Print Page | Close Window

Amerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Description: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
Moderators: Mixcoatl, edgewaters
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24154
Printed Date: 19-Dec-2018 at 05:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Amerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus
Posted By: pinguin
Subject: Amerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 03:56

There are thousand of wild claims about people of the old world navigating to the New World in pre-Columbian times. Almost all of them are just crap that don't stand any serious investigation at all. There are exceptions, of course. Inuits, Norse and (perhaps) Polynesians reached the Americas in recent centuries before Columbus, and there are serious evidence about these cases.

A different matter, and that at first examination seems to be an even wilder fantasy is the presence of people of the Western Hemisphere in Europe in pre-Columbian times. But, it is such a wild fantasy?
 
Anyways, this is a welcome topic for me, and a revenge :) ,  after seen so much fantasies about people of the Old World reaching the Americans before Columbus.
 
As the matter of fact, the evidence of the presence of Amerindians in Europe exist and it is registered in historical records. They are well documented, and they are also part of the possible sources from where columbus got his inspiration to reach the Indies navigating to the West.
 
Let's discuss then if Amerindians and/or Inuits reached Europe before Columbus.
 
I will show what is the evidence later. For now on, I will just say that it is believe Columbus found some Inuits in Ireland during a trip down there.
 
For instance, Inuits colonized Greenland at the same time than Norse. It is not reason to believe Iceland was out of reach, or Europe. Particularly when the currents go from West to East in the Northern Atlantic.
 
On the other hand, American Indians of the Caribbean and the North American Atlantic coasts, had large canoes able to carry 60 people and more! In fact, those canoes were as big as the norse ships, and also had sails!
 
 
 
Before going to the details, let's start to argue a little.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)



Replies:
Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 04:16
Inuits usually crossed from Labrador to Greenland and back in theirs kayaks. That's a superb boat that could, in theory, carry them even to Europe.
 
 
American indians of the Caribbean had large canoes that carried 60 or more people. These are just minor versions of them
 
 
The Gli Gli Carib canoe, a reproduction of the ancient ships of the Caribs.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maya canoe of the same time. Both Caribbean and Mayan canoes were about the same size, build with huge logs.
 
 There are more information about the nautical skills of Amerindians in this thread, about the Ancient Navigators of South America.
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=19565&PID=378286 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=19565&PID=378286
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 05:53
I'd be interested to see the "Historical documents/records" you say register the presence of Amerindians in Europe prior to Columbus's arrival before dismissing your claim. Personally I imagine that the possibility is possible but I do not know how plausible the theory is. There is too much open water for kayaks to traverse and generally canoes were not made for traveling across the Atlantic.


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 07:38
The only thing Pinguin doesn't say is that the guys Columbus saw in Bristol (instead of Ireland but that's not the issue) were dead, and had been so for a while.

Now crossing North Atlantic in a kayak is definitely a feat that one would not accomplish every day. On the contrary of the North Pacific where it is possible to leapfrog from one island to the other from Alaska to Russia, in the Atlantic there is a long jump from Iceland to Ireland.

Other issue: what would they have come to do there?

Regarding the Caribbeans-Europe voyage on a canoe, I'd say impossible. Or unlikely enough to be a very slim odd. Besides, they'd be more likely to reach Africa.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 07:59
Just what we need, another post of nonsense ideas.......
 
This forum is so far ahead of all other AE forums in crank ideas, now it will be in danger of lapping them.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 08:52
Yes, definitely true. Who else would have built the pyramids of Giza?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 14:56
Well Paul, you started asking for crap ideas.
 
Please don't complain now Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 15:04
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

The only thing Pinguin doesn't say is that the guys Columbus saw in Bristol (instead of Ireland but that's not the issue) were dead, and had been so for a while.
 
That's not the info that I have, and that I keep for a while to increase the tension :)

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


Regarding the Caribbeans-Europe voyage on a canoe, I'd say impossible. Or unlikely enough to be a very slim odd. Besides, they'd be more likely to reach Africa.
 
Just observe the sea currents. Reaching Europe from North America. Going from the New to the Old World reach Scandinavia and not Africa, and the trip would be a piece of cake for people that crossed from Venezuela to Cuba, Mexico and Florida as a routine.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 15:33
One thing I have to wonder is how in the hell would those people in those canoes actually survive the journey?

Firstly, Columbus took weeks to make it to the New World. And he was travelling in sail powered vessels which were able to store large amounts of food. The Canoes, from what I can see, had much inferior sail technology to the Spaniards (most of the canoes in the pictures provided don't even have sails), which would make their journey take hugely longer.

Secondly, what are these people going to eat? Those canoes don't have room for all the food the crews need for weeks on end. And the crews need much more food than Columbus' Spaniards because they have to do so much rowing, using up more energy.

Thirdly, water. They would run out of water very quickly, and they need enough for weeks on end. How do they replenish their water supplies continually throughout the journey? I doubt rain is going to do the job - as it is both an unreliable and insufficient source of fresh water.

Just a few problems which I can't see solutions to.


-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 15:57
I would say it is possible that some people got blown of course and landed in the Americas and vice versa. I do not bthink of much chance of a settlement being found before old Chris. Norse excepted.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 16:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well Paul, you started asking for crap ideas.
 
Please don't complain now Wink
 
 
Difference is I don't actually believe them I just research them out of interest.
 
You believe them like a religion.
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 16:27

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

One thing I have to wonder is how in the hell would those people in those canoes actually survive the journey?

 

Tainos, Arawaks and Maya had very large canoes, that carried up to 60 people, and they also knew the sail. They wont have much problem to survive in a ship that is even larger that a viking ship. With respect to Inuits, they crossed in Kayak to Greenland, and they jumped to Iceland as well in post Viking times. Wait for my evidence to show J

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Firstly, Columbus took weeks to make it to the New World. And he was travelling in sail powered vessels which were able to store large amounts of food. The Canoes, from what I can see, had much inferior sail technology to the Spaniards (most of the canoes in the pictures provided don't even have sails), which would make their journey take hugely longer.

 

Columbus took the equatorial route. The Artic route is a lot shorter. Although very dangerous, it is possible to cross in summer in relative short time.... with good luck.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Secondly, what are these people going to eat? Those canoes don't have room for all the food the crews need for weeks on end. And the crews need much more food than Columbus' Spaniards because they have to do so much rowing, using up more energy.

For inuits, they could eat fish on the way. I have no idea how they managed to carry water at all. For Caribbeans, they had larger boats.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Thirdly, water. They would run out of water very quickly, and they need enough for weeks on end. How do they replenish their water supplies continually throughout the journey? I doubt rain is going to do the job - as it is both an unreliable and insufficient source of fresh water.

 

In the Artic you can jump from island to island. That may be the way they do it. If they ever did.



-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 16:28
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

...
Difference is I don't actually believe them I just research them out of interest.
 
You believe them like a religion.
 
 
Me? I am a skeptic by principle. I just enjoy to interchange ideas.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 18:35
Is it possible? Perhaps.
But the main problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that Amerindians or Inuits have ever arrived in Europe.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 19:01
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Is it possible? Perhaps.
But the main problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that Amerindians or Inuits have ever arrived in Europe.
 
