When Odd Old World Artifacts are found in the New World...

Why do we always assume it means people from the old world made it to the Americas? (That is when we don't ignore them.)

en.wikipedia.org...


If the artifacts are being found with no other supporting artifacts, or otherwise seemingly out of context, wouldn't that suggest more strongly that it was the other way around? People from the New World, making it to the Old world? Then bringing back interesting items that get traded as novelties and end up in odd places?

Human habitation in the Americas goes back 13,000 years. At least that is the age of the oldest radio carbon dated human skeleton.

www.businessinsider.com...

From those people's perspective, their world would seem like the old one, and the "Old World" would be a new frontier. Except one that is already occupied by strange people who have fully developed militaries.

If they landed in Africa or the Middle East, where ethnic appearance varies on a wide scale, their presence would go entirely unnoticed. Only whatever they brought to trade would be of interest. (Also pigs were less common in those areas, which would help them not to catch small pox. Those who met with pigs would probably not make it home.)

It's a weird kind of ethno-centrism to assume that only the Old world would ever be creative or ingenious enough to cross an expanse as big as the Atlantic.

Especially when strong evidence exists that certain Polynesian groups actually did possess such technology.


(You'll need to put the two parts of this link together in order to use it, because the system is clipping it for some reason.)

www.smithsonianmag.com...

for-four-years-this-polynesian-canoe-sail-around-world-raising-awareness-global-climate-change-180951786/

Well done now that's an interesting thought Ihave always believed in the term "question everything" and try to see it from a different perspective every thing we are told about our past is just someone else s guess any way

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
One of the overriding factors that does not agree with your theory of new to old is that there is no skeletal evidence for pro-humans ie. neanderthals etc.. If a population of humans were in the Americas they would have to have had a lineage, like that was found in the old world.
The incidence of found artifacts with no other supporting artifacts is not evidence of a civilization from the new world trading with the old world, it's more indicative of the isolated nature of the finds. ie. there wasn't a large number of people to "leave" artifacts and your seeing maybe a singular traveller or a small group.
As the skeletons (apart from the aberrations in south america) are all of modern man. Even 13000 years ago i would say is way off (older artifacts will be found) being as it's already been proven that ancient man used to travel skirting the ice shelf of the last ice age, which was over 13000 years ago.
Polynesians don't even come on the scene till 3000 years ago so they are off the scene.

"From those people's perspective, their world would seem like the old one, and the "Old World" would be a new frontier. Except one that is already occupied by strange people who have fully developed militaries".



I thought the migration started from the middle east area, then spread north to Europe and north-east to Asia

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Those Old World types liked to document things. We have records of all sorts of people from all sorts of places. It is possible that records of North or South American contacts have been lost, but not likely. If there were regular contacts between the Old World and the New in BCE times, we would probably know about it.

And just think of all that was lost as the Library of Alexandria burned down.

One reason is there is no historical record of ocean going ships or boats in the America's. I think there is one exception off the coast of Peru. That does not mean they did not exist, but I don't think any have been found.

Another reason is that it doesn't seem that there is any sagas that mention travels from the America's to the "old world". I could be wrong, but I have never read of any. If any exist they would be very interesting to study.

Almost every month on the past years I read some article saying that "new fossils could reshape our history" its kinda getting old.

We should just burn our history books and start again.

Zechariah Sitchin wrote a book about pre-Columbian Europeans and Africans in MesoAmarica

'The Lost Realms'
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525709505&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+realms

his basic premise was that three groups of Westerners (One European, one Semite, one African) ran around Central/South America back in the day before ultimately getting kicked out by the natives.

iirc they were looking for gold

(not affiliated with Amazon, Sitchin, etc)

here's another, haven't read
www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_14_36?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0812968174&pd_rd_r=4S3JBCHJV72WBR VG1JZ6&pd_rd_w=Cjcxs&pd_rd_wg=12pZK&psc=1&refRID=4S3JBCHJV72WBRVG1JZ6

They Came Before Columbus reveals a compelling, dramatic, and superbly detailed documentation of the presence and legacy of Africans in ancient America. Examining navigation and shipbuilding; cultural analogies between Native Americans and Africans; the transportation of plants, animals, and textiles between the continents; and the diaries, journals, and oral accounts of the explorers themselves, Ivan Van Sertima builds a pyramid of evidence to support his claim of an African presence in the New World centuries before Columbus. Combining impressive scholarship with a novelist’s gift for storytelling, Van Sertima re-creates some of the most powerful scenes of human history: the launching of the great ships of Mali in 1310 (two hundred master boats and two hundred supply boats), the sea expedition of the Mandingo king in 1311, and many others. In They Came Before Columbus, we see clearly the unmistakable face and handprint of black Africans in pre-Columbian America, and their overwhelming impact on the civilizations they encountered.

originally posted by: vinifalou

We should just burn our history books and start again.

Consider that every major library of antiquity has been burned down. History rewritten to suit the new rulers and the old history then destroyed. It happened over and over. Not much has survived from the period before the printing press and really nothing at all before 1100 AD. The originals are gone, we have copies of copies. If anything survived, it is probably in the form of a myth or an old song.

