Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

So, who else discovered America.

  1. Feb 4, 2006 #1
    There is Columbus and the Vikings, now also the Chinese?

    http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=12 [Broken]

    Any more discoverers?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 4, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That's their point 1. Point 4 is "And the Maya are of course Chinese". Phooey. Find theose 18 "peoples". And do they mean "people", i.e. individuals, or "peoples", i.e. populations?
  4. Feb 4, 2006 #3
    the native americans but they may have been the second wave from asia
    the africans may have been here first based on olmec heads and DNA from
    terria del fugo people

    other claims of old world contac include many seafairers from phonican, roman, and irish but less proof any of these
  5. Feb 5, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I heard that Columbus found America by using the map of a (Muslim)chinese who had discovred America first.(perhaps that explains why China andOBL both has concentrated on US. 1 wants their lands, the other wants to convert them to Islam! :biggrin:)

    China map lays claim to Americas

    P.S. what I said first was the things that I heard in news. So I don't know if at this link there would be any mention of that!
  6. Feb 9, 2006 #5
    There is evidence, as curcumstancial as it is, that around 20,000 (17,000 was the number sited) years ago some of the neanderthalian/cromagnon hybrid people made their way to NorthAmerica via ice flows and shifting ice during winter and spring from the western coasts of what is today "Europe".

    The physical evidence of this forced-migration is found in the flint-knapping style of tools found in France and also on the east coast of North America, apparently dating from similar eras and being identical flint knapping in technique and in nature.

    The hypothesis is backed up by computer models of how, 17,000 years ago, ice formed a bridge from the Nova Scotia - Maryland coastlines to the Great Britian and the French coastlines. The story goes that the Neanderthal/Cromagnon hybrid people would use the ice to get food in winter since seals were abundant out on the ice, away from land-based preditors.

    Hunting parties would be out on the ice... 17,000 years ago.... and could easily have been marrooned out there on the bergs of ice by storms or high seas.

    The computer models show that, during that time, the currents in the Atlantic were running from east to west and could have easily carried any surviving seal hunters closer to the coasts of North America where they would naturally continue in their survival efforts and eventually populate the large, fertile continent. This would explain the strikingly similar tool making technology existing on both sides of the Atlantic from that time period.

    There are geneology records that seem to back up this hypothesis as well... making it more of a theory that explains the population of North America by humans. Cool eh?!
  7. Feb 19, 2006 #6


    User Avatar

  8. Feb 19, 2006 #7
    How about 250,000 years:


    or more than a million??


  9. Feb 20, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    At the end of the article in my previou post:
  10. Feb 20, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is of course the trivial fact that native americans were also ancient discoverers of the Americas :smile:

    Depends what you call a "discoverer"...
  11. Feb 20, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    At least I'm grateful that you didn't say the real discoverers were ants or other species that lived in Americas before humans! :smile:
  12. Mar 1, 2006 #11
    1.36 million year old tools found in Asia

    I suppose it could have been the Chinese who were here first, after all... they've had 1.36 million years to do it~.


    After having my personal account of the 800,000 bp Arabic find of a friend of mine removed/erased/censored from this thread... I thought I'd better myself and give a source from the almighty net for y'all. Thank you.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  13. Mar 6, 2006 #12
    Here's a related site to confirm National Geographic and Nature on the 1.36 million year old tools found in the Nihewan Basin, China.


    Magnetic dating! Who woulda thought!? This article explains the technique well with diagrams etc......
  14. Mar 6, 2006 #13
    Yes Magnetic dating is very commonly used for (multi)million time scales and has served as a imported calibration/verification tool for other dating methods.

    Here is an important example:


    Check figure 4, the bands below the graph with the names "Brunhes", "Matuayma", "jaramillo", "olduval" etc indicate periods (chrons) of opposite magnetic polarisation. The boundaries are dated reasonably well and can be compared with the magnetic orientation of new samples, to determine the ages by its chron boundaries.
  15. Mar 7, 2006 #14
    This is a nice turn of events. Mind you, magnetic dating won't help date more recent finds. Although, magnetic poles do move a fair distance over just 10s of thousands of years.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm [Broken]

    Around 80,000 years ago the magnetic north pole was more in the vicinity of Greenland and Iceland... today its more over northern Canada... and moving rapidly away toward Northern Alaska.

