Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Could Ottomans have made contact?

In Piri Reis map, the Antarctic Coast is somewhat shown. Thinking that the Drake Passage found in 1578, Ottomans could have made contact to the Antartic. Ömer Miraç (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Roman Jars in Brazil's Bay of Jars

Channel 4's Mystery of the Cocaine Mummies (seemingly called 'Curse of the Cocaine Mummies' in this article) mentions Roman jars supposedly found in a shipwrecked Roman ship in a place in Brazil called Bay of Jars. The sceptic quoted on the program didn't question their genuineness, merely saying that one possibly stray ship is not proof of regular trans-oceanic trade. I think this should probably go into the Roman section, though I'm not quite sure how best to word it, particularly as I suspect other sceptics would have questioned whether they were really Roman and/or whether they were genuinely found in Brazil, and/or whether they weren't just ship-wrecked while being imported by some post-Columban European colonist, but I have no 'reliable source' to support my suspicions. Anybody got any ideas on how to say it? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably not without getting into conspiracy theories about the Brazilian government covering things up. The issue's a mess - where are they, how do we know they weren't just ballast, salted,relatively modern, etc. This is the brain child of Robert F. Marx who thinks "White Gods "figure in almost every indigenous culture in the Americas." Not the most trustworthy of sources. You might want to look at this overview[1] - that shows what a mess this is. There's also [2] although how accurate it is I'm not sure, seeing how the NYT made a hash of a recent scientific report on a genetic study getting the basic things all wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Trans-oceanic travel from the New World

Inuit and Arctic peoples

I think it's important to distinguish between peoples encountered in Greenland, in Northern Canada, and in more southerly North America; and in each case if possible to distinguish between Inuit/Inuit-type people and 'Native Americans'. I think it is misleading to describe Inuit as 'Native Americans', as they are distinct from the tribes and cultures commonly referred to with that term. This has further relevance to determining exactly where Norsemen traveled. The subtitle 'Inuit and Arctic peoples' is exclusionary of mention of non-Inuit and non-Arctic peoples i.e. 'Native Americans' who had contact with the Norse and lived further south, such as in the vicinity of Vínland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.180.5 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is substantial evidence for Inuit and other American Arctic peoples arriving in Europe prior to Columbus' voyage. - What is this evidence?

In 1009, Norse explorer Thorfinn Karlsefni captured two boys from Markland (Labrador) and took them to Greenland, where they were taught to speak Norse and baptized. - So were they Inuit? Other Arctic people? Or 'Native Americans'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.180.5 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Those chickens - claim of contact seems to have been based on contaminated results

See [3]: "The study, led by the University of Adelaide's Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD) and published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, reveals that previous claims of contact between early Polynesians and South America were probably based on contaminated results. Instead, the new study has identified and traced a unique genetic marker of the original Polynesian chickens that is only present in the Pacific and Island Southeast Asia." Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuente Magna removed (and replaced by Til)

I removed:The Fuente Magna, also known as the Fuente Bowl, is a large stone vessel, resembling a libation bowl. It is asserted to have been found in the 1950s by a worker from the CHUA Hacienda near Tiwanaku, west of La Paz, Bolivia. The inscription has been claimed to contain Sumerian writing, and is said to resemble that on the later found Pokotia Monolith. It resides in a small museum in Calle Jaén, La Paz, Bolivia; Museo de metales preciosos "Museo de Oro"..

The only source is a fringe publication. It is not discussed so far as I can find in reliable sources. WP:UNDUE is policy and there is no evidence that this is significant outside a few fringe publications. It isn't attributed but the author is an Alberto Marini, claimed to be an expert in Sumerian, but I can't find any evidence for that. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Greenland

FWIW, Greenland is part of North America, by general tradition (check any popular atlas), by geography (it's separated from the islands of the Canadian Arctic only by a narrow strait) and ethnically (it was inhabited in prehistoric times by people who were, essentially, Eskimos). So the second sentence:

Only one instance of pre-Columbian European contact – the Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada c. 1000 AD – is established beyond reasonable doubt.[2][3]

is not technically correct, and can't be corrected just by adding "mainland" since Newfoundland is also an island. Not sure how to correct this without adding a complicate sentence to the lede, but if someone wants to take a stab at this they should. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Also, Ellesmere Island has "Vikings from the Greenland colonies reached Ellesmere Island...". Dunno if this is terribly important, but we shouldn't say wrong things. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Section

