Ancient Chinese explorers landed in America

[Hitndahed]

This leads me to mention another crazy theory. Well, New Iceland is an hour north of where I live. The Icelander's chose to settle along the shores of Lake Winnipeg back in the 1870's.
Minnesota is to the south of us and we share a similar history due to the fur trade, waterways and oxcart trails.
Why are there so many people of Scandinavian decent in both Manitoba and Minnesota other than it being cold here?
I ask this because of the legends of Vikings reaching Minnesota.
It is recorded in La Verendrye's journal (1730's) that his party came upon a tribe of "white Indians" that were 7 feet tall, living in southern Manitoba.
When other tribes were asked about these white Indians, they couldn't answer anything about them as they had no idea where they came from.
These people were wiped out by the end of the 18th century from disease. They didn't live that far from the Mandan.
In the late 1800's, Dr. Bryce opened up a mound (in southern Manitoba) and found copper artifacts that resembled Celtic styles and designs.
This mound was one of the few remaining that Bryce notes......"Finally a mound that the Smithsonian didn't get to."
Maybe the Icelander's chose this land because their ancestors made it out here a millennium earlier?

===============================================
Muddyhandz,,,
Do some digging on the LENAPE,,,this will put some questions in your head too.

Hit

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[kayakpat]

Muddyhandz that was a interesting video, nice town also thanks for posting

 

[Silver Searcher]

Which is astonishing, when you consider that the Icelanders did not only beat him by five centuries, but also established colonies. They also sailed straight across and back, admittedly from Iceland. Of course, ships sailed from Scandinavia and England to Iceland (and from Iceland to Turkey, which impresses me) during the same time period, so I suppose that it shouldn't have been a complete surprise. I don't know what people thought about them back then, but I'd call them crazy today, and not just for the explorations.



We all know that the Romans were there first? I don't, but I'm ready to be enlightened if you're ready to enlighten me. I don't personally think that their skills were up to it, never mind the ships. If their own accounts are to be believed, they stuck to the coasts and preferred protected waters. The Greeks were better at it and the Romans took advantage of that, but I'm not sure that the Greeks could have managed it either - not without a lot of luck, anyway, and if someone did pull it off, they probably didn't make it back. The Icelanders made it back, which is why we have writings about it that we can read today; on top of that, we have settlements that have been excavated. We have yet to see an excavated Roman, Greek, or Chinese settlement in the New World. I'm not saying that it couldn't or didn't happen, but I am saying that the evidence of it is less firm than that of the Icelanders. The story may change in the future, but it's not like hard evidence is being ignored.

There is a reason to doubt that the Chinese were there before the Romans - they didn't have ships that could do it back then. (I'd argue that the Romans and their allies didn't either, but stranger things have happened. As a former sailor, there's no way in hell that I'd attempt to cross in the North Atlantic in the ships that the Icelanders used, but they did it, so obviously it could be done.) I doubt that they could have made the journey during the Medieval period to be honest unless they were very, very lucky. I could see them pulling it off ~1500-1800, give or take; after that, someone would have noticed who would have written about it. Note: crossing the north Pacific is a different game than crossing the north Atlantic, and I don't wish the former on anyone during the winter, even in modern ships. It sucks. That having been said, it can and was done...but was it done in significant numbers?

Dave... my first comment was a bit tongue in the cheek

I was meaning more of a accident rather than a settlement, it is possible Roman Merchants could very well have lost their bearings and continue on a course towards South America, thinking in fact they were sailing towards the Azores or the Cape Verde islands.

As for the ability of Roman ships to cross the Atlantic, they were certainly sturdy enough. triremes were only suitable for warfare and to often met their demise in rough seas, however smaller merchant vessels were better suited for long distance travel, needing only a small crew and could take advantage of a movable ballast in the cargo.
A shipwreck in Guanabara Bay has turned up some interesting finds. The site was investigated by Robert Marx, and he sent a piece of pottery thought to be from the neck of an amphora to the University of London for testing. The results found that the pottery was fired around 19BC and made from clay from Morocco. I do think it is possible that Romans could have stumbled upon America.

SS

 

[Tom_in_CA]

===================================================
Who ?? Me ....

No, not you.

As for everything else you're saying: I don't buy this "conspiracy" theory stuff. About the dark mysterious "them" that hide information from "you and I". That "they" don't want you to know.