There is evidence. Just wait for me to post it Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 20:05
In any case the work of the wacko Mayanist Augustus le Plongeon (1825-1908) should be noted here. Le Plongeon claimed Ancient Egypt culture was created by the Mayans, that the inhabitants of Atlantis were Mayas and that Mayas already used electricity and the telegraph. He also believed Freemasonry had its roots in the Maya civilization.

Although Le Plongeon seemed to believe the Mayas were behind everything he could think of, he also believed Palenque was not built by the Mayas, but by Polynesians.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 22:40
Ok Pinguin (gosh I feel like Batman), time for you to check a few things:

1. There is a current going straight from the Caribbeans to Africa.
2. For canoes, it is likely that wind matters more than currents and as you know half of the year the dominating winds in the Americas blow from West to East, directly to Angola. Which makes the idea of Indians in Africa more likely than in Europe.
3. If they choose to go North, why would they go all the way to Europe while there were very interesting things to do before? Why sending a canoe to Europe while you still have no commercial relationships with the Hurons? The European discoveries were very much leapfrogging. First Madeira, the Canaries, Islands, Greenland, Azores, Newfoundland, western Africa and only after all that the Americas. Why would the Caribbeans just ignore all the easy discoveries?
4. It is perfectly possible that a canoe or a kayak managed to reach Europe. There are a truck load of stories of amazing survival at sea for 40, 50 or even 100 days. But what would it mean? It is unlikely that they managed to go back to where they came from, unlikely that they actually understood what was going one and even more unlikely that they would have found the way to come back to Europe had they wanted it.

All that to say that there might have been "contact" but not "discoveries" which supposes a process of learning, an understanding of the world and, as any scientific discovery, the capacity to reproduce the experiment.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 23:03

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Ok Pinguin (gosh I feel like Batman), time for you to check a few things:

1. There is a current going straight from the Caribbeans to Africa.

 

Yes, but the few chuncks of evidence comes from Scandinavia, the British Islands and Germany, not Africa.

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


2. For canoes, it is likely that wind matters more than currents and as you know half of the year the dominating winds in the Americas blow from West to East, directly to Angola. Which makes the idea of Indians in Africa more likely than in Europe.

 

Perhaps it is a problem in concepts here, Caribbeans had canoes but of an unprecedent size (carrying 60 people!), like Mayans and some North American indians as well. I am not talking about paddling to Europe but sailing.

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


3. If they choose to go North, why would they go all the way to Europe while there were very interesting things to do before? Why sending a canoe to Europe while you still have no commercial relationships with the Hurons? The European discoveries were very much leapfrogging. First Madeira, the Canaries, Islands, Greenland, Azores, Newfoundland, western Africa and only after all that the Americas. Why would the Caribbeans just ignore all the easy discoveries?

 

The Caribbeans traded with North Americans in Florida and up north. The hypothesis is that somehow they were carried by the currents by accident all the way from North America to Europe, in a couple of weeks.

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


4. It is perfectly possible that a canoe or a kayak managed to reach Europe. There are a truck load of stories of amazing survival at sea for 40, 50 or even 100 days. But what would it mean? It is unlikely that they managed to go back to where they came from, unlikely that they actually understood what was going one and even more unlikely that they would have found the way to come back to Europe had they wanted it.

 

They never returned.

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


All that to say that there might have been "contact" but not "discoveries" which supposes a process of learning, an understanding of the world and, as any scientific discovery, the capacity to reproduce the experiment.

 

Yes, I am talking about accidental contacts, not discoveries. Perhaps it never happened, but curiously there are several witness account of strange people coming from India (the West) to unexpected places in Europe. They could have been Inuits or Amerindians, or both. I will put the references later.

 

Now, there is two periods to consider. Before the Norse and after the Norse. Before the Norse the contact was harder. But after the Norse reached Greenland and traded with the Inuits, it could had happened that some ventured into the lands of those foreigners. After all, most of the accounts of Inuits in Europe are from post-Norse times.



-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 23:11
This is ridiculous. Pinguin has been reading Von Dannigan again. Any minute spacemen taking Indians to Europe........... Wait for it.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 23:31
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

This is ridiculous. Pinguin has been reading Von Dannigan again. Any minute spacemen taking Indians to Europe........... Wait for it.
 
Nope.
It is serious stuff Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 00:59
Tiny problem with your conclusion: for most of the period, Indies ≠ West, a fair numbers of Europeans had been to India before 1492, they knew that India was East. Other issue, why would these contacts stop after 1492? How many Inuits arrived on the Western shores in the 16th and 17th century?


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 01:49
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Tiny problem with your conclusion: for most of the period, Indies ≠ West, a fair numbers of Europeans had been to India before 1492, they knew that India was East. Other issue, why would these contacts stop after 1492? How many Inuits arrived on the Western shores in the 16th and 17th century?
 
In fact, many arrived in that period.
 
Besides, educated Europeans already knew that the world was round, so India was at once to the east and to the west.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 02:15

FIRST EVIDENCE:

In here I will start to put evidence of people from the Americas arriving to Europe. It is not that I believe they are definitive at all. It is just that they are so irresistible real that I wonder why people that loves mysteries isn't more interested in this stuff.
 
The first record that is in the topic was writen by Spanish Roman Pomponius Mela in 44 A.D.
 
See bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela
 
Quote:
 
"Cornelious Nepos, a more recent and therefore more authoritative author, add the testimony of Quintus Metellus Celeron on this point and says that he gave the following account. When he was Governor of Gaul, some Indians were given to him by the king of Boii. On asking where they had come from to these lands (theirs present whereabouts), he learned that they had been driven from the Indian seas by violent stoms... and finally come ashore in Germany"
 
Mela, Works 77.
 
Cladius Plinii (Plyny) also speaks about Nepo's writings.
 
"The same Nepos relates the following with regards to the northern passage: Indians were given as a gift to Quintus Metellus Celer by the king of Suevi. The Indians have been sailing from India on a trading mission but had been carried off to Germany by storms"
 
Pliny, Natural History1:304-305.
 
If the testimony are veridical then, how on earth people from India, doing commerce in the Indian ocean (of course) ended in a beach in Germany! Isn't it obvious that any allien arriving to Europe had to come from the Atlantic? And didn't you know that the only people that sailed (knew the sail) and carried commerce in the Atlantic, besides European and Mediterranean peoples (that Romans knew) were the Amerindians of the Caribbean and North America.
 
First shock.
Confused
 
More to come LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 03:43
I'd be interested to see what Latin terms were used to describe these "Indians." I find these sources not very factual. It is possible that the "Indians" were actually from India and shipwrecked somewhere near Arabia.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 03:46

Those Indians shipwrecked in Germany. I really can't figure it out how a ship of India ended in Germany!

Those passages are easy to find. Look for Pliny, which is the easiest.
 