Because there is a label called Fringe theories does it mean everything inside of it is Fringe? Ivan Van Setima might be fringe but why is the Atlantic adventures of the Mansa included in Fringe? Nothing there is fringe, it is a historical report. It also does not say they made contact. It just say this is what happened. The problem i have is everything in that section is tainted with the word Fringe, even when some of the evidence is not fringe. While it might be used by Fringe historians. --Inayity (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Fringe" is inappropriately pejorative. Although called "theories", these are really hypotheses. Renaming the section "Hypotheses" would correct both problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please restructure to oldest first

Which should allow some clarity. As it is, its a mish mash of various ethnicities. I support G Mendez claim and feel it has sufficient offered proof. He has much antagonism when he has talks at national institutions here in America. Wiki burying his info in much later claims does a disservice to Wiki.--24.50.151.151 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible new genetic evidence of Polynesian/South American contact

I just read an article on Reuters (here) which seems to demonstrate conclusively that there was contact between the inhabitants of Easter Island and South America around the time of Columbus (1300 to 1500). It seems like they've demonstrated it fairly conclusively, but I don't want to jump the gun by making edits to the article (especially since I'm already inclined to believe in Polynesian contact, and therefore can't be certain of my objectivity). Nevertheless, I figured I'd link the article here for review by other editors in the event that this claim is indeed substantiated and (eventually) deemed to warrant moving the Polynesians from "possible" to "confirmed" on the list.--Witan (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum It appears the two studies which are referenced in the article were both published this month (October 2014) in the journal Current Biology, which Wikipedia does list as being a peer-reviewed journal.--Witan (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Use them in the article. Much better than news reports. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Only 26 km from Greenland to Canada

Removed from the article... although the shortest distance from Greenland to Canada is only 26 kilometres (over the Nares Strait to Ellesmere Island), the shortest distance from Greenland to Baffin Island (which is thought by some to be the Norse Helluland) is 330 kilometres, and the shortest distance from Greenland to Newfoundland (which is thought by some to be the Norse Vínland) is 1,100 kilometres. The "26 km" figure is not really relevant to the Norse contact. The Norse contact is perfectly plausible without it. -- leuce (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Norse trans-oceanic contact

The section used to be called "Confirmed Norse trans-oceanic contact" but I removed the word "confirmed" because the section deals with both confirmed and non-confirmed contact. I also moved the second paragraph (which is about the sagas) down to join the fourth paragraph (which is also about the sagas), so that the first two paragraphs of the section relate to actual historical and archaeological evidence and the last two paragraphs deal with evidence that is at a similar level as many other claims, i.e. oral traditions and tales of trans-oceanic voyages.

I accept the Norse claims, but let's be honest: the sagas are oral traditions, and we don't know for certain that Helluland, Markland and Vinland are lands that are separate from modern-day Greenland (for that to be true, we'd have to assume that the Vikings circumnavigated Greenland and Baffin Island and we have to assume that the Vikings have used the name "Greenland" for the whole island of modern-day Greenland).

The only thing that links Vinland to L'Anse aux Meadows is the fact that there is an archaeological site at L'Anse aux Meadows and the fact that L'Anse aux Meadows is south of Baffin Island. That's it. No-one doubts that L'Anse aux Meadows is a Norse settlement, but linking it to the sagas is simply speculation. --leuce (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed a large section of the L'Anse aux Meadows information because it is duplicated from the L'Anse aux Meadows article itself. -- leuce (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

good edit. thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Erdogan's comments

Well, now that Erdogan said that he believes that Columbus saw a mosque in Cuba, we can expect a lof of visits to this page. A nice starting point for trying to disprove the usual arguments in favour of it would be this page (I'm not saying it should be included in this article -- I'm just pointing to it here because it is relevant this month). --leuce (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

we should only include fringe viewpoints that have a measurable following / widespread and enduring notice not every crackpot who says something unbelievable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would agree with The Almightey Drill that this deserves at least a passing mention, since the president of Turkey is not usually a crackpot (unlike the presidents of some other countries). The specific myth that Erdogan holds to is not yet mentioned in this article, and it comes from a published source (other myths that have only one published source are also included in this page). -- leuce (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It may not be necessary to mention Erdogan at all, but the article does lack a section on the various claims of contact by North African muslims. If I remember, I'll write it in the next few days. -- leuce (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

to my surprise, i found it stated as fact in here. i thought Adams was generally a decent publisher? it looks like its also being made in [4] and [5] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The author of the book published by Adams is a converted Muslim[6] but it's inexcusable for a reputable publisher to allow that, calling Fell and Van Sertima examples of noted historians and archaeologists. Amazing. Jocelyne Cesari is even more shocking though. leuce, don't forget WP:SUMMARY as we have some relevant articles. I thought this might be about Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad which was just edited by someone removing an unsourced statement (which sadly I can't source) but it seems to relate more directly to the Sung Document which is also mentioned at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, 1170s and 1178. Also mentioned in the article is Abu Bakr II. These could all benefit from more watchers.