On the contrary, mankind (yes, even museum curators, academia, archaeologists, etc...) would be BESIDES THEMSELVES WITH GLEE to make discoveries to shake up previously held notions. It's just human nature (yes, even amongst academia, text-book makers, etc...).

Take for example this T'net forum for instance: Whenever this subject (of who discovered the americas the earliest) comes up, there is NO SHORTAGE of proponents and wild theories being thrown out there. It's MUCH MORE popular to believe and bolster the odd-ball things (some chinese writing, or some lead crosses in the desert, etc..) without any question whatsoever. It's exciting, mysterious, etc...

Thus far from there being any conspiracy theory to "hide" facts, it's probably actually the opposite phenomenom: Where any such "discoveries" get TONS of publicity. Not "hidden" or conspirataorially "repressed" one bit.

But conspiracies too are fun to believe in, eh ? Like perhaps I (this mysterious Tom-in-CA fellow) is probably part of the grand scheme, sent by those shadowing dark room trench coats fellows to burst the bubbles of those who might otherwise discover the truth, eh ? haha Yup, but hey, they pay me a good salary, so what can I say ?

 

[T.C.]

Is that why they call you "Doubting Thomas"??

 

[Hitndahed]

I won't get into a "session" with you Tom.
You are FULLY entitled to the OPINIONS you have concerning everything you KNOW.

Just trying to show you the deception that has been going on,,, that's all.
If you choose NOT to see the changes,,, then so be it. This is your choice.

Me
I CHOOSE to QUESTION EVERYTHING that my leaders tell me is "truth"
I have been awakened my friend,,,to the lies and deceptions that have been told me as truth.

No more will I "argue" this or any other point with you,, you MIND is MADE.
Be safe

Hit

 

[kayakpat]

lots of speculations but to me nothing beat EVIDENCE

 

[kayakpat]

Conspiracy attitudes are like tree rot that weakens a strong tree from the insides.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Is that why they call you "Doubting Thomas"??

Tom still thinks the world is flat

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom still thinks the world is flat

Oh why yes of course. Anyone who questions hoaxes & urban legends must also, by mere definition, believe the world is flat. Of course

 

[T.C.]

I think this thread has just about run outta gas!!

 

[Dave Rishar]

A shipwreck in Guanabara Bay has turned up some interesting finds. The site was investigated by Robert Marx, and he sent a piece of pottery thought to be from the neck of an amphora to the University of London for testing. The results found that the pottery was fired around 19BC and made from clay from Morocco. I do think it is possible that Romans could have stumbled upon America.

From 1982: RIO ARTIFACTS MAY INDICATE ROMAN VISIT - NYTimes.com

From 1985: UNDERWATER EXPLORING IS BANNED IN BRAZIL - NYTimes.com

Interesting quote from the 1982 article:

Mr. Marx hopes with sonar or other devices to probe the mud in which he believes some of the vessel's wood may be preserved. Recovery of weapons, tools and other relics of Roman type would leave no doubt about the nature of the ship.''If we only find amphoras,'' Mr. Marx added, ''then I'm in trouble.''

And that's all that he ever found apparently. By his own standards, he was unable to prove his claim. I find it odd that he was still making that claim years later.

I also find it interesting that, when interviewed, Professor Will (an expert on amphoras who was consulted in this case) stated that the amphoras looked "very similar" to ones from Morocco, and she guessed that they were from about 300 AD. Consider what you read, and what was actually said, and think back to what I said about stories sometimes being wrong. This one's not even 40 years old yet and it's already morphed considerably from its origins. Consider the game of "telephone" from your childhood. That's why I place more stock in material evidence...

...which those amphoras admittedly might have been, given some additional context. That context was unfortunately never found. As it stands, it seems to remain circumstantial. Like the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's a shame that Mr. Marx pissed off the Brazilians.

 

[pepperj]

Learnt something once again reading through this long thread and there's valid points in the debate of who was first and who covers up the truth. I really feel that if somebody follows the writings of a person and writes their papers on the same beliefs will in fact try to bury the facts that oppose their beliefs. It's happened for centuries and will for many more and the only change will be the ones that have an open mind enough to consider the new facts.

The one thing that comes to mind is trade, it's as old as dirt it seems and why hasn't this been brought up in a theory. Just because something is found in an area and this widget predates the area, or it doesn't fly with the written word (not religion) of the norm doesn't mean anything. So an entrepreneur (even though the term is only from the early 18th century) sees some items that are very cheap or no longer of use and carts them off to another location in hopes to trade them or sell them. So old trash in one place is a new in another and this was a norm not so many years ago even, and even today with this shrunken world we share there's countless items still that this can be applied to.
So an explorer loads up something that's already old, reuses the containers/vessels/pots to carry his own goods discards them, or when they arrived on the shores of NA the locals thought this new widget was the new best thing, even though it's a hundreds of years old or older.

