sense, they're more in the realm of pseudo-religious mythology. They don't even attempt to build a case, they just state it is an "undisputable fact". Perhaps we should add a separate section for pseudo-religious or black nationalist claims?

This mostly concerns the "Washitaw Nation"[17]

"a highly intelligent race of shipbuilders, masonry [sic], a tribe of Israel, black and bushy-headed" — who crossed the Atlantic and made their way to what is now northern Louisiana. They built octagonal mounds, and traded "via the ships of Shitta."

If this seems on the far end of the lunatic fringe, there is also the Nuwaubian Nation, which apparently stole the "black mound-builders" idea from the "Washitaws", but made it even more lunatic. In the case of the Nuwaubian, it is probably impossible to say what they even claim, because it's too incoherent and self-contradictory to summarize. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

same animal or same sample

Seems likely they were looking at the same animal, since the conclusion states that further DNA analysis is necessary. The other article was actually working with that DNA. I don't see the two articles as contradicting each other; whereas the first says that they were Polynesian, the second says that they were from the general group including Southeast Asia - that grouping (at least as presented in the quoted text) is inclusive, not exclusive. --— robbie ^{page talk} 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the 'who' template you removed and removed the 'dubious' one as confusing to the average reader. Are you saying you read both articles? Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regards the who tag -- no, I didnt. But the answer for who is in the ref .. did you read the citation? --— robbie ^{page talk} 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the dubious tag, I put that in because I am confused myself. :) "Specimen", as a laboratory specimen can mean either the animals themselves (which seems likely), or the specific samples (or even the assays from those sample) -- the later seems far more likely. Since we're not quoting, a rephrasing from "specimens" to "animals" would do it for me. If you revert the dubious tag again just make sure to rephrase and we're good. --— robbie ^{page talk} 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the whole paragraph kinda sucks (huge block quote for the discenting voice, just three short inlines for the majority view), I've rewritten it. Hopefullyu this avoids all the fuss. :)

Chicken bones found at a the site El Arenal near the Arauco Peninsula in Chile support a pre-Colombian introduction of chicken to South America.[7] The bones found in Chile were radiocarbon-dated to between 1304 and 1424, before the arrival of the Spanish. DNA sequences taken were matched to those of chickens in American Samoa and Tonga, and dissimilar to European chicken.[8][9][10] However, a later report in the same journal looking at the same mtDNA concluded that the Chilean chicken specimen clusters with the same European/Indian subcontinental/Southeast Asian sequences, providing no support for a Polynesian introduction of chickens to South America.[11]

--— robbie ^{page talk} 19:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Exhausted - I'll try to respond tomorrow, I thought there was a dissenting voice on the date. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

who suggested polynesian source of yams in polynesia

The ref tag right next to it says Robert Langdon, that's who. Removing the who? tag. --— robbie ^{page talk} 18:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mohica

The link is to a two year old newspaper report, should this be in the article without confirmation from a scientific journal? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can figure out, it all traces back to a single point source report from a Peruvian news agency about a genuine Japanese professor doing genuine DNA research on human remains from the site. So far, so good. However, it looks like the reporter lost the ball at some point and misinterpreted the research as proving that there is a genetic link between the Peruvian remains and populations in Asia. That I can't verify in the research published by the professor and his group, which seems normal and valid in every respect. There is no indication that the professor believes that there is a link, so it can't be said that this is even a fringe theory. I have to conclude at this point that this is a case of reporter error, especially because if the research DID indicate that there was a genetic link, it would have been breaking news all over the world. I've deleted the material. Yes, a report in a scientific journal is absolutely necessary to confirm such an extraordinary claim. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Penon woman

Removed this section because it represents an extraordinary scientific claim but was sourced only with a college class syslabus, a couple of articles in Discover magazine, a CNN article and a mysterious "personal communication". The sources were conflicting (from Europe? from Australia?). For a scientific claim of this magnitute, reports in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals are required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it. The sources cited are more than acceptable and Penon Woman is worthy of inclusion in this article.Thanos5150 (talk)