The Latin terms are the following, anyways. For Mela's and Pliny's in both cases the word used is "Indos" for the people and "Indicis" for the country. The place of landing is called "Germaniam".
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 04:56
It's possible that they could have been blown around the coast of Africa from the Indian Ocean. This theory is just as plausible as Native Americans coming across the Atlantic.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 05:22
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

It's possible that they could have been blown around the coast of Africa from the Indian Ocean. This theory is just as plausible as Native Americans coming across the Atlantic.
 
Oh sure, yes sir.
 
They were crossing the coast of Sri Lanka and then a huge storm brought them all the way down to Cape of Good Hope, made them to turn north, evaded Western Africa, Missed Iberia and England, turned right and landed in Germany LOL...
 
Sorry, but in this case I believe the hypothesis of someone from the Americas comming is a lot simpler.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 11:17
They could not have been Indians. Wikipedia says:
Quote It is unclear whether these castaways may have been people from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India or Eastern Asia, or possibly American Indians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Herbert_Bunbury - Edward Herbert Bunbury suggested that they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_people - Finns . This account is open to some question, since Metellus Celer died just after his consulship, before he ever got to Gaul.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 16:59
The clearest problem of these quotation is the following: Romans knew India well enough not to mistake a bunch of hunter gatherers with the mighty societies of the subcontinent.

Besides, their tendency to arrive in Germany and nowhere else is somewhat suspect. After all the Gulf Stream would have made at least some touch Britannia first (i.e. Roman territory).

Other issue: "Germany" is quite vague a location. It could mean anything from the Alps to Scandinavia. In particular, the Boii where from somewhere between the Po river and the Carpats, and the Suebi where spread from modern Czech Republic to the Baltic, so it is highly unlikely for either of them to collect anybody from the Northern Sea.

Final problem: it is unclear whether the Inuits and other Eskimos had even reached the East of Canada at that time. In my opinion, Siberians, Mongols or plain Indians from India are more likely.

Then again: why not. One occurrence in 700 years is hardly a statistical impossibility. So it is plausible, but the various issues listed above make considering them as Americans as an act of faith rather than a decision based on evidence, since --as you know-- Roman and Greek writers where never short of an unbelievable story that now are used to build hypothesis such as the Atlantis.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 17:42
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

They could not have been Indians. Wikipedia says:
[quote]It is unclear whether these castaways may have been people from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India or Eastern Asia, or possibly American Indians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Herbert_Bunbury - Edward Herbert Bunbury suggested that they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_people - Finns . ...
 
Strange. I would be very surprise if the Finns where so exotic for Germans to confusse them with Indians LOL. After all, if Greeks knew Persians, and Chinese Koreans, and Germans were quite close to Finns Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 18:01
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

The clearest problem of these quotation is the following: Romans knew India well enough not to mistake a bunch of hunter gatherers with the mighty societies of the subcontinent.
 
"Bunch of hunter gatherers?" Jesus! You need an urgent introduction to the archeology of the Americas. I am afraid you have no idea about it. Besides, poor indian sailors didn't look like the personel of the Royal Navy at all LOL

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


Besides, their tendency to arrive in Germany and nowhere else is somewhat suspect. After all the Gulf Stream would have made at least some touch Britannia first (i.e. Roman territory).

Not out of the possible.

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


Final problem: it is unclear whether the Inuits and other Eskimos had even reached the East of Canada at that time. In my opinion, Siberians, Mongols or plain Indians from India are more likely.

It may be, but Siberians, Mongols and plain Indians would have come by feet.
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


Then again: why not. One occurrence in 700 years is hardly a statistical impossibility. So it is plausible, but the various issues listed above make considering them as Americans as an act of faith rather than a decision based on evidence, since --as you know-- Roman and Greek writers where never short of an unbelievable story that now are used to build hypothesis such as the Atlantis.
 
Of course. I believe that IF (A BIG "IF") the event really happened, the more likely is they were people from the Americas. But that's given the event really happened, of course.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 19:24
You are right Pinguin Inuits were not hunter gatherers, they never gathered, they just hunt.

-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 02:55
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

You are right Pinguin Inuits were not hunter gatherers, they never gathered, they just hunt.
 
In fact, Inuits are a people that I admire very much. They worked with iron and invented the composite arpoon. Besides, theirs yakaks are the best small boats ever invented. Not a small achievement for such a bunch of savages LOL


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:16
Second evidence:
 
It is amazing how skeptical people get with the idea that Ancient Americans reached Europe. Sometimes the people that reacts with disbelief are the same that embrace enthusiastically the idea that Phoenicians, Romans, Greeks, Africans, Chinese, East Indians or whatever, reached the Americas before Columbus.
 
What's the idea? To show Amerindians are subhumans and needed teachears? To show that "The Old World rules?" I wonder.
 
In any case, let's continue with the game. Here is the second evidence of Americans reaching Europe before Columbus. Put your seat belts on LOL
 
Aeneas Sylvious, after citing the event described by Pliny wrote about another event that happened during the 12th century. He talks about an "Otto" (probably Otto of Freising) and says that during the reign of one of the Germans Emperators, a
 
"boat and Indian traders were caught on the German coast, to which place, from unwelcomee contrary wind from the east blowing constantly, they arrived accidentally"
 
The event happened circa 1160s and is supposed to happend in the West Baltic or in the Frisland region between Denmark and Netherlands. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_II - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_II
 
Aeneas Sylvius, History Rerum.
 
By the way, Toscanelli and Columbus read the book of Aeneas Sylvious, particularly that quote I cite above....
 
It will continue.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:32
First of all nobody would call Indians, Indians before Columbus.

The natives are called Indians cause the guy was sailing to India and America closed his way.


And the reason people embrace Phoenicians, Greeks, Chinese etc is because those people had civilisations above the hunter-gatherer and actually explored on purpose to find new markets.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:37
Third Evidence:
 
Antonio Galvano, Portuguese carthographer, wrote in 1555 the following:
 
"In the year 1153, in the time of Frederich Barbarosa it is written that there come to Lubec ... one canoe with certain Indians, like unto a long barge: which seemed to come from the coast of Baccalaos (Newfoundland region)... The Germans greatly wondered to see such a barge and such a people, not knowing from wence they came, not understanding their speech, especially because there was no knowledge of that country.
 
Galvano, Discoveries. 18.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:44
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

First of all nobody would call Indians, Indians before Columbus.
 
If you see an allien comming from the West, and you know that India is what followed the Atlantic beyond Hyperborea, then you will call Indians to these people.
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

The natives are called Indians cause the guy was sailing to India and America closed his way.
 
Columbus read the accounts of Pliny et al. In every account of contacts with alliens reaching Europe they are called Indians (Indos)
 
Guess what name came to Columbus mind when he saw Amerindians for the first time LOL
Columbus didn't invented the name. He, like every one else before him, believed those lands West of the Atlantic were India!
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:


And the reason people embrace Phoenicians, Greeks, Chinese etc is because those people had civilisations above the hunter-gatherer and actually explored on purpose to find new markets.
 
