Move over Columbus, Native Americans & Vikings: Monkeys crossed the Atlantic first

Prehistoric Monkeys "rafted" from Africa to South America

(CNN)A crew of now-extinct monkeys made a treacherous transatlantic journey on a natural raft from Africa to settle in South America around 35 million years ago, according to a study of fossilized teeth found in Peru.

It's believed the prehistoric Ucayalipithecus monkeys made the more than 900-mile trip across the Atlantic (a narrower ocean at the time) on floating islands of vegetation that broke off from coastlines, possibly during a tropical storm.

"It would have been extremely difficult, though very small animals the size of Ucayalipithecus would be at an advantage over larger mammals in such a situation, because they would have needed less of the food and water that their raft of vegetation could have provided," said lead author Erik Seiffert, a professor of clinical integrative anatomical sciences at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. The study published Thursday in the journal Science.

"This is presumably why most of these overwater dispersal events that we know of in the fossil record involve very small animals," Seiffert said.

Only two other species of "immigrant" mammals are thought to have made what would have been a harsh crossing across the Atlantic, although exactly how they got there has long been a topic of heated discussion.

One was New World Monkeys, or platyrrhine primates, which are five families of flat-nosed primates that are found in south and central America today. The other was a type of rodent known as caviomorphs, ancestors of creatures like the capybara.

The team of researchers found the molars during an excavation of the left bank of the Yuruá River in the Peruvian Amazon. The animal has been named Ucayalipithecus perdita, which comes from Ucayali, the area of the Peruvian Amazon where the teeth were found, pithikos, the Greek word for monkey and perdita, the Latin word for lost.

It would have weighed about 12 ounces (350 grams) and was similar in size to some marmosets that live in South America today....more at source

Apparently the discovery isn't completely new but it's still fascinating stuff.

Apologies for the slight error in the title, I should have said ocean, not Atlantic.

So much of conventional history records are contradicted by more recently learned facts.

a reply to: Barcs

Maybe they were carried in the raft made by prehistoric men.

"Native Americans crossed the Atlantic first" So much for being "native." As for the Vikings, we knew that and it was in the history books in the 1950's. Plus there is some evidence that the Romans and Egyptians were in the Americas as well. I mean, SOMEONE was mining copper ore in Canada a very long time ago. No one seems to know who.

a reply to: schuyler

Yeah history is a lie written by the victors. our entire history we are taught in school is bull# force fed to us by satanists.

I strongly recommend this book by manly palmer hall.
America was set aside by secret societies as an experiment for democracy to break away from the vatican/crown corporations.

Personally I think American education system, media, and just about everything else was infiltrated over time to keep the public stupid.

But yeah it's very obvious that the history we are told is complete lie

ascension-research.org...

You do know that Africa was joined to South America in the past.

a reply to: crayzeed

You do know that Africa was joined to South America in the past.

And separated long before there were any primates.

originally posted by: schuyler
"Native Americans crossed the Atlantic first" So much for being "native." As for the Vikings, we knew that and it was in the history books in the 1950's. Plus there is some evidence that the Romans and Egyptians were in the Americas as well. I mean, SOMEONE was mining copper ore in Canada a very long time ago. No one seems to know who.

First Nations were mining copper and trading it all over the continent. The volumes that the hyper-diffusionists like to cite are bunk, though.

There could have been others starting around 1000AD, but the crossing of the Bering Straight was about 13,000 years ago as sea levels were about 300 feet lower. Later crossing seem to have happened once sea levels started to rise but still allowed small rafts to follow coastal lines for a short period of time. In any event there wasn't too many crossings.

originally posted by: schuyler
"Native Americans crossed the Atlantic first" So much for being "native."

No, Aboriginal Americans did not make their way to the America by crossing the Atlantic. The genetics alone demonstrate this. During the LGM, Beringea actually had a rather temperate climate and with an abundance of flora and fauna and at that point, migration patterns of herbivores and carnivores crosses back and forth from N. America to Eastern Asia and back. It was the Paleolithic version of a McDonalds drive through window!

As for the Vikings, we knew that and it was in the history books in the 1950's.

Sure, but back then there was only one confirmed site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Now there’s evidence of other sites. Personally, I think learning more and having more details to work from is an added bonus and at the risk of being a huge dork, pretty exciting

Plus there is some evidence that the Romans and Egyptians were in the Americas as well. I mean, SOMEONE was mining copper ore in Canada a very long time ago. No one seems to know who.

