The ancient navigators

a reply to: Harte

That's a great debunk, remind me never to go to a party with you. They would have to say something, wouldn't they? Aging ceramics that's a good one as if there are not enough forgers who could knock out a Michaelangelo which is authenticated and does the rounds as the real thing. Facts cant change a paradigm. But if local tribes of Polynesians can roam the broad pacific at their leisure.No doubt the probability is high that the same can be said for the Atlantic's shores.

a reply to: Harte

Well I can't read it if that is what you are asking but it was used time and again by many near east cultures from the Sumerians whom are believed to have originated the script to the Babylonians and the Hittites, in fact it was by reading the script that the Hittite language was finally cracked and found to have a lot in common with English and German indicating it was actually a proto Germanic language as opposed to the Semitic languages that were native to the region and showing just how foreign the Hittites really were to the region.

Still it is not arguably an ancestor of our own modern script's as it is too clumsy but it's grammatical ideas may have been passed to the Greek's, Latin's and Phoenicians and they in turn may have inspired the Egyptian demotic script or it could be the other way around.

A nice article I might add but I can't help but notice there is NO dissenting view expressed so it is probably rather biased, how accurate the facts are would actually require a genuine independent investigation, the Brazilian government if they DID bury a ship can NOT be called an independent and unbiased source and neither can anyone they paid to investigate it.

But that aside I gather you are an Isolationist despite the fact that diffusionism is undoubtedly proven beyond any shadow of a doubt EXCEPT on some remote and isolated islands and even there things wash up from time to time.

For me though Harte I always wondered what with that coc aine and tobacco in the Egyptian mummy's (unless you have a valid and UNBIASED source on that that denies it) if perhaps it was not WE (the OLD World as it was called not we as in us today) that were trading with the Americas but perhaps the Americas that were trading with the Old world.

Let's not get into how advanced the America's really were but let's just say Lidar Scan's of the Mayan ruins suggesting a huge population that must have needed a huge infrastructure, farms and trade.

haha Hey I doubt Ogham had anything to do with it though in some ways it is similar despite being a much, much later script and also a far more primitive one.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Hanslune
So it looks like Columbo had a map, which was driving him to commit ships on the ocean sea. I wonder if he obtained that from Venice. Or a friendly priest who worked at the Vatican or both.

If the Vatican "had a map" then it a) would have been a copy of other maps from other sources (they didn't have an exploration fleet OR a research university) and b) they'd have funded the expedition themselves (for gold, slaves, and converts.)

Unless the expedition were unsuccessful.

The natives are not guaranteed to welcome your traders with open arms. Nor to decide to trade with them.

Then we have "In the deep off of Africa we have an Island of considerable size etc" Diodorus of Sicily phoenicia.org...

Unlikely to be the Americas. In those ships, the trip would take six weeks to three months. Phoenician ships didn't carry enough supplies for that trip (I do note that they could have fished) - and once there, there was no way to figure out how to get back. If they can't get back, you don't get reports or maps.

They just vanish.

Exactly. You only hear from the voyagers who made it back.

If they don't make it back, you wouldn't know if it is because their map was wrong, or because they sank, or because the natives didn't like them.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Hanslune

You also have the problem that the Phonecians wanted the world to believe that the western ocean was impassable. If you wanted a monopoly on the trade you would say that. Even though they had bases down the West African coast. This is an interesting snippet nautarch.tamu.edu... about the Carthaginian coins and statue on Corvo. It mentions that the head and arm were taken to the king of Spain.
But it does not stop there. The microconidia markings on the Azorian mouse show that the Vikings probably settled there for a while.cals.cornell.edu...

That would help to explain why Plato described the Atlantic as being full of unnavigable mud. Maybe that is the information he had?

originally posted by: Hanslune

This is an interesting snippet nautarch.tamu.edu... about the Carthaginian coins and statue on Corvo. It mentions that the head and arm were taken to the king of Spain.
But it does not stop there. The microconidia markings on the Azorian mouse show that the Vikings probably settled there for a while.cals.cornell.edu...

okay yep we know the Vikings were traveling about and they left evidence of being in the Americas - others who might have gone there - didn't.