To think that somebody didn't pick up an old coin/trinket in their travels and then again loose that item only to be found a hundred later by somebody else isn't hard to believe. The only way that this could be a known fact is if it was written down in a diary/book/article and then we'd know for sure. I guess everything can be a theory and whist we believe is based on what we have read, and was that based on a theory or fact and was it skewed once again to suit the writer or reader.

To discount any of the theories of who was first here on what shore is only closing the book of learning.

Thanks Dave for opening up a good read/thread.

 

[Muddyhandz]

Good post pepperj and I agree with your thoughts.
Those who know me personally, know that I'm actually a tough cookie when it comes to the things we find in the ground.
Like when someone hunting with me finds a musket ball and gets excited saying "we broke the 1700's" until I shoot it down saying that many out here still fired old musket guns well into the 1900's.
Someone on T-net finds a harmonica reed and they exclaim "Civil war!" while I look at the bucket load of them I found out here and say "Rubbish!"
I have found over a hundred George III coppers out here with 40% of them being cartwheels and yet I believe most of them were lost in the mid 1800's.
Why? Because the Red River Settlement is where everyone sent their junk due to the high Native and Halfbreed population.
We got all the bulky coins no one wanted. We got all those old guns no one wanted. We got lots of junk sent here!
I welcome Tom's point of view here. I posted the video (Chinese doll heads) to show that I'm not completely a "Romantic with his head in the clouds."
But is there not a flaw in Tom's (or anyone who calls themselves a skeptic) logic when you align yourself to ONE side of the coin?
Do the doubters have any proof on the other end of the spectrum showing that the Chinese did not land here in ancient times?
I've debated endlessly with atheists about God and it ends up this way.......
They can't provide proof that God DOESN"T exist and my proof can be dismissed as coincidence.
Funny thing is, I spend more time with those with opposing views than I do with those who have similar views.
It would be pretty damn boring if we all agreed!
Thanks to EVERYONE for contributing to the discussion.
Cheers,
Dave.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....And that's all that he ever found apparently. By his own standards, he was unable to prove his claim.....

Didn't find anything to prove him claim ? Ah but what you don't understand is: Robert Marx is therefore part of the conspiracy. Sshhhh, don't tell anyone !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....But is there not a flaw in Tom's (or anyone who calls themselves a skeptic) logic when you align yourself to ONE side of the coin?....

And conversely: Those like Tom see your side as "aligning themselves with one side of the coin". Refusing to consider the alternate explations that debunk your notions. So this open/close mind claims works both ways. Doesn't it ?

.......Do the doubters have any proof on the other end of the spectrum showing that the Chinese did not land here in ancient times?....

What ?? Whose "burden of proof" do you think this is ? Why do you assume your position to be the "default" position? And the other side needs proof showing Chinese did *NOT* land here in ancient times ? Besides, how does someone prove a "negative" anyhow ? Can you prove to anyone you didn't whistle dixie last night ? Of course not. It would be up to THEM to prove you did, not vice-versa (otherwise you're being asked to prove a negative). Hence the proof here would have to be evidence to support this, not evidence to prove it didn't happen.

And when skeptics analyze the "proof" given to them, if they see fault, other explanations, non-conclusive dating, etc..., then ..... isn't that what analytical critical thinking calls for ??

 

[H-2 CHARLIE]

What would Egyptian king Ramsey say that question ?
Whould the Hopi nation believe this ?

 

[Muddyhandz]

More Ph. D's have jumped on board with this.......

Expert in Chinese Petroglyphs Supports Theory Ancient Chinese Made It to America

 

[Hitndahed]

Personally I think that there have been a MULTITUDE of people that came to this piece of land WAY before the "official" advertised trip of Columbus.
There is AMPLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that directs us to many long gone "races" (for the lack of a better term, I DESPISE this term) that have visited these shores for MANY centuries, for many activities.
Phoecians,,supposed Egyptian,,,Definitely the Chinese and many MANY more.

 

[Mackaydon]

If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading Gavin Menzies' New York Times Bestseller, "1491, The Year China Discovered America".
Don.......