So, who else discovered America.

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #1
4,465
72
There is Columbus and the Vikings, now also the Chinese?

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

.... DNA tests show that in the Americas today there are 18 peoples whose forebears were settlers from Zheng He’s fleets. These people have lived separate lives to other native Indian peoples from that day to this. Many still understand Chinese and practise Chinese customs. China had thus settled the Americas before Columbus set sail - and done so on a grand scale.....
Any more discoverers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
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?
 
  • #3
174
0
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
 
  • #4
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
96
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!
 
  • #5
755
0
ray b said:
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
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
4,465
72
quantumcarl said:
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".
... Cool eh?!
How about 250,000 years:

http://www.alternativescience.com/evolution_gallery.htm

In the late 1960s Dr Viriginia Steen-McIntyre and Harold Malde, both of the U.S. Geological Survey and Roald Fryxell of Washington State University, were working under a grant from the National Science Foundation at a site called Hueyatlaco (pronounced way-at-larko) 75 miles south east of Mexico City.

Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues found very sophisticated stone tools there, rivalling the best work of Cro-Magnon man in Europe (similar to the design illustrated here.) The scientists applied four dating methods to the finds and the strata in which they were found: uranium series dating; fission track dating; tephra hydration dating and mineral weathering study. The four methods yielded a unanimous date of around 250,000 years.

This finding fundamentally contradicts the belief of anthropology not only in the New World but regarding the whole history of mankind. People capable of making the kind of stone tools found at Hueyatlaco are thought not to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago, in Africa. Steen-McIntyre's findings were first ridiculed and then quietly forgotten about.
or more than a million??

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/30_fp.shtml

Alleged footprints of early Americans found in volcanic rock in Mexico are either extremely old - more than 1 million years older than other evidence of human presence in the Western Hemisphere - or not footprints at all, according to a new analysis published this week in Nature.

...

In all, the British team claims to have found 250 footprints - mostly human, but also dog, cat and cloven-hoofed animal prints - in a layer of volcanic ash deposited in a former lake bed now exposed near a reservoir outside Puebla. Its dating techniques returned a date of 40,000 years ago,
...
 
  • #8
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
96
Mk said:
I think that map was discredited as a fake recently.
Intersting!


At the end of the article in my previou post:
Controversial claim

The map was bought for about $500 from a Shanghai dealer in 2001 by a Chinese lawyer and collector, Liu Gang.

According to the Economist magazine, Mr Liu only became aware of the map's potential significance after he read a book by British author Gavin Menzies.

The book, 1421: The Year China discovered the World, made the controversial claim that a Chinese admiral and eunuch, Zheng He, sailed around the world and discovered America on the way.

Zheng He, a Muslim mariner and explorer, is widely thought to have sailed around South East Asia and India, but the claim he visited America is hotly disputed.

The map is now being tested to check the age of its paper and ink, with the results due to be known in February.

Even if it does prove to have been drawn in 1763, sceptics will point out that we still only have the mapmaker's word that he copied if from a 1418 map, rather than from a more recent one.
 
  • #9
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
Andre said:
Any more discoverers?
There is of course the trivial fact that native americans were also ancient discoverers of the Americas :smile:

Depends what you call a "discoverer"...
 
  • #10
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
96
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:
 
  • #11
755
0
1.36 million year old tools found in Asia

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

National Geographic said:
The stone tools were found in China's Nihewan Basin. During the period when they were used, 1.36 million years ago, much of the area was covered by a large lake that was ringed with forests of birch and elm trees. Mammals such as hippopotamuses, hyenas, rhinoceroses, and horses roamed the area.

While the climate was probably humid and warm most of the time, the area is thought to have experienced bouts of cold and dry weather. To settle in the region, early humans would have had to adapt to this climate fluctuation.

