Who was the first to discover America?

[wyly]

His task was to find another way to India. The Silk Road was getting to dangerous to travel on by land. So they decided to take their ships and try to find another easier way to India/China. So they headed west with the map information that they had at the time.

yes but is that what he suspected he would find or what he claimed he was looking for?...if he was looking for funding from the royals for his voyage which would likely get him funding, bringing back fish like the Basques or gold and fabrics from India and china?...

globes were already in production in europe so it was known the earth was round, Vikings had settlements in the new world and that would have been known through catholic church records, and the homeland of the Basque fishers was in Spain so very likely Columbus expected to find new territories and not necessarily India or China...

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYGZOnGjdg

[jbg]

And who/what made the Silk Road too dangerous?

The Ottomans

Well at least that combustible group of people (literally) did the world some good.

[ToadBrother]

Why is it unlikely that Chinese as well as other Siberians made it across the "land bridge"? The "land bridge"

There were no Chinese, per se, when Beringia was in existence. There were certainly populations that would become Chinese, maybe even some speakers of the Sino-Tibetan languages, but the earliest cultural evidence for anything remotely ancestral to Chinese civilization arose no earlier than about 8,000 BCE (and even that date is pretty hotly contested, the more accepted one being around 5,000-6,000 BCE), several thousand years after the end of the glacial maximum, and Beringia was already a collection of islands, certainly crossable at certain times of year, but the only people we have evidence of doing it after Beringia sank into the Bering Strait were the ancestors of the Inuit, beginning around 6,000 years ago.

[ToadBrother]

Also suspected -> the Romans discovered America:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038045/posts

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but the Romans' idea of a deep sea voyage was to go to the Canaries. Their ships weren't designed for trans-oceanic trips. There's no doubt the Vikings did it, some suggestions that Irish monks might have done it (those guys were quite the mariners themselves, some possibly having arrived in Iceland even before the Norse). There's also some circumstantial evidence that Basque fishermen were fishing off the Grand Banks somewhere around the 13th and 14th centuries.

For the purposes of historical effect, though, Columbus's voyage is the one that counted, because it stuck. Any previous discoveries of the Americas by Europeans, or maybe even by Polynesians from the other side, had little if any historical impact, being half-remembered at best, or attested to by only the most fragmentary evidence. Columbus is the guy who brought the Europeans to the Americas.

[Michael Hardner]

For the purposes of historical effect, though, Columbus's voyage is the one that counted, because it stuck. Any previous discoveries of the Americas by Europeans, or maybe even by Polynesians from the other side, had little if any historical impact, being half-remembered at best, or attested to by only the most fragmentary evidence. Columbus is the guy who brought the Europeans to the Americas.

I agree absolutely, but the idea of a Roman ship off the coast of Brazil is intriguing as one of those "what if" type scenarios. Even if it was there, there's no evidence of regular trips to SA by the Romans.

[M.Dancer]

I agree absolutely, but the idea of a Roman ship off the coast of Brazil is intriguing as one of those "what if" type scenarios. Even if it was there, there's no evidence of regular trips to SA by the Romans.

Doubtful ....the small problem of the crewmwen dying of thirst rears its head...they wouldn't have any idea of how far the south amwerican shore was given they didn't know there was a south american shore and they certainly wouldn'tmhave had enough supplies to reach it.

[Michael Hardner]

Doubtful ....the small problem of the crewmwen dying of thirst rears its head...they wouldn't have any idea of how far the south amwerican shore was given they didn't know there was a south american shore and they certainly wouldn'tmhave had enough supplies to reach it.

Why certainly ? The Romans, from what I've read, had some very large ships ?

[M.Dancer]

Why certainly ? The Romans, from what I've read, had some very large ships ?

Because the skill set in navigating the mediterranium and crossing the atlantic are completely diffent. A ship leaving Alexandria only had to steer north and in a few days would find land. I doubt scurvy was ever an issue...Columbus left the Canary Islands and he took 5 weeks before land was sighted. Romans would have never travelled that long before without landing for fresh water and food.

[Michael Hardner]

Because the skill set in navigating the mediterranium and crossing the atlantic are completely diffent. A ship leaving Alexandria only had to steer north and in a few days would find land. I doubt scurvy was ever an issue...Columbus left the Canary Islands and he took 5 weeks before land was sighted. Romans would have never travelled that long before without landing for fresh water and food.