Does wikipedia require peer-reviewed scientific journals for anything...?Smarkflea (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially yes. If the claims of this section are scientifically valid and have been scientifically confirmed, then peer-reviewed sources undoubtedly exist, and per WP:RS these should be used in preference of other sources. If peer-revewed sources do not exist, that is a good sign that there is either no merit to the claims, or that the claims are too recent to have been scientifically evaluated. In either case, the material would not be appropriate for inclusion in a section dealing with scientific claims. However, a college sylabus, two articles in Discover magazine, and a CNN article are not reliable sources for this kind of material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it once again. This section has already been hashed over with administrator DW and if even he did not take exception to the sources so neither should you. Don't delete it again. If you feel it needs changes or additions make them. The sources are acceptable under Wiki guidelines and if every source needed to be the actual scientific paper there would be tumbleweeds blowing across 1/2 the Wiki pages. There is no doubt in my mind that if this section supported your POV you would have no objection to the sources and defend it for the same reasons.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Discover and CNN are reliable and would hold up under scrutiny... Smarkflea (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to make derogatory comments about other editors to get a point across. Looking at the section again, although I agree that the sources are RS, there is at least one problem in that [18] is obvious copyvio - although we could use [19] which is one of the articles copied there and is used as a source already. Except is doesn't actually say "distinctly Caucasian-like", it uses the word 'typically'. More problematically, it doesn't actually cie a study saying this, in fact it doesn't mention anyone calling it caucasian, so that might be the reporter's interpretation. Gonzalez herself is all over the place, suggesting the she might have been "descendants of the Ainu people of Japan", likely European, maybe related to the Pericu.

The Ainu bit is nonsense, made worse by the article adding 'ancient' before Ainu, as these are a modern historical cultural group only going back around 900 years , many thousands of years younger than this skull. It's concerning if Gonzalez actually said that, more concerning that Thanos added 'ancient' before Ainu (and I'm annoyed at myself for not catching this),and I suggest we strike it entirely as it doesn't really help the reader or the article as it is impossible for this to be true without time travel. Jomon maybe, but that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

This is also a pretty minor thing, especially as the DNA doesn't suggest anything other than they are related to other neighboring people. The only reason to actually have it in the article seems to me to be that most web searches, etc won't turn up anything about the DNA evidence or even Christ Stringer's comment that the skull shape is not actually unusual. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So, why do you do it to me then Doug? I'm not being derogatory to this editor in the least. His motivations are clear and I'm calling him on it so that we can have a sensible discussion instead of an edit war.

Huh?? The Jomon and Ainu are often referred to synonymously so given we are talking about 13,000yrs ago it is obvious she does not mean the "modern" Ainu of 900yrs ago, but rather the Joman, who date back over 14,000yrs and would be roughly contemporary with Penon Woman and friends. Adding the word "ancient" is only meant to clarify her use of the word Ainu to the reader, not confuse them. Do you really not get this? Time travel is not required, just common sense.

True, Gonzales is all over the place which does not do her any favors, but this does not change the facts. Whether they are Jomon or European is not the point. The title of this article is not "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact by White People", it's trans-oceanic contact by ANYONE and the presence of non-indigenous dilochocephalic skulls in an exclusively brachycephalic hemispherical population from 13,000yrs ago, found in Central America far away from the Bering Strait mind you, is notable because of it's implications for exactly that. Given their location and the absence of others like them in the area all the way to eastern Asia where they would supposedly have come from it is highly unlikely they walked there. Not much more complicated than that.