    I wonder if these shifts can be researched and documented enough then used to date more recent human activity, say, in the 100,000s of years category?

    I also wonder if reading stratas of lithospheric matrial or substrata for magnetically influenced direction is similar to taking an MRI reading where the protons of material can be discerned to be aligned in specific directions?

    The reason I'm so interested is because I was an archaeologist for 12 years here in the NW. There wasn't much money in the profession. However, today, corporations are more likely to do environmental and anthropological studies before beginning any big projects.

    I've spent many incredible years working to unravel the migration routes to North America (specifically the North West). Right now I can say that the "Bering Land Bridge" is about a 70-90% sure route while the route north from South America (DNA and Linquistial matches with the Tolmec and Olmec and Nishga FirstNations) is a definite 99% sure bet. Arrival via the Pacific is again a 99% sure bet with DNA and linguistical similarities showing up in the NW Haida FirstNations as related to the Hawiians. Can you dig it (pun intended)!?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Mar 16, 2006 #15
    from quantumcarl,

    There's no evidence of any such critter, not even in our genes.
  17. Mar 16, 2006 #16
    Analyzing evidence takes expertise, money and time...

    Please read the reputable article(s) and you may find some of the reactions to the discovery interesing as well:

    Neandertal-Cro-Magnon Hybrid?
    Analysis of skeletal remains buried in a Portuguese rock-shelter has yielded startling evidence that early modern humans and Neandertals may have interbred.

    Evolution - June 1999: Re: More balance on claimed Neandertal-Modern
    and if this turns out to be a Neandertal-CroMagnon hybrid, it will be a minor exception that proves the rule. GM>If anti-evolutionists would ...


    Evolution - June 1999: Re: More balance on claimed Neandertal ...
    >hypothesis, and if this turns out to be a Neandertal-CroMagnon hybrid, ... >hybrid was the product of Neanderthal female-Cro-Magnon male mating, for ...


    More results from www.asa3.org

    Please respond with references that defend your comment claiming that there is no evidence of Neandertal genetics in the genome of modern man.

    Do you have references that report on the genome of Neandertals?
    Do you have references that show the absence of Neandertal genes in modern humans?
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2006
  18. Mar 20, 2006 #17

    Interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans is a tantalizing subject, but I think the evidence so far shows that even if it was possible, it was either minimal or non-existant.

    I read the archeology.org link and saw that it was based on visual interpretation of the skeleton, that is, it "looks" like it's part Neandertal. I also found these opponents of Trinkhaus's claims:

    Christopher B. Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, a proponent of a theory of more recent human origins in Africa, disagrees. The fossil youngster may be an unusually stocky modern human, Stringer holds. Even if further analysis confirms its hybrid status, he suspects that prehistoric interbreeding rarely occurred. Numerous fossils of early modern humans show no signs of Neandertal contacts, Stringer notes.

    Another out-of-Africa advocate, Jeffrey H. Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh, views the fossil child as a modern human who possibly suffered growth abnormalities that created a bulky lower body. "I don't see any evidence of hybridization," Schwartz remarks.

    As for the absence of Neandertal genes in modern humans:

    While the authors explain that it's impossible to definitively conclude that no genetic flow occurred between early humans and Neandertals given the limited number of early human fossils available, they point out that even fossil samples considered as anatomically transitional between modern humans and Neandertals failed to show evidence of mtDNA exchange.

    These differences put the Neandertal genome well outside the limits of modern humans. Another interesting result is that the mtDNA sequence seemed equally distant from all modern groups of humans. In particular, it did not seem to be more closely related to Europeans, something that might have been expected if, as some scientists think, Neandertals were at least partly ancestral to them.

    The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.
  19. Mar 20, 2006 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There do not appear to be any DNA tests which have confirmed a hybrid cro-magnum/neandertal mix.

    Here are posts from another thread this was discussed in.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  20. Mar 20, 2006 #19
    Thank you for these references they're a great collection of data on the genome of a small sample of Neandertal subjects...

