Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Under the section on the Romans we have this:

"The Bay of Jars in Brazil has been yielding ancient clay storage jars that resemble Roman amphorae[63] for over 150 years. It has been proposed that the origin of these jars is a Roman wreck, although it has been suggested that they could be 15th or 16th century Spanish olive oil jars."

I thought these jars have been conclusively identified as Roman amphorae by a Dr. Will. Furthermore, WHO suggested that they could be 15th or 16th century Spanish olive oil jars. This statement is made without any citation. Here are some articles on this.

The whole approach to this article is to slant the discussion away from any possibility that anyone other than the Norse arrived before Columbus.

The amphorae found off the coast of Brazil would seem to be solid evidence that Romans were in America well over a thousand years before Columbus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If they are Roman, we still don't know if they got there in Roman vessel that sailed there deliberately, was blown off-course across the Atlantic and was shipwrecked there, possibly with all hands lost, or was brought there as ballast (something that is actually quite possible) by post-Columbus ship. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

When you say there these amphorae may have been brought as ballast--"something that is quite possible"--what is your citation for this? The author of the second article I posted points out that there are "thousands of data points" that support pre-Columbian contact, and establishment archaeologists find some way to dismiss them all. Why? And why would explorers 12 hundred years later being using ballast from ancient Roman societies?

There's always something. The Roman head must have been put there as a joke, etc, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've let myself get sucked into an arguement that doesn't belong here. We simply base our article on reliable sources which means in most cases for this topic academic. And not stuff like your blogspot. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly where the argument belongs, because we are talking about the veracity of the claims made here. Dr. Elizabeth Will is an academic archaeologist. She identified the amphorae as Roman from 2000 years ago. She is a reliable source. For political reasons, the government of Brazil shut down further archeological investigation of the site, covering over the finds with silt. This is the same kind of censorship you seem to be advocating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But the tone is not Encyclopedic.[edit]

Such proposals are often based on wild claims about archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts that seem to be about trans-oceanic voyages. As for the word WILD, which should not be there, it does not occur anywhere in the body of the article. Also "comments in Historical documents" What does that mean, and Narrative accounts that seem..". It is not properly written and needs serious revision just in terms of good prose. --Inayity (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of trade with East Asia 1000 years ago[edit]

See [1] Bronze artefacts and some obsidian which came from Russia ""We're seeing the interactions, indirect as they are, with these so-called 'high civilizations' of China, Korea or Yakutia," a region in Russia, Mason said." Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would vote in favor adding this to this article (under "East Asian-Alaska contact" if it can't fit under any pre-existing section). Though it is stated in that Live Science article you cite that the team at the Rising Whale site will be presenting their research at the Canadian Archaeological Association on April 28-May 2 so it might be wise to wait until after that time in which hopefully more details will be revealed. Fuelsaver (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
We should wait. I said that earlier about the discovery of tools older than any found before (3.5mya I think). It's too early. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The Conference has passed. Does anyone know if Dr. Mason and his team revealed any other findings?

Some theories over Polynesias, brought chicken and potato. Trade links with Yakutia, Polynesia, Korea and China. htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is as least the 2nd time someone's tried to promote I'm not sure what it is, looks crowd sourced. In any case, the only source that comes close to meeting WP:RS is the last one. When there's a an official report about the Alaska work and some response we can use it. That there was trade across the Bering Strait seems a certainty. How much, where from, who did the trading, all interesting questions. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)