True enough - they sailed down the coast of Africa but they hugged the shore. I suppose we'd have to ask Pliny (the real one) if he were around.

[wyly]

I agree absolutely, but the idea of a Roman ship off the coast of Brazil is intriguing as one of those "what if" type scenarios. Even if it was there, there's no evidence of regular trips to SA by the Romans.

ya, I would accept that over time there may have been the occasional roman or Phoenician ship being blown off course and ending up in the Americas that's certainly a possibly but getting back would have been a problem...and if one did they should no intention of repeating the journey...

[Michael Hardner]

ya, I would accept that over time there may have been the occasional roman or Phoenician ship being blown off course and ending up in the Americas that's certainly a possibly but getting back would have been a problem...and if one did they should no intention of repeating the journey...

Well, if they got there... and got back.... then maybe they could have repeated it but... there is that scurvy issue.

[wyly]

Why certainly ? The Romans, from what I've read, had some very large ships ?

the very large roman ships were normally warships not well equiped for long voyages as they had huge crews that required large stores of provisions, not to practical for long voyages with no pit stops...if it a Roman ship made the voyage my money would be on a small cargo ship with a small crew...

the earliest known epic distance voyages were done with tiny craft, polynesians and vikings...the Aleuts of the North Pacific still make voyages in the worst of arctic conditions in tiny open boats...so bigger isn't always better, you just need something stable and lots of balls...

[wyly]

Well, if they got there... and got back.... then maybe they could have repeated it but... there is that scurvy issue.

...agree, I would think if the first leg of the journey would have reduced the crew strength through scurvy and other causes, and the ship would have taken a beating so a return trip may have been impossible...plus once they encountered the naked native ladies staying in the Americas would have been more appealing than facing the return trip, a common occurrence throughout maritime history...

[M.Dancer]

...agree, I would think if the first leg of the journey would have reduced the crew strength through scurvy and other causes, and the ship would have taken a beating so a return trip may have been impossible...plus once they encountered the naked native ladies staying in the Americas would have been more appealing than facing the return trip, a common occurrence throughout maritime history...

And with no prior knowledge of the atlantic trade winds, the return journey could take 3 months..

[jbg]

There were no Chinese, per se, when Beringia was in existence. There were certainly populations that would become Chinese, maybe even some speakers of the Sino-Tibetan languages, but the earliest cultural evidence for anything remotely ancestral to Chinese civilization arose no earlier than about 8,000 BCE (and even that date is pretty hotly contested, the more accepted one being around 5,000-6,000 BCE), several thousand years after the end of the glacial maximum, and Beringia was already a collection of islands, certainly crossable at certain times of year, but the only people we have evidence of doing it after Beringia sank into the Bering Strait were the ancestors of the Inuit, beginning around 6,000 years ago.

Thanks for the explanation. But wouldn't some of the Beringia inhabitants cut off on the North American side have had "Chinese" characteristics?

For the purposes of historical effect, though, Columbus's voyage is the one that counted, because it stuck. Any previous discoveries of the Americas by Europeans, or maybe even by Polynesians from the other side, had little if any historical impact, being half-remembered at best, or attested to by only the most fragmentary evidence. Columbus is the guy who brought the Europeans to the Americas.

Being largely a pragmatist I agree with you. Edited September 20, 2010 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

Thanks for the explanation. But wouldn't some of the Beringia inhabitants cut off on the North American side have had "Chinese" characteristics?

Don't they?

[jbg]

Don't they?

Sure looks like it. But that appears to be from the Asian side of the Bering Strait, not the Alaska side.

Edited September 21, 2010 by jbg

[wyly]

Don't they?[/url]

they are genetically related yes...I've met one or two natives that objected to the relationship insisting they've always lived in N america and are not related to asian populations...

[charter.rights]

they are genetically related yes...I've met one or two natives that objected to the relationship insisting they've always lived in N america and are not related to asian populations...

There is evidence in the Americas of human occupation that goes back some 50-60,000 years....that's almost 15-20 years past the occupation of Europe out of Africa. If the evidence is conclusive then it means that there was likely a migration out of Africa from a different route or the Pangea Theory has more reliability.

