Still, there were no long term Norse habitations on the North American continent (excluding Greenland).
Sure. The Native Americas- of several sorts- arrived about 30000 years ago, and as far as we know, they stayed.
Wait, really?
(Googling)
I’m seeing sources that they came from Alaska at around that time, but nothing I’ve found quickly says where they were before that, if they crossed the Bering Straight at that time, or if their ancestors were in Alaska long before that.
Swords are useful, but only in close quarters, whereas arrows work sufficiently well with stone arrowheads. Gunpowder is the game-changer. The problem with settling in already settled land is that you not only have to defend yourselves, but also raise/hunt food while defending yourself. Whether this involved fields or herds, it would be hard to do this at scale with large numbers of attackers behind every tree. This becomes difficult when the environment is not similar to where you started from, such as the arid northern west coast of South America vs lush tropical islands. It’s even worse when the climate does not cooperate, like Greenland. The Inuit survived while the Viking settlements in Greenland died off, because the climate became inhospitable for agriculture or animal husbandry. Even if the community starts in peaceful conditions, it does not seem to take long for different communities to come into conflict.
There are other hypothesis on this, mind you.
This. Reminds me of the guy the was trying to prove the ancient South Americans had balloon technology to therefore view the Nazca Lines. He built a hot air balloon out of available materials.
Heyerdahl wasn’t out to prove that they did make the trip, only that they could have. Which he succeeded at. And which was significant, because prior to the Kon Tiki, a lot of folks said they couldn’t.
Yeah, and the trip alone was quite a feat. The book is quite readable.
You don’t believe in life on other continents? Surely we can’t be the only ones!
(from Hercules, or possibly Xena)
Thanks, that answers my original interest. I got here because I was gobsmacked to learn that the Highlands of PNG (were I lived) only got sweet potato a couple of hundred years ago – causing the culture that I witnessed, which would have been quite different. Like Ireland before the Potato.
“All that proves”? The equivalent modern journeys by Polynesian canoes are generally considered significant: they get to be significant why? Because not everyone believed it before it was demonstrated, and also because it’s really cool?
Or is it only significant if it gives some people the chance to say that other facts are not significant?
Links I follow only very rarely show up in the count. Firstly, I often read from Win7, which is read-only: Secondly, I often right-click, which does not increment the count even on Win11.
My thought would be that travel by large canoe with the ability to point and steer and navigate would be very different from a raft, which presumably has less capbility of navigation. (I can’t find evidence for a keel, for example?) Plus, the navigation skills on the open ocean of Polynesian voyagers are well known. No such assertion is common knowledge about the open ocean skills of South American inhabitants.
Kon Tiki had centreboards and was apparently quite steerable.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? 
Sort of. The raft was towed several miles out to sea west of the Humboldt Current before it started the voyage on its own. Another guy built a balsa wood raft, launched it from the shore, and got carried by the current up to Mexico.
Still, it was an awesome adventure.
From what East, exactly?
Yeah. The DNA (and linguistic) evidence indicates that the Polynesian people came from the West and that the sweet potatoes came from the East.
And key to that is knowing the Humboldt Current even exists.
“big inhabited land to the west” of Easter Island?
(looks at map)
Australia?
Polynesians came from Asia. If I remember correctly, they’re most closely related to the native inhabitants of Taiwan. The indigenous people of Australia greatly predate the Polynesian inhabitants of the Pacific islands, and they are not closely related. Australia was settled 60,000 years before the Pacific islands, or something like that.
By Pacific islands, I’m referring to the islands in the triangle that is defined by Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island. That is a huge area.