Who was the first to discover America?

[ToadBrother]

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.

They're ships were designed to hug the coast. Prior to the major innovations of the 15th century, only a few groups; the Norse and the Polynesians, ever built boats truly capable of making it across an ocean, and with the Norse to some extent they too stayed to a pretty specific route, from Scandinavia to the Faroes to Iceland to Greenland to North America, so not even their boats did the same kind of open water voyaging that the Polynesians or the first Portuguese and Spanish traders and explorers did. That one boat could, once in a while, make it across the Atlantic at the mid latitudes is certainly possible, but the Roman ships, all in all were ill-suited to the task, and I suspect any other attempts, accidental or otherwise, ended in loss.

[M.Dancer]

There is evidence in the Americas of human occupation that goes back some 50-60,000 years....

There is flimsy evidence that is generally discounted. Nothing more.

[Shwa]

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

The 14.5 YBP has already been pushed back quite a bit and some evidence shows possible occupation of this continent 10's of thousands of years ago. The much loved Beringia theory is subject to an orthodoxy in modern Western anthropology which has resulted in ulta-conservative views when it comes to theories about the origins of Amerindians. Elaine Dewar in her book 'Bones' illustrates this phenomenon nicely.

agree, DNA doesn't lie...

Agreed. But the interpreters of such data are fallible and subject to orthodoxy. But it is always a relief when our children look like us and not the postman nonetheless.

[Michael Hardner]

but the Roman ships, all in all were ill-suited to the task, and I suspect any other attempts, accidental or otherwise, ended in loss.

There is some contentiousness over the size of the largest Roman ships...

The Nemi Ships

Prima nave

The first ship recovered was 70 metres (230 ft) long with a beam (width) of 20 metres (66 ft).

They held enough water for baths, and described as "floating palaces". Presumably they would have held slaves, which would have been jettisoned if water became low.

[Shwa]

They held enough water for baths, and described as "floating palaces". Presumably they would have held slaves, which would have been jettisoned if water became low.

Or eaten if the food became low...

[M.Dancer]

There is some contentiousness over the size of the largest Roman ships...

The Nemi Ships

They held enough water for baths, and described as "floating palaces". Presumably they would have held slaves, which would have been jettisoned if water became low.

Not sure how a floating palace on an inland fresh water lake proves anything? Could they manage 30 ft swells?

[Michael Hardner]

Or eaten if the food became low...

Eaten... well... ok...

The browser tab for this page is cut off, so it appears as "Who was the first to disco..."

[Shwa]

Eaten... well... ok...

The browser tab for this page is cut off, so it appears as "Who was the first to disco..."

My tabs says, "Who was the first to dis"

It would be an interesting question since it would likely indicate an early use of symbolism or symbolic language...

[BubberMiley]

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

They're Canadian Inuit.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure how a floating palace on an inland fresh water lake proves anything? Could they manage 30 ft swells?

I guess it proves they could build the boats. Again, like the troothers, I'M ONLY ASKING QUESTIONS HERE !

A floating palace is indeed swell, thanks.

[M.Dancer]

They're Canadian Inuit.

The file says they are:

Yanrakynnot (Chukotka AOk): Chukchi Inuit family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukchi_people

Which means they are russian

Edited September 21, 2010 by M.Dancer

[jbg]

They're Canadian Inuit.

Last I checked Alaska is west of Canada. But I could be wrong given my "Yank" ignorance about Canada.

[M.Dancer]

Last I checked Alaska is west of Canada. But I could be wrong given my "Yank" ignorance about Canada.

You can get there going east. It's the longer way of course...

Never the less, the folks in the picture are asian inuit, not north american.

[charter.rights]

You can get there going east. It's the longer way of course...

Never the less, the folks in the picture are asian inuit, not north american.

OR the Asians are North American Inuit.

[jbg]

You can get there going east. It's the longer way of course...

And crossing a lot of borders and oceans as well. The Finnish/Russian border comes to mind.

[Wilber]

How far do you want to go back? Ultimately we are all Africans.

[BubberMiley]

Never the less, the folks in the picture are asian inuit, not north american.

