Aside from the confirmed Norse explorations of Greenland/Newfoundland, which Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories are actually somewhat plausible?
Beginner reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories
I have grandparents that are Mayan through my grandmothers paternal side, and through her paternal side very Nahua people. And all respect to all native American people, I give credit to the pre contact with Old World civilization in the Americas.. but I secretly suspect that Mesoamerica had East Asian influences.
Some Mesoamerican art looks a lot like East Asian art, especially Chinese and Japanese, plus the Mayan style of writing and Chinese style of writing (logograms) are somewhat identical, in terms of Mayan and Chinese radicals.
Japanese and Korean grammar also resemble a lot of native American grammar from various languages. And, too many native Americans look too East Asian. It's a common joke in Latin America to say someone looks "Chino" or Chinese to refer to how, well, East Asian they look, even if they are over 75% indigenous blood with no known East Asian ancestors.
There's a lot of parallels to draw from, and I personally have a lot of sneaking suspicions, but it's also not likely overall, and all the "similarities" between cultures can easily be explained as well, so... basically, we only have solid evidence for Nordic and Polynesian Pre Columbian contact, with the Polynesian still being investigated for further validity and background.
Hard to tell really. There's a page on wikipedia but I can't find the documentary that explained it.
There was less emphasis on naval technology than Carthaginian sea faring and navigational skills though.
I agree with this as well and i'm hispanic. There's so many similarities between east asians and central american natives. short stature, small dicks, jet black hair, mostly hairless, and sometimes even I can't tell if a hispanic is asian or mexican. Hell, look at the American Inuits, they're obviously related to the siberian/monogolian peoples.
It makes sense geographically too, yes the ancient siberians walked across the strait and that's how north america was mainly populated but i think a lot of central and south america had polynesian and east asian ancestors.
Considering a huge part of polynesian tradition was sailing and colonizing new islands, I don't think it's far fetched to say many tribal settlers ended up reaching the americas and mixing with the locals.
I also find it interesting how heavily the pre-columbian european explorers influenced the genetics of american natives. they were mainly taller and less asian looking.
I don't know about contact per se but isn't salt cod used as evidence for European landfall on continental America before more official exploration? Iberian fishermen were fishing the Grand Banks and returned with salt cod or so I'm told. Presumably there would be contact with the locals.
It should be noted that while all the theories of pre-Columbian contact with Asia are given a fair shake, any claims of contact with Europe (the Norse Vineland colony being the exception) are discounted as simply impossible or flat-out frauds, despite the obvious genetic evidence...
Polynesian, Siberian and Norse are only credible ones, the rest are shit. There is no evidence for any of them, linguistic or genetic or archaeological. Natives look Asian because their ancestors came from Asia. Any archaeological resemblances are superficial and mostly related to people looking similar, not any contact. We can see the development of Mesoamerican civilisation from the Neolithic times, and the findings suggest independent development. Chinaboos are the worst.
I'd like to believe the just barely post-Roman contact Celts, or at least the medieval Welsh made it to upper New England, but I have no evidence, beyond two old legends about a saint named Brendan finding an island of plenty far to the west, and a prince of Gwynedd named Madoc doing the same centuries earlier.
There are some striking similarities between Iroquois culture, especially in customs of war, and the legendary exploits of Celt heroes. But that is verrry unconfirmed, and I'd probably get laughed at for writing a paper on it.
write that paper /his/torian... write that paper. not everything we write / publish has to be correct, sometimes it's just a great way to spur further research and discussion by presenting an argument and looking forward to the counters.
Phoenicians certainly /could/ have done it. Those guys traded way south in Africa along the coasts, they could easily have taken a south Atlantic route and cut up along the coasts. Whether they actually did, I dunno.
>>obvious genetic evidence
>Well, share some if it's so obvious.
Center the map on the Atlantic, with the Americas to the left and Europe to the right and it becomes blatantly obvious.
But ivory tower politically correct academia would have us believe that ancient R1 humans marched across the breadth of Asia, crossed the Bering Strait, climbed the Rocky Mts. and shlepped across Canada (in the midst of a global ice age) and just happened to settle in eastern N.America, a stones throw from Europe...
This, apparently the vikings picked up stories about the Irish monks' trips from the skraelings. ( I don't have a source, but I remember reading this somewhere).
I also find the theory that breton fisherman were using the banks of Newfoundland to fish highly plausible, but their fish locations were orally passed on to the next generation, so there's no real written source on this.
>there were no migrations going on in siberia
It most probably comes from people like Malt'a-Buret' culture, who spread both westwards and eastwards, among other places to Beringia.
>my hypothesis is shit
>surely it must be the fault of political correctness!
To the rest of the thread: you are faggots, your evidence is faulty or nonexistent. The only confirmed contacts are Norse and Russian Far East and maybe Polynesians.
Keep in mind a lot of the theories about ancient contact aren't based on any real evidence or scientific criteria, but are usually inspired by racism. "The civilizations couldn't have possibly have been built by the savage natives... it had to have been ancient Europeans/Asians/Aliens". There's also the more recent trend of people on here trying to claim Europeans first colonized America, justifying the later Indian genocide since it was "originally theirs"
I always felt like the potential history to come out of the norse more widely exploring and settling north america would've been really fucking interesting. Sure the norse would've had steel arms and armor, but at least they wouldn't of had muskets and horses, which would've put them on more even terms with the native americans I think. Maybe not warrior vs warrior as much, but certainly they would have a much easier time raiding settlements when the settlers weren't armed with muskets.
I always thought paganism and animism were kind of similar in some ways as well and I wonder if the two sides could've maybe found some common ground in religion.