So which is it? Evidence that Romans and Egyptians were in the America’s long before there was a Rome or Egypt? Or nobody knows? See, the oldest known copper mines in N. America are located on Michigan’s upper peninsula and has been dated to 5000 BCE. In other words, it’s 7000 years old. There were no Mediterranean powers at that time who could navigate beyond shorelines. Personally, I think it’s far more likely that the aboriginal population of upper Michigan was mining the copper for tools of which there are many exemplars in the archaeological record.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Sure, but back then there was only one confirmed site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Now there’s evidence of other sites.

Other site(s) on Baffin Island, but indications that they went further south than LaM as well. No sites found yet.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: schuyler
"Native Americans crossed the Atlantic first" So much for being "native."

No, Aboriginal Americans did not make their way to the America by crossing the Atlantic. The genetics alone demonstrate this. During the LGM, Beringea actually had a rather temperate climate and with an abundance of flora and fauna and at that point, migration patterns of herbivores and carnivores crosses back and forth from N. America to Eastern Asia and back. It was the Paleolithic version of a McDonalds drive through window!

Same rule applies. They are not "native." In fact, DNA would suggest they are recent, circa 12,000 years ago. That does not mean ALL "native Americans" are from tribes that crossed the Bering Strait.

Sure, but back then there was only one confirmed site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Now there’s evidence of other sites. Personally, I think learning more and having more details to work from is an added bonus and at the risk of being a huge dork, pretty exciting

Which means the 1950's history books were correct and that fact has been corroborated by more recent finds. We knew about it back then, and now we know more about it.

So which is it? Evidence that Romans and Egyptians were in the America’s long before there was a Rome or Egypt? Or nobody knows? See, the oldest known copper mines in N. America are located on Michigan’s upper peninsula and has been dated to 5000 BCE. In other words, it’s 7000 years old. There were no Mediterranean powers at that time who could navigate beyond shorelines. Personally, I think it’s far more likely that the aboriginal population of upper Michigan was mining the copper for tools of which there are many exemplars in the archaeological record.

I don't know which it is, nor does anyone else. Maybe it's both, but the scale of operations suggests larger than a few tribal digs. It is simply not true that nobody could navigate beyond the Mediterranean 7000 years ago. There is plenty of data that shows Egyptians in Australia, for example, not to mention African artifacts in South America. Of course there was extensive pre-Columbian contact. That the history books don't wax extensively over the subject does not mean anyone is "hiding the truth" from us. It's just that proven knowledge is a bit sketchy. Not every unknown is a conspiracy.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: peter vlar
Sure, but back then there was only one confirmed site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Now there’s evidence of other sites.

Other site(s) on Baffin Island, but indications that they went further south than LaM as well. No sites found yet.

Thanks for the correction. I though that I had read a couple of years ago that they had also located what the Norse referred to as “Ho’p” in Nova Scotia. I apparently misremembered the article because after going back
And looking, the location they were working with is just the most likely spot for this site based on geographic clues.

I did find it interesting though that new research at L’Anse aux Meadows shows much longer periods of Occupation than was originally thought.

Was there not another site where Norse rope work was located as well? I’m getting a little Ahead of myself though.

originally posted by: peter vlar
I though that I had read a couple of years ago that they had also located what the Norse referred to as “Ho’p” in Nova Scotia. I apparently misremembered the article because after going back
And looking, the location they were working with is just the most likely spot for this site based on geographic clues.

I did find it interesting though that new research at L’Anse aux Meadows shows much longer periods of Occupation than was originally thought.

Was there not another site where Norse rope work was located as well? I’m getting a little Ahead of myself though.

Pat Sutherland was investigating sites on Baffin Island until she was shuffled out by Harper. Still don't have the straight skinny on that but things got weird at the Museum of History. I think she continued to publish at a Scottish university. There was an investigation at Point Rosee in south-western Newfoundland based on some satellite imagery, but it did not pan out. We know that they went south of LaM because of the butternuts found there...the sites have not yet been discovered. Hop is apparently an expression of a likelihood, and no actual physical site.
I still find the prospects exciting...and I love our Maritime provinces!

(I have a photo of Mrs. Canuck and myself standing in Leif Erikson's bedroom)

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: peter vlar
I though that I had read a couple of years ago that they had also located what the Norse referred to as “Ho’p” in Nova Scotia. I apparently misremembered the article because after going back
And looking, the location they were working with is just the most likely spot for this site based on geographic clues.

I did find it interesting though that new research at L’Anse aux Meadows shows much longer periods of Occupation than was originally thought.

Was there not another site where Norse rope work was located as well? I’m getting a little Ahead of myself though.

