| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's incorrect? Its not like most decent history books don't mention the asian/alaskan connection already.
What's incorrect? Its not like most decent history books don't mention the asian/alaskan connection already.
They talk about the land bridge, across which paleolithic humans came some 35,000 years ago. I've never heard of any trade or travel between bronze age Asia and the Americas in the past 5,000 years. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that a chinese fleet made it to South America as well. Chinese artifacts (specifically pottery) have been found on islands off the coast of Chile. Mongol and other east Asian genetic markers can be found in some localized populations as well. There's no documentation of the fleet's visit and it doesn't look like two-way trade was ever established.
They talk about the land bridge, across which paleolithic humans came some 35,000 years ago. I've never heard of any trade or travel between bronze age Asia and the Americas in the past 5,000 years. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?
The fact that you can see strait across from Alaska to Asia and that trade goes on between people on both sides today got a mention in "Lies my teacher told me" which was published some time ago.
Oh, there's also weak evidence that the Phoenicians may have been to the New World by 350 BC or earlier.
"Lies my teacher told me" is one of my favorite books of all time. Someone gave me a copy when I was taking AP American History so many years ago and I've been referencing it ever since. Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is more complete, but "Lies" is short, concise and makes an extremely powerful argument for why we need to teach actual history, not just how we wish it happened.
Oh, there's also weak evidence that the Phoenicians may have been to the New World by 350 BC or earlier.
Someone looks at that coin and sees america. I squint and all i can see is a drunk cactus.
"Lies my teacher told me" is one of my favorite books of all time. Someone gave me a copy when I was taking AP American History so many years ago and I've been referencing it ever since. Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is more complete, but "Lies" is short, concise and makes an extremely powerful argument for why we need to teach actual history, not just how we wish it happened.
Right. An honest history of the America's should read more like something written by Victor von doom than captain america.
hmmmmmmm....
There is also historical evidence that the Romans made it to South America and to Hawaii. There are also links showing that China/Japan/Korea made it to North America west coast around the same time Scandinavians were setting up a few outpost along Newfoundland on the east coast.
What really matters is did they stay and become an influence on the local cultures? Not a single one had any kind of influence until the Spanish arrived. Spain still gets the credit for discovering the Americas because they not only told people what they found they also founded the first permanent social and economic trade with the Americas.
What's incorrect? Its not like most decent history books don't mention the asian/alaskan connection already.They talk about the land bridge, across which paleolithic humans came some 35,000 years ago. I've never heard of any trade or travel between bronze age Asia and the Americas in the past 5,000 years. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?
Yes, but that still doesn't disprove BigNorse's point. That people came across the land bridge 35,000 years ago is supported by much other evidence - overwhelming evidence.
That people might ALSO have somehow come across during the bronze age does nothing to negate that.
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that a chinese fleet made it to South America as well. Chinese artifacts (specifically pottery) have been found on islands off the coast of Chile. Mongol and other east Asian genetic markers can be found in some localized populations as well. There's no documentation of the fleet's visit and it doesn't look like two-way trade was ever established.
I've heard and seen the archeological evidence for a Chinese visit, and I find it fairly convincing. The genetic markers I put less faith in. After all, the people who came across the Bering Land Bridge, and eventually settled in South America would have BEEN Mongolian/East Asian themselves. That's like claiming to have found a needle in a needle stack.
In fact, I saw a program on PBS explaining that the further south from Alaska you went, the closer the genetic match between the native population and Asians. That includes all stops along the way. That is to say, that it seemed if you went down to Chile, you were looking at people who were closer genetically to their ancestors who came across the bridge, than the people in Mexico, who in turn were closer than the people in the eastern half of North America, etc. Now, I am no geneticist, but the prevailing thought seemed to be that the first people wandered farthest, thus the farther you wander in researching them, the closer the match to the people from whom they sprang. Their point was that the genetic markers had a more simple explanation than the Chinese coming over, fathering a bunch of children, and then just leaving, never to return.
The same program, though, referred to a couple of studies that showed genetic markers from Africa, from a long, long way back, in some populations along the east coast of Argentina. So what do I know?
I'm with Gene Roddenberry on this sort of thing. He once said, to paraphrase, "We didn't need aliens to help build the Pyramids. Human beings built them, because we're good and we're clever."
Similarly, I am never surprised about evidence that people made it to Australia earlier than we thought, or that the Chinese landed in South America once, or that the Vikings got around, or any of that (though I am always inspired by it). I have a feeling we built boats almost as soon as we evolved into us. We figure things out, because we are clever. And we always have been.
What really matters is did they stay and become an influence on the local cultures? Not a single one had any kind of influence until the Spanish arrived. Spain still gets the credit for discovering the Americas because they not only told people what they found they also founded the first permanent social and economic trade with the Americas.