The stone tools are an indication of that early ability to thrive in a variable climate. They show that "early humans could live in a wide range of climate conditions," said one of the researchers, Rixiang Zhu of the Institute of Geology and Physics at the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing. He and his collaborators published a report on their findings in the September 27 issue of Nature.
From:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0926_asiantools.html

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:
  • #12
755
0
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.

http://www.athenapub.com/stotochin.htm

Magnetic dating! Who woulda thought!? This article explains the technique well with diagrams etc......
 
  • #13
4,465
72
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:

http://www.lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

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.
 
  • #14
755
0
Andre said:
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:

http://www.lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

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.
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:
  • #15
53
0
from quantumcarl,

Neanderthal/Cromagnon hybrid people
There's no evidence of any such critter, not even in our genes.
 
  • #16
755
0
Tojen said:
There's no evidence of any such critter, not even in our genes.
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.
www.archaeology.org/online/news/neanderkid.html

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 ...

www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199906/0315.html

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 ...

www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199906/0346.html

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:
  • #17
53
0
quantumcarl,

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.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_8_99/fob7.htm


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.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020080


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.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html
 
  • #18
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,818
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.

Still, there is one more resource that is discovered in 1998 – mitochondrial DNA. The mtDNA of an apparently mixed Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon child discovered in Lapedo, Portugal in 1998 have yielded evidence that the Neanderthal and H. sapiens lines diverged 550,000 to 690,000 years ago.
Evo said:
Actually this child, referred to as the Lagar Velho child, has never been tested for DNA.

"Will DNA be extracted from the specimen?

All destructive analyses have to be justified in terms of potential empirical results, current technology, and interpretability. We are in contact with S. Pääbo regarding DNA extraction, but a decision has yet to be made as to whether we will attempt this in the near future (especially given the contamination of the bones seen in the attempted direct AMS radiocarbon dating). Moreover, we feel that it is necessary to establish a meaningful evolutionary framework for the interpretation of any ancient DNA that might be extracted from the specimen."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache.../1999/lapedo/lapedofaq+Lagar+Velho+dna&hl=en"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
755
0
Tojen said:
quantumcarl,

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.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_8_99/fob7.htm


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.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020080


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.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html
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....

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans.
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:
  • #20
53
0
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.
 
  • #21
755
0
Tojen said:
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.
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.

Then four years ago a German scientist, Dr Svetla Balabanova, made a discovery which was to baffle Egyptologists, and call into question whole areas of science and archeology to chemistry and botany.

She discovered that the body of Henut Taui (3000 year old Egyptian mummie) contained large quantities of cocaine and nicotine. The surprise was not just that the ancient Egyptians had taken drugs, but that these drugs come from tobacco and coca, plants completly unknown outside the Americas, unheard of until Sir Walter Raleigh introduced smoking from the New World, or until cocaine was imported in the Victorian era.
Read the whole article @
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/mummies.htm

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:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_orionzone_9.htm
 
  • #22
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
"... 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.
 
  • #23
755
0
Bystander said:
"... 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.
Please let us know what other plants are documented to contain nicotine and cocaine... specifically from the region around Egypt.
 
  • #24
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
http://mason.gmu.edu/~lrockwoo/Plantherbivoreinteractionssp02.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
53
0
quantumcarl,

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:

September 12, 2004 - Discovery

DNA analysis of skulls found in Baja California that belonged to an extinct tribe called the Pericues reveal that the Pericues likely were not related to Native Americans and that they probably predated Native Americans in settling the Americas.

The finding, released at the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA) Festival of Science in Exeter, England, adds support to the theory that a number of groups arrived in the Americas via different routes and at varying times, possibly as early as 25,000 years ago.

The study also suggests that the two oldest known Americans — Peñon woman and Kennewick Man — might have belonged to the Pericues tribe.
http://www.crystalinks.com/pericues.html (this is a copy of the original article at Discovery.com which no longer exists)
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:

Related Threads on So, who else discovered America.

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
35
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
37K
Top