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

a reply to: yuppa

that you may have done it in other threads is not germane to THIS thread. Why should others have to engage in your due diligence for you? It's a ridiculous notion. Hell, you could even just link a thread that you posted the pertinent information in. To not do such is suspect or supremely lazy.

Finally they are finding evidence. Maybe now they will burn all the old school history books and make it seem that they always knew this. The new kids will be arguing with their parents about this, the parents will say the Vikings discovered America. They keep forgetting....all accounts say they traded with the Indians here. So when did the Indians get here? How did the Indians get here?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: imitator

The anchors have been proven to be from the 19th and early 20th centuries from Chinese immigrants from that time period. Not from prior to Columbus.

Are you sure it's the same anchor.... didn't they discover more anchors in the last few years....

Plus the fact it was tested in the 80's and predated Columbus....

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

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

Care to enlarge upon that?

I have stated that in many other threads and even linked to archaological proof of a previous people who were wiped out by the"native americans" Im not doing it yet again. Google it yourself.

Sorry, you're the one making the claim...it's up to you to back it up. That's how it works.

a reply to: 727Sky

Possible, but i would still lean more on the research of Thor Heyerdahl et al in respect to early mans sea voyages. He even proved the distances possible, and the journeys truly within the realm of fact for keel-less craft (balsa-rafts, papyrus, totora and other reed boats). I would read his works. The most conscise of them (combining multiple expeditions and oceans would be 'early man and the sea' as well as 'in adams footsteps')

a reply to: imitator

I'm not familiar with any proven pre-Colombian anchors. Do you
Have a Citation for it?

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.

I don't know what history class this guy took, but way back in fifth grade in the fifties I was taught--from a textbook, no less--that Columbus was probably not first and that there was solid evidence of Leif Erickson's voyage, at least. The reason Columbus is high on the list of discoverers of America is because his voyage was the first one that "took" in the sense that before Columbus Europe did not know about the Americas and after Columbus, it did. The Americas "got on the map" permanently as far as Western Civilization was concerned, in 1492.

No doubt there were many from all over the world well before that who "discovered America" and then, for whatever reason, forgot about it or failed to follow through. But every time someone "discovers" another "discovery" they see fit to take a gratuitous pot shot at Columbus and also declare "we were wrongly taught" when, in fact, we weren't taught Columbus was first at all. Perhaps they weren't paying attention in class that day, but I clearly remember discussions, as part of the curriculum, not a local aside, that Columbus was not first, so claiming we were taught that is flat out wrong.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: yuppa

that you may have done it in other threads is not germane to THIS thread. Why should others have to engage in your due diligence for you? It's a ridiculous notion. Hell, you could even just link a thread that you posted the pertinent information in. To not do such is suspect or supremely lazy.

Whats worse? doing someones research for them so they dont learn by virtue of researching it them selves OR giving them all the information that they will just ignore and mostly skim over.

@ Johnny canuck
You may think that but your jumped into a reply i made to someone else so youre wrong i am afraid. You might find some interesting information if you look yourself.

a reply to: 727Sky

We knew this a long time ago.

So they are now accepting it?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: 727Sky

We knew this a long time ago. So they are now accepting it?

That's kind of the issue, isn't it? The article says "several new theories." That's nice. I suspect they are generally correct. but the fact is, Columbus is a part of the historical record. These theories are not.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: 727Sky

We knew this a long time ago. So they are now accepting it?

That's kind of the issue, isn't it? The article says "several new theories." That's nice. I suspect they are generally correct. but the fact is, Columbus is a part of the historical record. These theories are not.

Columbus is part of the historical record, true.

But it doesn't negate earlier explorers. They have now accepted the Vikings were here longer, but we don't have Leif Erickson Day yet.

I imagine that there were intrepid individuals throughout the existence of mankind who started walking toward the horizon and just kept walking. A few individuals here and there, wandering around the world. It's not impossible. You can do it yourself.

But was there ever enough contact to affect the people in the area where these individuals traveled? Not really.

Genetics is really turning out to be the deciding factor in this kind of debate.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: yuppa

that you may have done it in other threads is not germane to THIS thread. Why should others have to engage in your due diligence for you? It's a ridiculous notion. Hell, you could even just link a thread that you posted the pertinent information in. To not do such is suspect or supremely lazy.

What is worse is making a statement of fact, claiming you can and have supported it previously and then announcing you refuse to provide a citation. It's common and appropriate etiquette in a debate or discussion that if you make a claim, the onus lies upon you to provide information demonstrating support for said claim. It's really a quite simple concept. The entire concept[t of making a bold and saucy claim and then announcing your refusal to support said claim while issuing snarky retort for others to engage in your own due diligence for you is rather peculiar and honestly a bit sketchy. Especially when one of your rationalizations is that nobody will read it or at best just skim the data. If that were the case, I sure as hell wouldn't be asking for a citation
Whats worse? doing someones research for them so they dont learn by virtue of researching it them selves OR giving them all the information that they will just ignore and mostly skim over.