• I dont think it is necessary to mention Erdogan, given that he is not an expert in anything remotely related to the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Referring to a more reliable source one could perhaps add something like "In 2006 the Turkish historian of science Fuat Sezgin argued that several Islamic sources and early-European maps suggest that the American continent had been known to Muslim seafarers as early as the 10th cent." AstroLynx (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

On Bartolomé de las Casas' claims

I've removed this text: "According to Bartolomé de las Casas, two dead bodies that looked like those of Indians were found on the Portuguese Flores Island in the Azores. He said he found that fact in Columbus's notes, and it was one reason why Columbus presumed that India was on the other side of the ocean.<ref>De Las Casas, Bartolomé; Pagden, Anthony (September 8, 1999). A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indias. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-044562-5.</ref>" because I find no mention of this story in Bartolomé de las Casas' account (which is available at Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20321/pg20321.txt). Oh, and why is the date given as 1999? The account was written by Bartolomé de las Casas in 1552. -- leuce (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Polynesian "claims" still being called "claims"

With the genetic testing of the sweet potatoes, the radiocarbon dating them from well before the 15th century I think we can all safely say that the skeptics are just being stubborn. There are few things in this field of study that are absolute but genetic testing and radiocarbon dating is pretty absolute. Unless someone can tell me why Sweet Potatoes would be in Polynesia literally centuries before Columbus than the only conclusion I can reach is that they landed in South America and traded for them. At this point I think we can safely say that the Polynesians did make it to the New World. I find it bizarre that the article still thinks this is up for debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 December 2014‎

Provide a WP:reliable source please and then we can discuss the particulars. Snow talk 05:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are still unsubstantiated claims that have not been met with general acceptance. Untill general sources on the history of precolumbian Latin America start referencing this as fact, we will have to continue calling them claims or something similar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mormon archaeology? Seriously?

Why not list Scientology sources as well? I'm sure that there are some. After all, we all came here in spaceships or whatever.--89.146.182.155 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Once upon a time I deleted that section, based on the logic that the purported immigration to America, as featured in the Book of Mormon, wasn't "contact" because the immigrants didn't go back. However, others saw fit to put the section back, based on the understandable argument that this is a notable "theory" (much more so than anything that Scientologists may have said). I have no problem keeping it, based on notability.--Other Choices (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be on the project, based on notability of the issue, and it is discussed prominently in Mormonism and likely elsewhere. However, it's incredibly dubious that it belongs in this article, based on WP:Weight, given the historical/empirical validity given to the claim is not at all supported in expert literature on such matters, and it is thus WP:Fringe as a matter of historical record (as opposed to the Mormon scriptural record that gives it relevance to articles in that vein). The tone of that section muddies the water even further by not making this distinction clear. It's a pity you've resolved yourself to that section staying, because I'd fully support an effort to see it go (or at least reduced to short reference Wikilinking to Mormonism or another appropriate article. Again, it's a matter of weight, and WP:NPOV broadly -- serious research on the topic of trans-oceanic contact does not talk about the Mormon claim, or only does so to dismiss it as unsupportable; thus our article should not discuss it, or should only do so to note that it has been dismissed. Snow (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of trimming it to a short reference linking to Mormonism, with a note that it has been dismissed in the academic community.--Other Choices (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this fight has been going on for years. All I'm saying is put it in or take it out, because the current status of having it in there couched in non-academic hit piece links to how stupid it is is POV and inappropriate. Like it or not, there are millions of people who believe it (unlike the other legends in the article), and Mormons are well-represented in archaeological circles. So being an armchair quarterback and calling them all idiots unless you academically outrank them is (again POV and inappropriate.) --Mrcolj (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree with the "removal" camp as well. The book of Mormon on it's own doesn't count as evidence. Hell, the section itself is pretty much just a refutation of the ideas presented in Mormon archeology. I Feel Tired (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the above posters have completely misunderstood the inclusion of Mormon archaeology on this page. It is NOT about Joseph Smith himself, it is about Mormons going on digs to try and substantiate claims. The claims of these archaeologists, even if one considers them pseudo-scientific, are well-documented, fairly well funded and have a considerable literature. (Scientology is a straw man here - it doesn't do archaeological digs, and AFAIK makes no claims about trans-oceanic contact, with a supposed academic base.)