Chris Stringer's comments are institutional gobbledeygook. He says: "For a start, there are lots of examples in archaeology where various artefacts from different parts of the world can end up looking similar even though they have different origins" - but we're not talking about "artifacts", like tools and whatnot-we are talking about human remains which do not just "end-up" looking like other human remains found in other parts of the world, especially when they are the oldest remains found on that continent several thousand miles away from where conventional wisdom says they must have walked from with no evidence in-between of others like them. It is clear in this case, which makes it noteworthy in this article, is that the only explanation is they actually ARE from that "other part of the world" which suggests they must have sailed, as we know the Jomon must have, or walked from somewhere across the Bering Straight all the way to Mexico leaving no evidence of any ancestor in their path for several thousand miles.

Stringer also says "the skull shape is not actually unusual" which in general is true, except he fails to mention this only applies to other continents and is not applicable to the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. So in reality it is "actually" very unusual that dilochocephalic skulls from 13,000yrs ago were found in an exclusively brachycephalic population which is the whole damn point. Really?

As far as the "DNA evidence" is concerned-what DNA evidence? An ambiguous e-mail whose findings as we know have curiously never been published? Given the magnitude of this find wouldn't this be the highest priority to get this information out there? But it's curiously not. And so what if they belong to Haplogroup A-what are the other genetic markers? And it still doesn't explain why the oldest known humans found in the western hemisphere have dilochocephalic skulls whereas all the rest of the indigenous populations do not. This paragraph is very weak and should be stricken. Even Dominus Vobisdu thought this paragraph was particularly pretty lame. Penon Woman is a documented find and has clear implications for the possibility of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and to me is worthy of inclusion.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if people ignorantly confuse the Ainu and the Jomon, they are not the same people and it's hard to understand why she said Ainu and not helpful to our readers. It has occurred to me that Penon Woman really belongs in the Japanese section and that the Jōmon people in this very early time frame aren't covered properly here. Your comments on Chris Stringer are irrelevant, as are your comments on the DNA, these are reliable sources and you originally were ok with them, please don't use this discussion as a reason not to get rid of them. If you don't think they meet our criteria, go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't change the fact people do, including professionals, regardless of whatever reason you can't seem to wrap your brain around it, so your point is moot and already addressed in detail above. Though her terminology is not technically accurate, given the context her meaning is clear.

None of my comments are irrelevant Doug. I was never ok with Stringer's comments, they are just as lame now as they were then, but no where do I say it doesn't meet our criteria, which is not my point. On the other hand, the DNA "personal communication" does not and should be stricken because it is nothing more than hearsay which has yet to be publicly verified in over 6yrs years, so until it is and we have something to point to beyond a "personal communication" it doesn't belong here regardless of the source. And no, I am not using this discussion to not get rid of them as I'd be happy to get rid of both, but this is exactly what discussion is for so not sure what you point is.

Given Gonzalez's last and latest theory is an Ainu (Jomon) origin, I guess it could be moved there, but the reality is without the DNA or possibly Jomon pottery Penon Woman's origins are still open for debate. They may be European, aboriginal, Jomon-we don't know. How would you cover the Jomon more properly here in the context of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact?Thanos5150 (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why we rely on peer-reviewed sources, and not nonsense published in newspapers and popular science publications, which have a long tradition of botching science reporting up, as they did in this case. Sylvia Gonzales did originally speculate about the origins of the skulls from the site in front of the press, saying they could have come from Australia, Japan, or even Europe. The press went wild with it, and the kooks ate it up.

However, Gonzalez's own DNA analysis revealed that the skulls were of local origin, and that there was no evidence of migration from outside the continent, writing:

"There is also the importance of historical native populations to take into account, such as the Pericue Indian group (Las Palmas culture), a population that became extinct in the 18th century. They display distinctive cranial morphologies (long and narrow skulls) which have been linked in the past to an early primary migration along the Pacific coast and suggested as evidence for a relict population. However our recent DNA results indicate that the group had just the normal haplogroups found in the modern Native American Indians suggesting the possibility of processes of in situ differentiation for this extinct group." [[20]]

This puts the matter to rest. Gonzalez's research has nothing to do with Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact, and therefore does not belong in this article. It's just another case of speculation that did not pan out. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. If you actually read what it says she is not referring to Penon Woman, she is referring to the Pericue of Baja California, hence the paragraph title of:"Evidence from Historical Native Populations: an example the Pericue Las Palmas Culture". The DNA she cites is of the Pericue, not Penon. Thanos5150 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. No self respecting biological anthropologist today would make claims of intercontinental migrations based only on the shape of one skull[s]. Regardless of whether she may have made an idle speculation in one publication, Gonzalez is clearly not making any kind of sustained argument for transcoceanic contact and we should not portray her as doing so. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not and please do not undo it again. Then you give me a Edit war warning when you don't even know what you are talking about? Penon Woman is one of 27 like individuals, not just "one skull". She was not giving idle speculation in "one publication", she followed up her theory a few years later in another article attributing it to the Ainu. This meets all the criteria of inclusion here and should not be removed.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave you a warning for editwarring because that was what you were doing and I was acting as an uninvolved administrator, who simply noted your reinsertion of material that had been challenged and was undergoing discussion on the talkpage where several editors had already disagreed with you. I reverted your reinsertion of the challenged material telling you to seek consensus and reverted again when you did not follow that advice. Then I gave my opinion based on my general knowledge of anthropology, not on the specific material here which I admittedly am not familiar with. Now start trying to convince other editors that this material should be in the article instead of making personal attacks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that is exactly not what I was doing and the onus is on you before you act to not only understand the material, but the context of the edits, which you have done neither. And who are these "several" other editors you are referring to as if I am one against many? It is only user Dominus Vobisdu that there is an issue with as he repeatedly keeps making destructive edits to this section by simply removing it without clear understanding of what are acceptable sources as well as misunderstanding the material itself. The challenge has to be for a valid reason does it not, otherwise isn't that vandalism? You accuse me of an edit war for reverting it back when in reality you should be warning Dominus Vobisdu and taking my back.

Dominus Vobisdu first removed the section because he did not think the sources met Wiki criteria which he was wrong, supported by both user users Smarkflea and Doug Weller, and by "consensus" the section was left restored though if you read the discussion already in progress we are working out the details of placement and content. The second attempt by Dominus Vobisdu to remove the section was because he had completely misread a paper by Gonzales which did not apply to his reasoning of removal, therefore once again he was wrong. You jump in and make a mess of things before we even had a chance to work it out, so all things considered Maunus, it is you who are being destructive here, edit warring, and making personal attacks.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to that belief.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that three of us are unhappy with the way this is included, and I have reverted you. We need to work out how to mention her. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have another user ID named Maunus? This is who has reverted me twice. Doug, this is where you need to step up for a change and be an administrator beyond your own POV. Being "unhappy" with information is no excuse to harass another editor when the sources and information are valid. Neither of these other editors are either fully reading or understanding the material and are once again just hacking out edits before discussing them. Not going to play this game anymore. Penon Woman is a documented find with a real scientist of the mind Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is a likely possibility and the sources are valid. Therefore, give a proposal how this information should be presented and where Doug.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to belong in the section on Japan, but we need to make sure it doesn't get confused with some of the other claims, eg that of Meggers. I need to do a bit more research and that will take a little time. I'd also like to figure out how to deal with this Ainu business so I need to get hold of the original sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the effort Doug. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Considering the principle Gonzales last leaves the trail with the Ainu (Jomon), the most logical choice anyways, it is not unreasonable it be moved to the Japan section.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dolichocephalic

