Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

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


South America[edit]

Vvven added: Some researchers speculate that certain petroglyphs of South America it relating to symbols of writing at style of the runes, eg Nazca Lines in Perú,[1] in Brazil, Paraguay and Tucuman and Córdoba (Argentina), such vestiges are untranslatable in any native language, but similar to Viking languages, of which deducted a contact between the Scadinavians and local populations. Although such assumptions are not accepted by some other archaeologists.[2][3]

It has also considered other runes found in North America (eg Kensington runes or Oklahoma runes) it were allegedly made by descendants populations of Scandinavians.[4]

References

  1. ^ Incas y sus símbolos
  2. ^ Mariana Accornero Artistic expressions of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Córdoba 2007
  3. ^ Miguel Ángel Scenna, "Antes de Colón", Universitary publisher of Buenos Aires, 1974, page 79.
  4. ^ Valerii Ivanovich Guli?aev Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas: myths and realities University of Texas. Pub. Abya-Yala, 1992 pages 186 et seq.

I removed it and Vvven is arguing that the sources are acceptable (except for the website). "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev is from the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is one of the sources that suppor this theory, other one as Mariana Accornero is a author of books specialized towards the artistic manifestations of the Indigenous of the Americas, and the latter Miguel Angel Scenna (1924-1981) was an renowned Argentinian historian "He published many books and articles, among which stand out for its impact. He was a regular contributor to the magazine Everything is History, directed by Felix Luna, where he published many articles. He was considered a moderate member of the revisionist trend.". some even could be more valid resources than other many in the hiphotesis sections in the article-"

I'm asking for quotes from these authors to make sure what they actually say. I don't understand what the University of Texas refers to in the reference which says "Valeriĭ Ivanovich Guli͡aev Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas: myths and realities University of Texas. Pub. Abya-Yala, 1992 pages 186 et seq." Hopefully Vvven can explain this. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, are theses views significant? I can't find any sources mentioning these authors connected with these views. Are there other reliable sources? Articles are meant to present "all of the significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sources on a topic." - done in accordance with WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
So how prominent are these views "in the published, reliable sources." Doug Weller talk 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Chinese 'claims' now quite well backed[edit]

See recent additions. Elevate to non-'claim' suffixed section title? prat (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why. What is there that's so convincing about Chinese claims to have visited North America? And the Cape Espenberg material is in the wrong place as no one has claimed that this involved the Chinese visiting North America. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thinking more about it, and the lead: " visits to, the discovery of or interaction with the Americas and/or indigenous peoples of the Americas by people from Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania", nothing in the Cape Espenberg material seems to say that Asians visited North America, so I'm going to remove it tomorrow unless someone shows I'm wrong. We know there was trade and share culture over the Bering Strait during the last 4000 or so years. See this discussion in the archives. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)