Really? Well, Mayans also have large canoes able to carry 60 people throught the Caribbean. You never though that perphaps some of those canoes were sent to Europe by a storm? After all that's what Europeans say in theirs accounts. And Mayans had not much to envy to other classical civilizations.
 
Anyways, there is still some people that believe Egyptians or Phoenicians were better sailors than Polynesians LOL. Anyways.
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:53
Quote If you see an allien comming from the West, and you know that India is what followed the Atlantic beyond Hyperborea, then you will call Indians to these people.


Actually most people thought it was flat. Columbus proved it (actually Maggelan but..)

Quote
Columbus read the accounts of Pliny et al. In every account of contacts with alliens reaching Europe they are called Indians (Indos)
 
Guess what name came to Columbus mind when he saw Amerindians for the first time LOL
Columbus didn't invented the name. He, like every one else before him, believed those lands West of the Atlantic were India!



What did I say? He named them Indians cause he thought the Caribean was some islands in India. Nobody before him would name Amerindians Indians cause nobody tried to find India in the West.

Quote
Really? Well, Mayans also have large canoes able to carry 60 people throught the Caribbean. You never though that perphaps some of those canoes were sent to Europe by a storm? After all that's what Europeans say.
 
The arrogancy of European and Asiatic historians is amazing. Always thinking in people of first, second and third class. I bet we haven't learn anything from the dissaster of WWII, the war were all arrogancy exploded in six years. Sad Cry


First of all, not many scientists believe that Phoenicians or Greeks actually arrived in Americas. Only the Norse.
Second, a Phoenician merchant ship is known to be able to travel all the way to England and around Africa. That's A LOT of miles. I don't doubt Mayans had big canoes but a storm so big that would actually bring them across the Atlantic would have sunk the canoe first.

Indians, like all people until middle ages, traveled across the shores and didn't enter open seas unless they had to. The chances are too small for an Indian to reach Europe. An inuit reaching Iceland perhaps. But not the mainland







Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 04:11
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...Actually most people thought it was flat. Columbus proved it (actually Maggelan but..)
 
That isn't true. You could recall that by orders of the Queen, Columbus had an argument with carthographers and other experts at the University of Salamanca about the distance from Europe to India. When they discussed Toscanelli calculations, I can assure you nobody believed earth was flat. Only the ignorant sailors had such supersticions.
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
What did I say? He named them Indians cause he thought the Caribean was some islands in India. Nobody before him would name Amerindians Indians cause nobody tried to find India in the West.
 
Fellow, those people were comming from the West to Europe, therefore from India.
 
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
First of all, not many scientists believe that Phoenicians or Greeks actually arrived in Americas. Only the Norse.

That's true. Cosign
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
Second, a Phoenician merchant ship is known to be able to travel all the way to England and around Africa. That's A LOT of miles.
 
Yes, but always following coastal lines. In fact, when phoenicians sourrounded Africa for the egyptian ruler, they sailed only during the days.
 
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
I don't doubt Mayans had big canoes but a storm so big that would actually bring them across the Atlantic would have sunk the canoe first.
 
Just imagine a canoe the size of Norse ship. In fact, you can still find in Mesoamerica the ports Mayas had from where theirs canoes traded all over the gulf of Mexico. There are accounts of encounters of these large canoes by Spaniards as well.
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
Indians, like all people until middle ages, traveled across the shores and didn't enter open seas unless they had to. The chances are too small for an Indian to reach Europe. An inuit reaching Iceland perhaps. But not the mainland
 
Actually, that's true from the Colombian sailors that made the trade route between Peru and Central America in balsa rafts (that carrier 30 tons!). But that isn't true for the traders of the Caribbean.
 
Don't you know those people went from Venezuela to every Island in the Caribbean, and from there to Florida and also Mexico? 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 06:02
Pinguin why don't you accept that the Caribbean hypothesis is the least likely considering that had they followed the Gulf Stream --only viable explanation of why they always show up in Germany-- they would have been able to reach the North American shores before drifting to Europe.

There are two main issues so far:
1. No first hand account. How come a guy knew Indians came around 4 centuries before but Barbarossa's annalists themselves never mention it.
2. There is a clear echo. Why would the same Indian traders show up at the same place in the same condition and not (as it is more likely) in Ireland, Iceland, Brittany, Britain or Scandinavia? I smells a lot like a guy mixed up Cesar and Frederic Barbarossa.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 17:44
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Second evidence:
  
Aeneas Sylvious, after citing the event described by Pliny wrote about another event that happened during the 12th century. He talks about an "Otto" (probably Otto of Freising) and says that during the reign of one of the Germans Emperators, a
 
"boat and Indian traders were caught on the German coast, to which place, from unwelcomee contrary wind from the east blowing constantly, they arrived accidentally"
 
The event happened circa 1160s and is supposed to happend in the West Baltic or in the Frisland region between Denmark and Netherlands. 
 
Yes, but the unwelcome contrary wind blew from the east, which meant that they were travelling east on purpose. It doesn't seem very likely if they were from the Americas...


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 20:10
umm! You are right. Let me check it up the source and I come back. :)

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 20:22
Those stories are comparable to those of Corte Real, Scolvus, Madoc and Basque fishermen: possible, but not enough evidence to prove it.

In any case rejecting Corte Real and Scolvus reaching America as a fairy tale while at the same time accepting Inuit arriving in Lbeck is hard to justify.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 21:17
Pinguin, the geographical conception of the world was very twisted (from our point of view) in Antiquity and a large part of the Middle Ages. Many believed various rivers and seas which now we know they were not. Some believed that between Caspian Sea you can reach to the Baltic by water. On the other hand Indian didn't mean only from Indian peninsula, and sometimes it was just a vague reference for "beyond Iran" (Persia/Parthia etc.). I'm not sure if your accounts did those confusions, but that could be a scenario in which people could imagine Indians navigating to Germany's shores. What is certain that Indians were not Amerindians.
 
The later accounts can simply reiterate the most ancient one in different coordinates. It's like a story being told over and over and adorned with new elements. Please also note that your second account narrates an event from 1160s, while your third an event from 1153, the closed dates hint again to a retelling of the same story.
 
 


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 22:14
Besides, Pinguin, proof that the Indians and Inuits were nothing but a bunch of incapable idiots: why would they go again and again to Lubeck of all places while they could have gone to Amsterdam, Paris, Baleares Islands, Venice, etc you know some serious tourism.

Take Colombus on the other hand. A real smart guy: where did he go as soon as he arrived in the Americas? The most interesting place, best girls, best beaches, best mojitos: Bahamas!


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:08
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Besides, Pinguin, proof that the Indians and Inuits were nothing but a bunch of incapable idiots: why would they go again and again to Lubeck of all places while they could have gone to Amsterdam, Paris, Baleares Islands, Venice, etc you know some serious tourism.
 
Perhaps they were idiots, to confuse the European man with Gods. Just imagine that. Other people knew better. Chinese called Europeans monkeys and Africans called them devils; that's intuition Wink

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


Take Colombus on the other hand. A real smart guy: where did he go as soon as he arrived in the Americas? The most interesting place, best girls, best beaches, best mojitos: Bahamas!
 