Pat Sutherland was investigating sites on Baffin Island until she was shuffled out by Harper. Still don't have the straight skinny on that but things got weird at the Museum of History. I think she continued to publish at a Scottish university. There was an investigation at Point Rosee in south-western Newfoundland based on some satellite imagery, but it did not pan out. We know that they went south of LaM because of the butternuts found there...the sites have not yet been discovered. Hop is apparently an expression of a likelihood, and no actual physical site.
I still find the prospects exciting...and I love our Maritime provinces!

(I have a photo of Mrs. Canuck and myself standing in Leif Erikson's bedroom)

I was aware of the potential site on Baffin Island and when I looked at the maps, especially the topographic maps and thought it was a very unlikely spot for a settlement seeing as there was no good place to land boats and the “site” being investigated Was at the top of a cliff. Not at all typical of other Norse sites from that time period. I think it’s just a matter of time before more sites are found though.

Did you see the recent reports on L’Anse aux Meadows where they decided to dig into a nearby bog and found everything from wood laid down as walkways to remains of flora not indigenous to the Americas. I’ll try to find the article and link it for you.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Did you see the recent reports on L’Anse aux Meadows where they decided to dig into a nearby bog and found everything from wood laid down as walkways to remains of flora not indigenous to the Americas. I’ll try to find the article and link it for you.

I'd be interested in seeing that. It's been a while since I was there last. The chatter at Red Bay, Labrador, is that they think the Basque predate Columbus on that site.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: peter vlar
Did you see the recent reports on L’Anse aux Meadows where they decided to dig into a nearby bog and found everything from wood laid down as walkways to remains of flora not indigenous to the Americas. I’ll try to find the article and link it for you.

I'd be interested in seeing that. It's been a while since I was there last. The chatter at Red Bay, Labrador, is that they think the Basque predate Columbus on that site.

I tried to find the original article I had read this in, but as usual that part of my memory is slightly compromised. I did find a couple of other articles about things they've found in the bogs so it will at least give you a starting point if you want to look deeper.


arstechnica.com...

www.pnas.org...

www.nationalgeographic.com...

let me know your thoughts on this and I'll actually pull Bones of the bookshelf and read it finally!

a reply to: peter vlar

It looks like the Bronze age peoples were the ones with extensive sea routes worked out, and then came the Bronze age Collapse. Lots of destruction not much history.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: peter vlar

It looks like the Bronze age peoples were the ones with extensive sea routes worked out, and then came the Bronze age Collapse. Lots of destruction not much history.

But that doesn't tie in at all to my reply to Schuyler. There were no Bronze Age civilizations in existence prior to Mesopotamia or more than 2000 years before the first Egyptian pyramid. As brilliant as the Egyptians were in some areas, sea daring vessels was not one of them. Hence they contracted with the Phoenicians to engage in any trades that included traversing open water. Their Reed boats we're great for navigating the Nile and it's tributaries but tended to take on too much water once the Reed's the boat was built from became too waterlogged adding even more weight to the ship.

There's far more evidence that First Nation people were mining the ore for use in their own tools and weapons and zero evidence aside from anecdotal tales and wishful thinking by people who seem to think that everyone with a science degree had to swear an oath to hide the Reeel trufes about our ancient past.

If Im misunderstanding you and you're simply implying that the reason we lack answers is the late Bronze after collapse and lack of documentation, I would say that we can learn a great deal about cultures and civilizations without the need of a written record. Hell, most of the writing from ancient Mesopotamia is limited to science, math and law. Not the everyday comings and goings.

originally posted by: peter vlar
let me know your thoughts on this and I'll actually pull Bones of the bookshelf and read it finally!

I had forgotten about the further discoveries at LAM. It's one of my favourite places...very spiritual...stark beauty. You know you're somewhere special. The journal publication was a good read. It reminded m of a commentary about Meadowcroft(?). When the PI was asked how they had come to discover the pre-clovis horizon , he responded "We decided to dig deeper"

As to Point Rosee, it was all pretty exciting at the time. We actually drove past that dig on our meandering return to LAM, and I thought "Ripped off! Wish we'd have known!". But in the end, it was considered at best to be inconclusive.
Archeological quest for Codroy Valley Vikings comes up short
Still, I'd love for new Norse sites to emerge from the past. Maybe get a chance to dig, myself?

Oh, and you mentioned a book called "Bones". By Elaine Dewar? It's a pretty good read. She is a protégé of a particular grumpy old man in Ontario archaeology and is, I think, a journalist with some archaeological training. There is an axe to grind, which becomes apparent. I recognise some friends of mine, even though they are cited anonymously. I'll re-read it, simply to see how much speculation has proven to be correct since it was written in 2001. Yup, definitely read it, Peter.