That's true. But they're easily confused because they're all the same.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/M-hunter/ma-hu-in.htm

[wyly]

{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/

{BUZZER} WRONG!...Mohawks have been screwing white people and vice versa for nearly 500 years,all blue eyed DNA can be back tracked to a point of origin and it's unique to europe...if a Mohawk has blue eyes they ain't full blooded...it would be like winning the lottery if you found a full blooded Mohawk...

both your links have highly contentious dating, there is next to zero archeological support for either, just because someone has found a site with a sprinkling of evidence does not make it a fact...dig sites are always questioned because carbon dating anything but human remains is unreliable the ground gets stirred up by floods, animals and trees pushing older deposits above newer deposits...the oldest confirmed human carbon date is now at 14,500 YBP...

and neither link has anything to do with Pangaea

[M.Dancer]

That's true. But they're easily confused because they're all the same.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/M-hunter/ma-hu-in.htm

Indeed, the inuit and all North American aboriginals originate in Asia.....and it would seem, so do the south american aboriginals...

[wyly]

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.

the problem with that is in order for there to be a land bridge it would require an ice age which means extremely inhospitable conditions for Homo Erectus, it would have been difficult for more advanced Sapiens...and if Erectus had made the migration successfully you would think some evidence somewhere would have been found by now, but there is absolutely none...a hypothesis is all very interesting but until there is hard evidence it can never move past the hypothetical stage...

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.

all no no's aside... all blue eyes originated from europe and blonde and red hair are not exclusive to europeans...there was nothing incorrect in my statement...

Edited September 21, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I guess it proves they could build the boats. Again, like the troothers, I'M ONLY ASKING QUESTIONS HERE !

A floating palace is indeed swell, thanks.

but a relatively calm lake is not the open sea, the size of the swells are different...

[M.Dancer]

Pangea certainly had no effect on human migration...pangea did not exist in our human history

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Neogene-MioceneGlobal.jpg

This is what the world looked like roughly 20 million years ago...pretty much like itdoes now...and no, there were no humans then either

[jbg]

That's true. But they're easily confused because they're all the same.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/M-hunter/ma-hu-in.htm

What a racist statement for a leftist.

[BubberMiley]

What a racist statement for a leftist.

Really? I thought it was only racist when you said they're different.

[Shwa]

the problem with that is in order for there to be a land bridge it would require an ice age which means extremely inhospitable conditions for Homo Erectus, it would have been difficult for more advanced Sapiens...

Are you certain about the requirement for glaciation, extremely inhospitable environment or the ability for a selected h. erectus variant to make the trip?

and if Erectus had made the migration successfully you would think some evidence somewhere would have been found by now, but there is absolutely none...a hypothesis is all very interesting but until there is hard evidence it can never move past the hypothetical stage...

True, but an open mind is what is required where orthodoxy might be too dismissive of all but the most conservative theories that keep the gravy train operating. The problem with evidence of very early migrations erectus or sapien is that of repeated glaciation, changing landscapes, flooding (for coastal regions), soil acidity and so on, especially in the northern half of the continent. H. erectus or sapien appears to be very adaptable creatures and should evidence arise of their presence on this continent before the last ice age it shouldn't be that surprising.

... all blue eyes originated from europe

Blue eyes

The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual in the Near East or around the Black Sea region 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution...

The authors seem less committed to the assertion than you do. Of course the spreading of ol' blue eyes could be based on many factors supporting a Europe-only origin, with all those randy rampaging Europeans running amok back in the day. Maybe a Eurasian origin is more apt.

Blue eyes are most common in Northern Europe and Central Europe and to a lesser degree in Southern Europe (Spain and Portugal are best examples, where 1-49% of the people are blue-eyed, through migration of Northern European and Central European settlers) and southern Central Asia; Afghanistan and Pakistan are a notable example. They are also found in parts of North Africa, West Asia, and South Asia, in particular the northern areas of India, Pakistan and Iran.

and blonde and red hair are not exclusive to europeans...there was nothing incorrect in my statement...

yes, yes. I misread what you had written. Sorry about that!