RL keeps me busy, but quickly on this topic: "Andean past: Volume 7 Cornell University. Latin American Studies Program - 2005 - Snippet view "Lahr proposes that Southern Cone populations are phenotypically characterized as generalized mongoloids (ie, dolichocephalic". Bones, Boats and Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of North America by E.James Dixon http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3t2dLm-7GQ4C&pg=PA141&dq=dolichocephalic+paleoindian&hl=en&ei=RL-VTpDjPMGc8gPQqNSpCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false] "The early human remains from the Americas tend to display craniofacial fea- tures that arc more similar to southern Pacific and European populations than to later northern Asians and modern Native Americans. Morphologically, Paleoindians tend to fall between these two groups. This suggests that there may be appreciable biological and genetic differences between Paleoindians and later populations of Native Americans. However, these differences are relatively minor, and they do not necessarily mean that the populations are not re- lated. Rapid evolutionary change could explain the differences, or the differences may result from an earlier migration to the Americas by people not closely related to later New World immigrants." Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking for reliable sources that back up the skulls claims, too. To no avail. All I find is speculation in non-peer reviewed sources. It seems that, except for the passage I quoted in the section above, Gonzalez never made any mention of her speculation in peer-reviewed sources, just at a science convention at which the press was present. I can't find any indication in serious scientific literature that many other scientists are convinced, or even interested. It seems they're all waiting for the DNA version.

Your quote above is also speculation, of course. And it doesn't sound as if Dixon very convinced, anyway. Whether it's notable enough or relevant enough to add to the article, though, I don't think so.

I still maintain that speculation in the popular press is insufficient grounds for the addition of the material on the Penon woman. Especially as it's clear at this point that the speculation did not pan out (we surely would have heard about it in peer-reviewed sources if it did). So it's all basically farts in the wind at this point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of archaeology and anthropology could be labelled speculation - so could some physics. I'm not sure what you think Dixon isn't very convinced about, by the way. I wasn't looking at Penon woman, just trying to set some background which is relevant to the article. Dixon's comments are relevant. I'm looking for anything Gonzalez has written - her latest mention seems to be just about her dating. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good find on the Dixon quote Doug. Speculation based on interpretation, which is why consensus should never be confused with fact, especially in these two fields. It's all farts in the wind and what you smell is based on where you stand.

Here is something that may be supplementary [[21]]. Also, it seems there is much more to the story of the Pericues that may be relevant to this article:["]. Here is Gonzalez's bio:[[22]]. Her last publications are from 2007, so I'm wondering if something happened to her.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few more interesting links:[[23]]

This is very worthwhile about the Jomon:[[24]][[25]]Thanos5150 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies, I only just noticed this. I'll look at the sources this weekend. And try to find out what happened to Gonzalez. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources you've provided, but none of them have anything at all to do with the subject of the present article, nor have I found any other peer-reviewed sources that mention it at all except for the brief statement by Gonzalez saying that DNA evidence were consistent with local origins in the paper I mentioned to you above.

Sylvia Gonzalez is still alive and kicking. She seems to have abandoned her speculation altogether, and is no focusing more on the footprint.

So all we have for the skulls is Gonzalez's much-hyped but scientifically worthless speculation in the popular press, and a modest example of cautious speculation in the book Dougweller quoted. This is a very, very far cry from scientific evidence. Speculation is not science. Science starts only when you formulate hypotheses that can be tested.

Gonzalez's speculation may be notable in an article about her, but in this article, it's an irrelevant distraction of no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I offer the sources for the article in general and added context, hence "supplementary". The DNA evidence in the article you refer to is not related to Penon which I have already explained in detail, so your point, again, is not valid in the Penon argument. You need to read what it actually says as the DNA evidence she is talking about is referring to another unrelated population several hundred miles away.

She is alive, how much she is kicking we don't know, but the fact she hasn't published anything on any subject since 2007 does not mean she has abandoned either discovery-she apparently isn't publishing anything anymore on any topic. This is hardly evidence that she has abandoned the topic as if as you are implying because she is wrong.