Secondly, Mormon archaeologists have made claims and finds which are not directly tied into the Book of Mormon. The interpretation is the controversial part. (There are supposed linguists doing research in this area). This knocks down the argument - "The book of Mormon on it's [sic] own doesn't count as evidence".

Yes, it is perfectly viable to question the scientific credentials of these people, but to ignore this matter completely is silly in this context. The better solution is to mention these claims, and then discuss how they are not accepted outside that community.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

North Pacific Crossings

"Claims of contact other than the Norse settlement of Greenland and the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement in Newfoundland[2] are generally controversial and considered debatable. These claims are often based on circumstantial or ambiguous evidence. The scientific responses to such pre-Columbian contact claims range from dealing with it in peer-reviewed publications to outright dismissal as fringe science or pseudoarcheology.[3][4]"

I am being a pedant here, but as I understand it, there is some mainstream acceptance of North Pacific crossings. These would entail boat crossings from Kamchatka, say, to continental North America, through the Aleutians instead of across the Bering Strait. The Aleutian arc and Bering Strait may look close together on the map but in actual fact they are hundreds of miles apart, as far apart as California and British Columbia. In a small boat in rough weather. the distances would feel formidable. This crossing counts as being as much "trans-Oceanic" as Norse island hopping was. (As for the Bering Strait itself, there was continuous traffic across it for millenia, except during the Cold War) -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple serious issues with regard to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT in subsection "claims based on linguistic evidence"

I'm surprised this one got by the astute, and generally WP:Fringe-wary, fact checkers that are frequently active on this page, actually. This paragraph is a mess of insufficiently verified claims. First off, the entire thing is based off of one primary source, which is not nearly significant enough to support the notion that such extraordinary linguistic claims are indicative of an established theory significant enough to warrant mention here (see verification, reliable source, primary sourcing, and weight guidelines). We'd need mutliple substantial independent, secondary sources that support these claims in order to add them and I rather tend to doubt that even a significant minority of linguists would endorse these claims since two cognates is not going to be seen by most academics in this field as constituting "near proof of incidental contact". Again, this is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sourcing. Presently, we have no (appropriate) sourcing.

Even worse yet than these issues, there are more specific claims being made on the basis of nothing more than POLLEX listings that are textbook cases of original research/synthesis: "According to POLLEX-Online, Proto-Polynesian *toki 'adze, axe'[11] has an accepted Proto-Austronesian etymology, which implies that the similarities are either accidental, or at most, in some cases, the word was borrowed from Polynesian into South American languages. Nevermind the fact that this statement is skeptical in the same direction that I am skeptical with regard to the previous claims made, it's still original research. So is the above point about *kumala unless it's representative of a source (in which case the POLLEX links still should go as they still represent inappropriate sourcing).

In truth, I'm doubtful this section can be salvaged at all. I think it ought to probably be removed in it's entirety unless additional sourcing is supplied. Snow talk 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Adelaar's mention of this is notable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh, you want to be more specific? How does one primary source establish that this is a theory considered to have significant weight in mainstream academia? Sorry, but I don't see the policy argument there. In any event, we're not talking about WP:Notability, we're talking about WP:Verifiability (and a host of other policies this content is not really consistent with. Snow talk 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability is obviously not in question since Adelaar mentions it in Languages of the Andes, which is the main scholarly work about Andean languages. The question is if it is notable enough to include per WP:WEIGHT. And the fact that Adelaar mentions it in this highly important book means that is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an extraordinary claim that receives no broad treatment in academia and is only mentioned in one academic's (primary) works. I don't see how that makes for anything but a shortfall with regard to WP:V. No matter the prominence we do or do not ascribe to the book in question, that's a sourcing issue. But, all of that being said...(see bellow) Snow talk 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do tend to agree that devoting a section to Adelaar and Muysken's mention of these two words is undue - basically we give it more space than they do in the book. A line would likely be enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

...that does seem like a good compromise solution. It addresses the SYNTH and WEIGHT issues, which are the most significant to my mind. I'm not so sure the theory is mainstream enough to warrant any mention at all, but I'll support this reasonable middle-ground approach all the same. Snow talk 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This would be another source to include:

• • Adelaar, W. F. (1998). The name of the sweet potato: A case of pre-conquest contact between South America and the Pacific. TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS STUDIES AND MONOGRAPHS, 116, 403-412. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the nature of this article....its a dumping ground for others articles. -- Moxy (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The consistent instability and recurrent issues of this page have made me more than once question the encyclopedic value of grouping all of these disparate topics into one loosely affiliated article, with the result that someone wants to add every little fringe theory in between the significantly accepted or widely-discussed events and claims. I think the rule of thumb we ought to be operating under here is that if a given theory couldn't support its own article in terms of sourcing and notability requirements, it shouldn't be treated here. Snow talk 07:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We just have to deal with the issues. As a topic, it's discussed in enough sources to be notable. But I agree that if a given theory/hypothesis doesn't have its own article it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually examining the sources earlier to see if the concept of an over-arching approach to these various accounts and theories is actually reflected within them. If not, I think there's an argument to be made for not combining the various disparate events covered here. But I did so mostly out of abstract interest; I know it would certainly be a WP:SNOW issue to try to remove this page on such a nuanced interpretation of WP:N. Frankly it will be all we can do just to remove those theories which do not (and could not) support their own articles. (And needless to say it will be a constant battle to keep them from working their way back in, but that's the nature of the beast). Snow talk 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A conversion to something along the lines of an Subject Index page might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Romans

Under the section on the Romans we have this:

"The Bay of Jars in Brazil has been yielding ancient clay storage jars that resemble Roman amphorae[63] for over 150 years. It has been proposed that the origin of these jars is a Roman wreck, although it has been suggested that they could be 15th or 16th century Spanish olive oil jars."

I thought these jars have been conclusively identified as Roman amphorae by a Dr. Will. Furthermore, WHO suggested that they could be 15th or 16th century Spanish olive oil jars. This statement is made without any citation. Here are some articles on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1038045/posts

http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2012/02/lowly-amphora-and-ancient-contact.html

The whole approach to this article is to slant the discussion away from any possibility that anyone other than the Norse arrived before Columbus.

The amphorae found off the coast of Brazil would seem to be solid evidence that Romans were in America well over a thousand years before Columbus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If they are Roman, we still don't know if they got there in Roman vessel that sailed there deliberately, was blown off-course across the Atlantic and was shipwrecked there, possibly with all hands lost, or was brought there as ballast (something that is actually quite possible) by post-Columbus ship. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

When you say there these amphorae may have been brought as ballast--"something that is quite possible"--what is your citation for this? The author of the second article I posted points out that there are "thousands of data points" that support pre-Columbian contact, and establishment archaeologists find some way to dismiss them all. Why? And why would explorers 12 hundred years later being using ballast from ancient Roman societies?

http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2011/09/calixtlahuaca-head.html

There's always something. The Roman head must have been put there as a joke, etc, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've let myself get sucked into an arguement that doesn't belong here. We simply base our article on reliable sources which means in most cases for this topic academic. And not stuff like your blogspot. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly where the argument belongs, because we are talking about the veracity of the claims made here. Dr. Elizabeth Will is an academic archaeologist. She identified the amphorae as Roman from 2000 years ago. She is a reliable source. For political reasons, the government of Brazil shut down further archeological investigation of the site, covering over the finds with silt. This is the same kind of censorship you seem to be advocating.

http://pamle.blogspot.com/2008/06/romans-in-brazil-during-second-third.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.61.129 (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But the tone is not Encyclopedic.

Such proposals are often based on wild claims about archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts that seem to be about trans-oceanic voyages. As for the word WILD, which should not be there, it does not occur anywhere in the body of the article. Also "comments in Historical documents" What does that mean, and Narrative accounts that seem..". It is not properly written and needs serious revision just in terms of good prose. --Inayity (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of trade with East Asia 1000 years ago

See [7] Bronze artefacts and some obsidian which came from Russia ""We're seeing the interactions, indirect as they are, with these so-called 'high civilizations' of China, Korea or Yakutia," a region in Russia, Mason said." Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would vote in favor adding this to this article (under "East Asian-Alaska contact" if it can't fit under any pre-existing section). Though it is stated in that Live Science article you cite that the team at the Rising Whale site will be presenting their research at the Canadian Archaeological Association on April 28-May 2 so it might be wise to wait until after that time in which hopefully more details will be revealed. Fuelsaver (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We should wait. I said that earlier about the discovery of tools older than any found before (3.5mya I think). It's too early. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Conference has passed. Does anyone know if Dr. Mason and his team revealed any other findings?