As far as genetic markers go the current investigations simply point to certain strands and suggest that because there are blond and blue eyed people in Germany and there is also blond and blued eyed Native people, that once must derive from the other. It is silly at best.

Edited September 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[jbg]

There is evidence in the Americas of human occupation that goes back some 50-60,000 years....that's almost 15-20 years past the occupation of Europe out of Africa. If the evidence is conclusive then it means that there was likely a migration out of Africa from a different route or the Pangea Theory has more reliability.

Actually the theory I buy is that the original migrations snaked along the shore towards India and some went towards Australia. I assume that some headed north, towards Beringia, at the same time as humans were approaching Europe.

As far as genetic markers go the current investigations simply point to certain strands and suggest that because there are blond and blue eyed people in Germany and there is also blond and blued eyed Native people, that once must derive from the other. It is silly at best.

You're argument is about as silly as my saying that the resemblences between my older son and I, who looks exactly like me, are coincidental.

[wyly]

There is evidence in the Americas of human occupation that goes back some 50-60,000 years....that's almost 15-20 years past the occupation of Europe out of Africa. If the evidence is conclusive then it means that there was likely a migration out of Africa from a different route or the Pangea Theory has more reliability.

Pangaea was 200 million yrs ago and has no relationship to hominids or homo sapiens who have been around less than 200K...even though Neanderthals were already in Europe, Europe was a hostile environment for our Sapien ancestors, tropical regions of Asia and Australia were inhabited by Sapiens before the migration to Europe...there is no viable option for migration to the Americas other than Beringia...

As far as genetic markers go the current investigations simply point to certain strands and suggest that because there are blond and blue eyed people in Germany and there is also blond and blued eyed Native people, that once must derive from the other. It is silly at best.

there are no natural blue eyed natives any natives with blue eyes are from relatively recent European contact, all blue eyed people can trace their ancestry to a single European about 10,000 YBP...and neither blond or red hair is unique to Europeans...

[wyly]

Actually the theory I buy is that the original migrations snaked along the shore towards India and some went towards Australia. I assume that some headed north, towards Beringia, at the same time as humans were approaching Europe.

the evidence for sapien in the americas 50,000 yrs ago is interesting but the oldest verified evidence is still in the region of 14.5K YBP which is before the land bridge was ice free so speculation is now the first settlers came by boat along the Bering sea islands...evidence for sapiens in australia is 40-50K ybp, earlier than sapiens in europe by about 10-15K

You're argument is about as silly as my saying that the resemblences between my older son and I, who looks exactly like me, are coincidental.

agree, DNA doesn't lie... Edited September 21, 2010 by wyly

[charter.rights]

there are no natural blue eyed natives any natives with blue eyes are from relatively recent European contact, all blue eyed people can trace their ancestry to a single European about 10,000 YBP...and neither blond or red hair is unique to Europeans...

{BUZZER} WRONG!

There are many Mohawk people with blond hair and blue eyes. "Fairness" is a trait among full-blooded Iroquois people and it has no relationship to any other parts of the world.

As to migration:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

[Shwa]

Pangaea was 200 million yrs ago and has no relationship to hominids or homo sapiens who have been around less than 200K...even though Neanderthals were already in Europe, Europe was a hostile environment for our Sapien ancestors, tropical regions of Asia and Australia were inhabited by Sapiens before the migration to Europe...there is no viable option for migration to the Americas other than Beringia...

A couple of notes:

I think the 'pangaea theory' is a coverall for the theory set of different land forms appearing during different ages corresponding to hominid migrations, not pangea specifically. For instance, the 1.5 million years that H. Erectus was wandering around could have resulted in a migration to this continent, especially temperate coastlines in the east or west. The problem with evidence is that repeated periods of glaciation coupled with a high acid content of the soil would have scrubbed most evidence of this earlier migration.

there are no natural blue eyed natives any natives with blue eyes are from relatively recent European contact, all blue eyed people can trace their ancestry to a single European about 10,000 YBP...and neither blond or red hair is unique to Europeans...

You are erasing potential development and selection within a particular population - a no-no. Here is a little more information about blonde and red hair and blue eyes. Note that a high frequency of a trait in one region does not necessarily mean an origin of that trait in that region.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Shwa