You keep referring to all this as "speculation" with phrases like "scientifically worthless" and that it is all "very, very far cry from scientific evidence", but you don't seem to be understanding the nature of the evidence. While it may be "speculation" as to where this Penon people may have come from, no one has disputed the skeletons themselves are aberrant to the geographical population or their age which is equally important. Before you argue against that, Chris Stringer's comment that the skull shape is not actually unusual is said in the specific context they may not be European, not that they are native to the area. If I find 27 apples in an orange tree forest, this means something. Obviously they don't belong there, so the only question at this point is where did they come from.

I disagree that Penon does not belong in the article and meets criteria for inclusion as the sources are valid and the discovery notable. There are several other similar notable discoveries that could be added along with Penon to form an anthropological section.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2005 BBC news article [26] is out of date.

Darren F. Mark, D. F., Gonzalez, S.,Huddart, D. and Böhnel, H. 2010 “Dating of the Valsequillo volcanic deposits: Resolution of an ongoing archaeological controversy in Central Mexico,” Journal of Human Evolution 58: 441-445

"Our 40Ar/39Ar age for the Xalnene Ash (1.28 _ 0.04 Ma) isndistinguishable from that of Renne et al. (2005; 1.30 _ 0.03 Ma). Based on the known geographic distribution of the early hominids(Antón and Swisher, 2004), it is improbable that the Xalnene Ash markings are human footprints. The impressions are consistent with quarry marks that have been modified by fluvial processes (Renne et al., 2005) and as such, do not represent evidence of New World pre-Clovis human occupation, as previously suggested (Gonzalez et al., 2006a)."

She has also said (re her earlier statements about the skull shape) in this paper:

"Evidence from Historical Native Populations: an example the Pericue Las Palmas Culture

"There is a also the importance of historical native populations to take into account, such as the Pericue Indian group (Las Palmas Culture), a population that became extinct in the 18th century, who lived in southern Baja California and their Holocene predecessors (Rosales-Lüpez and Fujita, 2000). They display distinctive cranial morphologies (long and narrow skulls) and are important because they have been linked to an early migration along the Pacific coast and suggested as evidence for a relict population in this peninsula directly linked to a primary migration (Gonzalez-José et al, 2003). However our recent DNA results indicate that the group had just the normal haplogroups found in the modern Native American Indians suggesting the possibility of processes of in situ differentiation for this extinct group."

I don't think this backs "Obviously they don't belong there" Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the same paper that Dominus cited above and the skulls she is referring to, like the DNA, are the Pericue which she links to early migrations along the Pacific Coast. Unfortunately, other than the dating she does not address the Penon. This is what backs "Obviously they don't belong there" as we are talking two different people found in two different locations at two different times and in Penon territory of 13,000yrs ago these skulls are out of place. Pericue territory is in Baja and the Gulf of California, the Penon are found in Mexico City approximately 1400mi away. Is Penon Pericue? This was Gonzalez's first thought for obvious reasons, but she changed her mind later thinking the were Ainu (Jomon). What would resolve Penon is to link them to the Pericue or not and provide DNA results.

Footprints. So, the first link is out of date and yet here is one with new data from 6-6-2008 [[27]] confirming that they are from 9,000-40,000yrs old and were verified as human footprints. Now we have this [[28]] from 2010 saying they are 1.3mya and are probably not footprints. Ah, the joy of science.

I do not see that the Penon situation has been settled and the study you keep citing relates specifically to the Pericue on both skull shape and DNA. How many times must this be said? Penon's skull type is relevant because of the extreme age. At this point Penon should be included as supplementary to more notable finds like Kennewick Man who by all accounts most resembles the Jomon, which is again circumstantially supported by this:[[29]]. There is other potential evidence of Jomon in the America's and they were known sailors. If Penon is Jomon and they are found in Central America first and are the oldest known inhabitants of the Americas, then it stands to reason they got their by boat. Where I find this all leading to is a section about the Jomon as all things considered this is where both of these finds have been linked among other things.