Some theories over Polynesias, brought chicken and potato. Trade links with Yakutia, Polynesia, Korea and China. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/who-discovered-america.html http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/chinese-beat-columbus. http://mysteriousaustralia.com/chinesediscoverers.html htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769708/Map-shows-Marco-Polo-discovered-America-13th-century-200-years-Christopher-Columbus.html http://www.livescience.com/50506-artifacts-reveal-pre-columbus-trade.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.87.41 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is as least the 2nd time someone's tried to promote buzzle.com. I'm not sure what it is, looks crowd sourced. In any case, the only source that comes close to meeting WP:RS is the last one. When there's a an official report about the Alaska work and some response we can use it. That there was trade across the Bering Strait seems a certainty. How much, where from, who did the trading, all interesting questions. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent Roman contact claims

First, this isn't a news article and we shouldn't be responding immediately to newspaper stories, which often in any case either get things wrong or give incomplete coverage - their role is to sell papers, not to publish scientific findings, remmber. The sword stuff is just nonsense, there are similar swords available elsewhere, eg on ebay.[8] The Roman shield boss was discovered in 1792 in England.[9] Of all the Oak Island claims, this has less credibility than most and at least at the moment I don't think it belongs. See also [10]and [11].

The "Ancient Artifact Preservation Society"[12] is just another fringe group, sponsored in part by the Mormon Wayne May. His magazine reflects an LDS perspective also.[13].

A bit more on J Hutton Pulitzer, who seems to be the man behind all of this. He's the inventor of the CueCat. Another Colavito post.[14] Here's some of his self-published material on Amazon.[15] He is certainly a good publicist. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pulitizer is litigious so please be careful. But I can quote him about the sword. At one of his websites he wrote " The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas." He even linked to our article True north. But of course magnets point to the North Magnetic Pole. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also a reference to a Roman shipwreck. Do we have any information on this? That would be harder to dismiss.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention but no evidence, see[16]. I've seen several websites say there's no known shipwreck near Oak Island but he claims there is. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oak Island tv program announced the sword wasn't Roman. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

South America

Vvven added: Some researchers speculate that certain petroglyphs of South America it relating to symbols of writing at style of the runes, eg Nazca Lines in Perú, in Brazil, Paraguay and Tucuman and Córdoba (Argentina), such vestiges are untranslatable in any native language, but similar to Viking languages, of which deducted a contact between the Scadinavians and local populations. Although such assumptions are not accepted by some other archaeologists.

It has also considered other runes found in North America (eg Kensington runes or Oklahoma runes) it were allegedly made by descendants populations of Scandinavians.

References

I removed it and Vvven is arguing that the sources are acceptable (except for the website). "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev is from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is one of the sources that suppor this theory, other one as Mariana Accornero is a author of books specialized towards the artistic manifestations of the Indigenous of the Americas, and the latter Miguel Angel Scenna (1924-1981) was an renowned Argentinian historian "He published many books and articles, among which stand out for its impact. He was a regular contributor to the magazine Everything is History, directed by Felix Luna, where he published many articles. He was considered a moderate member of the revisionist trend.". some even could be more valid resources than other many in the hiphotesis sections in the article-"

I'm asking for quotes from these authors to make sure what they actually say. I don't understand what the University of Texas refers to in the reference which says "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas: myths and realities University of Texas. Pub. Abya-Yala, 1992 pages 186 et seq." Hopefully Vvven can explain this. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, are theses views significant? I can't find any sources mentioning these authors connected with these views. Are there other reliable sources? Articles are meant to present "all of the significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sources on a topic." - done in accordance with WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

So how prominent are these views "in the published, reliable sources." Doug Weller talk 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Chinese 'claims' now quite well backed

See recent additions. Elevate to non-'claim' suffixed section title? prat (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why. What is there that's so convincing about Chinese claims to have visited North America? And the Cape Espenberg material is in the wrong place as no one has claimed that this involved the Chinese visiting North America. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, and the lead: " visits to, the discovery of or interaction with the Americas and/or indigenous peoples of the Americas by people from Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania", nothing in the Cape Espenberg material seems to say that Asians visited North America, so I'm going to remove it tomorrow unless someone shows I'm wrong. We know there was trade and share culture over the Bering Strait during the last 4000 or so years. See this discussion in the archives. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Judean Jews

Why is this listed under Europe instead of Middle East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.183.155 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)