Yeah! Nice weather. However, he wasn't seaching for a place to have a tan. He just wanted easy cash .... Just like the street robber these days
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:28
There is more to come. Please be patient.
Just notice that there are SEVERAL records of people from "India" reaching Europe by sea. I wonder if all of them are just the product of imagination.
 
Fourth Evidence:
 
Lopez de Gomara, Spanish Writer wrote (In Spanish, sorry)
 
"...en el tiempo del emperador Federico Barbajora (1155-1190) aportaron a Lubec ciertos indios en una canoa...."
 
Paul Gaffarel, who studied the topic declared:
 
"Therefore it seems that the Greeks and Romans never went to America. On the contrary, there are Americans who, during the first century before the Christian era, might have come to Europe".
 
It is interesting to note that Christopher Columbus believed in those stories. Therefore, the very fact they existed changed the history.
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:50
Hmm Columbus was convinced that the new world was a woman breast!!!

Besides, in Spanish or not, it is still an echo of the previous two events, a second hand record written several centuries after. The fact that it was written after 1492 makes it even dodgier as a piece of evidence.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 03:11
Don't hurry up. I am going to switch to Inuits now.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 03:47
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

"...en el tiempo del emperador Federico Barbajora (1155-1190) aportaron a Lubec ciertos indios en una canoa...."
 
Paul Gaffarel, who studied the topic declared:
 
"Therefore it seems that the Greeks and Romans never went to America. On the contrary, there are Americans who, during the first century before the Christian era, might have come to Europe".
 
I mean I'm not an expert in chronology or anything, but it seems to me that either Paul Gaffarel is talking about some other event or the Inuits/Amerindians had access to time travel technology...


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 04:37
Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

"...en el tiempo del emperador Federico Barbajora (1155-1190) aportaron a Lubec ciertos indios en una canoa...."
 
Paul Gaffarel, who studied the topic declared:
 
"Therefore it seems that the Greeks and Romans never went to America. On the contrary, there are Americans who, during the first century before the Christian era, might have come to Europe".
 
I mean I'm not an expert in chronology or anything, but it seems to me that either Paul Gaffarel is talking about some other event or the Inuits/Amerindians had access to time travel technology...
 
Paul Gaffarel studied the topic of contact, not the above quote LOL
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 09:58

Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:


Antonio Galvano, Portuguese carthographer, wrote in 1555 the following:
 
"In the year 1153, in the time of Frederich Barbarosa it is written that there come to Lubec ... one canoe with certain Indians, like unto a long barge: which seemed to come from the coast of Baccalaos (Newfoundland region)... The Germans greatly wondered to see such a barge and such a people, not knowing from wence they came, not understanding their speech, especially because there was no knowledge of that country.
 
Galvano, Discoveries. 18.


Quote Lopez de Gomara, Spanish Writer wrote (In Spanish, sorry)
 
"...en el tiempo del emperador Federico Barbajora (1155-1190) aportaron a Lubec ciertos indios en una canoa...."

Lopez de Gomara is also a 16th century writer. It is obviously the same story (this time it even has the same elements: Barbarossa's reign, Lubec, Indians, canoe and moreover was written in the same era).

Paul Gaffarel is a 19th century author. His evidence for contact in "the first century before the Christian era" is? The account of Cornelius Nepos - i.e. your first evidence?

 



Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 16:42
You still haven given us a reason to accept Inuits in Lbeck but reject Corte Real in Newfoundland.

-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 04:57
Well, with respect to Corte Real, the Vikings and the Inuits, I have the idea that somehow the knowledge about Labrador was never missed. It seem Scandinavians still knew about Labrador during the 15TH century, which makes sense. After all, five hundred years is not that much for people to complete forgot a major historical event.
 
So, why not? Perhaps Corte Real was in the Americas with the help of his norse friends . And perhaps Inuits of the same time used to go paddling to Denmark to visit relatives from Greenland Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 05:17

Pinguin,

Aside of the Ameridians' travels to Europe do you know of any accounts of their journeys to the other part of the world through the Pacific. Japan, Korea, China..?



-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 12:20
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Pinguin,

Aside of the Ameridians' travels to Europe do you know of any accounts of their journeys to the other part of the world through the Pacific. Japan, Korea, China..?

 
Only one. There is a legend about Tupac Youpanqui, ancient Inca, reaching somewhere to Polynesia in a fleet of balsa rafts.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 13:02
Lets'  agree that several accounts talk about possible contacts of Amerindian people to Europe. The more documented happened during the first and twelve century, and commented by several authors, including Pliny.
 
Fifth Evidence
 
Let's go to Inuits now. The first contact of an Inuit in Europe seem to have happened in 849 A.D.
Well, that's if we believe the people of the Dutch community of Zierikzee in Dutchland. The people there has believed for a long time that a "Zierik" (Inuit) arrived by sea to found the city. What is even more strange is that they have the kayak of the Zierik in the community museum.
 
Gert Nooter, Old Kayaks 6-7, 64-69
 
Indians in Europe, Christian F. Feest, U of Nebraska (Collection of essays)
(See essay Inuits in Europe
 
It is a tale from "Believe it or not". Does it really happened?
 
At least, my purposse is to show that there are SEVERAL accounts of visits to Europe of people from the New World. It is not simply artistic style comparissons that pseudo-history love so much. Is more than that. For some strange reason, Europe is plenty of history of people comming from the West by sea.
 
I couldn't find the pictures of the Zierikzee kayaks or more data on the topic. If our European friends know more, please colabate. Another phrase picked on the web:
 
"There are also two kayaks in Zierikzee and Hoorn in the Netherlands which are recorded as having been found in the North Sea
"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 13:33
Zierik meaning Inuit? Inuit means Inuit in Dutch, and Eskimo means Eskimo. Zierik does not have any meaning. Have you any evidence that the kayak they found was Inuit? People here built boats as well after all.

EDIT:
I did some googling, and I found out there is indeed an Inuit kayak in a museum in Zierikzee

dating from the 18th century.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 13:44

Well, there are two kayaks, according to my own googling. I have not found more refferences. The book in which I base my posts, and that will keep in secret for a while LOL, and also this page:

http://books.google.cl/books?id=BjfXKvXLEi0C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Zierik+kayak+849&source=web&ots=xWzsesFUXv&sig=V2JqBZ2316SKykqFA4FgXXqyz0A&hl=es - http://books.google.cl/books?id=BjfXKvXLEi0C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Zierik+kayak+849&source=web&ots=xWzsesFUXv&sig=V2JqBZ2316SKykqFA4FgXXqyz0A&hl=es
 
They both talks about a tradition in Zierikzee that says the founder arrived in an Inuit kayak from Greenland in 849. Perhaps the man was not Inuit, but the kayak was! And if the arrival was from Greenland then it is evidence the trip from the Americas in kayak is possible.
 
The man that arrived from there is Zierik
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 14:00
Pinguin, that book says the tradition says 849 AD, but tracing back the boat goes to 18th century. So, as far as the evidence goes, that voyage happened in the 18th century, not in the 9th.