Archeology only goes so far. When I start looking at that record, it seems much less certain than most books and articles would have you believe. Controversy is everywhere almost to the point where you can believe whatever you like and then find evidence to support it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I found my old blockbuster card today which is an ancient modern artifact

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: vinifalou

We should just burn our history books and start again.

Consider that every major library of antiquity has been burned down.

Not true.
And the fact that it's not true is what tells us we "lost" very little of substance (other than plays and other forms of drama, and many essays) when the Library at Alexandria was destroyed.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
And the fact that it's not true is what tells us we "lost" very little of substance (other than plays and other forms of drama, and many essays) when the Library at Alexandria was destroyed.

I always assumed that when things started to burn, the caretakers did what any of us would do. Grab the best stuff first.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
And the fact that it's not true is what tells us we "lost" very little of substance (other than plays and other forms of drama, and many essays) when the Library at Alexandria was destroyed.

I always assumed that when things started to burn, the caretakers did what any of us would do. Grab the best stuff first.

Most of the Library was copied from other writings which were returned.
Once established as a great library, they began to demand that any written materials that happened to be on board an incoming ship (Alexandria was a major port) had to be turned over to the Library for copying.
But they usually returned the copies, not the original (which were themselves probably copies anyway) because, hey, whattaya gonna do about it?
During that period, there were many people working at the Library writing their thoughts, poetry, drama or coming up with toys like a tiny "steam engine" which wasn't an engine at all.

The Library was Greek. It held no "secrets" about ancient Egypt.

Harte

The arrival of a few traders now and then from the Americas might not have gotten written down by the old world empires of the day simply because it was beneath their notice. Hardly noteworthy.

The old world already has 60+ languages and cultures, so how would a trader in Carthage know the difference between a pre-Aztec trader and someone from the Indies? Both their languages and customs look/sound like gobblely gook to him.

They would just be another trader from "terra incognita", like all kinds of other traders from other "terra incognita" of the old world that hadn't been documented yet.

Only the oddness of their sailing vessels would attract attention.



As for new world records, the Spanish Conquistadores took care of most of that stuff.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
One of the overriding factors that does not agree with your theory of new to old is that there is no skeletal evidence for pro-humans ie. neanderthals etc.. If a population of humans were in the Americas they would have to have had a lineage, like that was found in the old world.

Just to be clear: I'm still thinking the settlement of the Americas was old to new, just like established archaeology.

But it happened over 13000 years ago. 13000 years is a really long time. 9,000 years later, by say 2000 BC, they had probably forgot there ever had been an old world.

So if some of them managed to sail across the Atlantic, and found the Old world, they wouldn't know it was the old world. It would be new to them.

i rather suspect that our ancestors did more traveling than we give them credit for. and if they went one direction they likely went both ways. it seems from something i saw awhile back that the ancient Egyptians made it to Australia, as their hieroglyphs have been found there. and an interesting thing i have found is that they have almost completely identical "dream catchers" in the Philippines, as you see from the North American natives. which would suggest that there was contact between them.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: vinifalou

We should just burn our history books and start again.

Consider that every major library of antiquity has been burned down.

Not true.
And the fact that it's not true is what tells us we "lost" very little of substance (other than plays and other forms of drama, and many essays) when the Library at Alexandria was destroyed.

Harte

Maybe not every library but certainly a large number of them were destroyed. I spent just a short time on Google and found several articles that back me up.
11 Most Impressive Libraries from the Ancient World
List of destroyed libraries
Library of Ashurbanipal
8 Legendary Ancient Libraries

Not everything here was destroyed, most were. Some were hit by natural disaster or war. Most are no longer with us. Sure, they made copies but that was slow and laborious before the printing press. And what was copied? Probably only a fraction of the scrolls. I read once that the Library in Constantinople was supposed to hold some of the Alexandria collection but then that burned also. Mildew destroyed some of the stuff.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I believe we have been teaching a theory that there has been a slow and steady progression of civilization culminating in what we see today. As if we are the crown of creation, the pinnacle of achievement of mankind.

I personally believe we have grown in fits and starts with plenty of mass murder and dark ages to reverse the course of history. Add in natural disasters and we have started over who knows how many times? I'm thinking world wide trading in antiquity then wars. A hundred years later, the Earth is flat again and we are mired in superstition.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: vinifalou

We should just burn our history books and start again.

Consider that every major library of antiquity has been burned down.

Not true.
And the fact that it's not true is what tells us we "lost" very little of substance (other than plays and other forms of drama, and many essays) when the Library at Alexandria was destroyed.

Harte

Maybe not every library but certainly a large number of them were destroyed. I spent just a short time on Google and found several articles that back me up.
11 Most Impressive Libraries from the Ancient World
List of destroyed libraries
Library of Ashurbanipal
8 Legendary Ancient Libraries

Not everything here was destroyed, most were. Some were hit by natural disaster or war. Most are no longer with us. Sure, they made copies but that was slow and laborious before the printing press. And what was copied? Probably only a fraction of the scrolls. I read once that the Library in Constantinople was supposed to hold some of the Alexandria collection but then that burned also. Mildew destroyed some of the stuff.

Time destroys many things, but we have a reasonable amount of material from that era (Ptolemaic Egypt) and before, and there's nothing earth-shattering in it.
Alexandria was a Greek city, the Library was a Greek library. And not particularly early in the Greek timeline either.

Harte