@ Johnny canuck
You may think that but your jumped into a reply i made to someone else so youre wrong i am afraid. You might find some interesting information if you look yourself.

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.

a reply to: Glassbender777

But all religions are loosely based on facts. If you are to believe that group from Germany that the Chinese settled in America first, then you must also believe in the Flood, Jesus, Moses, and even unicorns, because according to them, they all existed.

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..

Taking the position that they were wiped out contradicts the findings of both your cited article the paper it refers to in Nature Magazine's September 2003 issue. The findings of the researchers were that this group of people survived in isolation until a few hundred years ago when they were likely assimilated into other populations. This means they were here for 10,000 years unscathed. Hardly a group who were wiped out upon first contact with other paleo-americans. Additionally, as your citation is 11 1/2 years old, there has been a lot of new research and data since then. The article you cite links an affinity to Kennewick man citing similar skull morphologies. In fact, the entire premise of these people being from Australia/Southern Asia is completely based on morphology alone which is lazier than refusing to post a citation and then getting pissy when others explain that when you make a claim its on you to cite your sources and support your own argument as opposed to expecting others to engage in due diligence for you. But I digress...

New research and genetic data indicates that at least Kennewick Man was I fact a descendent of the same people who crossed over Berringia. The possibility that the remains in Baja are also related to similar lineages is definitely increased and much less likely to be Australian in origin when the basis for that determination is morphology alone.

dienekes.blogspot.com...

www.nature.com...

I posted this because some people are too dam lazy to search google and want others to do their footwork.

Not at all. You made the claim, its on you to cite and support your claim and to say otherwise is disingenuous and lazy on YOUR part. It's not the job of others to engage in due diligence on your behalf, particularly when you offer no specifics and a google search could lend itself to all sorts of random results based on such open ended criteria. How long did it take you to copy and past the link? Far less time than it has for you to rebuke several requests for the information or whine about it here.

originally posted by: 727Sky
We read about new finds all the time but if this proves to be fact, this will push the time line further back than anything else I remembering reading.
Fact or fanciful dreaming? You decide

My two cents worth is there was trade where ever trade could be established. The Polynesians certainly got around, that's for sure.
Some of the South American stone heads showing Asian or African features seem to point to far flung interactions.

According to a new study, researchers believe that the ancient Chinese discovered the American continent 2000 years before Christopher Colombus.

Trade between Eastern parts of Asia and the New World is believed to have taken place much before Christopher Columbus arrived to the “New World” changing history books .
Now, researchers propose several new theories that can change history as we have been thought in school. Long before the arrival of Spaniards, the Native Americans were in contact with other great cultures which include: China, Korea and the region of Yakutia, Russia. 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.

bizlifes.net...

I read something a long time ago that said that there were multiple Asian migrations to North America. Appearently there are like 50 (don't remember the real number might have been 25) completely unrelated Native American languages, all based on the west coast. According to whoevers theory this was, languages Don't work like that. Look at how many European languages are Latin based....

So the theory is that the only way you get 25+ completely unrelated languages in such a small area is if there were multiple Asian migrations over the millinia.

originally posted by: schuyler

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.

I don't know what history class this guy took, but way back in fifth grade in the fifties I was taught--from a textbook, no less--that Columbus was probably not first and that there was solid evidence of Leif Erickson's voyage, at least. The reason Columbus is high on the list of discoverers of America is because his voyage was the first one that "took" in the sense that before Columbus Europe did not know about the Americas and after Columbus, it did. The Americas "got on the map" permanently as far as Western Civilization was concerned, in 1492.

No doubt there were many from all over the world well before that who "discovered America" and then, for whatever reason, forgot about it or failed to follow through. But every time someone "discovers" another "discovery" they see fit to take a gratuitous pot shot at Columbus and also declare "we were wrongly taught" when, in fact, we weren't taught Columbus was first at all. Perhaps they weren't paying attention in class that day, but I clearly remember discussions, as part of the curriculum, not a local aside, that Columbus was not first, so claiming we were taught that is flat out wrong.

I think it would be fair to say Columbus CLAIMED America not discovered it.


However, I think your both right....


Yes, they did teach us in history class about the Viking crossings and hinted at others.

And

Yes, our society does glorify Columbus saying he discovered America, while off handedly saying "but others did it first".


I think it comes from America being a country long before the Viking voyages were discovered. We got used to celebrating Columbus, so it is hard to stop celebrating something since that would be throwing away a perfectly good vacation from school and work! :p

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

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

originally posted by: yuppa
@ Johnny canuck
You may think that but your jumped into a reply i made to someone else so youre wrong i am afraid. You might find some interesting information if you look yourself.

Since I know I did not intercept a private message, I 'jumped into' a thread by posting in a...wait for it...forum!
And speaking as one who has actually looked into it a fair bit, I am quite comfortable in saying that if you make exceptional claims, you had better back them up. It's as easy as providing a citation. Then we know your 'facts' are not merely rectally sourced.