The Vikings actually settled there, and lived for a few generations. Also they didn't assimilate.

Mere trade would leave a much smaller footprint.

If a permanent outpost were established, the people in that outpost might choose to join the local culture, and then they would only leave behind the same artifacts as the locals.

a reply to: Harte

The Fuente Magna bowl is an interesting meditation.
More like the Voynich manuscript.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte

That's a great debunk, remind me never to go to a party with you. They would have to say something, wouldn't they? Aging ceramics that's a good one as if there are not enough forgers who could knock out a Michaelangelo which is authenticated and does the rounds as the real thing. Facts cant change a paradigm. But if local tribes of Polynesians can roam the broad pacific at their leisure.No doubt the probability is high that the same can be said for the Atlantic's shores.

LOL
How many Polynesians were roaming the broad Pacific in 3,000 BC?

Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

A nice article I might add but I can't help but notice there is NO dissenting view expressed so it is probably rather biased, how accurate the facts are would actually require a genuine independent investigation, the Brazilian government if they DID bury a ship can NOT be called an independent and unbiased source and neither can anyone they paid to investigate it.

And the named person that had the amphorae made counts for nothing here?

originally posted by: LABTECH767 But that aside I gather you are an Isolationist despite the fact that diffusionism is undoubtedly proven beyond any shadow of a doubt EXCEPT on some remote and isolated islands and even there things wash up from time to time.

I'm not an isolationist. I don't see the field as either-or.
What I AM is someone that needs evidence to consider believing a claim.
Only idiots expect Anthropology - or any other science (hard OR soft) to "prove" anything at all "beyond any shadow of doubt".
That's not what science does.
Diffusionism is not hyper diffusionism.

originally posted by: LABTECH767For me though Harte I always wondered what with that coc aine and tobacco in the Egyptian mummy's (unless you have a valid and UNBIASED source on that that denies it) if perhaps it was not WE (the OLD World as it was called not we as in us today) that were trading with the Americas but perhaps the Americas that were trading with the Old world.

I don't do people's work for them anymore. Try this link.
Besides, didn't Hans already tell you enough about that claim?

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If a permanent outpost were established, the people in that outpost might choose to join the local culture, and then they would only leave behind the same artifacts as the locals.

Only if they were completely abstinent.

Harte

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Harte

The Fuente Magna bowl is an interesting meditation.
More like the Voynich manuscript.

You want interesting?
Read about the quack that made that claim.
rationalwiki.org...

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The Vikings actually settled there, and lived for a few generations. Also they didn't assimilate.

Mere trade would leave a much smaller footprint.

If a permanent outpost were established, the people in that outpost might choose to join the local culture, and then they would only leave behind the same artifacts as the locals.




Their DNA might last and they would tend to spread superior tech instead of abandon it. Either way they left. They may have taken one person with them - or it occurred later.

www.medievalists.net...

Not sure if this was ever verified.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Harte

The Fuente Magna bowl is an interesting meditation.
More like the Voynich manuscript.

You want interesting?
Read about the quack that made that claim.
rationalwiki.org...

Harte

Yes the Afrocentric version of Barry Fells - a real academic who went off the rails

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Harte

As Harte knows but as a reminder to others.

Yep since the late 60s I've been a supporter of the idea that the Polynesian would have pushed on to south America and guess what we found SA DNA in Polynesia - so a partial success there - However, this has not be verified by a second study - and who did what? Did the P go to SA and return or did the SA come to P? We don't know.

I would love for all manner of folks to have done this and that or find this and that lost civilization. I even wrote a book about an Englishman finding a lost colony of Greeks in Central Asia. I support such ideas besides also looking for a 'flowering' of cultures after the previous Ice age, not the last one but the one before in the Eemian around 130,000 BCE

No luck - so far.

a reply to: Hanslune

The New Zealand rat is actually the Indonesian rat, I think they might have come with whoever sailed there?. That's hard evidence. The place was the go-to for greenstone, which is found all over the Pacific, they even made a twist drill out of it to show its durability. So that's trade.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Hanslune

The New Zealand rat is actually the Indonesian rat, I think they might have come with whoever sailed there?. That's hard evidence. The place was the go-to for greenstone, which is found all over the Pacific, they even made a twist drill out of it to show its durability. So that's trade.

You mean the Polynesian rat? R. exulans? They would appeared to have come with the Maori. Sorry not getting your point here. The P brought a lot of stuff with them when they showed up two indigenous rats species were already there are you talking about how they got there before people?

a reply to: Hanslune

Whenever the first rat arrived, was by proxy the time that humans arrived. I will have a look and see if I can find the date with regards to the Michocondria DNA The remoteness of NZ proves the voyaging capabilities of ancient navigators.I remember seeing it somewhere that it was way BC if anyone is prepared to accept that as evidence. Harte says that they were not sailing the pacific 3000bc unless rats could make and sail a boat someone was.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Hanslune

Whenever the first rat arrived, was by proxy the time that humans arrived. I will have a look and see if I can find the date with regards to the Michocondria DNA The remoteness of NZ proves the voyaging capabilities of ancient navigators.I remember seeing it somewhere that it was way BC if anyone is prepared to accept that as evidence. Harte says that they were not sailing the pacific 3000bc unless rats could make and sail a boat someone was.

I don't consider reaching New Zealand to be "sailing the broad Pacific."
Compare it to Hawaii or Easter Island and you'll see what I mean.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Hanslune

Whenever the first rat arrived, was by proxy the time that humans arrived. I will have a look and see if I can find the date with regards to the Michocondria DNA The remoteness of NZ proves the voyaging capabilities of ancient navigators.I remember seeing it somewhere that it was way BC if anyone is prepared to accept that as evidence. Harte says that they were not sailing the pacific 3000bc unless rats could make and sail a boat someone was.

I don't consider reaching New Zealand to be "sailing the broad Pacific."
Compare it to Hawaii or Easter Island and you'll see what I mean.

Harte

Agreed answered something similar to this a couple of years ago. There were two species there then the Polynesians brought another. I'll wait till tomorrow to look it up.

a reply to: Harte

The earliest (navigating) mariners had latitude knowledge and they probably would have tried to stay close to the equator.
The trade winds curve east close to the equator and those primitive sailing ships didn't point up into the wind very far.
So you could have a downhill run to Papeete bay which is north of the tropic of Capricorn from Thursday island.
Venus isn't a particularly bright planet, but is visible close to sunrise and sunset.
They built a temple for observing Venus at Chichen Itza on the Yucatan but that was later around 600 AD.
All I know about Venusian colonies I learned from the movie Easy Rider and my Outward Bound rowing expedition.

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

This is interesting as it seems about the time of the first marine Chronometers, they were getting longitude from the moon and Regulus, it just took four hours to work out. I have just come across this so decided to pop it in the thread. It seems that on Cooks's third voyage the Chronometer broke down and they had to do it by the moon again. The Moon method seems to be the most accurate as you did not get compounding errors if you got it wrong one night hopefully it was corrected the next night.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

This is interesting as it seems about the time of the first marine Chronometers, they were getting longitude from the moon and Regulus, it just took four hours to work out. I have just come across this so decided to pop it in the thread. It seems that on Cooks's third voyage the Chronometer broke down and they had to do it by the moon again. The Moon method seems to be the most accurate as you did not get compounding errors

if you got it wrong one night hopefully it was corrected the next night.

Such methods did work but the challenge of doing it at sea in a moving ship and dependent on the weather to make the observations-made it challenging to say the least.

a reply to: Hanslune

I bet that the way that the Royal Observatory wanted it was a perfct line of Longitude. I bet if you didn't cross all the T"s and dot all the I's you could get a quick fix that placed you on the vessel's horizon.