And as far as Maunus's comment goes: "As far as I know physical anthropologists do not currently think of skull shape as something that correlates so strongly with geographic origin that they would venture this kind of guess without additional evidence. Skull shapes vary within any populations, especially one as large as the entire population of the Americas. It is not possible to ascribe continental origin based on any single physical trait." You need to put this into the context of time. Penon dates back to 13,000yrs ago. This all may apply several thousand years later when their was a "large population", but Penon represents the oldest skeletons found in the Western Hemisphere. At this point there are no populations to variate from, right? What is being said here is that the Penon skeletons do not match the ones found to be much younger-they are not contemporary with each other. This is what makes them notable. I don't know how many other ways to explain this. Thanos5150 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on the footprint paper, Dougweller. I didn't bother digging further on that because it has nothing to do with the topic of the present article. That's twice she's spouted off in front of the press and later regretted it. She seems like a good scientist, but I think she has a strong streak of self-promotionism, or at least rather poor judgement.

I've done more searching through the peer-reviewed literature and I can find NO mention of ANY human remains in relationship to pre-columbian oceanic contact whatsoever except for the second "retraction" you mentioned above. Nor even preliminary or suggestive results. It's clear to me that this "evidence" is taken seriously only in fringe sources.

However, I would not include this in the fringe section of the article because Gonzalez is a serious scientist, if a little hasty. Furthermore, there is zero indication that she still seriously entertains this possibility herself. Like I said, this is all just yesterday's news that didn't pan out. I'd hate to tarnish her reputation by classifying her as "fringe". Dixon's not fringe, either. He's just a normal scientist speculating about the shape of the skulls. Nothing strange about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speculation is a very apt description of the relation between a group of odd-shaped skulls and the topic of this article. I agree with Dominus that this is not particularly notable and should not receive more coverage than a few lines. Certainly it does not deserve its a own long section. As far as I know physical anthropologists do not currently think of skull shape as something that correlates so strongly with geographic origin that they would venture this kind of guess without additional evidence. Skull shapes vary within any populations, especially one as large as the entire population of the Americas. It is not possible to ascribe continental origin based on any single physical trait. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's what she said in 2007[30], I can find nothing newer, and she doesn't mention Jomon, Ainu, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read that paper, and it makes no mention of anything related to pre-columbian contact at all. Like I said, the ONLY thing I found in her writings that was related was the "retraction" we both mentioned above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

She only talks about the dating. Again. It would appear the trail has run cold, for now. I think Penon Woman is notable if an anthropological section comes together, but without more recent follow ups it is what it is at the moment. I e-mailed her and asked several questions regarding the current state of Penon Woman and as of yet have no response. Not that I necessarily expect one, but it will be interesting if she does. I am going to put this topic on the back burner for now.

There is no "retraction" regarding Penon Woman. If you are referring to this again:[31] I would have to question your sincerity in this discussion as it has been made clear that she is not referring to Penon Woman in the section regarding DNA and skull type. You keep repeating this over and over again, and Doug Weller made the same mistake as well, yet you do not acknowledge the fact you are wrong, and ignore the fact you are and keep repeating it as if it were true when it is not. This seems like a bad joke to me.Thanos5150 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Theory of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact in Brazil

For material on the theory and variations proposed for Brazil, see pt:Teoria da presença de fenícios no Brasil. --Pdms (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization problem

Okay, most of the archeology section contained in the Polynesian section consists of evidence supporting european or egyptian contact. Obviously this shouldnt go under the polynesian contact section, but as of yet it seems to be the only section devoted to archaeological evidence, so i can see why this would cause confusion. It would be helpful for someone to reorganize the article such that the polynesian section only contained evidence supporting the polynesian theory, and other evidence be moved to its respective places. 69.134.9.155 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it by putting out the pepper and cocaine sections from Polynesian contact as these two condiments do not relate directly with Polynesians reaching the Americas.—Chiton magnificus (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:IMG 3512.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IMG 3512.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)