I agree with this, though I'd probably drop the word "discovery".
In the context of studying each of the individual cultures, or humanity in general, each visit to the New World is interesting and useful. For example the Chinese visits would probably tell us something interesting about China during that period.
In the context of American history, or world history post-1492, they become mere footnotes and trivia information.
Does Columbus deserve credit as a great explorer? Who cares, that isn't his contribution to history. It's the continued and persistent interaction between the continents that continues to this day that's important.
|
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that a chinese fleet made it to South America as well. Chinese artifacts (specifically pottery) have been found on islands off the coast of Chile. Mongol and other east Asian genetic markers can be found in some localized populations as well. There's no documentation of the fleet's visit and it doesn't look like two-way trade was ever established.I've heard and seen the archeological evidence for a Chinese visit, and I find it fairly convincing. The genetic markers I put less faith in. After all, the people who came across the Bering Land Bridge, and eventually settled in South America would have BEEN Mongolian/East Asian themselves. That's like claiming to have found a needle in a needle stack.
In fact, I saw a program on PBS explaining that the further south from Alaska you went, the closer the genetic match between the native population and Asians. That includes all stops along the way. That is to say, that it seemed if you went down to Chile, you were looking at people who were closer genetically to their ancestors who came across the bridge, than the people in Mexico, who in turn were closer than the people in the eastern half of North America, etc. Now, I am no geneticist, but the prevailing thought seemed to be that the first people wandered farthest, thus the farther you wander in researching them, the closer the match to the people from whom they sprang. Their point was that the genetic markers had a more simple explanation than the Chinese coming over, fathering a bunch of children, and then just leaving, never to return.
The same program, though, referred to a couple of studies that showed genetic markers from Africa, from a long, long way back, in some populations along the east coast of Argentina. So what do I know?
I'm with Gene Roddenberry on this sort of thing. He once said, to paraphrase, "We didn't need aliens to help build the Pyramids. Human beings built them, because we're good and we're clever."...
Roddenberry was wrong - Humans built the Pyramid because we know how to use a whip when the religions we created to enslave the workforce no longer elicit unquestioning loyalty.
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that a chinese fleet made it to South America as well. Chinese artifacts (specifically pottery) have been found on islands off the coast of Chile. Mongol and other east Asian genetic markers can be found in some localized populations as well. There's no documentation of the fleet's visit and it doesn't look like two-way trade was ever established.I've heard and seen the archeological evidence for a Chinese visit, and I find it fairly convincing. The genetic markers I put less faith in. After all, the people who came across the Bering Land Bridge, and eventually settled in South America would have BEEN Mongolian/East Asian themselves. That's like claiming to have found a needle in a needle stack.
I'm sure it probably happened. Circumstantial isn't exactly the right word, but the evidence is sometimes sporadic and requires interpretation, some of which is well founded (like analyzing pottery shards). My point rather we don't have a lot of documentation from either side, the Chinese or the people they visited. The Great Fleet definitely went places and did stuff, but very little documentation of where and what has survived. Without those accounts, or definitive Chinese archaeological sites in the Americas, we're left doing mostly guess work as to what happened.
Roddenberry was wrong - Humans built the Pyramid because we know how to use a whip when the religions we created to enslave the workforce no longer elicit unquestioning loyalty.
You may be interested to know that the pyramids probably weren't built by slaves.
I highly recommend Terry Jones' Hidden History of Egypt. I don't remember if it goes into much of the specifics of the pyramid builders, but it's about what life might have been like for the more typical Egyptians at the time. (I like his other documentaries as well, a lot of tongue in cheek, fairly light and easy watch stuff, but full of really good info)
What's incorrect? Its not like most decent history books don't mention the asian/alaskan connection already.They talk about the land bridge, across which paleolithic humans came some 35,000 years ago. I've never heard of any trade or travel between bronze age Asia and the Americas in the past 5,000 years. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?Yes, but that still doesn't disprove BigNorse's point. That people came across the land bridge 35,000 years ago is supported by much other evidence - overwhelming evidence.
That people might ALSO have somehow come across during the bronze age does nothing to negate that.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. The OP said, essentially "Hey, look, proof of bronze age travel between Asia and Alaska". BNW said "psh, so what, we already knew there was a connection." I pointed out the only connection we "know" about happened some 35k years ago LOOOONG before the bronze age in Asia.
All I was saying is the fact that people came here 35000 years ago doesn't mean they kept coming over, and in fact we didn't believe they did, well into the neolithic era. A bronze buckle IS a find, despite BNW dismissing it as an obvious conclusion.
Nowhere in my post did I assert that they didn't come across a land bridge, I'm not sure how you even got that.