    The studie's conclusions are based on a minimal and narrow sampling of mtDNA from 5 subjects that have been "fossilized". 1 is from 100,000 years ago, 1 is from 29,000 ya and is a child and there are 3 others. Its not enough of a sample. Its highly probable that none of these subjects nor their lineage ever interbred with humans..... but there's no doubt that others did... if only very few of them.

    A very select few Neadertals would have been chosen by the Cromagnon for "romantic purposes". And it would be this select group that would have contributed genetics to the modern human genome. When this select group of Neandertals is found, their genetic sequencing will not be found to be as distant from the human genome as is thought.

    You will note that the first sentence of the conclusion to this study at www.talkorigins.org doesn't rule out human neandertal interbreeding....

    This is because of the minimal nature of their sampling and how they can't rule out the diversity of the neandertal genome and how a few select features of their genes have probably made it into our own.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2006
  21. Mar 21, 2006 #20
    You're welcome for the references to human subjects. :wink:

    Yes, the studies are slim but they're all we have so far. I prefer to go with what they suggest.
  22. Mar 22, 2006 #21
    I wouldn't put too much stock in the Talk Origins site where they are debating the Creation Myth and Evolution. As I've said, the studies only examine a narrow sample. Researchers have been shown, many times, to skew results, especially when their from an incomplete sample, to please some official like Springer from an institution like the Natrual History Museum of London. These types of institutes and there staff have the most to lose if they are shown to be incorrect in their theories and so their defences become more important than the truth.

    As for "Who Else Discovered America"... how about the Egyptians?

    They definitely had a Trade Route with South America... this is evident in the findings of Dr Svetla Balabanova. Who was running chemical analysis' on some verified and certified mummies from 3000 years ago.

    Read the whole article @

    South America is a stone's throw from North America and there is a high probablility that Egyptians travelled the Trade Route from Egypt to South Amercia... for whatever reasons, then, perhaps explored further North to North America... thus, becoming one or the many groups of "Who Else Discovered (North) America".

    In fact, there are as yet unconfirmed reports of an Egyptian-like complex in the Grand Canyon:

    Read the article on its whereabouts and the 1909 article about it from the Arizona Gazzette:

  23. Mar 22, 2006 #22


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "... but that these drugs come from tobacco and coca ...."

    Objection! Author is leading the reader! The desired inference is that nicotine and cocaine can be found only in tobacco and coca leaves, and that just ain't the case.
  24. Mar 22, 2006 #23
    Please let us know what other plants are documented to contain nicotine and cocaine... specifically from the region around Egypt.
  25. Mar 22, 2006 #24


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~lrockwoo/Plantherbivoreinteractionssp02.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  26. Mar 22, 2006 #25

    Talkorigins has an agenda, but typical of the site, the article was well-researched (check the references at the end) and is representative of what I found among other serious, not just speculative, sites.

    The idea of Egyptians travelling to and trading with the Americas is intriguing (and more plausible than Neandertal/Cro-Magnon hybrids), but the specific evidence is hardly conclusive right now. Speculating is fun but rumours of a lost "oriental" cavern in the Grand Canyon can hardly be called supporting evidence.

    So far it's impossible to pin down just who was here first, but there's a lot of initial evidence cropping up that Native Americans were not the original settlers. The link to a European lineage in the DNA of Ojibway Indians about 15,000 years ago is pretty tantalizing but still not conclusive.

    The best evidence so far, I think, is from the southern tip of the Baja Peninsula where, amazingly, it appears remnants of an earlier migration to the Americas were actually still living when the Spaniards arrived. (Sorry if you know this already, but a lot of people don't and I like to tell it :smile: ) Jesuit missionaries noted that the two tribes there, the Pericues and the Guaycura, were physically different--longer, narrower head shape, for example--from other tribes and spoke a language unrelated to any in the area.
    http://www.bajacalifologia.org/english/doc.north.htm [Broken]

    Unfortunately, the civilizing influence of the missionaries was so successful that the Pericues had soon completely died out, and the last Guaycura died around 1900. The issue remained unresolved--until the Golden Age of DNA Analysis:

    The fact that there were probably living descendents of an earlier migration walking around in the 1800's is amazing to me, as is the fact that we ground them out of existence.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook