Researchers find evidence: Ancient China discovered America thousands of years before Columbus

originally posted by: yuppa
Actually they took the land from a previous people so they are not as native as they claim.

Who were the previous people? The migration across the straights 15,000 years ago was the first....

a reply to: 727Sky

The solutreans beat everyone.

Does anyone know an older Chinese person who grew up and went to school in mainland China ?

I was told:

in China, in the old teaching institutions, it's taught that Chinese ships roamed the west coast of Mexico, California up to Canada.
Trading, but not putting down settlements, it's a Taboo to Die and not be buried or cremated on your Home Soil, your Spirit would never find Peace or find it's Ancestors to help the Spirit Move On.

a reply to: openminded2011

Very interesting video thank you for posting.

a reply to: openminded2011

Yeah that was a very interesting video. I like when they banished the one guy for committing murder, because you basically die if you're on your own unless you end up forming a tribe with others who were exiled. Dying of scurvy must have been misery too.

Anyway I think there is a good chance many different peoples came to North America throughout history. The Eskimos and Native Americans seem to share traits with Asians, not particularly sure if it was from Chinese, or other Asian peoples.

As far as early Nordic peoples, I think it would have been easier to cross the Atlantic than the Pacific. I never really bought the land bridge theory myself, but you never know. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: yuppa
Actually they took the land from a previous people so they are not as native as they claim.

Who were the previous people? The migration across the straights 15,000 years ago was the first....

I posted the information back in the thread.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I posted information. its up to you to find it if you want to disprove it.And yes you can say something specifically to a certain person in a forum instead of a PM. I shall now demonstrate how by Ignoring your further response on the subject.

Discover is used to mean, start. Almost everything the American culture contributes: from internet, to electricit that powers our homes and charges our cell phones, can draw a straight line back to Columbus.

If you want/need to divide people up into sub cultures of humans, then do it. Don't pretend that any other sub culture had the effect on the Americans, and the world, that Columbus had

originally posted by: 727Sky

These exchanges would have taken place 2,600 years ago, marking the date of Columbus’ arrival as something ordinary and not as a historical date like we have been told in history class.

There's nothing ordinary about the date the genocide of the Americas began.

a reply to: thinline

Columbus never set foot in America.

Caribbean Islands, yes. But America, no.

Viking were there before Columbus and the Polynesian people beat him to the Americas.

originally posted by: thinline
Discover is used to mean, start. Almost everything the American culture contributes: from internet, to electricit that powers our homes and charges our cell phones, can draw a straight line back to Columbus.

If you want/need to divide people up into sub cultures of humans, then do it. Don't pretend that any other sub culture had the effect on the Americans, and the world, that Columbus had

You can use that same logic against your point just by glorifying whatever influenced Columbus rather then him. Or whatever influenced what influenced Columbus.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: peter vlar
who were the first americans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
The reason i say they were wiped out was there was evidence of skeletons found with NA arrows and weapons in and around them. I posted this because some people are too dam lazy to search google and want others to do their footwork.

If it doesn't conflict with your 2003-era Nat Geo, (What? Were you conducting research while waiting for a doctor's appointment?) you might like to check out a more current issue:
Tracking the First Americans

Consider it a courtesy. I'd suggest, though, if you want to discuss science from a pedestal of snottiness, you might want to support your arguments in a more substantive manner.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: peter vlar

On my behalf? Listen here. Im not going to repost something over and over just to satisfy a few people who are trying to be as disengenious and nit picky as possible.

That almost comes off like you knew ahead of time that your source didn't have a leg to stand on and would be easily refuted. It's not nit picky to point out that you are using information that's a dozen years old and long out of date based on newer research. Aren't we supposed to be denying ignorance on ATS? Then why insist on perpetuating it instead? Because that's exactly what you and your childish attitude are doing here

I stated something I saw for myself NOT FOR YOUR SAKE.

Bull S# You stated it as a rebuttal to another poster. It's entirely irrelevant anyway as the information is incorrect. I notice you neglect to actually address that fact and instead focus on the minutiae of why you refuse to post a link to support your claim. My 7 year old knows enough to cite her sources. Getting angry with others for your own short comings and failure/refusal to support your highly speculative claims is extremely suspect and borderline trollish.

OP is being fed a line of Eastern BS. NA ran out/wiped out/assimilated previous peoples. end .full stop.

good for you to ignore evidence contrary to your dozen year old and out of date article. There were no previous people to be wiped out or assimilated. There's certainly the possibility of humans being in the Americas much earlier than previously thought with currently accepted dates well before Clovis and pushing farther back year after year. But there still isn't any evidence that they came from Australia or anywhere other than Berringia. Not yet at least and definitely not in the article you linked.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: peter vlar

On my behalf? Listen here. Im not going to repost something over and over just to satisfy a few people who are trying to be as disengenious and nit picky as possible.

That almost comes off like you knew ahead of time that your source didn't have a leg to stand on and would be easily refuted. It's not nit picky to point out that you are using information that's a dozen years old and long out of date based on newer research. Aren't we supposed to be denying ignorance on ATS? Then why insist on perpetuating it instead? Because that's exactly what you and your childish attitude are doing here

I stated something I saw for myself NOT FOR YOUR SAKE.

Bull S# You stated it as a rebuttal to another poster. It's entirely irrelevant anyway as the information is incorrect. I notice you neglect to actually address that fact and instead focus on the minutiae of why you refuse to post a link to support your claim. My 7 year old knows enough to cite her sources. Getting angry with others for your own short comings and failure/refusal to support your highly speculative claims is extremely suspect and borderline trollish.

OP is being fed a line of Eastern BS. NA ran out/wiped out/assimilated previous peoples. end .full stop.

good for you to ignore evidence contrary to your dozen year old and out of date article. There were no previous people to be wiped out or assimilated. There's certainly the possibility of humans being in the Americas much earlier than previously thought with currently accepted dates well before Clovis and pushing farther back year after year. But there still isn't any evidence that they came from Australia or anywhere other than Berringia. Not yet at least and definitely not in the article you linked.

It's been a LONG time since I read this article, but what about the languages?

I read an article saying that there were far too many unrelated languages on the west coast to be part of the natural evolution of languages. The historian (or maybe linguist) who authored the theory claimed that THE ONLY way there would be 20+ completely unrelated languages is with multiple colonizations. His theory was that there must have been multiple Asian crossings that lead to colonization.


Like Many European languages are Latin based. Appearently there are like 20 Native American languages on the west coast, none based on the others.


Just asking not my pet theory... Lol

originally posted by: Entreri06
It's been a LONG time since I read this article, but what about the languages?

I read an article saying that there were far too many unrelated languages on the west coast to be part of the natural evolution of languages. The historian (or maybe linguist) who authored the theory claimed that THE ONLY way there would be 20+ completely unrelated languages is with multiple colonizations. His theory was that there must have been multiple Asian crossings that lead to colonization.

I'm inclined to agree that there were multiple migrations into NA via Berringia. Not only is it highly likely that there were multiple migrations IN to North America as DNA evidence shows at least 3 migrations between 40K BPE and 15K BPE, there is also evidence from linguistic phylogenies showing that there were back migrations from NA into Siberia as well. Another place where language isolates likely sprung up is on Beringia itself as there is evidence for 1000's of years of habitation on what is now known to be a more hospitable environment than previously thought with plants and animals in abundance, herds migrating back and forth between Siberia and NA, people following the herds and so on...

linguistic phylogenies-
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0091722

habitation of Beringia-
www.smithsonianmag.com...

Like Many European languages are Latin based. Appearently there are like 20 Native American languages on the west coast, none based on the others.

Multiple migrations coupled with isolationism can certainly lead to this. The evidence in favor of multiple migrations is very strong. It just doesn't show any evidence either genetically or linguistically, of people arriving from Australia/South Asia. All evidence shows people crossing Berringia from Siberia to NA.

Just asking not my pet theory... Lol

It's actually a really good question. I wish I could locate the article you reference to see exactly what it said and what specific language groups it was referring to.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Entreri06
It's been a LONG time since I read this article, but what about the languages?

I read an article saying that there were far too many unrelated languages on the west coast to be part of the natural evolution of languages. The historian (or maybe linguist) who authored the theory claimed that THE ONLY way there would be 20+ completely unrelated languages is with multiple colonizations. His theory was that there must have been multiple Asian crossings that lead to colonization.

I'm inclined to agree that there were multiple migrations into NA via Berringia. Not only is it highly likely that there were multiple migrations IN to North America as DNA evidence shows at least 3 migrations between 40K BPE and 15K BPE, there is also evidence from linguistic phylogenies showing that there were back migrations from NA into Siberia as well. Another place where language isolates likely sprung up is on Beringia itself as there is evidence for 1000's of years of habitation on what is now known to be a more hospitable environment than previously thought with plants and animals in abundance, herds migrating back and forth between Siberia and NA, people following the herds and so on...

linguistic phylogenies-
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0091722

habitation of Beringia-
www.smithsonianmag.com...

Like Many European languages are Latin based. Appearently there are like 20 Native American languages on the west coast, none based on the others.

Multiple migrations coupled with isolationism can certainly lead to this. The evidence in favor of multiple migrations is very strong. It just doesn't show any evidence either genetically or linguistically, of people arriving from Australia/South Asia. All evidence shows people crossing Berringia from Siberia to NA.

Just asking not my pet theory... Lol

It's actually a really good question. I wish I could locate the article you reference to see exactly what it said and what specific language groups it was referring to.

You have think the south Asian and Australian trips were possible or Australia wouldn't have been populated..., if you can make it there you can make it back (the ocean current gods might laugh at me for that one :p) and some one made it there for it to be populated.


Also didn't they find coc aine leaves in some Egyption Pharohs tomb? If so then that guarentees travel to the Americas , since coc aine plants only grow in South America. If that's the case, if the Egyptians were doing it. Then the door is open for untold migrations even in recorded history.

originally posted by: Entreri06


You have think the south Asian and Australian trips were possible or Australia wouldn't have been populated...

Australia was settled by one of the first waves of humans to have left Africa 60,000 years ago and all evidence seems to point to them staying there once they settled in. Other groups of humans had colonized South and East Asia separately from those who settled Australia. There is no genetic or linguistic component that is analogous to any groups of indigenous Americans.

if you can make it there you can make it back (the ocean current gods might laugh at me for that one :p) and some one made it there for it to be populated.

When Australia was first populated, you could almost walk the entire way there between the Sunda Shelf and the Sahul shelf. The farthest stretch of water was only 90 km or about 56 miles. That's a drop in the bucket compared to some of the distances sailed by Neanderthals and a little island hopping got them across in what appears to be a single migration wave based on current Y chromosome analysis. Aside from some trade with New Guinea, the Australian Aborigines were quite content to stay put. It's great to sit back and think about the variety of possibilities but if the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis and instead points elsewhere, you've got to follow the data.

Also didn't they find coc aine leaves in some Egyption Pharohs tomb? If so then that guarentees travel to the Americas , since coc aine plants only grow in South America. If that's the case, if the Egyptians were doing it. Then the door is open for untold migrations even in recorded history.

No Coca leaves were ever found in Egypt. There was a one page article written by 3 Germans in 1997 that claims to have discovered traces of coc aine in 9 mummies ranging in age from 1000 BPE to 350 PE. The article is questionable at best for several reasons and one simply can not rewrite all of history based on 7 paragraphs purporting a phenomenon that has not been published, verified or reproduced by anybody else. Those are the basic steps of the scientific method and they simply do not apply to the alleged coc aine mummies. Not only that, coc aine was not even synthesized until the 1850's so its not even possible for coc aine to have been found in the mummies and one also has to take into consideration that the detection of pharmacologically active substances in artificially mummified materials never proves their use prior to death.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Entreri06


You have think the south Asian and Australian trips were possible or Australia wouldn't have been populated...

Australia was settled by one of the first waves of humans to have left Africa 60,000 years ago and all evidence seems to point to them staying there once they settled in. Other groups of humans had colonized South and East Asia separately from those who settled Australia. There is no genetic or linguistic component that is analogous to any groups of indigenous Americans.

if you can make it there you can make it back (the ocean current gods might laugh at me for that one :p) and some one made it there for it to be populated.

When Australia was first populated, you could almost walk the entire way there between the Sunda Shelf and the Sahul shelf. The farthest stretch of water was only 90 km or about 56 miles. That's a drop in the bucket compared to some of the distances sailed by Neanderthals and a little island hopping got them across in what appears to be a single migration wave based on current Y chromosome analysis. Aside from some trade with New Guinea, the Australian Aborigines were quite content to stay put. It's great to sit back and think about the variety of possibilities but if the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis and instead points elsewhere, you've got to follow the data.

Also didn't they find coc aine leaves in some Egyption Pharohs tomb? If so then that guarentees travel to the Americas , since coc aine plants only grow in South America. If that's the case, if the Egyptians were doing it. Then the door is open for untold migrations even in recorded history.

No Coca leaves were ever found in Egypt. There was a one page article written by 3 Germans in 1997 that claims to have discovered traces of coc aine in 9 mummies ranging in age from 1000 BPE to 350 PE. The article is questionable at best for several reasons and one simply can not rewrite all of history based on 7 paragraphs purporting a phenomenon that has not been published, verified or reproduced by anybody else. Those are the basic steps of the scientific method and they simply do not apply to the alleged coc aine mummies. Not only that, coc aine was not even synthesized until the 1850's so its not even possible for coc aine to have been found in the mummies and one also has to take into consideration that the detection of pharmacologically active substances in artificially mummified materials never proves their use prior to death.

Yea, not saying the Australians made the trip, but just that a sea faring "race" could have made the trip and brought goods and people (prob slaves) back. Not was I saying that the Australians colonized the Americas. If memory serves native Americans genetically were Siberian/European (from the land bridge crossing and Asian (historiclly from the ice age crossings as well). I just don't think it would have been hard to coast and island hop the same route as the land bridge used to be. Hell, they might have known from the ice age that there was land to travel to there!!



Wouldn't suprise me if the coc aine story was fake....but the story claimed coca leaves not synthesized powder cocain. But you seen pretty knowledgeable so I'm not doubting it's a fake story. However, coca leaves (or anyother totally American plant) WOULD mean there were crossings and "trade" (prob raiding). Weather they found one leaf or seven or thousands, it would rewrite Egyptian history!



It disappoints me if the coc aine story was fake (or a mistake).... I thought it was a pretty telling about human nature. What item was important enough to brave the insanely dangerous trip to the Americas? Why something that gets you high of course!!! Out of all the artifacts, minerals, artwork, people, animals, exc that whatever explorer could heve brought back to be saved in a Pharohs tomb. Homie was like " leave the gold, bring back a bunch of that plant that gives you a buzz!!"