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 16:59
Zierik with it's - rik , is a normal germanic name, just as Roderik, Hendrik etc. ( old spelling -ric )
 
The standard explanation  from the Zierikzee community is that Zierikzee comes from Zierik's 'Ee , meaning the Ee of Zierik. The ee refers to a creek.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 17:17
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Pinguin, that book says the tradition says 849 AD, but tracing back the boat goes to 18th century. So, as far as the evidence goes, that voyage happened in the 18th century, not in the 9th.
 
First, if it happened in the 18th century why couldn't happen as well in the 9th century?
The fact is there are many testimonies of Inuits arriving to Europe in post-Norse times but most are post-Columbian. With respect to the second kayak, the book I have says there is another.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 17:18
Originally posted by Sander Sander wrote:

Zierik with it's - rik , is a normal germanic name, just as Roderik, Hendrik etc. ( old spelling -ric )
 
The standard explanation  from the Zierikzee community is that Zierikzee comes from Zierik's 'Ee , meaning the Ee of Zierik. The ee refers to a creek.
 
From where came the idea the guy came in a Kayak? Any clue?


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 18:04
The Dutch were major traders in the Arctic Area. They discovered a.o. Spitsbergen and Nova Zembla. So an Inuit didn't sail to Zeeland, but rather Dutch sailors they took it with them from Greenland.

from http://www.museum.nl/MUSEUMnl/handler.cfm?event=museum&id=400243FF-7B8F-11D5-8F00-0002A508D0B7&collectie=long - http://www.museum.nl/MUSEUMnl/handler.cfm?event=museum&id=400243FF-7B8F-11D5-8F00-0002A508D0B7&collectie=long :
Quote Bijzonder is verder de Groenlandse kayak die in de achttiende eeuw door Zierikzeese schippers op terugreis is meegebracht.
Noteworthy is furthermore the Greenlandic kayak which was brought back in the 18th century by sailors from Zierikzee.



-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 19:57
Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.

Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 20:26
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

First, if it happened in the 18th century why couldn't happen as well in the 9th century?
The fact is there are many testimonies of Inuits arriving to Europe in post-Norse times but most are post-Columbian. With respect to the second kayak, the book I have says there is another
It could happen, but there's no evidence it really did. Actually it also could happen that Native Americans reached Europe without having a single evidence they did, but it's not really a useful hypothesis for our understanding, because we can't verify that.
Also, if you remarked, the author of that book believed that the kayak was brought back by Dutch explorers (reaching those lands in the 17th century), not that it is an evidence for a Inuit explorers. But even if we'd regard it as evidence, we're stuck with the dating of the boat which does not confirm the oral tradition.
According to that book, the first Eskimos in Europe came as captives during the 16th century.


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 20:31
And if Inuit ending up in Europe post-1492 counts as evidence for Inuit in Europe before 1492; there are numerous stories of Japanese and Chinese ships being blown of course and ending on the North American west coast in the colonial and independent eras. Does that mean we should accept Japanese and Chinese in the Americas before 1492?

-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 21:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
From where came the idea the guy came in a Kayak? Any clue?
A quick search make reveals it's related to the whale hunts of the 18th century, where kayaks or even living inuits were brought back as "souvenirs". But I guess it's more interesting to believe in ancient explorations than facts. Wink


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:01
Wikipedia is your friend and it says:

1. Before the 1200s there were no Inuits in Eastern Canada.
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
3. Before the 1300s there were no Inuits in Greenland.
4. Before the late 1300s, there were no Inuits in Eastern Greenland.
5. After 1350, the Inuit whaling went down hill due to change of whale migrations related to the small Ice Age.

These 5 factors make Inuit contacts with Europe unlikely and plain impossible in the mid-9th century.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:18
Lets have a kick summary:

1st evidence: 62BC a Germanic king gives "Indians" to a Roman consul.
2nd evidence: 1160s AD a bunch of "Indian" traders found in the Baltic or Friseland.
3rd evidence: 1150s AD another Indian found in Lubeck.
4th evidence: the same
5th evidence: 849 AD Inuits arrive in the Netherlands.

It is obvious that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th evidence are likely to be the same. The 5th is highly dubious. Only the 1st seems to be slightly stronger. Not too good a result. But as Pinguin said, the main interest here is the discussion.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:00
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.
 
Not really. Please analize the map of sea currents I put some post ago. If you see that map you will realize it is easier to reach Northern Europe from Norther South America, rather than any other trip. Going from the Caribbean to Spain is almost impossible and the distances are too much.
 
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:


Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?
 
Not yet. Without suspense there is no way this thread is kept alive. Be patient, please Wink


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:08
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Wikipedia is your friend and it says:

1. Before the 1200s there were no Inuits in Eastern Canada.
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
3. Before the 1300s there were no Inuits in Greenland.
4. Before the late 1300s, there were no Inuits in Eastern Greenland.
5. After 1350, the Inuit whaling went down hill due to change of whale migrations related to the small Ice Age.

These 5 factors make Inuit contacts with Europe unlikely and plain impossible in the mid-9th century.
 
Yeah. But that doesn't mean Columbus didn't see Inuits in Ireland Wink
 
The interesting thing is that contact from the Americas may have happened from people that used the same sailing technology than Caribbeans had: large canoes with sails. Unlikely Caribbeans themselves but more probably coastal people of the eastern coast of the United States.
 
Second, the fact there are many witness account of inuits comming to Europe in kayaks in POST-Columbian times, shows it is likely they went once in a while in pre-Columbian times as well. Now, in the case of Inuits I think if that happened was in post-Norse times.
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:13
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

And if Inuit ending up in Europe post-1492 counts as evidence for Inuit in Europe before 1492; there are numerous stories of Japanese and Chinese ships being blown of course and ending on the North American west coast in the colonial and independent eras. Does that mean we should accept Japanese and Chinese in the Americas before 1492?
 
Two points are important here. First, if Amerindians reached Europe in ancient times that would explain the legends we have seen here so far about "Indians" reaching Europe. I know evidence is not conclusive but the fact is SOME evidence exist. Beside, those legends are crucial to explain Columbus behavoir and its own writings.
 
Second, if Inuits reached Europe ONCE IN A WHILE in post-Norse but pre-Colombian times, that would explain many legends in Europe, but also what Columbus saw in Ireland.
 
In short, rather than explain conquists, this is an attempt to explain some obscure facts in the life and knowledge of Columbus.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 01:18
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

...A quick search make reveals it's related to the whale hunts of the 18th century, where kayaks or even living inuits were brought back as "souvenirs". But I guess it's more interesting to believe in ancient explorations than facts. Wink
 
Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.
I wish people would get the same reaction, and be as much skeptical, when they put forward those wild fantasies of European, Africans,  Asians or Polynesians reaching the Americas in pre-Columbian and pre-Norse times.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Pinguin, you are grasping at straws here. The "evidence" that you are citing is not solid evidence but merely conjecture. If Amerinidians were blown off course they are more likely to hit Spain, Portugal, Britain, or France not Lubeck or anywhere else in Germany. The way that these people would hit Lubeck and/or Germany is if they came from the East which actually could explain why they were said to be Indians.


Not really. Please analize the map of sea currents I put some post ago. If you see that map you will realize it is easier to reach Northern Europe from Norther South America, rather than any other trip. Going from the Caribbean to Spain is almost impossible and the distances are too much.


Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Instead of playing coy and saying you are getting this information from a book, why don't you tell us the book you are getting you "information" from?


Not yet. Without suspense there is no way this thread is kept alive. Be patient, please Wink


Interesting that you keep holding on to this current (Ocean that is) argument. The map I found shows that people coming from SAmerica and the Southern USA would be more likely to hit Northern Spain, Brittany, Cornwall, or pass between north Scotland and Iceland on their way to Scandinavia. This is also what your maps say. So by accepting the notion that these people landed in Lubeck or other Germanic settlements is in fact grasping at straws. The evidence just doesn't hold up. It is more likely that these were people who were in the North Sea area already. Maybe the Sami or another ethnic group of a darker Asiatic complexion. I'm not saying that these people were Sami or another indigenous group but the possibility is greater than Amerindians.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:50

Well, I am thinking in the North Atlantic current. If you are push by them you can end anywhere in Europe, a lot more more likely in Britain or Scandinavia rather than in Germany, of course. However, we are talking about just two or three extraordinary events that never repeated again. So, probabilities are not much of a clue in these cases.

Now, with respect to the real earth, it is better to see in a globe rather than in mercator projection. The distances are quite different if you observe them in a globe. For instance, the distance from Labrador to Britain seem to be the same than from Brazil to Africa, which is false. This is the same seen by a polar projection for instance, where the distances look closer in the North

Now I ask you. If Inuits went paddling from Labrador to Greenladn, why they couldn't do the same from Greenland to Island or from Island to Ireland or Sweeden? The distances are about the same.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 03:56
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

...
2. Before the Inuits, there were the Sadlermiuts but they were very primitive and it is likely that they did not have kayaks.
 
There is just a small problem with that hypothesis. How did Sadlermiuts reached Greenland? I bet they didn't swim there but got there in kayaks or equivalent boats.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:15
By the way, those that doubt about Amerindian navigation skills, please take a look at this thread. Particularly to Mayan navigation, that have the same skills than Caribbeans and some North American peoples.
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=19565 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=19565
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:16
The Sadlermuits from what I understand weren't in Greenland just the Hudson Bay and other Canadian areas.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:30
There was people in Greenland before the Inuits. At least that's what I saw in a National Geographic documental.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:57
Yes they were called the Vikings

-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 05:33
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Yes they were called the Vikings
 
The norse weren't the first to arrive to Greenland. I though you knew that. From wiki.
 
The first humans arrived around 2500 BC. This group died out and were succeded by several other groups of people immigrating from continental North America. To Europeans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland - Greenland was unknown until the 10th century, when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland - Icelandic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking - Vikings settled on the south-western coast. This part of Greenland was apparently unpopulated at the time when the Vikings arrived; the direct ancestors of the modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit - Inuit Greenlanders did not arrive until around 1200 AD from the northwest.
 
At least four other cultures lived in Greenland before Norse arrived there.
 
The Saqqaq culture: 2500800 BC (southern Greenland).
The Independence I culture: 24001300 BC (northern Greenland).
The Independence II culture: 8001 BC (far northern Greenland).
The Early Dorset or Dorset I culture: 700 BCAD 200 (southern Greenland).
 
Something more about the Saqqaq
 
http://www.natmus.dk/sw18632.asp - http://www.natmus.dk/sw18632.asp
 
 
 
So Norse weren't the first, I am afraid Wink
 
A picture from Thule culture (Inuits) whalings.
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/ThuleGreenlandersWhaling.png">Immagine:ThuleGreenlandersWhaling.png
 
Now, for the origin of the Kayak, the boat is a lot earlier than the Inuits arriving to Greenland! The boat is thousand of years old.
 
Here is an history of the Kayak
 
The whole article is in here: http://www.coastmountainexpeditions.com/sea-kayak-canada.html - http://www.coastmountainexpeditions.com/sea-kayak-canada.html
 

The sea kayak in the arctic and Canada has a history which spans at least 5,000 years. "It is a fitting tribute to the arctic peoples, builders of the first sea kayak that it survives today as the worlds most popular self propelled watercraft."

The birth place of the kayak was almost certainly the inhospitable coast of Siberia. We know that the peoples who eventually settled the Americas crossed over sometime time during the last Ice age when a land or ice bridge known as Berengia connected the two continents. The kayak or qajaq or its more primitive ancestor the umiak probably first appeared in the North American arctic about 10-15 thousand years ago, arriving with Americas first people. The oldest known archaeological evidence of a kayak goes back 2,000 years B.P. and there is inferential evidence dating it back another 2,000 years. However, given the reality of surviving the harsh environment, most likely  arctic peoples had some way of getting onto the water to hunt or fish as long as they have been there. An 8,000 year existence is possible but we will probably never know for sure.

 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 05:57
The entrance of Inuits and pro-eskimos to Greenland
 
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/fp/images/fpz3a03b.jpg - http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/fp/images/fpz3a03b.jpg
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 06:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

There was people in Greenland before the Inuits. At least that's what I saw in a National Geographic documental.


That is true but they were not the Sadlermiuts, who lived in the Hudson Bay of modern Canada.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 06:40
my mistake, thanks

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:35
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Some believed that between Caspian Sea you can reach to the Baltic by water. On the other hand Indian didn't mean only from Indian peninsula, and sometimes it was just a vague reference for "beyond Iran" (Persia/Parthia etc.).
   
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Lets have a kick summary:
1st evidence: 62BC a Germanic king gives "Indians" to a Roman consul.
2nd evidence: 1160s AD a bunch of "Indian" traders found in the Baltic or Friseland.
3rd evidence: 1150s AD another Indian found in Lubeck.
4th evidence: the same
5th evidence: 849 AD Inuits arrive in the Netherlands.
It is obvious that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th evidence are likely to be the same. The 5th is highly dubious. Only the 1st seems to be slightly stronger. Not too good a result. But as Pinguin said, the main interest here is the discussion.

Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

It is more likely that these were people who were in the North Sea area already. Maybe the Sami or another ethnic group of a darker Asiatic complexion.   


The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus#Background_and_early_raids - a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA .

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.







Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:57
Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:


The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus#Background_and_early_raids - a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA .
 
Yes. Following the coastal lines, of curse.

Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:


In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
 
Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuits are welcome LOL
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:03
I was wondering. Wouldn't population genetics be able to shed some light on whether there were native Americans in Europe before Columbus. It would certainly be very interesting if it were true.
Considering that it is already a known fact that East Europeans are heavily mixed with Altaic/turkic peoples after the time of the Huns, and that Native Americans could be distant relatives to Siberians therefore Altaic/Turkic peoples, If this (theory of native Americans in Europe before Columbus) was to be true, it means that all Europeans, regardless of being Western or Eastern, can possibly have some Siberian/Altaic/Turkic elements in them.



Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
[Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuitsare welcome LOL]

Which one is more likely? To cross the Atlantic ocean between continents, or to travel inland through rivers?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:26
Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:

I was wondering. Wouldn't population genetics be able to shed some light on whether there were native Americans in Europe before Columbus. It would certainly be very interesting if it were true.
Considering that it is already a known fact that East Europeans are heavily mixed with Altaic/turkic peoples after the time of the Huns, and that Native Americans could be distant relatives to Siberians therefore Altaic/Turkic peoples, If this (theory of native Americans in Europe before Columbus) was to be true, it means that all Europeans, regardless of being Western or Eastern, can possibly have some Siberian/Altaic/Turkic elements in them.

 
They would had hardly any genetical impact if we are talking about just a couple of times that happened in history.
 
During the last five centuries, lot of Amerindians ended up in Europe, but still not in a demographically significant portion. Some people in England had matched possitive with Amerindian DNA. It is also know descendents of Francisca Pizarro, Tupac Amaru and many others ended in the upper classes of Europe, while Indian workers were absorved in the masses of Andalucia.
 
The most important problem, though, is that native genetics is too close to some Central Asian people that is almost impossible to distinguish both.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:28
Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by omshanti omshanti wrote:

In my opinion it is not surprising at all that some people from the middle east or from the Indus valley (which is the origin of the name ''Indian'' or ''Indos'') region ended up in the Baltic sea or Germany through the same waters/rivers as the vikings.
[Oh yes. Everyone except Amerindians or Inuits are welcome LOL]

Which one is more likely? To cross the Atlantic ocean between continents, or to travel inland through rivers?
 
In the records, people came from the ocean. Although I know norse colonized several places in Russia and Ucraine following rivers. I never heared of East Indians reaching Europe by following rivers. That's really new for me, and sounds me like Sci-Fi, actually. Marco Polo would have save lots of times following those rivers, indeed.
 
Those travellers were called "Indians" simply because they came from the DIRECTION from where India was supposed to be: crossing the Atlantic to the West. Not because Europeans knew sanscrit at those times.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:40
How about the recent Arabic and Sasanid coins found in Sweden from the time of the Vikings? They certainly show that the trade routes that the vikings exploited since the 800sAD were going in both directions rather than just one direction. Wouldn't this at least explain the ''Indians'' in the Baltics in 1100s AD?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:41
Quote The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus#Background_and_early_raids - a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA .
Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.

Whenever someone proposes Europeans, Asians or Africans discovering the Americas before 1492 you call them a racist.
But when you propose revert contacts suddenly people who reject it are 'defensive'.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:01
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)
As I wrote in my previous post, I was mainly considering the incidents in 1100s AD which were after the vikings had established the trade routes. Forgive me if I was not clear.
But any way, how about between Dnieper and Volga? Or Black Sea and Caspian sea? There are quite a few water ways there. This is a map of Volga river I found in Wikipedia. Please press the following       
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Volgarivermap.png - LINK .



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Well, it is more interesting that simply be blind to the possibility.
 
I enjoy this topic because it is amazing how deffensive Europeans are with this possibility.
I wish people would get the same reaction, and be as much skeptical, when they put forward those wild fantasies of European, Africans,  Asians or Polynesians reaching the Americas in pre-Columbian and pre-Norse times.
 
Eh? Most Europeans on this forum are extremely skeptical against any non-supported wild fantasy travelling, no matter what direction they go. You on the other hand is totally open towards Americans travelling to Europe, but as soon as someone mentions Old World people going towards America you go start disregarding it as fantasies, "diffusion" and racism.
 
Back to the example: you didn't check it up where these kayaks came from. Instead you used it as a "proof" inuits might have made it to Europe. From this I can only draw the conclusion that you don't really care how the kayaks got here - you just wanted to pursue an agenda and were looking for "proof" to fit your theory. The scholarly way to do it is the opposite: creating a theories based on the evidence at hand.


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


They would had hardly any genetical impact if we are talking about just a couple of times that happened in history.
During the last five centuries, lot of Amerindians ended up in Europe, but still not in a demographically significant portion. Some people in England had matched possitive with Amerindian DNA. It is also know descendents of Francisca Pizarro, Tupac Amaru and many others ended in the upper classes of Europe, while Indian workers were absorved in the masses of Andalucia.The most important problem, though, is that native genetics is too close to some Central Asian people that is almost impossible to distinguish both.
I thought that population genetics was able to pinpoint not only the types of haplogroups that mixed in a certain region but also the time when the mixing occurred, but maybe I was wrong. Thanks Pinguin, for the interesting Information.
As a whole I am enjoying this topic, and am thankful to you for opening new perspectives for new possibilities in me.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:30
Quote As I wrote in my previous post, I was mainly considering the incidents in 1100s AD which were after the vikings had established the trade routes.
That would imply the "Indians" used the same ship portage system as the Vikings/Rus. Possible, but remains to be proven. Similarly possible is that these "Indians" were some southern darker-skinned people which navigated along the western coast. Or similarly possible is that the 12th century account to be a fiction, i.e. Nepos' account retold in different coordinates, that of a 12th century "Germany".
 
Quote
But any way, how about between Dnieper and Volga? Or Black Sea and Caspian sea? There are quite a few water ways there. This is a map of Volga river I found in Wikipedia. Please press the following       
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Volgarivermap.png - LINK .
There's no natural water way between any of those.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:34
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

[
...
Eh? Most Europeans on this forum are extremely skeptical against any non-supported wild fantasy travelling, no matter what direction they go. You on the other hand is totally open towards Americans travelling to Europe, but as soon as someone mentions Old World people going towards America you go start disregarding it as fantasies, "diffusion" and racism.
... 
 
I am also skeptical. This thread is just an intellectual exercise. However, some interesting things come out from it. For instance, the origin of the legends that inspired to Columbus.
 
Did those "landings" happened? I don't know. There isn't conclusive evidence to say so. It is possible that some accident brought a canoe from the American trade routes to Europe, however it is very unlikely.
 
In any case, I oppened this thread to study about the evidence that exist. Please don't accuse me of hyperdifussionism LOL
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:38
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote The Vikings travelled by ships all the way from Scandinavia to Caspian sea and to the Middle east through the rivers in Russia. The following is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus#Background_and_early_raids - a LINK to a related article in WIKIPEDIA .
Not quite. The region between Upper Volga and Baltic is navigable only through human-made canals. If you look at any physical map you'll notice there's no natural water-route between Caspian and Baltic. If one claims some Caspian boats reached Baltic in 1st century BC, then he needs to prove how they crossed the land (by a human-made canal, put on wheels, etc.)
 
Yes, it's proved. Vikings moved their ships through a portage between the rivers and travelled through Volga quite succesfuly all way down to the ancient Kwarezm and Iran on the shores of Caspian Sea.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_trade_route - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_trade_route


-------------
Σαυρομάτης



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net